Blogs

IBM planning to bring solar costs to $2 per watt

Hank Green — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:02:07 PDT

IBM has just squeezed the most power ever out of the smallest area of solar panel. By focusing the sun over 2,300 times, researchers were able to pull 70 watts of usable electric power out of one square CENTIMETER of silicon photovoltaic panel.

Of course, the concentrator itself is quite large. But as the silicon photovoltaics are undoubtedly the most expensive piece of any solar installation, decreasing the amount needed dramatically reduces costs.

Recently we reported on another company, Sunrgi, working on a similar technique, with similar claims of extremely inexpensive solar power. Both of these companies have had to face the same problem, keeping the photovoltaics from frying even when exposed to the power of thousands of suns. Sunrgi uses a proprietary cooling system, but this means that they can only concentrate solar power to around 1,600 times.

IBM, which has a lot of experience cooling silicon (though generally not in the form of photovoltaics) has a more advanced system.

The IBM team used a very thin layer of a liquid metal made of a gallium and indium compound that they applied between the chip and a cooling block. Such layers, called thermal interface layers, transfer the heat from the chip to the cooling block so that the chip temperature can be kept low.Â

The really exciting thing about this story is that its coming from IBM. When we heard Sunrgi exclaiming that it was on the path to truly cheap solar, we were excited, but skeptical. That is, after all, a young company searching for funding.

But IBM has a lot more to lose in making claims that don't eventually pan out. In short, we believe IBM, and this is exciting.

Currently solar thermal projects, in which sunlight is focused in order to boil water and spin a turbine, are currently the cheapest way to get solar power. But IBM says that it thinks, if the silicon can be cooled effectively, concentrated photovoltaics could take over as the cheapest form of solar energy.

All I care about is that it gets cheaper ... and faster, and I really hope to see IBM bringing this technology to market fast.

Full press release

Green jobs of the future, apply now

Noah Buhayar — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:50:21 PDT

I recently returned from San Diego, where the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) was holding its annual conference.

From tech startups to renewable energy contractors, the exhibit hall was teeming with job opportunities. Just about every rep I talked with said their company or organization was growing -- and growing fast.

By ASES's count, there are now more than 8 million "green-collar" jobs the United States, serving a nearly $1 trillion market in renewable energy and energy efficiency. (Think assembly line workers at a wind turbine plant, energy auditors, green architects, etc.) The Society says those figures could grow to 40 million jobs (about a quarter of the country's workforce) and fuel a $4.5 trillion industry by 2030.

Better yet, these jobs are geographically dispersed. From Vermont's success with energy efficiency to rust belt renewal in Pennsylvania to Texas wind farms to the California photovoltaic industry, there are opportunities in just about every part of the country.

If you've just graduated or if you're looking for a career change and an opportunity to be part of the new clean, green economy, here are a couple tips to get your search started:

Think efficiency. A lot of the new, green economy is about doing more with less. Energy service companies (ESCOs) -- businesses that implement energy efficiency measures and make money by taking a percentage of their clients' savings -- employ thousands of people directly and indirectly in the United States. Weatherizing houses may not sound as trendy as installing solar panels, but it can have a much greater effect on a family's energy consumption, finances, and quality of life. Beyond energy, there are a number of organizations doing the same kind of work for water and other natural resources.

Consider using the skills you already have. According to the ASES report, "the vast majority of the jobs created by RE&EE [the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries] are standard jobs for accountants, engineers, computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, truck drivers, mechanics, etc." That means there's probably a job for someone with your skill set in these industries.

Get educated; get involved. If you don't have the skills for the job you want, reading up on the topics, taking classes, or volunteering are a great ways to get started. Rocky Mountain Institute has an extensive library on many of topics of interest, as do the Earth Policy Institute, Worldwatch Institute, Environmental Defense, and NRDC. Trade journals such as Solar Today and Home Power are also good resources for reading up on the renewable energy sector. Organizations such as Solar Energy International and Yestermorrow Design/Build School can teach you skills needed for careers in this field. Many vocational schools around the country are also adding programs to prepare people for these jobs. And if you're interested in volunteering, idealist.org has an extensive list of opportunities.

Once you've narrowed in on what you want, there are plenty of green job boards (greenjobs.com, greenenergyjobs.com, ecojobs.com, etc.) worth checking out on the Web.

At Rocky Mountain Institute we talk a lot about how the economy can evolve in a way that is better for people and the planet; we call this evolution Natural Capitalism. As businesses start shifting in this direction, it's an exciting time to join the green movement by aligning your career with your values.

As Van Jones, founder and president of Green For All, told a rapt audience at the ASES conference: "You have no idea how much good you're going to do."

Noah Buhayar is a fellow at Rocky Mountain Institute.

Top 5 reasons why the Senate must act now

Sheryl Canter — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:07:13 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

The Senate is set to vote on landmark global warming legislationin early June -- just a few short weeks away.

Here are our top five reasons why legislators must act now.

Every year we wait means extra effort. If we delay this bill by just two years, weâll have to make twice the annual cuts in carbon emissions to hit the same cumulative reductions by 2020.

The science is unforgiving. As the Earth warms, we approach a "tipping point", after which large destructive climate changes become inevitable.

The political opportunity is ripe. Seventy-nine percent of Americans want Congress to act on global warming. We should take advantage of the tremendous momentum that exists today.

It would be a mistake to miss the opportunity to pass a good law in the hope we could have a more perfect one in the future.

Itâs in our economic interest. Someone is going to win the global race to develop the low-carbon technologies we need. Weâd like it to be America.

Renewable energy, for example, promises to become one of the worldâs most profitable industries. But advances in low-carbon technologies will not be fully realized without a national cap on global warming pollution. The sooner we act, the sooner these new industries will start to flourish.

What legacy will the 110th Congress leave? When future generations look back at this moment, they will either praise the Senate for starting us towards solving the global warming crisis or blame the Senate for squandering this opportunity.

As the Climate Security Act makes its way to the Senate floor next month, we must hammer these urgent points home. The Senate must seize this historic opportunity.

You can help by writing to Congress.

Solar lily pads may spring up in Scotland

Hank Green — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:13:36 PDT

We've already talked about this giant floating solar thermal power plant that the UAE has its eyes on. But now a new kind of solar island is floating down the river of for possibility.

Peter Richardson's solar lily pad proposal for the International Design Awards âLand and Seaâ competition pulled in first prize, and the city of Glasgow seems to be seriously considering making the proposal a reality.

Some would say that there's plenty of space in cities for distributed solar power on roofs. However, this isn't entirely true. Solar thermal plants, which focus the sun's rays to create extreme heat in order to turn turbines, cannot be used in cities. Because of the extreme heat, and the danger of someone stumbling across (or into) one of them, they have to be carefully guarded and separated from passersby.

However, I'm not sure if Richardson wants to use photovoltaics or solar thermal. If he wants to use photovoltaics, then I don't really see the advantage, aside from having large areas contiguous, in-city solar potential. In America, we find that on the roof of the local Wal-Mart -- not in our rivers.

I would want to see that the River Clyde would not be harmed in any way. I'm not familiar with Scotland's ecology, but it seems pretty obvious that the water temperature would be lowered by this project, potentially impacting the species that live in the river.

The solar pads would be rotated throughout the day, so that the slanted panels could track the sun, and power would be delivered to shore via tethers.

Glasgow's city council is considering a small pilot project in conjunction with the Glasgow Science Centre. If that ever gets off the ground, you know EcoGeek will let you know.

