The Matarenki Light is intriguing for a number of reasons, beyond the combined electricity / hot water production system. The claimed design feature is also ease of installation, with a six-inch (150 mm) tube to be anchored to the ground or attached to a structure (house). (To be honest, the 290 kilos (638 lbs) seems a bit of a heavy load to get onto a suburban roof.) In essence, when ready for shipping, the entire system looks to be shippable as one piece (or as an easy kit for assembly?) to then be hooked to electrical lines and water pipes.

While interesting, the Matarenki Light 5.3 (currently testing system) is interesting but unlikely more than an auxiliary system for most households. Global Sun Engineering is offering up five theoretical annual electricity and heat (hot water) production levels: Santa Barbara, California; Graz, Austria; Brisbane, Australia; Napoli, Italy; and Sevilla, Spain. Santa Barbara is the most productive location. The Matarenki Light 5.3, they claim, would provide 1014 kWh of electricity per year and 7193 kWh of heat. Thus, at a peak production location, the Matarenki Light 5.3 would, annually, provide just a little more than the 920 kWh average monthly American household electricity use (2006). When it comes to hot water, the Matarenki Light 5.3 offers the potential of meeting requirements as the annual household demand is 5900 kWh per year.

Thus, writ large, the Matarenki seems to offer the potential for meeting (or beating) the typical household solar hot water heating system while producing perhaps ten percent of the household electrical demand. The question will be price. Global Sun Engineering claims that “our solution deliver electricity and heat at half the cost for the end customer”. That suggests a price point. If they can install their system for, for example, the price of existing solar thermal systems, the electricity production becomes icing on the cake and they have a winning solution. Guess it is time to wait for the price sheets to come out.

Coal is abundant, indispensable and—if carbon emissions continue unabated—devastating for the earth’s climate.

Simply put … huh?

We can, if we choose to, take a path to retire coal from our electrical grid. Truth be told, any reasonable cap and trade (or carbon tax) program will create the pressure to drive coal out of our system.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is, according to Brookings and others, simpy the only path forward or else we are accepting catastrophic climate change as inevitable. Considering that CCS is little more than powerpoint slides and hopeful promises, and, even it works, is simply an added cost to doing business to the extent that other power sources will be preferred.

Now, there is another option, isn’t there? Another priority, no? We can, instead, work to end coal as an electricity source of choice. As recently suggested, we could even have a retirement plan for coal plants, retiring them based on seniority, replacing them with clean energy sources as the coal plants head off into the sunset to enjoy a well-deserved retirement of rusting and obsolescence.

This is truly the case with the naming of the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid as the Green Car Journal’s Green Car of the Year. Amid the overall absurdity of naming a 20 mpg, 5500 pound, $50,000+ light-duty vehicle that will mainly end up in suburban drive-ways (typically with just one person in them when driven) somehow green, one has to wonder at the “names” associated with the award. These include Carl Pope, Sierra Club’s executive director; Christopher Flavin (Worldwatch Institute), Jonathan Lash (World Resources Institute), and Jean-Michel Cousteau (Ocean Futures Society).

Let’s be clear, the Tahoe Hybrid is less bad for the environment and less problemmatic for America’s oil addiction than the traditional Tahoe behemoth, but ‘less bad’ doesn’t mean “green”.

Take a look at some of the language and claims around the Tahoe Hybrid.

“GM promised they would use hybrid technology, and use it where it would make the most difference - on their biggest vehicles. They have delivered with the Chevy Tahoe,” says Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, pointing out that this vehicle ends the argument that efficiency and vehicle choice are incompatible. He adds that automakers should now make their entire fleets fuel efficient as fast as they can retool.

Is Carl somehow jumping up and down excited with 20 mpg personal vehicle transportation?

And, it seems, Carl is so desperate to offer pain-free answers to global warming and oil dependency that he is ready to suggest that a 20 mpg vehicle is somehow choice for “efficiency”. (Okay, if we were talking truck or school bus, 20 mpg would be something to cheer.)

“This is a milestone in many respects,” says Green Car Journal editor and publisher Ron Cogan. “People don’t think ‘green’ when SUVs are concerned, and for generally good reason since SUVs often get poor fuel economy compared to most other vehicles. Chevrolet’s Tahoe Hybrid changes this dynamic with a fuel efficiency improvement of up to 30 percent compared to similar vehicles equipped with a standard V-8.”

Wow, Ron, “a standard V-8″ is the standard against we should judge green cars?

What’s … eye-opening is that the Tahoe’s 21 mpg city fuel efficiency rating is the same as that of the city EPA rating for the four-cylinder Toyota Camry sedan.

Actually, what is eye-opening (in a sad sense) is that the Camry has such lousy fuel efficiency.

Ed Peper, Chevrolet general manager. “We’ve felt that the Tahoe Hybrid represents the best of both worlds - the great utility you’d expect from a Tahoe with fuel economy on par with today’s mid-size cars. It’s satisfying to receive this validation from such an authority on environmentally-friendly vehicles.”

You mean greenwashing, don’t you Ed?

It’s a different challenge to achieve meaningful mpg increases on large vehicles of greater weight where substantial cargo hauling and towing may be needed, and larger engines are required for the job. For instance, the Tahoe Hybrid features seating for up to eight passengers, a 60 cubic foot cargo volume with the second and third row seats folded, the ability to carry up to 1400 pounds of cargo, and a tow rating of up to 6,200 pounds.

1400 pounds of cargo, 8 passengers, towing 6,200 pounds … okay, just how many Americans need that capacity on anything like a frequent enough basis that an occasional rental wouldn’t be enough?

