The science is clear: this is creating risks for humanity.
The appropriate responses are debated and argued — even as there are those who simply deny reality (looking at you, Donald Trump …) and work to obstruct meaningful action to mitigate climate change and reduce risks (looking at you, ExxonMobil).
A legitimate case can be made that climate change is the most serious challenge and opportunity before the nation, before humanity. Considering the serious risks and challenges, it is essentially negligence that, far too often, “climate silence” is reigning in our society. When major events occur with clear climate linkages, reporters too rarely mention climate change. Major reports on climate risks are buried within the newspaper, if even reported, because “everyone already knows this … it isn’t news …” Presidential debate after presidential debate have passed without questions about climate change.
Regretfully, far too many political campaigns operate in the same way as debate moderators — climate change isn’t the elephant in the room because, well, it isn’t in the room for debate moderators and reporters focused on “horse race” discussions.
Earlier this year, activists in Texas’ 7th District provided a template of how to change this dynamic. Several groups worked together to have a ‘climate forum’ in the Democratic primary: over 400 people attended this two-hour event which included not only the House primary candidates, but also Beto O’Rourke.
Speaking at the Houston Climate Forum. Texas should be the national leader on environmental efforts and protecting our air, water, and public lands. pic.twitter.com/yKal9xoQCk
All of the candidates were given a set of questions relevant for climate change with a ‘let us know which you are ready to engage on’. This led to substantive discussions, with both convergent and divergent perspectives on ‘what to do’ which informed voters. Among other things, one of the lead organizers (Professor Dan Cohan, Rice University) explained to me that this helped ‘educate’ the candidates: that, writ large, they were all more thoughtful related to climate issues than what he saw/perceived perhaps a year earlier.
Cohan summarized:
“Whoever is elected to Congress this November, they’ll know there’s a motivated contingent of voters eager to see a more vigorous federal response to climate.
“If we’ve shown that to be true in the oil patch of a red state, perhaps similar events elsewhere could provide a wake-up call to other representatives as well.”
A “similar event” is occurring next week in Virginia.
In addition to being a critical issue, this is perhaps the policy arena where the differences between the parties and between the candidates is starkest*. Writ large, Democratic Party politicians (and members) understand that humanity is driving climate change (primarily through burning of fossil fuels), support government investment in research and developing solutions, and have agreement on pathways to mitigate climate risks.
In contrast, the GOP earns its “Greedy Oil Party” moniker with blunt denial of basic science, rejection of paths to mitigate climate risks and seize benefits from climate actions, and promotion of policies and actions that worsen the situation and hamper ability to deal with growing climate challenges.
The two candidates are, in this case, sterling examples of this glaring divide between the two parties.
Tim Kaine has developed a strong understanding of climate issues and has real, substantive perspectives on how to move forward. Here’s a summary from his “issues” page:
Climate change imperils our planet’s future and threatens our economy. Tim believes that protecting our natural resources and environment are critical for our long-term health, safety and prosperity.
Stewart, in stark contrast, blindly parrots ignorant nonsense about climate issues as exemplified during a Republican primary debate, when he called the scientific conclusions about humanity driving climate change “a hoax,” asserted that this is all about making Al Gore rich, and (in a moment emblematic of a Trump clone) falsely claimed that the most developed countries are the “least polluters.” (For a quick window on this absurdity: while China is the top emitter globally, the United States remains solidly in second place … and Americans emit more than twice as much, per capita, as the Chinese.)
?
Tuesday’s evening will provide a venue for hearing directly from the Senate candidates about climate issues. This is something that should be occurring in race after race across the nation. Kudos to FACS for arranging this to happen …
In Texas 7th District, 400 people attended the climate forum in person along with others watching on Facebook.
To show that Virginians care about this issue, understanding climate risks, and wish to see action from their elected leaders, filling James Madison High School’s auditorium would be a good signal.
This event is occurring on Erev Yom Kippur, the start of the most significant day in the Jewish calendar. The Faith Alliance has expressed “regret” for this conflict, highlighting that the Day of Atonement is an appropriate time for reflection on climate change.
As part of the prayers for the Day of Atonement, the Vidui, the Al Cheyt or recital of sins, is perhaps the most important. The prayer is a recitation of individual wrongs, an acceptance of failures to meet the highest of ideals. A key word is Ashamnu, or “we have sinned.” Considering climate change within this context can provide powerful tools for reflection about personal and collective responsibilities.
The following is a climate-oriented sermon prelude to a Viddui recitation:
This is Yom Kippur.
This is a night for confession.
So let us be honest.
If ever there was a time for candor, this is it.
We humans are not good with limits.
We are pushing the planet and its animal resources to the limit.
We want what we want when we want it.
We pretty much take, hunt, fish, and consume until someone or something stops us or until there is no more to be taken.
Do you remember the Viddui we will be reciting in a few minutes? It’s the Confession prayer that lists our sins alphabetically.
a…b…c…
We abuse. We besmirch. We consume. We destroy. We excuse ourselves. We forget the consequences of our actions. We are greedy.
