Wow, the Catholic Church is going through some turmoil. It’s an example of the fact that things one never thought possible are commonplace today.
Here’s confirmation that the highest-ranking U.S. cardinal has been demoted over his unwillingness to bend to accommodate Pope Francis’s broadminded view on homosexuality. (more…)
Glenn Doty, one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever known, has a wide panorama of arguments as to why EVs are bad for the environment. In response to those who say that many EV buyers nowadays also buy solar PV to charge them, and thus their cars will never be connected to the grid, Glenn says:
I have great respect for those who buy solar power systems for their home in order to offset the burden of their EV. My problem is that I have equal respect for those who buy solar panels to offset their ICEV. Or those that just invest in wind farms in the Midwest, or in aforestation projects in Africa and Brazil… The atmosphere doesn’t really make a distinction: In both cases, there is a burden, and in both cases there is a purchased offset for that burden.
I’ve spent the last few minutes milling around my office chewing on this. (more…)
A colleague who specializes in eco-friendly building writes: I’m sure your next book will have a chapter covering the changes going on in the home building market. If you need some consultation, I would be happy to contribute!
Perhaps. Thanks for the offer. I sure find the subject interesting. And I’m really miffed that the mainstream news cover this so poorly. Is it somehow politically incorrect to suggest that people might want to do something good for the environment? If this had come out of some ridiculous news channel that feeds on the credulous/fearful/uninformed, I could understand that. But PBS? Et tu?
I’m not sure how many readers are following the (extensive) discussions of the validity of electric vehicles. The conversation pertains to today’s U.S. energy market—one that features coal as the resource by which incremental load on the grid is met.
The take-away is that right here in 2015, if they are charged via the grid, EVs are worse ecologically than their ICE counterparts. Yes, this flies in the teeth of common wisdom, and yes, it’s a bitter pill for most environmentally conscious people to swallow.
Having said all this, here are a few reasons that I support EVs—even at this point: (more…)
A reader asks for my advice regarding a concept in sustainable building that can provide whole neighborhoods of energy-neutral houses. He believes he has a very marketable product that can serve West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee right now.
My advice: Choose each specific target location very carefully. As you know, “location” is all three of the top three ingredients that creates the market price of real estate. Here it’s even more important. If you’re going to sell 15 eco-houses in Gatlinburg, TN, the first thing you need is 15 families who want to live in Gatlinburg, TN. Do they exist? You’re creating a huge amount of supply, and if that’s not met with an equal demand, you’re going to face a problem, regardless of the houses’ eco-characteristics.
European cities are making big sustainability strides and the rest of the world is taking notice. The combination of the continent’s “Europe 2020 growth strategy,” government and institution-backed programs like EPIC-HUB and SMART-HG, and regulations like mandatory energy audits for large enterprises are creating green cities, environmentally responsible businesses, and citizens empowered with energy efficiency.
Within the next 5 years, the EU is planning to cut their annual primary energy consumption by 20%: a lofty goal. To succeed, they understand that they must increase energy efficiency at all stages of the energy chain: generation, transformation, distribution and final consumption. (more…)
Reader Mike Carpenter asks: Craig: Please look at NuScale Power in Corvallis, Oregon.
Thanks very much, Mike. Unfortunately, I’m not qualified to evaluate the merits of individual approaches to nuclear energy. Having said that, (more…)
A reader named Barry has been active in 2GreenEnergy since its inception and asks:
I had a couple of college professors that told me in 1977 at UCSB that nuclear power was using a flawed theory and that we have just been lucky so far. I don’t know anything about the advanced nukes you speak of but I consider you reliable. So here’s the question ….what would you prefer to see proliferate as our next form of energy? I realize the answer is probably a mix of sources but it would be nice to hear: where would you put your money?
Thanks for the confidence you’ve placed in me. As you suggested, the answer is complicated. There is no silver bullet, but let me lay out a few thoughts. (more…)
Re: my recent post on liquid fluoride thorium reactors, a reader notes:
It seems thorium is the best choice, as they become flexible enough to reduce atomic gen-sets down to 20 MW, put anywhere near clean water with 8-10 pre-made 40’ containers. Successful plants are running in India…..Thorium fuel is cheap compared to gas/oil/coal, but the plant is very costly. Wind is by far the cheapest generating method, followed by hydro. Thorium is cheap once a realistic payback is completed, in about 10-12 years…..Thorium has several other advantages….higher breakdown temperature, all consuming to almost zero residue, no plutonium is generated, thus it is not used to make bombs. (more…)
I wanted to make another comment or two on this idea in small wind: a set of small, vertical-axis turbines that are designed to look something like a tree. It’s interesting to note that people seem to get their panties in a bunch about ideas like this, e.g., my pro-nuclear friends, the leader of which sent the link and wrote: “Be ready to handle a new year of scammers…” (more…)
