We fear a change in the way we power our lives because we fear that any other way will restrict our freedom....the trouble is, by not changing, we already are restricting our freedom.
Through a green glass, darkly: How climate will reshape American history
"During the 20th century, the United States put into place a system of policies, technologies, and infrastructures intended to extract mass quantities of natural resources from the Earth. Those resources established the material basis of the nation’s economic and military power, and they fueled — literally — a popular belief that the future would bring unending abundance and global dominance. Modern conservatism and its party, the Republicans, have become the last refuge of people still holding onto the vestiges of that older vision. Many of us, whatever our political beliefs, are deeply invested in the system that was intended to provide cheap fuel and food and to amass enormous wealth and power. Some people are willing to admit that the end is in sight; some, because the system still rewards them or because they still find the potential rewards alluring, are unwilling."
Even when one of the most conservative entities on our plant wants to take steps to improve national security by finding less dangerous fuels, they run into an entrenched resistance of fear.
On clean energy, the military's biggest fight is with Congress
"The Congressional opponents argue that today’s next-generation biofuels, from algae, waste streams, and other feedstocks, are significantly more expensive than fossil fuels, and that is certainly true. But they also argue that it’s not the Pentagon’s role to pay a premium to help bring new technologies to commercial scale that would bring costs down, and that argument conveniently ignores, oh, about 150 years of U.S. military history. As Navy Secretary Ray Mabus often says, 'Since the 1850s, the Navy has moved from sail power to coal to oil to nuclear. And every time we changed, plenty of people said the new energy source was too expensive, too hard, and too unproven. But every time, we made a better Navy.'"
Since we have broken the link between economic growth and vehicle travel, thankfully, we still have people willing to take bold steps to give "state of the shelf" technologies and strategies an opportunity to take root...
US finalizes big jump in auto fuel efficiency
"'These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,' President Barack Obama said in a statement.
The new fuel efficiency standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion in gasoline costs and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels over the period, according to the White House."
...and there are still organizations within our cities undeterred by the prevalence of fear and misunderstanding.
CNT Energy teams with Nicor's Economic Redevelopment Program to bring energy efficiency to all Chicago neighborhoods
"The program focuses its technical assistance on buildings that are located in or will have significant economic impact over economically challenged areas, such as Economic Zones and TIF districts, as well as all projects that spur growth in low-income areas by creating jobs, offering social services, rehabilitating brownfields or vacant buildings, or providing affordable housing. Qualifying buildings should be at least 10,000 square feet and must still be in the early stages of designing and planning so that the program’s energy savings strategies can have impact."
The reward is great when we look past the fear and see what really awaits us....opportunity.
Ski lifts open $25 billion market for storing power
"'Electricity is the only commodity in the world that isn’t really stored,' said Prescott Logan, who heads GE’s storage business in Schenectady, New York, where last month it opened a $100 million plant to make batteries for utilities. When storage becomes cheap and massive, 'the impact will be huge.'
The $260 billion renewables industry needs storage so power companies can absorb surges from solar and wind farms from Texas to Mongolia. The devices will be key for plans by Germany to shift Europe’s biggest electricity market from atomic energy, said Gil Forer, Ernst & Young LLP’s clean-tech head in New York."
Happy Friday!!
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Adding Light Spotlight (08/30/2012):
The Adding Light Spotlight highlights people or organizations working to make our communities stronger, more resilient, and safer for our improved quality of life. Through the Spotlight, I hope to demonstrate that EVERYONE does not have to do EVERYTHING to make our world better as long as EVERYONE does SOMETHING.
"Grist has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a wry twist since 1999 — which, to be frank, was way before most people cared about such things. Now that green is in every headline and on every store shelf (bamboo hair gel, anyone?), Grist is the one site you can count on to help you make sense of it all.
Each day, we use our Clarity-o-Meter to draw out the real meaning behind green stories, and to connect big issues like climate change to daily life. We count on our users to bring their stories to the table, too — through blogs, photos, and whatever else they care to share. Except Jell-O molds. Those things scare us."
I found Grist when I got an iPod and sought environmental media content. I found some staples like Sierra Club and Treehugger, as well as some more off the wall (but still insightful) programs like This Week in Free Energy and America the Green. Then I found Grist. It had three qualities that I prize: intelligence, compassion, and humor. The writers got their points across in many different ways: sometimes with simply-stated fact, sometimes with tongue-in-cheek, Onion-esque humor, and sometimes with cheerleader-like celebration of the American spirit. I have rarely read a piece and felt I wasted the time.
Grist focuses not just on the politics (so it is not a partisan sounding board) and not just on the science (so it is not as boring for most as Scientific American or Nature). They have taken equal issue with President Obama and with the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Their single-minded focus on making environmental issues relevant puts them in a decidedly objective position in the environmental discussion.
Chip Giller founded Grist in 1999, and established it as a non-profit entity (a 501 (c)3 corporation). The magazine gets funding from three sources: foundation grants, private donations, and advertising. As with everything Grist does, its advertising policy carries a bit of humor (some might say "snark") with it:
Grist openly publishes a list of foundation funders, as well as its Board of Directors, which usually means those individuals contribute as well. Their IRS 990 shows annual expenses between two and three million dollars, with revenues from all sources varying from year to year between a little under two million and a little over three million dollars. No single funder appears to contribute more than five percent of annual revenues. This suggests to me that they take seriously their commitment to impartiality; a commitment that I find exemplified in the work they do.
Give Grist a try. Whether you veer left, right or center and follow MSNBC, Fox News or NPR, I know you will find substantive reporting with strong technical understanding of issues....and more than just a bit of humor to make it go down smooth.
Each day, we use our Clarity-o-Meter to draw out the real meaning behind green stories, and to connect big issues like climate change to daily life. We count on our users to bring their stories to the table, too — through blogs, photos, and whatever else they care to share. Except Jell-O molds. Those things scare us."
I found Grist when I got an iPod and sought environmental media content. I found some staples like Sierra Club and Treehugger, as well as some more off the wall (but still insightful) programs like This Week in Free Energy and America the Green. Then I found Grist. It had three qualities that I prize: intelligence, compassion, and humor. The writers got their points across in many different ways: sometimes with simply-stated fact, sometimes with tongue-in-cheek, Onion-esque humor, and sometimes with cheerleader-like celebration of the American spirit. I have rarely read a piece and felt I wasted the time.
Grist focuses not just on the politics (so it is not a partisan sounding board) and not just on the science (so it is not as boring for most as Scientific American or Nature). They have taken equal issue with President Obama and with the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Their single-minded focus on making environmental issues relevant puts them in a decidedly objective position in the environmental discussion.
Chip Giller founded Grist in 1999, and established it as a non-profit entity (a 501 (c)3 corporation). The magazine gets funding from three sources: foundation grants, private donations, and advertising. As with everything Grist does, its advertising policy carries a bit of humor (some might say "snark") with it:
Grist openly publishes a list of foundation funders, as well as its Board of Directors, which usually means those individuals contribute as well. Their IRS 990 shows annual expenses between two and three million dollars, with revenues from all sources varying from year to year between a little under two million and a little over three million dollars. No single funder appears to contribute more than five percent of annual revenues. This suggests to me that they take seriously their commitment to impartiality; a commitment that I find exemplified in the work they do.
Give Grist a try. Whether you veer left, right or center and follow MSNBC, Fox News or NPR, I know you will find substantive reporting with strong technical understanding of issues....and more than just a bit of humor to make it go down smooth.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Request Monday (08/27/2012): If you build it (green), they will...
"I am hearing more and more about 'green building' these days, and wonder how much of it is real versus fiction. Should I care if a house I buy or place I work is 'green'?"
