Clean Energy R&D Funds Should Be Tripled in U.S.

When the CEOs of 7 companies like GE and Microsoft talk with one voice, people should listen.

The American Innovation Energy Council, a council of corporate leaders, urged Congress and President Obama to triple funding for clean-energy related R&D from $5 billion to $16 billion per year.

As reported in the Times, GE's CEO Jeff Immelt said, "The world is not going to wait for the United States to lead. This is about innovation; this is about competition; this is about energy security."

We're not leading — that's a given. But not only are we not following, we're looking in the opposite direction.

Or is it that our only hope of being competitive is waiting for Chinese goods to become more expensive?

Sustainable Packaging Using Bioplastics

Just about everything we buy is covered in plastic packaging at some stage of its production cycle. With oil prices rising and consumer demand for sustainable packages growing, companies are turning their attention to packaging made out of bioplastics.

The benefit of bioplastics is, of course, that they degrade in the environment.

As the video below explains, bioplastics can be made from a range of plants such as sugarcane, wheat, tapioca, potato and soy.

Using vegetable products in packaging, however, means they have to be diverted from the food supply — which could lead to food shortages and higher prices. So chemical manufacturers are also looking into making bioplastics out of agricultural waste.

Stimulus Funds Should Not Pay for Jobs in China, Senator Says

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants none of our stimulus dollars to pay for jobs in China, according to Bloomberg News.

He will send Energy Secretary Steven Chu a letter urging him to release stimulus funds for a Texas wind farm project only if the high-value components, including the wind turbines, are made domestically.

At issue is a proposed 600-megawatt wind farm that is being jointly developed by American and Chinese companies. The wind turbines for the farm will be made in China, leading to the creation of about 3,000 jobs there.

Some of the investment for the farm is coming from China, and perhaps about $450 million from U.S. stimulus funds. Unless the Obama Administration denies the project the money.

The Energy Department says that to date, the project has not applied for funds.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing asks, "Why aren't American firms building this clean-energy project?"

Why indeed?

Easier Than Ever to Be Green

A guest post today, from my friend Marc Halpert. Marc's company, Your Best Interest, LLC, helps businesses and non-profits get paid electronically. No messing with paper, no waiting for checks -- getting paid electronically speeds up your cash flow and helps the environment.

Here's Marc's post:

It’s Easier Than Ever to Be Green

Poor Kermit the Frog. He thought it wasn't easy being green. Now we all strive to be "greener" by saving gasoline or adjusting our thermostats to run less heat and air conditioning, especially at peak demand times.

Have you thought how to make your business or nonprofit greener by using new payment technologies?

Here are a few observations:

1) stop snailmailing invoices. It takes gasoline and electricity to process the mail and it takes days (sometimes a week) for delivery; use electronic invoice presentation with a link to your web page to accept the payment far faster.

2) start accepting credit card and/or checks by phone, by fax or on your website; easy to implement in your office and makes your staff far more efficient. No more running to the bank (eats gas) by 2pm to make a deposit.

3) if you must process checks, do so electronically by feeding them through a specialized check reader and converting them to a data file. Then let your computer send them to a processor for clearing. It's called Remote Deposit Capture. No more adding machine tapes, deposit slips or trips to the bank, saving electricity and gas as well.

Ask us, we love a challenge.

Marc W. Halpert
Your Best Interest LLC and e-giving
PO Box 320048
Fairfield, CT 06825-0048
203.373.0875
efax 203.549.0406
www.linkedin.com/in/marchalpert

Distributed Solar Power Market to Exceed $55 Billion by 2012, says Pike Research

You can make electricity in massive, utility-scale generators and push it hundreds of miles over high-tension wires. Or you can make it close to where you use it, and skip the high-tension wires, the towers, the whole bit.

Distributed energy generation, as the latter method is called, is one of the most important tools for meeting the world's energy needs, says Pike Research, a cleantech research and consulting firm.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems make up the biggest component of the distributed energy generation market, according to the firm.

In a study of the PV market, it forecasts that "global installed capacity will approach 2.5 gigawatts by 2012, with annual system revenues surpassing $55 billion." The U.S. will become the largest market for small PV systems by 2011, Pike says.

If you'd like to read an executive summary of the report, click here.

Distributed renewable energy has lots of appeal. Making your own electricity is the kind of thing that swells the heart of the archetypal rugged American individualist. I've written about my view that the future of solar power lies with distributed energy.

But distributed energy has problems. It's not continuous, power quality varies and you can't easily adjust supply to match demand.

Technological solutions to these problems are afoot and the world remains undaunted. Use of distributed energy will keep growing and might even eclipse Pike's projections.

New Building Energy Label Hopes to Nudge Industry Toward "Net Zero"

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) will this fall introduce a new energy rating system that will rank buildings from A+ to F.

A+ will be reserved for buildings that are "net zero" -- those that produce as much energy onsite as they consume. At the other end of the scale, F will be applied to "unsatisfactory" facilities.

The system is called Building Energy Quotient, or Building EQ. According to ASHRAE, Building EQ will expand upon the information available from the EPA's Energy Star program. Energy Star gives buildings a single pass or fail rating.

Building EQ focuses more on energy than does the Green Building Council's LEED rating system, which looks at a building's entire environmental profile. This includes "energy savings, water efficiency, CO₂ emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts."

Building EQ will be voluntary. ASHRAE admits it is an aggressive standard, with the lofty goal of pushing the building industry toward net zero.

