Get Energy Smart! NOW!

In a series of guest posts, Assaf addresses — from the perspective both of an EV owner and an analyst — myths about electric vehicles. The first post addressed the life-cycle CO2 Footprint of various types of cars … and … the simple truth (in line with Debunking Handbook guidelines):

Electric Vehicles have lower
(LOWER!)
carbon dioxide implications
through their life cycle

The second post followed up with addressing a series of issues such as the importance of reducing oil demand and other greenhouse gas emissions. The third post addressed a set of questions about the commercial/sales viability. This post focuses on a number of business and consumer value issues.

The main message of this diary-pair is that the reality is far better than what conventional wisdom would have you believe.

We’ve seen this in other fields: CW has such a hold on pundits’ minds, that they are willing to deny reality to its face long after the CW had been debunked. In the EV case, the CW has been that this is a “zombie technology” unworthy of Prime Time – not now, probably not ever. Any sign of life from EVs has been dismissed as artificial, irrelevant to ordinary people, or a sign of desperation. Any negative sign has been seized upon as a treasure: the most hillarious example was the NYT quoting an “expert” proclaiming “a stake in the heart of electric vehicles” because of a viral video of a single Tesla Model S that caught fire following an accident, after over half a billion cumulative EV miles on the road.

Things are not perfectly rosy. But if you’d like my bottom line, it is this:

EVs are very close now, perhaps a single year away, from attaining the critical mass and momentum needed to irreversibly affect the automotive-market economy.

Stuff might still happen. In particular, if the wingnuts succeed in throwing us into a second Great Recession, both oil prices and consumer appetite for novel products will plummet. But if things continue on the trajectory they’ve taken since, say, mid-2012 – then EVs are looking good.Really good.

Today’s serving will deal with EVs’ business viability for automakers, and with their value for consumers.

[Read more →]

This post violates one of the most basic of all rules for bibliophiles: don’t judge a book by its cover.

Readers of these pages wouldn’t be surprised that I reached out with interest for a review copy of “How to Change Minds About Our Changing Climate”

On opening the package, the first thing to come to mind on seeing the cover was “The Debunking Handbook“. That handbook focuses on the basic logic (based on scientific research) about how one should address myth busting effectively without reinforcing them.   As the authors explain

Although there is a great deal of psychological research on misinformation, there’s no summary of the literature that offers practical guidelines on the most effective ways of reducing the influence of myths. The Debunking Handbook boils the research down into a short, simple summary, intended as a guide for communicators in all areas (not just climate) who encounter misinformation.

The cardinal law of debunking myths:  Don’t lead with and (certainly) don’t bold the myth because, as per The Familiarity Backfire Effect, this just reinforces the myth.  When done wrong,

debunking reinforces the myths. … emphasis of debunking should be on the facts not the myth. You goal is to increase people’s familiarity with the facts.

Look again at the cover page … on the cover page are a series of myths to be debunked.   E.g., the cover page itself “reinforces the myths” with bolding.  And the chapter titles are all myths.  Thus, readers see in bold type the myths on the top of every single page.

The Debunking Handbook covers a number of key “effects”.  Relevant to this is “The Familiarity Backfire Event” which emphasizes that if you have to mention a myth, make sure to do so within a context. “Your debunking should begin with the facts”, not emphasize (e.g., no bolding people) the myth, and provide a context (an alternative explanation) of how the myth misleads.  E.g., sandwich the myth with facts and a factual explanation of why it is a myth, subordinating the ‘myth’ itself into a minor role in the conversation.

This book is undoubtably filled with much substantive, well-written material.

Sadly, sometimes, it is just hard to get past a cover.

NOTE:  For a reviewer who was able to get past that cover, see Greg Laden’s “How to talk to your uncle who think’s global warming is a hoax.”

[Read more →]

In a series of guest posts, Assaf addresses — from the perspective both of an EV owner and an analyst — myths about electric vehicles. The first post addressed the life-cycle CO2 Footprint of various types of cars … and … the simple truth (in line with Debunking Handbook guidelines):

Electric Vehicles have lower
(LOWER!)
carbon dioxide implications
through their life cycle

The second post followed up with addressing a series of issues such as the importance of reducing oil demand and other greenhouse gas emissions. This post addresses a set of questions about the commercial/sales viability.

