Could the Arctic be the Next Middle East?

According to an article from PhysOrg, the potentially huge deposits of energy resources beneath the melting Arctic ice cap is moving to the fore in the international scramble for new energy supplies.

According to PhysOrg, analysts and key industry figures addressing the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, argued that unlocking the region's potential could help ease global concerns over assured energy supplies.

Obviously, difficult questions remain about the impact on the environment and the uncertainty of exactly who owns what, with up to eight countries claiming some interest in the Arctic and others racing to catch up presents additional difficulty.

The PhysOrg article continues:

"It will never replace the Middle East" as an oil source, said Helge Lund, head of Norway's Statoil energy group, but "it has the potential to be a good supplement."

Lund said the Arctic may account for as much as 25 percent of undiscovered oil and gas resources worldwide, the equivalent of 375 billion barrels.

Analysts say the Arctic is highly attractive because it is closer to Europe and the United States, reducing transportation costs, and offers the prospect of more stability and supply security than the volatile Middle East.

Moreover, global warming has reduced Arctic sea ice -- which last year was the lowest on record -- and opened the way for increased marine transport and access to natural resources.

George Newton, chairman of the US Arctic Research Commission, said surface temperatures were set to rise up to 5.5 degrees within a century even without taking the impact of booming economies such as China and India into account.

He predicted tourist and commercial maritime traffic through the fabled and normally ice-locked Northwest Passage within a decade.

Even China, he added, was showing an increasing interest in Arctic research and had recently bought an icebreaker.

European Union energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs said Brussels wanted to diversify its energy suppliers. Currently, a quarter of its natural gas comes from Russia, and 15 percent from Norway.

"We regard Russia in the future as a reliable supplier," he said, but that did not mean the European Union should not seek alternatives.

"We should be more concerned about situations where there is disruption of supply."

Lund said that if Barents Sea resources could be successfully exploited, a new gas pipeline could be attached to existing pipelines serving Europe.

He said concerns over the environmental impact of increasing use of Arctic resources could be allayed by new technologies such as sub-sea facilities that would not harm fish and other marine stocks.

"Often people under-estimate the power of technology" to cope, Lund added, calling for a single management regime for all the Arctic's natural resources on the basis that "neither fish and hydrocarbons know boundaries."

But that touches on another tricky issue -- deciding which country owns or can exploit which parts of the Arctic.

Eight nations -- Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States -- have Arctic interests.

Of those, all bar Sweden and Finland enjoy Arctic coastlines, and border and sovereignty disputes, such as between Russia and Norway, Russia and the United States and the United States and Canada, are hampering cooperation.

A country is permitted 200 nautical miles under the Law of the Sea for its territorial waters, but can also lay claim to extra mileage on the continental shelf -- essential to explore and utilise sub-sea energy resources.

"I don't see any geopolitical tensions arising out of the Arctic," Piebalgs said, although Newton pointed out that unlike Russia, the United States still had not ratified the treaty.

This is yet another sign that concerns about resource depletion are leading the world's industrial nations (as well as rapidly industrializing nations like China and India) to search in some unlikely places for new energy resources.

What strikes me as extremely ironic about this new focus on Arctic energy resources is that they are becoming accesible due to global climate change (which is particularly pronounced in the low latitudes). That is, our fossil energy use is fueling global climate change that is melting Arctic sea ice and unlocking more fossil energy resources for us to use which will continue to fuel global climate change. Does this sound like a particularly smart strategy?

Wouldn't we be much better off turning to renewable and clean energy resources with a greater focus on the development of wind, solar, geothermal and biomass technologies as well as energy storage technologies (to help overcome the intermittency of these renewable energy sources)? Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce our demand for fossil energy through energy efficiency and conservation than to begin to exploit the fragile and hard to access Arctic Ocean region?

Read more!

Top NASA Climate Scientist Says Bush Administration Tried to Silence Him on Global Climate Change

PhysOrg reports that NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, has accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out after he called in a lecture for swift cuts in emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Hansen, the director of the US space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his forthcoming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website and requests for media interviews, the New York Times reported Sunday.

"They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," said Hansen, who told the paper he would ignore the restrictions.

The article continues:

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at NASA, denied to the Times that there was any effort to silence Hansen.

"That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Acosta said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

"This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he told the Times. "It's about coordination."

"Since 1988, (Hansen) has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore," the Times reported.

Hansen told the Times that "efforts to quiet him" had begun in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on December 6, 2005, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

"In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth 'a different planet'," the Times said.

US administration policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

"After that speech and the release of data by Dr Hansen on December 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such statements continued, those officers and Dr Hansen said in interviews," the Times said.

In discussions with the daily paper, Hansen said "it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase 'to understand and protect our home planet'".

It added that he was "incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents".

The Times quoted Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, as saying there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up".

"That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied," he told the paper.

This seems perfectly in keeping with the Bush administration's stance on global climate change. The administration's past record on editing (i.e. censoring) reports on global warming makes claims like this seem more credible and Bush et. al. have repeadetly tried to downplay global climate change while taking very little action to address its causes or mitigate its consequences.

When are we going to see some real leadership on climate change from the federal level?

Read more!

Move Over Insight - Here Comes the 330 mpg Diesel-Electric Hybrid Aptera

Three San Diego engineers have designed a two-passanger, three-wheeled diesel-electric parallel hybrid that will achieve a phenomenal 330 mpg while selling for less than $20,000 (USD).

The engineers have formed a company, Accelerated Composites, LLC, (AC) to refine the design and build a prototype.

According to a press release, the innovative vehicle, dubbed the "Aptera," will be constructed from composite, light-weight materials, will post this fuel efficiency in normal city and highway driving and will demonstrate acceleration and handling similar to that of a Honda Insight.

The vehicle achieves these remarkable numbers through the use of cutting-edge materials, manufacturing methods, and a maverick design mantra. AC's slogan is "Innovation in Orders of Magnitude" and seems appropriate considering the reported specs of the Aptera.

The press release goes on:

Unique, optimized aerodynamics gives the Aptera© a drag form factor that will be lower than any mass produced car in the world. “It looks like nothing you’ve ever seen because it performs like nothingyou’ve ever seen,” says Accelerated Composites founder and CEO Steve Fambro. “What we’ve done is changed the way cars are thought of and designed. Rather than designing to a styling aesthetic, like the big auto makers do, we hew to an efficiency and safety aesthetic. When you do that, math and physics mostly dictate the shape of the car, and in this case, math and physics look awesome.”

But aerodynamics is only half of the equation. The other half is weight. The Aptera© is made almost entirely of lightweight composites, making it one of the lightest cars on the road. Yet this savings does not come at the cost of safety. In fact, the construction of the car is based on the driver-protection “crash box” found in Formula One race cars. “Composites are enormously strong and lightweight,” says Fambro. “That’s why all the aircraft manufacturers are switching to them.”

So why aren’t the auto makers switching? “Cost” says Fambro. "They haven’t figured out cost-effective manufacturing processes for composites. But we have."

The Aptera will weigh only 850 pounds and, as mentioned above, is made almost entirely of lightweight composites, based on AC’s Panelized Automated Composite Construction (PAC2) process.

The light weight and three-wheel design means the Aptera will be liscenced as a motorcycle.

The production model of the vehicle will pair a 12 horsepower (hp) CARB-certified diesel engine with a 25 hp permanent magnet electric motor and will be able to run in all-electric mode (AC is designing the prototype with a gasoline engine for cost). AC plans to use ultracapacitors for energy storage and regenerative breaking. Ultracaps are not chemical batteries and thus can quickly and efficiently accept the energy from regenerative breaking. They also offer very high power densities (albeit with correspondingly low energy densities).

The Aptera will feature an automatic continuously variable transmission (CVT) and will be able to accelerate from 0-60 in 11 seconds with a electronically regulated top speed of 95 mph.

To increase aerodynamics, the slippery vehicle will not have side mirrors but will rather incorporate video cameras and a rear view display inside the vehicle. All told, the aerodynamics of the Aptera are practically an order of magnitude better than anything on the road today and AC claims that the coefficient of drag on the vehicle will be only 0.055-0.06.


The initial response by many to this design (myself not exluded, see lengthy discussions here and here) is that it could never pass safety standards or that it is too unsafe to drive on the same roads as SUVs and semis.

While I certainly wouldn't love to get hit by a semi in this car - not too different from any other car really - as AC's founder and CEO, Steve Fambro, quickly pointed out, such criticism is a bit misplaced. Indeed, the Aptera is being designed with the full intent of making it a safe and liscencable vehicle. As Fambro writes:

"The Aptera will be treated as a motorcycle in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean it's unsafe. On the contrary, it will have the same type of airbag-in-seatbelt technology used in newer light planes. Additionally, the dirver and passenger sit in a 'crashbox' thats underneath the aeroshell...or body. There's crushable/absorbing material between the aeroshell and body as well. The crashbox design, still being modeled and simulated, offers much more protection than most car doors/pillars."

Furthermore, while composites may be light, they aren't brittle and actually have strengths similar to steel.

In short, we're not talking about a fiberglass tin can here, but rather a composite shelled vehicle with an inner crashbox modeled after those used by forumala race cars, a crushable/absorbing material and airbags protecting the driver and passanger. So while you're car may be totalled in an accident with an SUV, you'll walk away fine (can the SUV driver say the same?

Furthermore, millions of people the world over ride motorcycles while plenty of us treehuggers feel safe enough riding your bikes everywhere. Why wouldn't you feel safe enough to ride around in a vehicle surrounded by a composite shell and protected by a 'crash box' modeled after those in a formula racer? (We've all seen those spectacular high-speed, end-over-end race car crashes from which the driver walks away a bit bruised but otherwise unhurt).

Finally, plenty of people got excited about the Honda Insight and I can't imagine that the Aptera is any less safe than the Insight which is about the same size and made of similar ultra-light materials.

In the end, the most exciting part about this vehicle is that it pushes the limits of what we think is possible for a vehicle to obtain. 330 mpg! How can we get excited about GM's 70 mpg boxfish-styled diesel concept (also with video instead of side mirrors for aerodynamics) when this baby is out there?

Even if this vehicle never makes it on the roads (and I dearly hope it does), or if when it does, it only gets 150 mpg or some such, it will still be a testament to what is truly possible when you are willing to innovate and to let form follow function.

The designers at Accelerated Composites have moved the goal posts and pushed the edges of what we thought was possible and I hope that their design serves to inspire vehicle designers elsewhere to imagine what else might be possible, to truly innovate, and to begin designing the cars of tomorrow today.

Depending upon the completion of funding, a prototype could be ready to roll as early as the end of March or April, according to Steve Fambro.

[A hat tip to Green Car Congress]

Read more!

'Precooling' Office Buildings Cuts Peak Energy Costs

PhysOrg reports that Purdue University engineers say they've developed a method for "precooling" small office buildings to cut energy costs.

According to James Braun, a Purdue professor of mechanical engineering, precooling would reduce energy consumption during times of peak demand, promising not only to save money but also to help prevent power failures during hot summer days.

Precooling involves running air conditioning at cooler-than-normal settings in the morning and then raising the thermostat to warmer-than-normal settings in the afternoon. The method has been shown to reduce the cooling-related demand for electricity in small office buildings by 30 percent during hours of peak power consumption in the summer, Braun said.

As PhysOrg points out, small office buildings represent the majority of commercial structures, so reducing the electricity demand for air conditioning in such buildings could help prevent rolling blackouts, such as those that plagued California during the summer of 2000.

Braun said the study focused on California because research was funded by the California Energy Commission, but the same demand-saving approach could be tailored to buildings in any state.


Reducing peak power demands is very important. Not only does it help prevent rolling black-outs which occur when peak demand exceeds generating capacity, but in the longer run, reducing peak demand avoids the construction of new power plants.

Power generating capacity must exceed peak power demands at all times, not just average demands. Peak demand can be two to three times higher than average demand (the exact amount varies regionally due to climate and local building/efficiency codes).

When peak demand exceeds generating capacity, power companies are forced to buy power from the 'spot market' - the open energy trading market; i.e. where Enron made all its money - often at prices significantly higher than the price they charge their customers. If peak demand exceeds capacity too often, utility companies are forced to build more power plants or contract for more output from other plants - i.e. increase capacity.

In short, additions to plant capacity are driven by increasing peak power demand, not increasing total consumption.

Technologies and practices like this that reduce peak demand are thus critical in maintaining the effectiveness and integrity of our power generation infrastructure while mitigating the need for new infrastructure investments. They are thus nearly always very cost effective, both for the business or home owner as well as for the utility company that gets to avoid the costs of adding new capacity or purchasing power at peak periods from the spot market.

[BTW, Interface Engineering of Portland used a simiar 'precooling' technique for their new Oregon Health Sciences University River Campus One building in Portland's new South Waterfront development district, which is expected to be (by far) the largets building to achieve LEED Platinum certification while cutting mechanical and electrical costs by 10%! Expect more on this soon...]

Read more!

News From My Backyard: Oregon State University Energy Technology Takes the Waste Out of Wastewater

A new "microbial fuel cell" technology being developed at Oregon State University (OSU) could revolutionize the treatment of wastewater, according to a university press release.

The system developed by my sister university just up the valley uses organic material that until now had been literally wasted - i.e. 'flushed' down the drain in our wastewater - and creates either usable electricity or hydrogen gas to potentially help fuel the cars of the future.

Some of the latest findings on these systems were recently published in a professional journal, Environmental Science and Technology, by engineers from OSU and Penn State University.

According to the press release, with only slight adaptations, these microbial fuel cell systems could take almost any biodegradeable organic matter and produce a useful product - such as the electricity to help operate a waste treatment plant or hydrogen for fuel cells, which many believe will be the most practical alternative to gasoline-powered vehicles.*

The press release goes on:

When used with sewage, another fringe benefit of the process is that it also cleans the water by a completely different method than the traditional use of aerobic bacteria, opening the door for new generations of waste treatment plants that are efficient, effective and might produce much of the energy needed for their own operation.

"These systems would use oxidation to remove up to 80 percent of the pollutants in wastewater, and at the same time provide a substantial portion of the energy used to operate the treatment plants," said Hong Liu, an assistant professor of biological and ecological engineering in the OSU College of Engineering. "In the United States, about $25 billion a year is spent for domestic wastewater treatment, so major cost savings may be possible.

"And in developing nations where waste treatment technologies are often considered too expensive, making a waste treatment plant almost self-sufficient in energy might mean the difference between being able to afford proper treatment of wastes, compared to no treatment at all."

Those possibilities, Liu said, will take further refinement of existing technology. But the concept has clearly been proven in laboratory experiments, she said. It's renewable, and efforts are under way to bring down costs, identify less expensive materials and improve operational efficiency.

It's been known that microbial fuel cells can be run from high- energy materials such as glucose, but is now clear that many organic waste materials may also work, including grass straw, wood pulp, and of course wastewater. Bacteria oxidize the organic matters and, in the process, produce electrons that travel from the anode to the cathode within the fuel cell, creating an electrical current.

As a new concept in sewage treatment, this approach eliminates the need to pump oxygen into a mixture of sewage and aerobic bacteria - in one stroke eliminating almost half of the cost associated with a conventional sewage treatment plant.

For hydrogen production, some of the latest studies outline a related process in the absence of oxygen that uses an electrical assist to greatly increase the efficiency of direct hydrogen production at the cathode of the reactor. This "bio- electrochemically assisted microbial reactor" also treats the wastewater at the same time - just like in the approach used to create electricity - but instead yields hydrogen as a useful end product and the ultimate power source for hydrogen fuel cells. And the approach is more cost-effective than existing technology to produce hydrogen, which uses large amounts of electricity.

"Some of the newest experiments indicate that for hydrogen production, we can increase the amount of potential hydrogen recovered from sewage from about 15 percent to about 70 percent," Liu said. "This completely anaerobic technology is very promising, but we still have improvements to make."

Part of the challenge, scientists say, will be to identify less costly materials that produce results similar to those already being achieved in laboratories with fairly expensive materials, such as platinum.

Depending on the level of improved efficiencies and other improvements, researchers believe it may be possible to create sewage treatment plants that are completely self-sufficient in energy production. Alternatively, if there is more of a demand for hydrogen to use in fuel cells and the next generation of automobiles, the technology could be aimed in that direction. But in either case, what's now considered wastewater would become a valuable energy resource - not a waste.

