Friday Five: October 10, 2014...A New Hope

Although stories of hope appear regularly in the weekly news, this week saw an abundance of them, starting with improved air quality in Southern California...perhaps what we might call the birthplace of the modern air quality movement. Beijing 2014 reminds us of LA 1973...the moment of clarity when we figured out we couldn't just dump everything into the atmosphere and hope for the best.
Cancer risk from air pollution drops in Southern California
"The analysis found that exposure to dozens of toxic air contaminants could result in 418 cancer cases per 1 million people over 70 years, or a lifetime. That is down from an average risk of 1,194 cases per million found in the air district's study of the region in 2005.
Health experts recommend a limit of 10 cancer cases per 1 million people over 70 years.
Current state guidelines underestimate the true cancer risk, air quality officials acknowledged, and are expected to be revised upward next year based on new science that shows breathing toxic substances has more serious health effects than previously thought."

Economics does not improve without an increase in scale. An increase in scale does not happen unless there is a market. There is no market without education and innovation. There is no education without groundbreakers willing to change the way we do things. Thank you to all those who fought for a change in our energy systems....your efforts are finally paying off.
Two large forces moving business closer to climate action
"The We Mean Business report cites an internal rate of return of 81% (that’s a ridiculous payback) on energy efficiency in the U.S., and an IRR of 27% for those companies with the most aggressive, science-based goals and actions on climate. Even the most “expensive” options like renewables are becoming cheap so fast that it’s making CFOs’ heads spin. Even those hippies over at asset manager Lazard calculate that the cost of solar PV technologies has dropped nearly 80% in five years. Assuming that we’ll lose money by radically cutting carbon has become a radically outdated idea."

In 1999, the Chicago White Sox traded a young center fielder named Mike Cameron to the Reds. The Reds would turn around the next year and trade him to the Seattle Mariners who went to the playoffs that year. Mike would go on to win 3 Gold Gloves, make the All Star team, and finish in the top 25 in MVP voting twice. In return the Chicago White Sox got Paul Konerko...the Reds got Ken Griffey, Jr. Trades are good...especially when they benefit both parties.
Climate trades
"Liberia has much of what remains of West Africa’s rain forest, but logging is rampant. The initiative is not an act of charity but a trade: Liberia gets income, which it needs; Norway gets to preserve biodiversity and take a small step against climate change. A similar deal that Norway struck with Brazil years ago helped slow deforestation there. Economists call arrangements of this kind 'payments for ecosystem services,' and they follow a rationale known as the Coase theorem. In 1960, the economist Ronald Coase argued that bargaining between parties could, under certain conditions, produce a mutually beneficial and efficient solution to problems like pollution. Trying to force Liberia to stop chopping down trees (by using, say, sanctions) would be high-handed and probably ineffective. Paying Liberia to do so makes both sides better off."

We bet on humanity because we have an infinite ability to come up with solutions that allow us to adapt. The question is not whether we can, but whether we want to.
In virtual mega-drought, California avoids defeat
"Under that scenario, experts say, irrigated farm acreage would plunge. Aquatic ecosystems would suffer, with some struggling salmon runs fading out of existence.
Urban water rates would climb. The iconic suburban lawn would all but disappear. Coastal Californians would stop dumping most of their treated sewage and urban runoff from rain storms into the Pacific and instead add it to their water supply."

As we have had our faith shaken in government by the politicking of big business, we are left with only consumer-driven advocacy as our tool to combat unethical business practices. The irony is, sometimes, that advocacy works.
Bust out the LEGOs: The toymaker cuts ties with Big Oil
"LEGO’s move may prompt other companies to think twice about partnerships with Big Oil, but that doesn’t mean that everything is awesome quite yet. Shell still plans to drill offshore in the U.S. and explore off the coast of northern Alaska in 2015. Which makes us wonder: How many tiny, drowning LEGO fishermen would it take to put a stop to that?"

Happy Friday!

