Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Our challenges, opportunities, and solution paths are complex and interrelated. Yet, all too often, we see them individually, not linked and interacting.

Last year, in response to a blog post entitled My New High Efficiency Toilet, a commentator wrote

I don’t have low flow shower heads, but I rinse up, turn off the water, lather up, then rinse quickly. I think this works out well. …

My response, a recommendation to get a low-flow showerhead.

And, in response to my comment:

Do you really think that my method doesn’t save as much as a low flow head running the whole time?

Well, actually, it likely does “save as much” … and perhaps even more. But this is postulating an either / or situation when there is greater power in “and”. [Read more →]

On reading the opening paragraphs of Robert Bryce’s author’s note, I felt a kindred soul:

.. just how lucky I am. There is no more complex or fascinating topic than energy. … the scale of energy use and the complexity and the importance of the energy business are unmatched by any industry. The study of energy includes physics, geology, chemistry, engineering, metallurgy … the list goes on and on. … no matter how much I study it, I still feel like a rank amateur. And, yet, if we are to make wise choices about energy policy, it is essential for all of us — as voters, as owners and managers of businesses, and as policymakers — to understand what energy is, what power is, how they are measured, and which forms of energy and power production make the most sense environmentally and economically.

Sadly, the material that followed this opening shattered the reverie of idyllic bonding.

Masquerading as an unbiased, fact-based look at America’s energy situation and viable paths forward into the future, Robert Bryce’s Power Hungry is a mixed collection of factual material, thought-provoking constructs, selective ‘truthiness’, questionable (if not simply wrong) data crunching, and outright deceptions. This mix of material makes Bryce’s work dangerous reading for those without a serious grounding in energy (related) issues while that same mix calls into question this work’s value for anyone with that more serious background.
[Read more →]

Warren S has made a commitment with a New Year’s Resolution. Every day, another letter to the editor or a politicians about climate change and global warming issues. One of his most recent conclusions is that the rampant inability of traditional media institutions to link global record war temperatures, the hottest year in recorded weather history, the hottest decade in recorded weather history, major disruptive weather patterns around the globe, etc requires a form letter to ease his — and others — writing of the LTEs.  Thus, the MAD-LIB letter below.

“As we see the terrible effects of the _______________________________

(recent storm)
(recent heat wave)
(recent drought)
(freak snowfall)
(rain of frogs)
(plague of locusts)

in _________________________________

(our town,)
(our state,)
(some other state,)
(some other country,)
(Washington, DC,)

it is easy and tempting to think of it as an isolated phenomenon that’s happening to someone else.

But the __________________________________

(recent storm)
(recent heat wave)
(recent drought)
(freak snowfall)
(rain of frogs)
(plague of locusts)

in ________________________________

(our town)
(our state)
(some other state)
(some other country)
(Washington, DC)

is part and parcel of the same complex set of phenomena that gave us _________________________

(other weird weather people may have noticed)

That is to say, __________

(global warming.)
(climate change.)
(anthropogenic global warming.)
(the climate crisis.)

If we as a nation are to ________________________

(survive,)
(undertake meaningful action on behalf of the planetary systems that sustain us,)
(build a future for our children and their children in turn,)
(live long and prosper,)
(avoid species extinction, which the biologist Frank Fenner thinks is all but inevitable at this point,)

we must __________________________

(face the facts.)
(use our mentality, wake up to reality.)
(know what’s going on.)
(restore the Jeffersonian ideal of a “well-informed citizenry.”)
(abandon the damaging reliance on false equivalence in our journalism.)

The fact that the phrase “climate change” does not appear at all in this article is _________________________________

(an unfortunate abdication of journalistic responsibility.)
(an indication of moral bankruptcy on the part of your hopelessly corrupt publisher.)
(a demonstration of how poorly our news media handle the most important threat humanity has ever faced.)
(a fucking outrage!)