Barbara from Chicago
To answer the question, I want to provide a bit of history. The present-day, green building movement started in the late seventies in America as a response to the energy crises of that decade. Increased automobile use, skyscraper proliferation, availability of cheap energy, and modernist architecture changed the performance of buildings and the locating of buildings such that we vastly increased our reliance on fossil fuels, with fossil fuel use tripling between 1950 and 1975 while population only increased by forty percent. As the sources of some of those fuels became unstable, and the damage caused by them more apparent, businesses and the federal government began looking for solutions for how to fix the situation.
As industry leaders and policy makers sought solutions, the push for better energy usage in buildings lead to the creation of the building commissioning industry. Commissioning focuses on providing existing building "tune-ups", much the same way we do for automobiles, or providing quality control during construction, much the same way we have quality control in manufacturing. Commissioning seeks to find and eliminate waste in the building construction and operation process, without sacrificing the services needed in the building.
Even with the evolving approach to efficiency, we still had a gaping hole in the initial design or renovation of buildings. Finding issues that affect energy usage by even fifteen to twenty percent sounds great, but what about buildings that could use up to twice or three times some of their predecessors? The industry realized that pushing for more efficient buildings and better built buildings was only the start. Add to this the push for ways to address water pollution, ozone depletion, sick-building syndrome, soil depletion, and gridlock, and you realize that a quality control solution would not suffice.
In the late eighties to early nineties, as a population raised on Earth Day, Smokey Bear, and Three Mile Island grew into consumers, businesses started to understand that they could make money catering to the environmental set. This lead to labeling or products as "eco-friendly" or "green" or "environmentally friendly/safe". As marketing professionals got a hold of the latest trend, and companies failed to keep up with the promises, consumers became confused. Especially in the area of building construction, where so many different aspects of environmental living come together, it became difficult to discern reality from fantasy.
In 1993, a group of individuals from many areas of the construction industry came together to address these issues of greenwashing, and to potentially develop a standard by which designers and owners could recognize buildings as "green" with specific, industry-driven standards on which everyone could agree. This lead to the creation of the US Green Building Council (USGBC; not a government agency, but an industry organization that later became a not-for-profit corporation). and the development of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Although several successors have come since the launching of LEED in 1998 (Green Globes, BREEAM, CASBEE, GBTool), all have some sort of checklist format that seeks to balance out some "must have" strategies with optional strategies to build a point system that measures the "greenness" of the building. This point system structure lends itself to competition and ease of marketing (especially with the USGBC's choice of Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum as the increasing ranks of building "greenness"). Because of this market/competition driven nature of all these systems, the performance improvement has reached a wider audience of listeners, but questions remain about how quickly the market is being transformed to create lasting change.
With that as a preface, the answer to your question is quite short....yes. You should look to live and work in green buildings, or make the home you live in green, or demand that your company's owners implement green practices. The current list of green building rating and scoring systems all focus almost exclusively on "state of the shelf" technology...meaning that in order to meet any criteria of performance, a designer does not have to create something new, experimental or untested. Since tested technologies and strategies form the core of these systems, asking for their requirements to be met should not put undue burden on you as a homeowner or on a business. This is not to say that you or a business owner can or should do ALL of the options available....but meeting some very basic requirements should not fall outside the realm of the possible. For example:
1. Eliminating all materials in the building that off-gas and release volatile organic compounds into the air.
2. Purchasing or building structures in neighborhoods with ready access to basic goods and services.
3. Encouraging, through design or operation, the use of public transportation and walking/biking.
4. Providing recycling infrastructure throughout the facility.
5. Discouraging smoking or release of harmful emissions.
6. Providing documented visual, thermal, and ventilation comfort throughout the building.
7. Increasing access to the outdoors from occupants.
8. Reducing the amount of material needed to create a building without reducing services.
Business and government has sought to balance how much of these rating systems reflect "must do" strategies versus "should do". Until more buildings are built green, so that data can be gathered on health benefits (if any truly exist), productivity, economic and environmental impact, it will be difficult to quantify if green buildings have added value. Several studies have attempted to make that connection, but more are needed. Until that point, we are left with some common sense. The fewer resources we can use, the fewer chemicals that get into our buildings (and then into us!), the more comfortable we can make buildings, and the better choices we make in where to build, the more common sense we end up using and the better our buildings are to us that occupy them, and those who do not but are impacted by our choices.
Barbara from Chicago
To answer the question, I want to provide a bit of history. The present-day, green building movement started in the late seventies in America as a response to the energy crises of that decade. Increased automobile use, skyscraper proliferation, availability of cheap energy, and modernist architecture changed the performance of buildings and the locating of buildings such that we vastly increased our reliance on fossil fuels, with fossil fuel use tripling between 1950 and 1975 while population only increased by forty percent. As the sources of some of those fuels became unstable, and the damage caused by them more apparent, businesses and the federal government began looking for solutions for how to fix the situation.
As industry leaders and policy makers sought solutions, the push for better energy usage in buildings lead to the creation of the building commissioning industry. Commissioning focuses on providing existing building "tune-ups", much the same way we do for automobiles, or providing quality control during construction, much the same way we have quality control in manufacturing. Commissioning seeks to find and eliminate waste in the building construction and operation process, without sacrificing the services needed in the building.
Even with the evolving approach to efficiency, we still had a gaping hole in the initial design or renovation of buildings. Finding issues that affect energy usage by even fifteen to twenty percent sounds great, but what about buildings that could use up to twice or three times some of their predecessors? The industry realized that pushing for more efficient buildings and better built buildings was only the start. Add to this the push for ways to address water pollution, ozone depletion, sick-building syndrome, soil depletion, and gridlock, and you realize that a quality control solution would not suffice.
In the late eighties to early nineties, as a population raised on Earth Day, Smokey Bear, and Three Mile Island grew into consumers, businesses started to understand that they could make money catering to the environmental set. This lead to labeling or products as "eco-friendly" or "green" or "environmentally friendly/safe". As marketing professionals got a hold of the latest trend, and companies failed to keep up with the promises, consumers became confused. Especially in the area of building construction, where so many different aspects of environmental living come together, it became difficult to discern reality from fantasy.
In 1993, a group of individuals from many areas of the construction industry came together to address these issues of greenwashing, and to potentially develop a standard by which designers and owners could recognize buildings as "green" with specific, industry-driven standards on which everyone could agree. This lead to the creation of the US Green Building Council (USGBC; not a government agency, but an industry organization that later became a not-for-profit corporation). and the development of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Although several successors have come since the launching of LEED in 1998 (Green Globes, BREEAM, CASBEE, GBTool), all have some sort of checklist format that seeks to balance out some "must have" strategies with optional strategies to build a point system that measures the "greenness" of the building. This point system structure lends itself to competition and ease of marketing (especially with the USGBC's choice of Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum as the increasing ranks of building "greenness"). Because of this market/competition driven nature of all these systems, the performance improvement has reached a wider audience of listeners, but questions remain about how quickly the market is being transformed to create lasting change.