For a ‘greener’ look at cars at the LA Show, I suggest spending a moment with EcoGeek.

Another guest post from Energize America board member DoLittle SooThere.

Nov. 4th was a great day for progressives as well as community-based energy solutions. Little-noticed ballot Issue 1A in Boulder County, CO, passed by nearly 2:1, marking an historic milestone in our country’s quest for energy independence/security. Ballot 1A approved $40M in local EE/RE bonds for local residents and businesses who wish to invest in energy efficiency or green energy generation, and is similar to Berkeley’s $80M solar roof bond program.  Bonds are paid back on property taxes-and the obligation stays with the home so repayment is assured even if the house is sold.

While we desperately need strategic federal energy policy leadership, the actual battle to Energize America will be fought in the trenches of local communities such as Boulder.  More after the jump.

A $40M initial investment in this pilot program could make $2K per house available to 20K homes for such simple steps as increased insulation, CFL lighting, weatherproofing, etc.  The implementation details are still being worked out, but the general intent is to provide the initial capital for residents and businesses to more easily harvest the ‘low hanging fruit’.

While some folks may have visions of micro-generation dancing in their head and want to rush out and install  7kW solar electric systems for $50K, the far wiser investments will be focused on solutions such as solar hot water ($5K less fed/state tax credits), weatherization, perhaps new windows, insulation…  No, these elements are not glamorous, but they are much more cost-effective.  Plus, PV electric makes the most sense only after all the ‘boring’ stuff has been done to minimize electric consumption.

One critical component will be structuring the program to minimize the likelihood of participating homes defaulting on their mortgage, which would certainly complicate program ROI - even though the repayment obligation would remain with the property.

Here’s a financial summary of the Berkeley solar roof plan which is targeted for 4K homes:

City staff has estimated that the average photovoltaic system in Berkeley costs $28,077 with an average California Solar Initiative rebate of $6,108. A hypothetical financing structure for an average system is set forth below.

Hypothetical Financing for $28,077 Solar System (~3kW)
Project Financing Amount: $22,569
Estimated Financing Rate: 6.75% (to be determined)
Program Costs to be Amortized: $600 Bank and Administration Fees
Term of Repayment: 20 years Paid Through Annual Special Tax
Annual Special Tax Charges: 4.5% of Special Tax County and Program Administration

Projected Annual Special Tax: $2,089/Year - Equates to $182/month

The property tax increase will be offset by the value of the electricity produced by the system. At the outset and based on PG&E’s rates, one could expect the solar systems to result in at least $70/month in lower electric bills.

Congratulations to Boulder County and Berkeley on taking a critical first step in building community awareness and creating a sustainable energy path forward.

In short, Lovley lovingly lays a case for imaginery concerns about whether global warming is really something to be concerned about, that there is a

“growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.”

Hmmm, might be worthy to actually cite in the discussion reputable climate scientists, no? However, that seemed beyond Erika’s rolodex with the dominant stream being global warming denier after denier. As Brad Johnson put it,

Lovley unquestioningly quotes extremist denier Joseph D’Aleo, Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) aide Marc Morano, and Cato Institute fellow Patrick Michaels in a piece littered with bald assertions and slanders against the scientific community without any basis in reality.

Reality, it is hard to see the basis for this article. Perhaps we should simply count Erika’s works as not science writing, but science fiction. But, in that case it would be an insult to the vast mass of science fiction writers who have some association with reality and real facts somewhere in their work. This travesty of an excuse for journalism is truly difficult to explain. Payments from the right-wind sound machine or the fossil-fuel industry? A job application with Senator Inhofe (R-EXXON)? Perhaps a writing sample for The Onion?

Improved car (transportation) fuel efficiency is critical to Winning the Oil End Game but is only a portion of the challenge of reversing our greenhouse-gas emissions patterns and turning away from the most dire Catastrophic Climate Change implications.

Real-time feedback works in cars and is increasingly part of new car dashboards. Where else could we install real-time feedback systems into our daily lives to change energy usage patterns and reduce energy use? Real opportunities exist in the home …

The dashboard indicators of ongoing fuel efficiency seem to have real impacts on driving patterns – and, therefore, intended or not, there seems to be a corollary effect of dashboard fuel efficiency

“Fuel economy feedback in vehicles is one of the low-hanging fruits of green(er) transportation. When you stop to think about it, it’s pretty obvious what causes good or bad fuel economy, but that’s exactly the problem: Most people don’t stop to think about it, or at least not while they are driving. They need constant reminders. Even while gasping at the pump most people seem to think that their current fuel consumption average is mostly out of their control, a factor of the car they drive only.”

As someone else noted, “… the feedback screen in a hybrid car, which shows the driver vividly how his driving habits affect his fuel consumption. The result in the case of hybrids is that drivers generally drive more slowly and much less aggressively because the feedback system acts as a fuel-economy tutor.” And, most drivers have a rough ability to turn this “mpg” feedback into fiscal implications (how many dollars can be saved with different driving patterns) in a rough, intuitive manner.

Let us take, as a given, that these sorts of dashboard feedback systems have – on average – an impact on driving patterns for those who have them staring them in the face. That ‘real-time’ feedback matters for the energy usage. And, that these effects can start rather fast for those exposed to them.