So there!
Yours Sincerely,

(You)”

This is another guest post from BruceMcF who, again, is worth listening to …

Recently, Jerome a Paris and afew from the European Tribune published a piece in New Scientist on why having sufficient wind turbines in an energy portfolio has been observed to lower energy prices to consumers.

After tweeting that article, I started to receive tweets with links to the anti-wind conservative echo chamber, including The American Thinker, and the Oil-money founded and partly funded Cato Institue.

[Read more →]

Coming not that far from Bill’s neck of the woods, NB41 is a very thoughtful and knowledgeable advocate of wind power … working hard for helping make wind power a reality.  This guest post is his appeal to Bill McKibben to advocate for feed-in-tariffs as a tool that works to get clean energy expansion accelerated.  Can the man who made 350 a global term make Section 102 a household name? Bill, are you out there?

Dear Mr. McKibben,

I read your “ecotorial” that was on the Energy Bulletin today, a mild mannered and still sensible version of Howard Beal’s call to arms. And still the question of how do we “dope smack”/knock some sense into the people of this country remains unanswered.

Join me after the fold for a potential (partial?) answer ..

[Read more →]

The abysmal failure for US Senate movement forward on climate change mitigation legislation has many fathers and mothers, many to blame. And, the blame game is moving around … along with lots of CYA discussions. To a certain extent, the pointing fingers and ‘who me’ exercises can get a bit exaggerated because while there is lots of blame to go around, there are people and interests and organizations that merit direct responsibility and many others who have some indirect play in the ‘blame’ game. To a certain extent, this can be like focusing the discussion of why the fire set by a pyromaniac burnt down the house and killed the pet really was the fault of everyone but the pyromaniac — sure, if there had been a nearer fire station, sure if there weren’t speed bumps on the road, sure if the homeowner had installed sprinklers, sure … Thus, there is lots of blame to go around when it comes to the failure of the Senate to act that include President Obama’s faltering (at best) engagement in the issue and unwillingness to leverage the hottest year on record plus the BP oil disaster to force through clean-energy legislation, Obama advisors like Rahm Emanuel who find clean energy action a losing political issue, Blue Dog Democrats, substantive disagreements on how best to act, pollsters who argued that talking about climate change is bad, environmental organization strategy and tactics, … those, however, are all secondary ‘fault’ issues. If these were “the” players on the table, the debate and battle would have been reality-based — what is the best way forward, what should we do, not ‘whether’ we should do something.

No, the fact is that fossil-foolish interests are heavily influencing American politics and with Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Haters Of a Livable Economic Society are utterly dominating one of America’s two major political parties (with some tendrils into the other).  That is where “the” blame lies — that there is a massively resourced group that is willing, no matter what it costs, to fight tooth-and-nail against reality-based policy making They reject the entire notion that political reality should have anything to do with physical reality beyond the money going into their own pockets.

Even so, even though we can identify the root cause, that root cause is a reality. Thus, the “failure to act” debate turns to who might have been able to do something different to achieve (to drive) legislation action in the face of this obstinate, reality-denying set of interest groups and allied politicians?

For a long time, I (and may others) have been critical of the strategies and tactics of “the” Green Groups: the large, establishment environmental organizations.  Again, to be quite clear up front, if the anti-reality crowd weren’t in the equation, this would be a discussion as to best measures to take with people with which my disagreements are, mainly, on the margin in terms of understanding of the world and what we can and should do in terms of energy efficiency, renewable energy, ecosystem restoration, and climate adaptation.  I like and respect many within these institutions even while, sometimes vehemently, disagreeing with their political strategies and approaches.   Environmental Defense, for example, seemed ready to do nearly any background deal so as to get some form of cap on carbon — no matter how weak, no matter the payoffs to traditional polluters, no matter …  Get a deal and, well, over the decades to come, it can be improved. (Sort of like those old coal electricity plants grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act were okay to have grandfathered since the utilities would retire them … well, those plants are still out there belching massive amounts of mercury into our ecosystem and CO2 into the atmosphere.)  On fundamental goals, our differences are marginal — on tactics and strategies to get there, our disagreements can be fierce.