On China's Silent Spring and the hope for an end to apathy

I read with interest Daniel Gardner's piece in yesterday's NY Times about China's recent enthusiasm for environmental awareness. Although he places significant emphasis on 2013...and with good reason...seeds of discontent can be traced back to the 2008 Olympics when citizens saw their government place regulations and restrictions in place to improve air quality for the athletes in the venues. I would imagine that much of the middle class population in those areas began to wonder why China's own people did not merit equal consideration to the world's athletes. Protests have sprung up in China's major cities in response to the significant worsening of the air and water quality in the country, but those protests can only happen with a strong organizing force already in place, and my guess is that much of that organization "got legs" in 2008.

It is interesting to note three things about the state of the Chinese environment, and the comparisons to the US's approach over the past 40 years. First, the situation in China finds its root in the rapid industrialization that has occurred over the last half-century. Although that industrialization has certainly been partially in response to increased demand by the Chinese people for goods and services, much of it has to do with demand for cheap goods by us in the US. It is easy to say that in a "free market economy" it is up to each group of people what sacrifices they are willing to make for economic development, but during an era when we were working to clean up our air and water here at home, should we bear some of the responsibility for what has happened to China's environment?

The second observation has to do with that economic development that occurred. In a counterpoint to the question about our culpability in the poisoning of China's air and water, I wonder how much we can also take responsibility for the rise of China's middle class. Our resources spent in China for the better part of a half century have provided the capital for the growth there, and combined with other economically developed countries, that capital provided the seed for the economic prosperity that created the large and ever-growing middle class. That middle class, certainly since the mid-1990s, has pushed for economic reform, social reform, and now environmental reform.

The last observation has to do with speed and endurance. In the US, the great environmental disasters of the 1960s lead to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the 1970s which lead to great innovations and improvements to our environment. Notably, we cleaned up lakes and rivers, made marked improvement in the air quality in our cities, and addressed lead in the air and acid rain with not only a minimum of costs but with a boost to our economy and quality of life.

And then we stopped. We still have localized wins on the environmental front. But for the better part of twenty years, we stopped leading and started posturing. We ignored science...the freedom that made this country great, the freedom of scientific pursuit...and allowed industry to drive our policy. For the better part of a decade we have listened to challenge after challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts...ignoring all of the economic growth that has occurred because of them in favor of an antiquated thought that a laissez faire approach to industry is the only way to deliver economic growth. Most egregiously, we completely buried our head in the sand over climate change and its root cause in climate emissions. We allowed corporate interests tied to fossil fuels to use their capital to poison the conversation, control our lawmakers, and stall most reasonable action that would have solved the problem and created a great economic boon for the country. Perhaps most patronizingly, the richest country in the world said it would not act until lesser developed nations did so...nations whose carbon pollution came largely due to American-financed offshoring of manufacturing to meet the American desire for cheap goods.

Well, now China has acted. It will extend its existing carbon trading markets to the whole nation by 2016, almost daring the US to act. China, with its communist government that exerts more influence over industry than our approach in the US, will tackle air and water pollution...likely looking to the successes we had in the first two decades of environmental action. As that changes the economics of some industries, it will be interesting to see if after progress is made, whether they too will succumb to apathy and accept a partial response as we have. I would imagine that with the availability of renewable energy technology, replacing fossil fuels will be easier now than it would have been for the US two decades ago. With the impacts of climate change already taking root, it would be hard to imagine that the Chinese people will be as ready to bow to the pressure of industry as we did in the US.

But then again, I would have said the same thing about the US in 1990 fresh off our wins on acid rain and leaded gasoline, so only time will tell.

Perhaps more importantly, the question is whether since the US would not lead, will we have the grace to follow.

Friday Five: July 11, 2014

It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  After dealing with smoking, leaded fuels and paints, asbestos, and other things harmful to human health, we do not learn how to better predict and manage these things.  Economic value does not tell the whole story...ever.
Pesticide blamed for bee deaths now linked to bird declines
"The researchers found a strong correlation between pesticide concentrations measured in surface freshwater and lower or negative local population growth rates of 14 species of birds since the introduction of the pesticide imidacloprid in the Netherlands in the 1990s, according to a study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature."

