Category Archives: Energy

Questions on Sustainability and Human Ecology, Part 1

Earth, curtesy of NASA

Earth, curtesy of NASA

Charles Dickens’ A Tale Of Two Cities begins, “It was the best of time, it was the worst of times.”  Dickens wrote about life in Paris and London at the time of the French Revolution. Looking at the modern world, I get the sense that the phrase still applies. I feel like John Muir at Yosemite, in awe of the beauty of the natural world, and simultaneously, like Henry David Thoreau fighting a terrible injustice on the underground railroad. Or like Al Gore working on energy policy at “We Can Solve It . Org ”, saying “We can move to 100% clean energy in 10 years, Bill McKibben at “350.org” saying if we don’t move to a sustainable energy model the climate will keep changing for the worse, Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society patrolling the seas to stop illegal whaling, Charles Moore of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, exploring and documenting the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” and many others in the sustainability community, frustrated and angered by much of what we see, and yet optimistic and hopeful.

Our economy and our civilization are based on burning large amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas. Doing so converts these gases, rocks, and tar that had been underground into components of the atmosphere: carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and disperses various other items, including mercury, arsenic, and radionucleotides into the biosphere.

The volume we are talking about is huge. Enough such that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere went from 280 ppm before the industrial revolution to 385 ppm today, an increase of about 37.5%. This is so dramatic that we must ask questions about the ramifications of this on the weather and the climate. We must understand the geological ramifications of pulling 75 million barrels of oil per day out of the ground, and the meteorological implications of burning, and putting into the atmosphere 43.5 million barrels of oil, and tons and tons of coal and natural gas each day. We must also understand the ecological ramifications of dispersing 31.5 million barrels of oil per day into the biosphere as herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and plastics.

We must also consider that these are finite resources. We will some day, sooner or later, run out of coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. The Bruntlandt Commission’s classic definition of sustainability, quoted by the EPA, is “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Saying “it’s ok, my kids will deal with it, will clean up the mess,” is not sustainable. Neither is it honorable.

Fossil fuels and nuclear power are not sustainable because they use fuels that are in finite supply and create vast amounts of waste that must be managed.  Wind, solar, and geothermal systems, on the other hand, are sustainable because there are no fuels to burn, and no waste to manage. Wind, solar and geothermal energy systems harness naturally occurring processes. The sun shines, the winds blow, the core of the earth is hot, regardless of whether we put solar panels or wind turbines or geothermal systems in place to capture and transform some of the energy.

Burning rocks and tar sounds like a bad idea – and it is.

Harnessing natural processes, on the other hand, may be “out of the box,” but it’s also elegant, honorable, and sustainable over the long term.

NPR's Talk of the Nation: Could $20-Per-Gallon Gasoline Make Us Happier?

From NPR’s Talk of the Nation, Thursday, 16 July.

Could $20-Per-Gallon Gasoline Make Us Happier?

When it’s time to fill up the gas tank, many fear the price of gas will return to the $4-a-gallon days of last summer. But according to author Chris Steiner, our lives would be a lot happier and healthier if gas prices rose into the double digits. Steiner explains himself, and the title of his book: $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better.

CAFE Standards – Not Meaningless, But Trivial

Pres Obama has raised the CAFE standards from 27.5 mpg to 35.5 mpg, by 2016.  Raising the CAFE standards to 35.5 mpg in 7 (or 26) years is not the change we need. It is very little, and very late. The standard for cars has been 27.5 mpg since 1990 (DieselNet).  However, at least we are starting to move forward. Union of Concerned Scientists provides a good summary.

CAFE standards were effective in increasing new car and truck fuel economy by 70 percent between 1975 and 1988. In 2000 alone, CAFE standards saved American consumers $92 billion, reduced oil use by 60 billion gallons of gasoline, and kept 720 million tons of global warming pollution out of our atmosphere.

Dependence on Foreign Oil. American cars, trucks and SUVs account for approximately 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption. Much of this oil is imported and our foreign oil reliance continues to grow. U.S. consumers currently spend $1 billion every day to import oil and other petroleum products. Achieving 35 mpg by 2020 as directed by the recently passed energy bill will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020—over half the oil the U.S. currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

Environment. For every gallon of gasoline that is consumed, approximately 24 pounds of global warming pollution are released into the air. Drilling, refining, and distributing gasoline account for about 5 pounds of global warming pollution per gallon of gasoline, and burning gasoline during vehicle operation produces another 19 pounds of global warming pollution per gallon. Increasing fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020 can cut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 206 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020.

Economy. A fleet of cars and light trucks that reaches 35 mpg will cost about $1,000 to $2,000 extra per vehicle. This additional cost will be more than offset by the fuel savings consumers will enjoy over the life of the vehicle. Consumer fuel savings along with automaker investment to produce a 35 mpg fleet by 2020 will help spur the creation of more than 170,800 new jobs in the year 2020.”

