When We Lean Into Clean Energy, Rural America Thrives

Food Waste to Green Hydrogen uses biological production to create clean energy, enabling waste-to-energy, decarbonization, and renewable hydrogen for electricity, industrial processes, and transport fuels, developed at Purdue University Northwest with Purdue Research Foundation licensing.

Key Points

A biological process converting food waste into renewable hydrogen for clean energy, electricity, industry, and transport.

✅ Enables rapid, scalable waste-to-hydrogen deployment

✅ Supports grid power, industrial heat, and mobility fuels

✅ Backed by patents, DOE grants, and licensing deals

West Lafayette, Indiana-based Purdue Research Foundation recently completed a licensing agreement with an international energy company – the name of which was not disclosed – for the commercialization of a new process discovered at Purdue University Northwest (PNW) for the biological production of green hydrogen from food waste. A second licensing agreement with a company in Indiana is under negotiation.

Food waste into green hydrogen
Researchers say that this new process, which uses food waste to biologically produce hydrogen, can be used as a clean energy source for producing electricity, as well as for chemical and industrial processes like green steel production or as a transportation fuel.

Robert Kramer, professor of physics at PNW and principal investigator for the research, says that more than 30% of all food, amounting to $48 billion, is wasted in the United States each year. That waste could be used to create hydrogen, a sustainable energy source alongside municipal solid waste power options. When hydrogen is combusted, the only byproduct is water vapor.

The developed process has a high production rate and can be implemented quickly to support large H2 energy systems in practice. The process is robust, reliable, and economically viable for local energy production and processes.

The research team has received five grants from the US Department of Energy and the Purdue Research Foundation totaling around $800,000 over the last eight years to develop the science and technology that led to this process, much like advances in advanced nuclear reactors drive clean energy innovation.

Two patents have been issued, and a third patent is currently in the final stages of approval. Over the next nine months, a scale-up test will be conducted, reflecting how power-to-gas storage can integrate with existing infrastructure. Based upon test results, it is anticipated that construction could start on the first commercial prototype within a year.

Last week, a facility designed to turn non-recyclable plastics into green hydrogen was approved in the UK, as other innovations like the seawater power concept progress globally. It is the second facility of its kind there.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

American Wind Power Statement on Biden highlights collaboration on renewable energy policy, clean energy jobs, carbon-free power, climate action, and a modern grid to grow the economy while keeping electricity costs low.

Key Points

AWEA commits to work with Biden on renewable policy, clean energy jobs, and a carbon-free U.S. grid.

✅ AWEA cites over 120,000 U.S. wind jobs ready to scale

✅ Supports 100% carbon-free power target by mid-century

✅ Aims to keep electricity costs low with renewable policy

American wind power congratulates President-elect Biden on his victory. "We look forward to collaborating with his administration and Congress, after pledges to scrap offshore wind in recent years, as we work together to shape a cleaner and more prosperous energy future for America, where wind and solar surpass coal in generation across the country.

The President-elect and his team have laid out an ambitious, comprehensive approach to energy policy that recognizes renewable energy's ability to grow America's economy and create a cleaner environment, as market majority for clean energy becomes a realistic prospect, while keeping electricity costs low and combating the threat of climate change as wind power surges across many regions.

The U.S. wind sector and its growing workforce of over 120,000 Americans stand ready to help put that plan into action and support the Biden administration in delivering on the immense promise of renewable energy to add well-paying jobs to the U.S. economy, with quarter-million wind jobs forecast in coming years, and reach the President-elect's 100% target for a carbon-free America by the middle of this century, alongside a 100% clean electricity by 2035 goal that charts the near-term path." - Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Renewable Energy Forecast 2024 will see wind and solar power surpass one-fourth of electricity generation, EIA projects, as coal declines, natural gas dips, and clean energy capacity, grid integration, and policy incentives expand.

Key Points

EIA outlook: renewables at 26% of U.S. power in 2024, led by wind and solar as coal declines and gas share dips.

✅ Wind and solar hit 18% combined, surpassing coal's 17%.