The consequences of our dangerous and addictive relationship with energy and chemicals often fall on those at the margins.  If this plant and all the pollution generating industry in this town were located in the posh suburbs of our major cities, we would move more quickly to eliminate them.
Mysterious blast at Chevron plant shakes pollution-weary Texas town
"When the smoke clears from this incident, Kelley and the Port Arthur community will still have other pollution problems on their hands. Besides the pollution cluster that already exists there, and the planned terminus for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, Kelley said the city just took a contract to take in chemical weapons waste from Syria. A few years ago, Kelley was instrumental in stopping tons of waste from Mexico from coming into the city to burned off in a city incinerator."

On a more positive note, the economics of solar continue to improve...
Hendersonville plaza to add solar parking canopies
"The systems at City Square are part of the TVA’s Green Power Providers program, which means TVA will buy 100 percent of the solar electricity generated for 20 years and pay a premium for the first 10 years.
Smith hopes the prominent solar canopies at City Square will spur more solar installations in the community."

...and improve.
Some go solar for savings, not the planet
"A December 2013 study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found a premium of roughly $25,000 on homes in California with rooftop solar panels. Ben Hoen, a staff research associate at the lab who co-authored the study, said that figure was market dependent and likely different in other parts of the country. Still, he said 'it is reasonable to assume' that houses in other markets with solar power could fetch a premium."

Anyone looking for the best financial ROI of any major investment should find a company that will replace rigs for major transportation companies.  The ROI over ten years exceeds that of any savings account, money market account, or even the equity market.  It is not the economics or logistics of energy improvements that prevent us from making them happen, it is just the entrenched inertia of a few doomed industries.
Big fuel savings available in new trucks
"The technologies to improve fuel efficiency are cost-effective. For example, a new truck that includes an advanced engine and transmission, new axle design, and improved aerodynamics to the tractor and trailer could save average tractor-trailer owners and drivers about $30,000 per year in fuel. In 2025, these new efficiency technologies would increase truck purchase costs by about $32,000, which is recovered by fuel savings in just 13 months."

Happy Friday!

End the Green Economy

For the better part of the last fifteen years of my career, I have spent much time among advocates of the "green economy": one where we consider the triple bottom line of economic, environmental, and social performance.  This has spawned a whole new language of economic development around the word green including "green jobs",  "green materials", "green practices", etc.  For the most part, the industry has applied these labels in an attempt to convey that certain products or services have more value to a consumer, and therefore, can justify higher costs.  In some cases, these higher costs come from small implementation that has not yet reached scale to create economic advantages, and in some cases, the new strategy or technology avoids producing harms that conventional approaches do which means higher costs.  On the other hand, sometimes, people just want to charge more, and hope that labeling something "green" will motivate people to spend more than they might.  Regardless of the motivation, there is one thing that now becomes clear to me.

We must end the green economy.

By advocating for a green economy, we automatically set up a conflict between the current economy and another one that challenges it.  This sets up a debate where those succeeding in the current economy control the conversation by constantly challenging the new economy (or subset of the economy) and proposing all types of calamitous consequences if we follow this new path.  People naturally resist change and cling to the comfortable, so this line of reasoning has great traction and creates roadblocks to achieving the goals of better quality of life.  Instead of presenting this new economy - rife with unanswered questions about the true implications of full implementation - with its "green" moniker and advocating for wholesale revolution, we should consider a better path.

Those who advocate for a "green economy" out of altruistic reasons seek better quality of life for all.  This means that in making one person's life better by providing access to reliable energy, we cannot reduce the quality of life for another by polluting their community.  For those that advocate on this level, the more desirable plan should focus more on challenging the failings of the current economy rather than presenting a wholesale collapse and rebuild.  The current economy is supposed to distribute resources adequately and fairly.  When it does not, we need to challenge that.  The current economy is supposed to assign all of the costs and consequences associated with a product or service to that product or service.  When it does not, we need to challenge that.  The current economy is supposed to provide clear information to all parties in a transaction so that each may make a rational decision.  When it does not, we need to challenge that.