I could continue through the alphabet, and I should go on because, as the saying goes, although religion ought to comfort the afflicted, religion also needs to afflict the comfortable. And we truly do need to be uncomfortable tonight. Remember an alternate name for Yom Kippur is Yom Ha-Din…the Day of Judgment. This night is meant to be a time for severity.
We are living in a time of consequences, a time where humanity’s future (and our own, unless you are on your deathbed, futures) require confronting Inconvenient Truth, and acting in this regard.
The individual matters and we need, for Yom Kippur, to judge ourselves with “severity” — to push our own comfortable ways as to whether we ‘sin’ and damage and harm unknowingly or knowingly.
May the attendees and participates of “The Virginia Climate Crisis Forum” be prepared to judge with severity; and, to make their decisions for November votes with that judgement in mind.
==========
In addition to occurring during Yom Kippur, the VA Climate Crisis Forum will occur as the East Coast (more the Carolinas than Virginia) are going to be just starting the real assessment of and recovery from a climate change enhanced/driven climate catastrophe: Hurricane Florence.
Increased heat (ocean and atmospheric) ==> more moisture in the air, stronger storms.
Sea Level Rise (from thermal expansion of oceans and glacier melting) ==> additional height to storm surge (which means not just height but geographic extent).
High Pressure System to North ==> a high pressure system to the north, associated with climate change impacts on Arctic weather/air patterns, prevented Florence from turning to the north. Assessment, by the top experts, is that in a ‘non-climate changed world’, a storm like Florence likely would have turned north, while well out to sea, and not have had landfall as a hurricane.
With this disastrous climate-related event ‘fresh’ in mind, hopefully Florence is something that the moderator will discuss with both Senator Kaine and white-nationalist (sympathizer/enabler) Corey Stewart.
==========
* As to the “starkest” difference between the political parties in 2018, I’d point to the Democratic Party’s belief in the rule of law and the necessity for Congress to fulfill its Constitutional obligations for oversight compared to the Republican Party’s embrace of the Cult Of Trump and all of the cascading implications of aiding and abetting Trump’s criminal activity (from violations of the Emoluments’ Clause to election finance violations to likely treason to …). Climate change, however, might be at the confluence of the most serious, long impact POLICY arena and the massive gulf between the two parties.
The planet is getting hotter; we must take action. The Virginia Climate Crisis Forum, hosted by Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions (FACS), will focus on how Virginia is being and will be affected by climate change.
Virginia Climate Crisis: Solutions to Climate Change
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
7:30 PM (doors open at 7 PM)
James Madison High SchoolRegister: bit.ly/FACSclimateforum
Featured Speakers (2018 candidates for U.S. Senator from Virginia):
U.S. Senator Tim Kaine
Corey Stewart, Chairman At-Large, Prince William County Board of Supervisors
Panelists include:
Samantha Ahdoot, MD, FAAP, Chair and Co-founder, Virginia Clinicians for Climate Action
Major General Rick Devereaux, USAF (Ret.), Former Director of Operational Planning, Policy, & Strategy, U.S. Air Force; Advisory Board, Center for Climate and National Security
Fairfax County Supervisor Dan Storck
Moderated by Rev. Dr. Jean Wright.
The forum is open to the public and free of charge. Space is limited. Doors open at 7 PM.
We regret that the timing of this event may prevent members of the Jewish community from attending because this falls on Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is a day of atonement, providing an appropriate context for talking about climate change, taking responsibility and asking for forgiveness for our contributions to this crisis, and resolving to address our failings through personal action.
Comments Off on Virginia #Climate Crisis Forum: Featuring Senate Candidates @TimKaine & @CoreyStewartVATags:2018 Election · climate change · politics
August 24th, 2018 · Comments Off on Anaerobic Digestion for the Naval Academy? (A last-minute chance to get it funding …)
Food waste is a serious challenge. Often said, there is more than enough food to feed humanity enough calories if we didn’t waste so much food. In the developing world, that food is mainly wasted before it gets near the consumer. In the developed world, that waste occurs mainly close to or by the consumer.
While addressing food wastage is of highest value, of high value is figuring out how to handle food waste (from perfectly edible untouched to scraps after service) in ways better than simply adding to landfills and causing methane pollution. One of these paths: anaerobic digestion (AD) to handle food waste (and, well, animal waste) and produce methane (for burning as bio-gas for electricity or heating) along with high-quality organic material for soil
Re4ormed is a start-up early stage firm with it first AD system at the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) to process midshipmen food waste into electricity. The system “processes 60 tons of pre- and post-consumer food waste per month from the midshipmen dining facility and produces 60,000 kWh of renewable electricity per month.”
Now the Re4ormed AD system developed in response to a military requirement: is there a better way to deal with food (cafeteria) waste when US military forces deploy to places like Djibouti or Afghanistan or even to disaster relief in Puerto Rico? And, can that food waste be turned into value? E.g., renewable electrons to reduce requirements for diesel fuel? Thus, the Re4ormed AD system is containerized — with an ability to move it to where it might be required. Interesting — semi-mobile (okay, movable/transportable even if not ‘mobile’) anaerobic digestion.
The USNA Re4ormed AD system is a demonstration project — still needing development before commercialization — but an interesting project.
