http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/19/AR2008101902073.html

While oil prices can sometimes represent a game of Chutes and Ladders, the acceptance of the people on alternative fuel methods can often follow a similar pattern. As this Washington Post article on electric cars points out, the lack of permanent commitment and embrace by the public brings difficulties to creating a realistic transition away from fossil fuels and making a sustainable market for new vehicles and technologies. The struggle to change consumer behavior to favor and actually purchase the new vehicle model remains even with an energy crisis and oil dependence still present.

Its proponents say the electric car has transformative potential that other transportation alternatives lack. "We want customers to see the Volt as the game changer it is, not only for the technology, but also for business, and maybe more importantly for the way the world drives," said Troy A. Clarke, president of GM North America.

 

"Reducing our oil dependency meaningfully in the U.S., under any scenario, requires radically improving the efficiency of our vehicles," says Saurin D. Shah, a vice president at investment firm Neuberger Berman who expects an explosion of hybrid and plug-in cars by 2030. He predicts hybrid and electric cars will replace conventional vehicles as swiftly as electric locomotives replaced steam-driven ones.

 

But because their batteries are expensive, plug-in cars are going to cost as much as $8,000 more than conventional gasoline cars. The lower the price of gasoline, the longer it is going to take for fuel savings to make up for the car purchase premium. That is one reason why Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has proposed a $7,000 tax credit for consumers who buy electric cars. Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) favors a $5,000 tax credit for cars with ultra-low emissions.

While government subsidies, grants, and private sector financing can help provide financial support for the development of the electric car industry, it does not sell them. It appears that a majority of drivers are still unwilling to transition away from their beloved Hummer H2 because of the lack of understanding of how an electric vehicle is maintained and the lack of infrastructure currently in place to support it. Combined with an economic existential crisis, there is even less spending or business development across the board, causing an even greater hill for electric car proponents to climb.

Washington Post; October 20, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/rooftop-wind-turbines-ready-for-commercial-use.html

As urban and suburban areas continue to grow, so does the demand for large buildings to find ways to power their increasingly massive structures. But in Chicago, researchers from University of Illinois - Chicago are taking it one step further by allowing new and old buildings to produce their own energy by taking advantage of technology mounted on their rooftops. Aerotecture turbines essentially make buildings into their "own power plants", and encourages the idea behind a decentralized system of renewable energy that forms networks instead of one grid. These new densely-packed turbines are much quieter and more convenient for urban and suburban communities than the current designs of wind turbines. The revolutionary architecture that includes wind energy within building design can help reduce the dependence of fossil fuels in densely populated work areas and communities that continue to struggle with the cost of energy.

MetaEfficient; October 1, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/fashion/25gym.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

There is no shortage of incentives to working out: good for the cardiovascular system, helps lose weight, increases serotonin levels in the brain that help us feel better, relieves stress, etc. But while many people turn to home gym equipment or their neighborhood fitness center, electricity is eaten up by all this activity.

But what is happening to the energy we produce through sweaty, exhausting workouts? In the early days of our country, that energy was harnessed through labor and household chores that are now obsolete due to technology. Now, developers in places like Portland, Oregon are finding ways to put this hard work back to use. By fitting stationary bikes with an arm crank and hooking them up to generators, people can burn hundreds of calories while generating hundreds of watts of electricity in response. Clubs around the country are coming up with numerous ways to revolutionize exercise into an energy advocate rather than abuser.

The club has energy efficient treadmills, remanufactured elliptical trainers and barbells “rescued from negligent owners on Craigslist,” Mr. Boesel said. Wall-mounted solar panels, to be installed this fall, will generate about eight kilowatts of electricity, he said. The gym doesn’t have any showers or drinking fountains, and the club’s 70 members live within walking distance, “which is probably the greenest part of the gym,” Mr. Boesel said.

 

The idea to install power generating machines came from a Hong Kong club, California Fitness, that opened last year with similar equipment. On the same day the Microgym opened, the Ridgefield Fitness Club in Ridgefield, Conn., installed yet another version of the technology from a company called the Green Revolution — on 17 of the club’s stationary bicycles.

