Tag Archives: Negawatts

Unsustainable Energy and Climate Reality

“Climate models,” according to Daniel Baer and Noah Gordon, in the Washington Post, here, “are complicated things. They must consider a staggering number of mathematical and physical variables to predict, for instance, how emitting a given amount of carbon dioxide will change the flows of air, water and heat between the atmosphere and the oceans. More sophisticated projections go further, showing how temperature changes will affect rainfall in a certain region, which in turn will affect crop yields and, as a result, the carbon cycle.”

However, as illustrated above, from “Climate.gov,” here, atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentrations have increased close to 50% since 1750, when they were under 280 ppm, to around 420 ppm today.

Continue reading →

Virtualization: 20% Lower Cost to Build; 70% Lower Costs for Power, Cooling & Operations

Imagine an small to mid-sized enterprise which needs accounting, document management, e-mail, a central file repository, centralized printer management, and a central anti-virus console. These services can be put on discrete servers, along with, using Microsoft’s authentication model, a redundant pair of machines described as “Domain Controllers.” Add an “Intranet” and a central backup system and you’re looking at 10 servers, at a cost, as shown in Table 1, below, in the neighborhood of $54,000.

The advantage of discrete servers for discrete functions is that maintenance on one system does not effect any others. By wrapping the logical functions – accounting, e-mail, etc – into “virtual machines” we get the same advantages – maintenance and upgrades to one system do not effect other systems – while reducing the total number of physical machines.

This can be “Virtualized” onto two or three servers at a cost, as shown in Table 2, below, in the neighborhood of $26,000 to $36,000. These are summarized in table 0, below.

Price Comparison
Item	Ballpark
Physical	$54,000.00
Virtual	$26,000.00
V w Archive	$36,000.00
Table 0

This savings also scales. Larger enterprises, which require more servers, may realize a 10 to 1 server consolidation.

Continue reading →

Nega-Watts, Nega-Fuel-Watts, Mega-Bucks

On Dec. 21, 2012, I launched the Popular Logistics Sustainable Energy Portfolio Simulation. After 6 weeks, as of the close of business 2/7/13, the results are:

The Sustainable Energy Portfolio is UP 12.6%
The Fossil Fuel Reference Portfolio is UP 5.09%

In comparison,

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is UP 6.52%
The S&P 500 is UP 5.52%

While six weeks is a very short time frame, except for fruit flies and Day Traders, the Popular Logistics Sustainable Energy Portfolio outperformed the Dow, the S&P 500, and the Fossil Fuel Reference Portfolio by a wide margin. In the same time frame the Fossil Fuel Reference Portfolio also underperformed these indices.

Details are below

Continue reading →

NY Times: Hydraulic Fracturing: “Cleaner than Coal”

Helicopter Cruising Greenland Ice Sheet

“To Make Fracturing Safer,” editorial, in May 11, 2012, begins “Gas … is cleaner than coal” and concludes “Oil and and gas drilling will always be a risky business; the administration cannot let pass this opportunity to make it safer.”

Clean and Green within 18 is the opportunity the Administration should not let pass. We should – MUST – shift to 100% sustainable energy in 18 years! Solar, wind and other sustainable energy systems do not require fuel and day-to-day operations do not create waste. Thus these “negafuelwatt” systems are clean; not just “cleaner than coal.” And they are also cleaner than oil, gas, and nuclear power.

Continue reading →

Apple, Google, IBM – the way forward

Apple HQ, Cupertino, California

Back in 1965, IBM CEO Thomas J. Watson, Jr, wrote, in IBM’s Basic Beliefs & Principles,

“We accept our responsibilities as a corporate citizen in community, national, and world affairs; we serve our interests best when we serve the public interest…. We want to be at the forefront of those companies which are working to make the world a better place.”

Today, IBM says “Sustainability is no longer an option. Sustainability is an imperative.” IBM is focused on making data centers and supply chains more efficient, and providing their customers with tools to become less unsustainable (IBM green blog). The European Commission awarded IBM for energy efficiency at 27 data centers (IBM Press Release).

