Archive | January, 2007

Incandescent Power Grab

How far will the government go in controlling our lives? In California’s state house, left-wing and right-wing political opportunists are joining forces to enact sweeping green legislation that is often of questionable value – raising the ante. Now some have called for a statewide ban on incandescent lightbulbs. This latest prospect of flawed and over-reaching law takes the cake in many ways, almost surpassing California’s pending prohibition on parents spanking their own young children.

Incandescent Bulb
Endangered
Incandescents

First of all, incandescent lights don’t pollute, dirty energy production is what pollutes. Why don’t California’s legislators fund another million solar rooftops instead? Why don’t they create incentives for investors to build in-state photovoltaic panel and industrial battery manufacturing plants? Why don’t the legislators mandate energy efficient elevators in commercial buildings? For that matter, why don’t they come up with new and comprehensive green standards to retrofit all commercial buildings, starting with those over 100,000 square feet? There are many ways to increase the supply and reduce the demand for electricity, without having to invade the insides of our homes!

A green hack is anyone who wants to push along today’s ultra fashionable “green, green, how much I want you green” bandwagon without bothering to assess who might be getting run over, or where better the bandwagon might go. That some of California’s ultra-green politicians may actually believe they are doing good is only somewhat reassuring. These are the same people who helped kill the electric car so they could waste billions of dollars and waste decades of precious time on hydrogen fuel cell cars.

And where will big government go next? Beginning in the late 1970’s, California had a drought that lasted over ten years. There will be another drought, and when there is, we will either manufacture more water, or the government will come into our homes – turning our showers into mist dispensers, rationing our wash cycles, and mandating cactus instead of lawns. When all we had to do was build a couple of desalinization plants (two kilowatt-hours is all it takes to desalinate a cubic meter of water), or increase our groundwater storage, or make everyone pay market rate – residential water consumers don’t use that much water, and pay far, far more than farmers do for their supply. A slight increase in water pricing, with means-tested credits for low income residents, would manage any drought, and fund investments in new water utilities. Using fair taxation schemes (if there is such a thing) is also the proper way to promote efficient electricity consumption, not through rationing, or punitive pricing for heavy residential users of water or electricity. If you think about the precedents represented by a ban on incandescent light bulbs, you will not support it. It is the wrong approach.

Another way to describe a green hack is anyone who might support drastic and long-term measures based on fluid tactical data. There are many ways to build a light bulb, with sea-changes imminent. Technically speaking, a light emitting diode could be considered incandescent, are we going to ban them, too? These “LED” bulbs are coming onto the market and have very low intrinsic costs to manufacture. Florescent bulbs, in spite of years of research, still require subsidies to be affordable. If you ban cost-effective incandescents now, you impart an advantage to the well-established florescent manufacturers to the detriment of the emerging and more efficient LED manufacturers. When it comes to light bulbs, innovation is better than regulation.

Instead of banning incandescent lighting, why doesn’t California’s legislature ban any form of lights on the outside of residences that exceed a reasonable amount of lumens? There are homeowners who think it’s ok to install a complete 360 degree array of 500+ watt outdoor lights. Too many homeowners have extreme outdoor lights; this is ridiculous, obnoxious light pollution, and collectively a prodigious waste of energy. If our legislators want to intrude again into our lives with regulations, let them be good ones. Ban over-illumination of outdoor neighborhoods at night.

What about the fact that florescent light looks bad? To threaten to come into our homes, and force us all to remove warm, variable, many-hued incandescent light bulbs, replacing them with blazing, micro-flickering, ultra cool, glaring and invariable florescents – this is an insulting, unconstitutional affront carrying possibly no benefit to society, and calls into question the competence of any legislator who might support it. And don’t tell someone who doesn’t like florescent light that they look “better nowadays.” Maybe we just like being able to see the glowing incandescent filament through the clear glass bulb. Or maybe some of us have different tastes, and finer discernment. Don’t regulate our personal illumination in our own homes! What about the fact that increasing numbers of homes are energy positive; they ought to be able to make any use of their energy they wish – including operating inefficient, but aesthetically acceptable incandescent lights.

So wake up, California legislature, and leave incandescent lights alone. Don’t discourage us from investing in energy positive homes, nor force us to turn our warm kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms into florescently illuminated industrial warehouse space.

Posted in Buildings, Cars, Consumption, Drought, Electricity, Energy, Hydrogen, Light Pollution, Policy, Law, & Government, Solar5 Comments

China's Renewable Energy

CAN CLEAN RENEWABLES INCREASE THEIR SHARE OF CHINA’S RAPIDLY EXPANDING ENERGY SECTOR, AND IF SO, WHEN?
Aerial View of the Three Gorges Dam
With output up to 17.5 gigawatts
China’s Three Gorges Dam is the most powerful
hydroelectric power complex ever built.

Editor’s Note: As we reported in China, Canals & Coal, if the Chinese wish to develop their economy to the level of the major industrialized nations, they will have to build as many power plants and water diversion projects as they possibly can, and that is exactly what they are doing. The question is just how much of this energy and water will be green, and the prognosis is daunting.

In this assessment of China’s renewable energy initiatives, the unprecedented attention the Chinese government is giving to green energy is only half the story. It is true they now intend to derive 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, but 15% isn’t very much, and within this total is hydroelectric power, and in any case the 15% target may be ambitious.