One of the failings of the discussion of the green economy comes from the instant association that many have with "green" meaning increased regulation.  Although any time we discuss asking more of industry, we often devolve to regulation because of a combination of industry resistance and political posturing, the changes in the economy can come in many forms.  For every significant benefit realized by improving CAFE standards through regulation, we have equal benefit through Energy Star labeling that allows industry to determine the method of performance.  Whereas intense scrutiny of power plant and refinery emissions for toxins has protected waterway and airstreams effectively over the past generations, we have achieved equal successes through market-based forces like cap-and-trade (specifically for sulfur and nitrous-oxide emissions from power plants).  In all of these cases, the most important part of the discussion was not the IF but the HOW.  The current debate on implementing a "green economy" still centers on the IF...we need to move it to the HOW.

How do we do that?  It starts by demanding more of the current economy.  We should pepper our leaders - both industrial and political - with questions about performance.  Why do people in West Virginia have to suffer the negative effects of coal ash dumping in order for people in DC to get power?  Why can companies spend millions of dollars lobbying against technologies such as rooftop solar that compete in the marketplace, while avoiding making required changes in their power plants to reduce emissions?  Why do industries not have the requirement to maintain the atmosphere, waterways, and earth at the same level of natural state as it was before their operations?  Why should an employee accept endangering their life for reasons unrelated to the job they do?

The time has come to turn the debate from one about "why a green economy?" to "why the current economy?".  Over the past several decades, we have seen quality of life gains plateau or even recede. While other countries continue to grow across classes, we see the large portion of our population less well off now than they were twenty years ago.  Those of us who advocate for the results of the green economy know that it will not only improve our quality of life, but produce a more stable economy.  In order to get there, though, we need to drop the conversation that puts us on the defensive, and instead make the advocates of the current way of doing things defend their system.

Friday Five: May 16, 2014

Locally, we have heard much about a proposed "super-agency" that would handle public transit issues across the entire Chicago metro region. The article notes a prime reason why that would make sense: suburban and urban communities have differing value systems related to transit, often resulting in bad decisions.
Cities to suburbs: Where's the transit love? Suburbs to cities: Where's the bus?
"Like a lot of other cities in this country, Seattle’s public transportation story is a sad tale of post-recession budget shortfalls, outdated urban planning, and a not-so-efficient bus system with a PR problem. And like a lot of other cities, its problems run deeper than just figuring out how to keep the buses running."

We continue to pay for two generations worth of those bad decisions. The concentration of emissions represented by freeways creates pollution issues that extend beyond the vehicles traveling along the route. These areas typically house those of more limited means, increasing the social inequity associated with fossil fuel usage.
Air quality monitor near I-5 Anaheim finds higher pollution level
"Monitoring instruments have typically been placed away from major roads and pollution sources because they are intended to gauge regional air quality. Now, the EPA is ordering local regulators to measure and factor in the dirtier air being breathed by tens of millions of people across the country who live within a few hundred feet of a major road.
The data will be valuable to local planning officials, who must consider the environmental impacts of siting developments near traffic, and give more leverage to clean air advocates."

An increasingly disturbing trend is that those who can least afford to drive their own vehicle, must now do so because of the push to gentrify urban areas and displace local inhabitants instead of building with them. As the poor get forced to suburbs with less availability for public transit, this will only get worse.
The demographic paradox of who bikes and walks to work
"The report, based on some of the ACS questions that critics want the Census to drop, identifies some other expected patterns: The South has particularly miniscule numbers for both biking and walking to work (likely a product of both climate and sprawl). Men are more likely to bike to work than women. And those who do bike tend to leave for work later than other commuters, and they need less time to get there (19.3 minutes on average, compared with the typical 26-minute commute for most of the rest of us)."

Thankfully, in addition to requiring the monitoring of roadways, the EPA has received legal reinforcement of its plans to regulate emissions as a path to improving public health. There is hope that sanity may yet prevail.
Another big EPA court victory - this time on soot pollution
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA acted properly in 2012 when it further restricted allowable soot emissions. It was the Obama administration’s third big environmental legal victory in a month. And experts say that bodes well for the administration’s efforts to clamp down on climate-changing emissions from power plants."

