The table below shows the projected 2008 mixes for PG&E and Alameda, alongside the 2007 mix for the whole state. As you can see, Alameda Power & Telecom is doing a pretty good job of using renewables (79% total when you include the large hydroelectric mix), whereas PG&E, one of the largest electricity utilities in the state, is still reliant on natural gas and nuclear power.

It would be nice to see solar playing a larger part in that mix too. Perhaps over the next few years, as some of the larger solar power station projects come on line, that number will increase for both companies.

How does your local utility do when it comes to the use of renewable energy sources?

Existing Leases
In fact, given that the oil companies only use about a quarter of the leases they currently hold, and that those leases cover 80% of all known offshore deposits, why isn’t the price already falling? Simple: it is cheaper to import oil that drill offshore, or at least it was. With prices rising, they suddenly see a way to make this local oil profitable – that means more oil company profits, not cheaper prices!

The Miami Herald has some other ideas about what is going on, and the timing of it. None are good for the environment, and none are actually good for the American people. All of them benefit a small group of oil companies, and their political champions who are about to leave office.

A Drop In The Ocean
The other big problem with the offshore oil plan is that there just isn’t that much there. According to the New York Times, the Interior Department estimates there to be about 19 billion barrels of oil available offshore. The Miami Herald article estimated about 20 million barrels are consumed each day in the US at current levels. That means there is less than three years worth of oil out there. And it takes 10 years to start getting it.

Worse still, any spill from one of these offshore drilling operations, or a tanker servicing them, would have a disastrous effect on tourism along the coastlines affected (and all of the top beaches in the US lie along those coastlines). And remember, some of these new areas are in the Gulf of Mexico, where powerful storms like Katrina are becoming more common.

There were claims after Katrina that no oil was spilled, but CBS News has a different story:

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued a report stating that as a result of both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the number of pipelines damaged was 457, and the number of offshore platforms destroyed was 113, with a total of 146 oil spills recorded.

A study of environmental impacts written for MMS by Det Norske Veritas and Company and published March 22, 2007 told an even more detailed story.

As a result of both storms, a total volume of 17,652 barrels (or roughly three-quarters of a million gallons) of total petroleum products, of which 13,137 barrels were crude oil and condensate, was spilled from platforms, rigs and pipelines. 4,514 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs.

If those storms are increasing in frequency and strength, building more oil rigs in the areas they affect would seem to be asking for more damage, and more spilled oil.

The Change You Deserve
So, we have seen two plans presented in the last week. One would push for new innovation and act to start getting the US off its addiction to pollution-producing fossil fuels. In doing so it would encourage innovation and investment in technologies that could benefit the world and a new generation of energy companies in the US.

The other option proposed would be to continue to support the addiction to oil, continue to support oil company profits, continue to pollute the planet and to continue to ignore the reality of the situation. By that time, there will be another “middle east” of renewable energy out there ready to sell technology to the US that it could have been developing for itself.

America, it is your choice: you can choose the path of greed, or be smarter than that and take up Al Gore’s challenge to move to renewable energy in less than a decade.

International
For those outside the US, how about taking Al up on his challenge and seeing if you can do better. Rather than an arms race, how about a renewable energy race? Unlike an arms race though, where there are no winners, in a renewable energy race everyone’s a winner!

The folks over at Green Upgrader found this video, and another one, that both make fun of the idea that coal energy is clean energy. The US has huge reserves of coal and generates over half its electricity by burning it. According to the folks at Coal is Dirty, that alone produces 10% of the global CO2 emissions. And that’s before you even look at the other emissions from burning coal (everything from sulphur dioxide to health-damaging mercury).

So, if coal is dirty, then what are the alternatives?

Solar
For many places in the US, solar panels on the roofs would make a great alternative source of energy. Some places around the world are already taking advantage of solar energy on many houses. CleanTechnica reported last week that 90% of homes in Israel have solar water heaters, and that Spain is following them. A week earlier they had reported that Hawaii had passed a law requiring a new homes in the state to be equipped with solar water heating.

I’m not a huge fan of laws that are so specific since they rapidly end up being out of date as technology advances, but I do see some value in having building codes that mandate some form of energy generation in each new building. While many cities/states are encouraging home owners to retrofit solar or wind power, it would be far more effective to have the systems integrated into new homes from the outset.

Wind Power
An interesting complement to solar power, residential wind power is certainly viable now. Unlike large commercial installations covering hilltops and plains huge windmills, a residential turbine like the Seahawk shown in the photo, will fit into most suburban areas.

For commercial locations, larger models are available generating up to 10KW from each turbine, and since they are vertically oriented, they can be mounted much closer to each other than the more conventional windmill type generators we’ve all see on the TV.

Tidal Energy
This one is not for most individuals, but for coastal communities a tidal energy generation system, which remains mostly below the waterline, might make a more aesthetically pleasing solution than large offshore wind farms like the one proposed in Massachusetts.

The Green Upgrader reports that one town, just 10 miles from the Cape Wind project, is planning just such an underwater tidal energy system. Residents of Edgartown, on Martha’s Vineyard, are planning to install 50 underwater turbines which they hope will power as many as 1500 homes.

Geothermal Energy
Another power source that is not really for individuals, but is being used in a number of places around the world to feed clean electricity into the grid. Here in California, just a little north of the San Francisco bay area in an area known as The Geysers, is the largest geothermal power plant in the world, currently producing over 750MW of power.

All told though, geothermal only produces about 1% of the world’s power today. There are also some disadvantages to it making it perhaps less clean than other renewable sources.

Biomass/Biogas
Among the other ideas out there is power generation from biomass, where plant material is used to generate power either directly (e.g. by burning it), or by using it as food for naturally occurring bacteria that then generate biogas (basically methane) which can be used as an energy source.

Another very similar idea is using the methane produced in landfills to generate heat and/or power. The SC Johnson manufacturing plant in Waxdale, Wisconsin makes use of methane gas from a neighbouring landfill and natural gas as fuel for its twin cogeneration turbines.

Hydro-electric Power
An older form of clean energy, widely used around the world is hydro-electric. While the power itself is clean, the impact on the environment both upstream and downstream of the dam and powerplant can be serious. Here in the US, the Colorado river projects are perhaps the most controversial. As well as generating power from two dams (the Hoover Dam and the Glen Canyon Dam), the Colorado River is also used as a source of water for Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Perhaps even more controversial is the Chinese Three Gorges Dam project. On the plus side, it will generate a lot of clean hydro-electric power, hopefully reducing China’s dependency on coal fired power stations, and reduce the potential for natural disasters downstream from the dam. But, as CNN reports, some feel the impact of the dam upstream might make for an environmental disaster, turning the man made reservoir behind the dam into a “stinking effluent lake filled with raw sewage and industrial chemicals backing up for 600 km (372) miles.”