My thanks to everyone who has participated in the recent 2GreenEnergy survey.  I note that Dr. David Doty, one of the greatest intellects I’ve ever run across, boldly predicted the following for the coming five years:

Oil, coal, and gas will steadily become more expensive at a mean rate of ~20%/year. EVs will have negligible impact on oil usage – for decades.

Global economic growth will still continue at a rate of ~2%/yr, and inflation in the U.S. will remain low.

The gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen. It will take 10-12 more years of this before something close to revolution (major rioting) comes to the U.S. We will not see another period of sustained strong growth in the U.S. until several years after that happens.

We will not see serious and effective commitment to reduced CO2 emissions until after we’ve seen several years of strong economic growth.

Much of what you’ve written here is so counter to most people’s thinking — not to say that this means it’s wrong.  20% CAGR? That’s doubling every 3.5 years. By “mean rate,” I presume you suggest an average across the three fuels, as well as their price points across the next five years. 

Personally, I don’t see anything right now that would tend to make natural gas or coal climb in price.  The anti-fracking sentiment here doesn’t seem to be gaining too much momentum, and you can still walk through Wyoming and trip over lumps of coal.  I agree about oil, though I believe the oil companies will manipulate the price, and the American sheep-consumer, as long as that’s what’s required to keep us from looking elsewhere for transportation.

I’m even more interested in what you wrote about social chaos. As I’m sure you know, you’re not alone in predicting this.   But you must be aware of our fastest growing industry: criminal justice.  While even college graduates are having the devil’s own time finding work, one segment’s booming – it’s spending a mint in advertising, and creating a whole new subject in which college students can major, like you and I majored in physics, English, history, or whatever.  That’s law enforcement.   Enjoy a rewarding career putting those lawless protesters where they belong: behind bars! 

Sorry to joke about such a lethally serious subject, but I’m not too bullish on the efficacy of civil disobedience here in the US. 

But I do agree with what you write at the end: as long as Americans feel a pinch in their wallets, there will be precious little interest in CO2 emissions.  It’s far too easy for the demagogues to convince voters that environmental responsibility means a sluggish economy and that the adoption of an energy policy that embraces renewables will result in job loss.

Again, my thanks to Dr. Doty and to all the others who have responded so far.  ”Tell your friends,” as they say.

Tomorrow my daughter and I will spend the afternoon on a project for her science class at school: building a model house whose electrical power is delivered with solar photovoltaics.  I have a small solar panel that (I believe) will put out about 5 Watts in the full sun, and a couple of flashlight batteries of different types.  I think I’m going to have to experiment with series vs. parallel circuits, different bulbs, etc., before I get this right.  Should be fun.

I’d like to ask a favor, if I may. We have a quick survey up on the 2GreenEnergy website – one that, interestingly enough,  calls for you to predict the future. Given our current energy policies and the rate at which they’re changing, what do you think the world will be like five years from now? What events do you believe are likely to occur between now and the year 2017? Which do you think are improbable?

As usual, we’ll tabulate the results and offer you a free copy of the report that comes as a result.

And as always, we appreciate your help.

Here’s the link:

http://2greenenergy.com/survey-what-will-happen-in-the-next-five-years/

I think that anybody contemplating a career in clean energy has always to take a look at the engineering and scientific aspects of the field to find a very demanding and yet rewarding career, why because we live in a technical field….There will always be better ways to extract energy from the sun, the wind, earth and the water…. Lawyers, accountants as well as marketers cannot lead the way; they lack the tools and the vision to understand and unleash the forces of nature in our benefit. Cheers, Mate.

Rogelio, thanks very much for this  great insight. It reminds me of my conversations with my fine friend, the extremely senior physicist Wally Rippel, who, when asked to speak in front of a crowd, has been known to offer this challenge:

Raise your hand if you can name a movie actress. Good!

How about an athelete? Excellent.

A famous criminal? Terrific.

A singer in a band? Fabulous.

What about a multi-billionaire? Nice going.

Now, raise your hand if you can name a scientist. Not Albert Einstein, or someone else who’s been dead even longer, but any prominent living scientist.

Each time he does this, the audience looks around at one another sheepishly. Not a single hand goes up.

His point, obviously, is that our society reveres rich people, hot starlets, people who can dunk a basketball, and a few others.  But we really don’t care a whit for the people who, as you put it, are looking for better ways to “extract energy from the sun, the wind, earth and the water.”

Rogelio, I’m sure you would agree that we need to find a way to change this regrettable and self-destructive aspect of our civilization.  Each day we show our approval of the Wall Street masters of the universe, the seven-footers with the obscene tattoos, and the coke-snorting actors.  But our  scientists have simply fallen out of favor.  In the words of Bob Dylan, a hard rain’s a gonna fall.  We’re in the process of getting the society we so richly deserve.

On a far lighter note, you bring up a wonderful point.  I’m looking for a Renaissance here, as I’m sure you are too.  Thanks for writing.  Cheers back to you, Mate!

I’ll be interested in your feedback.

A reader from the San Francisco Bay Area sent me this article, which he said, “was buried within an article on other SF subjects. Thought you might be interested.”

Green vs. green: San Franciscans’ enthusiasm for going green with “clean energy” in their own homes appears to be about as flat as the economy.

A recent poll of 3,500 residents by the city’s Public Utilities Commission found that 52 percent would probably stay with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. That’s just 3 percentage points more than in a similar poll taken last year.

Those willing to pay “a little bit more” for clean wind and solar power declined to 37 percent, from 45 percent the year before.

And that’s after the estimated increase was dropped by more than half – from $14 more a month to just $6.

“There is a certain group of people who will buy organic or buy green, and others that don’t have an interest,” said PUC chief Ed Harrington. “We never thought it would be overwhelming, but there is a market.”

The poll was conducted to test the market for the city’s program. The Board of Supervisors is considering spending $19.5 million in startup funds on the project.

The plan calls for the city to contract with Shell Energy to buy the power, then deliver it through regular utility lines.

Yes, that is interesting. Thanks. I suppose it’s to be expected, though, as:

1) When people – any people – feel themselves to be under financial pressure, they can be counted on to be less generous, and

2) Americans put an extremely low importance on environmental issues. When we go to the polls this November, our concerns for the environment will be #16 in our priorities. As I wrote last week, Americans’ apathy towards the environment stands in stark contrast to the Europeans, who place this topic at the top of their lists.

Each week I receive several emails requesting my advice on career paths within the clean energy space. I thought I’d take a few minutes and jot down a few of the ideas that I normally try to express in response.

First, I congratulate people who want to work in this industry, especially if their interest is rooted in a love of the natural environment and perhaps a sense of duty, or at least a wish, to do something good for mankind and the other 8.7 million species of life forms here on our home planet. But regardless of motive, clean energy is one of few arenas in which there exists a beautiful confluence of the profitable and the philanthropic; we’re helping mankind whether that’s our aim or not.

It’s a shame that there are so few such opportunities, but that does seem to be the case. We tend to think that we either fight hard to protect the jobs we have, as much as we may detest them — jobs that create pollution, addictions, obesity, junky products designed to be obsolete — or we risk starvation in order to pursue our dreams. For once, good opportunities and good citizenship are running together; let’s begin by noting that.

Next, I point out that picking an exact discipline within the realm of clean energy is tough, for many reasons. For instance, there are dozens of  different clean energy technologies, and it’s hard to know at this point which ones will come to dominate the landscape of tomorrow.

Complicating matters further, we’ve all seen instances in which an inferior product came to lead the market. If you doubt this, you need look no further than the computer you’re reading this piece on, which, in all likelihood, runs a Microsoft operating system. Computer experts in the 1990s (when I was paying closer attention to this subject) described Windows as an “abomination”; some referred to it as “the equivalent of cancer for a computer” — yet it came to command the marketplace.

But even in a perfect world, picking winners is tricky business, because of the huge variety of factors that influence the outcome. As an example, will solar thermal receive the support it needs from the public and private sector such that sufficient R&D will be focused on lowering costs and boosting efficiencies?  Right now, it’s an open question, but it’s a critical one.  If the answer is yes, most observers believe there exists huge potential here; but if the answer is no, it’s essentially doomed to remain a non-event in the energy world.

Then there is the issue of breadth. The science, i.e., the physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and so forth, is just one aspect to the successful implementation of clean energy. Think of the sheer number of disciplines that are required if we are to make the migration from fossil fuels. Here’s a partial list:

Education, Marketing, Sales, and Public Relations: Someone needs to enlighten a population of people who are currently being told that they should support the “drill baby drill” policy; the world (at least the United States) is being force-fed utter lies about the legitimacy of the oil and coal companies — erroneous beliefs that someone must set right.  We have a very long road ahead of us here — which is sad in a way, though it opens up significant career opportunities.

Manufacturing and Construction: I conducted the first interview in my most recent book, “Is Renewable Really Doable?” with Robert Pollin, Ph.D.,  Professor of Economics and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Dr. Pollin also functions as a consultant to the Energy Department on implementing the Obama Administration’s stimulus program.

Here’s part of what he told me re: job growth in the energy efficiency sector:

My own estimates are in the range of $800 billion worth of work if you retrofitted basically the entire existing building stock to the level necessary, which of course is not going to happen, but at least analytically, there’s no reason for it not to happen because it does save people money. So that is a big project, and think about it, there’s no way this is importing competition; it has to be done in local communities.

And it’s relatively labor intensive; it offers opportunities for people with relatively low credentials. To retrofit an average project if you spend $1 million, you’ll get about eight jobs directly, and another eight jobs either indirectly—meaning jobs for the suppliers—or jobs created through a multiplier effect, through people having more money because they have jobs and then they’re spending the money. So you’ll get between 16 to 17 jobs per million-dollar expenditure in retrofit projects. Which is good. It’s not the best, but it’s certainly the best in the area of energy.

This is a project that could go on for 20 years and could make everybody save money – and I mean everybody. There are subsidies out there, but the market really hasn’t taken off yet.

Let’s compare spending money on green energy versus fossil fuels. You’re going to get about three times more jobs per dollar of expenditure through clean energy, and here I’m referring both to efficiency and renewable investments. Three to one.

Now yes, part of that is because the pay level and the skill requirements for the clean energy jobs tend to be lower. I don’t see that as necessarily so bad because it creates more entry-level jobs. Some of them have decent job ladders, and the other thing is because you’re creating three times more jobs overall, in absolute terms you’re going to have more jobs of all types, of all quality levels, of all pay levels. That’s something else that I’ve shown.

So yes, proportionately, dollar for dollar you get higher quality, more skill and education requirements through spending in the fossil fuel economy, but that does not compensate for the fact that dollar for dollar you get three times more jobs overall in clean energy; you get more jobs at all levels through the clean energy economy.

Law: The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)  bills itself as the nation’s most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.

At the end of the day, this breadth is a good thing. What it means is that there are tons of different ways of approaching the subject and involving oneself within it.

As I like to say when I’m asked this question on radio or television interviews: with the possible exception of Scottish Folk Tunes, every single subject that one can take in college has bearing in one way or another on the migration to clean energy.

Think about it: in addition to the science/technological side, we have:

• Sociology – How do groups of people think and act with respect to social and anti-social behavior?

• Anthropology – How has mankind evolved to deal with the long-range planning that is so essential to our survival at this point?

• Psychology – At an individual level, how do people react to the challenge of doing the right thing, even if it’s a bit more expensive?

• Economics – Who will bear the cost of renewable energy and cleantech?

• Political science – How should our elected leaders help to make this happen?

• Philosophy – What are our rights as they relate to common property like the oceans and skies? Our moral obligations?

I suppose I would simply remind career-minded people who are looking into clean energy to choose a discipline that they actually enjoy. Not everyone likes to sell, just as not everyone’s good at thermodynamics. But everyone likes something, and in this case that’s all that matters. My advice:  just pick a “something” that you like – and then get damn good at it.

Frequent commenter Duke Brooks writes in:

Americans who rail against U.S. polluters should probably spend a few days in the world’s most polluted city, Beijing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. But the lack of outrage from the American left over China’s mass particulate output would tend to expose them for what they are: A political, not ecological, movement.

I don’t think anyone argues that China’s building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week is anything other than an abomination; there isn’t too much controversy there — regardless of where one stands politically.  Yet China is the world’s leading investor in renewable energy, and they face a far larger challenge than we do in terms of supplying energy to a skyrocketing number of energy-hungry consumers; it’s one that dwarfs ours here in the U.S.

I don’t know whether you saw this report I wrote a few months back in an attempt to make sense of this paradox: China Is Investing in Renewable Energy — But Why?  

For amusement only….

Today I cooked mashed potatoes in my solar oven. The oven is made of one of those shiny windshield shades, a rack from an old countertop oven, a very large clear plastic pretzel container and a 2lb 13oz Prego spagetti sauce jar which I painted black with high temperature paint except for a stripe I left so I could look at what was going on in there. I peeled and cut potatoes to fill the jar and added water and put the arrangement out in the sun around 12:30. About 6:30 I retrieved the arrangement and brought the jar in to see what I had.

It had been shaded for about 1/2 hour. It was still so hot I could not hold it. I think I actually burned my fingers. I emptied the water and removed the potatoes and they were totally cooked. I grabbed the masher and mashed them up. I know have a quart of mashed potatoes courtesy of Mother Nature. What should I cook next?

I also harvested and used 3.8 kWh of solar power which I used to:
Run the fridge for at least 6 hours
Run my computer room for at least 6 hours
Run my solar air heater for 11 hours
Run my landscape lights all night
Run my AV control system 24 hours
Charge my wireless touchpanel for the AV control system
Charge my cell phone all day and night
Charge 2 roombas
Make 5 big cups of coffee
And put .87 kWh back onto the grid

Yesterday I harvested 4kWh and did all of the above plus a load of wash and made a basket of air popped popcorn.

Just trying my best to do as much as I can.

Bruce writes:

Wake up, if you want to stop pollution, stop polluting yourself and quit blaming the people that enable you to do the dirty work yourself. Take some personal responsibility. Environmental issues are never going to be solved as long as we concentrate on what others should do instead of what we ourselves can do. You have a choice. Stop talking and start doing or quit whining.

Ahem.

It’s certainly true that we form the world in which we live with our purchasing behavior. And I have to admit that, while I’m fairly decent in this department, I could be better.

But, Bruce, I did feel compelled to make a point here on behalf of the entire 2GreenEnergy team. We actually ARE doing; we ARE making a difference. In fact, we’ve helped hundreds of people in countries all over the world connect up and form businesses based around energy efficiency and renewables. I have emails from people in countries I didn’t know existed thanking us for our help. At the same time, we’ve communicated what we believe to be the truth in this space to many hundreds of thousands, creating a better informed, more energy-literate student population and electorate.  We’re proud of what we’ve accomplished — and we’re just getting started.