I find it heartening that although embroiled in a bitter re-election campaign, the governor of Illinois continues to move on greening and local food movements, even drawing attention to the issues through the governor's mansion.
Chickens winging it at Illinois governor's mansion
"The chickens, which peck at flowers, recycle plant waste and provide manure for the gardens, live in a donated coop that's inside a fenced-in enclosure. The poultry's part of an ongoing sustainability effort."

Happy Friday!

We the People: Our Constitution and our quality of life (Part 1: Establish Justice)

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States does not hold any legal authority, so we cannot turn to it for redress.  However, it gives us great insight into the intention of those who founded this country, and the goals they hoped to achieve through the alliance of states that they wished to form one nation.  The Constitution and its Preamble predate the major impacts of the industrial revolution. In light of what we now know about those impacts, and looking back on both the last forty years worth of remedies to those ills and the last decade's attempts to reverse these remedies, I want to examine each of the major tenants of the Preamble to see what it might say to us about what obligations we have as a nation to each other through our utilization of natural resources.

"Establish Justice"

Most everyone in my generation can recite the Preamble almost word for word thanks to Schoolhouse Rock.  (They left out one phrase in order to fit the rhythm, so many of us miss that in recitation.)  Politically speaking, the first words: "We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union" speak volumes about the writing of the Constitution; namely, that the document would join the people of the country together as one, and not just the states as previous attempts had done.  Although interesting, I will start with what that unified people purported to do with this new alliance.

The people of these new United States first sought to establish justice.  Although we know that in preserving slavery, this goal had only limited meaning, within that limited meaning, it meant that full citizens had a right to fair treatment before the law, and most importantly consistent treatment.  This implied that whether you lived in Massachusettes or Georgia, that you would reasonably have some consistency before the law.  It did not require equal or similar laws, that still remained the prerogative of the state.  It did, however, seek to place a check on the states to ensure that they provide a just foundation to society.  It also recognized that prior to independence, we lived in an unjust society - at least according to the founders.  The political-economic system that extracted wealth from the colonies without fair representation drove the otherwise loyal and content to join forces with those wishing religious freedom to create the groundswell that fed our fledgling nation.

In addition to this reigning-in of the heretofore inconsistent justice provided by the states under the Articles of Confederation and prior to that the colonies under English rule, the concept of establishing justice also suggested the idea that where activities (mostly commercial) crossed state lines, that a federal government would provide clear guidance that gave business a foundation on which to operate.  This manifests itself in the commerce clause of the Constitution that gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commercial activities.  The first "free trade" agreement of our country...in fact, in combination with the "general defense" (to be discussed later), the primary drivers of our union...this necessity to pool disparate strengths and resources for greater commercial benefit was a stroke of foresight because it laid the groundwork for the development of infrastructure (rail and eventually telegraphs and roads) that would define the economy for most of the second half of our country's existence.

These primary interpretations of "establishing justice" have great impact when analyzing the mechanisms we employ to maintain society in the industrial age.  As part of the "deal with the devil" we make to power our economy with dirty fuels, we marginalize those who cannot afford to move away from industrial production sites (power plants, mines and wells, and chemical facilities) providing them less of a quality of life than those who can afford to choose areas far from these hazards.  Our economy does not reflect the true cost of the damage caused by these operations, but instead externalizes them from the price that customers pay for the end product (whether it be plastics, energy, or processed materials).  We see these costs only marginally through taxes paid for government cleanup or healthcare programs that pay to treat the diseases brought on by the pollution. More importantly, we as consumers do not see these costs in the prices we pay so that we might make the choice both economically and morally.  If we truly want to realize this goal of establishing justice, we must fix our economy and ensure that we include all of the costs - human and economic - in the prices paid for goods.  A good or service that increases one person's quality of life does not have value if it degrades the life of another in the process of production.