Green Energy Does Not Bode Well for All Sectors of the Economy

From the Dallas Morning News, a story about how Texas will fare as green energy sources assume more prominence in our nation's grid.

The short answer: Not well.

Texas's dominance in wind power notwithstanding, the state relies heavily on fossil-fuel jobs. According to the story (emphasis mine):

In 2008, the oil and gas industry contributed 16.5 percent of Texas' gross state product and employed 367,967 people, or 3.52 percent of the state's nonfarm jobs, according to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. The renewable industry, according to data from 2007, employed about 18,427 people.

OK, so the jobs relationship isn't quite valid, because it compares 2008 numbers to 2007. And renewable-energy employment grew like crazy in 2008, especially in wind energy, where jobs rose 70%.

So let's be generous and say Texas renewable-energy jobs grew 100% in 2008. That would put the employment number at 36,854 instead of 18,427. That's still just 10% of oil and gas jobs.

It's going to be a long time before all those fossil-fuel jobs get replaced by ones in renewable energy. If they ever do.

Also, let's not forget cap-and-trade, which would force sources of greenhouse gases to buy carbon credits. Texas ranks number 1 for greenhouse gas emissions.

The outlook isn't too rosy right now. But new technologies and policies usually hurt some while helping others. It's the price of progress. In the long term, on a macro scale, everyone mostly benefits.

Reduced Green Coverage by Media May Be Good News

More and more magazines are curtailing or eliminating their annual "green" issues. The Columbia Journalism Review doesn't like this development:

Given the current political and economic importance of energy and environmental issues, the decline of magazine Green Issues this year is disappointing. One can only hope that editors are true to their word and make these topics a focus of coverage throughout the year. After all, shouldn’t every day be Earth Day?

My view: the dwindling number of green issues is a good thing. Some of the decline may be due to "green fatigue," as CJR puts it. But as a cursory glance through most major magazines will tell you, these glossies don't need dedicated green issues because they've expanded their regular coverage of the environment. They write about it throughout the year.

If you're talking green all the time, you don't need a special green moment.

Reusing and Recycling = Reduced Income for Landfill Workers

One person's gain can be another person's pain. The Associated Press reports that as consumers consume less and reuse more, landfills are being left with more room to fill.

With disposable income shrinking, people are repairing broken appliances and products that they would normally have thrown away. A whole new culture of frugality has taken over many American's lives.

In some regions, landfill volumes have dropped as much as 35% compared to last year. Landfill operators are responding by laying off workers, reducing hours and raising fees.

Environmentalists hail our thrifty ways. Less waste means longer-lasting landfills, which the Sierra Club says "is good for the public because nobody likes to live next to a landfill."

EPA announcement on greenhouse gas regulation - Q&A

The announcement of the EPA's proposed finding on 6 greenhouse gases has generated lots of buzz. In the Q&A below, I've tried to break it down and make sense of what exactly the EPA said and what that means.

What exactly did the EPA say?
The EPA said it proposed to find that the following 6 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH₄)
• Nitrous oxide (N₂O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)

What does proposed to find mean?
It means unless someone or something changes the EPA's mind during the public comment period over the next 60 days, it will issue a final finding that will confirm what it is saying now.

And that will set some pretty serious wheels in motion.

Like what?
The EPA will then have to issue regulations limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that major sources, including automobiles and coal-fired power plants, can emit.

But the EPA and the White House prefer that limits on greenhouse gas emissions be achieved through climate-change legislation from Congress, rather than by regulations.

Why will the EPA have to issue regulations if Congress doesn't act?
Because in April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must regulate these gases if it found the gases caused or contributed to air pollution that endangered human health or welfare. After studying the science for 2 years, the EPA is proposing to find just that.

Will anyone change the EPA's mind in the next 60 days?
I don't know, but you can bet a lot of people are going to try hard. If you'd like to give it a shot, here are the instructions for submitting a comment in writing (pdf).

I lap this stuff up. Where can I find the full text of the proposed finding?
The official version will be published in the Federal Register and will be available in the Docket soon, under Docket ID No. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171].

If you can't wait -- and I suspect you can't -- click here (pdf) for the pre-publication copy and here (pdf) for its supporting technical analyses. You're welcome.

Federal funding for energy efficiency improvements - Breakdown of dollars by state

On March 26, the Obama Administration announced $3.2 billion in funding for energy efficiency projects at state and local levels.

According to the official press release, the funding will "support energy audits [all emphasis is mine] and energy efficiency retrofits in residential and commercial buildings, the development and implementation of advanced building codes and inspections, and the creation of financial incentive programs for energy efficiency improvements. Other activities eligible for use of grant funds include transportation programs that conserve energy, projects to reduce and capture methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, renewable energy installations on government buildings, energy efficient traffic signals and street lights, deployment of Combined Heat and Power and district heating and cooling systems, and others."

To see how much money has been allocated to your state, click here.

Save our planet = save our jobs

As the economy rushes downhill, it becomes a harder sell to get businesses to put extra money into environmentally responsible programs.

Until you point out that saving the planet creates a host of new jobs in the green-energy sector.

That is the message President Obama is trying to get out as his administration's cap-and-trade plan comes under criticism.

Industries are bracing for what they say will be higher costs under the plan. And the president is reminding them that producing more renewable energy in America will drive new jobs.

I say he's right. Someone has to install all those solar panels, monitor those CO2 allowances, analyze clean-energy equities, build wind turbines, and write software for the smart grid. Can't count on oil-industry jobs forever, not once the oil runs out.