“Interesting”, with start-ups, often means ‘requires resources’. And, Re4ormed is a semi-finalist for a a veteran small business grant from StreetShares andBoston Brewing Co. Re4ormed competition is sort of interesting primarily food start-ups and, bizarrely, a mobile cigar lounge (which, with all due respect, should not be in that group as it is the only one of 14 that clearly hurts, rather than helps improve, human health). The only ‘clean energy’ option in the mix: Re4ormed.
Re4ormed, in my mind, looks like a useful system to have move forward into more development. They are, at this time, working on a $1.1 million project for a beef-cattle feedlot with an expected payoff of 4-5 years. That is a serious (near) commercial demonstration project. If it it works and at an affordable price, think about the food waste in your local school no longer heading to landfills but going to help heat the school. Imagine being able to move in a dozen Re4ormed AD container systems for an Olympics and turning the ticket holders food waste into energy. Imagine … well, I can imagine.
If you wish to help Re4ormed along, vote by 23:59 (before midnight) Saturday, August 25th. Unlike some elections, every vote doesn’t just count, every vote is counted.
Comments Off on Anaerobic Digestion for the Naval Academy? (A last-minute chance to get it funding …)Tags:sustainability
August 23rd, 2018 · Comments Off on Virginia Energy Plan: @GovernorVA should GO BIG or go home …
Governor Northam has a real opportunity – assuming he seizes it – to set Virginia on a path toward increased prosperity, improved security, and global leadership this fall.
“Virginia law requires the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) to write a ten-year Energy Plan in the first year of every new administration. The statute lists vague requirements for the plan, including that it be consistent with the Commonwealth Energy Policy, itself a toothless statute. That means each new governor can pretty much tell DMME what to focus on.”
This plan creates an opening for the Northam Administration to put Virginia on the path to a prosperous, energy smart, climate resilient future … an opportunity to be seized.
There is not, already, a plan to comment on, which means that the door is open for “give us your best ideas”. As a DMME official explained in a note to me the other day:
Motivations for those who have offered recommendations vary widely. They come from subject matter experts, policy wonks, environmentalists, industry, utilities and regular folks who are interested. Some have commented because of strong feelings on a single topic, like rooftop solar or the natural gas pipelines.
Some have based their comments on the 2014 Energy Plan or the 2016 update. Others attended the public listening sessions with comments in mind or offered impromptu comments that were prompted by listening to others.
Rather than be another voice simply screaming (correctly) into the wind “Stop the PIPELINES, they are economically and environmentally damaging!” or “BUILD SOLAR,” here are themes that should be central to the Virginia Energy Plan if Governor Northam has any desire to seize the opportunity to create a new, vibrant path forward for Virginia:
THINK
Holistically
Big
About Value Streams
LEVERAGE
Virginia’s assets
Others’ successes, approaches, momentum
The power of smart regulation
REVISIT AND RETHINK
Ways and pace of doing business
Old Concepts
STIMULATE
Green education
Leverage energy to boost rural economies/communities
Foster innovation (including start-ups)
Lead
By example
By result
Fiscally, energy resiliency, environmentally
These themes — discussed below the fold — are appropriate for planners in other states and even nations.
With the 2018 Virginia Energy Plan (VEP), the Northam Administration has the opportunity to create a road map for a prosperous, energy resilient, climate-friendly Virginia. It is an opportunity to seize … rather than let slip away.
Thinking through the themes …
The following is a brief discussion of the above themes.
THINK
Holistically: Energy is embedded through our lives and how we approach energy has rippling impacts. Too often, decisions are made in a stove-piped fashion. The biggest value streams from “greening an office,” for instance, aren’t in the reduced energy bills, but in improved productivity from happier, healthier employees. Energy is not “just” about coal, solar, gas, nuclear, but also about water systems; about job production; about better designed/implemented transportation (from bike lanes to electric buses to better synchronized street lights); to zoning to encourage walkable communities; to …many things. The VEP must approach energy in a holistic manner.
Big: While a substantive plan requires outlining discrete, incremental changes – such as a measure modifying “net metering” rules to allow homeowners to install more solar power than they use to enable covering future demand growth (like buying an electric car) – the VEP should lay out a substantive vision for real change, for cleaning up our energy system while creating jobs, rather than simply be a shopping list of incrementalism. As part of that “big” thinking, the plan should look to global opportunity and challenge — most notably climate change — and lay out how Virginia’s plan will have global impacts if executed.
About Value Streams: There are a wide space of value streams from smart energy approaches. Reducing pollution improves health which leads to a happier (and wealthier/more productive) population. Smart energy approaches will create jobs and boost economic performance. Cleaner, higher quality, and more resilient electrons will boost business performance. And …the VEP should speak to these value streams — energy planning is FAR from just accounting for energy’s retail pricing.
LEVERAGE
Virginia’s assets: From significant offshore wind resources and (perhaps) the nation’s best region for an offshore wind industry (Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Newport News) to a strong nuclear power industry to biomass to high-quality universities with students impassioned about supporting a move to a clean energy economy, Virginia has substantive resources to support far more aggressive moves into a 21st century energy system.
