Are you tracking the big numbers behind renewable energy? If so, here’s an article on a United Nations report on clean energy that you’ll find quite meaningful. Maybe “meaningful” is the wrong word to describe a report that is called the “Renewables Bible.” Wow, high praise indeed; perhaps I too could benefit from a bit more aggressive labeling of my writing. But seriously – the Bible? (more…)
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has recently released its “Clean Energy Progress Report.” The IEA is an autonomous agency established in November 1974 with the mandate to promote energy security amongst its member countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply, and provide authoritative research and analysis for reliable and affordable clean energy.
The report is both optimistic and pessimistic — as well as cautionary in tone. The past decade has seen the dramatic rise in renewable energy worldwide, led by wind and solar. Major car companies are adding electric and hybrid vehicles to their lines and promoting them. Public investment in research and development is strong. Energy efficiency is improving in many western countries, says the report, after recent modest gains. A growth in renewables producing electricity is clear in many areas. Unfortunately, says the report, not all is good.
It looks like Chevron’s situation in Ecuador is coming to a head. In a couple of weeks, the oil giant will face a watershed event in the court case in which it’s been ordered to pay $9.5 billion to repair the damage it did (operating as Texaco) to the people and environment of this formerly pristine part of the Amazon jungle. Here’s a video made by Amazon Watch, a small but fierce non-profit that’s been working hard to focus world attention — and bring justice — to this horrific matter.
In my mind, what makes this all the more disgusting is where it happened, and why it happened there. We’re talking about a company whose leaders premeditated to commit an atrocity in a part of the world populated with men, women and children in whom “civilization” simply has no interest. The people of the entire region are invisible; they hold no currency; they do not matter. If they had perpetrated the same thing in the US, the executives responsible would have been making license plates for the next 15 – 20 years — and they knew it. We have clear laws in place — and a judicial system that does manage to lock up an occasional CEO or two for gross violations. So the folks in charge thought they would make some money by destroying a remote part of the world, and its forgotten people — all with total impunity.
And even though decades of jurisprudence finally produced a crystal-clear guilty verdict, they just might pull it off. Chevron has deployed many hundreds of the world’s finest and best-paid litigators to the case, and have vowed to fight this to the bitter end. Besides, they must be heartened by the success that ExxonMobil enjoyed in dragging out its payments on the Valdez oil spill in Alaska for more than 25 years before agreeing to pay a small portion — over a quarter of a century later. No fewer than 8000 beneficiaries of the ExxonMobil restitution died while they were waiting for their money to come in. I have to imagine that Chevron finds this travesty most encouraging.
Sorry to have to bring you news like this. And it’s not all that good for me either, as I routinely take considerable flack when I present stuff of this kind.
But I do it anyway.
I just conducted another in a series of radio shows that I bang out weekly under the name Clean Energy Radio.
One of our “charters” is untangling the issue: If we all know that clean energy is vitally important, if it’s important to our bodily health, our financial health as a nation and to us as consumers and to the health of our planet, then why, exactly, is it so slow to make it to the scene?
My guest today was David Cobb, 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, now national spokesperson for Move To Amend, whose purpose is to create a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.
Readers who think I’m too far to the left politically may be dismayed that I had David on the show in the first place, but they will certainly be pleased to know that I asked tough questions:
Interesting stuff, I believe. I’ll post a link to the show when it’s available.
Natural Gas is controversial.
Some say it is a fossil fuel with all of the inherent issues involved, and that in obtaining gas through the ‘fracking’ process, groundwater can be polluted if care isn’t taken. Others say natural gas is plentiful in the U.S., that it burns comparatively cleaner than other fossil fuels and is less carbon-intensive. It works well in concert with renewable energy and could serve as a bridge between renewables and dirtier fossil fuels. If one of the goals of the U.S. is to reduce imports, create jobs and become more energy secure, natural gas may have its place in the story.
The Task Force on Ensuring Stable Natural Gas Markets at the Bipartisan Policy Center published a report on the issues. Of course, the report is somewhat biased towards natural gas though both political parties have agreed on the findings and recommendations. That says something in today’s climate. Near the end of the report, the author say,
“At a time when political and economic conditions have paralyzed much of the national-level energy policy debate, the fact that a group as diverse as the Task Force could reach consensus on these measures suggests that here is at least one important area – natural gas markets – where progress is well within reach.”