By the way, we don’t need to wait for new automobiles to get feedback systems. They are available for purchase, such as the kiwi (although that is a bit pricey at $300, a high-end option). If we’re serious about shaving away at the oil addiction, we should consider paths to getting real-time feedback systems into all vehicles, ASAP. This could mean a ’stimulus’ package sending out $50 coupons to all registered car owners with the systems available for pickup at stores throughout the country. (If selling 2 million per month, the prices would drop drastically.) And, they should be required for all new cars sold (and, within 24 months, all used cars sold by dealers). Imagine: if these really lead to 10 percent average fuel savings, spending perhaps $10 billion would create the equivalent of taking 20 million cars off the road and cutting US fuel use by over 1 million barrels per day. Even at a low price of $50/barrel, this is $50 million/day, or $18+ billion/year with perhaps at least five years of value, thus a $90 billion or so reduction in US imports at a cost of $10 billion. But, that $90 billion is money available in the economy (or which won’t have to be borrowed from abroad. In addition, there are the accidents that won’t occur, lives not lost, etc …

Thinking beyond the dashboard Where else could we see similar impacts on energy usage patterns and cut energy use by individuals but on a large scale? What are the options for providing real-time feedback on home energy use and how might that impact energy use patterns?

Various ways for factoring in price already exist in the commercial market — some easier to deal with than others. For example, I recently upgraded my home with a fossil fuel heating system (both a (very) high efficiency heat pump and a high-efficiency gas furnance). As part of the information fed into my automatic thermostat, I put in cost of gas/electricity — the controller then determines which is the most cost-effective system for heating based on system performance, conditions (mainly outdoor temperature for heat pump vs gas furnance), and the cost of fuel. This system, however, is not real-time responsive (e.g., not real-time pricing), relies on feeding the data (e.g., is not connected to the web), does not provide highly visible feedback (though– controller can be set up to show cost of heating; this is next step in a learning process), and, as the preceding suggests, is a bit of a pain in the xxx to deal with. (On the other hand, with upgrading from 1990s systems (along with some serious leak-sealing and additional insulation), my heating/cooling energy use has nose-dived. Plus, FYI, went to a fossil-fuel system that will be compatible with solar electricity (perhaps solar, perhaps Stirling) that I expect to put in 3-7 years from now — Virginia gives none of the great help that California and other states do for solar systems … The Federal tax credit helps with the solar hot water) rather than my previous gas furnace. Going back to the car analogy, the type of system that I installed is more likely to be the equivalent of the ‘hybrid’ driver rather than the ‘regular’ car driver — those installing fossil fuel systems seem (far) more likely to be energy aware.

There are available systems for real-time monitoring of electricity use that are not so reliant on the customer already being an ‘energy information junkie’ like me (as opposed to ‘energy junkie’ that we virtually all are …).

There have been many test efforts for smart metering. I recall seeing one discussion where putting real-time metering with electicity use in $ terms — putting the meters central in the home (such as in the kitchen) led to something like a 50% reduction in electricity use in homes in the short term (couple months) with a leveling of something like 30% reduction six months into the experiment.

For almost 20 years now, (at least one) company has offered this type of option. Woodstock Hydro offered it as a path toward reducing bad debt by creating a prepayment program for electricity use and they put a meter in the home that did a count-down against the prepayment. An electricity debit card, if you will.

“A new meter with a remote display offered real-time feedback in a form comprehensible to all and in a convenient location where the customer could easily check the information as to how quickly the card was being depleted.”

As discussed in a very good Oil Drum analysis (more below), Woodstock Hydro loves this because there is “no opportunity to accumulate bad debts, and therefore no need for customers to be disconnected and then reconnected - for a substantial fee - as is common practice under other utilities.”

But this had an unintended, positive result for the community (even if not the utility):

“The utility soon noticed that consumption had fallen for those on the program by an average of 15%. This had not been anticipated as no conservation information had been provided. Indeed initially, the utility thought the reduction must be some sort of technical problem and attempted to solve it. Eventually they realized that the effect must be real and began to study it. The program was opened up to the whole customer base and has become so popular that there is a waiting list to be part of it. Customers typically save more per month from reduced consumption (15-20%) than they pay (as a small daily supplement to actual consumption) to be part of the program. Approximately a quarter of the customer base now participates in the pre-payment initiative.”

And, these systems are heading toward the ‘big-time’. Several years ago, Ottawa committed to put smart electricity meters into all homes and businesses — to reduce peak demand, primarily, but also overall all electricity use.

Oil Drum, there were/are several quite interesting discussion/analysis of Ottawa’s plans to place smart electricity meters in all homes:

“In 2004, the Ontario government committed themselves to installing smart electricity meters in 800,000 Ontario homes by 2007 and in all homes and businesses by 2010 … The intention of the smart metering policy is to use time-of-day pricing to reduce peak demand by encouraging load shifting, as meeting peak demand during peak season frequently involves reliance on expensive electricity imports. Reducing peak demand could remove the need for new peaking plant and its associated transmission capacity, as well as dampening price volatility in the energy markets. It remains to be seen, however, how much load-shifting can be achieved under the policy as currently conceived.”

This discussion examines the cost/benefit equation for the Ottawa program re smart meters and, in essence, finds that the equation is imbalanced — that the costs (fiscal) are unlikely to be worth the fiscal benefits for most consumers. The analysis raises serious questions as to whether the costs (currently $Canadian 400 for a meter, potentially to go down to $100 with $3-4/month of costs) will match the fiscal savings that individual consumers might see.

Same author on Oil Drum offered up a Better Alternative
To the prompting of this discussion, the author comments about the implications for Woodstock Hydro customers with smart meters:

The effect is comparable to the feedback screen in a hybrid car, which shows the driver vividly how his driving habits affect his fuel consumption. The result in the case of hybrids is that drivers generally drive more slowly and much less aggressively because the feedback system acts as a fuel-economy tutor.