After establishing that even 1st-generation mass EVs already deliver a greenhouse-gas improvement, with the future promising rapid further improvement (that was #1), and making the case that the benefit from breaking oil’s monopoly far outweighs any of the valid environmental concerns and objections about EVs (that was #2) –

– It is time to ask:

• How soon can oil’s monopoly really be broken by EVs?
• Or is it all heat with no light, and EVs are going nowhere?
• Are EVs condemned to be a niche product, constrained by price, utility and profitability limitations?

You might answer, “Who Cares?” Well, if you’re not convinced that moving motorized travel from petroleum-fueled to the only viable alternative available now (i.e., EVs), is indeed good for the planet – then please read no further. You will definitely waste your time. (if that’s your stance and you haven’t read Diaries 1-2, reading them might help)

Otherwise, you might want to know that the controversies regarding EVs’ environmental impact, pale in comparison to the outright warfare waged over the questions above. These issues have been fought over in the mainstream press, in Wall Street, in national politics and between business leaders.

And like on other issues, much of the fighting stems from ignorance – either innocent or willful.

So, when you next hear Uncle Ned rant about those dang “Obamacars” and their useless government subsidies, you can find something to hurl back at him below the fold…

[Read more →]

This morning’s twitter feed had this:

Does the solar industry need a federal tax credit after 2016? We debate w/ @BCinnamon later today on @TheEnergyGang podcast.

— Stephen Lacey (@Stphn_Lacey) March 26, 2015

Solar prices are plummeting. In area after area, the prices are getting to the point of an ability to compete directly against traditional electricity sources/systems without local (and even, at times, without federal) tax or other financial subsidies. With each year, the financial world’s predictions of when solar will be cost competitive is coming closer and the ‘where’ is expanding. (Simply point, everyone — from Greenpeace to Exxon Mobil — has been too pessimistic about how fast solar would expand globally.) Due to lower equipment prices, innovative business models, and economies of scale (in both hard and soft costs), solar is increasingly a viable option for communities, businesses, and individuals not to prominently ‘show their green values’ with solar on the roof, but to put (or keep) green in their pocketbooks through tangible and continuing savings on their electricity bills.

Solar is a (massive) set of good (to great) news stories about the expanding and accelerating potential for the Clean Energy Revolution to dethrone fossil fuel’s dominance of our energy system(s).

This is occurring, however, despite a wide range of serious impediments to expanding solar deployment and hastening integration into the energy system.  From utilities fearful of threats to their bottom line fighting solar installations (creating alliances between ideological adversaries, as libertarian Tea Party activists (such as Conservatives for Energy Freedom) unite with left-wing environmentalists to advocate for homeowners to be allowed to install and own their own solar panels — such as in North Carolina) to outdated financial structures that penalize systems with higher upfront costs but far lower life-cycle costs and which don’t reward distributed systems for system benefits in utility rate discussions to …

To the most important:  the absence of a fiscal price for “externalities”.  From pollution’s impact on children’s brain development to acidification of the oceans threatening food chains to fossil fuel burning pumping out cancer-causing chemicals to the pesky little issue of climate change impacts, there are very serious and very real costs that are either not put into or only marginally represented in the fiscal equation of energy transactions.  A true representation of the costs associated with burning coal might put the price of a coal-originated kilowatt hour at somewhere to 2-3 times higher than it is actually priced on the market.  While there is no energy option without its ‘costs’, there is a simple reality: fossil fuels have far greater impacts and costs that are treated as “externalities” than is the case with renewables like wind and solar.  Simply put, fossil fuels — writ large — benefit from a privatization of profit and a socialization of cost.

In addition to all the other obstructions and barriers to deployment, solar (and wind and geothermal and tidal and …) have to confront a reality: the market’s financial equation undervalues their benefits and subsidies the incumbents by not addressing very real costs.

As those costs — from health treatment of asthma to ash pond pollution of water ways — are “socialized” into the general community, there is a legitimacy for the general community (e.g., the government) to provide a path to recognize clean(er) energy options’ benefits within the fiscal equation. E.g., in short, to provide a tax credit that will help even the playing field for solar electricity.

Thus, my response to Stephen:

Unless/until externalities priced, #solar should have tax credit. @Stphn_Lacey @BCinnamon @TheEnergyGang Falling prices=lower costs per kWh — A Siegel (@A_Siegel) March 26, 2015

And, obviously, thus this post …

To extend the discussion, there could and should be a better path forward.  Here are several thoughts.

