Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
We're on the right track, now we have to speed up the train without knocking it off the rails
Chicago houses several great environmental advocacy groups, most of which extend their reach - through partnerships and satellites - throughout the Great Lakes and Midwest. When I want some hope, I look to the successes that these organizations have had over the past decade. Recently, I received an update from the Environmental Law & Policy Center regarding their activities in advocating for improved electricity generation. Their data suggest we have found a good blueprint for success, but that we have a ways to go, especially if we do not want to trade one carbon-based future for another.
The ELPC report shows electricity usage dropping by a little over 10% from 2010 to 2020, based on progress in energy efficiency over the past couple of years. The Center rightly looks at the period after 2010 because we can attribute a dip in usage from 2007-2009 to the worldwide recession. Using data from the Energy Information Administration, we can verify that from a peak of almost 705 million megawatt-hours in 2010, the Midwest has dropped by almost 4% in just the past two years. Other than the recession, we have seen no such consecutive drop in electricity use across the region since 1990 (the earliest record I pulled for verification). If 2013 shows even a small drop, it will verify a trend that we can only hope continues throughout the coming decade. If we continue with this trend, we can cut our electricity use in half by 2050.
In other good news, since peaking at about 500 million megawatt-hours in annual production in 2008, the amount of electricity generated from coal has declined significantly. In 2012, we saw production at 380 million megawatt-hours, a nearly 25% reduction. The efforts of ELPC, Sierra Club, and many regional advocates have combined with market pressures and federal regulation to cause the retirement of several of the oldest and worst polluting coal-fired generation plants in the Midwest. This has significant local impact, especially in the communities that housed these plants. In Chicago, the Little Village and Pilsen neighborhoods nearest the Crawford and Fisk plants, respectively, hope so see major reductions in pollution-related illness over the coming years with the closing of those plants.
Major challenges remain for us as a region, however. The same data source that shows a potential trend toward reduced consumption of electricity shows a much slower drop for the use of natural gas in our residential, commercial, and industrial use. At the same time, as coal and nuclear plants close due to market forces, most predictions - including that of the ELPC - show natural gas taking up picking up most of the slack. This increase of usage, coupled with a slow decline in other uses for natural gas, mean that we will see flat usage over the next forty years in the region.
The continued reliance on natural gas over the next forty years should give us pause. For our region to find a truly sustainable future, we need to quickly and thoroughly integrate renewable energy systems into our lives as quickly as possible. Even with recent gains, ELPC only sees renewable energy reaching 20% of our electricity generation in 10 years, and at best, we can hope that they gain another 20% by 2050. The longer we remain dependent on finite and polluting sources of energy, the more likely we are to take a major economic hit when those resources are depleted. Recent increases in access to natural gas through hydraulic fracturing have given us the notion that we have found unlimited natural gas reserves to power us through the next century. We have yet to see that these reserves will keep up with the global population and development pressures that have caused a significant drop in per-capita fossil fuel reserves over the past 20 years. It will take major investment and recovery in order to even keep up with national demand, much less worldwide desires.
Lastly, it bears stating that we do not have enough evidence yet that hydraulic fracturing, the source of the latest boon in natural gas and oil, has a smaller environmental footprint than coal production. We have no doubt over the value of decreased sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides and soots that come from swapping natural gas for coal, but in terms of carbon production, the evidence currently leaves room for doubt. The volume and size of mining operations has left little ability to regulate the business effectively. The high-pressure, high-water-content operations have only been around for 15 years, so our understanding of the technology still need development. (As Dave Mathos of SkyTruth points out in a recent article, industry asks us to accept the modern version of fracking because it supposedly comes from a well-tested "60-year-old technology". In truth, the modern from of fracking bears only a faint resemblance too its 60-year-old ancestor.) Anecdotal evidence varies widely, and the environmental community has yet to coalesce behind testing or regulation to sort out the issues. Some have suggested that methane losses from modern fracking rise high enough to offset carbon reductions compared with coal. Data on seismic activity suggests that fracking operations create more earthquakes. Water sampling in areas that have a high number of wells points towards increases in benzene and other carcinogenic substances in the water (see the movie Gasland for more conjecture on the matter). Recent flooding in Colorado caused wastewater fields from fracking operations to get washed into the freshwater supply stream. Any one of these individually should cause us concern, but on the chance that all of them are coincidently true, we have simply traded one damaging future for another.