 

“There’s an undercurrent,” Mr. Boesel said. “In 20 years, all cardio equipment will probably have the capability of generating electricity.”

 

The typical health club uses a huge amount of energy and water, said John Kersh, a former director of international development for the International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association. But a growing number of conservation-conscious consumers are beginning to change that, he said. “It’s not just, ‘How do you get fit?’ ” Mr. Kersh said. “It’s: ‘How do you make your lifestyle healthier? How do you reduce your carbon footprint?’ ”

Of course, anyone can ride their bike or run outside and not need an electrical outlet. But several people utilize gyms when the weather conditions are bad, late at night, or when there are few desirable outdoor areas at their disposal. While the infrastructure costs of these new operations are also daunting, so is the cost of doing nothing. That may be enough incentive to get people off the couch and start generating some power of their own.

The New York Times; September 25, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922100148.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080911150048.htm

Normally, discussion about climate change and global warming generates images of ice melting. As glaciers disappear, hurricanes surge and tides rise, warming is observed through various examples of hotter water. But as scientists have studied in Antarctica, ice that remains intact is the key to many understandings of what is occurring to the Earth's atmosphere. The ice filled region of the South Pole contains ice cores, which are accumulations of ice and snow over a period of several years. Within the ice cores is relevant information that indicates the levels of important greenhouse gases with each time in history. Scientists have been using ice cores to analyze the global carbon cycle and climate for 70,000 years and have found more evidence to link climate change to increased carbon dioxide levels.

In the last Ice Age, as during most of Earth's history, levels of carbon dioxide and climate change are intimately linked. Carbon dioxide tends to rise when climate warms, and the higher levels of carbon dioxide magnify the warming, Brook said. These natural cycles provide a "fingerprint" of how the carbon cycle responds to climate change.

In contrast to the relatively low levels of carbon dioxide in the Ice Age, the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution has led to levels of greenhouse gases that by comparison are off the charts. The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide today is about 385 parts per million, or more than double that of some of the lower levels during the Ice Age. These changes have taken place at a speed and magnitude that has not occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer. Past studies of ice cores have suggested that Earth's temperature can sometimes change amazingly fast, warming as much as 15 degrees in some regions within a couple of decades.

While the ice cores are not melting, they are providing alarming evidence that the present levels of greenhouse gases are troubling. With these observed correlations, scientists have further proof that their predictions of a warming climate are correct. By their estimations, it appears that a continuously hotter Earth is inevitable if nothing is done to reduce the climbing levels of carbon dioxide.

Science Daily; September 15, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107824722120577.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm

Several palates will be skeptical of this new strategy, but UN climate change scientists have a new way to combat greenhouse gas emissions – by challenging our daily diet. Most people have meat with each meal, and according to new estimates by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, this habit is the blame for 18% of the greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere. The UN scientists conclude that if people lower their consumption of meat products, demand is lowered and less farm area is necessary. While many people understand the main culprit to be the animals releasing methane through their waste product, that is actually only one part of the problem. The primary issue is the land clearance that occurs when more farmland is needed, which occurs with the increased demand for more meat production. The loss of tropical forest land is especially crucial in contributing to the global warming trend.

The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.

 

The contributions of the three main greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - are roughly equivalent, the FAO calculates.

 

Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind's greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.

 

Dr. Pachauri will be speaking at a meeting organised by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), whose main reason for suggesting people lower their consumption of meat is to reduce the number of animals in factory farms.

 

CIWF's Ambassador Joyce D'Silva said that thinking about climate change could spur people to change their habits.

 

"The climate change angle could be quite persuasive," she said.

 

"Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what's on their plate could have an even bigger effect."

Since several hamburger enthusiasts have trouble grasping the concept of giving up meat, changes in the production process could be a more welcoming approach. And while people may be resistant to giving up their craving for meat, restaurants and other food distributors might choose to encourage a changed diet, similar to their approach to using less plastic bags and packaging. A mix of societal, governmental, and corporate controls will have to account for any change that occurs to the standard "meat and potatoes" mentality.