While remembering who bears primary fault, the backroom actions from many in the Green Group bears critiquing.  They made deals with polluters before legislative activity even began. They told Members of Congress that inadequate targets were adequate. They ‘pre-compromised’ with polluters, thinking that that would enable getting through legislation, rather than stating forcefully what was really necessary and making it clear — crystal clear — that the politically palatable action was, at best, a down-payment as to what actually would be required to turn the tide on Global Warming’s rising tides.  Too many backroom games seemed to be played, abandoning economic justice issues (paying off polluters) to try to eek out some form of climate bill.

To reemphasize again, while this is more than discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of pin, this is an ‘argument’ among friends who have tremendous amount of agreement as to what can and should be done. If we were in a reality-based world, rather than with too many in our political system operating in a la-la land where scientists are conspirators and science isn’t to be trusted, much of the disagreement about political tactics and approaches would fall to the wayside.

And, while I disagreed with their approaches, that disagreement really came down to what was in the bill.  There are those who sought to blame Green Groups for the failure to move even watered-down legislation through the Senate:

“They didn’t deliver a single Republican,” an administration official told POLITICO just hours after Reid pulled the plug on the climate bill. “They spent like $100 million, and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

You’ve got to be kidding me, was my reaction on seeing that, the President fails to leverage the BP disaster in the Gulf and doesn’t forcefully commit to climate legislation (speech to Joint Session of Congress, anyone?) and doesn’t arm twist Democratic politicians into voting for climate legislation (and gives a pass to those House Ds who voted against the bill), and it is the fault of a bunch of non-profit organizations.  That anonymous “administration official” is spouting off nonsense.

As reported in Politico, some in the Green Groups are bristling at criticism and defending Green Group climate tactics.

“The reason why I’m not looking around, hearing a lot of people scared for their jobs, I think the general view within the environmental community is consistent with mine: We ran a very effective, well-coordinated effort,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s climate center.

“We fell victim to much broader politics that were beyond our control that really didn’t have to do with the specifics of either the issue or the campaign,”

The situation is, in fact, far more complicated. To blame environmental organizations for Senate inAction is absurd even while, imo, there is plenty of criticism to go around — including of Green Group tactics. Now, in fact, that Politico article discusses the issue(s) reasonably well, discussing some of the disconnects between environmental organizations and politicians over the tactical approaches. And, it suggests that focusing on “cap and trade”, with complicated legislation, might have contributed to the problem.

The real challenge is that, for too many politicians on both sides of the aisle, there is an upside to opposing climate legislation (donations from fossil-foolish interests, to start with) and little downside.

GOP senators targeted as possible swing votes said the environmentalists offered little incentive for them to change their minds during an economic recession and with little threat of political payback if they didn’t go along.

“They don’t have much infrastructure on the Republican side,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “So when you hear the environmental community is mad at you, everyone says, ‘Tell me something new.’ It’s not like a support group you’ve lost.”

In light of the failure to move (even inadequate climate legislation), Bill McKibben (350.org) has a strong call for a new approach to the situation. While thanking the Green Groups “because they did everything the way you’re supposed to: they wore nice clothes, lobbied tirelessly, and compromised at every turn”, Bill is calling for a movement to make the Lindsey Grahams of the U.S. political system see acting to deal with the reality of climate change aligns with political reality: inaction will come at a cost.

now we know what we didn’t before: making nice doesn’t work. It was worth a try, and I’m completely serious when I say I’m grateful they made the effort, but it didn’t even come close to working. So we better try something else.

Bill lays out three steps:

1. Talk about global warming. Don’t sugar coat things and fail to speak about the fundamental issue at hand.
2. Speak to what we need, not what we think is going to eek through Congress in a pre-digested deal with serial polluters.
3. Create a movement to move the agenda.