We have much work ahead of us. Energy efficiency needs to remain our primary goal, and we should accelerate our work to reach 50% of our current per-capita usage by 2030, not 2050. Also, we need to wrap all fuels into that goal, which includes natural gas for residential, commercial, and industrial operations. We already know that most of our peer countries in the OECD have high quality of life at this level of energy use per-capita, so we should easily attain it. We then need to focus immediately on policies that will favor the long-term stability of renewable energy over the long-term risks of natural gas. The cost of wind-generated and solar-generated electricity continues to drop, and if we remove the subsidies for oil and natural gas, while promoting financing mechanisms that look outward 20 to 30 years (like we already do for home purchases and municipal energy efficiency projects), we can limit the development of infrastructure around natural gas, thereby making it truly a bridge fuel to a renewable future, and not the next sandy foundation on which we base our quality of life.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Friday Five: November 15, 2013
In its purist, most utopian form, business is the social mechanism by which we find the most efficient, and hopefully effective, means by which to distribute scarce resources. However, business will not do anything that is not in its own best financial interest, nor will it decide on its own to make changes. In the real world, existing markets use incumbency to restrict the entry of new technologies, and use their accumulated profits to move markets in their favor. There are only two ways in which we can force business to do unprofitable but necessary things: regulation or mass social action (basically boycotts). Our republic, since the turn of the previous century, has used the will of the people expressed through our laws to accomplish this in the most effective way possible. Examples like this one show why consumer action and business platitudes do not do enough to solve our biggest problems.Walmart's carbon emissions soar despite all that green talk
"Today Walmart ranks as one of the biggest and fastest growing climate polluters in the country. If it were included in the Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index, a list that is limited to heavy industrial firms, such as oil companies and power plants, Walmart would take the 33rd spot, just a hair behind Chevron, America’s second largest oil company."
I have followed this work at the Center for Neighborhood Technology for many years now, and to me it stands as one of their most impressive achievements. When transportation energy costs bottomed out in the 1950s-60s, and then again in the 1990s, we expanded the infrastructure for transportation by vehicle and established a horrible precedent that living far from ones work was necessary and sometimes even desirable. Now, we are paying the price for those decisions. Hopefully, information like that in the transportation and affordability index will help the marketplace better shape our urban and suburban dynamics.
Why the government now cares what you spend on gas
"Donovan said 75 to 85 percent of a family's living costs can be explained by location. Behavior accounts for the rest. If that's true, it would be a powerful insight for federal policy to leverage in trying to expand access to affordable communities."
In every way, shape, and form renewable energy bests fossil fuel energy when we look at a horizon longer than 5-10 years. The fact that we still want to not only allow, but financially support the extraction of fossil fuels shows that our political and economic systems are no longer free markets, but manipulated markets meant to favor the past over the future. The role of renewable energy in the future of our society has grown every year for the last decade: originally we thought it would encompass only 5% of future energy use, now we think maybe 30%. There is no doubt that if we embarked on a "moonshot-like" program to bring our country to 95% renewable energy by 2030 we would not only get there, but would do so at a positive impact on our economy as well as our quality of life. When we get there, we will curse those who made us wait so long.
German expansion of renewables may cut energy costs by EUR 54bn by 2030 - study
"According to the study, renewable energy production costs EUR 0.031 less per 1 kWh than energy from fossil fuels. The generation of electricity from nuclear and fossil sources causes environmental damage which then needs high investments to be repaired. Green energy, on the other hand, saves on these additional expenses and keeps lowering its price due to technological innovation."
The benefits of a clean energy economy go beyond the macro economic and environmental issues to a greater appreciation for those who work on the systems and equipment that support our life as well as a different shaping of priorities relative to work. The productivity gains we have made over the past half century, coupled with the economic stability provided by a clean energy future should mean that a high quality, middle-class American lifestyle can be lived on the income of one - to maybe slightly over one - average American worker. This would free our neighborhoods to strengthen social ties again, create a level of income equality that formed the hallmark of our economic strength in the last half of last century, and incentivize entrepreneurship and creativity at a scale not seen since the end of the 19th century.
Building a clean energy economy that works
"The place to start is clean energy. Renewable energy and energy efficiency investments create far more jobs per dollar spent than fossil fuels, including natural gas. If done properly, the clean energy transition will lead to a massive expansion of good jobs, providing one of the biggest opportunities for growth of the labor movement over the next generation. But workers, communities of color, indigenous people, women, and people of emerging nations must both lead and be the primary beneficiaries of this change."