✅ Natural gas dips to 37% as demand rebounds modestly.

✅ Coal plant closures accelerate amid costs, emissions, and age.

Renewable energy is poised to reach a milestone, after a record 28% in April this year, as a new government report projects that wind, solar and other renewable sources will exceed one-fourth of the country’s electricity generation for the first time, in 2024.

This is one of the many takeaways from the federal government’s Short Term Energy Outlook, a monthly report whose new edition is the first to include a forecast for 2024. The report’s authors in the Energy Information Administration are expecting renewables to increase in market share, while natural gas and coal would both decrease.

From 2023 to 2024, renewables would rise from 24 percent to 26 percent of U.S. electricity generation; coal’s share would drop from 18 percent to 17 percent; gas would remain the leader but drop from 38 percent to 37 percent; and nuclear would be unchanged at 19 percent.

It was a big deal in 2020 when generation from renewables passed coal for the first time in 130 years over a full year. Coal made a comeback in 2021 and then retreated again in 2022 as renewables surpassed coal in generation. The ups and downs were largely the result of fluctuations in electricity demand during and then after the Covid-19 pandemic.

The new report indicates that coal doesn’t have another comeback in the works. This fuel, which was the country’s leading electricity source less than a decade ago, is declining as many coal-fired power plants are old and economically uncompetitive. Coal plants continue to close, and developers aren’t building new ones because of concerns about high costs and emissions, a trend underscored when renewables became the second-most prevalent source in 2020 across the U.S.

The growth in renewable energy is coming from wind and solar power, with wind responsible for about one-third of the growth and solar accounting for two-thirds, the report says, and combined output from wind and solar has already exceeded nuclear for the first time in the U.S. Other renewable sources, like hydropower and biomass, would be flat.

In fact, the growth of wind and solar is projected to be so swift that the combination of just those two sources would be 18 percent of the U.S. total by 2024, which would surpass coal’s 17 percent.

A key variable is overall electricity consumption. EIA is projecting that this will fall 1 percent in 2023 compared to 2022, due a mild summer. Then, consumption will increase 1 percent in 2024.

If demand was rising more, then natural gas power would likely gain market share because of gas power plants’ ability to vary their output as needed to respond to changes in demand.

I asked Eric Gimon, a senior fellow at the think tank Energy Innovation, what he thinks of these latest numbers.

He said wind and solar have gotten so big that it almost makes sense to track them as their own categories as opposed to lumping them into the larger category of renewables. He expects that the government will do this sometime soon.

Also, he thinks the projected increases for wind and solar, while substantial, are still smaller than those resources are likely to grow.

“My experience over the last 10 years is that the EIA tends to have flattish forecasts,” he said, meaning the federal office has underestimated the actual growth.

Some energy analysts have criticized EIA for being slow to recognize the growth of renewables. But much of the criticism is about the Annual Energy Outlook, which has numbers going out to mid-century, even as the U.S. is moving toward 30% from wind and solar by the end of the decade. The Short Term Energy Outlook, with numbers going one year into the future, has been more reliable.

Gimon said EIA is “kind of like your conservative uncle” in its forecasts, so it’s notable that the office expects to see a significant uptick in wind and solar.

Even so, he thinks the latest Short Term Energy Outlook should be read as the lower end of the range of potential increase for wind and solar.

For him to be right, the wind and solar industries will need to figure out solutions to the challenges they’ve been having in obtaining parts; they will need to make progress in dealing with local opposition to many projects and in having enough interstate power lines to deliver the electricity. And, new policies like the Inflation Reduction Act will need to have their desired effect of encouraging projects through the use of tax incentives.

It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that clean energy industries will make some progress on all of those fronts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Toronto Olli 2.0 Self-Driving Shuttle connects West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO with autonomous micro-transit. Electric shuttle pilot by Local Motors and Pacific Western Transportation, funded by Transport Canada, features accessibility, TTC and Metrolinx support.

Key Points

An autonomous micro-transit pilot linking West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO, with accessibility and onboard staff.

✅ Last-mile link: West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO

✅ Accessible: ramp, wheelchair securement, A/V announcements

✅ Operated with attendants; funded by Transport Canada

The city of Toronto, which recently opened an EV education centre to support adoption, has approved the use of a small, self-driving electric shuttle vehicle that will connect its West Rouge neighbourhood to the Rouge Hill GO station, a short span of a few kilometres.

It’s called the Olli 2.0, and it’s a micro-shuttle with service provided by Local Motors, in partnership with Pacific Western Transportation, as the province makes it easier to build EV charging stations to support growing demand.

The vehicle is designed to hold only eight people, and has an accessibility ramp, a wheelchair securement system, audio and visual announcements, and other features for providing rider information, aligning with transit safety policies such as the TTC’s winter lithium-ion device restrictions across the system.

“We are continuing to move our city forward on many fronts including micro-transit as we manage the effects of COVID-19,” said Mayor John Tory. “This innovative project will provide valuable insight, while embracing innovation that could help us build a better, more sustainable and equitable transportation network.”

At the provincial level, the public EV charging network has faced delays, underscoring infrastructure challenges.

Although the vehicle is “self-driving,” it will still require two people onboard for every trip during the six- to 12-month trial; those people will be a certified operator from Pacific Western Transportation, and either a TTC ambassador from an agency introducing battery electric buses across its fleet, or a Metrolinx customer service ambassador.

Funding for the program comes from Transport Canada, as part of a ten-year pilot program to test automated vehicles on Ontario’s roads that was approved in 2016, and it complements lessons from the TTC’s largest battery-electric bus fleet as well as emerging vehicle-to-grid programs that engage EV owners.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Home Solar Cost vs Utility Bills compares electricity rates, ROI, incentives, and battery storage, explaining payback, financing, and grid fees while highlighting long-term savings, rate volatility, and backup power resilience for homeowners.

Key Points

Compares home solar pricing and financing to utility rates, outlining savings, incentives, ROI, and backup power value.

✅ Average retail rates rose 59% in 20 years; volatility persists

✅ Typical 7.15 kW system costs $18,950 before incentives

✅ Federal ITC and state rebates improve ROI and payback

When shopping for a home solar system, sometimes the quoted price can leave you wondering why someone would move forward with something that seems so expensive. 

When compared with the status quo, electricity delivered from the utility, the price may not seem so high after all. First, pv magazine will examine the status quo, and how much you can expect to pay for power if you don’t get solar panels. Then, we will examine the average cost of solar arrays today and introduce incentives that boost home solar value.

The cost of doing nothing

Generally, early adopters have financially benefited from going solar by securing price certainty and stemming the impact of steadily increasing utility-bill costs, particularly for energy-insecure households who pay more for electricity.

End-use residential electric customers pay an average of $0.138/kWh in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In California, that rate is $0.256/kWh, it averages $0.246/kWh across New England, $0.126/kWh in the South Atlantic region, and $0.124/kWh in the Mountain West region.

EIA reports that the average home uses 893 kWh per month, so based on the average retail rate of $0.138/kWh, that’s an electric bill of about $123 monthly, or $229 monthly in California.

Over the last 20 years, EIA data show that retail electricity prices have increased 59% across the United States, with evidence indicating that renewables are not making electricity more expensive, suggesting other factors have driven costs higher, or 2.95% each year.

This means based on historical rates, the average US homeowner can expect to pay $39,460 over the next 20 years on electricity bills. On average, Californians could pay $73,465 over 20 years.

Recent global events show just how unstable prices can be for commodities, and energy is no exception here, with solar panel sales doubling in the UK as homeowners look to cut soaring bills. What will your utility bill cost in 20 years?

These estimated bills also assume that energy use in the home is constant over 20 years, but as the United States electrifies its homes, adds more devices, and adopts electric vehicles, it is fair to expect that many homeowners will use more electricity going forward.

Another factor that may exacerbate rate raising is the upgrade of the national transmission grid. The infrastructure that delivers power to our homes is aging and in need of critical upgrades, and it is estimated that a staggering $500 billion will be spent on transmission buildout by 2035. This half-trillion-dollar cost gets passed down to homeowners in the form of raised utility bill rates.