“It’s important to note that all companies will be required to make more efficient and cleaner cars,” said an unnamed EPA official quoted on the “Personal Money Store“. “We do that by proposing individual standards for each class size of vehicle and then a fleet average for each company. This has the effect of preserving consumer choice – you can continue to buy whatever size car you like, all cars get cleaner.”

The Hummer, the Escalade, seat 5 and get 8 miles to the gallon.  Even if you double the milage, or triple the mileage, you’re talking 16 to 24 mpg. That’s terrible. There are no logical and compelling reasons to buy, drive, or build these vehicles – which is part of the reason for GM’s decent into bankruptcy.

Aside from the environmental problems; we buy petroleum from Iran, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Veneuzeula, and soon, Iraq. There are profound national security problems associated with this, with petroleum, with a dependence on foreign powers for a resource on which our whole economy is based.
We have the technology. The Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg, and has been available since 2001. The new Honda Insight gets 40 mpg. Bright Automotive has announced a cargo van that will get 100 miles to the gallon, and which will be on the road in 2010.

100 mpg vehicles are the change we need.

The next step would be a Plug-In Hybrid that runs on Bio-Deisel.

One problem is that we all are stuck between the rock of the environmental and national security challenges associated with obtaining a resource from potentially or occasionally hostile foreign powers and the hard place of people like the Heritage Foundation, which has been fighting against the CAFE standards since 1991. Back then they said small cars are unsafe, American car manufacturers don’t know how to build small cars so CAFE would cost jobs, and big cars are our birthright. Today they say government standards don’t work, it will cost more to retool auto plants to build cars people need so we should just keep churning out vehicles that people don’t need and can’t afford, and we have the right to drive trucks (2009). A Heritage Foundation post from 2001 claimed that a) small cars are unsafe, and b) because oil imports have risen the CAFE standards have failed. Oil imports have risen because demand is inelastic and domestic wells have run dry. The Heritage Foundation doesn’t believe in “peak oil” it says the taxpayers should subsidize oil shale. As a taxpayer, I’d rather subsidize solar and wind than oil shale, especially since the subsidies will be lower.

But the fact of the matter is that there are no Jed Clampetts in Louisiana, Oklahoma, or Texas shooting at varmints and hitting gushers. The new “Texas Tea” will be brewed in a solar tea kettle. Or it will be air temperature – and pretty hot.

Sustainable Kensington-Windsor Terrace: Energy Conservation Teach-In

The Toeprint Project and and Sarah Goodman, the environmental educator, have teamed up to form SustainableKensington-Windsor Terrace (KWT), and they are holding An Energy Conservation Teach-In

Come to the Oak and the Iris Café, located at 2826 Fort Hamilton Parkway on the corner of East 4th Street on Wednesday, June 17thfrom 6:30-8:30PM to learn how you can make your home or apartment building healthier, more energy efficient and environmentally responsible.

  • Energy Conservation techniques
  • Weatherization: Waste less energy through air sealing, increased insulation, window upgrades and improved ventilation.
  • Solar Panels: Learn if your building is a good candidate for installing solar panels and start making your own electricity and hot water.
  • Meet neighbors who have weatherized their homes and installed solar panels.
  • Hear from local Contractors and Providers about costs, financial and environmental benefits and government incentives to help offset the costs.

Guest Speakers will include representatives fromAEON Solar, A.S.K. Construction, Solar 1, and 1BOG (One Block Off the Grid).

We encourage you to arrive at 6:30 to chat with our presenters and your neighbors before the formal presentation at 7:00.  We encourage you to purchase a delicious cup of coffee, muffin, sandwich, or dinner entrée from our lovely eco-minded hosts.

Via The Toeprint Project.

Eco-Watts v Killer-Watts

Burning fossil fuels and using nuclear power create tremendous waste problems.  Harnessing the sun, the wind, and the heat of the earth use energy with no fuel – therefore no pollution. The question is Eco-Watts v Killer-Watts. The choice is ours!

Back in the late ‘1970’s Amory Lovins , a physicist, coined the term “NegaWatts” to describe the energy that could be saved with conservation and efficiency. “The cheapest energy,” he said, “and the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t use.” A negawatt is a unit of power not consumed.

Lovins’ associate, Marvin Resnikoff, PhD, another physicist, currently at Radioactive Waste Management Associates, then teaching environmental thinking at SUNY University of Buffalo – Rachel Carson College, used the term “nuclear constipation” to describe the nuclear waste problem. It’s an apt metaphor – the waste doesn’t go away.

We are struggling not only with nuclear constipation, but carbon constipation. We burn carbon to get from place to place, to heat and cool our homes. But the carbon doesn’t go away. It goes into the air from under the ground. To paraphrase Al Gore,

We are borrowing from China to buy oil from the middle east and pull coal out of the ground to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. But enough wind blows through the midwest corridor in a day, enough sunlight falls on the earth in FORTY MINUTES to provide the power we need for a year.

Harnessing the wind, the sun, and the earth eliminates these problems. Rather than burning a fuel; wind, solar, and geothermal harness a process. The sun shines whether or not we use solar panels to capture some photons. The wind blows regardless of our decision to use a few particles to spin a turbine. We are hitchin’ a ride on a moving train.

Negawatts – units of power not consumed.

Eco-watts – units of power generated by clean energy systems, by harnessing a process rather than consuming a fuel.

Killer-watts – units of power generated by consuming a fuel, which produces a quantity of pollution, such as carbon dioxide, radioactive wastes, mercury, arsenic, etc.

Go Solar, Make Money

Cassandra Kling, an old friend of mine, currently with Infinite Energy, is sponsoring “Solar Energy Options for your Home” Tuesday, May 12. 7 – 8 PM. Hampton Inn, 16 Frontage Drive, in Clinton, NJ. Find out about Solar technologies, Installation, Incentives, the costs and how to make money. The answer is SREC’s. Go Solar. Fight Climate Change. Make Money.

Obama In Strasbourg, On Sustainability

At the “Town Hall” meeting in Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009,  (Washington Post, LA Times, NY Times, White House.gov, NY Times Video)   President Obama spoke intelligently and well. FRANCE NATO OBAMA SARKOZY

He summed up the challenges we face:

We also know that the pollution from cars in Boston or from factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, and that that will disrupt weather patterns everywhere. The terrorists who struck in London and New York plotted in distant caves and simple apartments much closer to your home. And the reckless speculation of bankers that has now fueled a global economic downturn that’s inflicting pain on workers and families — is happening everywhere, all across the globe.

President Obama also made very strong statements on “Sustainability” and “Globalization.”

Continue reading →

Republican Alternative Energy: Coal, Oil, & Nuclear Power

“The Republican Road to Recovery”  according to John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Thaddeus McCotter, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, John R. Carter, Pete Sessions, Kevin McCarthy, David Dreier, Roy Blunt, who signed it, “Keeps Energy and Fuel Costs Low.” It mentions wind and solar, but focuses on coal, oil, oil shale, offshore drilling, and nuclear power.

The document says “Republicans want energy independence with increased development of all natural resources, including renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.” It doesn’t mention “global warming.” It mentions the term “greenhouse gases” once, stating, incorrectly, that nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases. Mining, processing, and transporting nuclear fuel, and managing radioactive wastes, produces tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases.

It points out that “Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry … have long fought a renewable wind project in waters off of Massachusetts…. Cape Wind, would provide 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket island. “

The document focuses on coal, oil, and nuclear power. These are not clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources.  Ultimately, therefore, it attempts to “greenwash” coal, oil, and nuclear power.

the Administration has already taken steps to hinder the leasing of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is estimated to hold at least 19 billion barrels of oil, and Democrats have long championed the prohibition on drilling in the Arctic Coastal Plain – which is estimated to hold 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Furthormore, Democrats continue to block the procurement of advanced alternative fuels from sources such as oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology. U.S. Oil shale alone could provide about 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.

Republicans also support opening the Arctic Coastal Plain to energy exploration and development.

And despite expert agreement that nuclear power is reliable, clean, and affordable without producing air pollution or greenhouse gases, Democrats continue to block its development.

Republicans realize that there are better solutions to restore freedom and security in our energy market.  Republicans recognize the importance of exploring for American oil and gas in an envionronmentally-sound manner and support immediately leasing oil and gas resources in the OCS through an an expedited and streamlined procedure.

Republicans support removing government barriers to new nuclear reactors as long as they meet strict security and safety criteria.

Americans realize that the future of energy is in alternative and renewable sources. In order to promote the development of renewable and alternative energy, Republicans support promoting the leasing of federal lands which contain alternative energy such as oil shale. … spurring a market by using fuels derived from oil shale, tar sands, and coal.

Nuclear Fusion in 10 or 20 Years

Thomas Friedman is right in “The Next Really Cool Thing” in The New York Times, March 15, 2009, when he concludes:

At the pace we’re going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we’ll still need coal for some time. But let’s make sure that we aren’t just chasing the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.

Note that he pointed out ‘the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal.

Friedman also said:

“I don’t know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard…. we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.”

Fusion may be the game changer. “Energy Gain” means we get more energy out than we put in. The prototype will cost $10 Billion – enough for 5 GW of wind capacity, and 1.53 GW of PV Solar. And fusion is at least 10 years away, maybe 20, maybe 50. We know how to build wind and solar. (On the other hand it takes 10 years to build a nuclear fission reactor.)

But pushing carbon below 350 ppm is a problem that can’t wait 10 years.  According to the World Watch Institute’s Vital Signs, 2007-2008, the 6.5 billion humans on the earth are using the natural resources of 1.25 earths.  This can’t go on.

MIT unveils 90 MPH solar car

Via the Autopia blog on Wired.com – “MIT Unveils 90 MPH Solar Race Car“, by Chuck Squatriglia:

MIT’s latest solar race car might look like a funky Ikea table with a hump, but don’t laugh. It’ll do 90 mph and is packed with technology that may end up in the hybrids and EVs the rest of us will soon be driving.

MIT Solar Team with "Eleanor"

MIT Solar Team with “Eleanor”

The university’s Solar Electric Vehicle Team, the oldest such team in the country, unveiled the $243,000 carbon-fiber racer dubbed Eleanor on Friday and is shaking the car down to prepare for its inaugural race later this year. “It drives beautifully,” said George Hansel, a freshman physics major at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the team. “It’s fun to drive and quite a spectacle.”

Eleanor is slated to compete in the tenth World Solar Challenge, a seven-day race across nearly 2,000 miles of Australian outback.

See also Mr. Squatriglia’s 10 Best Songs About Cars.

As Economic Activity Declines, China’s Energy Consumption Follows

Andrews S. Revkin reports on Dot Earth that Chinese energy use has declined more or less following economic activity.

chart by Richard K. Morse, Stanford University; data by Statistical Bureau, China

Good news or bad? Depends on what’s happening with Chinese energy infrastructure while its economy contracts. Our guess – and it’s a guess – is that high energy prices provide an incentive to switch to clean, sustainable energy. Air quality, of course, is inversely proportional to the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The Dot Earth Project (at our hometown paper) – and Mr. Revkin’s work– are supported in part by the John Simon Guggenheim Project. We’ll try to keep up with it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY IN SCOTLAND

Scotland has a large share of the EU’s not-as-yet captured wind, hydro, and tidal energy. Edinborough was the birthplace of Marine Current Turbines, MCT,

which develops turbines driven by tides and ocean currents. While it may seem counter-intuitive, Solar Hot Water heating works well despite the cloud cover. The Scottish Community and Householders Renewable Initiative, SCHRI, offers grants of up to 30% for installation of solar hot water heating systems. See also The Renewable Energy Centre and for a general laudatory discussion Renewable energy in Scotland – Wikipedia.

Police budgets and gasoline prices

Times are tough – police departments all over the country are being careful about expenses for vehicle fuel.

Only one of a number of fuel-conservation strategies adopted by the NYPD.

Only one of a number of fuel-conservation strategies adopted by the NYPD.

Shaila Dewan reports in The New York Times that police departments across the country are adapting to higher gasoline prices with innovation, and sometimes clear benefits. From As Gas Prices Rise, Police Turn to Foot Patrols

:

As gasoline soars past the $4-a-gallon mark, police chiefs in towns and cities across the country are ordering their officers out of the car and onto their feet in a budgetary scramble.

“It’s changing the way we police,” said Chief Mike Jones of the Suwanee Police Department, who has asked his officers to walk for at least one hour of every shift. “We’re going to have to police smarter than we have in the past.”

Chief Jones budgeted about $60,000 for fuel in the fiscal year that ended last month; the department spent $94,000. This year, he budgeted $163,000 – a large line item in a budget of $3.8 million.

– snip –

Departments have switched to lower octane gasoline and installed G.P.S. receivers in patrol cars to make dispatching more efficient. State troopers have gone from cruising the highways to sitting and monitoring traffic in “stationary patrols.”

Salt Lake City is considering raising charges on city employees who are permitted to use government vehicles to drive to and from work:

Continue reading →

Gore proposes 10-year plan to produce entire U.S. energy consumption via renewables

Via Ron Fournier of the Associated Press, Gore sets ‘moon shot’ goal on climate change, dated today (16 July 2008). An excerpt:

Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are “way ahead” of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

[We haven’t examined either candidates’ positions on these issues carefully – but we take Senator Gore’s implicit  point – that the necessity will be present whoever wins the election – Eds.]

–  snip –

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.

“This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over,” Gore said. “It’s an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels.”

Excerpted from Gore sets ‘moon shot’ goal on climate change. By Ron Fournier of The Associated Press.

We understand – or believe – that the AP has been concerned about excessive use of their reports. We believe the above excerpt complies with the “fair use” doctrine. Also – Fournier’s lead – the comparison to the space program – is particulary apt, and should be useful in public discussion.