With that as a preface, the answer to your question is quite short....yes. You should look to live and work in green buildings, or make the home you live in green, or demand that your company's owners implement green practices. The current list of green building rating and scoring systems all focus almost exclusively on "state of the shelf" technology...meaning that in order to meet any criteria of performance, a designer does not have to create something new, experimental or untested. Since tested technologies and strategies form the core of these systems, asking for their requirements to be met should not put undue burden on you as a homeowner or on a business. This is not to say that you or a business owner can or should do ALL of the options available....but meeting some very basic requirements should not fall outside the realm of the possible. For example:
1. Eliminating all materials in the building that off-gas and release volatile organic compounds into the air.
2. Purchasing or building structures in neighborhoods with ready access to basic goods and services.
3. Encouraging, through design or operation, the use of public transportation and walking/biking.
4. Providing recycling infrastructure throughout the facility.
5. Discouraging smoking or release of harmful emissions.
6. Providing documented visual, thermal, and ventilation comfort throughout the building.
7. Increasing access to the outdoors from occupants.
8. Reducing the amount of material needed to create a building without reducing services.
Business and government has sought to balance how much of these rating systems reflect "must do" strategies versus "should do". Until more buildings are built green, so that data can be gathered on health benefits (if any truly exist), productivity, economic and environmental impact, it will be difficult to quantify if green buildings have added value. Several studies have attempted to make that connection, but more are needed. Until that point, we are left with some common sense. The fewer resources we can use, the fewer chemicals that get into our buildings (and then into us!), the more comfortable we can make buildings, and the better choices we make in where to build, the more common sense we end up using and the better our buildings are to us that occupy them, and those who do not but are impacted by our choices.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Send your ideas to Adding Light!
Adding Light is looking for questions, topics or issues for its Request Monday feature, as well as ideas for the Adding Light Spotlight.
If you have a question related to environmental, energy, stewardship or community issues, and want a straightforward, scientific response, send your question to Joseph Clair by leaving a comment to this post, or emailing him at joseph (at) josephclair (dot) com.
Also, if you know of an institution, company, or individual who is making a difference in their communities and improving the quality of life by changing the way we relate to our resources, please send a link to information about that entity either through email or comment.
Thank you for regularly reading the Adding Light blog!
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair, P.E.
If you have a question related to environmental, energy, stewardship or community issues, and want a straightforward, scientific response, send your question to Joseph Clair by leaving a comment to this post, or emailing him at joseph (at) josephclair (dot) com.
Also, if you know of an institution, company, or individual who is making a difference in their communities and improving the quality of life by changing the way we relate to our resources, please send a link to information about that entity either through email or comment.
Thank you for regularly reading the Adding Light blog!
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair, P.E.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Friday Five: August 24, 2012
Our life depends on an interwoven ecosystem, and as we disrupt one piece, we affect many others.
Feed 9 billion people? We can do that, but it’s not going to be pretty
"As agricultural production has skyrocketed, so has our population, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7 billion today and perhaps 9 billion by mid-century. But adding so much new nitrogen to the environment causes problems ranging from ocean dead zones to urban smog. Indeed, one could argue that all of our global environmental impacts, from climate change to mass extinction, are being driven by altering the nitrogen cycle, because it continues to fuel our unprecedented population growth."
With such a huge task ahead of us, why would we tolerate a society and a system that inherently wastes almost as much as it eats.
Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food supply from farm to fork to landfill
"Nutrition is also lost in the mix -- food saved by reducing losses by just 15 percent could feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Given all the resources demanded for food production, it is critical to make sure that the least amount possible is needlessly squandered on its journey to our plates."
I am sure that everyone can get behind using common sense to try to improve our relationship with food.Tackling food waste at home
"Cutting a little food waste goes a long way, because throwing away food wastes not only food itself, but the resources—land, fertilizer, water, paper, plastic, gas--that go into growing, packaging and transporting that food. Our food habits waste 25 percent of America's freshwater and 4 percent of our oil. We spend $90 billion each year to make food that never gets eaten."
In a similar fashion, we can make good use of technology to help us avoid other types of waste in our lives as well.
Living with the Nest #2 – the daily energy summary and why other appliances should act like the Nest
"What the Nest is, as I’m learning, is a modern way to control and manage your heating and cooling, which is responsible for a significant chunk of a home’s energy consumption. Having a product that helps you understand what’s actually going on in your house can help you make decisions that could save you money and energy. Whether or not that information turns in to savings is still, for the most part, up to you."
I am thrilled that I will be able to enjoy all that fruity Jamba goodness without contributing to the waste addiction we all enjoy.
Jamba Juice will go Styrofoam-Free by 2013
"In June, ten-year-old Mia Hansen bought a smoothie at Jamba Juice. And like thousands of drinks they sell every day, hers was served in a styrofoam cup.
Mia knows that styrofoam is bad for the planet. From production to disposal, it creates pollution, releases chemicals, and junks our landfills and landscapes. (And oceans!)
'That’s just ridiculous,' she wrote. 'It bothered me so much, my mom encouraged me to start a petition.'"
Happy Friday!
Enjoy the journey!
Feed 9 billion people? We can do that, but it’s not going to be pretty
"As agricultural production has skyrocketed, so has our population, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7 billion today and perhaps 9 billion by mid-century. But adding so much new nitrogen to the environment causes problems ranging from ocean dead zones to urban smog. Indeed, one could argue that all of our global environmental impacts, from climate change to mass extinction, are being driven by altering the nitrogen cycle, because it continues to fuel our unprecedented population growth."
With such a huge task ahead of us, why would we tolerate a society and a system that inherently wastes almost as much as it eats.
Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food supply from farm to fork to landfill
"Nutrition is also lost in the mix -- food saved by reducing losses by just 15 percent could feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Given all the resources demanded for food production, it is critical to make sure that the least amount possible is needlessly squandered on its journey to our plates."
I am sure that everyone can get behind using common sense to try to improve our relationship with food.Tackling food waste at home
"Cutting a little food waste goes a long way, because throwing away food wastes not only food itself, but the resources—land, fertilizer, water, paper, plastic, gas--that go into growing, packaging and transporting that food. Our food habits waste 25 percent of America's freshwater and 4 percent of our oil. We spend $90 billion each year to make food that never gets eaten."
In a similar fashion, we can make good use of technology to help us avoid other types of waste in our lives as well.
Living with the Nest #2 – the daily energy summary and why other appliances should act like the Nest
"What the Nest is, as I’m learning, is a modern way to control and manage your heating and cooling, which is responsible for a significant chunk of a home’s energy consumption. Having a product that helps you understand what’s actually going on in your house can help you make decisions that could save you money and energy. Whether or not that information turns in to savings is still, for the most part, up to you."
I am thrilled that I will be able to enjoy all that fruity Jamba goodness without contributing to the waste addiction we all enjoy.
Jamba Juice will go Styrofoam-Free by 2013
"In June, ten-year-old Mia Hansen bought a smoothie at Jamba Juice. And like thousands of drinks they sell every day, hers was served in a styrofoam cup.
Mia knows that styrofoam is bad for the planet. From production to disposal, it creates pollution, releases chemicals, and junks our landfills and landscapes. (And oceans!)
'That’s just ridiculous,' she wrote. 'It bothered me so much, my mom encouraged me to start a petition.'"
Happy Friday!
Enjoy the journey!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Adding Light Spotlight (08/23/2012): Active Transportation Alliance
The Adding Light Spotlight highlights people or organizations working to make our communities stronger, more resilient, and safer for our improved quality of life. Through the Spotlight, I hope to demonstrate that EVERYONE does not have to do EVERYTHING to make our world better as long as EVERYONE does SOMETHING.
As more and more people move into cities and metropolitan areas due to a wave of urban revitalization going on in our country, we need to make sure those people can safely get from home to work, play, and culture in order to maintain a thriving economy and civic connectedness. Without this connectedness, we lose our connection to each other as people, and that is what allows communities to remain resilient and thrive. One of the organizations in this country that works tirelessly to make this necessary transportation not only possible, but environmentally safe as well as physically safe, is the Active Transportation Alliance. I am proud to be a member of this organization that promotes safe, multi-modal transportation that includes advocacy for increased access to bike pathways, safe and walkable streets (which are great for the value of small businesses!), and improved ubiquitousness of public transportation. Their stated mission:
"...to make bicycling, walking and public transit so safe, convenient and fun that we will achieve a significant shift from environmentally harmful, sedentary travel to clean, active travel. We advocate for transportation that encourages and promotes safety, physical activity, health, recreation, social interaction, equity, environmental stewardship and resource conservation."
points to the value they bring to cities throughout Illinois.