Via Inhabitat and the BBC

Acciona building $800 mil solar plant in Spain

Jozef Winter — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:34:51 PDT

Acciona Energy, an alternative energy company based out of Spain, can boast about its reputation for building clean technologies and lots of them. It is the world leader in wind power, totalling 5,300MW in 192 separate wind parks, and it built the first modern concentrating solar plant in the U.S., the Nevada Solar One (pictured above), to date the third largest in the world. And it keep sexpanding.

Recently, Acciona announced that it's planning on building two solar thermal plants in Cordoba, Spain, each with a capacity of 50MW, entering into service in 2010, and costing 500 million euros (roughly $850 million). The two facilities will produce an amazing 224 million KWh per year, enough to power the equivalent of 75,000 homes.

The plants will cover the area of about 260 hectares, or 364 soccer fields, comprising 1,520 solar collectors and a truly mind-boggling 364,800 mirrors which will focus the sun's rays into the collectors. This will complement the 2,000MW of solar thermal currently under development in the U.S., mostly located in the Mojave desert.

While some solar thermal towers use liquid salt as a heat exchange medium, Acciona's design is based on an oil system, which works like this:

A fluid (oil) runs through these tubes that reaches a very high temperature (400Âº C). This fluid is sent from the solar field to the power unit where the heat is transferred to a heat exchanger, through which water runs that turns into steam. The steam is taken to a turbine connected to a generator that produces electricity. Following its transformation to high voltage it will be evacuated to the grid through a substation at Villanueva del Rey (in the municipality of Ãcija).

Thermal solar power plants have the advantage of producing their peak power during the hottest part of the day, when demand for electricity is generally the highest. The disadvantage, however, is that it cannot actively produce energy during the night and must rely on passive heat remaining in the system, or stored energy which can be released (underground compressed air storage, stored energy flywheels, etc.).

via Ecolectic.org

DOE marks $60 mil for solar thermal funding

Hank Green — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:59:38 PDT

The most near-term, cost-effective solar solution is undoubtedly solar thermal. While photovoltaics, which convert light directly into electricity, can have a significantly smaller footprint and higher efficiency, solar thermal has generally proven that it can create electricity at a lower cost.

With that in mind, the U.S. Department of Energy has decided to spend $60 million over the next five years developing low-cost concentrating solar thermal technology (like the parabolic trough pictured from Schott Solar). The DOE plans on making between 10 and 20 awards to industry and universities working on increasing the efficiency and decreasing the costs of solar thermal power.

The DOE will also be funding projects related to "advanced thermal storage." At first this might seem slightly unrelated. In fact, what it's looking for is a way to store the heat captured during the day so that it can continue to generate electricity throughout the night.

This is another possible advantage to solar thermal technology. If the heat can be stored in some medium, say molten salt for example, then that medium could, in effect, make the solar plant a giant battery. Photovoltaic plants, on the other hand, would require some other form of backup energy to keep the juice flowing at night.

Via Cleantech

Algae biofuels 101

Miriam Horn — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:16:41 PDT

This post is by Miriam Horn, a writer at Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the New York Times bestseller, Earth: The Sequel.

Who would have thought that algae (a.k.a. pond scum) -- the microscopic plants whose "blooms" choke off life in lakes and estuaries -- would emerge as the hottest new energy crop?

But sure enough, dozens of start-ups, backed by millions of dollars in venture capital, are racing to find the best way to turn algae into fuel, with exciting results.

This isnât a new idea. The Department of Energy (DOE) began exploring algal biodiesel in 1978 during the Carter Administration (see history [PDF]). But that effort was abandoned a decade ago. Government researchers concluded that algal biodiesel could never be produced cheaply enough to compete with petroleum.

Now the DOEâs National Renewable Energy Lab has resurrected its algal fuel program, alongside a rush in the private sector.

What changed in the last ten years?

The price of oil more than tripled.
Wars and hostile regimes in oil-producing nations raised energy-independence as a national security concern.
Europe and the other Kyoto signatories capped carbon.
California set a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, accelerating demand for low-carbon fuels.
Advances in bioengineering enabled much higher algae yields.

Algae-based biofuels are not yet being made at scale. Researchers are still working out engineering and process challenges, and algae-based fuels still cost more than petroleum-based fuels. But that may soon change.

A uniquely well-suited fuel source

Algae are extraordinarily adaptable creatures. They can grow almost anywhere, including land utterly unsuited for agriculture.

Since they donât have to compete against food crops for land, they avoid the problems this can cause: spiraling grain prices, food shortages, and conversion of tropical forests and wildlife habitat to plantations and cropland.

These single-celled wonders also have other notable virtues:

Algae are stunningly productive - the fastest growing plants on Earth. They can double in mass in just a few hours, allowing daily harvest.
Algae are oily and compact, producing 30 times more oil per acre than sunflowers or rapeseed.
Algae donât need fresh water and can thrive in water thatâs boiling, salty, frozen, or contaminated -- even in sewage.
Algae can eat pollution. They neutralize acids, split the nitrogen oxides that cause smog into harmless nitrogen and oxygen, and convert carbon dioxide (global warming pollution) into oxygen and biomass.

When algae are harvested, their lipids can be turned into biodiesel (main product), starches into ethanol, and proteins into animal feed.

Ray Hobbs, who runs the Future Fuels program for Arizona Public Service, describes algae this way (quoted in Earth: The Sequel, page 112):

You are looking at the origins of life, an organism that has survived for three and a half billion years and created the conditions for other life to emerge. They are the root of the food chain. And so elegant. Single-celled algae can crack water with a photon into hydrogen and oxygen, then metabolize that hydrogen with carbon dioxide to sugar. We canât do that. We canât even fully understand it.

Three ways to grow algae for biofuel

Innovators are exploring three main ways to produce biofuels from algae:

Growing algae photosynthetically in open ponds (lowest cost, lowest control)

This is the line of experimentation started by DOE. Open ponds are cheap, but must contend with invasive species. Also, water demands are high due to evaporation.
Growing algae photosynthetically in closed bioreactors (higher cost, more control)

Algae "bioreactors" are enclosed containers exposed to sunlight. Closed bioreactors prevent contamination by unwanted species and reduce water use. But they cost more than open ponds because of the need for "photomodulation" -- exposing the algae to just the right amount of light.

Bioreactor systems have another important advantage: they can capture and reuse waste CO₂ from coal plants and other industrial processes. Skeptics note that when the algae are burned, they release the captured carbon into the atmosphere. But because algal fuel displaces petroleum fuel, net carbon emissions are significantly reduced.
Growing algae in the dark through fermentation (highest cost, highest control)

This is the approach of Solazyme in San Franciso. When algae are grown photosynthetically, they manufacture their own sugar from water, air, and light. Solazyme turns off photosynthesis by growing them in complete darkness and feeding them sugar.

Feeding sugar makes the algae produce more oil. Plus the energy-dense food allows the algae to be grown in much higher concentrations, reducing costs and easing harvest. On the downside, it puts the process back in competition with food crops, undercutting one of algal fuelâs unique strengths.

You can read a detailed profile of one company exploring the algae frontier, and interviews with the founders, in our new book, Earth: The Sequel.

Blimp wind turbines take test flight

Philip Proefrock — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:04:26 PDT

Magenn Power Inc. has moved forward and begun testing a prototype of its Magenn Air Rotor System (MARS) inside an old U.S. Navy airship hangar before beginning outdoor trials at a customer's site in a few weeks.

The MARS is a lighter-than-air turbine that is tethered to the ground between 300 and 1000 feet (roughly 90 to 300 meters) with conducting cables which transmit electricity to the ground. It is basically a blimp with its body configured with blades to catch the wind in order to generate power.

