LIGNITE MINING AND ITS USE AS A REPLACEMENT FOR COAL OR OTHER FOSSIL FUELS – A Presentation Made To the Delta Grassroots Caucus

By Kenneth Smith, Kenneth L Smith Consulting

May 5, 2011

Lignite is a fossil fuel with low energy content.  It is high in moisture; it produces large amounts of ash; and it is uneconomical to transport in its natural state.  Further, it produces and releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide when burned.  All in all it is a low grade, highly inefficient fuel that should stay in the ground.

Surface mining of lignite is detrimental to the environment unless carefully regulated, inspected, and monitored.   Arkansas has an effective surface mining regulatory program and its surface mining reclamation programs and efforts have restored hundreds of acres.  Yet, if lignite mining is to take on the same intensity as natural gas extraction in the Fayetteville Shale, it will easily overwhelm the state’s surface mining regulatory program.  I have the following concerns with lignite – its extraction and its use as a fuel either for coal plants or as a synthetic replacement fuel.

First, lignite mining can be detrimental to surface- and ground- water.  Lignite has high concentrations of sulfur that can create acidic discharges to adjacent water bodies. To reach lignite, groundwater must be pumped out to below lignite seams – thus contributing to regional hydrological deficits.  Catastrophic flooding as we seen several times the past years can overwhelm retention basins for containing and treating acidic runoff.  For example, in the late 1980s, the retention basin for a barite mine on the South Fork of the Caddo River collapsed and barite tailings and acid discharge destroyed the South Fork to its confluence with the Caddo River proper.

Second, mercury levels are significant in the Gulf Coastal Plain’s wetlands.  Disturbance of soil and run off from lignite mining sites could lead to greater impairment of local lakes and rivers and their fisheries.

Third, once lignite is mined, to what use is the land restored?  My recommendation is that the land should be restored to its original condition prior to mining — if natural forest then back to natural forest; if pasture then back to pasture.  Lignite deposits are located on prime hunting and fishing lands in south Arkansas that hunters and anglers have used for generations.  These lands generate millions of dollars in hunting and fishing fees, leasing fees, and important revenue to state and local economies.

Fourth, lignite mining can lead to health problems in nearby communities such as respiratory problems due to mining dust and releases of ash and sulfur dioxide.  Mining dust can find its way into surrounding rivers, reservoirs and ground water.

Fifth, once extracted, lignite power emits high emissions of greenhouse gases. Burning one ton of lignite releases one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). Lignite power produces high amounts of ash thus contributing to air quality impacts and health impacts to the elderly and young alike.  Mercury air emission levels from burning or refining lignite also are high, so strict and costly emission controls must be installed on coal plants and synthetic fuel refineries.

Sixth, because of its low energy density, lignite is inefficient to transport and is not traded extensively on the world market compared with higher coal grades. It is burned in power stations constructed close to mines, such as Luminant’s Monticello plant in Texas. Carbon dioxide emissions from lignite-fired plants are higher than for comparable black coal plants.

Seventh, local communities pay a higher price than the price of lignite.  In Europe, lignite is sold to power plants for about 10 Euros ($15 dollars per ton). An investigation of the European environmental agencies on lignite subsidies has shown that hidden costs such as exclusion from taxes and fees, health detriments, and the contribution to global warming impose an additional financial burden on society of at least 25 Euros ($37.50) for each ton of lignite that is mined and burned. The maximum estimate is nearly 200 Euros ($300) per ton when all effects on future generations are included.

Eighth, lignite has a high content of volatile matter that makes it easier to convert into gas and liquid petroleum products than higher-ranking coals. However, its high moisture content and susceptibility to spontaneous combustion can cause problems in transportation and storage.

In summary, if Arkansas should decide that lignite is part of its future energy mix, and given its potential environmental problems and the extent of lignite deposits, the extraction and use of lignite as a fuel source should require a comprehensive state environmental, health, and economic impact analysis.  The impact study should be available to the public for review and comment.  Further, all pertinent state agencies should be required to participate in the documents preparation including the Arkansas Departments of Health, Environmental Quality, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Economic Development Commission, Highway and Transportation, and Arkansas Heritage.  If the State pursues this industry, it should adhere to an “Eyes Wide Open” policy.