In other work that's under way at OSU, oceanographers are using related processes to harness plankton in the ocean as a fuel source, creating mobile instruments that might glide through the water, producing their own energy as they go, and aid oceanographic research. And other devices might have value to provide energy in remote areas where organic materials are available but electrical grids are not.

The theoretical ability of microbes to produce electricity has been known for decades, scientists say, but only in the past few years has the efficiency of these devices been improved enough to make them useful for various purposes.

Some of the most recent research in this field has been funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

"Bacteria eat food to get energy, just like people do," Liu said. "But in the process they shed electrons, and this is something we're learning how to use. The concept is very environmentally safe and should find some important applications."

Well, it looks like this money is starting to pay off.

I'm always excited about technologies that utilize materials we previously thought were waste for some useful purpose, especially when that purpose is energy generation. There's not a lot of technical information in the press release and I wasn't able to find the journal article so I'm not sure what the efficiencies or yields of this process are but, for wastewater at least, they sound promising.

I'm not so sure these fuel cells would be the best use for all organic materials - there are plenty of other useful ways to utilize biomass including biofuels, co-firing, char to the solar-carbothermic zinc process etc - but these microbial fuel cells seem perfectly suited for wastewater treatment plants. If they can be scaled down enough, they could even be used 'on-site,' enabling individual buildings to treat their own wastewater before discharging it to the city wastewater system while generating electricity for building needs as well. Sounds like a win, win situation to me!

As far as getting the cost of materials down, it seems like this or this would help matters...

Keep up the good work up there, Beavers. Well done...

*[myself not necessarily included]

[A hat tip to Clean Edge]

Read more!

Half of Kuwait's Oil Reserves "Vanish" Overnight

Reuters reported on Friday* that Kuwait's oil reserves are actually half what was officially stated, according to internal Kuwaiti records reportedly seen by industry newsletter Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW).

"PIW learns from sources that Kuwait's actual oil reserves, which are officially stated at around 99 billion barrels, or close to 10 percent of the global total, are a good deal lower, according to internal Kuwaiti records," the weekly PIW reported on Friday.

PIW reported that according to data circulated in Kuwait Oil Co (KOC), the upstream arm of state Kuwait Petroleum Corp, Kuwait's remaining proven and non-proven oil reserves are only about 48 billion barrels.

The Reuters article goes on:

PIW said the official public Kuwaiti figures do not distinguish between proven, probable and possible reserves.

But it said the data it had seen show that of the current remaining 48 billion barrels of proven and non-proven reserves, only about 24 billion barrels are so far fully proven -- 15 billion in its biggest oilfield Burgan.

Kuwait has been adding up to 500 million barrels a year at Burgan which means the remaining non-proven reserves of some 5.3 billion barrels will likely be upgraded to proven, according to PIW.

Three consortia led by BP, Chevron and ExxonMobil are in the race for Project Kuwait, a 20-year operating service contract to raise crude capacity at four oilfields in the north of Kuwait.

So, just like that, world proven and unproven oil reserves drop by 5%. Many believe that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations have also been misleading (to put it gently) with their reserve figures as OPEC production quotas are based on the size of a nation's reserves.

If Kuwiat's reserves are only half of what they have been saying, and the same is more or less true for other OPEC nations, especially Saudi Arabia (who has the largest reserves in the world), then we are headed towards Peak Oil a lot faster than many have thought.

OPEC nations have traditionally been very secrative about their reserves and do not allow anyone outside the national oil company to verify records. How exactly PIW came across this information is not revealed but it presumably wasn't just given to them.

If the world is to accurately plan for Peak Oil, it has to know with some accuracy what kinds of reserves are truly out there and this continued obfuscation by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others is very counterproduction to everyone except those countries. I'm glad this news has leaked and I hope similar news will come out of other secretive oil producers as well.

By the way, this also comes only a couple months after news that Kuwait's largest oil field, Burgan field, has peaked and its production is beginning to decline.

*[i.e. 'dump day' or the day agencies release news they want to be buried since noone reads the papers on Saturday]

[A hat tip to Treehugger]

Read more!

6 E.P.A. Chiefs Say 'Its Time to Act' on Greenhouse Gases

The New York Times reports that six former heads of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, including five who served under Republican presidents, have strongly urged the Bush administration to act more aggressively to limit the emission of greenhouse gases linked to climate change.

Speaking on a panel last Wednesday that also included the current EPA chief, Stephen L. Johnson, they generally agreed that the need to address global warming was growing urgent and that the continuing debate over what percentage of the problem was caused by human activities was a waste of time.

The NY Times article goes on:

"Why argue about things you can't prove?" said William D. Ruckelshaus, who served under President Richard M. Nixon from 1970 to 1973 and President Ronald Reagan from 1983 to 1985. "We need to fashion policies with proper incentives to reduce the amount of carbon we are putting in the atmosphere. There are all kinds of things we can do right now, and we ought to be taking those steps."

Mr. Johnson defended the agency's current policies, saying it has invested $20 billion since 2001 in research and technologies intended to cut carbon emissions through dozens of programs.

But the blunt opinions of Mr. Johnson's Republican predecessors served as a sharp reminder that since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, neither the president nor the Republican-led Congress has proposed any comprehensive plan to limit carbon emissions from vehicles, utilities and other sources, a problem that Mr. Bush's own Department of Energy predicts will grow worse.

The agency's Annual Energy Outlook for 2006, which was released last month, showed that carbon emissions from inside the United States are projected to increase by 37 percent by 2030.

While Mr. Bush has accepted the notion that the earth is warming, Congress has bogged down in debate over whether and how new air quality legislation should include a plan to deal with carbon emissions. The strongest measure approved so far was a Senate resolution passed last summer that recommended exploring how to put emission reductions in place.

But the former Republican administrators, along with one Democrat on the panel, Carol M. Browner, who served under President Bill Clinton, said administration officials and Congress had spent too much time debating.

"To sit back and push this away and deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest and self-destructive," said Russell E. Train, who led the agency under Nixon from 1973 to 1977.

William K. Reilly, the E.P.A. administrator under the first President Bush, attributed much of the inaction to an enduring skepticism from influential officials he called "outliers," who remain unconvinced that climate change is an urgent issue. As a leading skeptic in Congress, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, convened a hearing last year with the novelist Michael Crichton, who argued that policy makers should take into account views held by scientists who believe global warming is part of a natural cycle.

Mr. Reilly said, "This is a debate we should not be having," arguing for action over debate.

Lee M. Thomas, the agency administration in the second Reagan administration, said the time had come for environmental and industry groups, the usual antagonists in environmental policy, to set aside their differences in favor of a plan like the one used to curb the effects of acid rain.

"This is the same kind of situation," Mr. Thomas said. "We've got to start on this action. We can't wait."

Ms. Browner, a strong proponent of a national policy to cut emissions, said she was encouraged to hear her Republican colleagues take aim at the administration.

"It's huge," she told reporters after the panel discussion. "It's a testament to the reality of the issue and the recognition that it's time to do something."

So my question is, how many people does it take saying things like this to get the Federal Government on board? This adds six former heads of the US EPA to a list that includes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the American Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as the National Sciences Academies of all the G8 nations as well as India, China and Brazil and of course the governments of over 150 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol!

The states are starting to act on their own in the absence of federal leadership - i.e. California and others' adoption of CO2 emission standards for vehicles and the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - but its high-time for the Feds to get with the picture!

But I guess Michael Crichton still isn't convinced so maybe we should hold off and keep debating ...

Read more!

Where Do All Your Tax Dollars Go?

And who get's the bulk of it? I'll give you a hint ... it's not the Deparment of Eduction.

Triple Pundit brings our attention to a wonderful graphical chart that proportionally illustrates the breakdown of pretty much everything the US government spent money on in 2004.

The chart displays the United States discretionary budget - all the money Congress has control over, so basically all the money taken out of your paycheck for the Federal Income Taxes (Corporate and Excise taxes contribute a small portion as well) - in a series of circles varying in size proportional the the amount of tax revenue spent on them.

A small version of the graphic is below the fold:



Not surprisingly, over half of the tax revenue - some $399 billion of the total $782 billion 2004 discretionary budget - goes to the Department of Defense and various "defense" spending. The remaining half - $383 billion - is divied up amongst social services and public infrastructure expenditures headed by the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Veteran Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Interior and of course Energy and Transportation as well as the Deparments of State and Homeland Security - there are others, but those are the big ones.

This breakdown of spending is much more informative than those typically issued by the government which also include mandatory spending on Social Security, Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid. These 'official' government spending breakdowns are misleading as the mandatory spending items skew the picture and hide what your Federal Income Taxes are really going towards - you pay seperate Social Security and Welfare checks so you know where those taxes are going.

Charts like this one (True Majority offers a similar but simplified animation that gets a similar point across) serve to truly illustrate just where your elected officials are spending your money. Remember, you voted for these guys. Did you really want them to spend over half your money making war machines for "defense" purposes? If not, I suggest you speek up - both at the polls next time around (assuming you have much of a choice between the two candidates) or through communication with your representatives and grass roots action.

If you ask me, this chart is a perfect illustration of a nation with its priorities in entirely the wrong place.

[BTW, U.S. defense funding is more than all our allies and most of our enemies combined. Check out True MajorityM for more...]

Read more!

News From the Other Portland: Maine Enacts Pioneering e-Waste Recycling Law

So this isn't exactly energy news, but its good news nonetheless. Grist reports today that Maine became the first in the nation to require manufacturers to cover the cost of recycling televisions and computer monitors.

Similar to e-waste laws already in force in Japan and some European countries, the Pine State's new rule allows municipalities to bill the expenses of recycling dumped screens to manufacturers. The aim is to make it less costly for these localities to keep televisions and computer monitors -- which can contain about five pounds of lead each, as well as mercury, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals -- out of landfills.

Maine's groundbreaking-for-the-U.S. move is inspiring about 15 other states to consider similar legislation.

So bravo to our fellow progressives over there in that other Portland! You may talk a little funny but we love you anyway.

There's more at the Portland Press Herald.

Read more!

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions up 2% in 2004

Green Car Congress reports that the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that total United States greenhous gas (GHG) emissions are up 2% in 2004, increasing to 7,122.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) from 2003’s 6,983.2 MMTCO2e.

Accoring to the EIA, the large growth in 2004 is the result of a surging U.S. economy, which in turn resulted in more energy use. GCC reports that the economy grew 4.4% in 2004 - the fastest since 1999 - and this in turn increased the carbon dioxide generated from energy use by 1.7%. However, greenhouse emissions grew slower than the economy which indicates that the U.S. greenhouse gas intensity - the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic output - decreased by 2.1% in 2004.

Since 1990 (the benchmark year for the Kyoto Protocol), U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 15.8%, for an average annual increase of 1.1%, according to the EIA.

GCC reports that the 2004 increase in total greenhouse gas emissions is attributable primarily to a 1.7% increase in emissions of carbon dioxide to 5,973.0 million metric tons, along with increases in emissions of nitrous oxide (5.5%) and methane (0.9%). Emissions of engineered gases - hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) - also increased, by 9.6 percent.

[Graphic: GHG Emissions by Sector]

As in other countries seeing increasing GHG emissions, sometimes despite commitments to reduction targets [previous post], transportation is the biggest culprit here. Transportation emissions of CO2 climbed 3.1% from 2003 to 2004, and account for the largest percentage of carbon dioxide emissions (32.4%).

Almost all (98%) of transportation sector carbon dioxide emissions result from the consumption of petroleum products: motor gasoline, 1,162.6 MMT (60% of total); middle distillates (diesel fuel), 428.2 MMT(22%); jet fuel, 237.4 MMT(12%); and residual oil (heavy fuel oil, largely for maritime use), 54.6 MMT (2.8%).

The growth in transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2004 included increases in emissions from the use of motor gasoline (21.2 MMT, up 1.9%), diesel fuel (17.9 MMT, up 5.1%), residual fuel oil (10.0 MMT, up 22.7%), and jet fuel (8.2 MMT, up 3.6%).


These figures indicate that if we truly want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we have to start doing one or both of the following:

(a) reduce the amount of transport fuel consumed, either through more efficient vehicles or through reducing vehicle miles traveled - i.e. simply driving less; or
(b) start using different transportaion fuels, fuels with reduced GHG emissions per vehicle mile traveled (VMT) - options include electric vehicles and plug-ins, cellulosic ethanol or FT fuels from biomass, zinc-air fuel cell vehicles and of course, hydrogen. The source of feedstocks for each of these fuels is crucial and effects the resulting GHG emissions per VMT. (Some, i.e. hydrogen from average U.S. electrical mix via electrolysis could even increase GHG/VMT).

Finally, while U.S. GHG intensity is decreasing, there is still much more we could do in terms of efficiency in the industrial, residential and commercial sectors as well as an accelerated transition towards clean, non-emitting, renewable sources of power including solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and low-impact hydro (and perhaps even nuclear although I'm still not sold there).

Read more!

Flow Batteries For Energy Storage

I've been meaning to write a post on flow batteries for some time now and it seems that James Fraser at the Energy Blog has beat me too it.

Flow batteries are a very promising emerging energy storage option that are fully scalable for both power and energy capacity up into the MW and MWh ranges and have load leveling/peak shaving, uninteruptable power supply and power quality management applications and are well suited for coupling with intermittent renewable energy sources.

Rather than be redundant, I'll simply exerpt the beginnings of his post here and refer you to the full post at the Energy Blog for more:

"Flow batteries are emerging energy storage devices that can serve many purposes in energy delivery systems. They can respond within milliseconds and deliver power for hours. They operate much like a conventional battery, storing and releasing energy through a reversible electrochemical reaction with an almost limitless number of charging and discharging cycles. They differ from a conventional battery in two ways 1) the reaction occurs between two electrolytes, rather than between an electrolyte and an electrode and 2) they store the two electrolytes external to the battery and the electrolytes are circulated through the cell stack as required. The great advantage that this system provides is the almost unlimited electrical storage capacity (MWh), the limitation being only the capacity of the electrolyte storage reservoirs."

Head here for the full article.

[Thanks to James Fraser for an excellent post.
Flow battery graphic from www.axeonpower.com/flow.htm]

Read more!

U.S. Foreign Policy Needs to Get Over Fears of Implausable 'Oil Weapon' Says New Study by Roger J. Stern

PhysOrg carried a story today on a new study by Roger J. Stern titled "Oil market power and United States national security," which appears in the Jan. 16-20 online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Stern's article argues that the the decades-old belief that petroleum-rich Persian Gulf nations must be appeased to keep oil flowing is imaginary, and the threat of deployment of an "oil weapon" - i.e. an OPEC oil embargo - is in fact toothless. His review of economic and historical data also presents the controversial claim that untapped oil supplies are abundant, not scarce.

From PhysOrg:

...

Stern's analysis, titled "Oil market power and United States national security," appears in the Jan. 16-20 online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In the article Stern argues that the longstanding U.S. security concern that our oil supply could be threatened is wrong.

The real security problem, says Stern, comes from market power. Persian Gulf oil producers, he says, collude to command artificially high prices that could never exist in a competitive market. Excessive OPEC profits result, he says. These contribute to instability in the region, terror funding and the likelihood that a Persian Gulf superpower could emerge if one state captured the oil production of its neighbors. Because of these threats, the United States has concluded it must use military force to block state-on-state aggression in the region and to contain terrorism.

"U.S. appeasement of the oil market power not only helps create these problems, it makes them inevitable," said Stern, a doctoral student in the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering. "Why do we follow this schizophrenic policy? We do it because we believe the 'oil weapon' might be used to reduce our supply if we somehow offend the OPEC countries. My research shows the oil weapon is completely implausible." According to the journal article, recent history shows that attempts to use an oil weapon have consistently failed. The idea, Stern says, dates back to the mid-1930s, when the League of Nations considered cutting off oil to Italy as punishment for its aggression in Ethiopia. The league realized the oil weapon couldn't work, however, because non-league nations could continue to supply Italy. Keeping oil out of Italy would have required a blockade, an idea dismissed as impossible to enforce. What was true for Italy then is true for the United States today, Stern says.

By the 1950s, Stern says, the low price of Persian Gulf oil imports jeopardized the profits of smaller U.S. oil producers. To restore shrinking market share, the U.S. oil industry successfully lobbied Congress to limit imports, arguing that reliance on foreign oil would undermine national security. U.S. producers argued that low-priced, abundant imports were dangerous because they might someday be withheld. "The oil weapon of U.S. politics descends from this confection," Stern writes in his article.