Bill has been at the core of creating what just might be that movement which is built around a rather esoteric number: 350. 350 parts per million might (might) be a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere for supporting modern human civilization. We were at about 270 ppm prior to the modern era and are about 390 ppm today, growing several ppm per year. We need to do better than simply stopping growth in emissions, but turn the tide backwards. (See item #2 above.) 350.org has managed to put 100,000s around the world into demonstrations demanding climate action. The Senate’s inaction demands that they do even better in the future.

10/10/10/10/10 should be on your calendar: the 10th minute of the 10th hour of the 10th day of the 10th year of the 21st century could be a pivotal moment in the movement that McKibben calls for. On 10 October 2010 (10/10/10), mobilized due to the energy of the 350.org team, people around the world will gather to show their support for climate action by leaders, nation, and people around the world.

a Global Work Party. All around the country and the world people will be putting up solar panels and digging community gardens and laying out bike paths. Not because we can stop climate change one bike path at a time, but because we need to make a sharp political point to our leaders: we’re getting to work, what about you?

Barack Obama, I’ve put solar on my roof.  Why isn’t it on yours?  Put solar on it!

Senator Webb, do you have an energy and location efficient home?  Senator Warner, is solar on your rooftop?

But, the point is not that Obama should put solar on the White House to have solar there or that it really matters whether Jim Webb has solar hot water, the point is is that it is their work is to develop national policy to deal with climate change (energy efficiency regulation, fees on polluters, investment in deploying clean energy, research (and deployment) of carbon mitigation approaches like agro-/bio-char, ending financial assistance to fossil fuel pollution (domestic and foreign), etc …).  And, the point is — no matter who they wish to point fingers to — they have failed to do so yet.   They are failing at their job.

Now, as typical, Bill is far more articulate than I and I highly recommend his piece, which ends:

Mostly, we need to tell the truth, resolutely and constantly. Fossil fuel is wrecking the one earth we’ve got. It’s not going to go away because we ask politely. If we want a world that works, we’re going to have to raise our voices.

Efficiency is the ugly stepchild of the energy and climate world.

Recently, I put solar on my roof. Many neighbors and friends are excited about trying to do the same. When I hear this from them, the advice: make sure that your home is energy efficient before putting a penny into something like solar power or a generator. On emphasizing this to one friend, the response, “I know that but insulation isn’t sexy.”

It might not be sexy, but efficiency is powerful.

In Invisible Energy, NRDC’s David Goldstein lays out a strong case why our national policy should be that of the home: first, second, and third priority should be energy efficiency and then clean energy (renewable energy) can meet the reduced energy demands. To be blunt, Goldstein is one of the voices to listen to in this arena. He is the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Energy Program Director, a MacArthur (“genius award”) Fellow, has worked closely with California’s Energy Commission for decades, and has a plethora of other engagements both international and domestic.  And, these varied experiences weave together to inform the book and its insights.

Invisible Energy is filled with important insights and policy recommendations. The key point is that, systematically, energy efficiency is low-balled in terms of just how much an impact it could have in improving the economy and helping to mitigate climate change. Goldstein works through how our analysis and decision-making patterns drive to a ‘worst-case’ on energy efficiency which, almost, becomes reinforcing. Modeling assumes zero technology improvement, targets are set low, etc … On the other hand, he provides clear thoughts for how to break through these barriers and a vision for how we could be improve our energy efficiency by upwards of eight percent per year.

As an example of an interesting discussion, Goldstein asserts that the barriers to greater energy efficiency are not just “market barriers” but provides a set of causes with explanation:

• Market barriers are where direct institutional changes will allow the market to function properly. Split incentives, such as between landlord and tenant about investing in energy efficiency when the tenant pays the utilities, provides an example.
• Market failures are where a complex interplay of factors leads to downplaying energy issues amid a broader set of investment choices when there is diffuse decision-making.
• Human failures include, for example, our basic nature such as loss aversion and status quo bias inhibit action. Also, with limited decision-making time, the ‘marginal’ energy efficiency items often aren’t the management’s highest priority.
• Institutional Failures occur to regulations, business structures, and other patterns that inhibit energy efficient choices.