In the case of electricity, active consumers turn off lights in unoccupied rooms, alter thermostats in a seasonally appropriate way, dry clothing outside on a clothesline and take other measures to reduce consumption. One might imagine that utility customers would have resented having to take these measures, but in fact Woodstock Hydro noticed that participants in the program complained much less frequently than did other customers. They had begun to treat buying electricity in the same way that they bought food or fuel for their vehicle - as their own responsibility. When their card balance was depleted, they put electricity on the shopping list.

The analysis, re Ottawa, points out that Woodstock Hydro’s system is slightly less capable but much less expensive — that the cost/benefit equation is much better for the ‘average’ consumer that the the expected societal benefits (in terms of power reduction) are not out-of-line with what the more expensive approach might be expected to deliver. As
discussed: “As the Woodstock meters are considerably less expensive than the proposed smart meters, partially due the lack of two-way communication capability, integrating TOU pricing into this existing platform would seem to be a far more cost-effective means of introducing smart-metering.” (The “Powerstat” (the meter) is currently charged at $7.95/month according to Woodstock Hydro — there does not seem to be a capital expense for purchase of the Powerstat offered by Woodstock.) As an interesting element, the Woodstock Hydro program eliminates the need for monthly bills.

The paragraphs above do not do the Oil Drum analysis justice — plus there was extensive commentary on both of these posts.

Smart meters are far from just an Ontario development. For example, Italy is installing 30 million smart meters and the UK seems not far behind. The claims for what is desired do not seem to extreme, “’smart meters’ could help cut energy use by 3 to 15%”. [Note, however, the word "energy use" rather than electricity -- is really a 15% cut in all energy use, doubt it.]

For an interesting ‘review of the literature analysis’, see The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption (warning: pdf) from April 2006.

Most domestic energy use, most of the time, is invisible to the user … This review considers what is known about the effectiveness of feedback to householders. The focus I son how people change their behaviour … The norm is for savings from direct feedback (immediate, from the meter …) to range from 5-15%. The role of the meter is to provide a clearly-understood point of reference for improved billing and for display. …

“There is some indication that high energy users may respond more than low users to direct feedback. … Indirect feedback (… Processed in some way before reaching the energy user, normally via billing) is usually more suitable than direct feedback for demonstrating any effect on consumption of changes in space heating [and other large-scale investments]. Savings have ranged from 0-10%, but they vary according to context and quality of informaiton given. Historic feedback appears to be more effective than comparative or normative (comparing with other households or with a target figure.

I am absolutely NOT a believer in silver-bullet solutions. Instead, I believe that we should be pursuing a portfolio of approaches for power sources, energy efficiency, and usage patterns. The last is often the hardest to deal with in terms of large-scale policy and interacting with individuals. We encountered the often mocked “Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters” image.

What is appealing about real-time feedback systems (whether in cars, businesses, or homes) that show power in cost terms is that they address the last (usage patterns) and encourage the second (energy efficiency) in terms that work within basic American society — dollars and cents, COST! These systems, as per Energize America’s core philosophy, help Make the right choice the easy choice when it comes to energy use especially where individuals have the chance to ‘control their own destiny’.

Behavioral change results from this metering (5-15% electricity use reduction). The dollars/cents staring one in the face, in real time, evidently provides real motivational factor. How many coal-powered power plants could be shut-down for a 10% reduction in electricity use?

And, from “Effectiveness of Feedback”, there is the reinforcing discussion of how using the power bill could become a reinforcing/leveraging mechanism for greater change in power consumption.

Thinking about the above makes me wonder whether:

To get there, we need more governments to follow Ontario’s and Italy’s lead — but to do so in a cost-effective manner such that the vast majority of customers will welcome the change as a path toward saving money (and, let the likely minority who truly care celebrate the impact on reducing GHG emissions).

I am a self-described pessimistic optimist (or optimistic pessimist). Contemplating the above gives me hope about the possible even if wondering whether such feedback approaches will be implemented. But, in terms of optimism, I wonder whether these steps combined with aggressive energy efficiency programs (reducing vampire loads, more stringent standards, improved building codes), utility efficiency (improved transformers, better power lines), and drives for more renewable power (wind, solar (both PV and Stirling), geothermal (low-temperature), ocean, etc) could create a situation where the United States (and other nations) could eliminate coal-fired plants from the electrical grid within the next 15 years …

An unexpected drop in U.S. electricity consumption has utility companies worried that the trend isn’t a byproduct of the economic downturn, and could reflect a permanent shift in consumption that will require sweeping change in their industry.

OH NO!!!! Americans using less electricity and this might be something permanent rather than simply a lousy economy.

Now, as for the ‘lousy economy’, as we have yet to hit bottom and have a long way to go, hard to assert (yet) that it is not economic distress that is driving reduced energy use. Perhaps people are ‘turning off lights’ to save pennies in the face of economic distress. And, patterns begun in economic turmoil could become life’s new patterns. Thus, unlike what the Wall Street Journal’s coverage might suggest, there is much to hope for as to a start in a shifting of American culture toward more energy efficient patterns.

Most utilities plan around an assumption of rather constant an predictable electricity-demand growth curves. This provides “certainty” of planning for generating facilities and other capital investment. Introducing energy conservation and energy efficiency into the equation can threaten these plans.

Households are considered “the most stable group of consumers,” thus drops in household demand executive attention.

Dick Kelly, chief executive of Xcel Energy Inc., Minneapolis, says his company, which has utilities in Colorado and Minnesota, saw home-energy use drop 3% in the period from August through September, “the first time in 40 years I’ve seen a decline in sales” to homes.

