Apparently, the Fox News article “Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy” is going viral, as I just got it from a friend who is normally not too closely connected to the subject.  I have to hand it to these guys; they’re sure good at getting their word out.

In addition to admiring the sheer aggression with which Fox promotes its beliefs, one has to like their cleverness as well. Even the ploy of referring to their enemies’ concepts as “Dirty Secrets,” implying as it does the existence of some clandestine group with a malicious, hidden agenda is really a very bright idea from a public relations perspective.

In any case, I promised my friend that I would take a few minutes and respond to each of these damnable “dirty secrets,” so here goes:

Dirty Secret #1: If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.

The cost of renewable energy is anything but a secret. No one disputes that, in each of its many forms as they currently exist, clean energy is more expensive than coal – especially when it’s burned in the absence of scrubbers on the plants to remove the most damaging components of their emissions. And, though the prices of renewables are falling constantly, this inequality will remain in place for at least the next few years. The larger issue that the author elected not to discuss, of course, is that fossil fuels come with huge but generally ignored costs in terms of the health of our people, our society and our environment.

Dirty Secret #2: Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.

This ties into #1 above.  No one who has seriously looked at the matter doubts that clean energy can power the civilization, but the issue is cost. As Dr. Peter Lilienthal, world energy expert whose software is used by power utilities in more than 80 countries says, “There’s plenty of clean energy, if you don’t care what you pay for it.”  Most clean energy advocates suggest weaning ourselves off fossil fuels using the market forces that would be created by establishing a level playing field in which the true costs of all forms of energy are taken into consideration and “internalized.”  We also hope for a bit of help from government; it would be good (as well as fair and wise) to remove the enormous subsidies bestowed upon the fossil fuel companies – and perhaps send the funds thus freed up in the direction of renewables, as the latter clearly represents a public good (as opposed to a public hazard).

Dirty Secret #3: There are promising carbon-free energy sources–hydroelectric and nuclear–but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.

Let’s start here by being honest: Fox News has heretofore expressed identically zero concern about carbon.  In any case, it’s true that most clean energy advocates see obvious and serious dangers in nuclear power. I’m not sure what planet someone would have to be living on not to share these concerns. It’s also important to note that all sincere and objective environmentalists very much eagerly look forward to the commercialization of “advanced nuclear,” i.e., the next generation that can potentially operate safely and inexpensively.

Dirty Secret #4: The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.

It is true that there are environmental extremists who are unwilling to make any compromises, and thus become de facto advocates for the end of economic prosperity, a return to an agrarian society, etc.  Pointing to a few people with fringe views may stir up the passions of a largely uninformed audience, but it’s hardly to the point.  I’m sure you could find a few who believe in astrology as well, though I can’t see the relevance of that either.

The vast majority of clean energy advocates are honestly looking for trade-offs that make sense. In fact, we don’t see this issue as “us vs. them,” as all seven billion of us live on the same sick planet.  Our main agenda is doing what’s right for this sorry world; I’m not sure Fox News can say the same.

Again, I congratulate Fox on its cleverness, even though its command of the facts and the intellectual honesty it displays in dealing with them are dubious at best.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

An old friend told me the other day that his 25-year-old son had asked him what he thought life on Earth would be like in 100 years. Quite a good question, I think. But are there any answers that don’t scare the pants off you? With extremist governments with nuclear weapons, another century of environmental destruction, the steady creep of corruption, the world population growing exponentially – and the US government deficit doing the same – could this possibly have a happy ending?

I’m not optimistic, but I haven’t given up, either.  As I told him, “That’s why I write. When people stop caring … as soon as people no longer speak and write about this stuff, and involve themselves in the issues, then we truly are done.” (I actually didn’t say “done.” I chose a different, more expressive term from our modern vernacular.)

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Global climate change deniers wishing to argue their position often point out the oceans, enormous as they are, act as huge “carbon dioxide sinks.” It is true, of course, that the oceans absorb about 30% of the atmospheric CO2 we emit each year. But this has its own deleterious (some marine biologists say “catastrophic”) effects, in the form of ocean acidification. Linked above is a good article on the subject.

Tagged with: , , ,

When I come across an article like this one from EVWorld’s Bill Moore: “Electric Cars and ‘Can’t Do Spirit’ of American Conservatives” I like to draw readers’ attention to it, and normally attempt to add some value in the form of commenting, elaborating, clarifying — at least amplifying.  Here, however, he’s nailed this subject so perfectly that I can’t think of anything else to say.

Bill notes the many outrageous errors in a piece in “The Week” entitled, “The Folly of Doubling Down on Electric Cars,” in which journalist Ed Morrisey begins with the line: “So-called green vehicles are expensive, tough to dispose of, and may actually increase America’s dependence on foreign sources.” He goes on to explain how the car companies can’t sell EVs, because Americans simply don’t want them. 

Morrisey takes a considerable drubbing – even from his followers – who make comments like “Please get your facts straight before you print trash,” and You should retract this article. Did the author read tea leaves as research?”  And here’s my own contribution — not an opinion, but a fact:  Paul Scott, a personal friend who sells the LEAF at a local Nissan dealership, has customers coming out his ears; the problem, if there is one, is producing cars fast enough to satisfy demand. 

