June 15th, 2009 · Comments Off on Why do so many in Congress hate American manufacturing?
Truly, this is one of the questions that should be on the table when considering Congressional (in)action re climate change and clean energy options. Over the past decade, as US jobs flew out to other countries, with workers all too often spending their last months/weeks/days on the job training foreigners how to use equipment and then packing that equipment up to be used in a foreign factory, “clean energy’ has been a bright spot — with increased and increasing employment in manufacturing a(long with installation) of a wide range of clean energy systems.
Looking forward, in the face of peak oil and climate change and other energy issues, this is perhaps the economic arena most clearly to have future growth.
Last year, the US wind industry surprised coal mining in terms of total employment for the first time and, even with the economic crisis, the gap is increasing as wind heads toward surprising the total employment in the entire coal sector.
Today, the Blue-Green Alliance added (yet) another solid report (download) to the table showing the high payoff in terms of employment (on top of all the other beneftis) from getting serious about clean energy. Putting in a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) of 25 percent by 2025, as per candidate Obama’s campaign pledge, would mean the creation of 850,000 manufacturing jobs, alone, at existing firms across the United States. (Without even discussing the potential of new firms, new technologies, and the potential of a booming export market on top of US requirements.)
On top of the serious benefits of improved health for all Americans, reducing our damaging impacts on the environment in which we all live, reducing our dependency on limited fossil fuel resources, and improving our national security through more varied and more resilient power systems, the basic fact is that clean energy creates more jobs per $ invested than is the case with polluting energy options. In a situation where we face economic, employment, security, and environmental crises, looking for that win-win-win-win space that helps address all these challenges through creation of opportunities would seem to be a no-brainer.
In face of such self-evident and extremely well-documented multi-faceted values of investing in a clean-energy future, we face a ‘political reality’ that too many members of Congress seem intent on bidding the system down to an ever-lower and ever-less meaningful RES levels. The Waxman-Markey ACES has been whittled down to 20 percent RES by 2020, with 5 percent (and even more) to be from “energy efficiency”. The Senate energy bill is whittled down to perhaps 15 percent, with provisions to make even lower levels of actual clean energy production acceptable at meeting this target.
To start with, these levels are already below what most states in the Union already have in their own plans, let alone what plans are emerging (for example, the not-necessarily clean energy friendly Creigh Deeds, Democratic candidate for Gov, calling for 22 percent RES by 2022) across the nation.
Secondly, these sorts of levels fall short of what is likely to occur even without any national standard. By 2012, in part due to the investment stream from ARRA (the Stimulus Package), non-hydropower renewable energy will likely top five percent of generated electricity. To hit the 25 x 25 target would require about 18.5 gigawatts / year of biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, and other renewable electricity installations: about double what was installed in 2008. In other words, the 25 x 25 target requires increased installations from what is already occurring, but nothing herculean in a market space seeing double-digit growth in production year-in, year-out.
Let us be clear, that 25 percent by 2025 target is unambitious and far less than what we should be targeting. It would, however, set the US on a path toward greater investment and focus on renewable energy.
Instead of having a Congress filled with people asking “how can we lead America into a better and stronger position”? Instead of having a Congress dominated by people asking “how can we increase good jobs for Americans through boosting our manufacturing sector”, we have a Republican minority intent on drilling and digging our way deeper into an economic, energy, and environmental morass. And, sadly, too many Democratic members myopically focused on enriching their rice bowl or their contributors rather than focusing on what is best for America and Americans.
This should not be such an uphill battle. Clean energy is a win-win-win-win strategy. Instead of carving out a path toward a prosperous, climate-friendly America, the path pursued by too many in Congress leaves one wondering: Why do so many in Congress hate American manufacturing?
Why is gallons per mile? Moving from 15 to 20 mpg is, statistically, the same as moving from 30 to 40 mpg (each a 33% increase in fuel efficiency) in one way, the way most people think, but this doesn’t work out to the same savings in gallons per mile. To make life easier, let’s us consider 100 miles for comparison rather than 1 mile.
15 mpg = 6.666 gallons per 100 miles (gp100m); 20 mpg = 5 gp100m or a savings of 1.66 gallons
30 mpg = 3.333 gp100m; 40 = 2.5 gp100m or a savings of .83 gallons per 100 miles driven
In other words, that statistically same (one direction) improvement actually differs by a factor of two considered another way.
Consider an “average” driver of 12,000 miles per year. Moving from a 15 to a 20 mile per gallon vehicle would save 200 gallons per year (falling from 800 to 600 gallons per year) and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 5000 lbs per year (counting the systems costs for delivering the gasoline to the vehicle in addition to the straight gallon of gas CO2 emissions). Moving from a 30 to 40 mpg vehicle would save 100 gallons.
For that 30 mpg vehicle owner to match those the 15 mpg vehicle owner’s switch to a 20 mpg vehicle, the new vehicle would have to hit 60 mpg. That is, moving from 400 gallons / year of fuel use to 200.
Of course, what we would like to seriously incentivize getting that 15 mpg vehicle owner either out of a car (if appropriate) or into a 30 mpg (400 gallons/year savings) or 40 mpg (500 gallons/year savings) or 50 mpg (560 gallons/year savings) vehicle.