The MARS can be quickly deployed without extensive site-preparation or construction and can reach higher into the atmosphere than traditional turbines, making it better suited for use where the land is not flat.

It is also better suited for providing power to remote, off-grid locations. Because the equipment is lightweight and readily transportable, it could make access to power for remote villages easier to supply.

And, with its much higher reach, it provides an opportunity to use wind power in locations where a tower mounted turbine would not get enough wind to be useful.

Magenn plans to begin installing its turbines starting next year. According to the company, four units are expected to be installed in 2009.

The first MARS turbines are going to be roughly 25 x 65 feet (7.6 x 19.8 meters) and will produce up to 10 kW. Apparently plans for a smaller-sized MARS turbine have been put aside for now. However, future versions of the MARS could reach much larger sizes and be capable of generating up to 2000 kW.

The company says the price for a 10-25 kW MARS unit is yet to be determined, but is expected to be in the range of $3 to $5 per watt -- comparable with current wind technology.

Previously on EcoGeek: Spinning Blimp Wind Turbine

via: GreenTechMedia and EcoTech Daily

Xcel Energy announces $100 mil for 'smart grid'

Jozef Winter — Tue, 06 May 2008 02:22:49 PDT

Xcel Energy, the leading provider of wind energy in the United States has just announced that it plans on building the U.S.'s first fully integrated "smart grid" in Boulder, Colorado.

The idea behind a smart grid is to integrate high-speed communication technologies with the electric grid, allowing for real-time, two-way communication between the utility, the consumer, and throughout the distribution grid.

This is a logical, yet giant step forward since existing grids really offer little in the way of information to either their own relay stations or the end user. With the new system customers can have programmable control devices installed in their homes, allowing them to automate home energy use and the integration of infrastructure will "support easily dispatched distributed generation technologies (such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with vehicle-to-grid technology; battery systems; wind turbines; and solar panels)."

Customers will also have information at their fingertips, seeing what the cost of electricity is at any given time, and being able to choose the actual source of their electricity, be it from natural gas, coal, or renewable sources.

From a network perspective, the grid will be able to do some pretty impressive stuff. Xcel envisions a "self-healing" grid that will divert power automatically if a transformer or line goes down, ensuring that all areas of the grid are always provided with uninterrupted service.

If lines freeze in cold weather, stations will have the capability of increasing the power through those individual lines, creating great electrical resistance and thus warm them, melting the ice.

This great video on Xcel's site does a great job of explaining in detail the inner workings of the system, definitely worth watching.

The age of smart chargers

Don Willmott , Forecast Earth Correspondent — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:35:28 PDT

Many of us, me included, are guilty of leaving the chargers for our various handheld gadgets plugged into the wall all the time, where they constantly draw a few wasted watts and feel warm to the touch. These "wall warts" or "vampires" are easy to corral if you simply put them all in one place on one on/off power strip and then keep the strip off until you need to recharge, but setting that up just seems so utterly exhausting!

Maybe it's time for the chargers themselves to get smarter, to turn themselves on and off as needed and to monitor the gadgets they're recharging so they know when a full charge has been accomplished.

As you might expect, it's a cell phone manufacturer that's trying to make this happen. Nokia, which has a pretty good record at pursuing green solutions, is toying with such smart charger.

NokNok, a blog that specializes in Nokia news, has a report and an exclusive video that shows Nokia's "zero-waste" charger in action. "This prototype has a big green button that you simply press to activate the phone to charge. [Nokia's Head of Design Strategic Projects Rhys Newman] also explains that it could be that your Nokia phone communicates with the charger, telling it when it's fully charged, switching it off at the source automatically. Similarly, he speaks of options where the charger could be set to just top-up your phone with a set amount of power."

And while we wait for these developments to come to market, unplug those wall warts!

World's largest photovoltaic plant

Hank Green — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:38:04 PDT

Utility-scale, thin-film solar manufacturer OptiSolar just released plans to create the largest solar photovoltaic farm in the world. The farm would be built in San Luis Obispo County, California, and would, at peak production, produce about 500 MW of solar power. This is roughly the same amount as a coal-fired power plant, enough to power some 190,000 homes.

The largest photovoltaic farm in America at Nellis Air Force Base (pictured) is 40x smaller than this project would be.

OptiSolar uses thin-film, amorphous silicon technology. Their panels use a tiny amount of non-crystalline silicon, allowing them to be far cheaper than traditional crystalline solar panels. The trade-off is that the panels themselves are far less efficient than traditional panels.

The solar farm will take advantage of incentives from the state and county, which both have aggressive renewable energy goals. OptiSolar hopes to begin construction in 2010 with full capacity coming online before 2013.

But hurdles remain ... the state will have to approve the project, and OptiSolar will have to secure the funding for it, before we'll know for sure if this will take the title of world's largest photovoltaic farm.

Via Good Clean Tech, OptiSolar and BusinessGreen

Architecture 2030

Hank Green — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:04:28 PDT

We've got to do something about climate change now. Unfortunately, carbon capture technology is 20 years away, it takes more than a decade to build a nuclear plant, and renewables like solar and geothermal have a huge barrier to overcome before they can be cost competitive.

So what do we do? Well, Architecture 2030 has created a blueprint to the future (PDF), which outlines how to reduce emissions by massive amounts without changing our energy mix at all.

By implementing existing technologies at low costs, Architecture 2030 has determined that we could save far more energy far cheaper than we could ever hope to manage in the near-term with even old, established technologies like nuclear power.

The results of its $21 billion investment scenario are insane -- it has calculated that it would:

Replace 22.3 conventional coal-fired plants.
Reduce CO2 emissions by 86.7 MMT.
Save 204 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
Save 10.7 million barrels of oil.
Save consumers $8.46 billion in energy bills.
Create 216,000 new jobs.

Investing that same money in clean coal or nuclear infrastructure would, in the best case, only replace 8 coal plants.

It's obvious where the money needs to go, and Architecture 2030 is calling on the global architecture community to adopt standards that will make this a reality.

Solar shingles coming to a roof near you

Hank Green — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:15:21 PDT

Dow and Global Solar Energy have teamed up to take on the Department of Energy's "Solar America Initiative (SAI)" to create building-integrated solar.

The purpose of the SAI is basically to create an incentive for the development of cheap, simple building-integrated photovoltaic systems. Dow Building Solutions wants to take Global Solar Energy's panels and, basically, turn them into roofing shingles.

Expensive, shiny, energy harnessing, roofing shingles.

Global Solar Energy produces thin-film, flexible CIGS solar panels for a variety of markets already. Dow was excited to partner with them because they're the only producers currently making flexible panels that meat the SAI's requirement for 10% efficiency.

Photovoltaic roofing shingles aren't a new idea, but using low-cost CIGS panels could make the technology significantly more cost competitive. As more CIGS manufacturers move onto the scene, we could be seeing a lot more of this sort of transparent, distributed power generation.

My house is going to need a new roof in ten years or so ... hopefully by then, they'll be ready for me.

Via Energy Daily andÂ GoodCleanTech

Grid parity could be 15 months away

Hank Green — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:15:19 PDT

Grid parity ... it's what we're all hoping for. That magical moment when solar power (or other renewables for that matter) become available at the cost of current power sources.

And, if Sunrgi's claims are to be believed, it could be only 15 months away.

Sunrgi's technology is fairly simple. Basically it uses a magnifying glass to concentrate the power of the sun 1,600 times onto a tiny square of the most efficient photovoltaic material on the planet.

While others are concentrating on bringing the price of the panels down (along with efficiency), Sunrgi actually uses panels from Spectrolab, which are three times more efficient than the cheap panels being produced by NanoSolar.