Learn more about Active Trans (as they are more widely known) through their website at www.activetrans.org where you will find copies of their Annual Reports for the previous three years. They have several great events each year to raise funds for their work, as well as to promote their mission --- many of us are familiar with Bike the Drive which happens Memorial Day weekend. This Sunday, they are hosting the Four Star Bike Tour...a series of rides of varying length meant to please any bicycle enthusiast. My family and I will be on the 12-mile scavenger hunt that takes off at 9am, but for you avid riders, you can try the 22-mile, 35-mile or even 62-mile! adventure. If you are not able to join as a member, you definitely should consider attending one of their great events. You will not regret it.
Until next time,
Enjoy the journey!
As more and more people move into cities and metropolitan areas due to a wave of urban revitalization going on in our country, we need to make sure those people can safely get from home to work, play, and culture in order to maintain a thriving economy and civic connectedness. Without this connectedness, we lose our connection to each other as people, and that is what allows communities to remain resilient and thrive. One of the organizations in this country that works tirelessly to make this necessary transportation not only possible, but environmentally safe as well as physically safe, is the Active Transportation Alliance. I am proud to be a member of this organization that promotes safe, multi-modal transportation that includes advocacy for increased access to bike pathways, safe and walkable streets (which are great for the value of small businesses!), and improved ubiquitousness of public transportation. Their stated mission:
"...to make bicycling, walking and public transit so safe, convenient and fun that we will achieve a significant shift from environmentally harmful, sedentary travel to clean, active travel. We advocate for transportation that encourages and promotes safety, physical activity, health, recreation, social interaction, equity, environmental stewardship and resource conservation."
points to the value they bring to cities throughout Illinois.
Learn more about Active Trans (as they are more widely known) through their website at www.activetrans.org where you will find copies of their Annual Reports for the previous three years. They have several great events each year to raise funds for their work, as well as to promote their mission --- many of us are familiar with Bike the Drive which happens Memorial Day weekend. This Sunday, they are hosting the Four Star Bike Tour...a series of rides of varying length meant to please any bicycle enthusiast. My family and I will be on the 12-mile scavenger hunt that takes off at 9am, but for you avid riders, you can try the 22-mile, 35-mile or even 62-mile! adventure. If you are not able to join as a member, you definitely should consider attending one of their great events. You will not regret it.
Until next time,
Enjoy the journey!
Monday, August 20, 2012
Request Monday (08/20/2012): The rain in spain...
"How are the droughts across the Midwest affected by climate change, and what impact will that have on the cost of food?"
- Marty from Wheaton -
John Upton over at Grist.org has a straightforward review of the issue, but I will give you the highlights from his work and some of my own research. First of all, global temperatures are increasing, at at approximately the rate predicted by climate scientists in the later part of last century.
Increases in ambient temperature change evaporation rates. If we remember about the water cycle from grammar school, that evaporation creates the storm clouds that eventually produce rain. The thing about higher ambient temperature air is that it holds more moisture than lower temperature air. (It's why you feel "clammy" when the temperature quickly drops from 85F to 75F if it doesn't rain...the same amount of moisture is in the air, but it can't hold onto it. As air cools, the gas molecules move closer together, leaving less room for the water vapor molecules. The opposite happens as temperatures climb.) This increased moisture capacity sucks up more moisture from the ground, holds onto it longer, and then dumps it quickly in the form of more torrential rain. The ground experiences less frequent rain, causing it to dry out, making it harder to absorb the more torrential rain.
This disruption to the regular water cycle also affects the recharge rate of local water sources...and for our nations prime growing areas, that means the Ogallala Aquifer. As rain falls less frequently in the areas served by the aquifer, the levels within it drop, and as we withdraw more water from the aquifer for air conditioning, human consumption, and lawn watering, we leave less for irrigation. This combination of rainfall reduction and increased human withdrawal leaves less water than necessary for growing crops.
As the Upton article points out, over the past half century, we have moved to more genetically modified "mono crops" which have a number of issues, but one of them is the combined lack of resilience to weather variation. Whereas in previous times of significant draught, farmers could count on the variety of crops to help balance out yields, that opportunity no longer exists, and the science of genetic modification has not kept up.
Although that provides a theoretical explanation, in the tropics, they have already experienced some of these crop yield reductions due to increases in temperature.
The charts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (as summarized by Easterling, W. and Apps, M. in "Assessing the Consequences of Climate Change for Food and Forest Resources: A View from the IPCC", 2005) show that in areas that have experienced temperature increases, that crop yields drop with each step of temperature increase. If we continue on this path, we can expect similar changes to our growing patterns.
As for the changes in pricing, this year we can expect a small increase, but most agriculture is purchased on futures markets with prices set well ahead of time. The real impact will be next year when buyers will price the volatility into the marketplace. As the market expects to sell less corn and soy next year, it will demand higher prices assuming that buyers will want to consume just as much of the product.
The solutions to this spiral are not easy. On one level, we need to stabilize climate disruptions in order to take away the driving force. However, that will not reduce the temperature gains already made, so a combination of water efficiency and alternative growing methods will help to extend yields and increase crop resilience. It will be interesting to see if any long term reduction in yields changes national or regional policy. We currently subsidize ethanol (gas additive produced from agriculture) and food additives in order to provide a larger market for corn and soy. With lower yields, we could stabilize prices by lowering these subsidies and decreasing demand. When ethanol received a boost in the early 2000s, the competing interests for corn increased prices across the food industry. A "double whammy" could completely change the food market.
A final option from my point of view (among many possible adaptations we can make) comes from reducing energy usage in tandem with water usage. I have already written on the subject of decreasing water use per capita in our culture (here and here), including the impact of water for energy production. For each unit of electricity consumption we reduce, we also reduce water needed to produce that electricity. A combination of all of these solutions (plus many others) will be needed to solve this vexing problem
- Marty from Wheaton -
John Upton over at Grist.org has a straightforward review of the issue, but I will give you the highlights from his work and some of my own research. First of all, global temperatures are increasing, at at approximately the rate predicted by climate scientists in the later part of last century.
Increases in ambient temperature change evaporation rates. If we remember about the water cycle from grammar school, that evaporation creates the storm clouds that eventually produce rain. The thing about higher ambient temperature air is that it holds more moisture than lower temperature air. (It's why you feel "clammy" when the temperature quickly drops from 85F to 75F if it doesn't rain...the same amount of moisture is in the air, but it can't hold onto it. As air cools, the gas molecules move closer together, leaving less room for the water vapor molecules. The opposite happens as temperatures climb.) This increased moisture capacity sucks up more moisture from the ground, holds onto it longer, and then dumps it quickly in the form of more torrential rain. The ground experiences less frequent rain, causing it to dry out, making it harder to absorb the more torrential rain.
This disruption to the regular water cycle also affects the recharge rate of local water sources...and for our nations prime growing areas, that means the Ogallala Aquifer. As rain falls less frequently in the areas served by the aquifer, the levels within it drop, and as we withdraw more water from the aquifer for air conditioning, human consumption, and lawn watering, we leave less for irrigation. This combination of rainfall reduction and increased human withdrawal leaves less water than necessary for growing crops.
As the Upton article points out, over the past half century, we have moved to more genetically modified "mono crops" which have a number of issues, but one of them is the combined lack of resilience to weather variation. Whereas in previous times of significant draught, farmers could count on the variety of crops to help balance out yields, that opportunity no longer exists, and the science of genetic modification has not kept up.