If one correlates energy production to GNP, even assuming China achieves western levels of energy intensity (units of energy per dollar of GNP), China is going to have to increase their energy production from 50 quadrillion BTU’s per year to over 250 quads. This means that while production of renewable energy in China is set to increase by staggering amounts, the amount of fossil fuel derived energy consumption in China, in absolute terms, is going to quintuple in the next few decades.

This is the message the anti-CO2 crowd doesn’t get. Even if the billion people in the developed world stopped emitting all their CO2 tomorrow, and they won’t, there are over a billion people in China, and another billion people in India, and another few billion elsewhere in the world, who are going to burn quantities of CO2 in the coming decades that easily surpass what the global north burns today. More realistic solutions to global warming, such as releasing benign aerosols in the Arctic spring and summer, had better be considered. It is inspiring to imagine how innovation and global investment will help China and India accelerate their adoption of green energy technology, but a close reading of this report underscores the challenges and complexity of this calling. – Ed “Redwood” Ring

China’s Renewable Energy – Can clean renewables increase their share of China’s rapidly expanding energy sector?
by Gordon Feller, January 30, 2007
A Clear Day in Shanghai
A clear day in Shanghai.

China’s government plans for renewable energy generation to meet 15% of the country’s growing energy needs by 2020.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency look set for a boost as Beijing authorities have now outlined plans to diversify their energy resources in the face of continued price rises, pollution concerns and China’s unquenchable fuel and electricity demands.

In its “alternative oil strategy,” which is part of the China’s 2006-2010 Five-Year Plan, Beijing has called for a doubling in renewable energy generation to 15% of the country’s needs by 2020.

The target is in line with a new renewable energy law requiring grid operators to purchase resources from renewable energy producers. The law, which came into effect in January, also offers financial incentives to foster renewable energy development, including discounted lending and a range of tax breaks.

Tsinghua University Logo

Of the main renewables, wind power is tipped to have the most potential. Professor Wang Weichang, an energy expert at Tsinghua University in Beijing, predicted wind was on course to supplant hydro as the country’s second-largest electricity source, behind coal. Wang said China has the ability to generate up to 100 gigawatts, or 20% of current national capacity.

Beijing also plans to use other alternative energy sources as part of a drive to cut coal dependence from 73% of total generation today to 68% by 2010 and 60% by 2020. Vast investments in new technologies to turn coal into synthetic oil have been announced, and ethanol production will be boosted to create hybrid fuel by mixing it with regular gasoline. With China nearing a deal with Australia on uranium supply, nuclear power is also in the picture, with generation expected to rise 400% by 2020.

But a report released last month by consultants at Capgemini suggests China has underestimated future demand, putting its target at risk. The report estimated an additional 280GW of electricity will be required by 2020 on top of the 950GW already planned, meaning coal-fired power plants would still provide 71% of China’s electricity needs by 2010 and 65% by 2020.

This is good news for energy efficiency proponents, as a reduction in demand will help the government meet its targets. Beijing has said it is looking to relax its tightly controlled energy-pricing system to encourage conservation and energy efficiency plans have also been put in place. The construction ministry announced pans to increase energy-efficient floor space by 2.16 billion square meters by 2010, saving 101 million tonnes of coal.

China is increasing international cooperation with the world’s heavyweight energy producers to address growing demands. The country’s top oil refiner, Sinopec, signed a memorandum of understanding last month with India’s second biggest state-run oil company, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, for energy projects in China, India and other countries. Meanwhile, China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) was also expected to sign a gas supply agreement with the world’s biggest gas producer, Russia’s monopolist Gazprom. In the US, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said there needed to be greater international co-ordination on energy issues, especially with China and India, to address concerns about growing global competition for energy resources.

The powerful National Development and Reform Commission said that filling of China’s strategic oil reserves at its 16-tank Zhenhai facility in the eastern province of Zhejiang was on schedule to begin by the end of this year. It is the first of four strategic oil reserves to be completed. Reserve facilities in Daishan, Zhejiang province, Huangdao, in Shandong province southeast of Beijing, and Xingang, in northeastern Liaoning province, are due to be completed in 2007 and 2008. Beijing plans to stockpile up to 100 million barrels of petroleum, or the equivalent of almost a month’s national consumption, to cushion against possible disruptions to supplies coming from abroad.

The country’s power-generating capacity will reach a record high this year when new generators producing an additional 75 million kilowatts come on line in 2006. But China Electricity Council secretary-general Wang Yonggan said shortages would still persist in the first half of 2006. Power shortages affected seven provinces at the end of 2005, down from 26 at the beginning of the year, as China’s power supply increased by 66.02 million kW to more than 500 million kW.

China’s rapidly growing economy is pushing energy consumption to new highs as the increasingly affluent populous plugs in and turns on more appliances than ever, adding to the high-voltage factory hum that has long characterized the country’s modernization efforts.

The chief means of meeting this insatiable demand is the domestic coal reserve, which accounts for 74% of China’s 360-gigawatt total annual power output. Oil is a distant second on 13.5%, followed by domestic hydro-power at 8.2%, nuclear energy at 1.1% and natural gas at 0.3%.

But coal presents several problems. Around 70% of the country’s coal is transported by rail from the coal-rich north to the energy-hungry coastal regions. While China accounts for 24% of global rail traffic, it only has 6% of the world’s rail tracks, resulting in bottlenecks in the transport network followed by regional power shortages. Despite US$248 billion being committed to rail expansion over the next 15 years, historical underinvestment means there is much ground to be made up.

A potentially more serious concern is environmental pollution and the related healthcare and clean-up costs, which are adding ever more weight to calls for a diversification away from coal.