The photovoltaic cells remain efficient even when collecting these huge amounts of light per square centemeter. However, they don't remain efficient at 3,000 degrees F. In fact, if this much light were concentrated on the cells, and the cells were not cooled, they would melt.

Sunrgi has developed a proprietary cooling system to keep the ultra-expensive cells at nominal temperatures even at the hottest part of the hottest day. You can see, in the render, that the bottom of the panels actually look like huge CPU heat sinks.

By using such a small amount of photovoltaic material, and such a large amount of cheap magnifying glasses, Sunrgi says that its system should be extremely inexpensive. In fact, the company says that, in sunny climates, its product will be sold for around $0.05 per kilowatt, about the cost of coal.

Sunrgi already has demonstration units running and hope to be selling their first units (to utilities and large businesses) in 12 to 15 months.

Ethanol and land use

Robert Bonnie — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:07:48 PDT

This post is by Robert Bonnie, Co-director of the Land, Water, and Wildlife Program at Environmental Defense Fund.

The New York Times recently reported that thousands of farmers are dropping out of the federal governmentâs Conservation Reserve Program.

The prices for corn and other crops are so high that conservation subsidies canât compete with what farmers can make by planting the land.

One reason for the high prices is the ethanol mandate in the energy bill Congress passed last year.

Shifts in land use from diverting food-producing land to grow crops for energy -- called "indirect land-use change" -- can potentially negate the environmental benefits of corn ethanol.

There is still much debate on how to measure it, but no question itâs important to consider. One recent study published in Science (Searchinger, et. al.) found that using croplands for biofuels causes a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline when indirect land use change is taken into account.

Unintended consequences such as these highlight the danger of mandating a specific clean energy technology, and the importance of relying on performance standards instead.

What is "indirect land-use change"?

When food-producing land is diverted for energy production, the food that would have been grown on that land must be grown elsewhere. This prompts farmers to convert land not currently in production into cropland.

When grassland or forestland is cleared to grow crops, the carbon sequestered in the soil and trees is released into the atmosphere.

If a lot of new land is cultivated, the resulting carbon release can completely negate the benefits of using biofuels. The New York Times said as many acres as in Rhode Island and Delaware combined were removed from the Conservation Reserve Program, and thatâs just one corner of the country.

Not all the land was removed due to U.S. biofuel policy, but it plays a part. Some research has found that U.S. policies can contribute to deforestation in southeast Asia and the Amazon.

Assessing the impact of indirect land-use change is tricky, and experts disagree on how to quantify it. According to the Searchinger study, when indirect land-use change is factored in:

Corn ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline when considered over a period of 30 years, and emissions remain elevated for 167 years.
Even biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions relative to gasoline by 50 percent.

We canât say whether these numbers are exactly correct, but we can say that indirect land use effects -- particularly tropical deforestation -- are important to consider.

Shaping policy to reduce emissions

Government mandates for a specific technology to lower greenhouse gas emissions risk unintended consequences -- even higher net emissions.

An effective policy that ensures lower emissions has two key components:

A market-based system that rewards less carbon-intensive technologies and land-use practices, whatever they may be.

The Searchinger study suggests that a possible solution to the corn ethanol problem is to use waste products as a "feedstock" (raw material to produce biofuels). Unlike cultivated crops, waste products donât compete for agricultural land and drive up commodity prices. Sustainably produced cellulosic ethanol made from grasses and wood also may be a viable alternative. Another possibility weâll discuss in an upcoming post is using algae to make ethanol.

But a policy that specifically mandates corn ethanol doesnât encourage exploration of these other options.
Performance standards based on full lifecycle analysis, including emissions from tropical deforestation and other indirect land use changes.

There is some recognition of this in current policy, but also an important gap. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low-Carbon Fuel Standard and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) both require consideration of indirect land use in assessing emissions.

But the EPAâs RFS exempts corn ethanol from existing facilities from having to meet lifecycle emissions standards.

Biofuels may have a role in our energy future, but only if theyâre produced in ways that lower emissions. Performance-based standards and market incentives can prevent the unintended consequences of mandating the wrong technology.

Earth Day 2013: Envisioning the future

By Andrew Demaria — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:18:43 PDT

Earth Day 2008 is upon us. Shouldn't we all take into account issues like dwindling natural resources, water pollution, and climate change every day? Is one day really enough?Â

Earth Day kicked off in 1970. It was established by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson to "thrust the issue of environmental quality and resources conservation into the political dialogue of the Nation."

Thirty-eight years later, it has done just that-and more. The day has gone international, and so too have the environmental issues that we all face.Â

Getting the issues on the national agenda is one thing. Encouraging and integrating policy from the solutions already at hand is proving to be another.Â

Looking forward, what can we achieve in say, five years... by the time Earth Day 2013 rolls around?Â

I asked this question of Lena Hansen, senior consultant with RMI's Energy & Resources Team. She leads the Institute's work on renewable energy and biofuels, and has additional expertise in demand-side management and carbon strategy for corporations, industry, electric utilities, and governments.Â

Her answer was quite profound, and practically speaking, more than achievable:Â

By Earth Day 2013, the United States will have passed meaningful carbon legislation. Whether in the form of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program, this legislation will renew the U.S.'s reputation as a world leader in environmental responsibility, and will support private sector innovation around efficiency and whole-system design.Â

In conjunction with this carbon legislation, individual states will have begun to adopt energy efficiency and renewable energy policies and programs that are at least as aggressive as those currently on the books in California.Â

Leading utilities will have shifted their forward planning efforts away from coal-fired power and towards an increased reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy.Â

This transition can be achieved through the development of strategies that address the variability of wind and solar power, and the implementation of business models that allow utilities to profit from the sale of ânegawatts.' [Negawatts are units of energy saved by using power more efficiently or at a more suitable time, and therefore made available to other applications.]Â

To facilitate this increased reliance on energy efficiency, leading engineering and design schools will have incorporated whole-system design principles into their core curriculums.Â

Education, innovation, and policy -- all driving toward a world in which we use energy more efficiently, more thoughtfully.Â

Is Earth Day still a protest, or a day that's furthering the calls for action?Â

Andrew Demaria is Rocky Mountain Institute's Director of Content.

On the ground at Green Festival, Seattle

Cory Lowe — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:23:42 PDT

Whether it's bedding, baby products, chocolate bars, or pet food, everything has gone green. At least that was my impression while attending this past weekend's Green Festival in Seattle, Washington.Â

Exploring the exhibition hall, I was surprised by what I saw. Organic food, of course. Solar panel installers, obvious. But dog food made in New Zealand that's safe for humans to eat? Or a green roadside assistance alternative to AAA?

It wasn't only the services or products being displayed at the nearly 500 booths that were green. The people were, too. From the uber-athletes who pedaled exercise bikes for hours on end to power one booth's computers, to the teenagers who sat next to me at lunch and exclaimed, "These vegan sausages are dope, bro," it was clear that green ideals have reached the masses.Â

More startling, however, was the fanfare surrounding the festival's speakers. If green has finally reached the masses, then that cultural shift has also created a new kind of celebrity, the "eco-guru."Â

From Bainbridge Graduate Institute's Gifford Pinchot III to mushroom-expert Paul Stamets, the speakers talked about their work and inspired audiences to solve some of our society's most difficult problems.Â

Saturday's keynote by RMI co-founder Amory Lovins was no exception. Thousands of people crowded around the stage for the standing-room-only event in a scene that befitted a rock concert more than a gathering of eco-minded individuals.Â

Lovins' premise was that climate change, oil dependence, and nuclear proliferation seem like such daunting problems that energy policy is presented as a stupid multiple-choice test:Â

"Would you prefer to die of (a) climate change, (b) oil wars, or (c) nuclear holocaust?"Â

Lovins' pithy answer was: "(d) none of the above."Â

That's because he sees scores of companies making money by addressing the climate, oil, and nuclear problems.Â

According to Lovins, smart corporations, from Dow to Dupont to IBM, are taking the climate issue seriously, reducing their emissions at a profit by streamlining their operations and eliminating waste.Â

The auto industry also holds promise for reducing our dependence on oil, he says.