Although that provides a theoretical explanation, in the tropics, they have already experienced some of these crop yield reductions due to increases in temperature.
The charts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (as summarized by Easterling, W. and Apps, M. in "Assessing the Consequences of Climate Change for Food and Forest Resources: A View from the IPCC", 2005) show that in areas that have experienced temperature increases, that crop yields drop with each step of temperature increase. If we continue on this path, we can expect similar changes to our growing patterns.
As for the changes in pricing, this year we can expect a small increase, but most agriculture is purchased on futures markets with prices set well ahead of time. The real impact will be next year when buyers will price the volatility into the marketplace. As the market expects to sell less corn and soy next year, it will demand higher prices assuming that buyers will want to consume just as much of the product.
The solutions to this spiral are not easy. On one level, we need to stabilize climate disruptions in order to take away the driving force. However, that will not reduce the temperature gains already made, so a combination of water efficiency and alternative growing methods will help to extend yields and increase crop resilience. It will be interesting to see if any long term reduction in yields changes national or regional policy. We currently subsidize ethanol (gas additive produced from agriculture) and food additives in order to provide a larger market for corn and soy. With lower yields, we could stabilize prices by lowering these subsidies and decreasing demand. When ethanol received a boost in the early 2000s, the competing interests for corn increased prices across the food industry. A "double whammy" could completely change the food market.
A final option from my point of view (among many possible adaptations we can make) comes from reducing energy usage in tandem with water usage. I have already written on the subject of decreasing water use per capita in our culture (here and here), including the impact of water for energy production. For each unit of electricity consumption we reduce, we also reduce water needed to produce that electricity. A combination of all of these solutions (plus many others) will be needed to solve this vexing problem
Friday, August 17, 2012
Friday Five: August 17, 2012
Some really good news for those who understand that our actions and choices are limiting our quality of life and risking the quality of life of our children.
CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low
"Mann called it 'ironic' that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas."
But noting that at 7% of the world's population, we account for 16% of emissions, there is still work to be done, and some bipartisan solutions to make things better.
A climate change fix conservatives can love
"Yet there is an answer for either candidate courageous enough to take the first step. This answer is steeped in conservative economics: Companies that pollute should be taxed so that a product’s cost to society is reflected in the price of that product. Milton Friedman and Richard Posner agree on this point!"
And as we rebuild the middle class, if we can maintain the disconnect between vehicle miles and economic growth, we can make even greater strides.
It's Official: Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans
"The Carnegie paper explains that car ownership rates are closely tied to the size of the middle class. In fact, the paper actually measures car ownership rates for the specific purpose of using that number to predict middle class size. Comparing the middle class across countries can be extraordinarily difficult; someone who counts as middle class in one country could be poor or rich in another. Americans are buying fewer cars -- is it possible that this is another sign of a declining American middle class? Even if Americans are on average richer than Europeans, after all, U.S. income inequality is also much higher. According to the Carnegie paper, about 9.6 of Americans' cars are luxury cars, an unusually high number; but it unhelpfully defines 'luxury' as "Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Lexus" (no Cadillacs?), which may help to explain why Germany's "luxury car" rate is 26.6 percent."
What we do not need are more direct and indirect subsidies for industry that impose unnecessary infrastructure responsibilities on our future generations.
Who benefits as high-voltage electric lines crisscross Wisconsin?
"For example, MISO on its maps shows a transmission line running from Green Bay into Michigan's Upper Peninsula where the only large electric users are a pair of mining operations. But Wisconsin customers could end up paying most of the construction cost under the current scenarios."
Nor do we need to pull the rug out from under one industry in favor of another....like it or not, our government subsidizes all energy industries, and to hold one industry hostage while subsidizing fossil fuel industries doubles the advantage for polluters over job creators.
Report: A Plea For Extending a Federal Tax Incentive for Wind Energy
"The wind energy’s growth also has been built on the federal energy production tax credit, which first became available in 1992 and has been extended many times. Wind energy producers can get an income tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. The American Wind Energy Association has been lobbying hard to extend the production tax credit, which is set to end on Dec. 31 this year."
Happy Friday!
CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low
"Mann called it 'ironic' that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas."
But noting that at 7% of the world's population, we account for 16% of emissions, there is still work to be done, and some bipartisan solutions to make things better.
A climate change fix conservatives can love
"Yet there is an answer for either candidate courageous enough to take the first step. This answer is steeped in conservative economics: Companies that pollute should be taxed so that a product’s cost to society is reflected in the price of that product. Milton Friedman and Richard Posner agree on this point!"
And as we rebuild the middle class, if we can maintain the disconnect between vehicle miles and economic growth, we can make even greater strides.
It's Official: Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans
"The Carnegie paper explains that car ownership rates are closely tied to the size of the middle class. In fact, the paper actually measures car ownership rates for the specific purpose of using that number to predict middle class size. Comparing the middle class across countries can be extraordinarily difficult; someone who counts as middle class in one country could be poor or rich in another. Americans are buying fewer cars -- is it possible that this is another sign of a declining American middle class? Even if Americans are on average richer than Europeans, after all, U.S. income inequality is also much higher. According to the Carnegie paper, about 9.6 of Americans' cars are luxury cars, an unusually high number; but it unhelpfully defines 'luxury' as "Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Lexus" (no Cadillacs?), which may help to explain why Germany's "luxury car" rate is 26.6 percent."
What we do not need are more direct and indirect subsidies for industry that impose unnecessary infrastructure responsibilities on our future generations.
Who benefits as high-voltage electric lines crisscross Wisconsin?
"For example, MISO on its maps shows a transmission line running from Green Bay into Michigan's Upper Peninsula where the only large electric users are a pair of mining operations. But Wisconsin customers could end up paying most of the construction cost under the current scenarios."
Nor do we need to pull the rug out from under one industry in favor of another....like it or not, our government subsidizes all energy industries, and to hold one industry hostage while subsidizing fossil fuel industries doubles the advantage for polluters over job creators.
Report: A Plea For Extending a Federal Tax Incentive for Wind Energy
"The wind energy’s growth also has been built on the federal energy production tax credit, which first became available in 1992 and has been extended many times. Wind energy producers can get an income tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. The American Wind Energy Association has been lobbying hard to extend the production tax credit, which is set to end on Dec. 31 this year."
Happy Friday!
Monday, August 13, 2012
Request Monday (08/13/2012): The only thing certain...
"I am hearing so much about taxes during this election year, and now the idea of a carbon tax is resurfacing. What is it? And is it really going to be helpful, or just another messy issue?"
- Amy from Los Angeles -
Far be it for me to ever suggest that something will not be a messy political issue, but the concept of a carbon tax comes from a sound economic principle: the business model for a product or service should include all of the costs associated with that product or service. Then, when the market sets the price, the industry will succeed or fail based on the merits of the product. When this scenario happens, economists refer to it as externalizing costs, but we might call it getting someone else to pay for your responsibilities. In a society that prizes personal responsibility, we should do all we can to hold both business and government to do the same.
The basic concept of a carbon tax is simple. Any business or entity that generates carbon dioxide as a byproduct of combustion and allows the carbon to enter the atmosphere must pay a fee based on the amount of carbon released. These businesses will pass that cost on to their customers, and thus, will include the proper cost of their product. The taxes could go to any one of the following: direct rebate to all tax payers (shrinking the annual deficit), cover the costs of drought relief to farmers and fighting of forest fires, or fund health care costs associated with increased emissions (such as asthma). Any of these solutions would reduce the tax burden on typical taxpayers, and create a proper marketplace for products and ideas. These types of targeted taxes funding specific sources already exist (federal gas taxes pay directly for road construction).