I eagerly await this encyclical. I have wondered when Pope Francis (or Cisco, as I like to call him) would speak out on environmental issues since they have an inextricable link to the poverty and social justice issues that he holds so dear to his heart. I look forward to working with him and the Catholic Church to accelerate action on environmental issues so that we can create a truly just world free from all forms of tyranny and oppression.
El Papa Francisco posa con una camiseta contra el fracking durante la visita de un senador argentino
"'Tuvimos un diálogo extenso y profundo sobre el daño ambiental que se está produciendo en nuestro país y en el mundo. El Papa Francisco me reveló que está trabajando una gran Encíclica sobre el Medio Ambiente', ha revelado el político. El emotivo gesto del Papa da la vuelta al mundo."
Happy Friday!
"Today Walmart ranks as one of the biggest and fastest growing climate polluters in the country. If it were included in the Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index, a list that is limited to heavy industrial firms, such as oil companies and power plants, Walmart would take the 33rd spot, just a hair behind Chevron, America’s second largest oil company."
I have followed this work at the Center for Neighborhood Technology for many years now, and to me it stands as one of their most impressive achievements. When transportation energy costs bottomed out in the 1950s-60s, and then again in the 1990s, we expanded the infrastructure for transportation by vehicle and established a horrible precedent that living far from ones work was necessary and sometimes even desirable. Now, we are paying the price for those decisions. Hopefully, information like that in the transportation and affordability index will help the marketplace better shape our urban and suburban dynamics.
Why the government now cares what you spend on gas
"Donovan said 75 to 85 percent of a family's living costs can be explained by location. Behavior accounts for the rest. If that's true, it would be a powerful insight for federal policy to leverage in trying to expand access to affordable communities."
In every way, shape, and form renewable energy bests fossil fuel energy when we look at a horizon longer than 5-10 years. The fact that we still want to not only allow, but financially support the extraction of fossil fuels shows that our political and economic systems are no longer free markets, but manipulated markets meant to favor the past over the future. The role of renewable energy in the future of our society has grown every year for the last decade: originally we thought it would encompass only 5% of future energy use, now we think maybe 30%. There is no doubt that if we embarked on a "moonshot-like" program to bring our country to 95% renewable energy by 2030 we would not only get there, but would do so at a positive impact on our economy as well as our quality of life. When we get there, we will curse those who made us wait so long.
German expansion of renewables may cut energy costs by EUR 54bn by 2030 - study
"According to the study, renewable energy production costs EUR 0.031 less per 1 kWh than energy from fossil fuels. The generation of electricity from nuclear and fossil sources causes environmental damage which then needs high investments to be repaired. Green energy, on the other hand, saves on these additional expenses and keeps lowering its price due to technological innovation."
The benefits of a clean energy economy go beyond the macro economic and environmental issues to a greater appreciation for those who work on the systems and equipment that support our life as well as a different shaping of priorities relative to work. The productivity gains we have made over the past half century, coupled with the economic stability provided by a clean energy future should mean that a high quality, middle-class American lifestyle can be lived on the income of one - to maybe slightly over one - average American worker. This would free our neighborhoods to strengthen social ties again, create a level of income equality that formed the hallmark of our economic strength in the last half of last century, and incentivize entrepreneurship and creativity at a scale not seen since the end of the 19th century.
Building a clean energy economy that works
"The place to start is clean energy. Renewable energy and energy efficiency investments create far more jobs per dollar spent than fossil fuels, including natural gas. If done properly, the clean energy transition will lead to a massive expansion of good jobs, providing one of the biggest opportunities for growth of the labor movement over the next generation. But workers, communities of color, indigenous people, women, and people of emerging nations must both lead and be the primary beneficiaries of this change."
I eagerly await this encyclical. I have wondered when Pope Francis (or Cisco, as I like to call him) would speak out on environmental issues since they have an inextricable link to the poverty and social justice issues that he holds so dear to his heart. I look forward to working with him and the Catholic Church to accelerate action on environmental issues so that we can create a truly just world free from all forms of tyranny and oppression.
El Papa Francisco posa con una camiseta contra el fracking durante la visita de un senador argentino
"'Tuvimos un diálogo extenso y profundo sobre el daño ambiental que se está produciendo en nuestro país y en el mundo. El Papa Francisco me reveló que está trabajando una gran Encíclica sobre el Medio Ambiente', ha revelado el político. El emotivo gesto del Papa da la vuelta al mundo."
Happy Friday!
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Competition is good, and time consuming
I was recently able to create an account and get quotes for health insurance for my family through the Illinois healthcare exchanges. I was pleasantly surprised by what is available. The table below summarizes my options (including what we paid this year). When we get our employer options for next year, this will give us a good template from which to work.