In the early 1970s, fear of the oil weapon moved to center stage once again. An influential article in Foreign Affairs predicted fuel shortages and economic disaster if the United States did not honor Middle East oil producers' wish that Israel's borders be redrawn. The United States defied this wish, and in 1973 Persian Gulf states unleashed the oil weapon in response. They vowed to cut supplies to the United States if Israel did not return to its 1967 borders. But because the United States could obtain fuel from elsewhere, Stern argues, and because the Persian Gulf nations were dependent on oil revenue, their "attack" was quickly abandoned. Panic buying kept prices high for a while, but actual supply fell only a small amount. Still, fear of a fuel cut-off remained. "Diplomats misread the market," Stern writes. "The oil weapon is impotent, but belief in it is not."

Stern's hypothesis is that "threats do arise in the oil market, but not from the oil weapon but from the (OPEC) cartel's management of abundance." Stern said his research shows that since 1970 the cost of extracting oil in Saudi Arabia has dropped by more than one-half, a clear sign of abundance. He argues that Persian Gulf oil prices are being kept artificially high in order to generate monopoly profits for these nations.

"Because of oil's enormous returns, Gulf states try to seize control of each others' fields," Stern says. "Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait for this purpose. Our military is there today trying to keep regional peace and prevent a new superpower. Yet this policy allows aggressive oil states like Iran to grow ever-richer and more dangerous from the product they sell to us."

U.S. leaders, Stern says, must stop allowing fear of the oil weapon to dictate foreign policy. Instead, he says, they must find ways to reduce our fuel demand. "It's like we're holding a gun to our own heads: Our belief in the oil weapon constrains our concept of what we can and cannot do in the Middle East and in our own economy," he says. "It also blinds us to the huge opportunity to make ourselves more secure by reducing our oil consumption."

John J. Boland, an expert on utility economics and environmental policy who serves as Stern's faculty advisor, said the journal paper, part of Stern's doctoral thesis, raises important issues. "It's a pretty significant article," he said. "One thing Roger does is attack the perception that petroleum is scarce. That's a very unpopular position, one that is aggressively disputed by our government, even though other analysts have also raised this idea."

Added Boland, who is a professor emeritus in the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering at Johns Hopkins: "This paper presents an unpopular perspective that has profound implications for our nation's energy policy and foreign policy."

If Stern's historical analysis of past OPEC oil embargoes is correct and that panic buying, not real significant reductions in supply was the main result, then he may have something here. However, I would argue that the world is quite a different place now than in, say, 1967.

According to the Transportation Energy Databook (TDB), U.S. oil consumption has nearly doubled between 1965 and 2003 (the latest year of data in the TDB) from 11.51 million barrels per day (mm bbl/d) to 20.04 mm bbl/d. Furthermore, U.S. domestic oil production has fallen from 7.8 mm bbl/d in 1965 to only 5.74 mm bbl/d in 2003. As would befit such a situation, our share of imported oil has also rissen dramatically from 32.2% to 71.4%, more than doubling since 1965.

Additionally, the worldwide demand picture looks completely different now with developing countries like China and India becoming major oil consumers and expanding their consumption rapidly. The TDB reports the developing nations (i.e. now OEDC countries) now account for over 30 mm bbl/d of demand, up from onl 8.33 mm bbl/d in 1965. Such countires now account for 38.7% of worldwide demand making the worldwide oil market an entirely different place than in the 1960s.

My point in all of this is to say that the United States is facing increasing competition for foreign oil supplies while its consumption is rising and its domestic production is falling. It may not be as easy for the United States to secure alternate supplies of oil in the event that OPEC nations would unleash the 'oil weapon' and embargo sales to the U.S.

Stern's point that OPEC countries depend upon oil revenues and would be loath to cut-off their most glutenous consumer is obviously correct, but when there are other consumers out there now that are gulping up oil nearly as fast as the United States, they may be able to find a suitable replacement for their U.S. sales revenue - I'm sure China wouldn't mind taking over our oil contracts in the Middle East.

As for the claim that oil supplies are plentiful, not scarce, I would have to see his reasoning, but that seems hard to believe to me. The Peak Oil debate is hardly uncontroversial, but there seems to be substantial evidence that world oil demand is outsripping additions to supply and this situation shows no real signs of changing.

Ultimately though, I firmly agree with Stern's conclusions that we must reduce our oil consumption. It is clearly in the United States' interests - from an economic, national security and environmental standpoint - to reduce oil consumption. This can be accomplished in a number of ways from hydrogen to synthetic- of bio-fuels to efficient vehicles to a transition to electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Let's start this before we face the threat of another 'oil weapon' or another war in the Middle East to secure our interests there.

Read more!

Automakers Show Their Green Side at the 2006 Detroit Auto Show - This Year it's Hybrids Galore

Green Car Congress and the Toronto Star both present excellent summaries of the 2006 North American International Auto Show held last week in Detroit. I will in turn provide a summary of the event here:

As is befitting for a major auto show coming on the heels of a year many have dubbed 'the year of the hybrid', the Detroit Auto Show saw automakers scrambling to show off their latest innovations in hybrid technology. Noticably absent where the slough of fuel cell concepts that were the stars of previous Detroit Auto Shows and the hybrid car - present in many shapes and sizes - took their place in the spotlight at this years show.

Automakers seem to be dealing with a schizophrenic market, polarized between demand for ever greater power and performance on one end and greener machines with an emphasis on fuel economy on the other. To this end, the Detroit show saw automakers unveil quite a few new beefy luxury sedans and new full-size and cross-over SUVs as well as a variety of new hybrid concepts and production models. As Bob Lutz, GM’s vice chairman of global product development, cracked during the show:

"It’s two markets. The whole country is schizophrenic. At one end of the spectrum, you have people who want ecology. At the other end, they want power. I would call this diversity."

The major automakers seem to see the necessity of pleasing both ends of the market and are unveiling vehicles to fit both philosophies.

Here's a rundown of what the each major company brought to the table this year:

GENERAL MOTORS

"General Motors is on a continuing quest to reinvent the automobile and to remove our vehicles from the environmental debate.

Central to this is GM’s three-prong advanced propulsion technology strategy... which is focused on reducing tailpipe emissions, ultimately to zero…while significantly improving fuel economy.

As part of this strategy in the near term we’re improving the efficiency of both our gas and diesel engines...introducing advanced six-speed transmissions...and aggressively pursuing alternative fuels.

These strides have already helped make GM an industry leader in fuel economy."

—Tom Stephens, VP GM Powertrain

General Motors used the Detroit show to formally introduced the Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid sport-utility which will go on sale this fall. The Vue hybrid utilizes GM's Belt Alternator Starter (BAS) system and features an electric motor/generator mated to a 2.4-liter VVT four-cylinder engine and four-speed transmission powertrain that delivers an estimated 27 mpg city and 32 mpg highway (29 mpg combined)—a 20% improvement in combined fuel economy compared to the conventional VUE with a smaller and less powerful 2.2-liter engine.

The Vue Green Line’s mild-hybrid system provides engine shut-off at idle, fuel cut-off during deceleration, electric motor/generator assist during acceleration and the capability to capture electrical energy through regenerative braking.

GM plans to offer the same system in the Chevrolet Malibu next year.

GM also unvieled the new Chevy Tahoe hybrid. This two-mode hybrid is scheduled for introduction next year as a 2008 model. It's a full hybrid, incorporating two electric motors in the housing of a conventional transmission.

A 25 per cent reduction in fuel consumption is claimed when the system is combined with a V8 engine using GM's Active Fuel Management system.

A GMC Yukon with two-mode hybrid technology also is coming. DaimlerChrysler, with whom GM is co-developing the system, plans to subsequently offer the system in their full-sized Dodge Durango.

Dieter Zetsche confirmed that Mercedes-Benz is working on a diesel-hybrid variation on the theme, and BMW, which has joined the co-development team, is expected to offer a version, according to the Toronto Star.

GM also showed off its new Camaro concept that delivers 400 hp with a 6.0L V8 while getting an estimated 30+ mpg.

Other GM offerings included a new Buick Enclave SUV concept as well as two new full-size Cadillac production models - the2007 EXT sports utility truck and the 2007 ESV SUV.

[Graphic from Green Car Congress]

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

"The innovation you see here today is just a sample of what’s going on throughout Ford Motor Company. We’re pushing Ford Motor Company to be the most innovation automotive company on the planet in design, in technological solutions to environmental challenges, and in safety."

—Bill Ford, Chairman and CEO, For Motor

"Well, small is big these days...I think that same mode of thought is going to be relevant to the auto industry as well."

—J. Mays, Group Vice President of Global Design

Ford's lineup for the Detroit show included one of the most exciting and one of the biggest duds, in my opinion.

On the top of my favorites list for the show is Ford's new diesel-electric hybrid muscle car concept, the Reflex hybrid. The innovative concept features a diesel-electric hybrid system using diesel, electric and solar power. This combination of power can deliver maximum fuel economy – up to 65 mpg in the city, says Ford – without compromising performance.

Reflex stores electric power from regenerative braking and two small roof-mounted solar panels in a new generation lithium-ion battery pack. The front wheels are powered by the diesel-electric hybrid system with the 1.4 liter turbodiesel engine assisted by an electric motor. The rear axle is also powered by an additional electric motor providing this low-slung muscle car with all-wheel-drive capability.

Stylish curves, gull-wing style doors and an interior which incorporates mesh seat covers for maximum airflow and comfort, LED instrument displays, advanced safety features and insulation material made out of ground rubber from scrap athletic shoes, called Nike Grind, rounds out the Reflex's features.

As exciting as the Reflex is, Ford's other 'green' effort, the F250 Super Chief tri-fuel truck went off as a major dud in my book. The F-250 Super Chief uses the same Ford 6.8-liter V-10 Triton engine deployed in the company’s E450 H2ICE trucks modified in this case to run on either gasoline, E85 ethanol blend or hydrogen making it a true 'tri-fuel vehicle'.

Sounds pretty good, but when you look at the mileage this thing delivers, you'll see why I call it a dud. The Super Chief gets only 12 mpg when running on gasoline, a pathetic 8.6 mpg with E85 and 13.6 miles per kilogram on hydrogen. Numbers like that are more fitting for a bus or a delivery truck than a full-sized pickup. Nice try, Ford, but you've still got some work to do on this one...

MAZDA, which Ford owns a controlling interest in (about 34% I've been informed), came to the show with two interesting vehicles.
The first is a hydrogen ICE-electric hybrid concept version of its Mazda5 dubbed the Mazda5 RE Hybrid (the Mazda5 is known outside the U.S. as the Premacy). The concept combines Mazda's dual-fuel, hydrogen/gasoline rotary engine (RE) with an electric motor.

Mazda also showed its 2007 Tribute Hybrid, which shares its architecture and hybrid system with Ford's Escape.

Rounding out Ford's production line-up was the 2007 Edge/ and Lincoln MKX cross-over suvs, the 2007 Sport Trac sport utility truck and a new Shelby GT500 Mustang. Other concept cars featured at the show included the Lincoln MKS luxury sedan and a couple coupes - the Mazda Kaburo and the Volvo C30.

[Graphic from Green Car Congress]

CHRYSLER GROUP

"The all-new 2007 Chrysler Aspen offers customers guilt-free indulgence. Loaded with premium features, stunning Chrysler design, fuel-saving MDS technology, standard safety features and best-in-class horsepower, torque and interior room, Chrysler Aspen offers more for less."

—Jeff Bell, Vice President, Chrysler

I'm not sure what exactly Jeff Bell means by 'guilt-free indulgence' in reference to the Aspen full-size SUV which gets only 17 mpg, but I do know that Chrysler was the only major automaker to show up at the Detroit show without a hybrid.

Chrysler seems to be banking on their clean high-efficiency diesel BLUETEC engines to carry their 'green' market segment demand. Chrysler plans for the BLUETEC to meet the most stringent emissions standards in the world and offer mileages competitive with hybrid vehicles.

Perfectly illustrating the current market polarization, Chrysler's Detroit concept line-up included a Jeep BLUETEC diesel concept SUV alongside two new beefy V8 sedans - the 340 hp Chrysler Imperial and the Dodge Challenger

Chrysler also showcased a new six-seater addition to their growing line of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) offered through their wholly-owned Global Electric Motorcars (GEM) subsidiary.

Their production models showed a similar split with the compact 2007 Dodge Caliber - which features a 1.8L or 2.4L version of Chrysler's WorldEngine with dynamic variable valve timing (dVVT) and a continuously variable transmission (CVT) - alongside several new Dodge and Jeep SUVs.

[Graphic from Green Car Congress]

TOYOTA

"As you know, there are many reasons why consumers are interested in a hybrid, not least of which includes the constantly fluctuating cost of fuel. But it is clear today, that hybrid technology has moved solidly into the mainstream especially among consumers who are environmentally aware, and want to make a difference for future generations.

But there is even more to it than that. What we have found is that owning a hybrid makes owners feel good about themselves. It’s the sheer delight of owning the latest high-tech advancement. It’s the gratification felt with fewer stops at the gas pump…and the lower cost for a fill-up. For Prius owners who are now into their second or third hybrid, it is the astounding re-sale value of their vehicles have maintained, and their industry-leading level of both customer satisfaction…and reliability.

In a phrase, hybrids are quickly establishing themselves as a critical factor in Pride of Ownership."

—Don Esmond, SVP Automotive Operations, Toyota Motor Sales

In a possible attempt to engineer a comeback for the minivan, Toyota brought their F3R minivan hybrid to the Detroit show.
Trying to break the 'minivans are for soccer moms' mold, Toyota's F3R features a fairly boxy exterior that reminds me of the Scion xB (also targeted for the youth market) and an interior featuring three rows of reconfigurable stadium seats and a wrap-around backrest that creates a continuous couch from the dash panel along the passenger’s side of the van and around the back that allow you to turn the inside of the vehicle into a kind of “lounge,” creating a more communal space for occupants to watch movies or play games on the F3R’s two track-mounted flat panel video screens. [Lot's more pictures including a few of the innovative interior at Autoblog]

The F3R also features Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive under the hood.

Toyota official unvieled the 2007 Camry as well, including the much-anticipated Camry hybrid.

Featuring the newest version of the Hybrid Synergy drive, the Camry hybrid pairs a 105-kw electric motor with 199 lb-ft of torque with a lower-power (147 hp/110 kW), lower-torque (187 Nm) 2.4-liter Atkinson-cycle engine coupled to a continuously variable transmission. The result is a combined 192 hp (143 kW) from the hybrid system with 275 Nm of torque and an estimated fuel economy of 43 mpg US city, 37 mpg US highway (40 mpg US combined).

The hybrid Camry features a new ultra-small inverter and a specially designed compact 244.8-volt NiMH battery pack and transaxle.

Toyota expects to have the non-hybrid Camrys in showrooms in March, with the Camry Hybrid to follow several months later.

Not immune to the schizophrenic market, Toyota also showed up with their huge new 2007 FJ Cruiser which they hope will compete with the H3 as well as the 380 hp V8 Lexus 460 luxury sedan.

Graphic from Green Car Congress]

HONDA

"Honda has always led the way in reducing emissions, advancing fuel economy and developing alternative fuel technologies... we have considered it as our responsibility to produce the most environmentally responsible products and technologies possible ... even as we satisfy our customers.

Now ... to further advance environmental conservation, I think the entire auto industry must think of “we”—not just “me.” Each company must take responsibility and action by continuing to improve every product.

Toward this end, I want to challenge the entire industry, including Honda, to further improve fuel efficiency. So, let’s enter a race together. A race for the benefit of all customers and the global environment."

—Takeo Fukui, President and CEO, Honda Motor

Honda didn't make a particularly impressive showing this year but also exhibited the market split in the two vehicles they did bring to the show. Honda showcased their Acura RDX concept SUV which features an innovative 2.3-liter four-cylinder turbocharged engine, Acura's exclusive Super Handling All-Wheel Drive, and is designed to combine sport utility with sports sedan handling and performance as Honda's entry into the premium SUV segment. This near-production prototype provides an advance preview of the all-new RDX that will go on sale this summer.