1. Move toward a Feed-In Tariff structure:
   1. Establish a ten-year guaranteed price for the electricity from a system deployed in a specific year.
      1. Have this on a structured glide-slope downward to reward early/earlier adopters and in recognition that the price to produce the power will decline with each passing year.
      2. Perhaps a 5-10 percent decrease from year to year, with a target of eliminating excess above grid prices within a decade (and adjusting plan with long lead time — perhaps 3 years out — to enable sensible business and financial decision-making).
   2. The distributed clean energy system owners’ would be paid for all their electricity production — and then have to pay for, at normal rates, their electricity usage.
   3. Then the entire consumer base would help pay for more rapid penetration of clean energy systems.
2. Address market barriers to entry.
3. Price externalities.

None of these are new here and all have received serious attention and discussion. Until, however, these occur, we should have paths to balance the significant subsidies that fossil fuels receive with support to renewable systems: such as tax credits for solar.

A brief plug: Green Tech Media’s Energy Gang podcasts are well worth having on your listening list. What better way to fill your time on that subway commute to work or to occupy your mind while doing the dishes than listening to substantive and informative discussions on some of the least and most tractable issues in our energy system(s)?

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.  Not surprisingly, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) annual Energy Innovation Summit is a target rich environment for finding truly amazing Energy COOL technologies and possibilities.

For a number of years, perhaps the most enjoyable Summit events has been a ‘Shark Tank’ session, with a number of emergent energy tech firms giving three minute pitches with four venture capitalists then asking questions and giving recommendations.  This year, selected out 150 applicants to represent a range of technologies and energy challenges, seven firms presented:

• Accio Energy
• AmberWave
• Axiom Exergy
• EnZinc
• Indoor Reality
• SAFCell
• SLIPS Technologies

Follow after the fold for some discussion / impression of these firms and their pitch sessions.

SIDENOTE:  Perhaps the biggest issue with ARPA-E:  the nation would be well served if its budget was roughly an order of magnitude larger.

[Read more →]

Most people think and most analysis occurs in a stove piped fashion. Difficult in conception and more costly in resources (whether brain cells, time or cash), narrow and constrained thinking often fosters not just far from optimal but simply bad decisions.  This is true across virtually all of human existence. The energy arena is far from an exception to this problem. From not considering life-time electricity use when buying Christmas lights to using the ‘commodity’ price rather than delivered cost (“fully burdened cost of fuel”) in military procurement decisions to only discussing energy savings returns off insulation or new windows without talking about comfort or health benefits in the house to ignoring the productivity benefits from greening workplaces (and schools), the limited nature of thinking when it comes to energy and environmental issues is hard to exaggerate. (And, of course, these are only benefits ‘within the decision-maker’ rather than all the externalities (both benefits and costs) that are left out of the economic transitions.) The all-too-often limited lens restricts us (all of us) to sub-optimal or simply wrong decisions.

Thinking about solar carports provides a window on this issue.

[Read more →]

This guest post is the from the passionate and dedicated James Wells.

The New England Patriots pointed to a study released today which they say shows that the alleged deflation of footballs in recent games was not due to human causes.

From the executive summary of the report, “DeflateGate: Basic Science and Deflating the Hyperbole”:

It’s just natural variation.

Footballs have had different inflation pressures for thousands of years.

The Edelman research firm authored the report, building on their robust track record swatting away the damaging efforts of environmentalists to impede progress.

As their spokesperson said at the report’s release,

It’s a little different from our normal work, but we saw an opportunity to protect an American business from overzealous conspiracy theorists.

[Read more →]

The Christian Science Monitor has developed an interesting quiz: Climate change: Is your opinion informed by science? I went ahead and started to take the test. The questions ranged from science history to chemistry (which is/isn’t a greenhouse gas) to change over time to … well, a spectrum of climate issues that aren’t necessarily self-evident. Okay, this is ‘my’ arena and should do okay. Even so, considering the questions, I was pleased that the quiz ended with the screen to the right.

The value of the ‘quiz’ isn’t solely in the challenging questions but the quality of the brief descriptions at the end of each quiz. With a policy environment where one political party’s elites emphasize that they’re not scientists, the reality is that far too many people’s opinion is not informed by science.

As is typical, on completion came the option to share the quiz, which I did with automated braggadocio:

I scored 100 percent on this #climate quiz. Can you beat my score? http://t.co/J4lFznBl2r #Science #ActOnClimate

— A Siegel (@A_Siegel) January 20, 2015

This prompted a quick retort from scientist Peter Gleick

@A_Siegel Um, by definition? No. — Peter Gleick (@PeterGleick) January 20, 2015

Hmmm … and thus my

🙂 @PeterGleick Perhaps @CSMonitor grades on a curve? Or, extra credit question? (Note: clicked their tweet too quickly…clearly)

— A Siegel (@A_Siegel) January 20, 2015

and the Monitor’s responses …

@A_Siegel @PeterGleick Thanks for the mentions! Glad you like the quiz… but sorry… no extra credit! — CS Monitor (@csmonitor) January 20, 2015

Well, teacher, are you sure that I can’t earn some extra credit?

To start with, lets face some facts — I got 100% when, in fact, I didn’t get all the questions right. One of the quiz’s did not allow an accurate answer.

Question 15 asks “What is the hottest year on record since 1880?”

As can be seen to the right, I answered 2010 with the other options being 1934 (a hot year in the United States), 1970 (hmmm … thrown in for confusion), and 1998 (an El Nino year and one of top five hottest global years, hottest year in the 1900s).  This is a good example of the ‘lets see if we can confuse’ and ‘can we catch those influenced by science denial’ elements throughout the quiz.

In any event, I got this question right … even though that answer is wrong.

Since the Christian Science Monitor‘s posting of and before my taking this quiz, NASA and NOAA released the reporting that 2014 is the hottest year in recorded history.

That’s right, the correct answer to question 15 is: 2014.

Okay, my question to @CSMonitor: Can I get that extra credit now?

There is a growing movement to divest from fossil fuels. This ranges from the individual (for example, my retirement accounts are down roughly 80% over the past three years in terms of ‘fossil fuel’ (at least direct) investments) to businesses to growing numbers of non-fossil fuel/climate friendly investment operations to pressure on institutions to disinvest their endowments and retirement funds.  This is especially true with U.S. educational institutions, as university communities (students, alumni, faculty, staff) increasingly see disconnects between an institutional commitment toward improving the future and financial investments in arenas which undermine future prospects (of students, communities, and the broader world community).

Across the nation, the number of divestment commitments from educational institutions, cities and counties, and other institutions/groups is growing.

The fight against divestment has also grown, with fossil fuel firms seeing risk to their financial well-being and future prospects.

At numerous institutions, the divestment efforts are met with resistance. In no small part they are met with arguments (falsely based, fyi, even without the paragraphs that follow) that disinvestment would risk portfolio financial performance. This has been, for example, particularly acrimonious with Harvard University‘s extremely large and, what might be called, fossil-foolish endowment fund.

While it has been possible to build a (and many have built) climate-friendly financial portfolio — without difficulty — that matches (or even outperforms) the general market, what might have happened if a Harvard or otherwise had started a serious disinvestment of its fossil fuel portfolio at the beginning of 2014?

Consider sector financial performance over the past year (this is as of 8 January 2015):

• Oil & Natural Gas: -10.51%
• Financials: + 19.5%
• Health Care: +27.5%
• Information Technology: +19.16%
• Etc …

E.g., lowering one’s exposure to fossil fuels almost certainly would have boosted portfolio performance through the year.

And, of course, the ‘oil’ fall is much heavier in the later half of 2014. Thus, even a gradual process moving just a few percent of a portfolio per month would have ended up having

This is a suggestive post … there are a tremendous range of complex issues to examine to understand just how much better endowments would have fared if they had begun a disinvestment process a year ago.  And, there are questions as to how the disinvestment process can best be pursued to marry high financial performance with ethical, moral, and policy commitments. This is something that merits more serious examination ….

Even so … even so … it is clear that disinvestment would have served institutions better financially while better aligning their financial investments with their core purposes.

Buzzing around some circles, Six Myths About Climate Change that Liberals Rarely Question seeks to challenge conventional ‘left’ perspectives about climate change.  The post, regretfully, is an interesting — yet troubling — mix of right on the money, partial truths, and misleading elements.

To #ActOnClimate like quitting #smoking: Always good idea. Should have quit smoking 20 years ago, but quitting now is still smart! #Climate

— A Siegel (@A_Siegel) November 24, 2014