I created the range from the data provided on the website as follows:
1. The color of the bar represents the plan group: platinum, gold, silver and bronze. My current plan is in green.
2. The low end arrow starts at the total cost of 12 months worth of premiums plus the expected copays for my family of 6 for doctor's visits and prescriptions.
3. The high end arrow ends at the total cost of 12 months worth of premiums plus the expected copays plus the out-of-pocket maximum for the plan.
4. The dot sits at a point calculated from the low end cost plus 50% of the deductible. Low-deductible plans have their dot near the low end and high-deductible plans have their dot near the high end.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Give up the fight and make green easier
At a conference I recently attended, a group entered into a conversation about the obstacles to adopting more resilient practices in the building and maintaining homes. After sifting through issues ranging from costs to level of education, one of the participants raised an issue that has stuck in my craw ever since….
Those developing new technologies and strategies related to energy rarely shift through the familiar.
I wish I could remember the young man's name, because I would advocate that you follow him on Twitter or read his latest book (if he has one). I do not believe in single panaceas that solve all our problems, but as I look back at most of the resistance to the practices, behaviors, and technologies presented by those of us looking to make the world more livable for ours and future generations, I notice a prominence of asking people to break with the familiar and embrace change. If we look at the technological changes that have marked the past century, we can see the thread of this throughout.
Moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile included a car shaped similarly to a typical buggy and the use of the phrase "horse-less carriage". Yes, there's no horse, but it has "horsepower" and looks otherwise like you parents' carriage.
Motorola invented the cellular phone in the early 1970s, but it took the better part of 25 years to get the devices into widespread use in the US, notably, after home phones had switched from rotary dial to wireless hand-held.
Mention the concept of using radiation to cook food for human consumption to someone in the 1940s when the technology for microwave ovens was first developed, and no market would likely develop. Flash forward 30 years after nuclear energy becomes a household word, and an oven that cooks in a fraction of the time becomes not only accepted but desirable.
Again, this is not meant to oversimplify the issue. Each of the above examples carries other factors that needed to come into place before widespread acceptance could occur. That said, each of them shares the thought that we need the comfort of something familiar to carry us from the past to the future. As we begin to accept this as a community, we can use the concept to help shape how we move forward.
Those developing new technologies and strategies related to energy rarely shift through the familiar.
I wish I could remember the young man's name, because I would advocate that you follow him on Twitter or read his latest book (if he has one). I do not believe in single panaceas that solve all our problems, but as I look back at most of the resistance to the practices, behaviors, and technologies presented by those of us looking to make the world more livable for ours and future generations, I notice a prominence of asking people to break with the familiar and embrace change. If we look at the technological changes that have marked the past century, we can see the thread of this throughout.
Moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile included a car shaped similarly to a typical buggy and the use of the phrase "horse-less carriage". Yes, there's no horse, but it has "horsepower" and looks otherwise like you parents' carriage.
Motorola invented the cellular phone in the early 1970s, but it took the better part of 25 years to get the devices into widespread use in the US, notably, after home phones had switched from rotary dial to wireless hand-held.
Mention the concept of using radiation to cook food for human consumption to someone in the 1940s when the technology for microwave ovens was first developed, and no market would likely develop. Flash forward 30 years after nuclear energy becomes a household word, and an oven that cooks in a fraction of the time becomes not only accepted but desirable.
Again, this is not meant to oversimplify the issue. Each of the above examples carries other factors that needed to come into place before widespread acceptance could occur. That said, each of them shares the thought that we need the comfort of something familiar to carry us from the past to the future. As we begin to accept this as a community, we can use the concept to help shape how we move forward.
- Instead of looking to take away the security of utility service from a customer, we should work with utilities to incorporate them into community energy solutions.
- Instead of pummeling consumers with the message that their actions are "horrible and detrimental", we should first focus on developing technology that minimizes waste within the habits of typical consumers. This plan worked wonders for refrigerators using EnergyStar as the tool to deliver change in the manufacturing industry without changing the end result to consumers.
- Instead of trying to find new and more creative ways to communicate recycling to consumers, we should focus on eliminating non-recyclable material from the waste stream at the manufacturing level.
People will change course when it benefits their life, but generally will need a catastrophe to shake them away from the familiar. If we seek change without such mind-changing catastrophes, then we need to pursue a course that relies less on changing the behavior of 300 million people, and instead marshall our resources toward overcoming the core issues that make the behaviors detrimental.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)