Although China’s thirst for fuel means that consumption will still increase in absolute terms, there are plans to reduce coal’s contribution to the power supply to around 60% by 2020, with increased output from gas, nuclear and renewable options.

To this end, official muscle has been put behind alternative power sources. China’s Renewable Energy Law, which came into effect in January, decreed 20% of total national energy consumption should come from renewable sources by 2020.

China is set to spend US$200 billion over the next 15 years to achieve this goal, which would make it the world’s largest consumer of renewable energy.

In solar power, China already leads the world, with a total of 52 million square meters of solar energy heating panels in China representing 40% of the global total. Wind power appears to have incredible growth prospects. Installed capacity was just 1.3GW in 2005, but China aims to increase that to a world-leading 30GW by 2020. Potential installed capacity stands at 250GW onshore and 750GW offshore.

Nuclear power, and the foreign players queuing up to build the 30 new atomic power stations planned over the next 15 years, could also win big as China targets a 400% increase in capacity by 2020.

However, alternative energy sources do not yet produce nearly enough power to replace fossil fuels. It is generally thought within China’s expert community that not only do these sources provide negligible power, but the power they do produce is still prohibitively expensive.

While renewables may be the holy grail for China, oil is increasingly becoming the focus of its geopolitical maneuvrings.

Once a net exporter of oil, China imported 47.3% of its crude in the first half of 2006. Oil will fall as a proportion of total energy consumption with greater efficiency in coal delivery and the growing emphasis on renewables and nuclear power. But – just like coal – actual oil demand will continue to rise, principally through imports.

The US Department of Energy predicts China’s crude imports will represent 75% of national oil consumption by 2025, and domestic oil producers are busy buying foreign assets to meet this need. Beijing’s diplomatic tentacles have spread to Africa, Asia, Australia, the Middle East and the Americas in search of the black stuff.

China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) acquired PetroKazakhstan for US$4.2 billion, teamed up with an Indian group to buy a stake in Syrian oil assets and secured drilling rights in Sudan in a joint bid with China Petrochemical Corp. It has also struck exploration and supply deals in Venezuela and Peru, and took a 4% stake in Rosneft for US$500 million when the Russian oil giant went public in July.

China Petrochemical has also snared a slice of the Russian pie by forming a 25.1% owned joint venture last year with Rosneft to explore the eastern seaboard of Russia for oil and natural gas. Not to be outdone, China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) paid US$2.7 billion in April for a 45% stake in a Nigerian oil field.

Escalating consumption has made conservation measures commonplace in China. Factor in an energy market that is becoming ever more volatile in the current geopolitical landscape and the only certainty for China is that as demand keeps rising so will the priority attached to securing energy resources.

But such acquisitions will not be used exclusively to serve the home market, unless Beijing further deregulates energy pricing. China’s retail prices remain among the lowest in the world as authorities seek to protect vulnerable sectors.

Sinopec, the listed arm of China Petrochemical, received a one-off state handout of US$1.17 billion in January to compensate for losses incurred due to caps on domestic oil-product prices. This was a sweetener to stop the company from putting profits before domestic needs – last year’s diesel and gasoline shortages in southern China and Shanghai were created by Sinopec re-exporting refined products to Korea and Japan to maximize profits.

Unless there is a substantial rise in domestic prices, companies will continue to siphon off some of their newly acquired foreign oil assets to use as a source of foreign exchange.

For every tonne that is traded, swapped or sold abroad, another question mark will be placed against China’s energy security.

What is the future of China’s use of fuel ethanol? It is already used in five provinces and Beijing seems ready to bankroll a nationwide roll-out. But is biofuel a viable alternative to gasoline?

China’s oil demands are already the stuff of legend. Urbanization, industrialization and a six-fold increase in private vehicle ownership over a decade have left the country dependant on foreign sources for 40% of its oil. This figure is expected to pass 60% in 2010 and 76% in 2020 as imports go from 4.6 million to 8.5 million barrels per day.

The price is not just financial – the International Energy Agency predicts China will account for 18% of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, up from 12% in 2000.

Beijing is taking action. Measures outlined in the 11th Five-Year Plan for 2006-2010 won’t end the dependency on foreign oil and dirty coal, but they should see wind, water, sunlight and nuclear power keeping the lights on for significantly more people than before. Those same people could also be filling their gas tanks with ethanol fuels.

“China needs to import a lot of oil so the government is looking at alternative fuels,” said Christine Pu, energy and chemicals analyst at Deutsche Securities Asia. “The advantage of ethanol is it’s good for the environment.”

Launched in 2000, China’s fuel ethanol industry is still in its infancy. According to GTZ, a German company that advises on energy management on behalf of the German government, total bio-ethanol production is around 4 million tonnes. Three quarters of it is edible ethanol and the remainder fuel ethanol.

“At present it’s largely limited to research institutions and there has yet to be much spillover from the labs into the marketplace,” said Frank Haugwitz of GTZ-China. By the end of 2005, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Henan and Anhui Provinces were wholly dependant on 10% ethanol-90% gasoline fuels (E10), with certain regions in Hubei, Shandong, Hebei and Jiangsu following suit. Studies have shown that using E10 reduces carbon dioxide emissions by up to 3.9%.

GTZ has calculated that a nationwide roll-out of E10 could see fuel ethanol demand reach 8.5 million tonnes per year by 2020.

The government appears ready to meet its goal. Four bio-ethanol plants, with production capacities ranging from 200,000-500,000 million tonnes per year, are under development. In the Jilin Fuel Ethanol plant, China already possesses what is believed to be the world’s largest fuel ethanol facility with a capacity of 600,000 tonnes per annum.