No, it is not just “the market” that has failed, but ourselves and our institutions — the obstacles are complex and interrelated.

Some minor problems

Invisible Energy didn’t preach to this choir, but educated. There is much that I “knew”, with Goldstein adding detail and perspective. But there was much new to the table or, perhaps as importantly, given reinforcement to highlight importance.  While tremendous, Invisible Energy is not faultless. Goldstein, quite legitimately, focuses on energy efficiency and spends very little energy on renewable resources because “energy efficiency merits greater attention among decision-makers and by the public.”  He is right that pursuing energy efficiency will make it easier and less costly to cover a greater share of our energy requirements with renewables. He, however, makes an avoidable mistake when discussing this in commentating that “in more optimistic cases, renewable sources become cheaper than business-as-usual.”  I have to disagree — considering the climate, health, and other costs of fossil-foolish practices, any honest accounting would show that renewable energy is already “cheaper than business-as-usual”.  Such discord, however, was rare in reading pages — the far more frequent experience was nodding up and down in agreement, highlighting insightful points, and marking up references worth looking at for further detail.

A glance at two items

Let’s look at two items in a little more detail:

• how efficiency relates to our housing financing; and,
• the poster child for energy efficiency.

The mortgage failure

The financial approach to home ownership fosters a far more energy-inefficient way of life for individuals, communities, and the nation. This, of course, includes the mortgage deduction that enables ever-larger homes but, less obviously to many, how the banking system undermines its own strength through failure to consider efficiency in loan decisions and how this drives ever expanding suburbia and exurbia.  When purchasing a home, in brief, a lender considers your income and the cost to buy the home.  What they fail to consider are two critical measures that have a significant impact on long-term ability to pay that mortgage: energy efficiency and location efficiency.

• Energy Efficiency is rather straightforward: how efficient is the house system in terms of energy (and, well, water) usage.  An old home with bad insulation, leaky windows, and decrepit appliances will cost more to heat and cool than a home built to modern standards.  And, a house built to Energy Star (or, even better, passivhaus) standards will have even lower heating and cooling bills. While there are mortgages that relate to energy efficiency, this is mainly in theory as most lenders simply aren’t aware of them.  A homeowner with a more energy efficient house, which costs $1000 less per year in heating/cooling bills, will have more money available to pay the mortgage. And, this is seen in actual default rates as the more energy efficient the home, the lower default rate.  Sadly, essentially no lenders take house energy efficiency into account when making lending decisions.
• Location Efficiency is also straightforward but rarely discussed item that never makes it into the mortgage lending decision.  This relates to walkability but is, in essence, how much will you need to drive to get to work, get to the grocery, to live …  “After a mortgage, owning and driving vehicles is the second highest household expense, and people who live in a walkable neighborhood near shops and schools can save serious money each year. That makes the “drive ‘til you qualify” mindset as outdated as buying a gas-guzzling SUV.”  As Goldstein and colleagues documented earlier this year, there is a very strong correlation between location efficiency and default rates. More that “gas-guzzling SUV” is required, the higher the chance of default.

Yet, the bankers ignore these factors and this contributed to the housing bubble.  Consider the numbers.

for a typical new home, which is now priced at about $178,000 (median price), the cost of driving to and from the home over the course of a 30-year mortgage exceeds $300,000 for homes located in sprawl and the energy costs exceed $75,000 on average.

It seemed evident that a system designed to look only at the ability of the borrower to pay back the $178,000 or so loan but that ignored the affordability of the $375,000 commitment to transportation and utility costs was bound to go wrong.