Others’ successes, approaches, momentum: Around the world, there are amazing paths and policies. Israel, not surprisingly, has a discrete fund based to support innovation in water systems that has helped drive Israel to one of the most efficient economies in water use while boosting an globally powerful industry that creates jobs and boosts the economy. That fund is easy for innovators to access (at early stages) unlike virtually every innovation fund in the United States (and Virginia). How about D2 (Danish, Dutch) approaches to bicycling? How about … Leverage others to increase success here.
The power of smart regulation. Virginia should leverage regulation to advance a cleaner, more prosperous energy system. Other states and many municipalities are leveraging regulations more aggressively to advance energy systems in ways that reduce pollution and strengthen economic performance. Some building code / regulation examples:
From neighboring states, the District of Columbia and Montgomery County requirements for building to high-energy/environmental performance standards in office and government structures. This is creating jobs in the communities, reducing pollution loads, and these high-performance buildings are leading to increased rental rates / commercial activities as businesses choose to locate in them.
Requirements for buildings to have on-site renewable energy generation (as an example, California’s requirement for all new single-family housing (if possible) to have solar panels).
Requirements for flat roofs to have reflective roofing, solar panels, and/or green roofs.
Aligned with VEP recommendations, the Governor’s Office should establish a Task Force to study other states’ actions, examine which are in accord with existing Virginia law and could be implemented by regulation, and which are worth pursuing but required legislative action. The Task Force should be established for 2019 through 2022, with a charter to deliver initial potential legislative action by November 15, 2019.
REVISIT AND RETHINK
Ways and pace of doing business: From a utility structure that encourages promoting energy use to the regulated utility model guaranteeing a profit on capital investments (even if they were developed using faulty (if not outright false) data and assumptions) to limitations in using building regulation to drive positive change to a slow and deliberate decision-making process (that leaves the Commonwealth well below the pace of energy/technological innovation), the “system” has many ways of business built into ‘it’ that inhibit moving forward to a better energy system. The VEP should examine such issues and include explicit discussion of these challenges with roadmaps toward a better operating system.
Old Concepts: A number of “old” and “faulty” assumptions remain too close to the core of (Virginia) energy thinking. For example, even with electric vehicles, the growth of decentralized energy production and improved energy efficiency undermines planning based on increased electricity demand indefinitely into the future. Another faulty assumption is that there is such a thing as clean fossil fuels. While lower polluting at the street level than, say, diesel, “natural gas” is a fossil fuel that pollutes and does NOT represent a “bridge to a clean energy future,” even as (too) many people continue to think it does so.
STIMULATE: The VEP should incorporate elements to stimulate Virginia’s economy into the future through accelerating achievement of a clean energy system. Here are some elements:
Leverage energy to boost rural economies/communities: There is a major disconnect in Virginia: urban areas are seeing strong economic performance while rural areas are, writ large, stagnating. Simply put, coal will not return and will not lead to a booming rural economy. However, a range of appropriate policies could improve Virginia’s rural economy while fostering a cleaner, more resilient energy system. These could include aggressive energy efficiency in rural areas; clean energy programs for farms (think solar panels on barns); biomass energy programs; etc. The VEP should have a section of how clean energy investments can help bridge the urban-rural economic divide.
Foster innovation (including start-ups). Virginia should become far more aggressive in supporting early-stage energy opportunities — fostering an environment that will encourage Virginians to develop energy innovations and an environment (including test facilities, proving grounds, financing, etc.) that puts Virginia in the leadership in clean-energy T2M (technology to market).
Lead
By example
By result
Fiscally, energy resiliency, environmentally
Addendum …
To add my voice to those calling for specific measures, here are just a few:
Solar
Solar prices have plunged. Increasingly, so far as to lower cost than existing infrastructure for delivering electrons. While progress is being made, Virginia still has too many obstacles to enabling business owners, local communities, and individuals from making the move to clean energy (and lower costs).
As a partial path forward, the VEP should call for the default planning guidance for all state-funded (fully or partially — such as schools) buildings to have solar power systems. From schools to rest stops to libraries to prisons to recreation centers to coliseums, public facilities (a) have meaningful electricity loads and (b) typically have extensive, flat roof space. Planners should have to explain, explicitly, why solar power is not included in building plans rather than have to make extra effort to include it. That ‘default’ will rapidly boost solar penetration in the public space.
VEP should
call for legislation that would allow the Legislature to mandate solar integration into — for example — flat rooftops across the Commonwealth.
provide a roadmap for creating a mandate similar to California’s rooftop solar program for housing construction.
layout the potential ‘duck curve’ (that increased penetration of solar power leads to excess electricity in the mid-day period) issues for Virginia along with road mapping a path for addressing these to create opportunity as solar production increases (such as battery storage at public facilities; long-term storage options; introduction of power management leveraging smart grid systems; etc.).
Storage
A parallel (following?) price and technology revolution is in storage options. Having decentralized storage enables better grid performance, enables lowering costs and reduced pollution, and provides resiliency against disruption (whether natural or man-made).