Another area of import, and one just recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court, covers the idea of regulation of the combined atmosphere and waterways we share.  Weather patterns and natural water flows mean that air and water in one state will likely flow to another.  Anything that industrial production does to pollute one state will result in damage to another.  If a "downstream" state chose to make environmental improvements, but could not reap the improved quality of life that would result because an "upstream" state continued to pollute, then that would violate the precept of justice. In the 1970s, we enacted the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts precisely for this purpose: so that we as a nation could recognize the importance of both to our continued existence and success.  We have cleaner air and cleaner water because of them, and this smart regulation has provided a clear and common foundation from which businesses can sprout and thrive.  The founders never considered a country where localized anarchy ruled, and where one community or state had no redress against another.

Establishing justice requires us to both seek out and eliminate environmental degradation that harms the life of another.  Whether that person lives near us, or simply downstream of an industrial operation on which we rely, we cannot ignore the suffering our actions cause regardless of how remote to our lives.  Our Constitution created a civilization based on "laws not men" so that we might have the freedom to better ourselves as a nation.  We have reached the point where that bettering has to apply to all, and not just to some.  We finally have the ability to deliver justice, and now we have the obligation.

Thanks to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution for some of the historical context.

Friday Five: May 2, 2014

This week we learned a great lesson of economics: it is not a predictive field of study, only a reactive one.  As much as we like to think we can foretell the future, when it comes to basing our quality of life on the availability of limited commodities, we build our houses on sand instead of rock.
Factbox: Energy Future Holdings' road to bankruptcy
"Energy Future Holdings filed for Chapter 11 protection on Tuesday, seven years after it was taken private in the largest-ever leveraged buyout. Over the last five years, the company used a number of financial maneuvers to manage a significant debt load, but ultimately could not convince its many and disparate creditors to restructure its balance sheet outside of bankruptcy court."

Case in point...six years ago when several of us were talking about the looming horizon of grid-parity for solar, the vast majority did not believe. Now, it is a reality. Next up: buildings that need no outside energy source other than what's available on site. They will be so widely available that they will be a code requirement within 10 years.
When it comes to solar power, the market is finally making environmentalism easy
"Little Sun is a good example of how the market and environmentalism don’t have to compete: Both the company and its evangelists are motivated to propagate an affordable form of non-polluting energy. The economics are working in concert with solar’s advantages of sustainability and independence over traditional power sources. And, suddenly, that intersection of efficacy and impact is making solar power as a whole more desirable than it’s ever been before."

One of the greatest challenges to a clean energy economy has come from unchecked conservatism. Conservatism that demands proof before implementation provides great value to society; conservatism that in the face of science, economics, and law holds onto a harmful status quo has no place in our society.
WSJ overruled by Supreme Court on clean air laws
"The regulations of smog and soot pollution will yield up to $280 billion in health benefits nationwide by preventing hospital visits and avoiding lost work days, according to the EPA's cost-benefit analysis. The human benefits are just as stark, with The American Thoracic Society estimating the new transfer rule could prevent upwards of 40,000 premature deaths annually."

I believe this in large part because of the bad business decisions that such extreme conservatism begets. Utilities can play a strong and stabilizing role in the transition to a clean energy future. However, as long as their leaders cling to the entitlement that they deserve guaranteed return on bad investments, we will continue to threaten the quality of our existence.
What future role for today's utilities
"Maybe our current utilities will provide enabling infrastructure, or maybe they will become insignificantly small players – or disappear. After all, the grid as enabling infrastructure might get smaller, and communities can own the grid and provide other enabling services – storage comes to mind. In the end, what is at stake in the energy transition is not just a choice between various low-carbon sources of electricity. It is also a choice between 1) corporations promising consumers low energy prices (and you can go to hell if you don’t want the giant project near your home) and 2) local renewables that may look more expensive, but you pay those higher prices back to you and your neighbors – and you have input into what gets built in your community."