On the other side of the market split, Honda also showed off its subcompact 2007 Honda Fit due to hit U.S markets this year. The US version of the Fit, already one of Honda’s hottest selling models in Asia and Europe (where it is sold as the Jazz), is fitted with a 4-cylinder 109 hp 1.5-liter VTEC engine coupled with a 5-speed transmission (available as an automatic or manual). Electronic Drive-by-Wire throttle control provides quick throttle response, smooth automatic transmission shifts (on automatic transmission models) and precise fuel delivery to the engine.

The 5-door hatchback delivers estimated fuel economy of 33 mpg US city, 38 mpg US highway (33.8 mpg US combined). Emissions levels are rated as Low Emissions Vehicle 2 (LEV-2) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Tier 2 / Bin 5 by the EPA. Like the U.S. version of the new 2007 Toyota Yaris, the U.S. Fit sadly will not be available with the smaller engines offered in European and Asian models.

Graphic from Green Car Congress]

OTHER AUTOMAKERS

Several other smaller automakers brought interesting new cars to the Detroit auto show as well.

BMW debuted a concept hybrid X3 cross-over SUV that is unique in its use of supercapacitors rather than batteries for energy storage. The X3 concept is another performance hybrid SUV that combines a next-generation direct-injection inline six cylinder engine with an electric motor and supercapacitor energy storage that allows the SUV to accelerate from 0–60 mph in about 6.7 seconds. Fuel consumption compared to a conventional X3 is reduced by approximately 20% to an estimated 25 mpg US from the current 20 mpg US.

Supercapacitors offer much higher power ratios than the nickel-metal hydride or lithium-ion batteries typically used in hybrids and do not store power chemically allowing them to absorb and discharge energy much faster than batteries. A supercapacitor offers specific power density of approximately 15 kW/kilogram, compared to about 1.3 kW/kg in the case of a nickel-metal hydride battery. The disadvantage of supercaps versus the battery is the far lower energy density—but given the burst-mode design of the BMW hybrid, supercaps fit the bill quite nicely.

SUBARU brought to exciting vehicles to the table this year. The first is the new B5-TPH hybrid concept which applies the company’s Turbo Parallel Hybrid (TPH) powertrain system and lithium-ion battery technology in a two-seat grand touring car that offers fuel economy of 40 mpg.

The Subaru TPH powertrain in the B5-TPH concept sandwiches a thin, 10-kW motor generator between a newly-developed 2.0-liter Miller cycle engine and the automatic transmission. The Miller Cycle turbo Boxer engine in the B5-TPH operates up to 30% more efficiently than a conventional gasoline engine and delivers 256 hp, with 343 Nm of torque while achieveing an estimated 40 mpg (combined). Compare this to the Toyota Camry which offers only 192 hp and achieves the same gas mileage and you'll see how exciting this concept is - granted, the 2-seater touring car is likely smaller and lighter than the Camry sedan but the B5-TPH nevertheless delivers excellent performance while simultaneously achieveing excellent gas mileage.

Subaru’s parent company, Fuji Heavy Industries, has been developing the TPH powertrain for future mass production and plans to test-launch TPH-powered Subaru Legacys in the Japanese market next year [let's hope they come to the U.S. soon as well].

The second 'green machine' Subaru showcased at the Detroit show was a test version of its R1e urban electric vehicle equipped with next-generation long-life lithium-ion type batteries from NEC Lamilion Energy. Designed to meet the needs of city mobility, the subcompact Subaru R1e is projected to achieve an 80% recharge in about fifteen minutes. The resulting charge is expected to provide enough power to serve most daily commuting needs in congested urban areas. The current prototype [as of August] can be driven 75 miles (120 km) on a full charge, but the range is expected to be expanded to 124 miles (200 km).

NISSAN used the Detroit show to unveil two new additions to its growing line of cars featuring continuously variable transmissions or CVT - the compact 2007 Sentra and the 2007 Versa sedan. [Nissan already offers their 2006 Murano cross-over SUV with their Xtronic CVT transmission].

The Sentra sedan features a 2.0L, 135hp four cylinder engine which when coupled with the CVT option now added to the choice of available transmission will deliver 32 mpg (combined) [a number of pics of the 2007 Sentra can be found here].

The Versa is new to the Nissan product line and is positioned below the Sentra as its new entry level vehicle and will price it starting at around $12,000 and maxing out around $15,000 while Sentra is pushed up half a knotch and gets a bit more size and content while remaining under $20,000. The Versa is available as a sedan and a hatchback and features a 1.8L four cylinder engine delivering 120 hp. The Versa will be avialable in three transmissions: a standard 6-speed manual, an available 4-speed electronically controlled automatic with overdrive and a version of Nissan’s Xtronic CVT which will offer the best fuel economy at an estimated 38 mpg combined city/highway.

Speaking on their expanded use of CVT at Detroit, Carlos Ghosn, President and CEO Nissan said:

"Nissan remains the industry leader in CVTs, in experience, in units in operation, and in applications, with three separate CVT designs in production.

CVTs give customers smooth, responsive performance and a cost-effective way to improve fuel economy. For every one million CVTs in operation, we will deliver environmental benefits equal to 200,000 hybrids."

Last but certainly not least, MITSUBISHI MOTORS brought perhaps the most exciting vehicle to the Detroit Auto Show, the Mitsubishi Concept CT series-parallel hybrid. The Concept-CT MIEV is a stylish five-door, four-passenger series-parallel hybrid that uses a compact gasoline generator and a bank of high energy-density lithium-ion batteries to power the in-wheel motors and drive each of its four wheels.

The 1.0-litre, three-cylinder gasoline engine is located behind the rear-seat passengers and ahead of the rear-axle line, with 20 kW (26.8 hp) electric motors in each of the four wheels yielding a combined output of 134 hp [the four in-wheel motors provide a total of 80 kW or 107 hp indicating that the gasoline engine does indeed provide some additional tractive power - about 27 hp - as well as generate electricity to charge the batteries, making the Concept-CT a true series-parallel hybrid -although more on the series side of things than, say, Toyota's Synergy Drive].

The Mitsubishi In-wheel Electric Vehicle (MIEV) hybrid powertrain is currently being tested in Japan in a 4WD Lancer Evolution prototype and was previously tested in a prototype based on the front-wheel drive Colt. Mitsu's goal is to bring an MIEV model, built around the core technologies of in-wheel motors and high-density lithium-ion batteries, to market by 2010 (perhaps as early as 2008).



More exciting still are rumors (supported by a comment from Mitsu VP for Marketing, Wayne Killan, quoted in the Chicago Tribune) that Mistubishi is working on a plug-in hybrid MIEV. The Tribune quoted Killan as saying, "We would expect the car to be used in electric-only mode only in cities, where you could have access to a quick charge," seemingly referring to plug-in capabilities. He also mentioned that the vehicle could be recharged in a scant 10 minutes suggesting the use of a quick-charge battery like those being developed by Toshiba, A123, NEC and others and featured in Subaru's R1e electric vehicle (see above).

CONCLUSION

Well that rounds out the list. All in all, the 2006 Detroit Auto Show had quite a few exciting new vehicles to offer (amongst a few duds and a bit more of the same old new full-size SUV crud). One thing seems to be certain: the auto industry is evolving at a pretty quick pace right now.

It also seems clear that the immediate focus for 'green' vehicle development has shifted from fuel cells to hybrids. I hope that this does not uneccessarily delay continued research on hydrogen vehicles and other alternatives for the long run but I'm glad to see more work being done on hybrids - hopefully with the eventual goal of plug-in hybrids on the market in a couple years.

It's also good to see a bit of work on electrics as well - notably not from the major manufacturers but from the smaller Mitsubishi and Subaru.

The trend with both hybrids and electrics seems to be moving towards incorporating lithium-ion batteries into production models soon which is good move in my opinion. Greater battery life and energy and power density than nickel-metal hydride batteries makes lithium-ion batteries much better suited to vehicle applications.

Now if I can just get my hands on a Reflex to tool around town in...

Read more!

China Now World's Second Largest Auto Market

In another indicator of China's rapid economic growth, the People's Daily reports that China has now surpassed Japan to become the second largest automotive market in the world. According to statistics issued by the China Automotive Industry Association (CAIA), China's auto sales were close to 5.92 million units in 2005, surpassing Japan's sales of 5.8 million to rank second in the world behind the United States.

The People's Daily reports that China's auto market continued to maintain a stable and fast growth last year, with total domestically-produced auto sales growing 13.54 per cent over 2004. Nearly all of the over 5.9 million units sold in 2005 were produced in China with auto imports only totalling 160,000.

According to the China View, the top three auto companies in China are all domestic companies with First Automotive Works (FAW), Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation and Dongfeng Motor Corporation taking the top three market share positions with 983,100, 917,500 and 729,000 cars sold in 2005 respectively.

Green Car Congress reports that sales of vehicles in China from GM and its joint ventures jumped 35% in 2005 to 665,390 units. GM ended the year with an estimated Chinese market share of 11.2%.

According to the People's Daily, the passenger vehicle segment is driving overall industry growth with over 3.97 million passenger vehicles sold in 2005, a surge of 21.4 per cent over the previous year.

Despite the massive growth in the passanger vehicle segment, the People's Daily reports that slight negative growth for commercial vehicles appeared, likely influenced by the business cycle, oil price hikes and policy factors. China's auto market is now driven solely by passenger cars, instead of the previous "duoservo forces" of passenger and commercial vehicles. Statistics show commercial vehicle sales were 1.787 million units in 2005, down 0.75 per cent from 2004.

The Chinese auto industry has seen abosultely staggering growth in the past few years. The current sales figure of 5.92 million units in 2005 is more than double the 2001 sales total of 2.731 million units! Now clearly an integral part of the worldwide auto market, China's auto market growth accounted for 23.2 per cent of the total global growth, according to the People's Daily.

The People's Daily reports that the CAIA expects that the Chinese auto market to maintain a 10 to 15 per cent growth in 2006 with the year's auto sales reaching between 6.4 and 6.6 million units.


It seems to me that considering figures like this, it will only be a matter of time before Chinese-branded cars start appearing on U.S. streets.

The massive surge in passenger vehicles (and total vehicles) in China is becoming a major contributor to the country's growing greenhouse gas emissions. It also belies a rapid increase in petroleum consumption that ought to give the U.S. pause to reconsider their oil addiction. With another major economic power with a rapidly increasing thirst for oil on the scene, it seems clear that we ought to be securing domestic energy supplies (most preferably clean, renewable supplies of energy) and making a push to more efficienctly utilize that energy. If we don't, we will likely be looking at increasing competition for dwindling worldwide supplies of oil which will mean higher and higher prices and likely increased risk of geopolitical conflict.

On a slightly better note, at least China has adopted European standards for auto emissions, not the lax standards the U.S. has. If they had adopted our standards, things would be quite a bit worse - for China, the U.S., and the world.

[A hat tip to Green Car Congress]

Read more!

Bad News for the Buck - China Signals Plans to Move Away From the Dollar

While this isn't exactly energy news, it is closely tied to U.S. (and Chinese) energy policy and could have widespread ramifications:

The Washington Post reports this week that China, who's central bank currently holds around a half a trillion dollars invested in US Treasury bills and other dollar-based assets, is resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange reserves - now in excess of $800 billion - away from the U.S. dollar and into other world currencies in a move likely to push down the value of the greenback, according to a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic policymakers interviewed by the Post.

The Post article goes on to say:

As China's manufacturing industries flood the world with cheap goods, the Chinese central bank has invested roughly three-fourths of its growing foreign currency reserves in U.S. Treasury bills and other dollar-denominated assets. The new policy reflects China's fears that too much of its savings is tied up in the dollar, a currency widely expected to drop in value as the U.S. trade and fiscal deficits climb.

China now boasts the world's second-largest cache of foreign exchange -- behind only Japan -- and is on pace to see its reserves climb past $1 trillion later this year. Even a slight diminishing of the dollar as a percentage of those holdings could exert significant pressure on the U.S. currency, many economists assert.

In recent years, the value of the dollar has been buoyed by major purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by Japan, China and oil-exporting countries -- a flow of capital that has kept interests rates relatively low in the United States and allowed Americans to keep spending even as debts mount. Some economists have long warned that if foreigners lose their appetite for American debt, the dollar would fall, interest rates would rise and the housing boom could burst, sending real estate prices lower.

The comments of the Chinese senior economist, made on the condition of anonymity because the government disciplines those who speak to the press without express authorization, confirmed an analysis in Monday's Shanghai Securities News stating that China is inclined to shift some its savings into other currencies such as the euro and the yen, or into major purchases of commodities such as oil for a long-discussed strategic energy reserve.

In a report circulated this week, Stephen Green, senior economist with the bank Standard Chartered PLC in Shanghai, identified several signals that China is intent on limiting its exposure to the dollar -- not least, a recent pledge from the State Administration of Foreign Exchange to "actively explore more efficient use of our foreign exchange reserves."

"We believe this adds to the downside pressure the USD [U.S. dollar] is currently facing," Green wrote. "It is the first official expression from SAFE that they are looking at switching away" from the dollar.

The comments on SAFE's Web site reinforced earlier public warnings from Yu Yongding, an economist on the monetary policy committee of China's central bank, that the country's reserves are now vulnerable to a drop in the value of the dollar.

"The general trend for the U.S. dollar is continuously weakening," Yu said, speaking to reporters at a conference in Beijing last month. "Countries with huge foreign-exchange reserves will have their assets shrunken."

This news could be the first step in the beginning of a major collapse for the dollar often warned of by economists. America's current level of debt spending cannot continue indefinitely and is dependent upon other nations' willingness to float our debts. Such a scenario also leaves the United States' currency highly subject to the decisions of foreign governments.

If a major debt-holding nation percieves the dollar to be weakening, they may call in their marker and begin to shift their assets away from dollar-based assets. This would further depress the value of the dollar and give cause for more countries to drop their greenbacks as well in order to cut their losses. A world-wide panic could result with countries rushing to dump their dollars and the once stable value of U.S. currency collapsing. It could be Black Tuesday all over again but this time on a worldwide scale, the beginning of the end for the United States' economic dominance.

That's the doomsday scenario of course. However, the Post goes on to caution:

Not all economists anticipate negative repercussions for the U.S. economy. Were China and Japan to engineer a significant fall in the dollar, those nations also would suffer the consequences -- sharply diminished exports as Americans lose spending power, plus a drop in the value of their dollar assets.

"It is thus extremely unlikely that China would do anything to harm its own balance sheet," wrote Stephen Jen, an economist with Morgan Stanley, in a research note distributed Monday.

It seems that the United States has borrowed money from so many countries that is has gauranteed itself a bit of safety ... or at least lets hope so.

I hope that China's move away from the dollar will at least serve as a warning for our nation's economic leaders that we cannot continue to increase the national debt and trade defecit indefinitely and that sooner or later, other countries are going to cash their chips and leave us in the lurch ... that is, unless we start to do something about it. A proactive policy to reign in our trade deficit and national debt would seem to be the wisest move to guarantee a stable U.S. economy.

And here's where the energy policy comes in (I told you this had to do with energy somehow): a large portion of our trade deficit is the result of the billions of dollars we spend each year to import oil from overseas to plug the gap between our rising thirst for oil and our decreasing national production. The Bush energy plan calls for the construction of hundreds of new natural gas-fired power plants (in addition to the coal and nuclear plants slated for construction) whose fuel will have to come from a massive increase in liquified natural gas imports, further adding to the trade deficit (incidentally, the bulk of world gas reserves lie beneath Iran, Qatar and Russia, not exactly the most stable nations in the world).

Such an energy policy heavily dependent on foreign sources of oil and natural gas leaves us prone to relying on military actions to defend our energy interests overseas as well. Estimates of military expenditures to defend U.S. oil interests in the Middle East range from $6 to $60 billion per year with a recent study by the National Defense Council Foundation putting the price tag at $49 billion per year for the defense of Middle Eastern Oil [see the Transportation Energy Data Book, pg 1-11]. This estimate does not include the costs of the latest Iraq War and occupation.

Furthermore, our dependence on foreign oil leaves our country's economy at the mercy of foreign oil-producing nations. A study by the Oak Ridge National Labs reports that the oil market upheavals caused by the OPEC cartel over the past three decades have cost the United States in the vicinity of $7 trillion (adjusted to 1998 dollars) in total economic costs! That happens to be roughly equal to the sum total of payments to the national debt over that time period.