No, it isn’t foreclosures according to Kelly. Three percent drop in one year: that could be simply through the introduction of CFLs. And, let us be clear, Obama’s green stimulus package could drive these reductions across the broader society.

It isn’t isolated to Xcel Energy.

Duke Energy Corp.’s third-quarter electricity sales were down 5.9% in the Midwest from the year earlier, including a 9% drop among residential customers. At its utilities operating in the Carolinas, sales were down 4.3% for the three-month period ending Sept. 30 from a year earlier.

American Electric Power Co., which owns utilities operating in 11 states, saw total electricity consumption drop 3.3% in the same period from the prior year. Among residential customers, the drop was 7.2%. However, milder weather played a role.

There is a debate in the industry as to the driving factor: ’simply’ a bad economy or, again, a fundamental change. If we are to have hopes in relation to Global Warming, we should hope that it is the second, that people are learning, changing, and applying that learning to help solve real problems.

Again, there is a real problem here for the WSJ.

Michael Morris, the chief executive of AEP, one of the country’s largest utilities, says he thinks the industry should to be wary about breaking ground on expensive new projects. “The message is: be cautious about what you build because you may not have the demand” to justify the expense, he says.

Conservation and efficiency are not good for expanision plans.

Contemplating implications …

This Wall Street Journal article simply doesn’t mention any non-expansion planning implications, looking at this issue from a very narrow (not unimportant, but narrow) perspective. Here are some additional elements to consider:

Improving Energy Efficiency. The #1 near-term answer, across the entire economy, to our energy and environmental challenges is reducing inefficiences (waste) in energy use both through changed behavior (’conservation’) and introduction of energy saving technologies/designs. This is both to ‘turn out the lights’ when not using them and changing the lights from incandescents to compact-fluorescent bulbs. These are ‘negawatts’. Quite roughly, electricity delivered to the customer in the United States costs about 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour (KwH). Study after study, real-world effort after real-world effort highlights that energy efficiency can cut demand by 20+% at prices just a fraction of that (with a wide-range of opportunities if priced at, let us say, 4 cents per KwH). Could the reduction that utilities be seeing be a leading edge of both changed behavior and energy efficiency penetrating into the general public and general use?

What will happen with focused leadership? These reductions have occurred amid economic malaise and generalized discussion of global warming/energy issues/reduction of waste. While the Republicans dismissed (actually, ‘dissed’) President-Elect Obama’s discussion of energy efficiency during the campaign (especially related to inflating tires as a path to reduce gasoline use, and therefore cost, immediately), perhaps this sort of message (from Obama, state and local politicians, prominent figures, religious leaders, etc) has taken root with enough of the population to begin to impact aggregate levels of energy use. What might happen if, as seems likely at this time, President Obama takes the bully pulpit to encourage all Americans to pursue “energy efficiency in your lives, homes, and businesses”? Will the reductions this article discusses simply be a bow wave of massive reductions in the coming few years? What does this say about the ability to eliminate coal from our electrical grid?

Global Warming implications. This article doesn’t point out that the 50% of American electricity coming from coal (and, to a lesser extent, the 22% coming from natural gas) are the largest single contributor to US GHG emissions. (As well as mercury and other pollution.) Cutting into US electrical demand, with the ‘non-produced’ (shut off) power principally from coal-fired plants, is one of the paths toward significant near-term reversal of growing US GHG emissions.

Thus, perhaps the most interesting things from this article, beyond the facts of reduced household electrical use, are not what it discusses but what it doesn’t discuss.

• We need to bring climate idealism down to earth, 29 April 2007
• Practical steps to climate control, 29 May 2007

What do these pieces seem to tell us about Summers’? (1) That he believes the science and (2) he believes a properly incentivized free market structure is the right way to tackle the challenge.

And, more recent comments have reinforced those views, such as this published just this fall in Harvard magazine (pdf):

Right now, of course, the focus is on the spike in energy prices. But greenhouse-gas emissions are closely related. Each year, the science on global warming becomes more sobering. Each year, our ability to hit the Kyoto or other targets targets for controlling those emissions recedes. So that is a large part of any energy policy the next president has to pursue.

Let’s take a look at Summers’ two-part discussion of climate change.

The first was We need to bring climate idealism down to earth. To be honest, the title isn’t necessarily a winner with this pessimistic-optimist (or optimistic pessimist) climate “idealist”, but titles aren’t everything.

With the accumulation of scientific evidence and its persuasive presentation to the public, the global warming debate has reached a new stage. Those who still deny that human activity is warming the planet, or claim that “business as usual” can continue indefinitely without profoundly adverse consequences, are increasingly seen as the moral and intellectual equivalent of those who deny that tobacco has adverse consequences for human health.

Did Summers take a look at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change as his words could be drawn from it. Good (and strong words) with the straight statement that Global Warming deniers and delayers are “moral and intellectual equivalent[s]” of those who chose to obscure science about how tobacco kills.

While there is probably excessive euphoria in some quarters over the economic benefit of green policies, it is now beyond debate that there are huge opportunities to reduce emissions with economic benefit or negligible economic cost. It has been estimated that worldwide subsidies to energy use approach $250bn.

This is an interesting comment, especially as President-Elect Obama (with many others) is pointing to “green” as core to stimulus in come 2009. Summers’ is questioning of the direct benefits of ‘greening’ but points out that there is another side of the equation, that it is not just direct benefits from “green” but also the reduction of benefits for “dirty”: subsidies reducing gasoline, (coal-fired) electricity, or natural gas prices below (at least) the market value foster greater waste much in the same way that increased prices (such as through carbon fees) would, all things being equal, encourage greater efficiency. Summers is pointing to market inefficiencies when it comes to energy distorting market (and individual) decisions.

