Tag Archives: energy efficiency

Green from the Grassroots —Elinor Ostrom

On the day she died, Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom published her last article, in Project Syndicate, 12 June 2012, Green from the Grassroots,

This grassroots diversity in “green policymaking” makes economic sense. “Sustainable cities” attract the creative, educated people who want to live in a pollution-free, modern urban environment that suits their lifestyles. This is where future growth lies. Like upgrading a mobile phone, when people see the benefits, they will discard old models in a flash.

Of course, true sustainability goes further than pollution control. City planners must look beyond municipal limits and analyze flows of resources — energy, food, water, and people — into and out of their cities.

Worldwide, we are seeing a heterogeneous collection of cities interacting in a way that could have far-reaching influence on how Earth's entire life-support system evolves. These cities are learning from one another, building on good ideas and jettisoning poorer ones. Los Angeles took decades to implement pollution controls, but other cities, like Beijing, converted rapidly when they saw the benefits. In the coming decades, we may see a global system of interconnected sustainable cities emerging. If successful, everyone will want to join the club.

And counties, and regions, and watersheds, of course. As Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio said, there is a "nexus between sustainability and job creation." We don't have to wait for San Antonio or Los Angeles or Beijing or Atlanta to lead the way: we can get on with it right here where we are.

-jsq

Remediating a building in downtown Valdosta –Ron Jackson of South GA Solar Power, LLC

Ron Jackson told LAKE about how South GA Solar Power, LLC remediated the historic Wisenbaker Building in downtown Valdosta for increased air flow and reduced energy consumption.

Ron Jackson at the Wisenbaker Building Valdosta Shared Office Space, Downtown Valdosta, is in the Wisenbaker Building, built in 1884: the owner hired South GA Solar Power, LLC as an engineer consultant to bring down the energy this building was using. Ron Jackson says they examined air flow, average load, and other factors, bringing $12,000/year electric bill down to $3,000, 120 amps/day down to 17 amps/day.

“Consider us as your next consultant for your green energy product.”

Here’s the video.

Picture and video by John S. Quarterman for Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE), Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, 5 May 2012.

Tomorrow: Phase 2.

-jsq

Self-contained solar attic fan –Ron Jackson of South GA Solar Power, LLC

At Cinco de Mayo, Ron Jackson explained a self-contained solar attic fan Self-contained solar attic fan sold by South GA Solar Power, LLC. He was assisted by mechanical engineer Danielle, and isn’t that Business Manager Sharon Jackson?

It’s actually an exhaust fan powered by the sun. What it does is it simply takes the hot air, 125-150° heat, exhausts it out down to 90°, which makes the house cooler, which makes the air conditioner stop running. Which makes the electric bill reduce, go down, 50%. My bill was $345 a month now it’s $120 a month. By a simple application! If you need any more information, call Ron Jackson at South GA Solar Power, LLC.

Self-contained solar attic fan
Pictures and video by John S. Quarterman for Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE), Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, 5 May 2012.

-jsq

New research shows Natural Gas far more dangerous for climate stability —Seth Gunning

Received yesterday on U.S. CO2 emissions lowest in 20 years: that's good and bad: natural gas is methane, after all. -jsq

Yet another comprehensive article. I might also add that one of the major down-falls (if not the most significant) of large-scale conversions to natural gas is the resources lifecycle methane emissions.

As your readers likely know, Methane is about twenty times as 'potent' a greenhouse gas as Carbon Dioxide. That is to say, it is far more efficient at trapping heat then Co2. So, less methane has a far greater impact on climate disruption then more Co2.

Natural Gas, from the point of combustion, releases about half the amount of Co2 released from burning coal, and about 30% of what's released in burning oil. To keep the benefits of reduced Co2 levels when switching from coal to natural gas, natural gas wells and transport lines must leak less then 2% of methane into the atmosphere. Recent research from Cornell is showing that Fracking wells are regularly releasing more then 4%, and often as much as 8% —far exceeding the 2% threshold— and thus making Natural Gas a far more dangerous resource for climate stability.

Tom Zeller Jr. wrote for the NYTimes 11 April 2011, Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Problems

-Seth Gunning

-jsq

U.S. CO2 emissions lowest in 20 years: that’s good and bad

The good news: because utilities such as Southern Company are switching away from coal U.S. emissions of CO2 are the lowest they’ve been in 20 years. The bad news: they’re switching to natural gas, which not only still emits carbon dioxide, it pollutes groundwater through fracking, requires a lot of groundwater to do the fracking in the first place, and then uses more groundwater for cooling. But the further good news is cheaper energy sources drive out expensive ones, and wind and solar are already cheaper than nuclear and coal, and solar is already cheaper than natural gas. Oh, and solar and wind emit no CO2.

Kevin Begos write for AP yesterday, AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

“There’s a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.

While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said.

A frenzy of shale gas drilling in the Northeast’s Marcellus Shale and in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana has caused the wholesale price of natural gas to plummet from $7 or $8 per unit to about $3 over the past four years, making it cheaper to burn than coal for a given amount of energy produced. As a result, utilities are relying more than ever on gas-fired generating plants.

Both government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago.