Toyota recently unveiled its 1/X concept car at the Tokyo Auto Show, which is the same size as a Prius, but predicted to achieve double the gas mileage. And both Nissan and Ford announced that they would "lightweight" their cars over the next several years, making them radically more fuel-efficient. When these new models hit the streets, they could save millions of barrels of oil each year.Â

As for nuclear, Lovins doesn't see a financial future. He noted that nuclear reactors are so uneconomic that the only way they continue to be built is through huge subsidies from central planners. To drive home the point, Lovins says that, in recent years, more generating capacity has been added worldwide by small, distributed sources (such as solar and combined heat-and-power generators) than nuclear.Â

So why haven't more companies and entrepreneurs availed themselves of what Lovins sees as so obvious?Â

For that answer, he quoted to Marshal McLuhan: "Only small secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."Â

Read more about the Seattle Green Festival and watch videos here.Â

Cory Lowe is the Media/Outreach Manager at Rocky Mountain Institute.

You can call him Al

Trystan L. Bass — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:51:50 PDT

Happy birthday, Mr. Gore. Former vice president, Nobel peace price winner, and environmental crusader Al Gore turns 60 on Monday.

Those of us who care about the planet have Gore to thank for making global warming an everyday public concern. His book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, woke people up to the fact that we are causing climate change, and that we can do something about it.

A few naysayers picked apart specifics about the movie's claims, but the majority of credible scientists agree that human activity -- especially burning fossil fuels -- is damaging the earth and has serious consequences.

Let's celebrate Gore's birthday by making sure to do our part for the environment. If you haven't already...

Swap a few incandescent light bulbs with more efficient CFLs

Adjust your thermostat and water heater to use less energy

Don't idle in your car

Enjoy tap water, not bottled water

Carpool to work once or twice a week

Get off junk mail lists

Add a little more green living to your routine every week, and when Gore is another year older, you'll have made a positive climate change of your own.

Just one hour

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:02:52 PDT

What difference can an hour make? You'd be surprised -- when 2.2 million residents and 2,100 businesses in Sydney, Australia, all turned off their lights for an hour in 2007, they reduced energy use by 10.2% that day. That's equivalent to taking 48,000 cars off the road.

Just by turning off the lights for 60 minutes. It was the first Earth Hour, sponsored by several Australians and the World Wildlife Fund.

This year, they've taken the idea global, and Earth Hour will be celebrated on Saturday, March 29, 2008, from 8Â p.m. to 9Â p.m., with more than 20 cities officially participating.

More important than just the energy saved is the idea that one person's actions really do have an affect on global warming. The little things add up when we're all involved. Conserving resources, lowering pollution -- each of us can make an impact by doing things as basic as turning off a light.

To encourage individuals to get involved, many world landmarks are joining the Sydney Opera House in shutting off non-essential lights on Saturday. San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge will go dark. The Sears Tower in Chicago, plus both Wrigley Field and Soldier Field will dim. Toronto's CN Tower will go dark, and even Niagara Falls won't be lit up during Earth Hour. The Coca Cola headquarters in Atlanta is turning off the lights. And in the Philippines, the worldâs third largest mall is flicking the switch.

Your city doesn't have to be going totally dark for you to join in. Sign up at the Earth Hour site so organizers have an idea of how many people are involved. Tell your friends and neighbors.

Then simply turn off lights in your home from 8Â p.m. to 9Â p.m. on Saturday night. Enjoy the dark, or break out your beeswax or soy candles and have a romantic dinner with someone special. Play a board game by candlelight with the family. Take a walk with a friend or your dog. Soak in a bathtub with candles nearby.

Looking for more adult ways to enjoy the dark? Check out the Daily Green's list of eight sexy ways to spend Earth Hour. Earth 911 even offers lights-out fashion tips, such as glow-in-the-dark gear and shiny bling.

Biofuels good or bad?

Trystan L. Bass — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:48:13 PDT

Recent studies published in the journal Science suggested that growing crops to process into fuels creates as much greenhouse gas as using fossil fuels.

The New York Times and other publications quickly jumped on this report by saying biofuels were worthless.

However the issue is a lot more nuanced than the headlines imply. Clearing forests to create farmland does have a negative environmental impact, and this is happening in parts of the world such as Brazil.

But in the U.S., existing cropland is being used for ethanol production from corn. This has pros and cons as well.

An article in Plenty magazine goes into more depth about these biofuel concerns. It also profiles one Seattle-based company that's working to bring locally produced biofuel to the Washington area.

Another aspect of biofuel is cellulosic ethanol. This is fuel made from the stalks and stems of plants -- essentially the waste products. MIT's Technology Review writes about several companies starting to process this type of biofuel.

Right now, it's not as cheap to make as traditional biofuel, but the technology holds promise.

No one fuel is likely to replace all of our oil needs immediately. And biofuels aren't yet a perfect solution. What the studies in Science remind us is that it's important to look at the complete picture, from start to finish, when we evaluate the environmental impact.

How much will it cost to save the world?

Tony Kreindler — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:45:38 PDT

This post is by Tony Kreindler, Media Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.

Last week, two reports came out that look at how much it will cost to drastically reduce the pollution that causes global warming. Both used economic models to project how the growth rate would change. One used a realistic set of assumptions, and the other stacked the deck with extreme assumptions.

But both of them look at only one half of the real question. They ask "How much will it cost?" (Answer: Surprisingly little). But we also have to ask, "What do we get in return for that investment?"

The first report was put out by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation. Their numbers show some scary costs because of the assumptions they plugged in. As I said in this Miami Herald article, they figured in small use of renewable energy and other artificial constraints.

A more realistic analysis came out Friday from the EPA. The Wall Street Journal sums it up this way (subscription required, free version from Dow Jones news service):

The leading congressional proposal to control greenhouse-gas emissions could be implemented without significantly harming the nationâs economic growth over the next two decades, according to an analysis published Friday by the Bush administration.

So the investment is manageable. But what do we get for it? A more stable climate, for one. Lisa Moore discussed this most recently in her post about Earth systems that could be pushed past critical tipping points if we do nothing.

Or, put another way, if we donât make this investment, what will we end up paying? We reviewed studies that looked at the price of climate disruptions in an earlier post, "Most Expensive Solution: Do Nothing."

To summarize: If we invest in reducing pollution, we get cleaner air, more diverse sources of energy and lower risk of catastrophic climate changes -- all at a price we can handle. We should jump at a bargain when we see one.

Where the money goes

Sheryl Canter — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:09:02 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Earth: The Sequel, the new book by EDF President Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn, is filled with interesting facts. Here are ten numbers that may surprise you.Â

Government dollars
China spends 200 times more on solar energy than does the U.S., and the U.S. spends six times more on subsidies to the gas and oil industries than it does on renewable energy research. Hmmm...

$6 billion - Amount the federal government gives to the oil and gas industries each year in subsidies and tax benefits, page 11.
$1 billion - Amount the federal government spends each year on research into renewable sources of energy (this is less than ExxonMobil earns in a single day), page 11.
$200 billion - Amount China has committed to invest in utility-scale solar power, page 65.