A sensible energy policy that set this nation on its path towards energy independence and sustainability would thus go a long way towards bringing down the trade deficit and national debt, ensuring the stability of our economy as well as our energy supply.

It's time for our leaders in Washington to set this country in the right direction in terms of energy policy. I'd suggest reading this for starters...

[A hat tip to Past Peak for bringing this alarming news to my attention]

Read more!

Plants - The Forgotten Methane Source

PhysOrg reports today that researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics have made a surprising discovery: plants naturally release methane, a greenhouse gas. This discovery goes against all previous assumptions and adds a new wrinkly to our understanding of how gases which influence the climate are exchanged between the biosphere and atmosphere.

Equally surprising was the finding that the methane formation is not hindered by the presence of oxygen. This discovery is important not just for plant researchers but also for understanding the connection between global warming and increased greenhouse gas production.

Methane is the greenhouse gas which has the second greatest total effect on climate, after carbon dioxide (CO2), and has aproximately 20 times the heat absorbing climate change potential per molecule than CO2. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled in the last 150 years. As the article points out, only part of the methane uptake in the atmosphere is due to industrial activities connected to energy production and use. More important for the increase of methane in the atmosphere is the increase in so-called "biogenic" sources, e.g., rice cultivation or domestic ruminants related to the rise in the world's population. In fact, nowadays the methane in the atmosphere is largely of biogenic origin.

Until now, it has been assumed that biogenic methane is formed during the anaerobic decomposition of organic material in the absence of oxygen which occurs in land fills, sewage treatment plants, wetlands, in rice patties and in the digestive tracts of animals (i.e. cow farts!). According to previous estimates, these sources make up two-thirds of the 600 million tonnes worldwide annual methane production, as the article reports.

The article reports that scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics have now discovered that plants themselves produce methane and emit it into the atmosphere, even in completely normal, oxygen-rich surroundings. The researchers made the surprising discovery during an investigation of which gases are emitted by dead and fresh leaves. Then, in the laboratory and in the wild, the scientists looked at the release of gases from living plants like maize and ryegrass. In this investigation, it turned out that living plants let out some 10 to 1000 times more methane than dead plant material undergoing aerobic (oxygen-exposed) decomposition. According to the article, the researchers were then able to show that the rate of methane production grew drastically when the plants were exposed to the sun.

Although the scientists have some first indications, PhysOrg reports that it is still unclear what processes are responsible for the formation of methane in plants. The researchers from Heidelberg assume that there is an unknown, hidden reaction mechanism, which current knowledge about plants cannot explain - in other words, a new area of research for biochemistry and plant physiology (obviously this is a discovery with exciting implications for the field of botany and plant physiology).

In terms of total amount of production worldwide, PhysOrg reports that the scientists' first guesses are between 60 and 240 million tonnes of methane per year. That equates to about 10 to 30 percent of present annual methane production. The largest portion of that - about two-thirds - originates from tropical areas, according to the report, because that is where the most biomass is located. The evidence of direct methane emissions from plants also explains the unexpectedly high methane concentrations over tropical forests, measured only recently via satellite by a research group from the University of Heidelberg.

The article also questions why such a seemingly obvious discovery would only come about now, 20 years after hundreds of scientists around the globe started investigating the global methane cycle? "Methane could not really be created that way," responds Dr. Frank Keppler. "Until now all the textbooks have said that biogenic methane can only be produced in the absence of oxygen. For that simple reason, nobody looked closely at this."

The fact is that, in order to determine the quantity of emissions, scientists indeed have to make very careful measurements, as the article discusses. The researchers from Heidelberg conducted most of their experiments in methane-free air, in order to factor out the high natural background of methane. Furthermore they used isotope analysis to show beyond doubt that this was an undiscovered process of methane production. By "looking closely" - despite established opinion - they made a discovery that will require textbooks to have their passages about methane production rewritten.

The article concludes by mentioning the the continued laboratory work and field and remote sensing studies that will be required to better quantify the strength of these methane emissions. The findings also raise the exciting question as to what role the biosphere has played in methane production throughout the earth's history, as well as what kind of influence rising global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentration have on the production of methane from plants. The answers to these questions obviously have important implications for our understanding of the feedback mechanisms between climate change and greenhouse gas production.

[An obvious hat tip to PhysOrg]

Read more!

Why Ski Resorts Should Install Wind Turbines

Imagine if you had a piece of property that sat in a very high wind area with average wind speeds of 15 miles per hour (at 10 meters) or better blowing every day. Now also imagine that you ran a business on that property that consumer quite a bit of energy and had a not very green reputation to boot. Let's also add that there are significant financial incentives available in your state for renewable energy installations that could help finance over half the cost. Now why wouldn't you want to install a few wind turbines?

Well that's exactly the question that owners and operators of ski resorts around the country ought to be asking themselves.

If you've ever looked closely at a wind resource map (and who would do that, really?! well ... me, sadly), you might have noticed that it looks an awful lot like a topgraphic map, with colorations for high wind areas defining recognizable ridgelines and mountain peaks. Usually, those peaks are very inaccessable and lack any power distribution infrastructure, much less demand center. Additionally, concerns about deforestation and environmental impact might discourage installation of wind turbines.

Well that's not the case for the mountain peaks in and around ski resorts which already have power infrastructure, a high demand and don't have to worry much about environmental footprint (the ski resort's footprint has already done the damage).

On a recent trip to Mt Bachelor, Oregon's finest ski and snowboard resort, I was sitting on a chair lift hunkering down to ward off the chilly wind when I was struck by the idea that there ought to be 10 kW wind turbines at the tops of each lift. This inspired me to run the numbers on such an idea upon returning home. Here's what I came up with:

A Bergey 10 kW Excel-S wind turbine (including inverter and energy management) costs $22,770 at the Alternative Energy Store. The 100 foot tower will set you back another $8,464 and let's assume installation costs about $5,000 per turbine (can anyone out there corroborate this estimate?). That gives you a total cost of just over $36k per turbine (installed - $36,234 to be exact).

Estimating how much power a turbine will produce in a given year is a tough game but Bergey provides a chart with estimates for given wind speeds on their brochure for the Excel turbines. The chart unfortunately only goes up to 14 mph and the average wind speeds (at 10m) at a ski resort would likely be more like 15 mph or better (i.e. a 'class 6' or 'outstanding' wind site). The chart says each turbine would yield 2,130 kWh per month if mounted on a 100' tower so lets bump that up to 2,400 to represent the higher average wind speed. That yields 28,800 kWh per year per turbine.


That's actually relatively close to EERE's U.S. Consumer's Guide to Small Wind Electric Systems which gives the following formula to estimate annual production: Annual Expected Output = 0.01328*(Diameter of Blades in ft)^2*(Wind Speed at Hub Height in mph)^3. The Excel has a diamater of 22 ft and the wind speed at 100' (about 30m) in a class 6 site is about 17 mph so the formula gives us 0.01328*22^2*17^3 = 31,578 kWh per year, not to far off from our estimate of 28,800 kWh.

Let's go with the smaller of the two to err on the conservative side. However, there's a few site-specific adjustments to make. Bergey's estimates are for 1,000 ft elevation and at the kinds of elevations you'd see at ski resorts (lets say about 7,000 ft), the air density is only about 80%. However, the wind is likely more reliable on the side of mountain peak than at a normal site so lets give our figure a 10% increase to represent the higher expected capacity factor (that's probably quite conservative). Our total estimate is then 28,800*.80*1.1 = 25,344 kWh per turbine per year.

To go with the example of Mt. Bachelor Ski Resort, let's assume they install 8 of these turbines at the tops of each of their 8 express lifts. That will set them back $289,872.00 for install costs. Maintanence has been estimated to generally cost about 1 cent per kWh produced but do to more extreme weather conditions at our site, let's assume that cost goes up by a third to 1.3 cents per kWh. Property costs are nill because the ski resort already owns the land.

Let's also assume a slightly shorter lifespan than normal - 25 years (rather than the 30+ normally expected) - do to the site's weather conditions. In that lifespan then, the 8 turbines will produce (25,344 kWh * 8 =) 202,752 kWh per year and thus (202,752*25 years =) 5,068,800 kWh total.

That will set them back $65,894.00 in maintanence costs over the lifetime of the turbines. It will also produce significant revenue:

Each kWh of power they produce on site is one kWh less of retail rated power they don't have to buy. In Oregon, that's about 7 cents a kWh (its higher elsewhere which would make significant difference in the packback scenario here). They would also be eligable for the 1.9 cents per kWh Federal Production Tax Credit for the first 10 years of the project and could likely negotiate to sell the Green Tags that go with the power produced by the project for, let's say, 5 cents per kWh for the first 5 years. Averaged over the life of the project, that's 1.76 cents per kWh in production incentives plus 7 cents in avoided retail costs for a total of 8.76 cents per kWh of revenue or just over $444,000.

Remember, this cost the folks at Mt. Bachelor $289,872.00 in install costs and $65,894.00 in maintanence for a total cost of $355,766.00. The net profit is thus over $88k or a net return on investment of 24.81%. That's not bad for a 25 year investment and clearly profitable in the long run. But 25 years is a pretty long payback period for some businesses to stomach. Luckily for them, there are also considerable incentives avialable for them to take advantage of.

In Oregon, for example, an Oregon Office of Energy Public Benefits Fund provides grants equal to 19% of project costs, a Bonneville Environmental Fund grant is available to cover another 33% of the costs and a state Business Energy Tax Credit covers 35% of (probably the remaining) costs. A federal grant is available as well that can cover up to 25% of the costs but I'm going to assume it doesn't stack with the state grants (not necessarily true, but I'm erring on the safe side). Low interest guaranteed loans are available too and no need to worry about paying higher property taxes do to the wind installation either - there's a property tax exemption for renewable energy (and energy efficiency) installations in Oregon. Not all states offer as many incentives as Oregon, but many do - see the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) for a full state-by-state list of all available incentives.

All in all, with the Public Benefits Fund grant, the BEF grant and the state business tax exemption, the costs of our Mt. Bachelor example could be defrayed by almost $200,000 ($199,431.94 to be exact) or over half of the total system costs (including maintanence)!

When you add the incentives to the picture, the investment suddenly becomes very lucrative - you're total profit becomes $303,692.00 off of an out of pocket investment of only $156,334.00 for a net return on investment of 194.26%! That's a pretty staggering return on investment and I don't see why any sane business person wouldn't jump at that chance. The payback period for this investment is only 7.9 years.

Plus, the 'green-washing' PR benefits for ski resorts of installing wind turbines would add another large but incalculable benefit for the company. Ski resorts don't exactly have the best 'green' reputation and have done a lot in recent years to try to clean up that image (a large banner hangs over the stairway to the dining room at the local Willamette Pass ski area that reads; "Sustainable Slopes Initiative", and highlights their recycling program or some such, for example) and installing wind turbines fits right into this picture.

In fact, Jiminy Peak Ski Resort in Massachusettes seems to have recently gotten the same idea. They're taking it one step farther and actually installing a 320 ft tall 1 MW turbine at their ski area, according to a Renewable Energy Access post back in November.

Wind power scales up nicely and their larger scale investment has an even better payoff. The REA post says the turbine will set the ski resort back $2 million, forcing them to take out a $1.5 million loan. However, the turbine is expected to produce 2.5 million kilowatt hours per year, or almost a third of their power.

At that rate, Jiminy execs expect the turbine to pay off the loans and initial investment in 7 years, providing nothing but profit for the remainder of its 30 or so years after that.

At the Oregon-style power rates we talked about above (i.e. 8.76 cents per kWh including green tags and the PTC), 2.5 million kWh per year for 30 years would yield total revenue of $6.57 million on an investment of $2 million for a total return on investment of $4.57 million or 228.5%! Even better than the small scale wind scheme outlined above.

In summary, with avialable incentives and consistently high wind speeds, ski resorts have every reason to invest in installing wind power on their property. The investment could yield a return of 200% or more over 25-30 years, a very strong long-term investment opportunity. I hope to see more ski resort operators getting with the picture and joining Jiminy in installing small or large-scale wind turbines soon.

Read more!

Scotland University Installs Solar Powered LED Lamposts With Wi-Fi

The BCC reports that the University of Abertay in Dundee, Scotland will install six new lamposts that use light-emitting diode (LED) technology to provide bright light using low power derived from built-in solar cells. The lamposts will also incorporate wireless internet routers to provide public wi-fi access and will be installed on the roof of a university building. The university also has plans to install up to 4,000 more in a student village to be built soon, according to the article.

The lamps are produced by the Singapore-based company, StarSight and are reffered to as the 'StarLight Lighting System.'

They are distributed in Scotland by Kirkxaldy-based Compliance Technology (CTL) who have exlusive European distribution rights for the lighting system.

Calum McRae, of CTL, said:

"With only a fraction of the installation and running costs of conventional street lights, [cities] could use smart lampposts to provide street light while selling internet access to local residents, or even providing it free in areas of need. The new photovoltaic technology which will be showcased in Dundee will mean that no local community needs to be without reliable, economic street lighting, with the added benefit of wi-fi technology outside their front doors.

Mary Cowie, director of the University of Abertay Centre for the Environment (ACE), said, "The pilot scheme will involve not only ACE but students from the University of Abertay who will be able to play a hands-on role in shaping the technology of tomorrow."

The centre will be involved in testing the technology and assessing its social, environmental and economic impact, according to the article.

Green MSP Robin Harper had these words to say about the project: "This is a truly exciting and innovative project with huge possibilities in sustainability terms, and in reducing environmental impact."

According to the BBC article, CTL said three other city councils in Scotland had already expressed interest in installing the lamps: Orkney, Perth and Kinross, and Dumfries and Galloway.

This is an excellent idea combining three of my favorite technologies that I hope will soon become ubiquitious: LEDs, Wi-Fi, and solar power.

If these lamps truly cost "only a fraction of the installation and running costs of conventional street lights" then I hope to see these popping up all over the world. If that were the case, there would be no reason not to install these lamps when old street lamps expire or when new developments are built. Of course, it could all be marketing hype but time - and this demo project - will tell.

I also know that a number of cities, including Portland, Oregon, are working on plans to install a city-wide Wi-Fi grid for residents and these street lamps could be a perfect component for such a system.

It seems like there is a considerable market for these devices. I wonder if they are being distributed in the U.S. ... If I had a pile of money lying around, I'd consider negotiating exclusive rights to distribute this system in North America if noone has done so already...

[A hat tip to Treehugger]

Read more!

Wind Power 2005 in Review, Outlook for 2006 and Beyond

I thought this was an excellent summary of the current state of the wind power industry (with a North American focus) from the folks at Renewable Energy Access:

Wind Power 2005 in Review, Outlook for 2006 and Beyond

By Godfrey Chua, Research Director, Emerging Energy Research

The North American wind power market is at last entering a period of sustained growth. Both the US and Canada achieved record installations of wind power projects in 2005, and both are poised for steady growth moving forward. And coupled with this growth a new competitive element has emerged that will further define the North American market in the years to come: turbine supply leverage.

According to a just-released study by Emerging Energy Research entitled US/Canada Wind Power Markets and Strategies 2005-2010, the record year for US wind power installations in 2005 is a direct result of the extension of the production tax credit (PTC), first at the end of 2004 and further extended to 2007 through the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This three-year horizon will break the boom and bust cycle that has plagued the US wind industry. And the passage of new state level portfolio standards, as well as amendments to existing standards, are also enhancing the long-term prospects of the US market.

In Canada, there is increasing dynamism in the wind power market as a result of recent federal and provincial efforts to promote it. Between 2004 and 2006, provincial governments and utilities will have issued RFPs for 6,000 MW of renewable energy; results so far show that the lion's share will be awarded to wind projects. The national government also extended the wind power production incentive program to April 2010. As a result, like the US, the Canadian wind power market will see steady growth ahead.

Boosted by renewable RFP activity, utilities expand activities in wind power

Driven by a variety of factors, including generation mix, RPS, green marketing, and least cost resource considerations, utilities in the US and Canada are procuring more wind power than ever. This trend is highlighted by a proliferation of renewable RFP activity and a growing roster of utilities becoming active in wind power.

