I hope I can count on you to participate in June’s poll, which centers around the following:
Given the world’s rapid growth in both population and fossil fuel resource consumption, how optimistic are you for a sustainable future? And why? If you see a solution on the horizon, which direction are you looking?
As always, I’ll publish a free report in the next few weeks, in which I present an analysis of the results. The Survey Is Here. Thanks very much.
I just returned from a fund-raiser hosted by dear friends Jez and Lynzie Blacker, who work tirelessly to improve the lives of the poorest of the poor – a great deal of their recent work in Haiti. Characteristically, they’ve been working their tails off over the last few months in an effort to raise money through their charity organization “U2U” to build a new hospital on the Haitian island of La Gonave, an overpopulated, drought-ridden place with horrifyingly few medical resources (one small, primitive hospital with 33 beds for a population of 160,000). Cholera is epidemic, and precious little is being done to stop the toll it’s taking, which is greatest among the children.
If you’d like to contribute, I can promise you that nowhere will you find an institution in which a larger percentage of your donations will go directly to providing help to those who need it most. More at U2Uworld.com.
On the renewable energy front, I met some people at the event from Zimbabwe who asked me if I wanted to get involved with U2U in a greater way than sipping wine and bidding on items in a silent auction. I explained that the main contribution I hope to make to the third world will come with the electrification of places that have never had it before – and that it will take the form of clean energy.
One could say that it’s a blessing in disguise that these nations don’t have tons of oil refineries and coal-fired power plants. We can try to provide for these places a kind of leapfrog effect, going directly to renewables – in much the same way that developing countries never had to incur the expense of building terrestrial telephone lines, and skipped directly into cellular telephony.
We’ll see what happens. But again, here’s that link to U2U.
Here’s an article that deals with a fundamental issue in sustainability: Can we innovate our way out of the mess we’ve created? Does the promise of abundant and inexpensive clean energy somewhere down the line – even if that promise comes true – allow us to continue consuming energy and other planetary resources at the same rapacious rate to which we Westerners feel entitled? The answer may surprise you.
Here’s an article that describes “green jobs as the new job killer in America.” The logic is summarized in this piece of journalistic drivel:
When large utility companies implement systems like smart meters, meter readers have nothing to do, no job, no need for their skill. The job of 100 meter readers can be handled by one guy – the one who presses restart with a computer mouse. So what do we do with the other 99 workers? The smart grid could be the dumbest thing to do – if you are a member of a trade union in the utility industry.
Holy cow. I’m always amazed when I see this type of stupidity parading as reporting. We’re supposed to keep people doing jobs that technology has made obsolete? And that will keep America competitive?
In the 19th Century, people made paperclips by hand, one at a time, with a pair of pliers. I guess one could argue that this business model shouldn’t have been scuttled when that manufacturing process was automated, and that we’d still have those jobs — except for the minor detail that they’d pay (according to my calculations) in the neighborhood of $0.000012 per hour.
The introduction of technology – in any century – makes certain jobs obsolete while it opens the door to others. If the author had no ax to grind in writing this article; if she (“Charlene on Green”) had spent 15 minutes researching the type and number of new jobs created in replacing 20th Century energy and transportation with 21st Century stuff, I have to think this could have been a more fair-minded and less idiotic piece.
The Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), which is an association of more than 14,000 members, recently issued a survey to its members regarding Green Jobs. The Center for American Progress indicated in a March 2010 report that by 2020, clean energy should be one of the world’s biggest industries, at perhaps $2.3 trillion. The AEE wanted to hear (more…)
Frequent commenter Cameron Atwood writes:
What really astonishes me is when people who claim to support a free market solution then complain about subsidies to truly clean and sustainable renewable energy, but fail to even mention the sturdy government crutches used by both the undead nuke plants and the muscular and well-heeled (but doomed) oil firms.
Yes, this amazes me too. The anti-socialists support the taxpayers shelling out tens of billions of dollars annually to support private enterprise (socialism). And it’s BAD socialism (supporting a public hazard, vs. a public good).
Because there are plenty of people writing on the Fukushima disaster, I tend to comment on it quite sparingly. But I just received an email from Areva (the French nuclear giant) that begins: “With the nuclear renaissance pushing ahead, I’m sure you’re aware …”
I always marvel when I see stuff like this. When large, industrialized countries are saying no to nuclear, and its costs are skyrocketing (while renewables are becoming more affordable every month), does it appear credible to anyone that the “nuclear renaissance is pushing ahead?”
And what about the fact that the whole world is learning more about the safety issues every day? I’m not happy to have to say this, but I accept what this article suggests, i.e., that scientists believe Japan’s nuclear disaster to be far worse than governments are revealing to the public, but that it’s only a matter of time before this becomes clear to everyone. “Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind,” Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, told Al Jazeera.