The real question for debate is not whether something should be done – that debate is over among the rational. The crucial question now is what should be done so as to leave our descendants with the highest possible quality of life. Answering it effectively requires vision and ambition. But, as the example of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations teaches painfully, utopian vision and ambition unmoored from political, economic and social reality can be counterproductive.

Debate over whether is over, debate is now what to do. Check. Reasonable.

And, here Summers is calling for ‘reality-based’ policy-making rather than utopianism. Check … maybe … dependent on what fall into Summers definition of utopia.

Now, Summers turns to a question of Kyoto as perhaps “ineffective or even counterpoductive by substituting for more realistic approaches to the problem.” Summers states that “there is to date little evidence that Kyoto is driving behaviour” and that “carbon markets are invitations to engage in pork-barrel corporate subsidy politics on a massive scale.” Writ large, these seem to be true statements. Finally, Summers turns to the absence of developing countries from the Kyoto framework. And, this is of high concern becasue

The truth about climate change policy is that developing countries are where most of the future action has to be. They will account for 75 per cent of the increase in emissions over the next quarter century and are now making the infrastructure investments that will shape their future economies. Moreover, any international regime that does not include them will not work because emissions reductions in the industrial world will be offset as energy intensive activities relocate to the developing world.

Summers concludes this introductory piece suggesting that perhaps “goodwill and extensive thought” can solve Kyoto’s problems but promissing an outlining of a more pragmatic approach.

Note that this piece and Summers’ talks about this issue seem to have been well received in the developing world.

His next piece, Practical steps to climate control, focused the issue on how to provide productive paths toward reducing (if not reversing) emissions growth in the developing world. Summers opens with a short statement as to why the developing world is critical and why he sees Kyoto-type restrictions a likely non-starter. He then lays out his views for “concrete measures that will have meaningful impact.” For Summers, this must start at home.

First, the US must engage in an energy efficiency programme that takes effect without delay and has meaningful bite. As long as developing countries can point to the US as a free rider there will not be serious dialogue about what they are willing to do. I prefer carbon and/or gasoline tax measures to permit systems or heavy regulatory approaches because the latter are more likely to be economically inefficient and to be regressive. The key point is that after Kyoto, where there was US vision in setting goals but no on-the-ground action, there must be real policy commitments.

Note that he states a preference for “carbon and/or gasoline tax measures” rather than stating approaches that would directly address energy efficiency. Create the market structure, Summers seems to be saying, and the solutions will come to US.

Second, the major industrial countries should commit to a very large increase in funding for research in technologies that offer the prospect of reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases, such as renewable energy, carbon sequestration and energy efficient engines. They should also learn a lesson from the pharmaceutical experience and commit to making intellectual property relating to clean energy available to developing countries on preferential terms. It may be that ambitious emissions- reduction targets can be achieved with existing technology, yet new technologies could help.

This, too, is a fair statement (partially), with emphasis first on what we can already do (energy efficiency) along with a serious commitment to developing better options for tomorrow.

Third, the World Bank, and probably the regional development banks, should be reconstituted by their shareholders as “Banks for Development and the Global Environment” and take on as a major mission the provision of subsidised capital for projects that have environmental benefits that go beyond national borders. There is much that can be done to encourage energy efficiency in almost every sector within developing countries, yet national governments have inadequate incentives to take account of global impacts. Moreover, the institutions need a new role with respect to countries other than the poorest ones at a time when the leading developing countries are actually exporting rather than importing capital.

Let’s be clear, the World Bank has been far from a good actor when it comes to sensible development in light of Global Warming’s looming realities. Evidently, Summers is calling on that to change in terms of priorities and foci.

Fourth, a goal should be set of eliminating by 2025 the more than $200bn the world spends each year on energy subsidies, and enforced through strategies such as those used for inappropriate subsidies in trade. This is a clear case where environmental and economic imperatives coincide and it is one where external political commitment is likely to be desirable in many countries, just as in the trade area. This will require considerable work on the definition of and measurement of total energy subsidies. Such work will lay a foundation for the more ambitious efforts that may be needed in harmonising world energy prices above market levels in the future.

This is a free-market lay-out of the challenge and opportunity. Now, we should not underestimate the difficulty that nations around the globe would/will have in eliminating such subsidies as they have such clear pocket-book impact. Many fossil-fuel producing nations, for example, use below-market subsidized prices as a key tool for maintaining stability and control.

There is a final critical process element in the policy response. Given that viable solutions depend on significant changes in developing country policies and that these countries are unlikely to make them unless they see their own interests as at stake, it is essential that they be full participants in setting the global direction. They are surely likely to do more if they can help shape policy than if it is simply the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations seeking to bring them along.

Emphasis here on inclusion and common agreement, rather than dictated solutions from the G-8 or G-20.

To be honest, however, it seems as elites around the world are gaining a growing understanding of the states and are increasingly ready to take action … even if classic game theory applies and few (if any) wish to be first in line to take action out of fear that others will strengthen their economies through pollution of the commons.

Is all of this a sufficiently ambitious agenda? Perhaps not; and perhaps political efforts to generate commitments to ambitious if remote targets can be worthwhile as powerful forces for change, as with human rights in eastern Europe. But they must be married to more immediate if less dramatic steps that have real and practical effect.

Without question, this is not a “sufficiently ambitious agenda” for achieving necessary GHG emissions reductions. And, of course, a 500 word OPED (not even two of them) does not provide enough space to lay out a full and detailed agenda space. While not ‘in agreement’ with Summers, these are reasoned pieces which clearly the case for a need for action and strive to provide a reasoned path for engagement with the developing world.