The VEP should call for a look to integration of energy and emergency planning. Consider: what if every Virginia high school, police & fire station, recreation center, and other key public facility had enough combined solar power and battery to provide basic services in a grid disruption (like occurred in much of the Commonwealth for Hurricane Isabelle)? Citizens without power would have places for refuge, emergency services would not be disrupted, our lives would be more secure … for, oh by the way, almost certainly at a lower cost to the taxpayer than the existing electricity delivery to these public facilities.
Wind
Virginia has the opportunity has huge potential wind power resources, and the VEP should outline a far more aggressive path forward than what is occurring with Dominion Power. The ‘progressing’ 12 megawatt ‘demonstration project’ might have made sense 10 (or even as recently as 5) years ago but is laughable in the face of offshore wind progress and plunging prices around the world. The 12 megawatts will be quite high cost — providing ammunition to those fighting clean energy — while teaching us little about offshore wind technology (the lessons and knowledge exists elsewhere). While others around the world and nation are pressing forward with offshore wind seriously (with ever-lowering prices), the idea that the first increment of a ‘major’ project won’t even be submitted for review until 2022-23 is only sensible if one seeks to keep as much space open, as possible, for extended reliance on fossil fuel electricity.
Land-based wind power: While not high-quality wind, Virginia should consider a program to foster towers with (relatively small) wind turbines and cellular phone antennas on farms along highways and areas with poor internet/cell coverage. The combination of these two revenue/public utility streams make this a worthwhile value proposition. In another “combination,” the VEP should call for a research program (with commercial demonstration projects) on combining wind power with underground constructed hydropower in SW Virginia (where the best Virginia onshore wind power resources are … along with mountains and coal miners who could use their mining skills to advance a clean energy future while boosting their community’s economy.)
Establish a serious, aggressive, mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Virginia is behind the curve, nationwide, in its planned move toward a clean energy grid. From Hawaii to Alaska to New York to…, state after state has (far) more aggressive plans. And, they are finding their electricity systems operating more reliably and costs falling (often plunging) in the process. The VEP should lay the basis for a serious, aggressive, mandatory RPS that will accelerate Virginia’s move to operating on clean electrons.
Accelerate use VW Settlement fund and target electrification of fleet vehicles as the top priority. With ‘DieselGate’, VW had a legal settlement that included funds for states ($93M for Virginia) to reduce diesel fuel impacts. With a seemingly quite deliberate process, after several years, the Governor’s office just announced the planned use of 15% of that money for a(n unclear) electric vehicle charging station program. The resources should be leveraged more rapidly to support paths to reduce diesel fumes across the Commonwealth in ways that provide a leap ahead to a smart energy future. In this space, perhaps one of the most exciting arenas is electrified buses. Just a few years ago, it might have been difficult to justify moving municipal (and school and prison and …) buses from diesel to electricity. Now, as per making solar default option on rooftops, every fleet bus decision should start with the premise that electric is the way to go — unless there is good reason not to. The VW Settlement fund should be leveraged to accelerate the move to electric public bus fleets. While there are a range of benefits from EV buses (including much higher passenger satisfaction), they very clearly address the core of the VW settlement: reduce human exposure to the serious health hazards of diesel fumes.
Evaluate the fracked-gas pipelines in holistic manner — and be prepared to stop them.
A holistic look at the two major natural gas pipelines almost certainly would show them to be a bad investment for Virginia and Virginians — even if Dominion shareholders might see a large profit.
“Stranded assets”: Every day provides evidence that natural gas will not be a competitive electricity generation option in more markets than expected just a short time ago. The emergent numbers related to solar, wind, and storage certainly suggest that Virginia’s reliance on natural gas (for electricity generation and heating) would fall if Dominion doesn’t lock in higher cost and higher pollution natural gas into the rate base.
Pollution: These pipelines will foster higher local and global pollution. We are already seeing failures to control pollution in the construction process and know that, if completed, these pipelines would have the impact of some 50 additional coal plants (essentially, more than doubling Virginia’s total greenhouse gas emissions).
Risk: Both due to direct financial costs in today’s market and the potential for future carbon taxes, these pipelines create high risk for Virginia and Virginians — a risk that can be avoided.
This Virginian states with high confidence that a true, independent look at them will show that they are not in Virginia and Virginians interest on economic, environmental, security, and risk grounds. We can — and must — do better. The VEP is a path for making this clear.
July 5th, 2018 · Comments Off on India’s massive solar growth plan … is it structured right?
India’s accelerating moves to a clean energy economy has received inadequate attention at this blog (and, well, in much of the world). From leveraging plunging solar prices to enable a viable path to eliminating (the lowest level of) energy poverty to trains with solar panels for powering auxiliary demands to significant reductions in projected coal demands to …, India’s clean energy economy is booming and impressive. Shifting India’s future from a coal-dominated power system to solar, wind, batteries, and other clean energy options is a critical part of reducing global emissions (or, well, avoiding continued growth), for reducing Indian poverty, and opening the doors for ever-growing prosperity in the South Continent. India’s achievements and plans merit attention
This is an impressive statement … consider the confidence that the Indian government has in renewable energy: plans for a more than ten-fold increase in the coming ten years.
However, something to consider … is this plan’s structure conceived correctly?