Further, if mining and processing of lignite is authorized and permitted, the extraction industry should provide comprehensive health insurance to miners and other employees involved in lignite extraction. Severance Taxes should be substantial and made available to state regulatory agencies for permitting, monitoring, inspecting, and corrective action if necessary.  Funds should be made available to assist local communities with infrastructure improvements and repair, such as roads, wastewater and sewage treatment facilities.

However, from my perspective, Arkansas is better served if we invest our funds into biofuel development; wind, solar, and biomass electrical generation; and more natural gas.  I think most reasonable people understand that we cannot continue our dependence on coal, lignite, and petroleum, and that catastrophic storm events and melting of ice caps are related to greenhouse gas emissions and our use of fossil fuels.

Arkansas, USA — German wind power manufacturer Nordex expects to double its U.S. revenues by selling at least 100 MW of additional wind-turbine capacity this year, a company spokesman has revealed.

State Already On Track to Becoming the Most Energy Efficient in Southeast

(American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy) Washington, D.C. —- Investments in energy efficiency across all four of Arkansas’ economic sectors —- residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation —- would create over 11,000 jobs, generate $240 million in revenue for the state, and save consumers $3.2 billion in energy bills by 2025, according to a report released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The report, Advancing Energy Efficiency in Arkansas: Opportunities for a Clean Energy Economy, examines the potential for greater energy efficiency in Arkansas and suggests a variety of policies to tap into this underused resource.

An interim release of ACEEE’s Arkansas report has already been successful in influencing energy efficiency policy in the state. The study was delivered to government officials, including the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC), in June 2010 and utilized during APSC proceedings. On December 10, 2010, the APSC issued 10 orders designed to expand the energy efficiency efforts of Arkansas utilities, making Arkansas the first state in the Southeast to adopt a comprehensive set of policies on utility energy efficiency programs.

Among the programs created by the APSC orders is an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS), which sets a statewide goal for long-term energy savings. In order to meet the EERS targets, the report suggests instituting a number of programs including weatherization assistance for inefficient homes, energy-efficient financing for the Arkansas agricultural sector, and investments in the efficiency of Arkansas’ public buildings. The report projects that investments in this suite of programs and policies will not only create jobs and lower energy bills, but will also increase the state’s productivity and revenue.

“This study lays the foundation for a future of sustained economic activity and prosperity for Arkansas citizens by recommending a broad suite of policies intended to capture a significant amount of energy savings potential across all of Arkansas’ economic sectors,” said Max Neubauer, ACEEE Research Associate and lead author of the report. “Investments in these energy efficiency policies will reduce energy consumption, helping to create jobs while saving consumers money that can then be reinvested elsewhere in the state economy.”

The report also analyzes Arkansas’ transportation sector, making a variety of policy recommendations to reduce fuel use while helping to address congestion and expand transportation options for its growing population. The analysis focused primarily on the state’s two major metropolitan areas, Little Rock/North Little Rock and Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, and found that the recommendations could cut the state’s transportation fuel needs by 10 percent in 2025.

“The orders given by the Arkansas Public Service Commission signify a break from the commonly voiced doctrine in the Southeast that any expense on utility bills is a bane of business and economic growth,” said ACEEE Executive Director Steven Nadel. “In fact, it is quite the opposite: energy efficiency encourages economic growth by reducing energy bills and creating a robust, sustainable energy efficiency market that offers new business opportunities and generates jobs.”

Steven Nadel and Max Neubauer will be presenting their findings to the state’s Joint Energy Committee on March 29^th.

For more information, click here.

Click Image To View Full Report

Significant Job Growth Associated with Installing Pollution Controls and Building New Power Plants

CONTACT:

Steve Patterson, Arkansas Business Leaders for a Clean Energy Economy (501) 537-0190

Sarah Hawkins, Sloane and Company (212) 446-1890

LITTLE ROCK – February 22, 2011 – Air pollution rules being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the electric power sector will provide economic benefits and jobs across much of the United States–including Arkansas–concentrated especially in the next five years, according to a new report from Ceres announced at the 2011 Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference.

The report, “New Jobs-Cleaner Air: Employment Effects under Planned Changes to EPA’s Air Pollution Rules,” prepared by Dr. James Heintz of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, details the jobs created through investments in pollution controls, new plant construction, and the retirement of older, less efficient coal plants as the country transitions to a cleaner, modernized generation fleet under new EPA clean air standards.

Among the report’s key findings:

• Based on recent estimates that the power sector will invest in capital improvements over the next five years, total employment created in Arkansas by these capital investments is estimated at more than 56,000 jobs, or about 11,000 jobs on average in each of the next five years.

• Installing modern pollution controls and building new power plants create a wide array of skilled high-paying installation, construction and professional jobs, as well as jobs at companies that manufacture pollution controls and other required construction/maintenance equipment.

“Hundreds of Arkansans are already qualified for the wide array of highly skilled jobs needed for the designing, procuring and installing of pollution controls and building new generation technologies,” said Jim Metzger, economist with HISTECON Associates, Inc.  “Creating more jobs has the added bonus of representing a great opportunity for our state’s community colleges and universities to expand their excellent job training programs in order to fill even more of these highly skilled jobs with Arkansas workers.”

The report effectively counters claims by critics in Congress that EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would only cost jobs.

“The report clearly demonstrates that the Clean Air Act is an example of how responsible policies can ignite new industries, create jobs and invite investors and entrepreneurs into an expanding clean energy market, all while reducing emissions,” said Ken Smith of Arkansas Business Leaders for a Clean Energy Economy.

The new report evaluates job impacts under two Clean Air Act rules expected to be finalized in 2011: the Clean Air Transport Rule, focused on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from 31 targeted states in the East and Midwest; and the Toxics Rule which, for the first time, will set limits on hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, arsenic, lead and hydrochloric acid.

The study finds that installation, design and construction of pollution controls and construction of new generation capacity will create a majority of the jobs in the five-year period through 2015. Nationally, the study estimates compliance with these EPA rules will create 1.46 million “job years” (each job year representing a single job that lasts for one year) including both direct jobs, such as engineers, electricians, boilermakers and others directly involved with plant construction and installation of pollution controls, and indirect jobs at companies that manufacture and create pollution controls and other necessary equipment for construction and maintenance of power plants.

The study also finds that permanent operation and maintenance (O&M) jobs associated with pollution control installations and new generation construction will be created in all states. Although some O&M jobs will be lost because of the projected retirement of older, less efficient coal plants, these losses will be offset by new O&M jobs, resulting in an approximately 4,200 net job gain across the 36 states studied.

To download a copy of the report, visit http://www.ceres.org/epajobsreport.

To download an Arkansas factsheet click here.

About Arkansas Business Leaders for a Clean Energy Economy

Arkansas Business Leaders for a Clean Energy Economy supports the transition to a low-carbon clean energy economy in Arkansas and nationally.   Our role is to empower the Arkansas business community to influence public policy that helps accomplish this goal. The Arkansas Business Leaders for a Clean Energy Economy is coordinated by Steve Patterson and Ken Smith, with support from the Energy Foundation.  For more information visit www.arkcleaneconomy.biz

About Ceres
Ceres is a leading coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a network of 98 investors with $9 trillion of collective assets focused on the business impacts of climate change. www.ceres.org

About PERI
The Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) is an economic policy research organization closely affiliated with the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. PERI conducts academic research that is directly engaged with crucial economic policy issues, and that has a strong commitment to egalitarian values. PERI aims, as the late Robert Heilbroner once wrote, to use economics as “the means by which we strive to make a workable science out of morality.” PERI has a few broad, and intersecting, areas of specialty: macroeconomics, financial markets and globalization; labor markets (especially low-wage work, both in the U.S. and globally); economic development (with a particular focus on Africa); the economics of peace; and environmental economics. www.peri.umass.edu

###

by Roby Brock, Talk Business

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

A new study from Duke University and Georgia Tech contends that Arkansas is leading 16 Southern states in renewable energy generation, but is poised to do much more.

Dr. Marilyn Brown, a researcher of the study titled “Renewable Energy in the South,” tells Talk Business that about 9% of Arkansas’ energy production portfolio currently comes from renewable sources, primarily hydropower.

“Looking to the future, the potential for growth is very significant, much better than any other Southern state because it has wind, hydro and biomass resources, and solar resources are pretty good, too,” Brown said in a recent interview.

Brown contends that renewable energy standards are an increasingly attractive economic development tool for many states and Arkansas could capitalize on its momentum.

“Companies are now asking, ‘Who’s got the commitment to this new generation of clean tech and green energy?’,” she said.

Arkansas has recently landed a number of high-profile companies, such as wind energy giants LM Windpower, Nordex and Mitsubishi, in part due to tax incentives, central location, a diverse transportation infrastructure, and a recruiting effort to chase alternative energy employers.

But Brown suggested that other states have more aggressive policies to improve their renewable energy mix and without a similar strategy, Arkansas could lose its top Southern billing.

“Twenty-nine states right now have these quota requirements for their utilities,” Brown said. “Arkansas does not. So right now, Arkansas is in a lagging position in terms of advancing through policies.”

Could the state make a move? With a legislative session in full swing, Arkansas lawmakers could dictate a renewable energy standard.  But the Public Service Commission also has rule-making authority and could mandate a threshold.

Newly named PSC Chair Colette Honorable, who has spent four years at the state regulatory agency, says the issue still warrants further review.

“Our commission make-up has changed and so I wouldn’t be in such a position to tell you – without knowing the benefit of this particular commission’s thoughts on that subject – whether it would be something we would be open to doing,” Honorable said in reference to the recent appointment of a new commissioner.

Elana Wills replaced former PSC chairman Paul Suskie earlier this year. Olan “Butch” Reeves is the final commissioner on the three-person PSC panel.

“I certainly recognize that we are among several states that doesn’t have a [renewable energy] standard. I think its something we should continue to evaluate. I’m not prepared today to say that we must have one. But I am committed to evaluate that matter and to ensure that all the proper information comes before the commission before we take on those challenges,” Honorable added.

The PSC does have a docket open to further study the issue.

Another factor that could impact Arkansas’ advancement in renewable energy involves future federal regulatory changes.  The Environmental Protection Agency seems bent on making more stringent air and water quality standards.  That could force electric companies in Arkansas and elsewhere to invest in a more diverse renewable energy portfolio.

As the time comes to retrofit older coal-fired plants, Brown says that the capital investment may be better spent on greener technologies.

Nuclear power generation, which plays heavily in Arkansas’ non-coal and non-natural gas electricity production, was not counted in the Duke-Georgia Tech study as a renewable energy resource.

However, biomass was and Arkansas has only scratched the surface on its use as a contributor to electric power.

“Biomass is likely to play a bigger role in Arkansas’ future,” Brown said. She sees it serving more of a function in powering factories versus generating enough electricity to return to the grid, for now.

“[Biomass] will be either at the power plant to co-fire with coal or dedicated biomass-to-gas-to-electricity facilities, which could be located at a pulp-and-paper industry or standalone facility that could use some of Arkansas’ great agricultural land to produce power,” she said.

Brown says biomass – which includes switch grass, crop residues, and forest byproducts – is not a natural resource to haul very far. “You want to be able to use it very close to where the resource is grown,” she noted.

But she says as technology advances and efficiencies are achieved, it is possible that a factory in South Arkansas processing timber into 2×4’s could see its lumber products become a secondary revenue generator.