However, it looks to me that Google and Apple are one or two steps ahead of IBM. Google has invested $915 Million in solar arrays, which should be 1.0 to 1.5 MW. Apple is putting a 5MW solar array on the roof of it’s headquarters in Cupertino, pictured above, and described here on Treehugger and here on 9to5mac. Apple is also using solar and biofuel to power it’s new data center in South Carolina (article in Renewable Energy World). Essentially:

A 100-acre, 20 megawatt (MW) solar array, supplying 42 million kWh of energy each year.
A 5 MW biogas system to come online later this year, providing another 40 million kWh of 24×7 baseload renewable energy annually. Apple claims this will be the largest non-utility-owned fuel cell installation in the US.
Combined, that’s 82 million kWh/year of onsite renewable energy generation at the facility.

For more details, see the 2012 Apple Facilities Report.

Apple’s building may be a derivative design of the Widex headquarters, in Allerød, Denmark, described on Widex home page, here. The Widex building is a ring that surrounds a large atrium courtyard to be planted with grass, flowers and trees and is according to Widex,”designed to be both pleasant to look at and be in…. and environmentally friendly

Heat for the building will be supplied by a geothermal system, where groundwater is used like a heat reservoir; excess heat in summer can be stored and used when needed during winter. Our ambition is to reduce energy consumption by 75 percent compared to traditional technology.

Apple, Google, and IBM report high profits. Their stock prices are also high, perhaps demonstrating the correlation between doing well and doing good.

NegaWatts Save MegaBucks

The Newark Star Ledger reported (here and here) that Public Service Electric and Gas, PSE&G, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG, is installing a 2,700-ton chiller the University of Medicine and Dentristy of New Jersey, UMDNJ. This an $11.4 million investment in negawatts. The Star Ledger reported that UMDNJ will save $1.3 million per year on energy costs.What’s the payback? An $11.4 million investment will save $1.3 million per year. That means the system will pay for itself within 9 years, assuming the price of energy remains constant. I think it’s a much more reasonable to assume that the price of energy will go up, so the payback will be higher and the system will pay for itself sooner.

The system will work long after it is paid for. It will save $13 Million over the next 10 years and $26 Million over the next 20 years – assuming electricity costs are constant. Assuming electricity costs increase an average of 5% per year, this will save $16.35 Million over the next 10 years, and $42.99 over the next 20 years.

Projected Savings of $11.4 Million investment.
After 1 Year: $1.3 Million, a return on investment of 11.4% in one year.
After 5 Years: Save $7.18 Million, for a total ROI of 63%, assuming a 5% annual increases in cost of energy.
After 10 Years: Save $16.35 M; total ROI of 143.4%).
After 15 Years: Save $28.05 M; total ROI of (246%)
After 20 Years: Save $42.99 M; total ROI of 377%).

cialis prix pharmacie

We have Governor Corzine to thank. as well as Governors Whitman, McGreevey, Codey, and Christie.

Continue reading →

Copenhagen, Climate Change, China, and Dessert

Earlier today one of my friends handed me a copy of some satire published in the New York Post, a tabloid in the tradition of the London rags, on the subject of “Climate-Gate.” At about the same time, Roger Saillant, co-author of Vapor Trails, who heads the Fowler Center for Sustainable Value at Case Western Reserve University pointed me to Elizabeth May’s post on the hacked computers and stolen e-mails at East Anglia University. Ms. May leads Canada’s Green Party.

Patrick Michaels, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is really a public relations arm of Exxon Mobil, was once a scientist at the University of Virginia. He is famous for giving testimony attacking Dr. James Hansen to the U.S. Senate. However, when interviewed by Elizabeth May on Canada’s CBC Sunday Morning’s “Kyoto on Trial” in 2002, Michaels admitted to redrawing Hansen’s graph to make it wrong. Michaels, who has traded the scientific method for Stanislavsky’s acting method, admitted to perjury in his testimony before the United States Senate.

The graph shows the amount of sea ice from July thru November from 1979 to 2000, then in 2005, 7, 8, and July thru Sept., 2009. It is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder Colorado (here) published Oct. 6, 2009. The dark gray line shows Arctic sea ice from 1979 to 2000. The gray band shows 2 standard deviations from the mean. The colorful lines show that Arctic sea ice is at or well below two standard deviations from the mean levels of 1979 to 2000. Clearly there is less ice in the Arctic then there used to be. Continue reading →

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.

the ‘tamara drewe’ movies

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.