The vice-minister for finance said in July that China is committed to a long-term bio-fuel development program, noted Professor Liu Dehua of Tsinghua University’s chemical engineering department, who has been involved in China’s fuel ethanol program since its inception.

“By 2020, liquid bio-fuel production will be 20 million tonnes a year – comprising 15 million tonnes of ethanol and 5 million tonnes of bio-diesel.”

China has also cast its net wide in search of the key to success with fuel ethanol. Professor Liu has been to Brazil twice – most recently in April, accompanying officials from the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Science and Technology – to study a system under which all vehicles must run on fuel comprising at least 20% ethanol.

China’s 11th Five Year Plan
Never before has the environment
been such a high priority.

“China wants to learn from Brazil’s experiences in promoting fuel ethanol production and find out what impact using ethanol has on the environment,” said Liu. The officials were also keen to see Brazil’s flex-fuel vehicles that run on varying combinations of gasoline and ethanol.

Thirty years ago, Brazil faced some of the energy challenges that now confront China. It imported 75% of its oil in 1975 and received a series of economic body blows as the price of oil fluctuated during the course of the decade.

The development of fuel ethanol has greatly reduced this vulnerability.

However, experts warn against viewing the two countries as being at separate points on the same developmental path.

“Brazil used to import a lot of crude oil as China does now,” said Deutsche Securities Asia’s Pu. “But the big difference is that Brazil is a large producer of sugar cane while China uses corn for its ethanol.”

The situation is complicated by the high priority China attaches to food security. If it’s a choice between corn for food and corn for ethanol, the food need wins hands down. Three of the four large scale ethanol facilities under development will use sugar-based energy crops or sorghum – not only does this resolve the food-or-energy dilemma, but ethanol can be created more efficiently from these crops.

Based on their extensive work in China’s energy economy, Germany’s premier technical cooperation organization, GTZ, identified potential planting areas in southern provinces such as Guangdong and Guangxi, where the climate is more conducive to growing sugar and sorghum.

“China has multiple choices,” said Professor Liu. “It wants to diversify and can grown corn in the north and sugar cane in the south.”

Mount Tianshan in the highlands of Xinjiang. Will China
preserve the breathtaking beauty of her vast country
as she becomes the world’s leading energy producer?

But the mounting pressure being placed on China’s deteriorating farmland by the growing food demands of an increasingly affluent population means that land use is a sensitive issue. China will be a net grain exporter this year on the back of bumper crops but in the long-term, imports will grow and grow. Despite the food supply pressures, Liu believes farmers will benefit from the fuel ethanol development whether they diversify into sorghum and sugar or stick with corn.

“When the government first started the ethanol program, the price of oil was not high and the attention given to the pollution situation was not great. The reason ethanol production was important was the impact it would have on farmers’ incomes.”

For Beijing-based independent energy analyst Jim Brock, fuel ethanol in China can serve the same purpose it does in the US as far as farmers are concerned – a means of insurance.

Surplus corn that decays before it can be transported elsewhere, or grain that fails to make the grade for human consumption or cattle feed suddenly has an end-use.

“There is not really any conflict between food supply and energy supply,” he said. “In almost all cases, the production value for food is much more. It all comes down to having a supply valve so the corn that cannot be used for food is used for energy.”

Ultimately, the rise of ethanol as a viable alternative fuel hinges on the price of oil. A GTZ price comparison earlier this year put fuel ethanol in the region of US$460 per tonne, although this included a US$175 subsidy per tonne of ethanol. Production costs can be as much as US$617 per tonne, 70% of it spent on raw materials. Gasoline was priced at US$616-654 per tonne, although this too included a state subsidy.

Deutsche Securities Asia’s Pu points to a rise in global oil prices, together with oil price liberalization in China and technological improvements in ethanol production, as factors that could drive the fuel ethanol bandwagon onwards. It would take a sizeable spike in crude prices to make fuel ethanol truly competitive; otherwise, it is a question of how much Beijing is willing to spend to find the key to cost-effective ethanol production.

“Is China willing to subsidize ethanol to the extent that it has been in Brazil and the US?” asked Brock. “My impression is no – the government is willing to incentivize but not subsidize.”

About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology – with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.

Email the Editor about this Article
EcoWorld - Nature and Technology in Harmony

Posted in Chemicals, Coal, Conservation, Consumption, Electricity, Energy, Energy & Fuels, Energy Efficiency, Engineering, Hydroelectric, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Other, People, Regional, Retail, Science, Space, & Technology, Solar, Urbanization, Wind3 Comments

Infill Extremism

In the name of stopping “urban sprawl,” environmentalists have promoted the concept of “infill,” where new construction is largely confined to within the borders of existing cities. In some cases, especially in the urban core of cities, infill makes good sense. But in outlying suburbs, infill is an abomination, taking beautiful low density neighborhoods and destroying them.

Infill Extremism
Here’s what your $500K will buy,
thanks to open space fanatics.

In the name of stopping urban sprawl, our cities have been cordoned off with “green belts” that prevent development from spreading naturally outwards. Clearly some attempts to preserve agricultural land and wildlife habitat are justifiable. But these environmentalists don’t have reasonable goals; they want to stop all development, everywhere. And they are succeeding.

Because “infill” is the only acceptable form of development, California’s cities are turning into walled-off compounds, where homes are crammed onto every scrap of open land, every vacant lot. In suburbs where there used to be one or two homes per acre, you often now see ten new homes per acre on adjacent lots. This not only ruins the character of these neighborhoods forever, but it clogs existing roads and boulevards with many times the number of vehicles they were meant to carry.