And that’s why Southern Company (SO) turned towards natural gas: it’s cheaper! SO still prefers nuclear and coal before gas, as SO CEO Thomas A. Fanning keeps reminding us. But even SO couldn’t ignore “the revolution in shale gas”, which is cheaper prices through fracking. Solar PV costs dropped 50% last year alone. How long can SO ignore that?

“Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the CO2 problem,” Pielke warned….

Continue reading →

The Emperor’s New Clothes —Michael Noll

The VDT apparently declined to print this LTE submission. I added the links and images. -jsq

When I opened a recent “Sunday Business” section of the Valdosta Daily Times I was expecting to see a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of smart meters. After all, the headline read: “Smart Meters — Fact or Fiction?” What I found, however, was quite different. In case you missed it, here a summary of the highlights:

According to Georgia Power “concerns about smart meters are nothing more than myths.” These concerns range from health risks and increased bills to an invasion of your privacy and house fires started by electrical shorts. Myths or not, the best way to counter customers’ concerns would be to provide studies that, for example, show that smart meters are less dangerous than cellular phones or that electricity bills have not increased as a result of smart meters. However, customers only get assurances which, frankly, do nothing to dispel existing concerns.

Georgia Power also claims that it is using smart meters to be more environmentally

Continue reading →

Professor unrepentant in latest fracking payola case

Apparently the natural gas industry pays professors to greenwash their polluting product, like back in the hey-day of radio record companies used to pay disk jockies to play their records. Remember: natural gas from fracking is the main thing Southern Company and Georgia Power are switching to from coal (not that they’re even abandoning coal, just rebranding it as “21st century coal”). That and their nuke boondoggle at Plant Vogtle. All approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission, all of whose members apparently accept massive direct or indirect contributions from the utilities they regulate. Two GA PSC Commissioners slots are up for election right now.

The professor most recently found to be in the pay of a fracking company when he reported on fracking is unrepentant. Terrence Henry wrote for State Impact Texas yesterday, Texas Professor On the Defensive Over Fracking Money

So the questions remaining are: Why didn’t Groat disclose this in the study? And did he fail to tell anyone at the University about it?

The professor would not agree to an interview, but in an email to StateImpact Texas he says the Public Accountability Initiative report is “a mixture of truths, half truths, and unfounded conclusions based [on] incorrect interpretations of information. I don’t want to discuss it.”

The University of Texas requires that financial conflicts of interest be disclosed by employees when it has “potential for directly and significantly affecting the design, conduct, or reporting of … research or is in an entity whose financial interest appears to be affected by that research.”

Dean Sharon Mosher of the Jackson School of Geosciences says that Groat submitted the financial conflict of interest form to her office in previous years, but that he had not done so this year. “I was not aware that he was still a member of the board,” Mosher tells StateImpact Texas. “Had I known he was still a member of the board and being paid, I would have insisted that he disclosed it.”

What report? Follow the links in here. Terrence Henry wrote for State Impact Texas 23 July, Fracking Company Paid Texas Professor Behind Water Contamination Study,

Earlier this year, a study led by Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat for the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin made headlines for saying there was no link between fracking and groundwater contamination. (When we reported on the study in February, we noted that the study also found some serious issues around the safety and regulation of fracking that weren’t getting much press coverage.)

But according to a new report out today by the Public Accountablitiy Initiative (PAI), a nonprofit watchdog group, the conclusions in Groat’s report aren’t as clear cut as initially reported. And Groat himself did not disclose significant financial ties to the fracking industry.

Groat, a former Director of the U.S. Geological Survey and professor at the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin, also sits on the board of Plains Exploration and Production Company, a Houston-based company that conducts drilling and fracking in Texas and other parts of the country. According to the new report (and a review of the company’s financial reports by Bloomberg) Groat received more than $400,000 from the drilling company last year alone, more than double his salary at the University. And one of the shales examined in Groat’s fracking study is currently being drilled by the company, the report says.

Since 2007, Groat has received over $1.5 million in cash and stock awards from the company, and he currently holds over $1.6 million in company stock, according to the PAI report. (Update: we clarified with PAI, and that $1.6 million in stock comes from the stock awards over the years. PAI says Groat’s total compensation from the company is close to $2 million.)

And it gets worse from there: rough drafts published, unsubstantiated peer review claims, etc.

This isn’t an isolated case:

This isn’t the first time that academic studies of drilling have been called into question because of industry ties. In an earlier report on a State University of New York at Buffalo study on fracking’s environmental risks, Public Accountability Initiative found that it “suffered a number of critical shortcomings” and the “report’s authors had strong industry ties.”

And in today’s investigation from Bloomberg, they found other instances of industry influence and financial ties at Pennsylvania State University and University of Wyoming.

Do we want to trade air pollution by coal for groundwater pollution by fracking? When we have a better future already at hand through conservation and efficiency along with solar and wind power?