It should be noted that other options exist for accomplishing this goal: cap and trade, or emissions reduction regulation. Neither of these accomplish the goal adequately, but for different reasons. Cap and trade will price carbon into the marketplace, but instead of including it at the cost to society, it will include it at the price industry will pay for the reduction. If these reductions get priced under the true cost to society, then they will not actually drive the necessary change. Emissions reduction regulation can set targets, but if those targets are set politically, they may undershoot the necessary level, or force the marketplace to use more expensive means to accomplish the reduction.
The interesting thing about a carbon tax is that it has support from all political corners. Conservatives like the use of market forces to solve social problems and personal responsibility, and progressives like that solutions for environmental action come from those causing them. It is a rare opportunity to make progress on the economic, social and environmental front in bipartisan fashion.
- Amy from Los Angeles -
Far be it for me to ever suggest that something will not be a messy political issue, but the concept of a carbon tax comes from a sound economic principle: the business model for a product or service should include all of the costs associated with that product or service. Then, when the market sets the price, the industry will succeed or fail based on the merits of the product. When this scenario happens, economists refer to it as externalizing costs, but we might call it getting someone else to pay for your responsibilities. In a society that prizes personal responsibility, we should do all we can to hold both business and government to do the same.
The basic concept of a carbon tax is simple. Any business or entity that generates carbon dioxide as a byproduct of combustion and allows the carbon to enter the atmosphere must pay a fee based on the amount of carbon released. These businesses will pass that cost on to their customers, and thus, will include the proper cost of their product. The taxes could go to any one of the following: direct rebate to all tax payers (shrinking the annual deficit), cover the costs of drought relief to farmers and fighting of forest fires, or fund health care costs associated with increased emissions (such as asthma). Any of these solutions would reduce the tax burden on typical taxpayers, and create a proper marketplace for products and ideas. These types of targeted taxes funding specific sources already exist (federal gas taxes pay directly for road construction).
It should be noted that other options exist for accomplishing this goal: cap and trade, or emissions reduction regulation. Neither of these accomplish the goal adequately, but for different reasons. Cap and trade will price carbon into the marketplace, but instead of including it at the cost to society, it will include it at the price industry will pay for the reduction. If these reductions get priced under the true cost to society, then they will not actually drive the necessary change. Emissions reduction regulation can set targets, but if those targets are set politically, they may undershoot the necessary level, or force the marketplace to use more expensive means to accomplish the reduction.
The interesting thing about a carbon tax is that it has support from all political corners. Conservatives like the use of market forces to solve social problems and personal responsibility, and progressives like that solutions for environmental action come from those causing them. It is a rare opportunity to make progress on the economic, social and environmental front in bipartisan fashion.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Friday Five: August 10, 2012
The future of serving our energy needs is electrification, but only if we take care of infrastructure that makes that happen.
Investing in the grid: When the going gets tough, the tough get … creative
"The U.S. grid system was born in the 1920s, and has seen few major upgrades since the 1960s. With America’s growing population and exploding demand — bigger houses, A/C units, TVs, iThings — we have serious congestion and inadequate capacity on our nation’s power lines. This has led to more frequent power outages, which cost the American economy well over $100 billion each year. The inefficiency of our old-fashioned grid also leads to enormous waste through 'line loss.' In 2010, 6.6 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. simply disappeared before it could reach consumers. That’s $25.7 billion worth of electrons, lost into thin air."
The future of keeping us healthy is making sure we have quality food that does not degrade anyone's life.
Teach Us, Trader Joe: Demanding Socially Responsible Food
"While the principles of the local and organic food movement represent the ultimate goal for many consumers, that goal remains largely out of reach for low-income households. One of the main barriers to access to nutritious food continues to be transportation, which has been historically linked to the marginalization of poor communities from access to healthy, locally grown food at affordable prices: Many of the poor neighborhoods in this country are simply too far from fresh food markets, and many don't have a grocery store at all."
The future of the survival of a community depends on others making better decisions.
The Northwest’s Salmon People Face a Future Without Fish
"Just as Washington tribes fought to defend their fishing rights in the years leading up to the Boldt decision, they are once again fighting to protect the natural resources so integral to their way of life."
The future of water may include a need for innovative, and perhaps seemingly distasteful solutions.
How to Overcome the "Yuck Factor" to Extend Water Supplies
"Yet capturing and reusing wastewater for municipal and household use, agricultural and industrial production, and recharging depleted aquifers is precisely what researchers writing in the latest issue of Science suggest needs to happen in order to address the world's growing water crisis."
The future will require us to be much more discerning about who is pushing an agenda.
New "Clean Energy Under Siege" Report Details Dirty Energy Misinformation Tactics
"Many of the self-appointed "experts" and anti-clean-energy groups 'masquerade as think tanks,' maintaining a veneer of impartiality while being funded by oil and gas interests — people like the Koch brothers, etc."
Happy Friday!
Investing in the grid: When the going gets tough, the tough get … creative
"The U.S. grid system was born in the 1920s, and has seen few major upgrades since the 1960s. With America’s growing population and exploding demand — bigger houses, A/C units, TVs, iThings — we have serious congestion and inadequate capacity on our nation’s power lines. This has led to more frequent power outages, which cost the American economy well over $100 billion each year. The inefficiency of our old-fashioned grid also leads to enormous waste through 'line loss.' In 2010, 6.6 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. simply disappeared before it could reach consumers. That’s $25.7 billion worth of electrons, lost into thin air."
The future of keeping us healthy is making sure we have quality food that does not degrade anyone's life.
Teach Us, Trader Joe: Demanding Socially Responsible Food
"While the principles of the local and organic food movement represent the ultimate goal for many consumers, that goal remains largely out of reach for low-income households. One of the main barriers to access to nutritious food continues to be transportation, which has been historically linked to the marginalization of poor communities from access to healthy, locally grown food at affordable prices: Many of the poor neighborhoods in this country are simply too far from fresh food markets, and many don't have a grocery store at all."
The future of the survival of a community depends on others making better decisions.
The Northwest’s Salmon People Face a Future Without Fish
"Just as Washington tribes fought to defend their fishing rights in the years leading up to the Boldt decision, they are once again fighting to protect the natural resources so integral to their way of life."
The future of water may include a need for innovative, and perhaps seemingly distasteful solutions.
How to Overcome the "Yuck Factor" to Extend Water Supplies
"Yet capturing and reusing wastewater for municipal and household use, agricultural and industrial production, and recharging depleted aquifers is precisely what researchers writing in the latest issue of Science suggest needs to happen in order to address the world's growing water crisis."
The future will require us to be much more discerning about who is pushing an agenda.
New "Clean Energy Under Siege" Report Details Dirty Energy Misinformation Tactics
"Many of the self-appointed "experts" and anti-clean-energy groups 'masquerade as think tanks,' maintaining a veneer of impartiality while being funded by oil and gas interests — people like the Koch brothers, etc."
Happy Friday!
Monday, August 6, 2012
Request Monday (08/06/2012): The price of gas
"With gasoline prices spiking again, is it true that if we switch to electric vehicles that it will cost less to fuel them up, or is that just a snow job?"
-John from Niles, Michigan-
I filled up in Illinois this past weekend for $4.199 at a Speedway near Frankfort, IL. If we are going to compare that with the price of electricity, we need to take out the pieces of the price that will be there regardless of the fuel source:
Federal excise tax $ 0.1800 per gallon
State of Illinois motor fuel tax 0.1900 per gallon
State of Illinois motor fuel use tax 0.4000 per gallon
Environmental impact fee 0.0080 per gallon
Underground storage tank fee 0.0030 per gallon
Will County fuel tax 0.0105 per gallon (0.25%)
Illinois State sales tax 0.3817 per gallon (10%)
___________________
TOTAL TAXES 1.1732 per gallon
The federal excise tax supports the Highway Trust Fund and has not increased in almost 20 years. Likewise the Illinois motor fuel tax has remained constant since 1990. Since neither is indexed to inflation, that means less buying power for road construction and travel related infrastructure. The sales taxes are not dedicated to any road-related or travel-related expense. All of these taxes will be imposed on electricity if it takes over as a primary transportation fuel (although it does not now).