The benefit of backup power may increase as time goes on as well. Power outages are on the rise across the United States, and recent assessments of the risk of power outages underscore that outages related to severe weather events have doubled in the last 20 years. Climate change-fueled storms are expected to continue to rise, so the role of battery backup in providing reliable energy may increase significantly.

The truth is, we don’t know how much power will cost in 20 years. Though it has increased 59% across the nation in the last 20 years, there is no way to be certain what it will cost going forward. That is where solar has a benefit over the status quo. By purchasing solar, you are securing price certainty going forward, making it easier to budget and plan for the future.

So how do these costs compare to going solar?

Cost of solar

As a general trend, prices for solar have fallen. In 2010, it cost about $40,000 to install a residential solar system, and since then, prices have fallen by as much as 70%, and about 37% in the last five years. However, prices have increased slightly in 2022 due to shipping costs, materials costs, and possible tariffs being placed on imported solar goods, and these pressures aren’t expected to be alleviated in the near-term.

When comparing quotes, the best metric for an apples-to-apples comparison is the cost per watt. Price benchmarking by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows the average cost per watt for the nation was $2.65/W DC in 2021, and the average system size was 7.15 kW. So, an average system would cost about $18,950. With 12.5 kWh of battery energy storage, the average cost was $4.26/W, representing an average price tag of $30,460 with batteries included.

The prices above do not include any incentives. Currently, the federal government applies a 26% investment tax credit to the system, bringing down system costs for those who qualify to $14,023 without batteries, and $22,540 with batteries. Compared to the potential $39,460 in utility bills, buying a solar system outright in cash appears to show a clear financial benefit.

Many homeowners will need financing to buy a solar system. Shorter terms can achieve rates as low as 2.99% or less, but financing for a 20-year solar loan typically lands between 5% to 8% or more. Based on 20-year, 7% annual percentage rate terms, a $14,000 system would total about $26,000 in loan payments over 20 years, and the system with batteries included would total about $42,000 in loan payments.

Often when you adopt solar, the utility will still charge you a grid access fee even if your system produces 100% of your needs. These vary from utility to utility but are often around $10 a month. Over 20 years, that equates to about $2,400 that you’ll still need to pay to the utility, plus any costs for energy you use beyond what your system provides.

Based on these average figures, a homeowner could expect to see as much as $12,000 in savings with a 20-year financed system. Homeowners in regions whose retail energy price exceeds the national average could see savings in multiples of that figure.

Though in this example batteries appear to be marginally more expensive than the status quo over a 20-year term, they improve the home by adding the crucial service of backup power, and as battery costs continue to fall they are increasingly being approved to participate in grid services, potentially unlocking additional revenue streams for homeowners.

Another thing to note is most solar systems are warranted for 25 years rather than the 20 used in the status quo example. A panel can last a good 35 years, and though it will begin to produce less in old age, any power produced by a panel you own is money back in your pocket.

Incentives and home value

Many states have additional incentives to boost the value of solar, too, and federal proposals to increase solar generation tenfold could remake the U.S. electricity system. Checking the Database of State Incentives for Renewables (DSIRE) will show the incentives available in your state, and a solar representative should be able to walk you through these benefits when you receive a quote. State incentives change frequently and vary widely, and in some cases are quite rich, offering thousands of dollars in additional benefits.

Another factor to consider is home value. A study by Zillow found that solar arrays increase a home value by 4.1% on average. For a $375,000 home, that’s an increase of $15,375 in value. In most states home solar is exempt from property taxes, making it a great way to boost value without paying taxes for it.

Bottom line

We’ve shared a lot of data on national averages and the potential cost of power going forward, but is solar for you? In the past, early adopters have been rewarded for going solar, and celebrate when they see $0 electric bills paid to the utility company.

Each home is different, each utility is different, and each homeowner has different needs, so evaluating whether solar is right for your home will take a little time and analysis. Representatives from solar companies will walk you through this analysis, and it’s generally a good rule of thumb to get at least three quotes for comparison.

A great resource for starting your research is the Solar Calculator developed by informational site SolarReviews. The calculator offers a quote and savings estimate based on local rates and incentives available to your area. The website also features reviews of installers, equipment, and more.

Some people will save tens of thousands of dollars in the long run with solar, while others may witness more modest savings. Solar will also provide the home clean, local energy, and U.S. solar generation is projected to reach 20% by 2050 as capacity expands, making an impact both on mitigating climate change and in supporting local jobs.

One indisputable benefit of solar is that it will offer greater clarity into what your electricity bills will cost over the next couple of decades, rather than leaving you exposed to whatever rates the utility company decides to charge in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canada Electricity Decarbonization Costs indicate challenging greenhouse gas reductions across a fragmented grid, with wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas tradeoffs, significant GDP impacts, and Net Zero targets constrained by intermittency and limited interties.

Key Points

Costs to cut power CO2 via wind, solar, gas, and nuclear, considering grid limits, intermittency, and GDP impacts.

✅ Alberta model: eliminate coal; add wind, solar, gas; 26-40% CO2 cuts

✅ Nuclear option enables >75% cuts at higher but feasible system costs

✅ National costs 1-2% GDP; reserves, transmission, land, and waste not included

Along with many western developed countries, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45 percent by 2030 from 2005 emissions levels, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a huge challenge that, when considered on a global scale, will do little to stop climate change because emissions by developing countries are rising faster than emissions are being reduced in developed countries. Even so, the potential for achieving emissions reduction targets is extremely challenging as there are questions as to how and whether targets can be met and at what cost. Because electricity can be produced from any source of energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and any combustible material, climate change policies have focused especially on nations’ electricity grids, and in Canada cleaning up electricity is viewed as critical to meeting climate pledges.

Canada’s electricity grid consists of ten separate provincial grids that are weakly connected by transmission interties to adjacent grids and, in some cases, to electricity systems in the United States. At times, these interties are helpful in addressing small imbalances between electricity supply and demand so as to prevent brownouts or even blackouts, and are a source of export revenue for provinces that have abundant hydroelectricity, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec.

Due to generally low intertie capacities between provinces, electricity trade is generally a very small proportion of total generation, though electricity has been a national climate success in recent years. Essentially, provincial grids are stand alone, generating electricity to meet domestic demand (known as load) from the lowest cost local resources.

Because climate change policies have focused on electricity (viz., wind and solar energy, electric vehicles), and Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, this study employs information from the Alberta electricity system to provide an estimate of the possible costs of reducing national CO2 emissions related to power generation. The Alberta system serves as an excellent case study for examining the potential for eliminating fossil-fuel generation because of its large coal fleet, favourable solar irradiance, exceptional wind regimes, and potential for utilizing BC’s reservoirs for storage.

Using a model of the Alberta electricity system, we find that it is infeasible to rely solely on renewable sources of energy for 100 percent of power generation—the costs are prohibitive. Under perfect conditions, however, CO2 emissions from the Alberta grid can be reduced by 26 to 40 percent by eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy such as wind and solar, and gas, but by more than 75 percent if nuclear power is permitted. The associated costs are estimated to be some $1.4 billion per year to reduce emissions by at most 40 percent, or $1.9 billion annually to reduce emissions by 75 percent or more using nuclear power (an option not considered feasible at this time).

Based on cost estimates from Alberta, and Ontario’s experience with subsidies to renewable energy, and warnings that the switch from fossil fuels to electricity could cost about $1.4 trillion, the costs of relying on changes to electricity generation (essentially eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy sources and gas) to reduce national CO2 emissions by about 7.4 percent range from some $16.8 to $33.7 billion annually. This constitutes some 1–2 percent of Canada’s GDP.

The national estimates provided here are conservative, however. They are based on removing coal-fired power from power grids throughout Canada. We could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset—available wind and solar energy might be lower than indicated by the available data. To take this into account, a reserve market is required, but the costs of operating such a capacity market were not included in the estimates provided in this study. Also ignored are the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, environmental and human health costs, and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News