While RPS programs have become a key driver, more than half of ongoing activity derives from efforts not directly related to an RPS mandate. EER's new study identifies wind project pipelines of at least 13,000 MW in the US have been identified across the country. While the most activity has traditionally been centered in the western US, the Northeast has shown a dramatic increase over the last year. Texas, having doubled its RPS, will overtake California in 2006. The fastest growth rates are expected occur in new states implementing RPS, such as New York and Colorado, as well as those learning to exploit tremendous untapped wind resources, such as the Dakotas, Illinois, and other Midwest and Pacific Northwest states.

The increased development activity and interest in the Canadian wind power market is the result of growing demand from power purchasers and a clear signal of their commitment to the technology. While the Canadian market remains small with only a handful of experienced wind IPPs, a slew of new entrants backed by major energy companies have entered the market and are poised to capitalize upon the market growth. The provincial initiatives have resulted in an RFP pipeline that is nearly 6,000 MW, with activity centered in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and New Brunswick. Hydro-Quebec alone has issued RFPs for 3,000 MW of wind energy, providing a key anchor for the market in the years to come.

Wind IPPs and developers enter a new level of competition in US and Canada

Wind IPP and developer competition in both the US and Canada entered new dimensions in 2005. The industry has scaled and consolidated, and companies have shifted along the value chain throughout 2005. The result is a level of competition and market activity that the industry has never seen before.

Amidst these dynamics, another competitive element has emerged that will further define the North American market in the years to come: turbine supply leverage. With past boom and bust cycles in the US-caused by the PTC-discouraging investments in local manufacturing, industry scaling has had the inevitable side effect of creating a turbine supply shortage. According to EER's study, this shortage has constrained wind IPPs and developers in their ability to realize their projects and, ultimately, to create value. Some wind IPPs have discovered that, by taking the financial risk and locking in turbine supply early, even before projects in their own pipelines may be ready, they can achieve growth and build market share by using these turbines as leverage into late stage projects from other developers.

The bottom line is that scale continues to drive competitive advantage. Attributes such as a good track record, capability to deliver large-scale projects, and market reach that is able to span multiple markets, are now par for the course. Building an edge in the competition for power purchase agreements entails taking these attributes to an even higher level and, at least for the near-term supply and demand scenario, simply having the wind turbines with which to build wind plants.

Unlike the US market, which was launched by pioneering developers and independent companies, the Canadian market is already comprised of companies backed by large energy firms and industrial concerns that bring with them financial resources and commercial credibility. SaskPower and other leaders such as Vision Quest and Axor have significant operations behind them. In addition, heavy hitters invested in emerging wind IPPs-TransCanada with Cartier Wind Energy Group, and Brascan Power, which purchased Superior Wind Power in 2005-also point to the role major energy companies will continue to have in the growth of the industry, and the challenge and increased competition ahead for the existing market leaders. The nascent market does include one notable foreign entrant in Spanish wind IPP Acciona/EHN.

Wind turbine shortages shift emphasis towards manufacturing capacity

The North American wind turbine market saw record growth in 2005; installations surpassed record levels seen in 2001 and 2003, with the majority of them onshore. From an industry that finally broke US$3 billion in 2005, the market is expected to more than double to just under US$7.5 billion in 2010. These figures, detailed in the EER study, factor significant price increases implemented for projects in 2006 and beyond, but also take into consideration greater vendor competition that will arise as local manufacturing capacity and new turbine models are introduced in the coming years. Improved competition will, however, not be sufficient to reduce prices to the extent they have risen for 2006.

Simply put, market share in 2005 was determined more by manufacturing capacity than by competitive strategies or items such as cost and product positions. All wind turbine vendors active in North America in 2005 sold-out of available capacity and therefore market share has been determined by how many turbines could be manufactured and delivered. The demand was even stronger than anticipated, and as a consequence, a turbine shortage transpired and availability became an important criterion for selection.

To this end, the North American wind turbine market is dominated by GE Energy. In the US, the firm enjoyed annual market shares ranging from 45% to as much as 60% in 2005. Behind GE is Vestas, having consolidated its position with the acquisition of NEG Micon, which leads in Canada, installing all the turbines in that market in 2005.

Supply chain is a constraint to turbine supply

Today's turbine constrained market makes control of the supply chain especially critical. Wind turbine vendors have attributed the lack of turbines to certain pinch points in the supply chain, such as gearboxes, castings, and blades. Ownership of or at least close ties with key suppliers in these areas is therefore important for ensuring a wind turbine vendor is able maximize production and thereby their sales potential and market share.

Component suppliers, for their part, have been reluctant to establish new manufacturing facilities due to the boom and bust cycle in the US. However, high demand for turbines has encouraged suppliers such as Winergy, Hansen, and LM Glasfiber to increase capacity through other means. For the most part, capacity has been increased as a result of planning foresight during the design of their manufacturing facilities.

In the wind turbine market, the door is wide open for those with the risk appetite, and Gamesa, Suzlon, and Clipper are stepping through. All three are building manufacturing facilities in the US, and in so doing bring substantial local manufacturing capacity online to compete with dominant GE Energy. The risk taking is paying off. EER research shows that demand for Gamesa's machines has been so strong the vendor has indicated it may still have to rely on capacity from Spain to maximize order volume. Suzlon is sold-out through 2007. Clipper, for its part, has had a successful initial public offering and many are watching the company and its technology closely. Siemens, as predicted, re-entered the market by capturing FPL's business, and is the next most likely candidate to set up manufacturing facilities in the region.

North American wind energy market outlook to 2010

The record year in 2005 could not have arrived soon enough, as 2004 was a brutal year for wind power in North America. However, as soon as better days arrived, a turbine supply shortage limited growth and inevitably brought higher prices. And more challenges lie ahead. The US will face a significant risk of a slowdown in 2008, as the current PTC is effective only until the end of 2007. In Canada, environmental permitting, unviable projects, and lack of turbines are three primary variables that may lead to lower growth.

Still, wind energy has reached an entirely new level in North America. Wind IPPs are stronger than ever and additional manufacturing capacity is on the way. The business environment is favorable-record natural gas prices, RPS in US states proliferating and RFPs building momentum in Canadian provinces, and an extended PTC in the US and WPPI in Canada-combine to shore up prospects. Looking forward, US and Canadian wind power markets are expected to see stable growth and heightened overall activity.

North American wind power is expected to see a more than fourfold increase in wind power plants in operation by 2010. The US is expected to grow from just over 6,700 MW to over 28,000 MW by 2010. Starting from a lower base of nearly 450 MW in 2004, Canada's wind power base will grow even more quickly to over 6,200 MW by 2010.

[About the author and the related report...

Godfrey Chua is Research Director of Emerging Energy Research's US/Canada Wind Energy Advisory Service. This article is based on findings from EER's new 286-page market study, US/Canada Wind Power Markets and Strategies 2005-2010, released in December 2005 and now available for purchase. Emerging Energy Research is an independent research and advisory company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US. For more information, visit www.emerging-energy.com through the following link or contact them by email at eer@emerging-energy.com]

Wind power has truly become a mature and competitive power generation industry with sustained growth. It is no longer faced with generating sufficient demand but rather with ensuring sufficient manufacturing capacity, a great sign that the industry has grown considerably.

The renewal of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) until 2007 will have a great impact on the wind industry, ending years of uncertainty and boom and bust cycles where the PTC expired every year and then lay dormant for a year while lobbyists tried to get it renewed (not exactly the certainty you are looking for in an investment scenario). That seems to be the best thing to come out of the 2005 Energy Bill (amidst a lot of other garbage, in my opinion). It's time to start lobbying now, though, for an extension of the PTC out to 2009 or 2010. Insuring a long window of time that we can be certain the PTC will be around will make the industry look much more favorable to investors.

I'm really hoping that Oregon will get with it and enact a Renewable Portfolio Standard sometime soon as well. We have a number of wind developments in state with more on the way but the extra legislative push to encourage development wouldn't hurt.

Read more!

New York Governor Pataki Calls for Development of Plug-in Hybrids and More

New York Governor George Pataki provided a preview of his coming legislative initiatives for his final year in office in his final State of the State address last Wedensday. The speech was viewed by many analysts as a first step in a campaign for the Presidency.

The governor's speech included a number of talking points for the transportation and energy sectors. Pataki said he will propose a series of programs and initiatives, including:

Spurring the development of plug-in hybrids that use biofuels in the engine (e.g., flex-fuel plug-ins or 'trybrids');

Making the entire state a tax-free zone for companies that develop clean, renewable energy sources;

Making renewable fuels available at service stations all across the State, starting with the Thruway;

Making renewable fuels used in automobiles tax-free throughout the entire State;

Establishing ethanol plants;

Creating shovel-ready sites [I'm not exactly sure what that means] and helping to finance advanced clean coal power plants.

The following are excerpts from the energy and transportation section of the speech:

"For more than a decade, we in New York have been aggressively pursuing the solutions to one of our generation’s greatest challenges -- reducing our dependence on expensive, polluting, terrorpromoting foreign oil.

We don’t have to look far for evidence that the time to transition away from foreign oil is now – it is right there on the gas pumps and in our home heating bills.

Not just here in New York, but across the nation, our reliance on foreign oil is hampering the financial freedom of our working families and their employers; it is hurting our economy, damaging our environment and enriching regimes that support, harbor and encourage the terrorists who threaten our national security.
...
The entire world is now grappling with the question “where will we get the energy to power the global economy of the 21st century without causing irreparable damage to our natural environment?”

Let’s make New York the place where that defining question is answered. Let's make New York the worldwide center for clean, renewable energy research, product development and job creation. Let’s attract companies from around the world that are developing the clean, renewable energy sources of the future – let’s make the entire state a tax free zone for this growing industry.
...
We cannot address the issue of oil dependency without talking about transportation.
...
Our transportation system is still over 90 percent dependent on petroleum products. The huge price increases we have seen at the pump are likely to get worse as developing countries like China and India consume an increasing amount of oil.
...
This comprehensive strategy to reduce dependence on foreign oil [see bullet points above], will allow us to seize the future today and create the clean energy technologies that can be exported around the world tomorrow. The time to prepare for a future powered by clean energy sources is now -- not just here in New York, but across our entire nation.

We’ve shown time and again that when New York leads, others follow. Let’s act this year to make New York State the energy independence capital of America, and set the stage for a cleaner environment and an even stronger, more prosperous New York for the next generation."

Exhibiting leadership not seen at the national level, Governor Pataki also recently originated the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the first regional, mandatory cap-and-trade program to control carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Participants include the Northeastern states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont.

Beginning in 2009, RGGI will stabilize carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the region at current levels through 2015, and reduce emissions by 10% from current levels by 2019, according to Green Car Congress. RGGI also aims to achieve reductions through energy efficiency and through greenhouse gas emission reduction projects outside of the power sector.


If we aren't seeing proactive leadership from the White House of Congress, its good to at least see regional leadership on a sustainable energy agenda, even if they tend to be limited to 'blue states' like California and New York.

Still, all this from a Republican ... what's your excuse George?

[A hat tip to Green Car Congress]

Read more!

Welcome New Readers - Please Stick Around For a While

There seems to be quite a lot of new readers poking around here today, thanks to a couple prominent links from The Oil Drum and Worldchanging to my post on Thomas Friedman's strong call for a sustainable energy agenda in yesterday's New York Times.

I'd like to give a hearty welcome to any first time readers out there (ok, and to you returning readers as well ... I love you guys too) and urge you to please stick around and paruse the archives for any other posts you may be interested in. I hope that some of you return in the future.

Until then, welcome to WattHead. I hope you enjoy your stay,

~Jesse Jenkins

Read more!

Ford Debuts 'Reflex' Diesel-Electric Hybrid Concept Muscle Car

Ford will unveil its new Reflex diesel-electric hybrid concept muscle car at the North American International Auto Show (Detroit auto show) this month. It will join the growing ranks of exciting new hybrid and electric concepts debuting at the Detroit show including the new 2007 Camry hybrid and Mitsubishi MIEV Concept-CT discussed earlier here at WattHead.

Looking a bit like the non-hybrid Iosis concept unvieled last year at the 2005 Frankfurt Auto Show (at least on the exterior), Ford hopes that the Reflex will be one of the stars of the Detroit show and will make the case that small cars can be bold, American and innovative.


And innovative the Reflex is. According to AutoWeek, Reflex features a diesel-electric hybrid system using diesel, electric and solar power. This combination of power can deliver maximum fuel economy – up to 65 mpg, says Ford – without compromising performance.

The front wheels are powered by the diesel-electric hybrid system with the 1.4 liter turbodiesel engine assisted by an electric motor, according to AutoBlog. The rear axle is also powered by an additional electric motor providing this low-slung muscle car with all-wheel-drive capability. I was unable to find any word on the combined horsepower or torque for the Reflex.

The car's electric energy is stored in a new-generation lithium-ion battery pack, rather than the nickle-metal-hydride batteries found in all current commercial hybrid models. According to AutoWeek, Ford was the first manufacturer to produce a vehicle using this type of battery system when it introduced the Ford Ka research vehicle back in 2000. I hope to see Li-ion batteries make their way into production hybrid models soon as their higher energy densities and greater discharge ranges will mean lighter batteries with equal capacity (or larger capacities with equal weights, an important component of plug-in hybrids).


The batteries are charged both by the regenerative braking standard in all hybrids as well as by a pair of solar panels mounted on the roof of the Reflex.

The concept also incorporates ground rubber from scrap athletic shoes, called Nike Grind, as insulation to reduce noise and vibration in the car’s interior, adding to the car's 'green' features.

AutoWeek reports that the interior uses a 2+1 backseat configuration. Gull-wing style doors open upwards to reveal seatts covored by a transparent mesh that offers maximum airflow for comfort and along with the glass roof is supposed to make the interior seem larger than it is. The cockpit also comes alive with keyless activation: at the touch of a button, the instrument cluster controls appear in a blue hue as the light-emitting diodes (LEDs) switch on.


The Reflex's safety features include inflatable safety belts and Ford's 'BeltMinder' for backseat passengers. The inflatable safety belt helps reduce injury risk to second-row occupants and the BeltMinder alerts the driver when second-row occupants are not buckled up.


Now, the Reflex is quite definitely just a PR stunt that will never make it into real production. However, this is the case with most concept cars and it is good to see Ford innovating in this direction for a change. Hopefully some of the components of this car will make it into production models.

I am especially excited to see the incorporation of a diesel-electric hybrid drivetrain and lithium-ion batteries into the Reflex. Both of these technologies should see much wider use in production models. Also, its interesting to see Ford using the solar panels, which are likely the Solartech panels released last year.

Someday in the future we will actually see a hybrid (hopefully plug-in) muscle car on the market. It seems clear to me that trends are clearly headed that direction eventually. In the mean time, we can join Jacob Gordon of Treehugger and drool over this concept car.

[A hat tip to Treehugger. Thanks for a chuckle-filled post, Jacob]

Read more!

Thomas Friedman on a Sustainable Energy Future - 'Green is the New Red White and Blue!'

Since I seem to be in the mood to reprint other peoples words today, here's another:

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times foreign affairs columnist, Thomas Friedman, went all out today in the Times' opinion section, passionately defending the importance, and of all things, machoism, of being green and a sustainable energy future.

If you are regularly an internet ready of the Times (as I am), you'll sadly find the article (which appears on page A23 of the hardcopy version) locked up behind their 'Times Select' subscription. Fortunately, I've got a hardcopy right here and I'll excerpt some of the best parts below the fold:

The following is from "The New Red, White and Blue" by Thomas Friedman, which appears in the January 6th edition of the Times [any typos are my own as I'm retyping this, I apologize]:

"As we enter 2006, we find ourselves in trouble, at home and abroad. We are in trouble because we are led by defeatists - wimps, actually.

What's so disturbing about President Bush and Dick Cheney is that they talk tough about the necessity of invading Iraq, torturing terror suspects and engaging in domestic spying - all to defend our way of life and promote democracy around the globe.

But when it comes to what is actually the most important issue in U.S. foreign and domestic policy today - making ourselves energy efficient and independent, and environmentally green - they ridicule it as something only liberals, tree-huggers and sissies believe is possible or necessary

Sorry, but being green, focusing the nation on greater energy efficiency and conservation, is not some girlie-man issue. It is actually the most tough-minded, geostrategic, pro-growth and patriotic thing we can do. Living green is not for sissies. Sticking with oil, and basically saying that a country that can double the speed of microchips every 18 months is somehow incapable of innovating its way to energy independence - that is for sissies, defeatists and people who are ready to see American values eroded at home and abroad.