So with that, we have gasoline at $3.0258 per gallon, or about $0.025 per kBtu. We have two ways to look at the price of electricity:
1. Use the typical flat-rate pricing from ComEd (or an alternative supplier).
2. Use the real-time price based upon the market rate.
Although it would be really nice to assume that electricity as a fuel would follow a flat-rate price, reality suggests that fuel prices will follow at best a day-ahead real-time rate similar to the way that dealers currently price gasoline. I filled up at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. According to ComEd, the cost of electricity was:
Electricity supply charge $ 0.0850 per kWh
Electricity delivery charge 0.0328 per kWh
TOTAL ELECTRICITY CHARGES $ 0.1178 per kWh, or about $0.0345 per kBtu.
That looks like electricity is almost 50% more expensive than gasoline! But we have one last factor to consider, and that is efficiency. If gasoline engine driven vehicles had the same efficiency as electric motor driven vehicles, the cost comparison would be valid. However, the standard gasoline engine is only about 25% efficient (meaning that for each four units of energy that go into the car, only 1 of them actually moves the vehicle forward). By comparison, electric vehicles convert at a rate of about 60% efficiency. Given this, gasoline works out to $0.100/kBtu and electricity works out to $0.0575/kBtu for electricity.
One last caveat: this analysis depends on the current price of the fuels. Unless major changes come in electricity usage in the country, transitioning to electricity as a transportation fuel will significantly increase the amount of electricity used in the country, increasing demand and causing prices to rise. The coincident reduction in demand for gasoline will lower that price. The final solution must become part of an overall energy policy that this country refuses to pursue.
-John from Niles, Michigan-
I filled up in Illinois this past weekend for $4.199 at a Speedway near Frankfort, IL. If we are going to compare that with the price of electricity, we need to take out the pieces of the price that will be there regardless of the fuel source:
Federal excise tax $ 0.1800 per gallon
State of Illinois motor fuel tax 0.1900 per gallon
State of Illinois motor fuel use tax 0.4000 per gallon
Environmental impact fee 0.0080 per gallon
Underground storage tank fee 0.0030 per gallon
Will County fuel tax 0.0105 per gallon (0.25%)
Illinois State sales tax 0.3817 per gallon (10%)
___________________
TOTAL TAXES 1.1732 per gallon
The federal excise tax supports the Highway Trust Fund and has not increased in almost 20 years. Likewise the Illinois motor fuel tax has remained constant since 1990. Since neither is indexed to inflation, that means less buying power for road construction and travel related infrastructure. The sales taxes are not dedicated to any road-related or travel-related expense. All of these taxes will be imposed on electricity if it takes over as a primary transportation fuel (although it does not now).
So with that, we have gasoline at $3.0258 per gallon, or about $0.025 per kBtu. We have two ways to look at the price of electricity:
1. Use the typical flat-rate pricing from ComEd (or an alternative supplier).
2. Use the real-time price based upon the market rate.
Although it would be really nice to assume that electricity as a fuel would follow a flat-rate price, reality suggests that fuel prices will follow at best a day-ahead real-time rate similar to the way that dealers currently price gasoline. I filled up at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. According to ComEd, the cost of electricity was:
Electricity supply charge $ 0.0850 per kWh
Electricity delivery charge 0.0328 per kWh
TOTAL ELECTRICITY CHARGES $ 0.1178 per kWh, or about $0.0345 per kBtu.
That looks like electricity is almost 50% more expensive than gasoline! But we have one last factor to consider, and that is efficiency. If gasoline engine driven vehicles had the same efficiency as electric motor driven vehicles, the cost comparison would be valid. However, the standard gasoline engine is only about 25% efficient (meaning that for each four units of energy that go into the car, only 1 of them actually moves the vehicle forward). By comparison, electric vehicles convert at a rate of about 60% efficiency. Given this, gasoline works out to $0.100/kBtu and electricity works out to $0.0575/kBtu for electricity.
One last caveat: this analysis depends on the current price of the fuels. Unless major changes come in electricity usage in the country, transitioning to electricity as a transportation fuel will significantly increase the amount of electricity used in the country, increasing demand and causing prices to rise. The coincident reduction in demand for gasoline will lower that price. The final solution must become part of an overall energy policy that this country refuses to pursue.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Friday Five: August 3, 2012
For those who wonder if predictions about climate change have been true...
Drought grips nation and shows what climate change does to our communities
"They are also consistent with larger trends already unfolding. According to NOAA, more than 25,000 new record temperature highs have been set this year alone in the United States. A recent report from the National Climatic Data Center noted that the past twelve months were the warmest since record-keeping began in the U.S. in 1895.
The number and intensity of extreme weather events has also risen—a shift the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded is linked to climate change. Four out of five Americans live in counties that have had natural disasters declared since 2006."
...and how our use of fossil fuels for electricity generation hits at our quality of life in more than one way.
Infographic On The Energy-Water Collision: How Hot, Dry Summers Impact Water and Power Generation
"As much as 41% of all water used in the United States goes to power plants to produce electricity, making them the single largest water consumer in the nation.
The relationship between water and power generation is complex. (A recent report featured on Climate Progress called “Burning Our Rivers: The Water Footprint of Electricity” takes an in depth look at water usage, particularity in the coal and nuclear sectors.) A whole host of issues can emerge related to the massive water consumption of the energy industry. Many of those issues become exacerbated in particularly hot and dry conditions, much like the ones we are experiencing this summer."
For those who like to hear about solutions and not just the problems...
What trees mean to your communities
"The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.
If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3 percent less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12 percent."
...and for those who like to know that even some of the most conservative organizations in the world recognize reasons for reduced reliance on fuel-based energy sources.
Fresh Reminders of Why We Work on Energy: Afghan Fuel Convoy Destroyed and Increasing US Blackouts
"Two primary energy risks to DoD:
1. Unnecessarily high and growing operational fuel demand increases mission risk
2. Critical missions at fixed installations are at unacceptable risk from extended power loss"
Lastly, for those who love the Olympics: how their environmental benefit can show us that our choices really do make a difference.
Greener Olympics mean cleaner air
"The key was banning half of all the private cars in the city from driving on any particular day during the event. The finding suggests that individual choices like whether to drive or take public transit to work have major cumulative effects."
Happy Friday!
Drought grips nation and shows what climate change does to our communities
"They are also consistent with larger trends already unfolding. According to NOAA, more than 25,000 new record temperature highs have been set this year alone in the United States. A recent report from the National Climatic Data Center noted that the past twelve months were the warmest since record-keeping began in the U.S. in 1895.
The number and intensity of extreme weather events has also risen—a shift the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded is linked to climate change. Four out of five Americans live in counties that have had natural disasters declared since 2006."
...and how our use of fossil fuels for electricity generation hits at our quality of life in more than one way.
Infographic On The Energy-Water Collision: How Hot, Dry Summers Impact Water and Power Generation
"As much as 41% of all water used in the United States goes to power plants to produce electricity, making them the single largest water consumer in the nation.
The relationship between water and power generation is complex. (A recent report featured on Climate Progress called “Burning Our Rivers: The Water Footprint of Electricity” takes an in depth look at water usage, particularity in the coal and nuclear sectors.) A whole host of issues can emerge related to the massive water consumption of the energy industry. Many of those issues become exacerbated in particularly hot and dry conditions, much like the ones we are experiencing this summer."