A key path forward for a stronger mortgage loan program: including energy efficiency and location efficiency in decision-making about loan qualification and loan rates. These should not be stove-piped decisions, excluding easily calculable costs impacting buyers’ ability to pay, but should be more realistic “total cost of ownership” calculations.  Now, that house 30 miles outside the city isn’t “cheaper” than that house a bike ride from the office: it might be cheaper to own while being much, much more expensive to own.  Including energy and location efficiency in loan programs would help reduce default rates. It would also likely improve home lives, as less time would be spent in the car. And, oh by the way, it would have a real (and cumulative) impact on our energy usage — helping steer Americans toward more cost sensible and less fossil-foolish housing choices.

Energy Efficiency’s poster child: the refrigerator

In 1973, refrigerators were the largest single use of electricity in the home and the demand had been growing at 9.5% per year since WWII. Energy efficiency had been declining as manufacturers sought to cut costs. Utility planners had, at that time, carved out a 9.5% growth rate in refrigeration power demand indefinitely. In the face of the oil embargo, California began to drive standards that were followed by five state and national standards (Energy Star as latest round). In 1972, the average refrigerator used about 2000 kilowatt hours / year. Today, with ice makers & water cooling & increased average size & inefficient side-by-side models, the average refrigerator uses under 500 kwh/year. And, by the way, in current dollar terms, the price of refrigerators has dropped per cubic foot in part because the requirements for energy efficiency have led manufacturers to redo production lines & drive improved efficiency in construction.

This is a very straightforward example of the power of government regulation to drive reduced energy usage and save consumers money. As Secretary of Energy Steve Chu discussed the other day, writing regulation and setting standards are (without exception) the lowest cost move with the highest payoff to the economy that the Department of Energy can pursue. Speaking of libertarians like Bryce, Chu commented that there are economists that will account, as a value, the reduced freedom of choice due to tightening standards. To this, Secretary Chu noted that

Forcing people to save is a cost that I am willing to bear. We’re going to enforce standards

This is the type of understanding of and allegiance to the power of energy efficiency and government’s role in promoting that Goldstein is looking for … while Chu might not have read Invisible Energy, he certainly has a grasp of the key issues.  What we need, as a nation, is for more of our policy-makers to emulate Chu’s understanding.  Goldstein’s Invisible Energy should not be on the bookshelf, but required reading for every member of Congress and for their staffs. The banking community should read it. And … well, the list is long — Goldstein’s credentials promise much and, with this book, he delivers.

NOTES:

• David Goldstein’s NRDC blog posts
• Goldstein at HuffPost responding to Bill Gates, Insulation is Innovation, Mr. Gates
• FireDogLake Book Salon Saving Energy, Growing Jobs (one of Goldstein’s previous books) with an introductory post on the power of energy efficiency by Scarecrow.
• Alliance to Save Energy interview with David Goldstein focused on his McArthur Genius Award

The real “genius” in the MacArthur Program is that by providing a half million dollar grant, they get people’s attention. The biggest difference in my career since the MacArthur Fellowship is that I find my opinions get taken more seriously by people who would otherwise be skeptical or even dismissive. Presenting a message about energy efficiency as a MacArthur Fellow has meant that policymakers cannot simply dismiss the arguments, as some had done previously, but are more inclined to listen seriously to what I have to say. And the case for energy efficiency is so compelling that once people open their minds it is easier to achieve advocacy success.

• Alliance to Save Energy (ASE)
• American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
• NRDC Energy

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.

The concept of Silver Bullet solutions concerns me and the tendency to jump on lab announcements as ‘the solution to all our problems’ is a real one in the techno-optimist portion of those concerned about climate change and our energy challenges. These concerns lead to hesitation as to whether to report on developments or not, even as there are so many existing ideas filtering out from the labs. That hesitation, however, has likely led to under discussion of the power of ARPA-E and the U.S. government’s (the U.S. taxpayers’) targeted investments to leap frog the nation toward transformational energy opportunities.

One of our investments was made in the solar photovoltaic company 1366 Technologies. First off, why “1366”?

Covering 1% of Continental U.S. with 20% efficient PV systems would provide all the energy needs of the US.  Covering 0.2% of the surface would generate all the electricity that the US consumes. To put this number in perspective: roads cover 1.5% of the U.S.

At 1366 Technologies we were so impressed with size of the available solar resources that we named the company after Earth’s Solar Constant of 1366 W/m².

That $4 million taxpayer investment is targeting a path to essentially eliminate silicon wastage in the production of solar panels.  Rather than creating a large slab and cutting it up into thin wafers (with all the ‘silicon dust’ as waste), 1366 is striving to make wafers directly from molten silicon — eliminating that waste and the costly cutting process.  This process could cut the solar PV panel price in half, almost immediately, which would drop the cost of installed PV panels by easily 1/4th. (Sigh, having just put up my Solar PV panels, if I’d only waited a little longer … this is one of the problems for the solar world, those wanting to go solar are always hearing about and salivating about the next great thing.  In this case, a government incentive primed the pump in the solar business in my neck of the woods.)

Writ large, solar prices have been dropping by 10 percent per year since 1972.   What was $5 per kilowatt during the Carter Administration is in the range of 1/25th that price now. Solar PV is on the brink of grid parity. A rapid 25% drop in the price will make this far more attractive for putting on the roof, especially in areas with higher electricity prices. And, the bump in business will create business quantity that will allow slicing away at the other 75% of costs which include, for example, labor and the difficulty of business development. Simply using that 7% cost reduction per year would halve the price of solar PV before the end of the decade and, according to some predictions, put solar PV on the roof below the cost of wholesale coal electricity.

The other direct advance, that will impact the price of produced power and installed cost per watt of capacity is that 1366 claims that there wafers won’t just be thinner and have less waste in production, but will also be significantly more efficient.

Thus, the company’s founder has laid out some ambitious targets and claims:

if the technology successfully scales up, Emanuel Sachs says, it could significantly bring down the cost of solar electricity. Sachs says that today, solar cells cost about $2.10 per watt generated. When manufactured at a commercial scale, the first cells incorporating his new technology will cost $1.65 per watt. Planned improvements will bring down this cost to about $1.30 a watt, he says. To compete with coal, the cost will need to come down to about $1 a watt, something that Sachs predicts can be achieved by 2012 with further improvements in antireflection coatings and other anticipated advances.

In other words, the costs of the ‘other’ things will be driven down perhaps through volume (more business drives down unit costs, in general), but that less work will be necessary for each watt capacity put on a roof.

[NOTE: The DOE discussion asserts that the 1366 approach could cut the cost of installed Solar PV by 50%.  The cost of PV onto a rooftop runs from $4+ per watt and up (and is $5-7 per watt on residential in the DC area right now).  The 1366 Technologies approach attacks the $2 (or so) attributable to the PV panels themselves — driving, as per Sachs’ words, a reduction to the $1.65 range and then to roughly $1.30 per watt with $1 possible. I have a question into DOE and 1366 because the mathematics don’t seem to work out.  The wafers are roughly 50% of the cost of the solar panel but the solar panels are only a portion of the costs for putting solar on the roof.  Cut silicon wafer costs by 75+% and that is a tremendously important advance but it, again, could foster roughly a 20-25% reduction in the total system cost directly while enable, as per the comment before this note, increased business to carve down the costs in other arenas.  But, there are many other things that need to occur before a 50% reduction occurs across all the system costs.

Note this discussion: which shows a 1366 Technologies target of $1 for the panels and $2 for installation and profit for an installed price of 18 cents per kwh delivered which is ‘grid parity’ for the retail price of electricity for some markets in American.  This is a significant drop but not “50%” .]

In the shadow of aggressive Senate legislation action on Climate Change legislation, as evidenced by Senator Reid (again) punting on forcing through weak-kneed legislation, and with ever worsening news from the science front (Sayonara Miami), it is perhaps a time to engage in some techno-optimism because the other options for positive change are withering away.

By dramatically lowering the cost of photovoltaic cells, this manufacturing process could enable the United States to add 600 GW in solar energy production and save approximately 694 million metric tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions. If successful, this project could increase domestic energy production and generate many new jobs in the solar photovoltaic industry.

If we want to eliminate coal from the electrical grid, having solar cheaper than coal would go a long way to helping achieve that.

Will 1366 Technologies pay off, will they achieve what they are striving for?  Hopefully but quite possibly not. But this is not the only investment that Americans have made in potentially breakthrough technologies. The video above provides a view on 1366 Technologies. It ends with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu;

We’re asking people to swing from the heels. Sure there will be some failures, but there will some home runs. And, some of those will be grand slams. And, with those grand slams, we can truly transform our energy choices. That is what ARPA-E is about.

Perhaps ARPA-Es greatest problem? It was funded at perhaps 10 percent of where the funding should have been to ensure that clean energy jobs fill the labs.

Hat tip: Dr Arun Majumdar, The Reality of Solar Panels at 50% Cost, DOE Energy Blog

Other 1366 coverage:

• Sunshine is free, can it be cheap, Scientific American
• More-Powerful Solar Cells, MIT Technology Review
• Why Solar Power Needs a Manufacturing Revolution, Not Just New Materials, Earth2Tech
• Will Solar cells ever be as cheap as coal, Christian Science Monitor

Sadly, the conventional wisdom seems to be that action on climate change is a political loser. According to the Washington Post, Rust Belt House Democrats who voted for the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) bill that passed in 2009 feel abandoned by the White House’s inability (or unwillingness) to force Senate action. And, many Democratic Representatives see this vote as a noose around their neck heading into the mid-terms like the Btu tax disaster was in 1994.

While there were (as this author would be glad to tell you in a different post) serious problems with ACES and it could have been (MUCH) better, this seems to be a case where the conventional wisdom is fostering reality rather reflecting reality.

As headline by SolveClimate, the question that should be central to Democratic Party political discussions as members head back to the districts for the August recess:

Are Democrats Fumbling Away a Potent Clean Energy Offense?

The short and the long of it:  YES!

There are certainly members in competitive districts, notably Tom Perriello of Virginia, who know how to speak forcefully to why voting for climate mitigation is good for America and good for his constituents. From creating jobs to reducing sending American dollars overseas to reducing our national security challenges to improving our children’s health to, well, reducing the risks of catastrophic climate change, the benefits of serious action are clear across multiple domains.  They are clear, if you wish to look. And, they become clear if you wish to explain them.

And, even better, the American people support the key measures. Americans want wind turbines to go up. Americans want more and better rail. Americans want energy efficiency. They want the greening of their child’s school. Americans want to see clean energy jobs that help build the nation for a better tomorrow. Americans want, in overwhelming margins, to see progress in the arenas of clean energy and energy efficiency which are two key tools to turning the tide on Global Warming’s rising seas.

Sadly, rather than a forthright explanation of clean energy action, too many members seem to want to put their hands in their pockets, look down at their shoes, shuffle their feet, and mumble their words.  This is a recipe for utter disaster. They will face forceful attacks from people armed with deceptive, misleading, and frequently false information coming from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, and other fossil-foolish interests.

In short, they face bullies and bullying tactics.

A simple question:

When facing bullies, are you better off trying to appear invisible or are you better off standing up for yourself and others?

While it might be despicable that they will face such tactics, just as it was extremely ugly the orchestrated violence at town halls across the nation a year ago, these Democratic Party politicians face a clear choice: will they shy  away from defending their votes and mumble their words or will they stand up for truth and the bests interests of America with a forthright affirmative statement about the value to the nation of aggressively pursuing a clean energy future?

The first is the path toward electoral and national disaster.

The second is a path toward electoral and national survival.

Which path should they take?

This guest post from CitiSven (A World of Words) discusses the work being done to develop an international standard for EcoCities.