Living green is not just a "personal virtue," as Mr. Cheney says. It's a national security imperative.

The biggest threat to America and its values today is not communism, authoritarianism or Islamism. Its petrolism. Petrolism is my term for the corrupting, antidemocratic governing practices - in oil states from Russia to Nigeria to Iran - that result from a long run of $60-a-barrel oil. ....

... there's a huge difference between what these bad regimes can do with $20-a-barrel oil compared to $60-a-barrel oil. It is no accident that the reform era in Russia under Boris Yeltzin, and in Iran under Mohammad Khatami, coincided with low oil prices. When prices soared again, petrolist authoritarians in both societies reasserted themselves.

We need a persident and a Congress with the guts not just to invade Iraq, but to impose a gasoline tax and inspire conservation at home. That takes a real energy policy with longterm incentives for renewable energies - wind, solar, biofuels - rather than the welfare-for-oil-companies-and-special-interests that masqueraded last year as an energy bill.

Enough of this Bush-Cheney nonsense that conservation, energy efficiency and environmentalism are some hobby we can't afford. I can't think of anything more cowardly or un-American. Real patriots, real advocates of spreading democracy around the world, live green.

Green is the new red, white and blue.

Amen Thomas.

It's high time that energy efficiency, conservation and renewables ceased to be a fringe-issue for greenies, tree-huggers and enviros.

A sustainable energy future is about a sustainable economy, about creating high-paying jobs in innovation and technology, about clean skies and healthy cities, about national security, about avoiding quagmires like Iraq.

Sometimes I feel like renewables, efficiency and conservation make so much sense, it just makes me sick that more isn't being done...

Anyways, it's great to see an article like this in a mainstream and widely read- albeit liberally-biased - newspaper.

Read more!

News From My Backyard: Peak Oil Author Richard Heinberg Comes to Eugene - EugeneWeekly Has Interview

Peak Oil author and educator, Richard Heinberg is coming to my hometown of Eugene, OR next week to deliver a lecture entitled, "Peak Oil: Challenges and Opportunities at the End of Cheap Petroleum." The talk will be at 7 pm Tuesday, Jan. 10 at the Eugene Hilton in downtown Eugene and is being sponsored by the Eugene Water and Electric Board and the Lane Transit District. Tickets are unfortunately not free however and will set you back five bucks.

Heinberg teaches courses on energy and sustainability at the New College of California, and is the author of The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies and Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (which I coincidentally just purchased a used copy of).

The local EugeneWeekly paper also carried a Q & A interview with Heinberg today. The interview is below the fold:

The following is from the January 5th issue of the EugeneWeekly and is by Kera Abraham:

What's new in the peak oil conversation?

There's a discussion going on about whether the global oil production peak might have happened in the fourth quarter of 2005. There is more production capacity that will be coming online in the next few years, but will that be enough to offset declines from existing fields? We're seeing some of the world's largest oil fields going into decline, and if those decline rates are substantial, we can say that the world's oil is at peak right now.

What do you want the public to understand about peak oil?

This is a huge turning point for humanity. We need a real group effort to turn away from fossil fuels deliberately, collectively and in a coordinated way. Right now I'm working on the Oil Depletion Protocol, which was proposed by Colin Campbell, the founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. The essence of it is, the oil-importing countries would agree to reduce their oil imports each year by the world depletion rate, which is about 2.6 percent.

How does climate change relate to peak oil?

Both oil depletion and climate change are consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels. So far, most [international] agreements have been to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. The Oil Depletion Protocol starts from a different premise: that we will have to reduce our oil usage simply because there isn't enough of the stuff. So it's not a question of whether we're going to do it; it's how we are going to do it. Are we going to do it in a cooperative way, or are we just going to let the market take care of it? The former strategy will result in the most survivable outcome. The consequences of the latter would be catastrophic. We'd see extreme competition for remaining oil supplies that would probably turn very ugly — oil wars, terrorism and global economic collapse.

Is it effective to examine one issue, climate change or peak oil, without the other?

In my view, climate change is the trump issue because we're not talking about the global economy; we're talking about the survival of millions of species. But climate change is theoretical and vague, and I think the problem of peak oil gets people's attention because it hits them in their pocketbooks. The Oil Depletion Protocol has something to offer the Kyoto Protocol, because it's a way of getting both the heavy users and the producing nations on board under the same terms. And Kyoto has something to offer the Oil Depletion Protocol, because if we all reduce our oil usage cooperatively and simultaneously, the temptation of many nations will be to substitute coal for oil, which would have a disastrous effect on the global climate. We need to have both protocols in place at the same time: the Oil Depletion Protocol and a strengthened version of Kyoto.

Can alternative auto fuels like biodiesel help wean us off oil?

They could be helpful on a small scale, but we have to understand that biofuels require agricultural production, and so ultimately they're going to be competing for land with food production. I think that for emergency vehicles and farm equipment, on a small scale, it's a good idea. But I see a real danger here: If transportation fuels become so expensive that it's a better money-maker for farmers to grow fuel than it is to grow food, then we could have millions of people starving so that a few thousand people can drive their SUVs.

Would the U.S. be able to maintain its superpower status if we decreased our oil use?

I don't think so, ultimately, but should one nation in the world be setting the terms of negotiation for everyone else? Of course, that's a different kind of discussion. That's not just physics; that's politics.

Can we talk about peak oil without getting political?

Ultimately, no. And that's what the Oil Depletion Protocol does: It puts all nations on the same footing by asking all nations to reduce their fossil fuel consumption by the same percentage. Over time, that reduces the inequality between nations. Because right now, America's economic and military prowess is really based upon the fact that we are able to use vastly more fossil fuels than any other country. If you take away that fossil fuel subsidy gradually, over time you end up with a very different world.

Can a globalized economy operate without fossil fuels?

I think the answer is probably no, but if the answer is yes, then not to the same degree that we see globalization occurring today. Transportation will become more expensive as fossil fuels become more scarce, so we'll have to look at re-localizing economic activity wherever we can. The main focus of our strategy should be reducing demand. That means re-designing our cities so that people can use public transportation, bicycles and other human-powered vehicles. And it means re-shaping our food systems so that there's less reliance on fossil fuels. Just about every aspect of modern life needs to be re-thought so that we use less. But realistically, even the cities that are furthest ahead on this are just starting.

Do you think that the Bush administration understandsthe concept of peak oil?

Absolutely. There's no doubt about that. When Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he made a speech to the Petroleum Institute back in 1999, and he said that the world would have a very difficult time supplying enough petroleum to meet demand by the year 2010. So it's clear that he understands the situation. The CIA has been studying peak oil since the 1970s, and we have clear documentary evidence about that.

Has peak oil driven the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East?

Unquestionably. As soon as the U.S.'s oil production peaked in 1970, it was clear that this country would become more and more dependent on oil imports, or we would have to wean ourselves off oil. President Jimmy Carter advised us to reduce our dependence on oil, but we chose the other path, and we've increased our dependency on oil imports ever since then. That carries a geo-political cost; it means that we have to ensure the availability of those supplies. And so since 1970, the U.S. has shown greater and greater interest in the political affairs of the Middle East.

How do you respond to people who don't take peak oil seriously?

I think we need to focus primarily on policy-makers, and not try to get all of the folks who are at home watching television, eating pizza and drinking beer to sit up and start talking about peak oil. We need to get city councils, county boards of supervisors, people at the state level, and also prime ministers and presidents to look at this situation seriously, because they're responsible for other people's lives. We could see Hurricane Katrina coming for days and hundreds of miles away. Peak oil is the same thing; we can see it coming. The question is, are we going to do anything about it?

What kinds of questions should the leaders of Eugene be asking about peak oil?

Where does your water come from? Where does your food come from? How reliant on fossil fuels are you? All of the basic services that are provided for us by municipalities are energy-dependent. How do you keep emergency vehicles running if you can't afford fuel? You folks in Eugene should be working with your local power utility to start making some good choices about where your energy is going to come from. There's no free lunch here. Every energy source has economic and environmental implications. We have to study those and find our way through the thicket of tradeoffs as best we can.

Sadly Heinberg gives no mention of cellulosic biofuels or waste-to-biofuels processes in response to prompt on biofuels. It's probably good for Eugene readers to hear cautionary words about the maximum potential of biodiesel however, as I'm sure many are under the misconception that slapping a 'Powered by Biodiesel' sticker on the back of their diesel Volkswagen and filling up with B20 every once in a while may actually be a solution to peak oil.

His final statement about every energy source havings its environmental and economic costs and tradeoffs is right on and something everyone needs to keep in mind - with energy, its always a question of finding the least bad alternative.

I'll likely attend the talk next week and will perhaps write up a summary afterward. Stay tuned...

Read more!

SUVs Not Safer than Cars for Children, New Research Shows

New research from The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia shows that children riding in SUVs have similar injury risks to children who ride in passenger cars, according to a post yesterday from Green Car Congress.

The study, published yesterday in the journal Pediatrics, found that an SUV’s increased risk of rolling over during a crash offset the safety benefits associated with larger, heavier-weight vehicles.

Dennis Durbin, MD, co-author of the report explains:

"SUVs are becoming more popular as family vehicles because they can accommodate multiple child safety seats and their larger size may lead parents to believe SUVs are safer than passenger cars. However, people who use an SUV as their family vehicle should know that SUVs do not provide superior protection for child occupants and that age- and size-appropriate restraints and rear seating for children under 13 years are critically important because of the increased risk of a rollover crash."

The study, part of an on-going research collaboration of Children’s Hospital and State Farm Insurance Companies, examined crashes reported to State Farm involving 3,933 child occupants between the ages of 0 and 15 years who were in either SUVs or passenger cars that were model year 1998 or newer, according to GCC.

Rollover contributes significantly to risk of injury in both vehicle types but occurred twice as frequently in SUVs, the report shows. Children involved in rollover crashes were also three times more likely to be injured than children in non-rollovers.

Children who were not properly restrained in a car seat, booster seat or seatbelt during an SUV rollover were at a 25-fold greater risk for injury as compared to appropriately restrained children. Nearly half of the unrestrained children in these crashes (41%) suffered a serious injury versus only three percent of appropriately restrained children in SUVs. Overall, injury risk for appropriately restrained children in passenger cars is less than 2%.

In the 2005 Partners for Child Passenger Safety Fact and Trend Report, Children’s Hospital reported that SUVs in child-involved State Farm crashes increased from 15% in 1999 to 26% in 2004, while the percentage of passenger cars decreased from a high of 54% in 1999 to 43% in 2004. There was no or little growth in the percentage of minivans in the study population - 24 percent in 2004.

According to GCC, previous Children’s Hospital research has shown that, within each vehicle classification, larger heavier vehicles are generally safer. For instance, of all passenger car classifications, large and luxury cars feature lower child injury risk than mid-size or small passenger cars. Among SUVs, mid-size and small SUVs had similar injury risks, which were two times higher than large SUVs.

Compact extended-cab pickup trucks present a unique risk to children - child occupants in the rear row of compact extended cab pick-ups face a five-fold increased risk of injury in a crash as compared to rear-seated children in all other vehicle types.

Partners for Child Passenger Safety (PCPS) is a research collaboration between the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm. As of February 2005, PCPS has created a database containing information on more than 377,000 crashes involving more than 557,000 children from birth through age 15 years. It is the world’s largest study of children in motor vehicle crashes.


This doesn't come as striking news to me but may to many parents out there who think they are protecting their children by buying SUVs. Folks, if you really want a safe family car, buy an old Volvo wagon - built like tanks and made to last, you won't have to worry about roll-overs in a 1984 Volvo!

Read more!

Hybrid Sales Top 205,000 in 2005 - Auto Execs Expect Big Gains for Hybrids in Future As Well

Two posts from Green Car Congress today highlight the strong sales performance of hybrid-electric vehicles.

In the first, GCC reports that sales of hybrids in the US topped 205,749 in 2005, closing out the year with strong December results of 18,238 total units sold. Hybrids thus made up 1.2% of both the 1,477,697 total light duty vehicles sold in the US last month, as well as the total 16,950,679 vehicles sold throughout the year.

Prius sales dominated the hybrid market this year, with sales cresting the 100,000 mark last month with 107,897 cars sold for the year, 52% of the total hybrid market. In 2004, Toyota only sold half as many Prius hybrids - 53,991 - representing 64% of the total market.

Detailed sales figures for all hybrid models can be found in the GCC article.


The second article discusses KPMG's annual Global Auto Executive Survey. According to article, auto executives surveyed by KPMG predict that hybrids as well as low-cost, small cars will make the biggest gains in market share over the next few years.

Eighty-eight percent of auto executives worldwide believe that hybrids will increase market share, according to the survey. That number rises to 100% for North American auto executives, apparently the first time the KPMG survey has ever encountered a 100% response.


Graphic: the chart above indicates the percentage of auto executives surveyed expecting a type of vehicle to increase market share over the next few years

The survey goes on to say:

"With fuel prices high and likely to stay there, if not increase (although prices have fallen in the past three months), one North American VM [vehicle manufacturer] executive said, “We will expect US$100 per barrel in the future.” It is not surprising that the two categories of vehicles respondents think most likely to gain market share are hybrids (up this year from 74 percent to 88 percent) and a new category for 2005, low-cost cars (79 percent)."

Interestingly, the survey revealed some sharp regional differences. While executives around the world did concur on the growth in hybrids and low-cost cars, crossovers SUVs which are touted by many automakers as a major growth area in North America rank much lower in Asia and Europe.

Larger SUVs, which are losing favor in North America [finally!] - only 6% of North American execs projecting growth in this category - are actually projected for strong growth in Asia and Europe.


Graphic: Regional differences in survey responses

GCC has more trends from the surveys here, but notable amongst them is that executives now think fuel efficiency is the second most-important consumer buying criterion. [That's good news to me! (The GCC article does not mention the #1 consumer buying criterion ... it's likely performance though which often contradicts the fuel efficiency criteria).]

Read more!

New Toyota Yaris Subcompacts Coming to U.S. in 2006

The newly designed 2007 Toyota Yaris subcompact cars will make its U.S. debut this year when it arrives in showrooms this spring in four-door Sedan and three-door Liftback configurations, according to an official Toyota press release dated December 26th.

First launched in Europe in 1999, the Yaris has since earned European "Car of the Year" and Japanese "Car of the Year" honors in 2000 making it the first time one vehicle captured both honors in the same year. It has also become Toyota's best-selling model in the European market where it accounts for 25% of all Toyota sales in the region and is very popular in Japanese markets as well. Toyota has targeted the newly redesigned model for sales of at least 10,000 units per month in Japan where it sells as the Vitz and features Toyota's 'Intelligent Idling Stop System' and a continuously variable transmission (CVT).

The Yaris/Vitz is the third-highest volume production Toyota model behind Corolla and Camry, with more than 2.5 million units sold in the past five years, according to Green Car Congress.

For the U.S. subcompact market, the new Yaris will replace the unsuccseful Echo sedan. U.S. sales of the Echo were anemic prompting Toyota to pull the plug on the model. Now, with the U.S. market seemingly more concerned with fuel economy, Toyota has hopes that the Yaris will be more popular than their failed predescessors (by the way, the name Echo is officially retired and the new U.S. models will feature the same name as their European counterparts).


The new Yaris made their debut this fall at the Frankfurt IAA auto show (GCC report here) and are slightly roomier than their predecessors. The American version will (intially, at least) feature a larger engine than their European and Japanese counterparts, the same 1.5-liter, 16-valve inline four cylinder engine that's used in the American Scion xA and xB models. Equipped with variable valve timing (VVT-i), this engine makes 106 hp at 6,000 rpm and 103 pound-feet (lb-ft) of torque at 4,200 rpm.

A preliminary EPA fuel economy rating pegs both the sedan and the liftback at 34 city/40 highway for the five-speed manual and 34 city/39 highway for models equipped with the four-speed automatic putting the Yaris among the most fuel efficient in the U.S. subcompact segment. All Yaris models with an automatic transmission will be equipped with uphill/downhill shift logic to help reduce the frequency of gear shifting caused by the operation of the accelerator pedal during winding uphill and downhill driving, according to the press release.