Ten years of auctioning the same amount of solar and wind every year … hmmm …
To achieve 40 GW of annual capacity installation could (will) require building up additional engineering, production, installation, etc capacity …
Planning on the same amount of installation assumes rapidly building up capacity than artificially flattening that growth to a stable position.
With what is known about solar and wind price (and learning) curves, this seems — on the surface — a plan that will change significantly just in the coming few years: with built up capacity and plunging prices, India almost certainly will be adding additional wind and solar projects to this plan (and adding significant storage (battery) into the plans as well). Thus, the impressive plan for bidding out 400 gw of solar and wind seems almost certain to be overtaken by reality and become even more impressive in the years to come.
India Power Generation: In the first 2 months of current fiscal, no new #coal, #gas or #diesel based capacity was added. Of the 746 MW that has been added, #solar accounts for 91%.https://t.co/tjANR3afw0
June 27th, 2018 · Comments Off on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: A True Climate Hawk
My political life, other than the unending outrage over the Trump kakistocracy outrages, is dominated by the need to #FlipThe10th — to get rid of #ExtremistComstock and do my part for adding one D to the House. With that in mind, it is hard with everything in life to be watching with detail races around the country. Now, I had sort of noticed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’d seen — and been impressed by — her campaign ad. But I didn’t have the money or energy to do much there and, thus, sort of ‘out-of-sight’, out of mind.
This morning, this tweet entered my thread:
The only American politician I've ever seen with a climate change plan that is in line with intergenerational justice: @Ocasio2018.
And, well, wow … So, it is rich … with lots of quality … and a freshman in the House won’t be able to pass everything but, well, her Mobilizing Against Climate Change is perhaps the most serious, most aggressive, and most interconnected three paragraphs that I have seen from a politician.
Mobilizing Against Climate Change
First off, let me say Alexandria has me on the title … we need, as communities, as nations, as humanity, to mobilize in action. That is World War II-like talk. And, that is what we require.
In order to address runaway global climate change, Alexandria strongly supports transitioning the United States to a carbon-free, 100% renewable energy system and a fully modernized electrical grid by 2035.
Yes … and yes … and, these are aggressive goals that are, however, potentially achievable if we “mobilize”.
She believes renewable fuels must be produced in a way that achieves our environmental and energy security goals, so we can move beyond oil responsibly in the fight against climate change. By encouraging the electrification of vehicles, sustainable home heating, distributed rooftop solar generation, and the conversion of the power grid to zero-emissions energy sources, Alexandria believes we can be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2035.
“100% free of fossil fuels by 2035” is an aggressive objective … and, well, even if we mobilize, we might not achieve it … but having that goal and mobilizing to achieve it would mean that we would be well on our way by that time.
Furthermore, Alex believes in recognizing the relationship between economic stability and environmental sustainability.
Yes … YES … YES!!! We would all be better off with this truism embedded in our politics and our lives.
It’s time to shift course and implement a Green New Deal – a transformation that implements structural changes to our political and financial systems in order to alter the trajectory of our environment. Right now, the economy is controlled by big corporations whose profits are dependent on the continuation of climate change. This arrangement benefits few, but comes at the detriment of our planet and all its inhabitants. Its effects are life-threatening, and are especially already felt by low-income communities, both in the U.S. and globally. Even in NY-14, areas like Throgs Neck, College Point, and City Island are being affected by erosion and rising sea levels. Rather than continue a dependency on this system that posits climate change as inherent to economic life, the Green New Deal believes that radically addressing climate change is a potential path towards a more equitable economy with increased employment and widespread financial security for all.
As someone somewhat weaned on this intellectually by people like Van Jones and Majora Carter, a “Green New Deal” is a path to offer real improvement to lives, to help address economic inequality, and move us toward actual policy to #ActOnClimate.
Climate change is the single biggest national security threat for the United States
This is certainly true in the mid and long term — at the moment, it is clear that @RealDonaldTrump and his @GOP collaborators are a bigger threat.
But, in the mid and long term, unchecked climate change is an existential threat to the Republic and modern civilization.
and the single biggest threat to worldwide industrialized civilization, and the effects of warming can be hard to predict and self-reinforcing. We need to avoid a worldwide refugee crisis by waging a war for climate justice through the mobilization of our population and our government. This starts with the United States being a leader on the actions we take both globally and locally.
Absolutely … absolutely … absolutely …
After reading this paragraphs, I have to say that I agree fully with Holthaus:
a climate-change plan in line with intergenerational justice.
In short, an announced plan to invest to spark innovation and deployment of clean energy systems that would be less expensive than coal in traditional economic terms — without requiring inclusion of the substantial externality costs from exploiting coal for electricity.
Less than five years later, Google abandoned RE<C with a rather confused explanation that achieving that, alone, wouldn’t solve climate change challenges. Was this simply mistaken ‘silver bullet reasoning’ or a Google implicit acknowledgment that renewable energy prices would plunge without Google needing to play a leading role in their development or …? Uncertain.
A bit more than a decade after that original announcement, there is a simple reality: in economic transaction after transaction, in locality after locality around the globe, RE<C is a marketplace reality.
From Texas, for example,
“This was first and foremost a business decision and if you win the business argument, then you’re gonna win the environmental argument,” Republican Georgetown, Texas, Mayor Dale Ross said.