Most of my business focus is on renewable energy — an arena that, if successful, could conceivably create a world in which it matters very little how much energy we consume – or even waste. Some people say that that once all our energy comes from totally clean sources, we can use as much as we want of it with complete impunity. But I’m constantly reminded that this is a horribly shortsighted view.
In this fantastic interview, distinguished author and professor Vaclav Smil discusses the growth in our population and the effects that this will most probably have on the sustainability of our civilization. In short, he feels that he can make no real projections, because so much depends on the rapidly changing lifestyles of the large populations in China and India. In particular, he asks: Will they evolve to be like Americans and Canadians – or more like the Japanese? We Westerners waste about twice as much material and energy as the Japanese, and eat more than five times as much meat.
Great talk; I hope you’ll check it out.
I’m really excited about our free webinar this month at 2GreenEnergy. At 1 PM EDT next Wednesday, May 18th, I’ll be interviewing senior physicist Dr. David Doty, who brings together quite a few key attributes into one package:
But exactly how credible is it? And how solid are his assumptions? (more…)
I was amused at the remarks of BMW’s spokesperson Tom Kowaleski when I talked to him two years ago about the company’s initial foray into the EV market with the Mini E. He snickered when I asked if he’d consider sponsoring the website I had recently joined as a junior partner, EVWorld.com. “Craig, I have about 800 of these cars to lease, the same year I’ll be trying to sell a thousand times that number with internal combustion engines. Where do you think my attention is?” he chuckled.
I got the joke instantly. These guys didn’t get where they are by taking their eyes off the ball financially. And here, it looks like BMW’s attention hasn’t moved too far in the intervening 24 months. According to Greenbeat,
“The ActiveE isn’t going directly on the market, like the Nissan Leaf or the Tesla Roadster — instead BMW will lease about 700 cars out for $500 a month over 2 years. …. BMW said the car can accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour in about 9 seconds. The Nissan Leaf, another plug-in electric car, can accelerate from 0 to 60 in about 7 seconds based on independent testing. BMW is known as a manufacturer of performance vehicles, so some critics question why the company didn’t create an electric car with more power….”
Sorry, guys, maybe I’m missing something, but it still doesn’t seem like you’re trying too hard.
As I continue to organize my new book of clean energy, it looks like I’ll be opening with a bit of history. The truth is that the struggle to control the world’s energy supply has dominated the agendas of world leaders and captains of industry for more than a century; in fact, what we see here today is just the next logical battle in a war that has been raging since our great grandparents’ generation.
I want to begin with words like: “Sadly, only a few people know enough about world history to understand how deeply the world’s most powerful economic and political forces are tied to the energy scene.” Then I want to present about 25 pages of material — enough to make the point and prove the case, but not so much to burden the reader with more on the subject than he needs or wants to know.
To develop this passage, I’d sure like to interview Robert Newman, the British historian, social critic, and comedian. As I wrote last year here, if our civilization has a chance here, it will be because people like him had insight into the truth, had the guts to tell it, and possessed the talent to do it in a way that people actually enjoy.
For those who may not be aware of Newman’s contributions, pour yourself a cup of coffee, or a glass of good wine (depending on the time of day), click on the link above and settle in for 45 minutes that I promise you’ll never forget. My advice: be braced to laugh through the tears; Newman is hilarious, but be prepared to learn about the realities of the history of oil, and their terrible consequences to our modern world.
And if you happen to know the guy personally, please send him my way.
I try to follow some of the international news scene on renewables, as well as what’s happening (or not happening) here, domestically. The common thread to most of this is that a great deal of the rest of the world has long since stopped bickering about climate change, and is actively embracing substantive actions to deal with its realities.
Earlier today, the UK’s Committee on Climate Change reported that renewable energy should “make a major contribution to decarbonising the UK economy over the next decades. (They) conclude that a renewable energy share of around 30% by 2030 would be appropriate, with scope for a higher share (e.g. up to 45%) depending on the extent to which renewable technology costs fall and possible constraints on deployment of low-carbon alternatives.”
Rather than moaning and calling one another names, the UK seems excited about the 50,000 new jobs that will be created as they build out a huge commitment to offshore wind. They seem strangely united behind a cause. Go figure.
