Today’s clean energy webinar with Dr. David Doty went very well. David spoke on “The World Energy Scene by the Year 2050,” presented his solution (“WindFuels,” synthetic fuels made from off-peak wind energy and CO2), and fielded a number of excellent questions from the audience. A downloadable version of the webinar should be available in a day or so.
In April’s 2GreenEnergy webinar on electric transportation, I presented a short section on telematics, and all the wonderful benefits that accrue once the car is connected to the cloud: real-time traffic, green routing, intelligent billing, etc. In this video, a Ford R&D guy is talking about developing some really cool telematics apps. It starts at 26 minutes and 25 seconds in.
Eric Mathis is obviously a young man who “gets it.” He posted a comment on my piece on Joe Biden’s speech that I put on Renewable Energy World, in which he linked to a post he wrote on GreenForAll. In it he discusses why and how the clean energy debate needs to be reframed, and notes:
Moreover, Secretary Chu’s recent statement further unpacks the issue at hand when he stated that the “United States faces a choice today: will we lead in innovation and out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind?” Falling behind is exactly what we are doing and what lies at the heart of this issue is simple: while we are fighting each other within the various Clean vs. Dirty energy debates, our country is being chopped up, sold off and shipped to China.
I hope readers will check out Eric’s post in its entirety. Again, he gets it.
Frequent Commenter John F. Robbins writes this marvelous response to the 2GreenEnergy survey on renewables:
The most missing question or comment in your survey and most of this blog is how to move away from the current energy-guzzling nature of our culture. Almost all the old-wave renewable energy discussion (prior to 2000) was heavy and serious on how to use less prior to or while trying to convert to renewables. Yet now, under the mantra of “creating jobs” or “increasing profits and tax collection” or just “new-wave RE advocacy”, RE is being pushed with almost no inclusion or demand that energy guzzling be actually reduced.
If we cut energy use first, that would be the most cost-effective solution ranked according to $/energy. That first step would also reduce how much and what scale of RE and storage are needed, thereby lowering those costs substantially.
As long as we allow, tolerate or are part of a culture of ever-increasing energy demand and use, both the futures of conventional and renewable energy are diminished, even bleak. The current energy model cannot exist ad infinitum, simply because it is based on infinite supplies at perpetually low prices.
Even if we didn’t move more quickly to RE, the price of future conventional will certainly be erratic and inflationary, especially as certain sources like oil become more depleted sooner. Natural gas will likely be second to deplete or become super-expensive to deliver in the current scale of demand.
Deceased thinker Donella Meadows often wrote about how our culture was operating beyond its physical limits. We need solutions which go beyond specific technologies and deal with our culture, how to change it so we can use and demand far less energy. Then the prognosis for energy futures gets better faster.
Thanks, John. All this is completely true, and you’re right; I most definitely fall into a faulty manner of thinking re: conservation and efficiency. There is no doubt that, as a culture, we simply hog far too much energy.
This is why Vaclav Smil says, as he contemplates the effect that two billion more people will have on the Earth, “It depends. Will they use energy at the rate of the North Americans, or the Japanese?”
What I’ve noticed living here in the good ol’ USA is that virtually no one does anything that doesn’t benefit himself or his immediate friends and family. We’ve been programmed to ignore the needs of others, and that programming has been enormously effective. (It wasn’t always like this, btw. When we really became a consumer society after World War II, the idea that economics was an indifferent and often cruel taskmaster controlling all of us was vigorously drummed into our heads.)
Be this as it may, we live in a society in which the vast majority of people will not even consider sacrificing a pleasure for the good of someone else – regardless of how trivial the sacrifice or how enormous the benefit to the other. In the main, we turn off our lights, replace our incandescent light bulbs, and install low-flow showerheads (when we do), because of our utility bills. We buy more fuel-efficient cars because of the objectionable price of gasoline.
At the end of the day, if you want to save energy, you have to make it expensive. However, here in the US, we make it artificially cheap. If we had any sincerity about weaning ourselves off coal and oil (which we don’t) we would simply begin to force the producers and consumers of energy from those sources to pay the true and comprehensive costs. If we were to do that, you’d see an enormous change in people’s behavior – not next year, but this afternoon.
Here’s a start. Just take this list of subsidies we give the big oil companies and make them go away.
Then get the oil and coal companies to pay the increases in healthcare costs caused by aromatics, absorb the cost of the long-term environmental damage. All of this garbage would be gone in a heartbeat.
Again, thanks for your comment.