“It’s a totally different landscape out there, … in the state of Texas, since January 1, four coal plants have closed. This is the economics of the matter. You buy wind and solar for, say, $18 a megawatt. You buy coal for $25. You have that choice. Which one are you gonna buy?”
Whether you are a mayor, a business owner, or a homeowner, clean energy is coming out on top in terms of new generating capacity.
You have that choice. Which one are you gonna buy?
Simply put, we have reached (passed) the point where going clean is the best choice for the pocket book, for employment, for the economy, for human health, and the planetary climate system.
BP’s chief economist, Spencer Dale, is perhaps one of those for who the old EF Hutton ad applies: when Spencer Dale speaks, people should listen. Thoughtful, substantive, and often incisive about what has happened, is happening, and might/potentially could happen in the energy sector.
Dale’s presentations aren’t only substantive, but articulately engaging and done in a way that encourages others to engage and challenge him rather than simply sit back and nod their head yes.
Yesterday, BP released their 2018 statistical energy review with a Dale speech as the core portion of this event. While there is much of interest in the document and in Dale’s discussion, this post primarily focuses on — challenges — one specific point emphasizing material from one specific slide.
Coal’s percentage of the electricity sector is at the same level as 1998: is this the item of greatest concern?
Dale emphasizes his concern:
Striking: because despite the extraordinary growth in renewables in recent years, and the huge policy efforts to encourage a shift away from coal into cleaner, lower carbon fuels, there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years.
This statement suggests a stagnation, a treading water moving in place as if the energy (electricity) sector is not amid massive change.
With all due respect to Spencer Dale (and, the opening words to this post should make clear that he merits serious respect), that slide and his focus on it recalled to me what the climate-science community nicknames the escalator chart of climate-science denial.
The Science Denialist Escalator
When it comes to statistical and trend analysis, a simple reality: it often matters (tremendously) where one begins. Yes, the global share of electricity provided by coal is roughly today where it was 20 years ago. And, yes, this is not a good thing as humanity should have been driving coal out of the energy sector a long time ago. However, focusing on that 20 year parallel masks a reality that Dale is quite aware of: that there has been major change within the electricity sector in the past decade that has been accelerating year-to-year. At the beginning of the 2010s, many forecasters saw a rosy future for coal which was being reflected in massive acquisition binges by firms like Peabody Energy. The years since have seen massive change to that unhealthy forecast, reflected in Peabody’s bankruptcy, with massive declines in wind and solar prices, massive increases in solar and wind penetration, natural gas displacing coal, energy efficiency entering the market, etc, etc, etc …
The major growth in ‘new’ renewables is masked in a graphic like Dale’s, as the non-fossil figure includes hydropower and nuclear power — both significant players in the global electricity market — and the ‘new renewables’ (essentially wind and solar) needed to grow to significant levels before they would notably shift the ‘non-fossil’ line in graphic like that. Look closely at that graphic and you will see a meaningful edging upward in that blue line toward the end of the period.
More directly, in the past few years, we are seeing
Minimal new coal plants coming on line.
Planned coal plants being delayed and canceled.
Coal power plants being closed … often early.
Significant shares of new power generation provided by wind and, increasingly, solar.
Bidding for future power having renewable energy coming in at a price below — often half the price of — the cost of operating existing coal plants.
Etc …
Etc ..
Etc …
As a small window on this, in the late 2000s, coal plants provided more than 50 percent of U.S. electricity. That share is barely above 30 percent today … and, despite the great efforts of the Trump administration, there is little prospect of going back up over the long time rather than continuing down (an accelerated) downward path.
A graphic with solely the past five years providing details down to wind and solar in the electricity market would have provided a vastly different window on coal’s prospects than a high-level, decades-long slide. Using this, solely, might have been deceptive external to a longer-trend graphic but would have been useful to highlight that things can change (significantly) in the energy sector and, perhaps now, far more rapidly than some conceive.
Energy is a complex space with many dynamics. Dale had much ground to cover in his presentation. However, using that one slide and those words as the core discussion about coal in the power sector was deceptive and potentially harmful to effective decision-making..
Two charts from BP this week. First shows picture BP focused on, suggesting power sector has barely changed in the past 20 years.
As another point of contention, Dale made this comment:
It’s worth remembering that, when commentators proclaim that the world is electrifying, power demand in the developed world hasn’t grown for the past 10 years.
Yes, “power demand” has been flat in no small part because of massive ‘negawatts’ impacts of efficiency measures across the economy from LED lighting taking over to artificial intelligence tools enabling shockingly rapid advances in industrial process efficiencies. Even with growing services powered by electricity, efficiency is enabling that growth to occur with flat demand. While, just as with retirement of coal is happening too slowly, economic electrification isn’t occurring at the pace necessary for a <1.5C future, the flat power demand curve in the developing world doesn’t prove a priori that electrification isn’t occurring.
June 14th, 2018 · Comments Off on Setting a PATH forward on bottled water?