Solar energy
As China clearly recognizes, judging from its investment, solar power has great potential. But solar power is underutilitized. Worldwide, that's starting to change.

100 square miles - Land area needed to power the entire U.S. if only 10% of the sun's energy could be converted to electricity, page 15.
6.6 gigawatts - Total worldwide energy production from solar in 2007, compared to 1000 gigawatts from coal, page 16.
0.05% - Percent of U.S. energy produced from solar, page 16.
44% - Percent growth in the world's solar energy-generating capacity in 2005 (at this rate, by 2050 the Sun could supply ten times the Earth's energy needs), page 14.

Solar jobs
The benefits of solar power go beyond the environment. According to the National Renewable Energy Lab, solar thermal energy can generate jobs, as well as electricity.

3,400 - Number of construction jobs that each gigawatt of solar thermal-generated electricity will create, page 65.
250 - Number of permanent jobs that each gigawatt of solar thermal-generated electricity will create, page 65.
$500 million - Amount of tax revenues that each gigawatt of solar thermal-generated electricity will create, page 65.

Earth: The Sequel

Fred Krupp — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:17:30 PDT

This post is by Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Earth: The Sequel tells the story of an exciting race that is just beginning -- the race to develop low-carbon energy in time to turn our greatest environmental crisis into our greatest economic opportunity.

Many people have expressed surprise that Iâd write a book like this about a problem so serious. And global warming is serious. With each passing year, scientists get more and more alarmed at the increase and extent of disturbing impacts. But this book is not about the doom and gloom of global warming. In fact, itâs just the opposite.

Earth: The Sequel is about hope, invention, ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, capital markets, commerce, and profit. These are words that most people don't think of when they hear the term "global warming," and they especially don't expect to hear them coming from me. After all, I'm an environmental lawyer running one of the country's most respected and influential environmental groups, advocating for good environmental policy.

I wrote this book because, after 20 years of studying global warming and trying to craft solutions to stop it, I know that government policy alone is not the answer. Enacting a hard cap on carbon will play a key supporting role, but the starring role belongs to American commerce.

The stars are the ingenious inventors and risk-taking entrepreneurs who are creating flying windmills, artificial carbon-eating trees, and breakthroughs in solar and biomass technologies. The book explores how we will reinvent everything from cars to concrete, and replace the old, dumb, centralized electrical grid with a smart, multidirectional energy network.

The vibrancy of our future lives largely depends on our winning this race - a race both to stop global warming, and to win the upside of new opportunities if we do. We can win and win big, or we could lose and lose big. It's both the scariest and most exciting race of my lifetime.

I wrote Earth: The Sequel to describe the race and change the conversation about global warming. I want others to know about the real people doing the real work that will change our lives, and I want to inspire people to embrace a new and different future, rather than be afraid of it.

Earth: The Sequel is available in stores now, so I hope you'll take a look. Please let me know what you think.

(moreâ¦)

Another look at ginormous windmills

Don Willmott , Forecast Earth Correspondent — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:34:01 PST

Last week I wrote a blog entry about new designs for gigantic windmills that can generate astonishing amounts of energy. One of the advantages of such designs, I pointed out, was that the huge blades rotate more slowly than those of smaller windmills and therefore make them safer for birds that might otherwise get killed as they fly by.

Some commenters suggested that even at the slower RPMs (about 12 in the case of the windmill I described), the end of the blade is still moving at a lethal 180 mph, and that can't be good for a bird that flies into it. In fact, MSNBC has run a story out of Kansas that describes how a series of new 260-foot-tall windmills may be endangering migrating whooping cranes.

The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service is worried that, "As many as 40,000 turbines will be erected in the U.S. section of the whooping cranes' 200-mile wide migration corridor." It's a growth industry. The story says that wind energy grew 45 percent in the U.S. last year and now provides about one percent of the nation's energy.

For more on this, check out the February 23rd New York Times story about the big business of wind farms in Texas. There are some great photos that give you a good idea of just how big today's windmills can be.

Don Willmott's blog posts are provided by LifeWire, a part of The New York Times Company

Generating electricity from the sun's heat

Virginia Lacy — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:42:44 PST

Virginia Lacy is a consultant with the Energy and Resources Team at Rocky Mountain Institute.

For most of us, the words "solar power" bring a few images to mind: an array of flat, iridescent panels perched on a roof, quietly generating electricity from the sun's rays; or, if you've been following the latest technological developments, a thin, flexible film attached to a backpack for charging a laptop computer.

Both of these are examples of different types of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology. Whether it's in the news or in the stock market, solar PV has been a shining star among renewable energy technologies.

But what about other forms of solar power? Until recently, solar thermal electric power has not received the same level of attention as solar PV. But the advantages of this technology and the recent surge of activity in this space may soon change that trend.

In contrast to solar PV, which coverts sunlight directly into electricity, solar thermal technologies harness the sun's energy as heat. This heat can be used directly -- to heat water for a hot shower, for example -- or indirectly to generate electricity by creating steam to power a turbine. The latter is commonly referred to as "solar thermal electric power" or "concentrating solar power."

How does solar thermal electric power work?

Although there are a variety of solar thermal electric technologies, they function under the same basic principle.

Remember when you were a kid and you used a magnifying glass to concentrate sun light on an object to set it on fire? Solar thermal electric plants apply the same principle on a grand scale.

Most often by using mirrors, these facilities focus the sun's rays on a focal point, which is designed to absorb a high degree of heat. This concentrated heat is used to create steam, which is used to turn a turbine and generate electricity -- just like in a conventional power plant.

In fact, one way to think about solar thermal electric power is that it simply replaces a fossil fuel, such as coal, with the sun to power a conventional electricity plant.

Solar thermal's advantages

In addition to being a clean, renewable source of energy, solar thermal electric power has several advantages.

First, solar thermal electric plants can be designed to store excess energy to be used when it is needed, such as periods of peak energy use or when there is no sun. This is a key advantage over other renewable technologies.

One of the principle criticisms of wind and solar PV, for instance, is their variability. With energy storage, some solar thermal power designs are projected to be able to generate a steady stream of power for up to 20 hours in a given day.

Second, solar thermal electric power is technologically straightforward. Sure, the design and configuration of a large-scale project can be quite impressive, but the principles behind the technology and the basic materials used to construct it -- often steel, glass, and concrete -- are common and readily available.

The lack of technological complexity lowers the cost of the solar thermal electric plant, which in turn, lowers the cost of the power that it produces. Although estimates vary considerably, utility-scale solar thermal electric power can be generated at 10 cents to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Not only is this comparatively less expensive than the price of unsubsidized solar PV (30 cents per kilowatt-hour), it's also competitive with the cost that many utilities pay for peak power. The National Renewable Energy Lab expects costs to drop even further over the next decade.

The disadvantages

As with any solar technology, the availability of the sun is a critical component to the system's operation. Although the ability to store energy as thermal energy helps to fill in for short-term solar shortages, regular doses of daily sun are still necessary to continually generate power.

Solar thermal power plants also require a sizable amount of land area -- between 5,000 to 15,000 square meters (or 1 to 3 American football fields) per megawatt. To be fair, the land required for a utility-scale solar thermal plant goes to producing the solar "fuel."

Comparing these land requirements to those of a coal plant, for example, would have to include the coal mine and transportation. In addition, the best sites for solar thermal plants typically are so dry and hot that there are not a lot of competing uses. The more pressing issue may be accessing water needed for cooling in these hot, dry areas.