Sound business thinking not only recognizes and accepts, but fully embraces, the limitations of the natural systems that underpin our entire existence. Requiring business leaders to act responsibly when it comes to protecting our quality of life does not place unreasonable obstacles in the way of progress any more than requiring a credit check places an unreasonable restriction on borrowing money. We need to mandate a minimum amount of protection to continue our existence, and not allow irresponsible behavior to jeopardize our future.
The one thing every business dies without
"So take a day this week to think hard about how the planet underpins the business, and how your company and sector should deal with that reality. Consider three steps. First, ask some leading questions: What do climate change and extreme weather mean for your business, your customers, and your supply chain? How do growing resource constraints like water shortages, or rising commodity prices, affect your value chain and your margins?"

Happy Friday!

(Photo: raulbaenacasado/Shutterstock)

Friday Five: March 28, 2014

We hold onto a shaky hope that the use of fossil fuels to power our lives has little to no consequence on our quality of life. The truth is far more certain: our reliance on fossil fuels harms our lives, albeit unequally. For those with the means to live far from threatened areas near mines, power plants, and waste facilities, life goes along without complaint. For those not so lucky, they at best lead a life that is less healthy, and at worst die younger than those more fortunate.
When the rivers run black
"The result is that the exhaust that emerges today is far cleaner than it was decades ago. But cleaning up the airborne emissions means that the solids remaining after the burn are far dirtier than before. In fact, coal ash is often loaded with arsenic, mercury, lead, and other contaminating elements. A 2012 study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that cleaner air emissions are traded for 'significant enrichments of contaminants in solid wastes and wastewater discharged from power plants.'"

The anti-regulation economist believes that in the absence of regulation, business will always do what is best for quality of life because its customers will demand it do so and business always responds to its customers. Except, that what its customers don't know....
Activists catch power plant on hidden camera
"...a hidden camera set up by the Sierra Club ... shows a power plant regularly discharging coal ash pond water into the Ohio River, apparently permitted via a very liberal interpretation of the meaning of 'occasional.'"

The coal industry requires subsidies to stay profitable. An industry over a century old still needs government help to remain afloat. If you think that to be a bunch of environmentalist lies, here is but one example of the over $650 billion in worldwide subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
Why are we hauling Pennsylvania coal all the way to Germany?
"'The industry was struggling, and the Pennsylvania delegation wanted to do something to help it,' says Jim Dyer, who today is a lobbyist with the Podesta Group, but began his career four decades ago in the office of Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Joseph McDade. 'The one way it could help it was ... to get the federal government interested in buying some of it.'"

Even with these subsidies, we know that the coal industry - without a game changing technology breakthrough that addresses the myriad health and environmental issues - cannot survive economically. This is not conjecture, but a fact of the marketplace.
Pacific Power's reliance on coal sends Oregonians' electricity bills soaring
"The OPUC hearing comes in light of Sierra Club’s analysis of reports from the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) showing that Oregon Pacific Power customers have seen their electricity bills increase by 61% since 2006, the year after Warren Buffet started operating the utility. Pacific Power customers saw a greater rate increase than customers of any other major utility in the six states that Pacific Power serves. The costs of continuing to operate old, outdated coal plants continue to rise, and Pacific Power’s parent company, PacifiCorp, will seek rate recovery from Oregon customers for its $4.2 billion coal fleet expenditures. PacifiCorp owns the largest number of coal plants in the West, and Pacific Power customers in Oregon get 63% of their energy from out-of-state coal plants."
Goldman Sachs declares solar energy will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels, and Elon Musk is a genius
"'…our Clean Energy team believes the number of households hitting grid parity will continue to grow as the cost of the systems comes down … SolarCity has seen a 40% decline in the per watt cost of PV panels since the second quarter of 2013 driven by improved scale which is expected to continue,' state clean tech analysts Brian Lee and Thomas Daniels. 'This has been true for Tesla’s battery costs as well, which have declined from of $500/KWh in 2008 to $250/KWh for the Model S to potentially $125/KWh at the gigafactory. As a result we should note that the quantitative grid parity and return calculations we show above are arrived at without any Federal or state credits.'"