PATH Water
Let’s be clear: bottled water is an ever growing problem around the world. Rather than using tap water, where it is safe (perhaps with a filter), or creating good public water systems, an ever-growing number of people are getting their H20 in plastic water bottles. That plastic contributes to climate change (lots of oil to make the bottles and for transporting water in trucks and not pipelines), contributes to plastic pollution, often is (far less) healthy than getting water for your tap, and is FAR FAR less expensive (for the individual and society) than filling up a glass from the tap. Simply put, we have a serious drinking problem — the bottled water phenomena.
Thus, count me as a bit wary when I received (after the fold) a press release email for PATH Water — an aluminum can bottled water. Seriously, is it that much better to have a can to (hopefully) recycle rather than the plastic to (hopefully) recycle. In my doubting mind, I asked for a sample to figure out what I thought. A bit later, those two pictured bottles …
So, before anything else, the ‘drinking’ and use experience. I referee (a lot of) soccer — sometimes over 10 hours in a weekend. And, thus go through lots of (refilled) water bottles (filled from tap, not plastic). And, water is the primary ‘fluid’ drunk in my household. So, how did PATH stand up: out of the bottle, their reverse osmosis water was about the best (perhaps right wording might be ‘least’) tasting water I’ve experienced from a bottle.
And, after having drunk their water I’ve been refilling PATH Water’s bottles because they are sturdy and more comfortable to drink from than the dozen or so different metal (or refillable plastic) bottles in the closet.
As to recycling: aluminum is far less energy intensive to recycle than plastic, far more likely to recycle than plastic, and far less damaging to the environment than plastic if thrown away. From PATH Water
Aluminum is a much more highly valued commodity than plastic, therefore companies have more incentive to recycle and reuse that recycled material in future. Not only do people recycle aluminum at twice the rate of plastic, but the process of recycling, transportation, and distribution aluminum has a significantly smaller carbon footprint (range from 10-50% depending on the material compared to) compared to other liquid packaging alternatives like plastic or glass. Aluminum is infinitely recyclable, while plastic often gets downcycled, resulting in more waste.
Thus, if one is going to be ‘single use’ water bottle, perhaps PATH Water is providing a better solution than plastic.
Now, the PATH Water team seems focused on helping drive down the plastic water bottle program including through education in California public schools. Thus, this isn’t solely about building up gross revenue.
Now, I still stand behind ‘fill up from the tap’ but if PATH can have some people buy their bottles and then reuse them … time after time … they are providing a real service. (And, well, hopefully putting themselves and ‘disposable water bottle’ providers out of business.)
Having the opportunity to turn on the tap and have clean, drinkable water is core to a well-run, civilized society. “Drinkable”, regretfully, all too often means lead (think Flint) and other dangerous materials.
Courtesy of #WorldEnvironmentDay, a stark statement as to one set of dangerous materials in that tap water that few of us ever think about.
Contamination rate of drinking #water with microscopic plastic fiber:
-> USA: 94% -> Beirut, Lebanon: 94% -> New Delhi, India: 82% -> Kampala, Uganda: 81% -> Jakarta, Indonesia: 76% -> Quito, Ecuador: 75% -> Europe: 72%#WorldEnvironmentDaypic.twitter.com/VyXfrbdF6P
May 31st, 2018 · Comments Off on Are electric bus projections electrifying enough? IEA example
Forecasting is tough. And, there is a perception problem, forecasts are taken all too often as some form of firm projection that can be taken to the bank rather than a look to the future within a set of assumptions. Forecasting amid great change — technological or otherwise — is even tougher. And, we are amid a period of great (often very tough to predict, to forecast) change.
Major forecasting organizations (both public (such as EIA, IEA, IEEJA), non-profit, and private) have had a horrendous track record when it comes to clean-energy penetration since roughly the turn of the century. Writ large, in the forecasting world, one should see roughly a balance of over- and under-estimates over the years as analysts learn and seek to adapt their analytical approaches to real-world events. When it comes to clean energy systems (wind and solar), however, there are few and far between examples of ‘over estimates’ as to the pace of penetration and the falling prices — with the vast majority of forecasting efforts showing extremely pessimistic undershooting as to solar and wind system progress.
Electric transportation appears to be following the same trend. See, for example, Daniel Cohan on why the EIA electric vehicle forecasting is unduly pessimistic. The latest IEA report on electric vehicles seems to have its issues as well. Let us focus on an arena undergoing incredibly rapid change: large vehicles, in this case, electric buses.
There will be 1.5 million electric buses in use worldwide by 2030, up from 370,000 last year, according to the IEA.
Almost 100,000 electrified city buses were sold last year, 99 percent of them in China.
Look at those two sentences:
370,000 electric buses operating in 2017
100,000 added to fleets in 2017
1.5 million to be in use by 2030
Okay, the IEA forecast essentially assumes that electric bus production / sales will be totally flat from 2017 through 2030 as 100,000/year would mean a total of 1.3M electric buses added to fleets from 2018 through 2030. If we combine that with the 0.37M of existing electric buses in fleets, this would would put the total at 1.67M with a margin of 0.17M for retirements (on systems that typically operate in range of 15+ years dependent on fleets). Does anyone want to bet that IEA is right: that electric bus production, which has been going up faster than solar penetration the past 36 months or so, will suddenly stop growing?
?