More recently, we see a shift in Summers views as to the best approach. This fall, Summers stated a strong support of “the role of markets” within the need to deal with global warming as a reason for his support for a cap and trade system vs a carbon tax.

I think we’ve all come to a much greater appreciation of the role of prices, the role of incentives, and the role of markets. I mean, to take just one example, now the pro-environmental alternative is a cap and trade system or a tax on carbon emissions. I tend to support a cap and trade system, and I think if we ever make progress against global warming,—as I hope we will, as we need to—it will come through some kind of cap and trade system. Well, that’s relying on markets, and that’s a very different place than where the country was, and where thought was, when I went to college or graduate school, when the assumption was, to address a problem like that, you would use command and control regulation.

Where will, in fact, Summers fall in the internal Obama Administration debates on carbon cap and trade or a carbon tax? Unclear. What seems clear, however, is that Summers is a voice for action — and action engaged with the Developing World — to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change.

NOTE: This piece is not intended to address many other issues with Summers’ views and career, but simply to point to and discuss his stated views re Global Warming.

The Institute  has had a progression of documents, starting with a statement of principles, then Energy Security in the 21st Century; Facts, Choices, and Challenges (40 pages),  later the Blueprint for Securing America’s Energy Future (76 pages), and most recently A Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future (27 pages).

This is the first (and purposefully) brief discussion of this effort. First off, let us be clear, there is interesting material within these documents and, well, even some elements to praise. Even so, writ large, these documents lay out a reckless vision for the future that represent an absolutely inadequate response to Global Warming.  As for that last, the documents significantly underplay the relationship between energy practices and global warming (oops, they use “climate change” exclusively) and the implications from catastrophic climate change. (See after the fold.)

There are foci and emphasized items which, well, would serve the nation, the globe, and the future if they were laughed off the table. And, throughout the documents there are both minor and major contradictions unresolved.

Even so … the nation’s future will not be strengthened without business engagement. Change is required from government, from individuals, and from all elements of the business community. That the Chamber of Commerce has chosen to engage with substance on energy issues and is mentioning (even if downplaying) climate change should be welcomed, even as their engagement merits serious examination and analysis … examination and analysis that will be forthcoming in these pages.

As to contradictions

As to the last, let’s look at some items: energy demand. Throughout the works and speeches about them, there are words along these lines:

Global demand for energy will increase by more than 50 percent between now and 2030 – and by as much as 30 percent here in the United States.

This is an absolutely reasonable, as long as one remains within traditional ‘business as usual’ (BAU) analysis about energy futures.

But …  but … a key element of the principles and all of the documents should call into question the BAU assumptions.

Yet, the top agenda item within all of the documents and the top principle: energy efficiency. With significant focus on and investment in energy efficiency, that thirty percent growth in energy demands in the United States would not occur.

The statements about energy demand growth are not forwarded or followed by “unless our recommendations are followed …”, but are simply stated as fact.

Or, let’s take a look at the Principles, as discussed by Joe Romm of Climate Progress.

Let’s start with the unbelievable confusion in the notion of giving industry “incentives for innovation in clean energy” when earlier in this short letter they had written “We need to resist the temptation to rely on taxes or subsidies as the solutions of choice to meet our energy challenges.” I hope you are listening next President — we need incentives for innovation that aren’t subsidies and aren’t targets for technology.

Calling for government-funded “incentives” while, pages later, talking against “taxes or subsidies”.  Hmmm, wanting to have the cake and eat it too?

Some word searching

Reading the Institute for 21st Century Energy sometimes feels like visiting an alternative universe, overlapping with reality but with a skewed lens sometimes distorting things nearly beyond recognition.  One path to check on this, a search within the 143 pages of Energy Security, Blueprint, and Transition Plan for key words relating to climate change’s system-of-system impacts.

• “Externalities“:  0 comments across the three documents.
• Mercury:  One mention, within a table in the Transition Plan among a list of pollutants discussing the need for increased tax credits for pollution reduction.
• Acidification: 0 mentions.
• Extinction: 0 mentions.
• Drought: 0 menions.
• Temperature: One mention in the Blueprint amid a discussion of the need for better science to predict future temperatures.
• Coral: 0 mentions.
• Wildfire (and “Wild Fire”). 0 mentions.

Why this list of words? They are all related to implications of fossil fuel pollution and implications of (catastrophic) climate change.

At the core, the challenge of climate change is all about our failures to account for Externalities, especially (but far from solely) in the pricing of fossil fuel use. For the seller and buyer, CO2 pollution is free and thus not accounted for within the contract and not limited.

Acidification of oceans due to increasing CO2 absorption is perhaps one of the most terrifying implications of human-caused CO2 emissions that is not directly “climate change”/”global warming”. It is a core threat to the corals around the globe and threatens the extinction of innumerable ocean species.

Coal-fired electrical plants are the #1 human source of mercury, a poison affecting prenatal development (for example) and helping create the restrictions on the eating of tuna.

An absence of discussion of temperature and the temperature increases that are, according to sources like the IPCC, critical to avoid is, again, rather shocking. And, increased wild fires and drought around the globe (not necessarily evenly or universally) are examples of the types of impacts we are seeing due to rising temperatures.