In any event, if we use a a gpm (or gp100m) standard, the actual savings in terms of total fuel use become self evident and provide a far better basis for policy-making.
June 9th, 2009 · Comments Off on Apartment Building Associations Seek Inefficient Buildings?
The National Multi Housing Council and National Apartment Association have put out an “appeal” calling for letters to Congress against instituting national building standards for energy efficiency that would move the nation on a path toward sensible building infrastructure. This misleading, deceptive, and wrong-headed appeal seeks to add more voices toward those seeking to sabotage efforts to move the nation forward toward a prosperous, energy smart future.
But, NMHC/NAA see these measures to improve energy efficiency for their tenants as potentially undercutting their profits. One might read their objections, in fact, as ‘the slum lords whine’ considering their concerns.
“This analysis directly addresses any questions lawmakers may have about the huge impact energy efficiency can have on making cap-and-trade more affordable for Americans,” said Steven Nadel, Executive Director of ACEEE. “As members of Congress continue their consideration of energy and climate policy, they must realize that the energy efficiency provisions in these bills will save Americans money on their energy bills and create much needed jobs.”
This is good news … but also points to the need to make the good better. We’re talking about $75 per year in average savings through the first decade, with the lion’s share of savings not coming until the end of the analysis period. This makes sense (replacing appliances, more efficient new buildings, etc …) but we can do better, far better, with real opportunities for saving more money while cutting energy use and emissions even further.
Reading through the CBO scoring, there seem to be a range of inadequacies and gaps, in some cases quite straightforward and others quite complex. While the CBO operates under some rule sets that can lead to counter-intuitive results, some quite significant impacts of W-M ACES seem to have been left out of the analysis.
A positive sign of our changing time is that all four candidates (soon to be two) for Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia have put into public serious statements about energy and environmental issues. We will put aside the “all of the above” and “drill here, drill now” fantasies of Republican Bob McDonnell to turn our eyes to the three Democratic Party candidates for Governor. Before comparing, there is something excellent to highlight here: all three candidates have real plans and each have positive elements. All three highlight the importance of energy efficiency and discuss renewable energy standards. All three call for renewable electricity standards stronger than those proposed in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act. All of this is a good sign.
In short, to summarize reviewing the candidate’s platforms, if energy and environmental issues are on the top of your plate, your vote should go to Brian Moran. Terry McAuliffe’s plan has much to assimilate and of value but is somewhat confused, even contradictory, and not as aggressively direct about the climate challenges and opportunities before the Commonwealth of Virginia. And, while Creigh Deeds concepts are much stronger than anything we’ll see from McDonnell, they pale in contrast to the urgency of the situation before us.
From another angle, however, whichever Democrat emerges from the primary as the candidate for government would be well advised to read (closely) as each of the three actually has their strengths … and weaknesses.
This is a critically important item that I will be writing on, as well, but mwmwm has written a good piece that merits reading. Simply put, we can put warming aside and acidification of the oceans provides more than enough reason for acting with alacrity to cut CO2 emissions and to begin to look for paths to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and out of paths where it would end up in the oceans. This new joint report / statement brings much higher visibility and raises concerns to a higher level.
A strongly worded statement was released last week, signed by seventy science academies (including our own National Academy of Sciences) about ocean acidification.
Ocean acidification, one of the world’s most important climate change challenges, may be left off the agenda at the United Nations Copenhagen conference, the world’s science academies warned today…. 70 national science academies signed the statement…. “The implications of ocean acidification cannot be overstated. Unless we cut our global CO2 emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 and thereafter, we could be looking at fundamental and immutable changes in the makeup of our marine biodiversity. The effects will be seen worldwide, threatening food security, reducing coastal protection and damaging the local economies that may be least able to tolerate it.”
June 7th, 2009 · Comments Off on Energy COOL: Lego Like Dew Collection
Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.
Sometimes the most interesting things come from people contemplating natural processes and ancient practices, turning the problem around and around, and figuring out how to make those techniques work in our techno-heavy world.
People have been looking to dew collection as a path for clean water supplies in the desert. For millenium, rock piles have provided liquid supplies keeping alive plants — even supporting agriculture in very arid regions.
Tal-Ya Water Technologies looks to have come up with a snap and play system that will make child’s play of improving arid regions’ agricultural water supply and practices.
Absolutely spot on is the beginning, highlighting the truth that we are facing a
race for trillions of dollars in clean-energy investments. As President Obama says, “the nation that leads in 21st-century clean energy is the nation that will lead the 21st-century global economy.”
And if we win the race, it could bring 150,000 new jobs and billions of dollars to Massachusetts.
The question is whether — and how — we will engage in this race in this nation. Will we sit back and watch, continuing to surrender any hope of leadership to other nations? Will we enter the race in a halfhearted manner, dipping our toes in the water? Or, will we double down, dive into the water to sprint at full speed, with serious determination to win this race?
But then Congressman Markey moves from those cheers of agreement to far less certain space.
Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, are, almost certainly, its strongest elements. The United States, for a wide-ranging set of reasons, has evolved into a far more energy inefficient society than sensible (rather than stove-piped and distorted) economics would suggest should be the case. The 
almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly