Here’s a show built around an interesting concept: Data is the major component of any smart grid, but as customers create and demand new data streams through home energy hubs, is there a danger of overload? A smart meter in the home is likely to prompt consumers to take a greater interest in energy management and start introducing new devices accordingly.
There is no doubt that the premise here is correct: the mere providing people with data changes their behavior. I’m a good example of this personally; I normally drive with the “instantaneous fuel consumption” display on, and I really like to make that figure as high as I can get it. I hate to see it plummet when I nail the accelerator – which is why I try to refrain from that behavior. I get 43 MPG on average, but I’m sure I could get 50 if I’d slow down even more.
In prepping for the upcoming webinar on ARES (Advanced Rail Energy Storage), I’m recommending that the company position itself more aggressively around the integration of renewables into the grid-mix and, in particular, the imperative to displace coal immediately.
As I pointed out to Jim Kelly, the company’s CEO, even the “man on the street” is becoming aware of the environmental and health issues associated with coal-fired power plants. Of course, he’ll run into the occasional climate change denier, but CO2 is certainly not the only issue with coal, and its sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury, lead, cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), arsenic, sulfides, halides, mercaptins, and radioactive isotopes. In other words, it’s poison, and more people are starting to understand this with each passing day.
Given the falling price of solar and the already low price of wind, low-cost storage is the only remaining challenge here.
Jim Kelly, CEO of ARES (Advanced Rail Energy Storage) has generously consented to do a webinar with me in the near future, which I think readers will find valuable. Insofar as solar and wind are intermittent resources, energy storage at the utility scale is a requirement if we are going to integrate large volumes of renewable energy. Currently, there is 129 gigawatts of energy storage on the grid, almost all (over 99%) of which is pumped hydro, i.e., water that is pumped uphill in time of excess power capacity, then released downhill to generate electricity in order to address peak loads.
ARES replaces water with extremely heavy rail cars, and the company claims that its solution is faster and less expensive to build, while providing better efficiency. Are they on the right track (pun intended)? More on this soon.
It’s become painfully obvious that business and government are not going to work together toward a clean energy future. As you note, we are consequently in the cue for an enormous amount of suffering. All because we lack imagination and allow the medium of exchange to rule our lives. Pathetic.
I respond:
Edward: Profound stuff, but the fact that our lives are, in fact, ruled by the medium of exchange isn’t going to change. It’s therefore incumbent on us to figure out how to make sustainability profitable. It’s a game that we must play– and win.
Of course, the real issue is politics, and the corruptive influence of money in the political scene. If it weren’t for this unfortunate aspect of our civilization, we’d have a fair and level playing field, in which all the producers and consumers of energy paid the comprehensive costs of their energy-related behavior. This would cause the cost of things like electricity from coal-fired power plants and access to oil made possible only via our $711 billion annual military budget to go right through the roof.
Try to imagine what would happen if fossil fuels didn’t enjoy BOTH the tens of billions of hard-dollar subsidies, AND the soft-dollars in forbearances that total at least a full order of magnitude more. Energy efficiency solutions and renewables would be seen as the deal of the century, and investors would be elbowing each other out of the way in a frantic effort to get there first.
I am really proud of you Craig. I have long thought that you were in the pocket of the far left lunatic fringe. Your post here demonstrates that you are not. Hopefully there are many others like you in the environmental movement who are educated in the reality of finite resources being chased by insatiable demand.
Larry, I had to smile when I saw this. Glad I could make you proud!
Yes, I consider myself an energy pragmatist. A bad idea is a bad idea regardless of what side of the political fence it hails from.
We have a huge problem to solve, and it won’t go away with a blend of impractical, idealistic thinking and a bit of grandstanding. It will, however, yield to a few really good solutions and the willingness to make tough choices.
At the Nature Conservancy’s “Green Event for Georgetown Alumni” I attended last Thursday I received some shocking news: mainstream environmentalists really are attacking solar energy sited in the deserts of the U.S. southwest on the basis of its ecological footprint. The presenter devoted at least 15 minutes of her talk to the idea that the solar industry and the state/federal government are aggressively short-cutting the permit process in a mad, greedy rush to deploy solar, and talked about her organization’s progress in making this cease, on the basis that the land has greater value as habitat for the desert tortoise and the cryptobiotic soil crusts.
When I overcame my astonishment, I thought for a minute before proceeding. I didn’t want to come off as offensive, but I realized I needed to challenge the speaker on a few points. I began:
“Look, we’re all on the same team here, aren’t we? We live on a small planet with a growing, energy-hungry population whose needs are largely fed by burning fossil fuels – a process that’s quickly and clearly ruining our planet. If you want to go after something, why not pick coal? Obviously, we’re all in favor of siting solar and wind where they will do the least damage to the environment, but your work in getting legal injunctions to stop these projects is causing far more harm than good.”
Another participant asked the speaker: “Isn’t the environmental cost of manufacturing and installing solar PV greater than the value of the clean electricity?”
The response: “I’ve heard that; I’m not really sure.”
After the event concluded and I stood mingling with the other participants, I could sense that I wasn’t the favorite person in the room. I suppose that defending a position always comes at a cost. A few minutes later, I called for an elevator to take me back down to the ground level. When the doors closed and I was alone, I put my face in my hands and muttered to myself, “Holy cow. Are we doomed, or what?”
The group acts as a promotional vehicle for hundreds of destinations worldwide, while stressing “Green Growth,” i.e., low carbon and environmentally sound development. From their website:
We will provide guidance and education to help you devise policies and programs that create progressively more sustainable travel and tourism communities, companies and related visitor actions. We will also (help) clearly identify your government’s carbon commitments, as well as provide a constantly growing set of global good practices at country, community and company levels.
Great going, folks. I’m proud to support you in any way possible.
Having said that, I understand his reasoning, i.e., that his position within the space agency limited his ability to use the law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as government employees cannot testify against the government. And I suppose it’s safe to assume that we’ll be hearing more – not less – from Dr. Hansen and his aggressive criticism of U.S. inaction on the subject. In particular, there is no reason to think that he’ll be less conspicuous at public protests on climate-related issues, at which he’s been arrested on numerous occasions. “At my age (72),” he quipped, “I am not worried about having an arrest record.”
Among other things, Hansen plans to lobby European leaders — who are among the most concerned about climate change — to impose a tax on oil derived from tar sands, since its extraction results in greater greenhouse emissions than conventional oil. Great concept, btw: identify something that we really want to make go away and make it financially unattractive. The idea certainly has my full support.
Thanks to Dr. Hansen for his service, and best wishes for his continued success.
I probably won’t attend this “Creating Climate Wealth” workshop due to the commitment of resources it would require, but it sure would be interesting. I very much admire The Carbon War Room and its concept of using market capitalism and wealth creation to build a more ecologically responsible way of life. Who but Richard Branson would have developed the idea?
If we have any readers who plan to attend, we’d all appreciate a guest-post when you return.
In prepping for the upcoming webinar on ARES (Advanced Rail Energy Storage), I’m recommending that the company position itself more aggressively around the integration of renewables into the grid-mix and, in particular, the imperative to displace coal immediately.