Solar thermal in action

Currently, the United States is home to almost all the installed solar thermal capacity in the world, including the largest solar power plant of any kind ever installed, the Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEG) in the Mojave Desert. Constructed in the 1980s, SEG is a collection of nine installations, which can generate 354 megawatts, the equivalent of a mid-sized coal plant.

Over the last few years, there has been a burst of activity in developing and installing solar thermal electric plants in the United States and Europe, especially Spain. Two new plants were recently completed in the U.S., including the 64-megawatt Solar One plant outside Las Vegas. California utility PG&E plans to buy 1,000 megawatts of solar thermal power within the next five years. The utility has already signed deals for over 650 megawatts.

The next expected addition to the world's solar thermal electric power capacity is the 15-megawatt Solar Tres plant in sun-soaked southern Spain.

Taking solar thermal home

Even if these solar arrays won't be powering your home anytime soon, here are some resources you can consult to find out more about the technology:

Sequestering carbon in soil and trees

Martha Roberts — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:19:31 PST

This post is by Martha Roberts, an economist at Environmental Defense.

This is the first of a two-part series on carbon sequestration - storing carbon or carbon dioxide (CO₂) in soils, trees or geological formations.

Global warming is occurring because -- day after day, hour after hour -- human activities pump large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One way to decrease emissions is to store carbon or CO₂ someplace other than the atmosphere.

There are two vastly different ways of sequestering carbon: biological and geological. The topic of this post is biological sequestration, which could offer quick, substantial cuts in emissions.

Our lands and forests have huge potential for storing carbon -- they are nature's "carbon sinks."

Green plants take CO₂ out of the atmosphere and convert it into organic carbon as they grow -- a process called photosynthesis. Organic carbon is converted back to CO₂ when it is eaten or decomposed -- a process called respiration.

Farmers and foresters can do many things to increase photosynthesis and/or decrease respiration. For example, they can replant forests or delay timber harvests to increase photosynthesis. Tilling increases the respiration of microbes in the soil by improving the conditions for decomposition, so no-till farming reduces respiration.

Are trees the only plants that can store carbon? No, but trees store the most carbon because they're large and long-lived.

As long as the wood doesn't decompose or burn, it stores carbon away from the atmosphere. Still, restoring tilled fields to grasslands can help. Since the grass isn't harvested and the land isn't tilled, more of its organic carbon remains in the soil.

How do we get farmers and foresters to use better land management practices?

The answer is a carbon market in which farmers and foresters can participate. In an inclusive carbon market, those who emit carbon pollution pay for credits, whereas farmers and foresters sell them through agricultural offsets.

Agricultural offsets require a robust monitoring and verification process -- a reliable way to measure the carbon stored in soils and wood. This is challenging but doable, as Bill Chameides and his colleagues demonstrated in their technical manual on the topic. (Duke University, which published the book, offers excerpts online [PDF].)

Globally, soil carbon sequestration alone could offset as much as 15 percent of fossil fuel emissions. In addition, thoughtful offset projects can have side benefits such as improved soil quality, increased crop yields, and better wildlife habitat.

And all that's keeping us from these benefits is a lack of economic incentives -- a carbon market where farmers can sell their carbon credits.

In 2004, the USDA published an economic analysis of biological carbon sequestration in the U.S. agricultural sector. The report evaluated how landowners would respond if they could be paid to sequester carbon.

Not surprisingly, the results showed that the higher the price for carbon, the more farmers would do to enhance carbon sinks. At the highest price considered in the analysis, U.S. farmers and landowners would implement practices that could sequester as much as 160 million additional tons of carbon in forests and agricultural soils every year.

That's equivalent to nearly 10 percent of America's CO₂ emissions in 2005! Even at lower carbon prices, agriculture can play a very important role in our fight against global warming.

When people talk about reducing emissions, they often focus on high-tech solutions. But let's not forget the low-tech strategies that can bring immediate results, like improved agricultural practices and increased energy efficiency.

Time to act, not despair

Nat Keohane — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:43:59 PST

This post is by Nat Keohane, Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at Environmental Defense.

In his December 11 post on Grist, Ross Gelbspan argues that we've already passed the point of no return with global warming, and climate activists are full of "hollow optimism."

There's no doubt we're already seeing signs of global warming. In our Climate 411 blog, we post signs of it all the time (see here, here, here, and here, for example). But just because the boat has started to leak doesn't mean it can't still get much worse. Our most dangerous response to climate change is despair. Now, more than ever, we need to act.

Gelbspan agrees. Where we disagree is in what action to take.

He says that the American public has a "mindless belief in the divine power of markets" and the "antidote" is a "revitalization of government" -- that the government should pour hundreds of billions of dollars into carbon-free technologies.

This is where we part company. Technological innovation is not most quickly and efficiently implemented by government programs. Markets are much more nimble and able to respond in real time to what works and what doesn't. Our best hope is to get the power of markets working for us through a cap-and-trade system.

Global warming is a classic example of market failure. The pollution that causes global warming has skyrocketed because the environmental costs are hidden, and we don't factor them into our decisions. Factories and power plants pay for the fuel they burn, but not for the pollution they emit. The solution is to harness the power of market forces by establishing firm caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

We have proof that this works in the acid rain program. When we put a cap on sulfur dioxide (SO₂), the cause of acid rain, the power sector and its suppliers came up with a range of technological innovations to meet the new limits. Some were relatively mundane -- for example, figuring out how to burn low-sulfur Wyoming coal in boilers designed for high-sulfur coal from Illinois or West Virginia. Others were more dramatic. The prospect of a cap on SO₂ prodded a team of GE engineers to figure out how to turn the waste from a "scrubber" into gypsum, which could be sold as a byproduct.

Research by Carnegie Mellon University showed that patent filings spiked after the Clean Air Act [PDF] though the government had been supporting research for long before that. They conclude, "The existence of national government regulation stimulated inventive activity more than government research support alone."

Again and again, American entrepreneurs and investors have shown the ability to solve problems -- when there is a market incentive for them to act. If the government will lead by capping carbon pollution, the primary cause of climate change, theÂ market will respond with investment and innovation on a scale to solve this problem. Already, venture capitalists are pouring more than $300 million a month into new energy technologies. But it will take the certainty of a cap, an overall limit on carbon pollution, to unleash a sustained wave of investment and innovation.

Take one example of many: Burning coal to produce electricity is responsible for about 40 percent of the CO₂ emissions from the United States. In a typical coal-fired power plant, nearly one-third of the coal's energy is lost as waste heat, greatly contributing to this pollution.

A cap on carbon would give companies a monetary incentive to reduce that waste, so work to increase efficiency would rapidly expand. The new technologies could then be sold overseas, not only helping our balance of trade, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions in places like China.

The incredible momentum for action on climate change is, in itself, a testament to the fact that we can solve this problem.

The more than two dozen CEOs, from firms like GE, Caterpillar, and Duke Energy, who endorsed a mandatory cap on carbon are hard-headed realists. They spoke out for a better world, but they also spoke up for their stockholders. It is the considered judgment of these corporate leaders that the carbon cap they endorsed is both technologically achievable and economically sound.

With sufficient motivation, we can rise to the challenge and do what's necessary. A cap on greenhouse gas emissions is the incentive we need to drive innovation and efficiency. We know what we need to do, and we have the ability to do it.

Save energy by saving water, and vice versa

Mary Kelly — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:46:20 PST

This post is by Mary Kelly, Attorney and Co-Director, Land, Water, and Wildlife Program at Environmental Defense.

If you've been watching the news, you know we have a climate problem, and you may also know we have a drinking water problem in some parts of the country.

What you may not realize is that these two problems are related.