But Moore says that his favorite comment on the article was: “This column by Edward Morrisey perfectly encapsulates the modern Can’t Do Spirit of American Conservatives. Their rallying cry should really be closer to ‘Why Bother?’ than ‘Don’t Tread On Me.’”

I’m with you there, pal; I really don’t understand this behavior. I know that most conservatives are completely sincere in their desire to see a stronger and more vibrant America.  To that end, I submit that maybe it’s time they stop bashing their country’s attempts to lead the world in the Energy Revolution that lies at the very core of the global industry.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Today’s clean energy webinar with Dr. David Doty went very well. David spoke on “The World Energy Scene by the Year 2050,” presented his solution (“WindFuels,” synthetic fuels made from off-peak wind energy and CO2), and fielded a number of excellent questions from the audience. A downloadable version of the webinar should be available in a day or so.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

In April’s 2GreenEnergy webinar on electric transportation, I presented a short section on telematics, and all the wonderful benefits that accrue once the car is connected to the cloud: real-time traffic, green routing, intelligent billing, etc. In this video, a Ford R&D guy is talking about developing some really cool telematics apps. It starts at 26 minutes and 25 seconds in.

Tagged with: , , , ,

Eric Mathis is obviously a young man who “gets it.”  He posted a comment on my piece on Joe Biden’s speech that I put on Renewable Energy World, in which he linked to a post he wrote on GreenForAll. In it he discusses why and how the clean energy debate needs to be reframed, and notes:

Moreover, Secretary Chu’s recent statement further unpacks the issue at hand when he stated that the “United States faces a choice today: will we lead in innovation and out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind?” Falling behind is exactly what we are doing and what lies at the heart of this issue is simple: while we are fighting each other within the various Clean vs. Dirty energy debates, our country is being chopped up, sold off and shipped to China.

I hope readers will check out Eric’s post in its entirety.  Again, he gets it.

Tagged with: , , , , ,

Frequent Commenter John F. Robbins writes this marvelous response to the 2GreenEnergy survey on renewables:

The most missing question or comment in your survey and most of this blog is how to move away from the current energy-guzzling nature of our culture. Almost all the old-wave renewable energy discussion (prior to 2000) was heavy and serious on how to use less prior to or while trying to convert to renewables. Yet now, under the mantra of “creating jobs” or “increasing profits and tax collection” or just “new-wave RE advocacy”, RE is being pushed with almost no inclusion or demand that energy guzzling be actually reduced.

If we cut energy use first, that would be the most cost-effective solution ranked according to $/energy. That first step would also reduce how much and what scale of RE and storage are needed, thereby lowering those costs substantially.

As long as we allow, tolerate or are part of a culture of ever-increasing energy demand and use, both the futures of conventional and renewable energy are diminished, even bleak. The current energy model cannot exist ad infinitum, simply because it is based on infinite supplies at perpetually low prices.

Even if we didn’t move more quickly to RE, the price of future conventional will certainly be erratic and inflationary, especially as certain sources like oil become more depleted sooner. Natural gas will likely be second to deplete or become super-expensive to deliver in the current scale of demand.

Deceased thinker Donella Meadows often wrote about how our culture was operating beyond its physical limits. We need solutions which go beyond specific technologies and deal with our culture, how to change it so we can use and demand far less energy. Then the prognosis for energy futures gets better faster.

Thanks, John. All this is completely true, and you’re right; I most definitely fall into a faulty manner of thinking re: conservation and efficiency.  There is no doubt that, as a culture, we simply hog far too much energy.

This is why Vaclav Smil says, as he contemplates the effect that two billion more people will have on the Earth, “It depends. Will they use energy at the rate of the North Americans, or the Japanese?”

What I’ve noticed living here in the good ol’ USA is that virtually no one does anything that doesn’t benefit himself or his immediate friends and family. We’ve been programmed to ignore the needs of others, and that programming has been enormously effective. (It wasn’t always like this, btw. When we really became a consumer society after World War II, the idea that economics was an indifferent and often cruel taskmaster controlling all of us was vigorously drummed into our heads.)

Be this as it may, we live in a society in which the vast majority of people will not even consider sacrificing a pleasure for the good of someone else – regardless of how trivial the sacrifice or how enormous the benefit to the other.  In the main, we turn off our lights, replace our incandescent light bulbs, and install low-flow showerheads (when we do), because of our utility bills.  We buy more fuel-efficient cars because of the objectionable price of gasoline.

At the end of the day, if you want to save energy, you have to make it expensive. However, here in the US, we make it artificially cheap. If we had any sincerity about weaning ourselves off coal and oil (which we don’t) we would simply begin to force the producers and consumers of energy from those sources to pay the true and comprehensive costs. If we were to do that, you’d see an enormous change in people’s behavior – not next year, but this afternoon.

Here’s a start. Just take this list of subsidies we give the big oil companies and make them go away.

  • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
  • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
  • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
  • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
  • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
  • Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
  • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
  • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
  • Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
  • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid – apparently, we get about 40% of revenues from oil on public land vs. 60% – 65% in most other countries

Then get the oil and coal companies to pay the increases in healthcare costs caused by aromatics, absorb the cost of the long-term environmental damage. All of this garbage would be gone in a heartbeat.

Again, thanks for your comment.

Tagged with: , , ,

“Changing surface colors in 100 of the world’s largest cities could save the equivalent of 44 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – about as much as global carbon emissions are expected to rise by over the next decade,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu in 2009.In fact, pale surfaces reflect up to 80 percent of the sunlight that falls on them, compared with about 20 percent for dark ones, which is why roofs and walls in hot countries are often whitewashed. An increase in pale surfaces in our urban locations could both reflect more solar radiation away and reduce the amount of energy needed to cool buildings.Professor Chu explains he has been influenced by Art Rosenfeld, a member of the California Energy Commission, who pushed for some new building codes. Since 2005, California has required all flat roofs on commercial buildings to be white. Florida and Georgia are among states that have adopted building codes for white roof installations and more than 75 percent of Wal-Mart stores in the U.S. have them.  Dr. Rosenfeld, also a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and two of his colleagues from the laboratory, Hashem Akbari and Surabi Menon, made the calculations found in Steven Chu’s quote above and believe light surfaces can help chip away at energy conservation and global warming issues.Using this very concept, some cities (including those in California) are painting roofs white to reflect heat, conserve energy and reduce the carbon footprint. Another company, Emerald Cities, successfully developed a high performance solar reflective coating for asphalt and cement for the same purpose. The special coating can cool down the surface by up to 50 degrees and reduce smog by 15%, and it also preserves deteriorating asphalt. The product is called Emerald Cities (EC) Solar Reflective Cool Pavement, coined Cool Pavement.

In fact, black asphalt covers 60% of city surfaces and is a silent contributor to heat, smog and CO2. Not only are smog and CO2 an issue, but there is risk for heat stroke in pedestrians, especially in crowded places like theme parks. “Green buildings can never be “zero carbon” until the asphalt portion of a project is addressed,” says an Emerald Cities representative.

Phoenix is a flagship city for Cool Pavement, where asphalt temperatures can easily soar past 200 degrees F in summer. The parking lot at the Duffy Charter School in Phoenix was one of the early resurfacing jobs, as shown in the photo above. Another site is downtown Phoenix, with a new installation up just after Memorial Day 2011 – a 90,000 square foot lot between First, Second, Taylor and Polk Streets. It will help cool the city this summer and will serve to show off the product.

A special launch event for Cool Pavement will take place in downtown Phoenix on June 10th, with speakers, a reception and demonstrations.

In addition, a new “100 Cities Initiative” is also being launched by Emerald Cities for Mayors, City Planners and Project Developers nationwide. Participating cities receive training of local contractors for green jobs, specialized Cool Pavement equipment, complimentary monitoring, Department of Energy seminar and educational materials, publicity & media coverage, aerial photos of completed project and status within the “100 Cities Initiative.”

Emerald Cities spent two years conducting research, developing and perfecting the product through MIT and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. The nano-engineered concrete technology is the first of its kind for use on roads, parking lots, amusement parks, school yards, cross walks, malls, airports and various public surfaces. It earns LEED credits and can generate carbon offset credits.  The product is 1/6 inch in thickness, skid resistant, impervious to UV and is 4300+ psi. While light green is a preferred color, Cool Pavement comes in a number of light colors. There are three application choices:  spray on, roller application or smooth squeegee application.

Tests conducted on a major highway in July 2010 proved conclusively that on a 110 degree Phoenix summer day, the surface heat of the road was 209 degrees as compared to 135 degrees with Emerald Cities Cool Pavement – a 74 degree difference.

A senior sustainability scientist at Arizona State University, Harvey Bryan, says it is getting significantly hotter. “It’s a magnitude now of about 12 degrees above our historical nighttime lows. It was very typical to have summer evenings of 78 degrees back in the 1950s. Today we rarely go below 90. I think we’re headed to conditions where we have 100 degrees as our maximum nighttime low.” (Phoenix Magazine. “Phoenix’s Urban Heat Island,” May 2011.)  Cool Pavements may be one way to help.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

When I was growing up as a small boy near Philadelphia, I remember discussions with my father , colorful as they were, on the people in the states within half a day’s drive of us.  Then, when I moved up into Connecticut to go to college, I remember his telling me even more about his assessment of Vermonters: “JC (short for J. Craig),” he said, “If you’re not from Vermont, they don’t want you in Vermont.” 

I always regarded this as quizzical, not that I was unfamiliar with racism and xenophobia. It’s just that I didn’t impute this kind of stuff to a northern state where, it seemed to me, no one looked terribly different than anyone else.  Couldn’t I sneak in and out without anyone’s knowing the difference?

But, as I’ve come to learn, the folks from Vermont really DO view things a bit differently. If you don’t believe me, I hope you’ll check this out.

Tagged with: ,