Both the sedan and lifback will have a coefficient of drag of just 0.29 allowing them to slip through the air with relative ease, promising a quieter ride and greater fuel economy at freeway speeds.

Toyota is confident that Yaris will be EPA-certified as an Ultra-Low Emission vehicle (ULEV II).

In Europe, the Yaris will come standard with a smaller 1.3-liter, four cylinder VVT-i gasoline engine carried over from the current range with 87 hp (65 kW) at 6,000 rpm and 89 lb-ft (121 Nm) of torque at 4,200 rpm.

A diesel model will also be available in Europe featuring the latest version of the 1.4-liter D-4D 90 diesel which now develops 90 hp (68 kW) at 3,600 rpm and 140 lb-ft (190 Nm) of torque from 1,800 to 3,600 rpm. The D-4D can quickly accelerate the Yaris to 60 mph (100 km/h) in 10.7 seconds, making it the fastest car in the segment amongst those equipped with 1.3—1.5 liter diesel engines, according to GCC.

New to the European Yaris range is the advanced 1.0-liter, three cylinder VVT-i gasoline engine which made it debut in the Toyota AYGO city car, and replaces the older 1.0-liter powerplant option. The new 1.0-liter engine weighs just 148 pounds (67 kgs) yet delivers 60 hp (45 kW) at 6,000 rpm and 68.5 lb-ft (93 Nm) of torque.

As mentioned above, the Japanese version sells as the Vitz and is available with all three (1.0, 1.3 or 1.5 liter) gasoline options, and features CVT as well as Toyota's idle stop-start system. It should thus get significantly better gas mileage (especially in the city) than either the European or American versions. GCC reports that the Vitz gets 60 mpg with the 1.0 liter engine and, according to Toyota, has the best gasoline fuel consumption in Japan, excluding minivehicles and hybrids.


According to the press release, the Yaris liftback will be available in only one trim, while the sedan will offer two trims, adding a sport-themed Yaris S.

It's a shame that the U.S. model won't be available either with a smaller engine or with the CVT and idle start-stop system of its European and Japanese counterparts. With better tuning for fuel efficiency and a smaller engine, not to mention the addition of CVT and an idle stop system, the subcompact Yaris could be getting significantly better fuel economy, as is evidenced by the Japanese Vitz.

I hope that U.S. sales of the new Yaris are much better than for the Echo as that would hopefully prompt Toyota to begin offering more options in subsequent years. I would love to see U.S. consumers warming up to something like the Vitz. It would do a lot of good for our countries energy security, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions etc. if we saw more small, high efficiency cars like the Vitz on U.S. roads...


Resources:

Toyota: Press Release - 12/26/05

Green Car Congress: Update on the New Yaris for the US: 36 MPG - 12/28/05

Green Car Congress: New Toyota Yaris on its Way to the US in 2006 - 9/28/05

Green Car Congress: Redesign of Toyota Vitz (Echo) with Stop-Start System Hits Japanese Market - 2/10/05

Treehugger: 2007 Toyota Yaris Official Press Release - 12/28/05

Treehugger: 2007 Toyota Yaris - Sedan and Hatchback - 12/22/05

Inside Line: First Drive: 2007 Toyota Yaris - 12/15/05

Read more!

News From My Backyard: Oregon Governor Kulongoski Speeks Out on Climate Change

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski spoke out on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions and their potential effects on the Pacific Northwest's environment and economy in a speech delivered to the state Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) in Portland on December 22nd.

Kulongoski called upon the Commission to "create a strategic plan for how the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) can develop and expand existing programs to combat global warming and improve air quality."

Highlighting the critical nature of climate change, the governor reminded the Commission, "Our regional scientists and economists have continued to warn us that climate change poses perhaps the most significant threat to Oregon’s economy, environment and our quality of life over the coming years and decades."

To affirm this statement, Kulongoski refered to an unspecified study by "a group of Pacific Northwest economists." The study reportedly found that "the effects of global warming will have adverse effects on [Oregon's] economy in at least eight key sectors if we don’t make this issue a priority today."

According to the governor, these sectors include: Drinking Water; Agriculture; Forestry; Snow-Based Recreation; Coastal Tourism, Recreation and Infrastructure; Power Generation; Salmon Recovery; and Public Health which Kulongoski singled out as being "perhaps the most important."

As the governor points out in his speech, climate change has been a priority for his administration and he previously announced the adoption of state-wide greenhouse gas emission reductions last spring. The targets, based upon recommendations from his Advisory Group on Global Warming, call for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to levels 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Kulongoski went on to say:

"As you know, carbon dioxide accounts for the lion’s share of our greenhouse gases – and transportation alone accounts for nearly 40 percent of total carbon emissions in Oregon.

Looking at the largest sources of carbon emissions, and the most effective ways to reduce those emissions, my Advisory Group recommended that we adopt stricter vehicle emissions standards – and I hope that you share my commitment to moving forward on this critical part of our strategy to curb global warming and improve air quality.

It is projected that if we adopt stricter emissions standards for cars and small trucks beginning with model year 2009, we can reduce carbon emissions by 13-18 percent over the next 15 years and up to 30 percent over the next 25 years. Whereas if we do nothing, our trend of increasing emissions will continue at approximately 1.6 percent per year.

Beyond the reduction in carbon emissions, stricter standards will help provide the benefits of better fuel efficiency and longer lasting emission systems in our cars – in addition to cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. And contrary to what opponents say, consumer choice will be expanded not diminished.

Furthermore, adopting new standards will also help us create new economic opportunities. Oregon already has one of the highest per capita uses of hybrids in the country and a small niche of electric car manufacturers. New standards would increase demand for these advanced technology cars, which in turn would attract and support emerging new industries in the fields of technology and innovation."

Kulongoski has previously committed to enacting the stricter California vehicle emissions standards which will include standards for greenhouse gases for vehicles beginning with model year 2009.

The governor also used the speech to highlight two existing air quality programs that he believes should be expanded - the Air Toxics Program which the governor touted as "a model nationally for reducing air toxics emissions from industry and vehicles and the many small sources of emissions that collectively cause more health risks than industry," as well as the Oregon Clean Diesel Initiative, "which targets the reduction of emissions from Oregon’s most significant air toxic – diesel fuel combustion products."

The governor pointed to an initiative he began last year to install anti-idling technologies at Oregon truck stops (which curb the practice of overnight idling and reduce diesel consumption and emissions) as an example of the many techniques and technologies that can reduce diesel use.

Biodiesel's potential environmental and economic benefits were also mentioned with the governor reaffirming that "expanding this industry remains a priority of mine as we look to innovative ways to grow our economy in partnership with protecting our environment."

Obliquely refering to past conflicts with the Republican-controlled state legislature over tighter emissions standards and other policies to combat climate change, the governor said, "This last session proved that our work is cut out for us in engaging the legislature in a real solutions-oriented debate about the cause and effects of global warming."

However, Kulongoski said he would continue a dialogue with the legislature and also pointed out that he was "committed to doing what we can through administrative action within existing statutory authorities – so that we begin to make meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and continue to improve Oregon’s air quality" without having to wrangle with the legislature.

The governor pledged to "continue to work with the Legislature to increase understanding of the need for Oregon to act now, and act decisively, to combat global warming" and proceeded to call upon the EQC to:

First - Create a strategic plan for how the Department of Environmental Quality can develop and expand existing programs to combat global warming and improve air quality.

Second - Revisit the report by the governor's Advisory Group on Global Warming, study its recommendations, and identify actions that can be implemented to complement the actions already underway in the areas of: waste management; landfill methane capture; targeted carbon reduction; and renewable energy.

Third – Build on the Air Toxics Program and Clean Diesel Initiatives while also exploring the effectiveness of voluntary incentive-based programs that either: target the emissions of particular air pollutants, encourage the use of renewable energy, or even target specific regions of the state – such as the Columbia Gorge.

Governor Kulongoski concluded by saying:

"Oregon’s airshed and climate do not belong to any one generation. They belong to every generation – past, present and future.

The challenge before us is to balance the economic, environmental and social values that are dividends we earn from living in a place with some of the world’s most magnificent natural resources. This is our collective job – and I have no doubt that you [the EQC] and I are both up to the challenge."

[A hat tip to Green Car Congress]

Read more!

Things to Watch in 2006 - Trends, Predictions and Premonitions

In honor of the new year, I thought I would point out a few things I think we all should keep our eyes on in 2006. If nothing else, this ought to provide some entertaining reading a year from now as 2006 comes to a close...

-> First off, China will continue to be extremely interesting to watch. Their attempt to continue a breakneck development pace while avoiding the environmental destruction and degradation that has accompanied their past development could be considered the largest and certainly one of the most crucial sustainability expirements in the world. (India will be interesting to keep an eye on as well, for similar reasons).

China's economic development demands an ever increasing supply of energy and how they meet this demand will have global implications. China could become a world leader in renewable power and alternative fuel technologies, pushing the development of wind and clean coal (gasification) technologies in particular - both resources are plentiful in China - driving down global prices and encouraging innovation in the process.

Or, China could rely more and more on cheap coal-fired steam plants for the bulk of this new power and oil to fuel a rapidly growing personal transport fleet, a scenario that could go a long way towards undermining any emissions reductions made by Kyoto signatory countries and accelerating global climate change, oil depletion and global resource conflict.

Which path China takes remains to be seen and 2006 will be full of indications as to where China is headed - and as the gang at WorldChanging aptly put it, "As China goes, so goes the future." Let's hope China continues to change its color from red to green...

-> Also exciting to watch this year will be concentrating solar power (CSP). CSP refers to solar power technologies that concentrate incident solar radiation onto a smaller area. Some place photovoltaics (usually of high efficiencies) at the concentration area while others use the heat to create steam and run a turbine or instead run a Stirling engine.

These technologies rely on lenses and mirrors to do the concentrating and recent advancements in production techniques and materials, particulalry the development of cheap plastic fresnel lenses, have driven the costs of CSP down to a very competitive level, both compared to regular photovoltaics as well as traditional power generation sources and other renewables like wind.

Large scale CSP technologies, including Stirling Energy Systems' (SES) dish-stirling solar collectors (see picture above), International Automated Systems, Inc's solar thermal concentrator and Solargenix Energy's parabolic trough generators will be featured in several large solar farms to be built this year. All of the above technologies do not use any silicon thus avoiding the supply shortages and high materials prices that plague silicon-dependent photovoltaics (PVs) and claim that they will produce electricity at rates far lower than PVs.

Look for these large scale CSP technologies (and probably others in the works) to drive a major expansion of solar power in the U.S. and the world. For example, SoCal Edison has contracted with SES to build a 500 MW dish-stirling plant near Victorville, California which alone would more than double total installed U.S. solar capacity and would be the largest solar farm in the world. SES has also contracted with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) for a 300-900 MW dish solar facility to be located in the Mojave Desert of CA. SES also claims that they will be able to produce their dish-stirling units at a cost competitive with conventional fuel technologies like natural gas (i.e. $50,000 per 25 kw unit or $2.00/Watt), even without subsidies.

A couple of small-scale (i.e. suitable for distributed generation) CSP technologies are nearing commercialization as well and offer prices significantly cheaper then PVs. Australian Green and Gold Energy, for example, is bringing its Sunball rooftop solar concentrator (see picture) to market this year (Deliveries to Australian customers begin in February and export orders in July of 2006) and are offering their units at the competitive price of $3.33/Watt (traditional PVs cost around $4.00/Watt these days).

Energy Innovations is also working on a rooftop solar concentrator, the Sunflower 250 and according to their website, they plan to ship the solar concentrators in volume during 2006. Both technologies use lenses (the Sunball) or mirrors (the Sunflower) and two-axis tracking to concentrate solar radiation onto a small high-efficiency PV cell.

Whereas traditional PVs have been handicapped by their reliance on large quanitites of high-grade silicon, CSP technologies are beginning to exhibit the same kind of economies of scale and continual decrease in price that made wind power a competitive and rapidly expanding power source. It is my hope that 2006 is the year that CSP techs bring solar into the ranks of truly competitive power sources.

-> I would expect to see some interesting new policy proposals on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions from several Kyoto-signatory countries struggling to meet their reduction targets this year. Several EU nations as well as Canada (and likely others) are not on track to meet their Kyoto targets and they will have to adopt some tough measures to get back on track to fulfill their commitments.

Let's hope 2006 will see these countries renewing their commitment to combatting global warming with some serious policies to reduce their emissions, particulalry from the transportation sector. I think that Kyoto signatories are starting to realize that its going to take a bit more effort than they may have thought to meet their targets...

-> On a local level, I hope to see Oregon join California, Washington and much of the Northeast this year by moving forward on adopting California's stricter tailpipe emissions standards (that also include standards for GHG emissions). OR Governor Ted Kulongoski has made it a priority to take steps to combat global warming including the adoption of the CA standards and has instructed the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to write a California-type emissions standard for Oregon.

I hope that 2006 will finally see Kulongoski fulfill his promises and enact the new standards. Incidentally, Washington passed legislation to adopt the CA standards but only after OR does so. If OR adopts the standards, it would thus create a region spanning the entire Pacific coast of the U.S. committed to reducing tailpipe GHG emissions.

-> I expect to see sales of hybrid cars continue to skyrocket in 2006, driven largely by the upcoming release of the 2007 Toyota Camry hybrid. The Camry is an extremely popular model - it has been the best-selling car in America for seven of the past eight years - and I would expect the new hybrid version to boost hybrid sales substantially.

Furthermore, the price premium for hybrid cars should begin to fall as technologies develop, supply chains mature and economies of scale are realized. Honda has pledged to reduce the price difference between its regular and hybrid Civics models by a third in the next 5 years, for example, and Toyota also indicated that it aims to increase hybrid production by 60% in 2006 and cut costs and prices to make them more affordable. Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe has said he aims to halve the premium in price of hybrids over conventional vehicles as soon as possible.

-> Biodiesel use, which was projected to triple in the U.S. during 2005, will likely continue to rapidly increase in 2006. With its expanded use will hopefully come a strong debate over the sources and sustainability of biodiesel feedstocks. If we are not careful, growing feedstocks for biodiesel could become a major environmental disaster as vast tracts of rainforests in developing countries like Brazil and Malaysia are slashed and burned to make way for soybean, canola, rapeseed or oil palm plantations to meet the growing thirst for biodiesel.

I hope to see a productive discussion of this potentially disasterous scenario during the coming year as well as legislation and policies from developed countries to make sure that their supplies of biodiesel come from sustainable and ideally domestically produced feedstocks.

-> While 2005 was one of the hottest years on record, I don't expect 2006 to go off without giving it a run for the title. With the 10 hottest years on record all having occurred since 1990 (see graphic), the trend seems too strong to expect 2006 to be significantly cooler than other years in the past decade.

I also would not expect the 2006 hurricane season to be much calmer than this year's as high sea surface temps in the Gulf of Mexico will likely continue, fueling more strong storms. Let's hope that we will be a bit more prepared this year when the storms of 2006 make landfall.

-> Look for the fight over the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to continue in 2006. If the past is any indicication, I don't imagine drilling proponents will give up on this issue simply because they've been continually defeated for the past decade ... that would be far to sane.

-> And as with this year, keep your eyes on the headlines over at Green Car Congress for the latest developments in alternative transportation technologies. There'll be plenty of fun surprises in store for us in 2006... (Perhaps a commercial plug-in hybrid model? A guy can wish right?)

-> Oh, and if everything goes right, I just might earn my undergraduate degree during 2006. Here's hoping this one at least turns out to be true.

Well, that's all my crystal ball and tea leaves will give me for now. I hope we're all still here in another 365 days to look back at this post and see just where the year has led us. A healthy and happy 2006 to all of you. Cheers...

Read more!

Happy New Year!

I'd like to wish everyone a happy new year as we welcome in 2006. May this year bring us closer to the sustainable energy future we desire.

On another note, I've returned from a brief holiday absence and will resume my normal posting schedule here at WattHead - i.e. whenever I have time to post amidst my real life time constraints.

Also, my winter quarter starts next week and I will be beginning work on my undergraduate honors thesis which will explore alternative transport fuel options so look for more posts on what I find during my research in the months to come. If anyone has some good research leads, particularly on hydrogen, cellulosic biofuels, EVs and plug-ins, please don't hesitate to share them with me - just post a comment here or send me an email - jjenkin1[at]uoregon.edu.

Happy 2006 folks!

Read more!