“Changing surface colors in 100 of the world’s largest cities could save the equivalent of 44 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – about as much as global carbon emissions are expected to rise by over the next decade,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu in 2009.In fact, pale surfaces reflect up to 80 percent of the sunlight that falls on them, compared with about 20 percent for dark ones, which is why roofs and walls in hot countries are often whitewashed. An increase in pale surfaces in our urban locations could both reflect more solar radiation away and reduce the amount of energy needed to cool buildings.Professor Chu explains he has been influenced by Art Rosenfeld, a member of the California Energy Commission, who pushed for some new building codes. Since 2005, California has required all flat roofs on commercial buildings to be white. Florida and Georgia are among states that have adopted building codes for white roof installations and more than 75 percent of Wal-Mart stores in the U.S. have them. Dr. Rosenfeld, also a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and two of his colleagues from the laboratory, Hashem Akbari and Surabi Menon, made the calculations found in Steven Chu’s quote above and believe light surfaces can help chip away at energy conservation and global warming issues.Using this very concept, some cities (including those in California) are painting roofs white to reflect heat, conserve energy and reduce the carbon footprint. Another company, Emerald Cities, successfully developed a high performance solar reflective coating for asphalt and cement for the same purpose. The special coating can cool down the surface by up to 50 degrees and reduce smog by 15%, and it also preserves deteriorating asphalt. The product is called Emerald Cities (EC) Solar Reflective Cool Pavement, coined Cool Pavement.
In fact, black asphalt covers 60% of city surfaces and is a silent contributor to heat, smog and CO2. Not only are smog and CO2 an issue, but there is risk for heat stroke in pedestrians, especially in crowded places like theme parks. “Green buildings can never be “zero carbon” until the asphalt portion of a project is addressed,” says an Emerald Cities representative.
Phoenix is a flagship city for Cool Pavement, where asphalt temperatures can easily soar past 200 degrees F in summer. The parking lot at the Duffy Charter School in Phoenix was one of the early resurfacing jobs, as shown in the photo above. Another site is downtown Phoenix, with a new installation up just after Memorial Day 2011 – a 90,000 square foot lot between First, Second, Taylor and Polk Streets. It will help cool the city this summer and will serve to show off the product.
A special launch event for Cool Pavement will take place in downtown Phoenix on June 10th, with speakers, a reception and demonstrations.
In addition, a new “100 Cities Initiative” is also being launched by Emerald Cities for Mayors, City Planners and Project Developers nationwide. Participating cities receive training of local contractors for green jobs, specialized Cool Pavement equipment, complimentary monitoring, Department of Energy seminar and educational materials, publicity & media coverage, aerial photos of completed project and status within the “100 Cities Initiative.”
Emerald Cities spent two years conducting research, developing and perfecting the product through MIT and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. The nano-engineered concrete technology is the first of its kind for use on roads, parking lots, amusement parks, school yards, cross walks, malls, airports and various public surfaces. It earns LEED credits and can generate carbon offset credits. The product is 1/6 inch in thickness, skid resistant, impervious to UV and is 4300+ psi. While light green is a preferred color, Cool Pavement comes in a number of light colors. There are three application choices: spray on, roller application or smooth squeegee application.
Tests conducted on a major highway in July 2010 proved conclusively that on a 110 degree Phoenix summer day, the surface heat of the road was 209 degrees as compared to 135 degrees with Emerald Cities Cool Pavement – a 74 degree difference.
A senior sustainability scientist at Arizona State University, Harvey Bryan, says it is getting significantly hotter. “It’s a magnitude now of about 12 degrees above our historical nighttime lows. It was very typical to have summer evenings of 78 degrees back in the 1950s. Today we rarely go below 90. I think we’re headed to conditions where we have 100 degrees as our maximum nighttime low.” (Phoenix Magazine. “Phoenix’s Urban Heat Island,” May 2011.) Cool Pavements may be one way to help.
When I was growing up as a small boy near Philadelphia, I remember discussions with my father , colorful as they were, on the people in the states within half a day’s drive of us. Then, when I moved up into Connecticut to go to college, I remember his telling me even more about his assessment of Vermonters: “JC (short for J. Craig),” he said, “If you’re not from Vermont, they don’t want you in Vermont.”
I always regarded this as quizzical, not that I was unfamiliar with racism and xenophobia. It’s just that I didn’t impute this kind of stuff to a northern state where, it seemed to me, no one looked terribly different than anyone else. Couldn’t I sneak in and out without anyone’s knowing the difference?
