When we look at the people whose life’s work revolves around improving conditions for humankind, we observe that most of these individuals are not wealthy. Not only are their endeavors not focused on profit, but in many cases, their efforts actively fly in the teeth of the most profitable industries on the planet – whether that means Big Energy, Food, Pharma, Medical, etc.
That’s what makes Elon Musk’s story so remarkable. As you listen to this interview, which he did last month for one of the fabulous “Ted Talks,” note the thinking that motivated all this: “While I was in university, I realized that sustainable transportation and energy was the biggest problem we need to solve in this century.”
Here’s a guy who’s taken on humankind’s greatest need (ironically, one whose importance it greatly underestimated) and has created some extremely successful businesses built around solving it. I’m hoping there’s a lesson to be learned here for all of us: “doing the right thing” and “making a buck” are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Here’s a terrific piece on climate change, which contains a very powerful infographic, and makes the point that it’s wrong to include this phenomenon as an “environmental problem.”
Say what?
Unlike other pollutants, e.g., particulate matter that falls out of the atmosphere in a period of weeks or months, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for decades or centuries. We’re not talking about “additive,” but about “cumulative” effects.
I’m reminded of a high school biology paper I wrote on noise pollution, in which I concluded that this was a negligible issue, since it would cease to be a problem the very second that we stopped creating it. My teacher found my reasoning to be cavalier — but I still maintain that I had a decent point there.
The real issue with CO2 in the atmosphere is that bringing its concentration down to 350 parts per million, i.e., where scientists say it needs to be if we are to avert catastrophe, requires both aggressive reductions in fossil fuel consumption (which accounts for 80% of the contributions) as well as a significant amount of time.
Here’s a “TED Talk” recorded just last month featuring Elon Musk, the driving force behind PayPal, then Tesla Motors, SpaceX, and Solar City. What a wild ride it is to listen to a guy who thinks at this level. He really didn’t have a ready answer to the question: “How do you think in a way that is different from other people? In other words, how do we train ourselves — and our children in their schools — to think as freely and creatively as you do?” The best he could manage is that he thinks from the principles of physics and works his way up, rather than laterally, making small variations on what other people are already doing.
I find it interesting that some of these arenas require far more creative thought than others. I’m not sure I see that in PayPal (wasn’t someone going to become the standard in online payment systems?) – or in Tesla (isn’t a Ferrari-like electric vehicle a fairly obvious development?) – or even Solar City, as its business model has been in place for decades). But SpaceX? A re-usable rocket that will make humankind space-faring and multi-planetary? Wow – that’s big.
Of course, the main thing that makes Musk’s thinking so important and compelling is that it’s aimed at the over-arching problems confronting our species. As a child, he realized that we need to replace fossil fuels as the source for all our energy-related applications — including transportation — and simply moved from there to ask: If you accept that, what should you do?
Here’s a conversation I’m having with a friend about the mess at Fisker, i.e., the departure of the company’s founder.
Craig: That’s incredible about Fisker. What do you make of all this?
Friend: It reminds me of John DeLorean in the 1980s and the movie “Tucker” about Preston Tucker in the 1940s. These were very talented, ego-intensive designers, like Henrik Fisker. You have to be willing to play the corporate bureaucracy game in the auto industry, and it involves a boatload of cash flow and is very labor intensive. The automotive sector is filled with stories about engineers and designers clashing, and the same with designers and accountants/bean counters. Fisker Automotive has been facing the big squeeze for several months. I expect a bankruptcy filing or low-priced Chinese investment, or both, like A123 Systems. Fisker makes a very fine car that I’ve enjoyed driving, but it will probably go away.
Craig: In the 4 – 5 years that I was seeing Fisker at the auto shows in L.A. and Detroit, I noted that each year, a) they seemed to be equally far from completion, and b) that the “booth babes” and the ropes around their zillion-dollar prototype were keeping any of us in the media from getting anywhere close to even touching the car. That perturbed me, but not as much as this:
Personally, even leaving out personalities and corporate politics, I’m not sure the car itself has what it takes (had what it took? ) to be successful. Imagine you’re one of the rare breed that:
Is willing and able to pay $100K for a car
Wants an EV, presumably because of environmental / geopolitical concerns
Is worried about range, and thus prefers a PHEV (plug-in hybrid) to a BEV (battery electric)
If I were in that situation, I’d get a full-loaded Tesla-S, and be done with it. I wouldn’t be carting around a heavy, expensive, and defect-prone internal combustion engine.
Of course, the real “game” in the automotive world isn’t catering to a handful of movie stars who can pay whatever they want for their cars. Rather, it’s offering affordable transportation that slowly (or, better yet, quickly) erodes the 230 million gas- and diesel-powered cars and trucks on our roads (while we retire the remaining coal plants).