For those who like to hear about solutions and not just the problems...
What trees mean to your communities
"The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.
If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3 percent less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12 percent."
...and for those who like to know that even some of the most conservative organizations in the world recognize reasons for reduced reliance on fuel-based energy sources.
Fresh Reminders of Why We Work on Energy: Afghan Fuel Convoy Destroyed and Increasing US Blackouts
"Two primary energy risks to DoD:
1. Unnecessarily high and growing operational fuel demand increases mission risk
2. Critical missions at fixed installations are at unacceptable risk from extended power loss"
Lastly, for those who love the Olympics: how their environmental benefit can show us that our choices really do make a difference.
Greener Olympics mean cleaner air
"The key was banning half of all the private cars in the city from driving on any particular day during the event. The finding suggests that individual choices like whether to drive or take public transit to work have major cumulative effects."
Happy Friday!
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The trouble with resources: Water (Part 2)
Images courtesy of NASA
Water is plentiful, but not ubiquitous, and if we are not careful, we threaten our existence although we are almost drowning in water.
As discussed in the previous post on water, we have on this planet enough water to support the health and development of our projected peak population. The issue with water does not come from amount, but rather from availability. The images show the Aral Sea, previously one of Asia's largest freshwater bodies, in 2000 and 2011 with the outline delineating the shoreline in 1960. Over the span of fifty (50) years, government intervention in natural systems has nearly depleted the resource, and forever changed the quality of life in this region. Where once was plentiful access to sustain human life, now sits a lost resource and an instrument of suffering.
Access to water breaks down into three main issues: recharge/climate, water quality/sanitation, and social equity. Each of these pose specific challenges for societies trying to maintain or improve the quality of life for its citizens. The United Nations High Counselor for Human rights has declared that:
"The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. An adequate amount of safe water is necessary to prevent death from dehydration, to reduce the risk of water-related disease and to provide for consumption, cooking, personal and domestic hygienic requirements."
We have fought wars over water, manipulated natural flows of water, and poisoned water. If we wish to develop a truly just and livable world, we must develop our societies such that we consider equal access for all as a primary goal.
Issues of local recharge, availability, and diversion
The recharge rate for any freshwater source denotes how quickly new freshwater supply enters the source. The withdrawal rate denotes how quickly we take water from the source for human health, irrigation, or industrial purposes. A well-cared for water source has a withdrawal rate that, at its maximum, equals the recharge rate. Throughout the world, millions of people live in river basins where the withdrawal rate significantly outpaces the recharge rate. Closer to home, one need only look at the portion of the Ogallala Aquifer in Texas, where the 2012 State Water Plan notes that the state does not have the water resources to handle times of drought, and that within the next 50 years, demand will well outstrip supply. Additionally, in Chicago, next to one of the largest freshwater sources in the world, engineering of the region's rivers has changed the recharge of Lake Michigan. Where about half of the region's rainwater used to recharge the lake, the Army Corps of Engineers (to solve a sanitation issue) reversed the flow of the Chicago River to keep storm water and sewage from entering the drinking supply. This greatly improved the quality of life (see the later discussion on sanitation), but has changed the way that the lake recharges, and the way that communities downstream of Chicago receive wastewater.
In cities as we know them, with drinking fountains and public restrooms abounding, we cannot imagine a scenario whereby thirty (30) to fifty (50) percent of any area could not have a direct hookup to a water source. Water conservation in a large portion of our country, and the developed world, gets little traction because the cost of water rarely enters into a realm where we notice. Although parts of the US experience water shortages, and have organized political discussions on the approaches to sound management (namely the southwest of the country which has discussed water rights for well over a century, and the upper Great Plains and Texas which have survived through significant drought over the past couple of years), most of us do not even notice how much we use. So when we hear that countries in Sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia may have cities where that level of water inaccessibility exists, we have a hard time believing it.
The image of the Aral Sea highlights only one example of the decisions that affect water availability. In the US, the Ogallala Aquifer stands as one of the largest freshwater sources in the country. The aquifer sits beneath some of the prime farming areas of the country, and as such has been tapped for irrigation water at rates that now exceed the recharge rate. This has stopped flows that used to emanate from the southeastern portion of the aquifer. Since the aquifer sits beneath several states in the middle of the US, competing interests make it difficult to place either responsibility or blame to any one user for the situation. This leads to a political stalemate by which, at best, the status quo remains, or at worst, the issue accelerates causing water shortages in some of the most critical areas of our nations agriculture.
Issues of sanitation and pollution
Every year, approximately 1.8 million children die from waterborne illness. In the developed world, we experienced this type of population destruction in the latter part of the 19th century when we experienced significant population migration from rural to urban living. Cities such as London and Chicago experienced significant losses in population due to cholera, typhoid, and diarrhea, especially among infants and children. This came about because the public water source also served as the public and industrial sewage collection facility, and private entities managed access to the sources of clean water. This dual-edged sword placed clean drinking water out of the reach of most citizens of the city, and forced them to use water of less quality to sustain their lives.
In Chicago, long-time residents are familiar with "Bubbly Creek" - the south fork of the south branch of the Chicago River that flowed near the Union Stockyards that bubbled from the tons of animal carcass waste and human waste that lay at the bottom rotting and releasing methane. This waste eventually found its way into Lake Michigan through the river, polluting the source of drinking water.
Chicago, London, and most major cities in the developed world had the resources through various forms of public financing to tap the wealth that had been created in those cities to make significant improvements in the necessary separation of sanitation and water source (Chicago going to the point of actually reversing the flow of the Chicago River so that it no longer flows into the lake). With China, India, southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa all experiencing rapid urbanization and industrialization, we as a worldwide civilization can hopefully learn from these lessons of our past development, and work to secure clean water and effective sanitation to reduce the number of deaths from waterborne illness and increase access to safe drinking water. Currently, over fifteen percent of the world has no access to clean water, and almost forty percent have no access to sanitation. If we are to realize a world in which all are created equal and have equal opportunity to grow and add value to society, we need to address this shortcoming.
Issues of gender and social equity
For those communities striving to succeed and develop, when no public access to clean water exists, members of the community must either relocate to a source or delegate responsibility for fetching the water. This task of fetching water falls largely on the women in a community, forcing young girls to give up education and betterment in order to sustain their communities. In a fully developing world, without the resources to prevent this situation, a discussion of gender equity falls secondary to that of survival. However, our world does not want for the knowledge or resources to provide fresh water to communities, we only lack the will.
In addition, although the big picture of a developing nation's wealth has little correlation with the overall access to clean water and sanitation, within a nation the poorest have the least access. We accept the proposition that anyone who works hard can bring themselves out of poverty, increase their station in life, and establish a footing for their family to lead a better quality of life in the future. When individuals in the poorest station in society have to live with the worst of conditions, and must constantly battle water-bourne illness, it places a weight around the neck of their personal and familial development. If we desire a world with equality of opportunity, then we must find a way to remedy this situation and provide that opportunity.
Conclusion
An economy distributes limited resources in the most efficient manner possible. If we truly had a limited resource in water, we could understand (although hopefully we would not accept) a situation where a significant portion of the world's population had no access to clean water or to sanitation. Water is not a limited resource, and in our developed world, we recognized over a century ago that the public must have control over access to affordable water and sanitation in order for civilization to develop. In order to maintain water's status as an abundant resource, we must respect the natural flows of water and its boundary-less nature, while extending the access to clean water throughout the world. If we support extended access to clean water, give communities control over that water, and respect open dialogue to manage disagreements, we can support the projected world population with the current resources available to us.
(Thanks to the "Human Development Report 2006 Beyond Scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis" for information contained within this post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)