But, as I’ve come to learn, the folks from Vermont really DO view things a bit differently. If you don’t believe me, I hope you’ll check this out.
I don’t know how excited to get about the podcast contained in this article – mostly because it’s so riddled in military double-speak that it’s practically incomprehensible. But here’s a story that, I believe, communicates that two extremely highly placed Pentagon officials – both Special Assistants to the Chairman for Strategy to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, are recommending a new path to national security.
They are claiming, I want to believe, that in the future, security will be attained less by guns and bombs than by promoting things like education and healthcare. It seems to recognize that the value of force, control, and domination – if it ever actually did exist – is now overshadowed by being a visible and demonstrable force for good, peace, sustainability, and harmony. I hope listeners will try to make sense of it and tell me if I’ve gotten the gist. This is certainly good news if I’ve gotten it right.
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in this world of the Pentagon. When I speak, I need to say something. I lack the patience – or maybe just the talent with language – to dance around an issue for 10 minutes without actually making a point.
I just spoke with the proprietor of a very well-established and well-diversified energy solutions company in New York, focusing on a range of residential, commercial, and industrial customers. He happened to have seen my piece on Joe Biden’s speech, and told me: “If you want real malarkey, you have to come to New York. We take the cake.”
When I asked what he meant, he explained.
The paperwork to even begin a solar project is so onerous that virtually no one can put up with it. It’s a pile of documents to be signed by the customer and the contractor, submitted to NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority). Then you wait, and wait.
In three months you get a response that tells you that a certain document is missing. Well, it wasn’t required when we submitted “The Package” three months ago, but it sure as hell is now. So we submit it. And then we wait some more.
I can put a 37-ton air-conditioner on your roof this afternoon. But if I want to put a 37-pound solar panel on your roof, watch out. It’s the paperwork I just described, plus a bonus! I need an insurance policy with special wording that could cost thousands of dollars.
The same people who will make a speech claiming all the great work they’ve done to take us to clean energy are the exact same people making it impossible. Solar contractors are dropping like flies, simply because the restrictions are just too tough. They’d rather be laying bricks, and I can’t see how anyone could possibly blame them.
That’s sad, folks.
I often wonder exactly why the US is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and frequently I’m afforded the opportunity to try to understand this better.
In previous posts I’ve mentioned that I occasionally go to parties with professors at the Monterey Institute of International Studies who are experts in terrorism. One of them, Ray Zilinskas, has recently co-authored the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Bioterrorism Defense, a copy of which I leafed through at a Memorial Day barbecue. Wow. 668 pages, list price $449.00, providing “complete coverage of bioterrorism and defense against it, spanning scientific, technological, clinical, legal, historical, and political aspects.” A weighty piece indeed.
What I found most interesting in my conversations with Ray, however, was that he really can’t weigh in on when, where, or how probably such an event would take place. “What are these people’s philosophies?” I asked. “What are they trying to accomplish? What would drive them to take such a terrible course of action as to sicken and kill whole populations of innocent people? I hear they’re motivated by revenge, is that right? If that’s true, isn’t the US course of action from a military standpoint actually counter-productive?”
This isn’t Ray’s area – which I can understand. But I’m reminded of the American pragmatist philosopher William James writing on the importance of his subject. I can’t find the quote, but to paraphrase:
There is nothing more important about a person or his group than their philosophy. Suppose you have an enemy. Sure you want to know how many of them there are, and what weapons they may possess. But don’t you really want to know their philosophy?
We commonly hear that one can’t wage a war on terrorism, as it’s a tactic, not a people. It’s like waging war on flame-throwers. This is true, but behind the tactic, there are people, and motivating the people are philosophies.
In any case, this inquiry as to the US motive for war in the Middle East came up empty, but I’ll keep trying.
Frequent commenter Don Harmon writes:
How come there are giant hit shows on American TV where all the energy is focused on giving a kid a chance to become the next “American Idol” and there are NO shows on American TV about giving a kid a chance to become employed in the Clean Energy field? When you figure that one out, you will have your answer about America’s future in the next decade as far as holding its own as a super power.
This is precisely correct, Don. When my friend Wally Rippel speaks in public, he often asks the audience to name a famous movie star, then a famous athlete, a famous criminal, and a famous singer. Hands spring up all over the room. Finally, he asks for the name of a famous scientist, and watches as the room fidgets nervously. There, he explains, is where our future lies. Until we value our scientists as much as we value our pop stars, we’re doomed to become a third-rate power.