Yes, global warming can impact rainfall, but that's not all. The water-supply sector uses large amounts of energy to transport, treat, and deliver water. On the flip side, vast quantities of water are required to generate power.

Every year, the U.S. thermoelectric industry uses 3.3 billion gallons of water [PDF]. That's 20 percent of all the water used in the country, excluding agriculture. And this number is projected to more than double to 7.3 billion gallons by 2030.

Water is used in all stages in the creation of energy: extracting, processing, refining, and transporting fuel to power generation plants. Power plants themselves also uses vast amounts of water, particularly for the towers that cool the water heated in the generators.

Then there's the energy used to treat and deliver water.

California was among the first states to take a close look at this, and they discovered that supplying municipal water accounted for almost 20 percent of the electricity used in the state [PDF].

On average, 75 percent of the cost of municipal water comes from the electricity used to capture, treat, distribute, and use the water. After the water is used, more energy is required to treat the wastewater.

As cities grow, particularly in water-scarce areas, supplying municipal water uses increasingly more energy. Understanding this relationship highlights the importance of conserving water and practicing energy efficiency.

For every kilowatt saved, water also is saved. For every gallon of water not used, energy usage is reduced. Investments in and incentives for energy and water conservation must be our highest priority.

In addition to bolstering our conservation efforts at all levels, states and the federal government need to better integrate water and energy supply planning. Other states should follow Californiaâs example and quantify the local relationship between energy and water.

Environmental Defense is partnering with the Jackson School at the University of Texas to quantify this relationship in Texas. This information will help the state evaluate water and power projects to ensure that these resources are available to citizens in the future.

Getting savvy about standby power

Noah Buhayar, Fellow, Rocky Mountain Institute — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:47:33 PDT

Noah Buhayar is a fellow at Rocky Mountain Institute.

Ever wonder how much electricity your household appliances use when they're supposedly off-in "standby" or "ready" mode? Think of the clock on your microwave, your DVD player that's on but not playing a movie, or the little sensor on the bottom of your TV that waits for a signal from your remote control.

It turns out that these "vampire" loads are gradually sucking away power-a lot of power.

An estimated 13 percent of household electricity use, according to a recent study published by the California Energy Commission, is from appliances in low-power mode (which is to say, not performing any of their primary functions).

Standby mode, the least amount of energy an appliance can use without powering down, is just one example. Many appliances have multiple low-power modes.

A DVD player, for instance, may have both a standby and sleep mode. Computers, as well, often save power by shutting down one or more components without turning completely off.

What it costs
The costs of these low-power modes are enormous. Standby power alone accounts for 5 of that 13 percent of household electricity use.

In 2000, a group of researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that each year Americans spend about $4 billion just on standby power.

Generating that electricity puts roughly 27 million tons of CO2-equivalent emissions into the atmosphere (more than 3.7 million cars' worth) every year.

While the amount of low-power mode energy required by most new appliances is going down, the number of appliances (from washing machines to air conditioners) with continual power needs is increasing-eclipsing those savings. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that standby power could consume as much as 20 percent of household electricity by 2010.

Worse yet, some of our electronics never go into low-power mode because they're hooked to networks that require constant feedback. Most desktop computers are left on all the time for just this reason-drawing (on average) a steady 70-watt current. The monitor may be off, but the processor, fan, and other hardware may still be running.

Your cable box, too, is perpetually drawing current as it talks to the network. Have an Internet phone? That, as well, is always on, ready to take a message.

Energy-efficiency experts are busy identifying ways that manufacturers can reduce the amount of energy required to maintain a network presence, hold a channel, or answer the phone when you're not there. Some promising work can be found here.

Why we don't sacrifice convenience?
If the net impact of all our leaky appliances is so huge, why aren't we compelled to change our habits-or do without a little convenience?

A colleague of mine here at Rocky Mountain Institute shares a useful anecdote. His home A/V system (TV, cable box, DVD player) and communications system (cable modem, WiFi router, Internet phone, and cordless phone with answering machine) uses about 45 watts of electricity continuously.

Even though he'd like to save that energy, he leaves the system on all the time. If he turns off the power bar that links everything to the wall, his phone won't take messages and he'll lose Internet connectivity.

What's the cost of this convenience? He estimates about $40 dollars a year.

What you can do
If you're looking to reduce your energy use and tread more lightly on the planet, changing your habits is a good starting point.Â

Shut your computer and printer down (all the way) when not in use. Some people find it useful to plug all their IT equipment into one power bar, then flip the switch once they've shut down.

If you have an A/V system that can be turned off entirely without sacrificing performance, do so.

Keep cell phone chargers out of the wall when you're not charging the phone. Those little power bricks often draw a little current-even when your phone's not connected.

Making informed choices
Most importantly, educate yourself. The U.S. government's Energy Star program rates appliances and often has information about their standby (or low-power) mode energy use. For home electronics, low standby power use is a key criterion for qualifying products.

In 2006 alone, the program saved some $14 billion on Americans' utility bills and helped avoid more than 35,000 megawatts of peak power demand (equivalent to the capacity of 70 new power plants).

These small changes may not make a huge dent in your monthly electricity bill, but they can add up.

Does saving daylight save energy?

Trystan L. Bass — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:57:08 PDT

My Palm Pilot has been flashing at me since October 28. See, it believes Daylight Saving Time (DST) should have started already. Yeah, this isn't the latest model, so my Palm hasn't heard that the U.S. Congress changed when DST starts and stops.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 went into effect this year, so DST began three weeks earlier and ends one week later than before. The new "fall back" date is November 4, 2007.

The reason behind the change is energy savings. Previous DST adjustments during the 1970s oil embargo estimated that the U.S. saved the equivalent of 10,000 barrels of oil each day thanks to DST. And the California Energy Commission calculated an energy savings of about one percent per day.

More recent studies about the energy savings of DST haven't been so positive, however. An Australian experiment around the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games suggested that electricity savings was 'significantly overstated.'

A 2007 report by the California Energy Commission contradicts its earlier findings and suggests that DST saves maybe one half of one percent, at most.

Can we really save energy when we save daylight? Hard to say. Maybe if we don't turn on a bunch of lights when the sun is still shining. And don't charge that Palm Pilot during the extra hour either.

Lights out in San Francisco, L.A. on Saturday

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:48:53 PDT

Mom always told me to turn off the lights when I left the room. Don't know if she was being environmentally conscious or didn't want a fat electric bill. Either way, the habit stuck.

This weekend, San Francisco aims to do one better than my mom and turn off all the lights in the city, for one hour at least.

Lights Out SF is "a citywide energy conservation event" on Saturday, during which the city's 700,000 residents are encouraged to turn off their lights between 8 and 9 p.m.

The group estimates that just one dark hour could cut about 15 percent of the energy used on a typical Saturday night.

Further down the coast, Los Angeles is encouraging the Hollywood glitterati to chill their shine this weekend. Lights Out LA also is scheduled for Saturday from 8 to 9 p.m. The same supporters are behind the coordinated efforts.

These actions are inspired by Sydney, Australia's Earth Hour. From 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on March 31, 2007, more than 2 million Aussies turned off their lights. That caused a 10.2 percent drop in energy use.

The Down-Under results were pretty impressive. Businesses joined in the act too, and 90 McDonalds shut off their usually golden arches around town. Even the iconic Sydney Harbor Bridge had its lights out for an hour.

Some critique these efforts as just stunts, not sustainable habits. But like mom nagging me to turn off the light when I left a room, maybe seeing big cities go dark for an hour will remind us to turn off non-essential appliances and swap out old bulbs for efficient compact fluorescents ongoing.

Mom will be proud!