The market has a way of jettisoning the bad ideas of the world, regardless of the charisma of the proponent. Another recent example in a slightly different realm was Shai Agassi’s pitching battery swapping in the United States, a landmass of 3.5 million square miles. Here’s the poster child for a bad, utterly impractical idea. But that didn’t deter Agassi – for a few years, at least. Yet the idea did finally come down with a crash.
I check out several sources for the global energy news every morning, including one, aptly titled, The Global Energy Report, and I’m always gratified to see concentrated solar power (CSP) making its way to the front of the conversation. This is happening, by the way, far faster and more often than Americans may realize, as the sun-drenched regions of Southern Europe, as well as Northern Africa and the Middle East, are running hard in this direction.
I’m particularly impressed with the progress that oil-rich nations like the United Arab Emirates are making. It’s impressive – and telling — that countries that could have been wringing money out of their crude reserves are the most progressive in terms of renewable energy. When you think about it, this shows a deep-seated understanding of a core fact of 21st Century life on Earth: our dependence on fossil fuels is foolish, supremely irresponsible, and outrageously expensive in every conceivable sense of the word.
The inauguration of Shams 1 is a major breakthrough for renewable energy in the Middle East. Just like the rest of the world, the region is faced with meeting its rising demand for energy, while also working to reduce its carbon footprint. Shams 1 is a significant milestone, as large-scale renewable energy is proving it can deliver electricity that is sustainable, affordable and secure.
I often wonder, after all my work in this field, why I don’t have the same level of clout in terms of getting things done. Well, the guy is a sultan; that probably doesn’t hurt. All kidding aside, anyone using his influence for the clean energy cause is all right with me.
Our family just returned from another mini-trip to look at prospective colleges with our younger child, Valerie, pic here taken years ago.
The relevance to renewable energy and sustainability may appear dubious at first, though I have to say that I was amused by this afternoon’s tour leader who went on at length about her school’s leadership in recycling. “We had won the intercollegiate championship several years in a row, though we just got nipped last year and finished a disappointing second. So, if this is the school of your choice, make sure you bring as much plastic, paper, and aluminum cans as you possibly can.”
This is bound to come across as lacking in the ol’ school spirit, but we’re missing this point here. If we care about the environment, we don’t want to recycle more stuff; we want to use less stuff. Ironically, the colleges that finish last in this competition could have the best record vis-à-vis the environment; the idea of a contest to see how much tonnage we can cart off to recycling centers misses the point in a huge way.
In any case, I know many readers’ families are making their ways through their college tours, dealing with the many thrills as well as the not-insignificant moments of stress, ultimately coming to terms with the fact that their babies will soon be out of the nest, flying on their own wings. My very best wishes to you all.
If I had to live on exactly three foodstuffs for the rest of my life, I’d choose oysters, mangoes and beer. Perhaps I could do better nutritionally if I were to study the subject seriously, but it would be hard to beat the culinary enjoyment.
The article linked above explains, in a very readable presentation, how the rising levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is causing a steady lowering of the oceans’ pH, and that the increasingly corrosive seawater is making it hard for young oysters to build shells. Author Brendon Bosworth writes:
Like the atmosphere, the world’s seas are burdened by our fossil fuel use and deforestation. The ocean has sponged up a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans have produced since the Industrial Revolution, steadily lowering its pH. Today’s seas are 30 percent more acidic than their pre-industrial ancestors. By the turn of the century, scientists anticipate they will be 150 percent more so…. Even if man-made carbon emissions ceased tomorrow, the West Coast would face decades of increasingly corrosive water because the ocean is laden with CO2 from decades past and will continue to absorb the CO2 already in the air, slowly changing its chemistry. “The train has already left the station,” says Richard Feely, a senior fellow at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “If we don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we’ll (see) conditions that will be corrosive to more species.”
I just finished editing the last interview transcript for my current book project, “Renewable Energy – Following the Money,” which I conducted with Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute. Jerry is brilliant, and he’s perfected his ability to articulate his core, heartfelt beliefs, i.e., that Libertarianism is the only fair and practical way to address social conflicts — in this case, differing approaches to energy policy. As a former Libertarian myself, I can’t think of too many 90 minute segments of my life from which I’ve learned more.
But, while the process here was edifying, it was frustrating as well. Insofar as this was an interview and not a debate, I didn’t think it proper to challenge Jerry’s assertions to the effect that the threat of climate change is both modest and distant. I’m sure my guest was not deliberately misquoting the numbers, nor the people from whom those numbers came. Nonetheless, our time together was riddled with quotes like:
We are talking about significant damages from climate change that don’t begin for about 100 years. If you look at the IPCC median estimates, the damage seems relatively modest but after about 100 years you get some serious damage functions if you accept median IPCC estimates.
Significant damage from climate change won’t begin for 100 years? Another interview guest for the project, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Director of the IPCC, certainly wouldn’t agree.