“In the future, where we’re facing issues with respect to clean power, you might see more of that, where the power production becomes your principal product.”

http://www.talkbusiness.net/article/RENEWABLE-ENERGY-RESEARCHER-SAYS-ARKANSAS-SITTING-PRETTY/1421/

Arkansas Business Leaders for a Clean Energy Economy

present

Renewable Energy in the South, VIP Luncheon

featuring

Dr. Marilyn Brown

Georgia Institute of Technology

The Capital Hotel
111 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201

January 25, 2011
11:30 AM – 1:00 PM

Dr. Brown will present findings from her latest report, “Renewable Energy in the South.” The report finds the South could pay less for its electricity in 20 years than is currently projected if strong public policies are enacted to spur renewable energy production and use. The new report confirms that the right mix of public policies could drive the region to produce as much as 30 percent-up from less than 4 percent-of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
Dr. Brown will explain Arkansas specific findings.

Lunch will be provided. There is no charge for this event.

RSVP to Ken Smith

Dr. Marilyn Brown, an endowed professor of energy policy in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology is an internationally recognized leader in the analysis and interpretation of energy futures in the United States. In 2007, Brown was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize along with the other members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Vice President Al Gore. She was recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve on the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation’s largest public power producer.

Arkansas Business Leaders for a Clean Energy Economy

Little Rock, Arkansas

For Arkansas, the study estimates a total agriculture and forestry industry output of $2.1 billion, and 1,549 new jobs in 2025.  When multiplier effects are included, the total industry output and jobs increase to $2.96 billion and 7,990, respectively.  Under a carefully constructed RES, by 2025, Arkansas could produce as much as 19 billion kwh (kilowatthours) of additional renewable electricity from biomass, wind, and solar.

To Read the Full Report, Go To:

http://www.25×25.org/storage/25×25/documents/Economic%20Analysis/ut%20report%20nov10.pdf

Welcome
It’s a pleasure to see all of you here today – it’s a notable day for Nordex, for Arkansas and for Jonesboro.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to our customers, who traveled here, to our suppli-ers and bank representatives. And I would like to welcome Governor Beebe, Senator Lincoln, Representative Berry, Maria Haley and Joe Bailey from the AEDC, Judge Dale Haas from Craighead County, Mayor Perrin, Mark Young and his team from the Chamber and all who have supported us over the past two years. We also have here today the management board and other colleagues from our German parent company Nordex SE, our colleagues from Chi-cago and, of course, our growing team of colleagues here in Jonesboro, many of whom have recently returned from their training in our German factory as we have just heard.

Mutual Opportunities
I know many of you are excited about the jobs and the opportunities we are creating. And I thank you for celebrating this with us. Creating jobs, for Nordex, is one of the greatest bene-fits of what we do – and what we have done over the last 25 years. And we can do it here thanks to the great potential of wind in America.

But potential is like an empty glass – it has to be filled. And since we are in this together, I think it’s important that we understand our opportunities and the challenges we face together.

Let me start off by saying that I know the wind and energy business is not widely unders-tood. I live in a suburb of Chicago, and one of our neighbors recently asked my wife: “Aren’t wind turbines powered by generators to keep them turning when there’s no wind, so that they look like they’re still operating?”

Others tell me that wind is certainly a very exciting industry. But they wonder whether it’s really viable without subsidies, and then ask how long we’re going to rely on government money.

We can also see that our industry isn’t understood because, otherwise, the competitive land-scape in America would look very different. Many do not realize how much taxpayers have been subsidizing conventional energy sources since 1923. From 2002 to 2008 subsidies for conventional energy cost the American taxpayer about 70 Billion dollars.

All across America, utilities require that wind farms commit to a firm price for 20 years. They do not have the same requirement for conventional power plants. In fact, an operator of a coal, natural gas or nuclear plant receives the actual cost of the plant plus the actual cost of the fuel, plus a fixed percentage as mark-up on the fuel cost. This means that the more the fuel costs, the more the utility earns – which is only one of the reasons why many utilities do not embrace the opportunity to stabilize prices by buying power at a fixed cost.

And, yes, we hear that electricity from nuclear power plants can be generated for as low as 2 cents per kWh. This is true – once a nuclear power plant is completely paid off. Once a wind farm is completely paid off it can generate power for half that cost.

There are a great many myths and misunderstandings about wind and the power markets, and I am passionate about setting the record straight. But, it’s been my keen observation that when I start talking about the intricacies of the wind business and electricity markets, an interesting phenomenon occurs. People’s eyes take on a unique sheen. You have a phrase for this in English – it’s called “glazing over”. It may be my hypnotic charm. Or, it may be that words like “megawatt”, “kilowatt”, “power purchase agreements”, “feed-in ta-riffs”, “wheeling charges” – well, many just don’t find these as fascinating as I do!

A New Energy Crop
So let’s suppose that instead of talking about watts and kilowatts, we talk about food and crops. That isn’t really much of a stretch, especially here in Arkansas. After all, what do we call a collection of wind turbines? A wind farm. And we also say that wind farms harvest wind. We consume electricity, much like we consume bread and cereal.

So, let’s suppose that America has discovered a new, abundant food source. It grows wild and is completely disease-resistant. It just needs to be harvested and delivered to the mar-ket.

To deliver our old-style farm crops we built roads, highways and railroad – a vast infrastruc-ture. Our new crop also requires an infrastructure – the transmission grid. Unfortunately over the past 50 years we haven’t maintained this grid very well or invested much in its ex-pansion. As a result, our new crop might have difficulty moving from the places where it grows in the wild to the cities and population centers that are hungry for our food.

And let’s continue the analogy. Let’s suppose that the cost of this new crop is at the moment more – not a lot, but sometimes a bit more – than the old-style crop. There are many rea-sons for this, including subsidies for the old-style crop going way back and that put our new crop sometimes at a price disadvantage. But if we can level the playing field through sound policies that help “retrofit”, so to speak, a centuries-old farming market to make room for our new crop, we can be even more cost competitive – in fact, we can boom!

And suppose that by supporting the growth of this new food source we could replace im-ports, eliminate health risks and stave off hunger all while creating high quality jobs and growing GDP.

Now, you might be wondering what will happen to our old-style crops if our wild variety real-ly establishes itself in the market. Will they be replaced? Leave barren fields and bankrupt farmers? Certainly not! In part, because there are more and more mouths to feed, and no single food source can feed them all! Just like mama said, we need a variety of foods to keep us healthy and strong. But, we should all eat more vegetables!

It just so happens, for the convenience of my analogy, that food security is one of the big-gest challenges facing the world right now. In light of this reality, what would you do? Would you help our new crop get to market and flourish? Would you expect government to make sure of it? Would you take the position that it is in our national interest?

There is another enormous challenge facing the whole world. Energy. We have a free and abundant energy source blowing across the whole country. Will you help us get it to market and flourish? Will you ask your leaders to make sure of it? Do you believe it is in our national interest?

See, when it comes to food, we all know what to do. With energy, not so.

Why do I say that? In the span of two years, Nordex announced, planned, built, staffed and fired up this plant. But in that same two years, Congress has stood still on a national energy strategy. A sound policy framework is still missing. The will to set national energy goals that can secure a new harvest is anemic; the resolve to invest in infrastructure is weak. How will our crop, with all its potential, flourish?
Market Realities

Two years ago, the United States was the largest, fastest-growing wind energy market in the world. No longer. China knows it will have an energy problem in the future if it does nothing. So, it set a national goal to meet the challenge. Meanwhile, the US exchanged its global lead for lay-offs, for dropped orders, for postponed projects, and for investors with cold feet.

This happened at a time when (a) new jobs were sorely needed and (b) everyone knows clean energy can create them. This doesn’t make sense.

Many people have asked me why we didn’t experience lay-offs like our competitors here in the United States. Well, it’s easy – when you have only 10 employees, it’s not really an is-sue. In other words, our timing was lucky – we had not yet ramped up and so didn’t have to ramp down.

But we are not immune – neither is our plant, and neither is our workforce. We make the machines that harvest a new crop of energy. But we can only flourish if the greater market flourishes.

I recently read that Arkansas industrial jobs have declined by 9% over the past two years. That’s more than 20,000 manufacturing jobs. Sobering. The report called Nordex a “bright spot” for the State. I strongly believe there are more bright spots to come. Did you know that this year we convinced our steel components supplier – a company by the name of Beckmann Volmer – to also build a factory in neighboring Osceola? They will invest $10 Mil-lion into a plant that will employ up to another 500. Just one example.

Arkansas has become a success story for the wind industry. Your state leaders, and I mean Governor Beebe and his team, have not stood back watching Arkansas lose jobs. They have actively gone out to bring in the most promising industry of the next generation.

But it’s not a done deal. Now, we have to water what we’ve planted. We have to ensure that the industry you have worked so hard to establish takes firm root in the national market via strong, sound renewable energy policies.

Solutions
What does that look like?

Well, to start, we need an energy strategy. I do not mean a tax credit here, a grant there, disconnected from anything. I mean a vision for future energy security. Because what else will the country run on if not electricity?

From strategy flows policy – that’s the second thing. Policy is the tool that gets us where we want to go. And because the energy market is highly regulated at every level imaginable, any new energy source must have a long-term regulatory framework in order to get traction in the market – and also to secure financing to build power plants.

An interesting fact … demand for electricity in the US is projected to grow by around 30% by 2030 – 20 years from now. If we set a goal to provide that growth amount from renewable resources such as wind, solar and geothermal (which we are using here to heat and cool our plant), we could create new businesses, lower energy costs, reduce dependence on foreign sources – without threatening the jobs and income of conventional suppliers.

Such a goal: in policy language it’s called a Renewable Electricity Standard, or “RES”. Pro-ducing 20% of our electricity from renewables is imminently doable – if we set the goal and create the policy.

Congress has not managed to do this. And Arkansas?

Besides Arkansas there are three other States that have established themselves as regional wind manufacturing hubs. Those are Colorado, Iowa and Pennsylvania. Arkansas is the only one out of the four that does not have a state-level RES. If RES is not the best policy tool for Arkansas, a feed-in tariff would, of course, also encourage the market, as discussed in the last legislative session in Little Rock, in early 2009.

Perspective
One of my favorite American symbols is the bald eagle. The bald eagle has many admirable attributes, but its core strength, I believe, is its perspective. It soars high above the earth and can see the full situation, judging wisely where to go.

In my view, the reason the nation is stuck in a tar pit when it comes to finally and boldly enacting a true energy strategy is due to lost perspective – the perspective to embrace the opportunity at hand and lay the groundwork for generations to come.

I recently learned that Arkansas is a favorite wintering ground for bald eagles. And that the eagles can be seen in nearly every part of the Natural State.

You’re also now a favorite ground for wind turbine manufacturers. What happens on the national market happens here. So let’s have an eagle’s perspective and make it happen!

Thank you and enjoy this day with us!

Los Angeles Times

AP

JONESBORO, Ark. (AP) — Nordex USA dedicated its $40 million wind turbine factory in Jonesboro on Friday, making it the latest industrial wind project that’s found a home in Arkansas.

The Germany-based company started production earlier this month, but the ceremony gave the public a chance to get a look inside the factory.

Nordex said it plans to employ about 70 workers by the end of 2010, but the company expects that number to grow to 700 jobs within four years. The company is one of several wind energy-related firms that have chosen to locate in Arkansas. A windmill blade manufacturer, LM Wind Power, has two factories in Little Rock. Mitsubishi plans to build a turbine factory in Fort Smith.

“Arkansas has become a success story for the wind industry,” said Ralf Sigrist, president and chief executive officer of Nordex USA. “Now, we have to water what we’ve planted. We have to ensure that the industry we have all worked so hard to establish takes firm root in the national market via strong, sound renewable energy policies.”

Sigrist urged Congress to pass energy legislation that ensures a long-term market for wind energy for the industry to reach its potential.

Nordex received a $22.2 million tax credit from federal stimulus money to build the plant in Jonesboro, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

“Today’s grand opening in Jonesboro is a sign of what’s possible as we invest in the country’s growing clean energy manufacturing sector,” U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. “By bringing together investments from the public and private sector, the Recovery Act helped move this project forward, creating new jobs in Arkansas and strengthening America’s economic competitiveness.”

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ar-wind-energy-jonesboro,0,4825990.story