I’m not sure how any of this – and the decisions of Germany and Italy — squares with the “nuclear renaissance.”
Here’s a very good article that explores the promise of Smart Grid, as well as the challenges it faces.
Recently, I’ve taken to making predictions about our energy future. To that end, let me go on record as forecasting that time-of-use metering (“TOU” — billing customers less for consuming off-peak power) will have a significant impact on consumer behavior when it comes to energy efficiency. TOU is just one small facet of Smart Grid, but here’s why I believe that it alone will cause a large and very positive effect.
Take this quick anecdote: A top business consultant was hired to improve the production in a steel mill which ran two shifts, both with output that had been stagnant for many months. The consultant decided to take one single action: at the end of each shift, he walked into a visible part of the plant whose floor was covered in deep sand, and, with a shovel, carved a number that represented the tonnage that this shift had produced. For example, he’d etch “81” in numerals ten feet tall. Immediately, the 81 went to 83, to 86, to 92. All he did was provide a data point, the mere presense of which was enough to motivate a positive change.
I’m predicting something similar with time-of-use metering, when combined with messaging in emails and printed utility bills that shows consumers the details of how wasteful their energy spending really is. Imagine reading something like this:
Hello, Craig. Your household did 41 loads of laundry in May, 37 of them during peak hours. If you had done them before noon or after 8 PM, you would have saved $50 — that’s $600 annually — on laundry alone. And, as you can see in the graphic below, 8 of your 10 closest neighbors use significantly less energy than you do. You may want to ask them what they’re doing to save money and treat our planet more kindly.
I believe the results will be profound.
I am among the millions of Americans who listen to public radio and believes that what I’m hearing is objective information that isn’t bought and paid for by corporate interests. Unfortunately, it appears that American Public Media may be making an exception for GMO giant, Monsanto.
Non-profit Credo Action writes:
Marketplace, a program of American Public Media, has provided a soapbox to opponents of organics with a recent report titled “The Non-Organic Future.” This poisoning of public radio programming — and news that’s assumed to be unbiased and fair — aired on a program that has received substantial sponsorship from Monsanto, the corporation responsible for producing roughly 90% of genetically modified seeds around the globe.
And it urges people to:
I did so, adding: “I happen to remember hearing this when it aired, and wondered why the subject was treated in such a summary, one-sided fashion. Now I know. You should be ashamed.”
In the past, I have taken heat for suggesting that news shows shouldn’t take advertising dollars from companies whose industries they cover. Many readers scoffed that the presence of sponsors doesn’t slant stories. Bullcrap. The practice is wrong, and this is the result.
…continued from an earlier post…
Trends in Caring About Renewable Energy
Since the question was first asked in 2002, NMI has been tracking answers to the question, “I care about the use of renewable energy sources.” Those that completely agree with the statement have trended down from 56% in 2002-2003 to 43% in 2010; those that completely or somewhat agree has trended down from 90% in 2003 to 80% in 2010. However, the numbers evened off between 2009 to 2010, which may have indicated a bottom to the trending.
Power Purchase Options
Choice of renewable power purchase options is a very low awareness category, revealed the survey.
Only 14% of the respondents said they know of an option to buy from their electric company, and only 8% said they had the option to buy renewable power from someone other than the current electric company. There is, in fact, little change in consumer awareness on purchase options since 2006. There is a wide gulf between the number of people who say they care about renewable energy, and those who know they can buy it or have sought it out.
The Midwest had the lowest awareness in this area while the response from Texas was striking.
One-fourth of the consumers are aware of power purchase options there, and Texas markets are one of the most competitive in the U.S.
“If voluntary purchases are to be important to growing the renewable energy market, consumers obviously need to now they have the option of putting their money where their values are,” says the report.
Price Sensitivity Continues
A majority (69%) of consumers said they care about the environment but the purchase is determined mainly by price. Only 26% said they would spend an extra $5 to $20 to have some power come from a renewable source, and only 16% said they would be willing to pay more than $20. In 2006, more than 38% said they would spend an extra $5 to $20 – that category of consumers has consistently declined each year.
Regionally, 29% of those in the West said they would be willing to spend $5 to $20 more each month, while 25% in the South and Northeast said they would be willing, and only 23% in the Midwest said they would.
The report concludes that the renewable energy industry must do a better job of educating consumers, and that there is growth to be had if they are successful in consumer awareness. For instance, if consumers perceived that using renewable energy was not only good for the environment, but also better for their health and better for domestic energy security, they may be more willing to search out the local options to purchase.
The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) web site is found here for further information.