Not everyone can be right here. Personally, I’m swayed by those without an obvious agenda. The Cato Institute is funded largely by the fossil fuel industry. But the U.S. Navy? If you believe there is some sort of political agenda for the Navy’s suggesting that climate change represents a pressing, short-term threat, I’ll be interested to hear how you might substantiate that claim.
Btw, the photo above shows the retreat of the glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro between February 1993 and the same time in 2000. If the melting of the large masses of the Earth’s ice doesn’t give one pause, I’m not sure what will.
The pressure is on for better strategies to combat climate change. President Obama’s second term is decidedly greener than the first, and it reflects in the people he chose to focus on the energy and environmental policy. Ernest Moniz, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of technology and Gina McCarthy, a staunch environmentalist, have been selected as U.S. Energy Secretary and Head of the Environmental Protection Agency respectively.
On March 4, 2013, at a White House ceremony, Obama said,
They’re going to be making sure that we’re investing in American energy, that we’re doing everything that we can to combat the threat of climate change.
The emphasis on preserving the environment could turn the spotlight on natural gas, which is just one of the options that people have when it comes to dealing with climate change. Natural gas is less expensive and a cleaner alternative than gasoline. It has helped America become less reliant on power plants fired by coal, thereby reducing emissions that contribute to global warming. It is expected that once McCarthy takes the helm, new rules will be implemented that will further put the pressure on coal-powered plants. Stricter Clean Air Act rules are sure to follow.
One of the problems that natural gas is facing is that there is low demand for it. The recent cold weather and cheap energy rates in New York, however, has helped boost the demand for natural gas, as people burned gas to chase the chills away. In fact, foxbusiness.com has reported that the future of natural gas is set high, saying,
The chilly conditions have pushed natural-gas futures up 7% since the start of the year. Natural-gas demand has also been climbing from other sources, such as power generation.
Natural gas has also been hitting other headlines with New York Times recently publishing an article on natural gas, which quotes,
“Natural gas is primarily a source for electrical generation that has become increasingly popular because it burns cleaner than oil and coal and produces less greenhouse gases. Many environmentalists and energy analysts view natural gas as a natural bridge fuel between the dominant fossil fuels of today and the renewable fuels of tomorrow.”
If you take a look around the world, natural gas is gaining recognition around the world. During Spain’s recent droughts, it turned to natural gas as backup for the people’s source of electricity. Do you remember the killer earthquake that hit Japan in March of 2011? The Asian nation suffered a nuclear crisis when the quake triggered a tsunami that hit Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant hard. The damages it sustained caused its nuclear reactors to shut down and initiate a melt down. Since the plant generated electricity for Tokyo, but was unable to operate, Japan had to turn to other sources–natural gas.
Although cars that run on natural gas have yet to become a trend, expect its popularity to rise as demand for natural gas also rises. And at the rate it is rising, this international commodity could very well usher in a new era of natural gas.
About the Author
Based in San Diego California, Tiffany Matthews is a professional writer who supports green strategies that help preserve the environment. She also blogs about travel, fashion, and anything under the sun at wordbaristas.com. In her free time, she likes to travel and watch movies with friends. You can find her on Twitter as @TiffyCat87.
More and more people across the UK are becoming eco-conscious and deciding to turn their house into a bastion of renewable energy – and they are reaping the rewards for it. With energy prices only seeming to get more expensive, read on to find out how you can escape the rise and fall of oil and gas prices and start making money from green energy.
If you live in an applicable area then you can harness the power of the sun to start making your own energy. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels cost anything between £5,000 and £10,000 and, contrary to popular belief, do still produce energy on cloudy days. The panels work by electric fields being created when light shines through the PV cell’s semi-conducting silicon material.
Wind
Currently 40% of Europe’s wind energy blows across Britain, making it an ideal force to harness from your home. Turbines vary in price depending on how much energy you are looking to generate, but can range from £2,000 to over £20,000. The stronger the wind in the area, the more energy you will produce and be able to sell, with most turbines only costing around a hundred pounds a year in maintenance.
Hydro
It goes without saying that this type of energy generation is only applicable to those who live next to a suitable water source. But if your river or stream has the right combination of flow and head you could start producing and selling your own green energy. Every site is different but a typical 5kw producing site might cost £25,000 with negligible annual upkeep costs.
Selling excess energy
Once your green energy technology is up and running in your home you’ll be able to start making money.
Introduced in April 2010, the government’s Feed-in Tariff (FIT) scheme rewards producers for not only selling excess energy to the grid but also the renewable resources they use in their own home. Major energy suppliers, like npower, are required by law to buy your excess green electricity at 3.2p per unit.
To start making money you will need to be registered to the government’s central database by your green energy installer and then fill out an application form – it really is that simple.