-jsq

It is time to finally put the pieces of a larger energy puzzle together —Michael Noll

Seen today on the WACE facebook page: an online comment the VDT declined to let appear. It was on Natural gas use expanding; station planned for Valdosta by Kay Harris, VDT, 22 July 2012. -jsq

There are some major problems with this article, but let’s first begin with the points one can agree with:

Mr. Putnam is correct when he says that natural gas is a much cleaner source of energy than coal and oil. It is also true that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” which can buy us time to develop new technologies. However, here are the points that are missing (or were glanced over) simply because we are, again, looking for a quick fix to our dependence on foreign oil, while doing little to address issues that really matter:

  1. Neither Mr. Putnam nor the VDT seem to fully understand or recognize the environmental damage fracking does. This new technology is not only responsible for our nation’s current natural gas surplus, but also comes at an enormous price to both people and the environment.
  2. Time and again we are talking about the need to become independent of foreign oil, yet little attention is paid to the need to conserve. Instead we continue to ‘live it up” and consume more energy per capita than any other western nation. If you are addicted to a “drug” (as in an overly consumptive lifestyle) hopping from marijuana to heroin won’t help your general problem.

It is time to finally put the pieces of a larger energy puzzle together because at the end of the day natural gas, too, is a finite source. But how will we ever get there when a) entities like Southern Company (i.e. Georgia Power) refuse to embrace truly clean sources of energy production like solar and wind, when b) people like Mr. Putnam and papers like the VDT only present a one-sided view of an important and complex issue, and when c) we, the consumers, refuse to accept our responsibilities in this whole mess as if we had a God given right to be wasteful?

-Michael Noll

4 of 5 incumbent GA PSC Commissioners accept massive utility campaign contributions

Could contributions produce influence? Neither of the incumbent Public Service Commissioners showed up for last night’s GPB debate, just as they didn’t show up for the previous weekend’s GIPL debate. Saturday the AJC examined the incumbents’ campaign finance and regulatory records, and let’s look a bit into how they’ve acted as regulators towards their biggest indirect contributors: Georgia Power.

Kristi E. Swartz wrote for the Augusta Chronicle or AP 21 July 2012, Donors to Georgia Public Service Commission members vested in decisions,

Four of Georgia’s utility regulators have accepted at least 70 percent of their campaign contributions from companies and people that could profit from the agency’s decisions, a review of five years of campaign finance records by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution revealed.

The fifth member of the state Public Service Commission, Tim Echols, campaigned on the promise that he wouldn’t take money from employees or lobbyists for businesses regulated by the agency.

Even so, nearly one in five dollars in Echols’ contributions came from people or companies whose business is affected by PSC decisions, the review found.

Together, the PSC commissioners took in nearly $750,000 in the last five years, records show. Two of them — Stan Wise and Chuck Eaton — are seeking re-election this year to their $116,452-a-year posts.

Wise and Eaton would be the two incumbents who can’t be bothered to show up for debates. Doesn’t make them look very responsive to the people, does it? Who do they respond to, then?

A review of major decisions that have come before the PSC in the past five years shows utilities have received much — but not all — of what they have asked for.

Georgia Power donors

In the past five years, for example, Georgia Power’s rates have risen 24 percent, although they dipped in June. The PSC must sign off on the company’s rate changes.

Current and former employees of Georgia Power, its parent Southern Co. and its law firm, Troutman Sanders, poured $52,650 into the campaign coffers of four of the sitting PSC members.

A Georgia Power spokeswoman argued that including Troutman Sanders and other company vendors in an analysis of spending “is false.” But critics say including them is critical to capturing the full influence of the utilities on the PSC.

Influence like this? Melissa Stiers wrote for GPB News 19 July 2011, PSC Nixes Vogtle Cost Check,

Continue reading →

Invent batteries to the price point of the electricity market —Donald Sadoway

MIT Prof. Donald Sadoway thinks he’s found a way to build electric-grid-scale batteries out of dirt.

Electric utilities complain solar and wind power are not baseload, capacity, energy sources because they are intermittent. You know, if they weren’t busy running up cost overruns that could easily exceed the entire annual budget of the state of Georgia, maybe the utilities could solve this problem. Meanwhile, Prof. Sadoway, instead of looking for the snazziest coolest most efficient new method of energy storage, defined the problem in terms of the market:

the demanding performance requirements of the grid, namely uncommonly high power, long service lifetime, and super low cost. We need to think about the problem differently. We need to think big. We need to think cheap.

Then he set parameters on the solution:

If you want to make something dirt cheap, make it out of dirt. Preferably dirt that’s locally sourced.

He cast about for possible precedents and found aluminum smelting gave him some ideas for using low density liquid metal at the top, high density liquid metal at the bottom, and molten salt in between. Choosing the right metals is the trick, which he thinks he’s found: magnesium at the top, and antimony at the bottom.

Is Sadoway right? Will his battery work at grid scale? I don’t know. But he’s asking the right questions, and it’s worth a try.

As Kyle Sager wrote for Heliocurrent 4 May 2012, Renewable Storage: Leave it to MIT,

Has Dr. Sadoway achieved the holy grail of renewable energy? Judge for yourself. Our attention is compelled by the degree of his certainty and the seeming simplicity of the approach. Watch MIT’s Donald Sadoway explain his vision here (link).

Seems to me there are at least two major approaches:

Continue reading →