This past winter showed us that fossil fuel electricity generation has intermittency issues on par with those of wind and solar. That does not mean that we should trade one intermittency for another (although the environmental costs should force that decision on us), but we should solve the issue regardless of energy source chosen. Batteries will not solve the problem, and although hydro and flywheels have promise, I like simple solutions. This one is "in the book" as Paul Erdos might say.
Energy storage hits the rails out west
"Compared to the mechanics of chemical batteries, the idea behind rail storage is simple. During periods of low electricity demand, power is dispatched from the nearby grid to pull a chain of weighted train cars uphill. And there they will sit—losing no power to degradation—until the grid has a period of high power demand. Then they are sent rolling downhill. Their momentum sends electrons back to the grid through a system of regenerative braking that uses the turning power of the wheels to generate electricity."

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: March 14, 2014

All the arguments about climate change and carbon dioxide emissions ignores another great challenge of fossil fuel pollution, and one that industry has yet to find an adequate solution for: fine particulate matter.  The unburned, solid carbon creates a whole host of health issues, and left unaddressed, it will continue to plague us.
New research shows air pollution might make you bad at your job
"What they found was that every 10-microgram per cubic meter increase in PM2.5 levels decreased worker productivity by 0.6%, as measured by the number pear boxes packed by each worker. Since workers were paid piecemeal, this translated to a decrease of roughly 41 cents per hour, per 10 micrograms of PM2.5."

The urban pollution caused largely by automobile emissions, but also by industrial activity and building heating, leads to consequences that affect our nations poor and people of color at rates higher than that of other population groups.
Dyin' to live: Biggie Smalls and the silent killers in urban America
"Cancer and heart disease are still the top causes for premature deaths in Brooklyn today. Environmental factors have long been suspected as possible causes for both. The National Cancer Institute conducted a study in the 1990s in Long Island (just north of Brooklyn) to examine the role of environmental factors in the high breast cancer rates in that area. The researchers found a “modest increase” in cancer risk due to exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cancer-causing agents formed mostly from burning fossil fuels. A 2008 study found a link between PAH exposure and heart disease, and concluded that “chronic environmental stress is an important determinant” in cardiovascular disease risk."

Over the last several years, I have called for a planned, stable transition from utilities of infrastructure to utilities of service.  In order for utilities to survive, they have to make that transition, and it looks like in the nations on the forefront of renewable energy, that transition has started...to a point.
The future of large German utilities: It's already here
"If I would have written this paper two years ago and included the following, I would have called it utopia. Nobody would have believed it. But this unbelievable story actually happened. These four large German utilities decided to become 'green.' This can be seen from their recent advertisements, which show that all of the four major German utilities are 'solarized.'"

Making change that has lasting economic impact requires correctly identifying the value of the improvement and working that into the business plan of those developing, improving, or refurbishing.  Many homeowners and developers avoid improvements with long-term benefits because they cannot monetize those in the present.  A system that correctly values the improvements - and holds developers especially accountable for their performance - provides the proper incentive to make choices that improve quality of life. 
How to help appraisers fairly value home energy efficiency improvements
"Nothing works in the appraisal process unless high performance homes are consistently documented. Right now, the majority of home appraisers use Fannie Mae’s Uniform Residential Appraisal Report to provide opinions on the market value of a given property. But, this form lacks an adequate section in which to document energy efficiency features."

Economics can produce poor decisions.  The economics of developing, maintaining, and decommissioning nuclear energy do not really work, and the risk of catastrophe only exacerbates the point.  That said, in a nation whose economy depends on a fixed level of energy cost, it is tempting to go back to it...even when it has already damaged your country and its people.
Nuclear power in Japan: Start 'em up
"The sense of urgency is driven, first, by the mounting costs of doing without the nuclear plants. One by one, nearly all reactors were shut down in 2011-12. Utilities fired up conventional power stations to make up for lost electricity generation. But the cost of importing extra oil, coal and gas has been all the steeper with a weak yen. The trade deficit has climbed, along with electricity charges, particularly for businesses. Should nuclear plants be left idle, the programme of Shinzo Abe, the prime minister, to revive the economy could be in doubt."

Happy Friday!