BBC NEWS; September 7, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV7z6TGMMJP4J2L4KWix9DADnEiAD92Q55801

It might sound like a lesson plan for an Intro to Macroeconomics course; the conclusion that subsidies can cause fiscal havoc in the markets. But in addition, popular energy subsidies are a growing threat to preventing global warming. According to a new U.N. report, governments around the world are ignoring basic economic theories and environmental hazards that result from the presence of these subsidies. The report, just released by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), details the impacts that have occurred due to the establishment of numerous energy subsidies by countries including Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and India. By serving as an incentive for the continued use of fuel by consumers and the current methods of producers, the subsidies are discouraging energy conservation and efficiency. They also hamper the implementation of renewable energy development by protecting the status quo.

 "In the final analysis, many fossil fuel subsidies are introduced for political reasons but are simply propping up and perpetuating inefficiencies in the global economy," said UNEP director Achim Steiner, who also is a U.N. undersecretary general.

In a statement released with the report, Steiner advised governments to "urgently review their energy subsidies and begin phasing out the harmful ones."

Several countries have felt the consequences of cutting subsidies. Last year, riots erupted In Myanmar when cash-strapped authorities raised fuel prices as much as 500 percent. In the last few months, India, China, and Indonesia have all trimmed their fuel subsidies, unable to keep pace with the rapid rise in oil prices.

The U.N. report said money could be redirected into programs that support low income families more directly and should be targeted to promote green energy, such as wind or solar.

Cutting off the subsidies would be good for the environment as it would reduce carbon emissions by as much as 6 percent, said Zahedi.

Free market advocates and environmentalists agree that these subsidies for modern energy use are hurtful, based on the detrimental effect the subsidies have on economic equilibrium and environmental preservation that both groups desire most. But since there are numerous types of subsidies and different approaches to providing energy, it is hard to determine what should be done. Creating new subsidies that are directed at renewable energy practices is a promising solution, although economists will stress the importance to preserving quality market conditions as well.

The Associated Press; August 27, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

A recent newspaper article [Arizona Republic 06/30/08 - Cost Impediments Remain to AZ's use of solar power] summarized a lot of questions people are asking about the solar power industry in addressing the affinity people are developing for renewable energy technologies in this era of climate change, but decrying the costs of installation. The article was focused on the state of Arizona which would seem to be a very favorable climate and terrain for solar power, and questioned why there weren't more solar power installations. The reason for the lack of installations was given simply as cost: solar power plants are expensive propositions in a state where electricity is fairly inexpensive right now. In contrast, California with its relatively high electricity costs, was pointed to as a place where solar is doing better and solar photovoltaic (PV) technology was particularly singled out for its potential. But given the high energy costs currently plaguing consumers and the attention energy policy is receiving from Congress and the Presidential candidates, the time for renewable energy to finally reach its potential seems to be now. The issue is how this can be accomplished?

B&D Consulting put these and other questions to Mr. Jigar Shah, Chief Strategy Officer and founder of the SunEdison Corporation. SunEdison builds commercial to utility-scale PV installations, and has taken a different approach to providing solar-based electricity to its customers by owning, operating and maintaining the solar installations it builds on its customer's premises, and selling the electricity generated back to the customer who contracted for the plant.

How would you respond to those that say High Costs are the major obstacle to the more widespread deployment of solar power?

Most central station energy projects have a five to ten year "build-out", which represents the total time from planning to commissioning of the plant. When you consider the costs of a five to ten year duration for a build-out, solar PV costs the same or less than other peaking sources. The main obstacle to solar PV is the reluctance of some utility companies to empower their customers to take advantage of on-site instead of central-station power.

What's the payback period for a "typical" solar PV installation?

A more relevant question solar may be: "what is the risk adjusted cost of solar vs. grid power?" Over the 40-year life expectancy of a solar PV system, solar is projected to be between 5-25% cheaper than the grid alternative for peak power. Recent price hikes have pushed the predicted savings in future years to the higher end of the range.

What's on the horizon for future solar photovoltaic technology that will make it more efficient, or help with the intermittency issue?

