Every journey begins with a single step. 

In 1988 I saw my first mobile phone -- a brick-sized case with a phone handset.  I thought it would never catch on.  Oops.

Fast forward to 2010 when ComEd is in the testing stage on ways to get people to use less energy -- smart technology that homeowners will have access to that gives real time information on energy use, access to solar power and energy storage equipment that could revolutionize the way we use electricity.  This time I'm going to be more optimistic and say this is the beginning of a great trend.

Jule Wernau, the go-to person on the Chicago Tribune business writer's staff for energy articles, filed this piece on the program.  The effort is amazing in its depth and breadth and gives hope to all who believe efficiency and conservation of energy is a key component of our energy future. 

ComEd is going to see which technologies worked, which ones people found easiest to use and which were most effective in getting people to take less energy from ComEd.

I wiish I lived in the "innovation corridor" but just like I didn't buy the first cell phone in 1988, I can wait a bit longer to see what works best.

Many people know the acronym NIMBY (not in my back yard).  But my favorite acronym is BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody).

It's the kind of attitude that says we want solutions, but not the consequences near ourselves.  This has hampered the development of all kinds of energy projects since energy was invented (Fred Flinstone probably fought Barney Rubble's plan for a wood-fueled heating system!).

The Economist has given us this article that reviews the latest BANANA issue as it relates to wind projects in Hyannis (Massachusetts), Athens (Greece, not Georgia) and Sydney.

It's an excellent piece that reminds us that energy of all kinds has detractors of all kinds around the world.  It's getting harder and harder to build things in this country, but if we're going to solve our future energy problems we're going to have to build things (transmission lines, base load generation plants, etc.).  Efficiency and conservation may be the only form of "energy" that everyone seems to be OK with...but that is part of the solution...not the whole solution.

So we need to get leadership from our elected officials (gasp!) and push the projects past the BANANAS and find appealing (sorry) solutions to our energy future.

There are few things that all players in the energy industry agree with.  The fact that the Earth is round and that demand for energy will increase in the future are two of those things.  The third item is the need to use our energy more efficiently.  The August 20 edition of the Chicago Tribune had a great review of what several national companies with Chicago stores are doing to become more green.  The reporter, Emily Bryson York, did a fabulous job of putting a local face on this national story and drilling down to find out the reasons why the investments were being done.

The reasons why companies spend the money to use energy more efficiently falls under three categories:  "energy savings, customer goodwill and marketing." 

There is no reason that it can't work for all three but if we want more and more companies (and individuals) to jump on the energy efficiency bandwagon, it's going to have to be about the money saved by using less energy.  When gas prices skyrocketed in 2008, Americans drove less.  Sometimes the simplest incentive is the best incentive.  However, whatever incentive is the one to get people to take this seriously, I'll take it!

Of course I'm referring to natural gas -- a fossil fuel that creates less carbon emissions that coal or oil. 

This blog post from The Hill's energy and environment page gives the latest info on the trials and tribulations of "fracking" technology that's being used in the U.S. to provide us with new sources of natural gas.  The good news is natural gas supplies have increased but there are some environmental concerns with the process. 

No one disputes the importance of having a larger supply of natural gas available.  It could be used to heat more homes and generate more electricity in a nation where it's hard (or even impossible) to build new coal or nuclear generation.

The folks at Des Plaines-based Gas Technology Institute are leading the charge by looking into the pros and cons of fracking.  It's a plus to have this kind of research going on in Illinois.

Illinois has an area in the southern part of the state where fracking technology could work to extract natural gas.    And natural gas extraction in southern Illinois would be good for jobs and economic development in an area of the state that certainly needs it...stay tuned on whether this opportunity becomes a reality.

Until then, keep an eye on natural gas.

A coal company won an award from the Illinois Department's of Natural Resources (DNR).

WHAT?

That's right, just when you thought it was safe to have a myopic view of coal companies, the Illinois DNR has given its 2010 Land Reclamtion Award to Peabody Energy.  Here is the release to prove it. 

It's easy to treat coal companies as conglomerate of companies that hate the environment.  But that's a lazy perspective.  When you look at coal companies, realize that they produce 50% of the nation's electricity using U.S. sources (we have 25% of the world's coal reserves).  Also realize that coal burning power plants have changed over the decades, producing a very small percentage of the regulated emissions (mercury, NOX, SOX, etc.) than they used to...and realize that coal mining has changed during that same period.  It's not 100% safe, but much safer for sure.

No energy is perfect.  No industry is perfect.  But be wary of agitators who paint an industry with a broard brush...the angels and devils are always in the details.

With apologies to the 1980's band Wang Chung and their hit song, Everybody Have Fun Tonight, it was a day to celebrate in Rockford as Governor Quinn announced a $4 million Federal incentive package for China-based Wanxiang and Chicago-based New Generation Power to build the initial 28MW section of a 62MW solar farm in Rockford. 

This Rockford-Register Star article gives a great summary of the personal story attached to this announcement.  Wanxiang recently opened a solar manufacturing plant near the Rockford airport and it has since been training a growing workforce on how to manufacture the solar panels that folks hope will be dotting household and business rooftops as well as solar farms throughout the Midwest. 

This is another example of how energy development equals economic development.  As revealed in a recent study done by Northern Illinois University, there are 50,000 jobs directly attached to the energy industry in Illinois and 100,000 indirect jobs.  They pay, on average, 50 percent higher than the state's average wage and the energy industry produces $80 billion in economic output in the state -- three time that of the auto industry.

So whether it's cleaner coal, nuclear, wind or solar projects (or others) that create the energy of today and tomorrow, they will all create jobs!

Governor Quinn signed two solar energy related bills today.  The first bill ramps up the solar carve out in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).  It was supposed to kick in at 6% of Illinois' power by 2016.  That's right, the original plan was to go from zero to six percent in one year.  Now it will ramp up from .5% starting in 2012 and end up at 6% in 2016.   The Illinois Chamber did not oppose this legislation as it makes it more plausible to acheive the goal...though it still won't be easy and we can certainly expect it to cost more money for rate payers in the short term as solar energy is more expensive.

The second bill requires homeowners assocations to allow solar panels on homes.  You still may have to take the garbage can off the curb by sundown (as my sister's homeowners association mandates), but at least you can have the solar panels on the roof! 

When it comes to solar energy, Governor Quinn has seen some light.

As anyone who travels through Illinois knows, the corn is getting as "high as an elephant's eys."  But did you know the biofuel industry is also seeing some growth as well?  Today's Chicago Tribune published this article by Julie Wernau about a plant in Seneca that reopened with a new owner. 

The last time I checked, Illinois is the nation's second largest producer of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel).  One mistake people make about the biofuel debate is looking at old statistics when slamming biofuels for the energy it takes to grow the feedstock and process it into fuels.  Farmers are now producing more corn per acre, there is continued research on using switchgrass, stover and other feedstocks and the new ethanol plants are more efficient than ever.

It's just another example of how technology is changing the dynamics of all kinds of energy and we have to keep up on those changes before we lock our opinions in stone.

Now I'm off to get some corn on the cob for dinner tonight.  Yummy.

First, the reality.

The New York Times has this piece in today's edition about Portugal going gaga (not Lady Gaga) for alternative energy.  They are generating 45% of their electricity needs from alternative/renewable sources.  For perspective, the U.S. is at 5%.  As you can imaging, it has not been an easy road.  Fossil fuel interests and higher prices for alternative energies have proven to be difficult hurdles to overcome.  And the model that seems to be successful in Portugal may not work in the U.S.  It's a good review of the ups and downs of trying to go "green" and is a good primer for anyone trying to jumpstart America's efforts to wean itself off of fossil fuels.  If you thought breaking a heroin habit was tough, this might prove to be tougher.

Now the prediction.

On the solar front, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has come out with a report that predicts solar could provide up to 25% of global electricity generation by 2050.  The Renewable Energy World Magazine covers this report that showcases the potential growth for solar energy.  Solar energy and nuclear energy have been getting a lot of good PR lately.  We'll see if that translates into the growth both industries are hoping for.

And now for a word from our sponsor.

Both articles provide insight into the long slog ahead for alternative energies.  But in the world of energy there is no other kind of journey.  There are no fast switches, no easy solutions and no cheap resolutions.  So don't take the battles from Portugal (or the prices) and the 40-year outlook on solar as anything but good news because it shows these technologies can be successful...over time.

The Obama Administration finally found a way to get FutureGen done, by changing the program.  FutureGen 2.0 has two parts: revamping a shuttered coal plant in Merodosia so it produces electricity again from coal but with less carbon output; and then taking the CO2 and shipping it, via pipeline to Mattoon for sequestration.

There are few people happy about it the revised plan.  People who don't like coal still think it's a handout program for a dying industry while the folks in Mattoon (where the new plant was going to be built) are really upset for putting a ton of work into getting the project, then only getting the sequestration part and a small research center.  They saw FutureGen as a jobsapoolza.

All sides need to take a deep breath. 

First, coal is not a dying industry.  It creates half of the nation's electricity and there is no viable, base load alternative out there at this point that is ready to take its place. 

Secondly, now that FutureGen 1.0 has been tabled by two very different Presidents, maybe we should consider the idea that the original plan just doesn't work economically. 

Lastly, let's look at the goals here and see if FutureGen 2.0 helps us get there.  The goal is to find a better way to produce electricity from coal.  A way that produces less CO2 in our atmosphere.  A way that allows Illinois coal (it has a higher sulfur content than Wyoming coal) to be used again.  A way that allows new coal plants to be built in Illinois so that the aging coal plants can be phased out and replaced in the next 30 years -- therefore allowing Illinois to continue to be an electricity exporting state and reaping the economic benefits of hosting the generating facilities.

FutureGen 2.0 just might get us there -- with one caveat.  FutureGen 2.0 can help us determine if the combination of retrofitted plants and sequestration can keep coal in the mix itf and when the government decides to make this a carbon constrained country.  If it works, many coal plants can be retrofitted and with a working sequestration model, more modern plants can be built with sequestration and thereby solve our coal dilemma for some time.  Even if it doesn't work, than at least we tried.  We have so much coal in our country that it would be remiss of us not to try and find every way possible to use it as a source for our energy needs.

The one caveat that concerns me is by not building the "next-generation" plant from scratch in Mattoon, are we allowing other countries to surpass our R&D efforts in the coal industry?  We don't want to import coal industry solutions from other countries.  We should be a leader in this and other energy fields and reap the rewards that come with it.  I hope FutureGen 2.0 doesn't set us back in terms of creating new, export-worthy technologies.

That being said, I'm willing to give FutureGen 2.0 a shot.  I hope it works.  We all should hope it works.  Because if it doesn't we'll have some major energy challenges ahead of us.