Very simply, it is hard to imagine how any serious discussion of energy issues can not have any accounting or discussion of these sort of key issues and implications from fossil fuel pollution. Accounting for these (including externalities within the contract costs) is a core part of any serious attempt to move our energy system to something resembling that which can support a prosperous and climate-friendly society. Accounting for these costs, these ‘externalities, is the very sort of critical step that the US Chamber of Commerce has fought (is likely to continue fighting) tooth-and-nail. Unless (or until) their work has meaningful discussions of these issues, then it is hard to see their engagement as truly productive.
A note about blog coverage

While regretting that I have yet to give serious coverage to the Institute for 21st Energy, its principles, its work and how to discuss its principles and concepts, I thought to look to some of the many authors and sites that are worth turning to regularly in the domains of energy/environmental issues. Turns out that my failure to turn a blogging / investigative eye to this effort is not, sadly, in isolation.  Here are some sites worth having on the ‘check frequently’ list and their coverage:

• Dot Earth: Nothing for “Chamber of Commerce” or Jim Jones nor Institute for 21st Century Energy.
• Grist: One mention amid discussing the rumor that Jim Jones might be in line to be Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick.
• DeSmogBlog: No mention of the Institute for 21st Century Energy nor “Jim Jones” Marine nor …
• Environmental Capital (WSJ): Nothing for “Jim Jones” nor for the Institute for 21st Century Energy.
• Sietch Blog: Nothing for Jones Chamber, nor any relevant items for Chamber of Commerce.
• Watthead: Nothing relevant for Chamber of Commerce, nor Jim Jones, nor James Jones, nor …
• Cost of Energy: Nothing for Jim Jones, James Jones, Chamber of Commerce, etc …
• Climaticide Chronicles: Nothing relevant for Chamber of Commerce, nothing for Institute for 21st Century Energy, etc …
• Solve Climate: Nothing directly on the Institute and its work, but several good pieces on how the US Chamber of Commerce works to fight action on global change, such as this September 2008 discussion US Chamber of Commerce launces campaign against clean air.
• ClimateProgress: A notable exception, with A bunch of bland old guys offer a bunch of bland old solutions dismantling the introductory letter and principles from the Institute. But, the work from the Institute since then has not been covered / dismantled.

To be clear, these are all sites worth reading and if the above is critical of them, this site/this author is equally (if not more) open to any criticism. It is, again, notable how the Institute’s work seems to have escaped serious examination.

PS: And a brief mention of something else.  Jim Jones shares a resume line with a recent National Security Advisor: Chevron board membership.

A guest post from a fellow Energize America board member, DooLittle SoThere, who actually manages to do much, actually.

Welcome to my journey.  I am pursuing LEED PA certified to increase my sustainability knowledge base, to help guide my restoration of an historic opera house, and to improve my chances of landing a green collar job after 20 years in high tech – despite an economy on life support and a sea of job seekers.  Anyone interested in cleantech, efficiency, sustainability or the environment can benefit from formal LEED certification as it integrates these critical and frequently separate elements into a practical whole, and enables you to think more systematically about each as well.  A LEED AP is generally recognized as an expert in the field of sustainable design and can add significant value to a cleantech career.  And, who knows, LEED certification may help you get that coveted green collar job as together we Energize America. 
 
More on LEED and LEED PA after the jump.

LEED Background 
An acronym rarely heard outside the building community and hard-core energy enthusiasts before last year, LEED is increasingly bubbling up in conversations and job descriptions everywhere.  The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings, managed by the US Green Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit organization whose mission is to

“transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy and prosperous environment that improves quality of life.”  

The LEED point-based scoring system includes programs for Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum for new buildings, existing buildings, homes, schools and neighborhood development, and ranges from a minimum of 26 to 69 points measured across the entire lifecycle of a facility, including site sustainability, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources and indoor environmental quality.  

Need for LEED 
It certainly makes sense to focus on sustainable facility design since buildings in the US are responsible 72% of electricity consumption and 39% of CO2 emissions.  Globally, buildings are the largest since source of CO2 emissions, followed by transportation then industry.   According to the USGBC, green buildings can reduce energy 24-50%, CO2 emissions 33-39%, water use 14% and solid waste 70% (source).

Demand for LEED-certified buildings and professionals is booming due to unprecedented governmental initiatives, heightened residential demand and improvements in sustainable materials.  While customers used to pay a hefty ‘LEED premium’, the incremental cost today is estimated at an extra 2% of construction costs and up to $150K in soft costs for Certified through Gold level certification, depending on how much assistance is needed with the certification process.  The projected green building market value is expected to grow rapidly from $12B in 2006 to $30-60B in 2010, requiring a serious injection of venture capital and green products and services delivered by a wide range of energy-smart and environmentally aware clean techies.

The Journey Begins 
Individuals can become LEED accredited by successfully taking the LEED Accredited Professional Exam, which enables an individual to facilitate the rating of buildings with the various LEED systems. Professional Accreditation is administered by the Green Building Certification Institute, which has partnered withPrometricto provide seminars and lectures to prepare candidates to take and pass the LEED AP Exam.  The cost to take the exam is $300 for USGBC members and $400 for non-members, plus roughly $200 for aReference Guide specific to a particular category.  Optional, fee-based USGBC seminarsare available from a variety of third party providers to help individuals prepare for the exam. USGBC membership, which ranges from $300 to several thousand depending on organizational size and type, is not a requirement for taking any of the exams that correspond to the various versions of the LEED system including New Buildings, Existing Building and Commercial Interiors.  

You can download sample test questions and review the LEED Accredited Professional Handbook for a better understanding of the process.  The LEED AP exam consists of 80 questions, and is scored on a scale of 125 to 200, with a score of 170 required to pass.  In future posts I’ll review each of the five categories of the Commercial Interiors Reference Guide at a high level, and hopefully put each into a broader context of specific cleantech solutions and overall market opportunities.