When new subdivisions are approved, something that happens all too rarely, in order to pass environmentalist muster they have to incorporate an astonishingly high population density. There are areas of new housing in Sacramento, California, where on a typical square mile of mostly single family homes along with some apartments, well over 10,000 people are living. To illustrate how extreme this is – and this is becoming the norm – the population density of Singapore is only 16,000 people per square mile. Ditto for Hong Kong. Even San Francisco, one of the most densely populated cities on the west coast, only has a population density of 15,000 per square mile.

It is simply not necessary to cram people into areas this small. These new, environmentally-correct “suburban” developments are more densely populated than most cities, with none of the cultural amenities of cities. At 10,000 people per square mile, you could fit a million people into an area only ten miles square. Even if California’s population increases at a rate of a half-million people per year, are we really saying that we can’t develop more than 50 square miles per year? California is 139,000 square miles in size!

The solution to this problem is to stand up to the environmentalists. The infill policies they advocate have become sacred in public policy circles. These well-financed and outspoken activists pack every public forum, and public officials dare not challenge them. But these environmentalist activists are the reason new homes are usually built on lots so small you can’t fit a swing set in the back yard, and yet they sell for $500,000 or more. This is not only ridiculous; it is a crime against ordinary families who want to own their own homes.

The doctrine of suburban infill must be overcome if we are to save our existing neighborhoods. And in order to bring the price of housing back down to earth, we need to lift restrictions on development on open land. There is plenty of land. If land development was not restricted outside these artificial boundaries, it would take pressure off developers to pursue destructive infill construction, and it would also result in lower density, lower cost new housing.

There are inspiring examples of infill developments that make sense, but they belong in the urban core, or directly adjacent to commercial centers on major thoroughfares. High density infill should not threaten our low-density, semi-rural suburbs, nor should extreme high density be a requirement for every new suburb.

Posted in Homes & Buildings, Policies & Solutions2 Comments

Contrarian Environmentalism

How many ways can we describe the “new environmentalism” we are attempting to promote? “Contrarian” is a word that doesn’t always have positive connotations. But to question the conventional wisdom of mainstream environmentalists is necessary. It is impossible to adhere to the adage “question authority” – a phrase typically trumpeted by liberals – if you are too selective in what you question.

Goodbye Green

The way we see it, environmentalism, properly applied, must be willing to expose its own excess. Environmentalists need to be willing to see where they have gone too far, where they have done more harm than good, indeed, where they may have become puppets for powerful special interests with a hidden agenda.

In that spirit, we have discovered a list of books that we believe are required reading for any committed environmentalist. Even if you don’t accept all of what you read, the points made in these books bear serious review.

One of the biggest myths of all is that political conservatives cannot also be sincere environmentalists. The problem with this myth is that if you believe it, you will dismiss anything conservatives have to say about the environment. But if you don’t doubt the sincerity of conservative environmentalists, then their opinions may be of great value – because environmentalism can and should transcend political ideology, and all informed points of view are essential if we are to find the best path and the best policies.

Here they are, as recommended by the “Conservative Bookstore”:

Goodbye Green: How Extremists Stole the Environmental Movement from Moderate America and Killed It

Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists

Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant Driven Environmental Groups and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future

Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Polution

Cutting Green Tape: Toxic Pollutants, Environmental Regulation, and the Law

The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment

Posted in Policies & Solutions, Policy, Law, & Government1 Comment

Biofueled Global Warming

Today’s BBC ran a story entitled “Shifting Sands,” which describes towns in the Nigerian Sahel that are being swallowed up by the Sahara desert which is marching southwards.

The presumption is this: Global warming is causing desertification, and the villages of northern Nigeria are among the victims. But this is almost certainly false. Desertification is being caused by two factors stronger than global warming – it is being caused by deforestation, and it is being caused by drought.

There is a clear link between deforestation and drought, particularly in West Africa, as cited in the MIT study “Desertification, Deforestation and Drought,” where they demonstrate that deforestation along the southern coast of West Africa (e.g., in Nigeria, Ghana and Ivory Coast) may result in complete collapse of monsoon circulation, and a significant reduction of regional rainfall. Connections between deforestation and drought are well established throughout the tropics.

Once deforestation in coastal regions causes regional drought, the abusive patterns of land use in the interior, where swollen populations continue to forage for firewood even though they consume it far faster than it grows, leave the parched land even more vulnerable to desertification.

In West Africa the biggest new cause of deforestation in many regions is to grow biofuel. The land rush to establish biofuel plantations in developing nations is one of the most intense the world has ever seen. Literally millions of square miles could be turned into biofuel plantations in the tropics, and the impact this will have on global rainfall and global temperatures is incalculable – it is surely comparable to anything caused by anthropogenic CO2.

Moreover, the rush to deforest the tropics to grow biofuel – cassava in Nigeria, sugar cane in Brazil, oil palms in Indonesia – is a form of neocolonialism that environmentalists should find horrifying. Tariff barriers are being streamlined to allow tropical developing nations to export biofuel to the industrial north, food crops are being crowded out, small farmers are unable to participate, and in 100 square mile increments, land ownership passes into the hands of energy multinationals. And weather patterns take a turn for the worse.

If biofuel is to have a future we can all look forward to, it will be factory farmed using algae or the like – otherwise it would take nearly all the farmland and forests in the world for biofuel to replace petroleum. Biofuel is valuable as a supplemental fuel if it is grown on arid lands to stablize soil and reverse desertification, but not as a cash crop on land where tropical rainforests once stood.

It is interesting that environmentalists expend considerable energy trying to provide indigenous peoples alternatives to firewood, yet condone industrial-scale deforestation to grow crops to refine and burn in the engines of our cars. Biofuel, produced in this way, is not “carbon neutral,” and it is going to accelerate global warming, not slow it down.

Posted in Cars, Causes, Drought, Energy, Regional, Trees & Forestry3 Comments

Building Green Homes

Green homes can use recycled steel for their beams, and also for a reflective metal rooftop that is lightweight and durable. Green homes can use bales of straw for the walls, a building material that is perfectly natural, abundant and cheap.

Straw House with Metal Roof
House with straw bale walls and a metal roof
Photo: BuildingGreenTV.com

Green homes can rest on a single finished concrete slab, efficently combining floor and foundation into one pour. The slab can be interlaced with tubes that channel solar heated water into the slab, warming it in winter.

In addition to providing solar-heated hot water and photovoltaic electricity, the entire roof can collect water from rain, filtering the runoff and storing it in cisterns.

There is an excellent television show called Building Green (http://www.buildinggreentv.com/) where the host introduces green building contractors and architects whose structures are as green as they come. A recent report on Building Green showed an entire roof covered in turf, with plants growing. What a fantastic way to filter rain, improve indoor energy efficiency, clean the air, and mitigate the urban heat island effect!

A goal of green buildings is to create a zero-impact building. A structure that has no net energy or water consumption, uses no toxic materials, and has no heat signature. According to statistics provided by the U.S. green building council (http://www.usgbc.org/), if the United States had 100% zero-impact buildings, they would save 40% of all national energy use, and 12% of all water use. Put another way, for every 10% gain in green building efficiency, the U.S. reduces energy consumption – from all sources – by 4%.

What is most interesting is perhaps the only remaining constraint on more green homes is the environmentalists themselves, whose activists have choked off suburban sprawl – translation: “affordable homes for you and me” – development on open land. Maybe now that the green home has arrived, environmentalists will step aside, and accept massive developments of low density green homes.

Posted in Buildings, Consumption, Electricity, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Homes & Buildings, Solar, Television5 Comments

The Facts about Global Aerosol Cooling & Global Warming

We have searched the internet under the terms “aerosol cooling” and “benign aerosols” and the like, and have scant results to report. But after all, since aerosols may refer to any particulate, why can’t non-toxic aerosols be used to cool the planet?

Aerosol-spewing Spaceplane
Aerosol-spewing spaceplanes save the icecap.
Photo: NASA

Every reputable report out there, dating back to the 1970′s, claims that aerosol forcing could trigger another ice age. The bottom line, apparently, is this: Pound for pound, aerosols – a term generally used these days to refer to all atmospheric particulates – have a much more dramatic immediate cooling effect than CO2, but the impact of aerosols diminishes much more quickly than CO2. Aerosol forcing will immediately cool the planet, such as after a volcanic eruption, but as the dust settles, within months or a few years, the forced cooling effect goes away. The effects of CO2 emissions, on the other hand, take decades to diminish.

If you believe the warming impact of atmospheric CO2 is going to last for decades even if CO2 emissions were curtailed immediately – and everyone knows they won’t be, it will take a generation – than you should be more interested in the cooling potential of aerosols, not ignoring it.

On “RealClimate.org,” a website we highly recommend, there is an entry entitled “The Global Cooling Myth,” where the author convincingly explains that aerosol forcing (cooling) is no longer predicted to have a stronger effect than CO2 forcing (warming), largely because the CO2 is longer-lived in the atmosphere, and because we have begun to clean up our heavy industry and no longer emit as much aerosols.

Well maybe we should.

Why aren’t we using aircraft to deposit aerosols over the arctic regions during crucial periods in spring and summer, in order to preserve the icepack and keep the permafrost intact? For that matter, if it will save the planet, why don’t we build giant coal fired power plants up there? Is the extra CO2 we spew for a few years, to buy us time, going to have even a small fraction as much impact as the amount of CO2 that will be released when the ice caps melt, the northern hemisphere loses its reflectivity, and the CO2 locked in frozen permafrost over millions of square miles is released? No.

We should be experimenting now with aerosol releases in the arctic. Maybe there are benign aerosols – no CO2, no toxins – that can be deployed in critical areas during critical times of year. The cooling effect of aerosols is well documented – and it doesn’t take much. Even if you believe the whole “inconvenient truth” agenda, this fact remains: We may need to increase our aerosol emissions in order to buy ourselves time to reduce our CO2 emissions.

That there is no dialogue among eminent climatologists and political leaders on the potential of aerosols to cool the planet is a mystery, and perhaps a tragedy as well.

Posted in Coal, Effects Of Air Pollution, Global Warming & Climate Change, Other2 Comments

Sacramento's Green Energy Companies

California, along with a handful of nations (mostly in Europe), has led the way in embracing clean energy and clean technology. This political will has emanated from Sacramento, California’s capitol, beginning nearly forty years ago and continuing to this day.

The progressive environmental legislation set forth in Sacramento has made the city a magnet for representatives of clean energy manufacturers from around the world, but until recently there hasn’t been clean energy entrepreneurship centered in Sacramento to match its pioneering political resolve. This is changing, however.

Our friends at CleanStart.org, who are working to accelerate the development of clean energy technology ventures within the Greater Sacramento Region, have provided us a list of clean energy companies headquartered in the Sacramento area, to which we have added companies and deleted others.

The list is not complete, but the length and breadth of what is going on gives credence to Sacramento’s aspirations to become a green technology hub.

Advanced Energy Products (Later Stage)
High Efficiency Cooling and Heating Systems
123 C Street, Davis, CA 95616
530-753-1100

http://www.davisenergy.com/

Advanced Luminescence, Inc. (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Novel Lighting Technology
West Sacramento, CA 95691
530-219-2189

Agripower (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Biomass Combustion Technology
11428 Elks Circle, Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
516-829-2000

http://www.agripowerinc.com/

Altergy Systems Sacramento (Early Stage)
Fuel Cell company (PEM) for portable and stationary applications (50W to 50kW)
Gold River, CA 95670
916-853-0328

http://www.altergysystems.com/

American Power & Light
Advanced ducted wind generators
6085 Old Sacramento Road, Plymouth, CA 95669
209-245-4689

Appropriate Energy Inc. (Early Stage)
Wind Turbine technology for low-wind areas
Gardnerville, NV 89410
775-783-9514

http://www.appropriateenergy.com/

Atlantis Energy Systems, Inc. (Later Stage)
Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV)
4517 Harlin Drive, Sacramento, CA 95826
916-438-2930

http://www.atlantisenergy.org/

Battery MD Inc. (Early Stage)
Mature Battery technology for Electric Vehicles
North Highlands, CA 95660
916-641-1807

http://www.batterymd.com/

Bergquam Energy Systems (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Solar Thermal powered Chiller technology
8611 Folsom Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95826
916-383-9425

http://gaia.ecs.csus.edu/~bergquam/page3.html

Blue Point Energy
Micro CHP with Cummins engine-generators
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
916-939-8700

http://www.bluepointenergy.com/

Clean Energy Systems, Inc. (Later Stage)
Highly efficient Natural Gas combustion with CO2 sequestration.
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
916-379-9143

http://www.cleanenergysystems.com/

Davis Energy Group (Early Stage)
Efficient cooling systems
123 C Street, Davis, CA 95616
530-753-1100

http://www.davisenergy.com/

EcoComposite
Fuel Cell components
11265-U Sunrise Gold Circle
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
916-638-5133

http://www.ecocomposite.net/index.html

FAFCO Incorporated (Mature)
Residential A/C load management technology & Solarthermal Pool Heating
435 Otterson Drive, Chico, CA 95928-8207
530-332-2100

http://www.fafco.com/

Impulse Devices (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Innovative Fusion Technology
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-6500

http://www.impulsedevices.com/

Jadoo Power Systems (Later Stage)
Portable Fuel Cell technology
Folsom, CA 95630
916.608.9044

http://www.jadoopower.com/

Jerico Mechanical
Efficient motors
3726 Marysville Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95838
916-925-0151

Novatorque
Efficient motors
North Highlands, CA

http://www.novatorque.com/

Omnifuel Technologies, Inc. (Early Stage)
Biogasification to energy and fuels
Sacramento, CA 95610
916-294-0696

http://www.downstreamsystems.com/

Onsite Power Systems (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Anaerobic Digestion technology
Davis, CA 95616
559-271-2970

http://www.onsitepowersystems.com/

Open Energy Corporation (Early Stage)
Custom BIPV design
Grass Valley, CA 95945
530-271-1919

http://www.openenergycorp.com/

Optimal Technologies (USA) Inc. (Later Stage)
Utility Management Software (Grid Optimization)
Benicia, CA 94510
707-557-1788

http://www.otii.com/home.html

Pacific Power Management (Later Stage)
Photovoltaic Systems Integrator & Installer
12970 Earhart Ave., Auburn, CA 95602
530-887-1984

http://www.pacificpowermanagement.biz

PLEXOS Solutions, LLC (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Grid Optimization software
Sacramento, CA 95831
916-251-6148

http://www.plexossolutions.com/

Q1 Nanosolar (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Nano conductors for Solar PV applications
Sacramento, CA 95816
916-443-3480

http://www.abmaterials.com/

ReSo International (Early Stage)
Solar Roofing Technology
Stockton, CA 95202
209-477-3030

http://www.resousa.com/

Ribbon Technology International (Seed/Start-Up Stage)
Solar PV material manufacturing technology
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-923-6275

SolarRoofs.com (Expansion Stage)
Solarthermal Water Heating Technology
Rancho Cordova, CA 95608
916-481-7200

http://solarroofs.com/

SVV Technology Innovations, Inc. (Early Stage)
Solar Concentrators
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-714-4917

http://www.svvti.com/projects/proj_index.htm

Wireless Seismic (Early Stage)
Efficient (wireless) Seismic surveying technology
Grass Valley, CA 95945
530-274-4445

http://www.wirelessseismic.com/

Posted in Energy, Energy & Fuels, Entrepreneurship, Natural Gas, Science, Space, & Technology, Solar, Wind4 Comments

GM's "Volt" Concept Car

To follow up on GM’s announcement on January 7th of a series hybrid car, the “Volt,” today I spoke with Jon Lauckner, GM’s vice president of Global Program Management.

Since the series hybrid, which has at most a two-speed transmission, with only the electric motor connected to the drive train, is simpler to engineer compared to the parallel hybrid, we wanted to know what took so long. Lauckner explained that GM is waiting for a lithium ion battery.

Chevy Volt
The Chevy “Volt” Flexfuel Electric Car
Photo: General Motors

Apparently, in order to have a car that can run exclusively on batteries for a reasonable duty cycle – 40 miles – GM was reluctant to go with the nickel metal hydride (NMH) solution used in parallel hybrids.

This makes sense insofar as the parallel hybrids, unless they’re “strong” hybrids, will not use their batteries exclusively for nearly such a sustained period – in a parallel hybrid the gasoline engine is always turning on, sometimes to add power to the drivetrain, sometimes to recharge the battery pack.

One can still argue that NMH batteries, which are more or less a proven technology, could be used to produce a series hybrid, just one with, say, a battery-only range of 30 miles instead of 40, with a little more drag on the car from the increased weight. But this may be beside the point.

Lauckner pointed out, probably not for the first time, that GM is not intending to produce a few hundred of these cars. GM is looking for a car design they can immediately produce by the tens of thousands, and eventually by the millions. There simply aren’t the factories yet to produce this volume of batteries, not NMH or Lithium Ion.

Lauckner, after reminding me that he is not a battery expert, made a point we’d never heard before. He said lithium ion batteries show potential to be far more economically scalable compared to NMH. He also said lithium ion batteries show better durability potential compared to NMH batteries. Since lithium ion batteries have superior energy density, this is a very encouraging bit of data. GM’s goal for their battery packs is 4,000 cycles – equivalent to ten years of use.

So when will the GM Volt and similar series hybrids – or flexfuel electric vehicles – be on the road by the millions? Don’t point the finger at GM. Instead look to the battery manufacturers. We need automotive scale battery plants and all the related infrastructure. Something far, far easier to envision than a whole hydrogen production, storage and distribution infrastructure, but nonetheless not something that will happen overnight.

Posted in Cars, Energy, Energy & Fuels, Hydrogen, Science, Space, & Technology8 Comments

Challenging Traditional Environmentalism: Bob Metcalfe's take on a more Mainstream, Green Revolution

We are always on the lookout for like-minded pundits and experts who share our vision – as expressed in the 9-18-06 post “Redefining Environmentalism” – of a green revolution that legitimately appeals to a wider, mainstream constituency, and challenges many assumptions of traditional environmentalism. Last month, on “VCMike’s Blog,” we read a very astute commentary on what we may as well call “new environmentalism.” The post was written by Bob Metcalfe, the founder of 3Com Corporation and currently a general partner for Polaris Ventures. The following are some particularly memorable excerpts from that post.

On the public vs. private sector:

“I am from what politicians and professors often call, a little too dismissively, the “private sector.” I think nobody else but the private sector will meet the world’s energy needs… And then there are politicians — the public sector. The big danger in what they call “policy making” is that large companies have lobbyists and small companies don’t. Using an endless variety of rationales, the old boy network of large company lobbyists and policy makers make it difficult for young companies that might compete with them and thereby drive accelerating innovation. So, please be careful out there.”

Where global warming alarmists & deniers agree:

“The best way to frame the challenge is to say we aim to deploy technologies that will meet world needs for cheap and clean energy. Note that meeting the world’s energy needs is not exactly the same as solving global warming. There are other reasons, like prosperity and security, to want cheap and clean energy. What the world needs is not just cheap energy, and not just clean energy, but cheap and clean energy. The market opportunities and other motivations are huge. There is one thing about which Global Warming’s alarmists, deniers, and us techies agree. It is that not nearly enough is known about Earth and energy. So, for starters, Global Warming alarmists, deniers, and us techies all agree that we need to support Earth and energy science.”

On the role of the technology sector in the green revolution:

“The people, processes, and institutions that built the Internet will themselves help bring the world cheap and clean energy. I’m talking here about the Internet’s teams of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists. I hope techies deliver cheap and clean energy faster than we delivered the Internet… Sure technology bubbles eventually burst. So, to mix metaphors, it’s important to have a chair when the music stops. But, mixing metaphors again, trying too hard to avoid bubbles causes what control theorists call over-damping. Over-damping the growth of our “Enertech” Cluster would delay the arrival of the cheap and clean energy that the world so badly needs. Let our Enertech Bubble inflate!”

On traditional “old school” environmentalism:

“When you look at groups who call themselves GREEN, you find a good many ulterior motives and a veritable toxic waste dump of bad ideas. As pointed out by NYT Columnist Tom Friedman at Pop!Tech in October, Greens tend to be various combinations of environmentalist (a good thing), but also anti-urban, anti-technology, anti-nuke, anti-corporate, anti-globalization, and anti-American. Our Enertech Cluster needs to be careful about how we align with Greens, they are welcome when they can help bring the world cheap and clean energy.”

On the “Parasol Effect” (my favorite):

“One of my private investigations is finding ways to enhance the so-called Parasol Effect. The odd thing is that sulfur pollution in the upper atmosphere, which we are carefully working to reduce, now enhances the Parasol Effect to offset about a third of the Greenhouse Effect. Large volcanoes cause Earth’s temperature to plunge when they enhance the Parasol Effect by belching reflective particles into the atmosphere. We should be looking harder at how to send benign reflecting particles into the stratosphere in order to enhance the Parasol Effect on purpose, to keep the temperature of Earth wherever we want it, which seems to be the same as it is now (or maybe a little bit cooler).”

These principles – faith in the private sector, faith in technology, and creativity in solving problems (such as developing technology to deploy benign aerosols in the stratosphere) – these are hallmarks of new environmentalism. Click here to read Metcalfe’s post in its entirety.

Posted in Global Warming & Climate Change, Other, Science, Space, & Technology1 Comment

No Posts in Category
Advertisement