The cost of solar PV has consistently declined 5% per year over time. Some short-term material shortages have increased price, but cost has continued to come down. Some of those reductions come from thinner silicon wafers, high efficiency, thin-film technologies, and other innovations. While we are seeing PV technology cost continuing its 5% annual cost reduction, we do not see dramatic improvements accelerating that trend.

Regarding the intermittency issues, these are really only relevant for wind power. Solar is very coincident with air conditioning loads. European utilities that have solar capacity installed love the technology. Combined with basic demand response which utilities are already investing in, distributed solar PV is a firm resource meaning that it can be counted on to reduce demand on utility systems during peak usage times.

Storage technologies are said to be key to solar's future; do you agree? Will new utility-scale storage battery technologies help with non-peak applications?

No, I don't agree. Storage is a technology for the utility to create a more robust grid, and is not tied to or essential for solar reaching a high penetration rate.

Would a discrete ten year program of declining federal government subsidies be enough to finally establish solar PV as a competitor to fossil electric power?

Absolutely. This was true for nuclear in the 60s & 70s ($66B invested), natural gas in the 80s, and wind in the 90s. This is the decade for solar PV where the government can serve the national interest for energy security and cleaner air by investing in the technology as it reaches scale. Once this scale is reached, the government incentives will just have to be normalized to the other energy technologies on a BTU basis. If the government is finally able to reduce coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil subsidies to zero given their high profit margins, solar can also live without subsidies.

With a number of state governments moving towards renewable portfolio standards or requirements, will this help the industry finally be competitive?

Solar is a distributed generation technology. Forcing utilities to buy renewable energy will still not incentivize nor empower their customers to install renewable energy.

If costs are a major obstacle to solar PV in Arizona, would it work in less sunny states like Massachusetts or Indiana?

If utility companies were to pay the exactly the same peak power premium for distributed solar PV as they are paying for central station solar thermal, solar PV would be more cost effective. The problem is that utility companies are afraid of distributed generation technologies, just like the traditional phone companies were afraid of distributed cell phones.

Given the concerns over Climate Change and the role of developing countries, what would you say are the prospects for solar power internationally?

Solar PV markets have grown over 40% per annum over the past 5 years. On an absolute dollar basis, the industry is bigger than the wind industry in 2007. Prospects are good.

Are the economics of solar PV more amenable to developing country markets and applications (i.e., with higher numbers of sunnier days in developing world markets, is PV more useful than for peaking applications)?

Solar PV is ideal for places all around the world from remote areas in Alaska with limited sun and high diesel fuel prices, to the deserts of Africa where there is ample Sun and little access to other energy sources.

While SunEdison is focused on commercial markets, what would you say to residential customers that would want to take advantage of solar PV technology to lower their energy costs?

For consumers interested in solar, they should advocate for local city officials and utilities to deploy a more cost effective centralized solar solution for their communities as a whole. It’s aggregation benefits the entire community and immediately helps the local environment.

It would seem that the next President and Congress will have the opportunity to help Solar PV and other renewable energy technologies to firmly and finally establish themselves. If a program of tax credits for renewables can be designed over a longer-term but discrete time frame, we may finally see renewables as a significant, self-sustaining contributor to US power needs and a new, greener economy for years to come. The end game is to provide one of many needed bridges away from high-carbon content fuels.

Submitted by R. Campbell; August 27, 2008

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0711-saving_marshes__saving_the_planet.htm

According to the Science Daily, it appears that soil scientists have managed to kill two birds with one stone - or more optimistically put - solve two problems with one solution. Field research by the scientists has shown that a new method for restoring wetlands can sequester carbon dioxide at a rate of three to eight tons per acre per year. By pumping dirt and sediment from the bottom of shipping channels and spreading the dredged material over the wetlands, new marsh grasses are produced. Since the decomposition of the marshes is a very slow process, the revitalized wetlands capture carbon dioxide and keep it there. With the carbon dioxide trapped in the marshes instead of being released into the atmosphere, the marshes help assist in the prevention of the greenhouse effect, a trend that continues to threaten the Earth's ecosystems. Along with fighting global warming through carbon sequestration, the restoration will also contribute to recovering the benefits of marshes, including habitats for wildlife and shoreline storm protection.

Science Daily; August 25,2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford