Lights Out, NYC

So it's not exactly technology. In fact, my parents have reminded me to do it every time I leave a room for as long as I can remember. The Daily New's front page article yesterday criticized the Mayor for leaving unnecessary lights on throughout the city through the wee hours of the night-- several reporters roamed around city municipal buildings late to docuement it. Even worse, this came just days after Bloomberg's huge 127 part initiative to make New York City it's greenest. Apparantly he overlooked the most obvious solutions.

Bloomberg responded that janitors and other occupants are often working into the late hours, but there were a few buildings that were completely vacant, including the Bronx Hall of Justice, which was just built and doesn't even have occupants yet, especailly at 3am.

New York City expects to shell out $504 million in the current fiscal year on electricity alone. Bloomberg has plans to equip City Hall with energy efficient bulbs to whittle down electricity costs. The Education Department building on court street remained lit in the early hours as well, and turning off those lights would save the government 33% per year (about $57,000). According to the Daily News, this is more than enough to cover one new teacher or two new police officer salaries. If every building could work out a system that allowed janitorial duties to be taken care of in a few hours at the end of the day or early morning, then that would provide a huge surplus so that the Mayor might be able to fund all the grand initiatives in store.

I doubt New York will retire its title as the city that never sleeps any time soon-- Shutting off Time Square at night might cause wild riots, likewise for the many other city symbols that define New York, from the Empire State Building the Statue of Liberty. Bloomberg hopes to eventually equip all buildings and landmarks with energy-efficient bulbs.

Bloomberg's Big Plans

This year's Earth Day proved to be a bigger affair than usual due to recent attention to global warming, and the city of New York was no exception. In a speech at the Museum of Natural History, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York, his grand scheme to make NYC the cleanest and most efficient of them all. The speech highlighted 127 separate initiatives that the government will take to improve 9 broader problems, from transportation to water quality. The plan includes a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 30% by the year 2030. With 984 days left in office, Bloomberg cites the thriving status of the city as reason to actively persue such an ambitious project that will accommodate more people in the 5 burroughs.
Brownfield remediation is one of the 9 areas of focus. The implementation of on-site testing, soil analysis, a new City office to focus on brownfield treatment, and a $15 million dollar fund for brownfield redevelopment are just a few of the initiatives planned to attack the problem.
In terms of housing, Bloomberg proposed development in areas with easy access to public transport, restoring unused waterfront property around the city, converting vacant schools, hospitals, and outdated municipal facilities into new housing, and constructing decks over transportation infrasturcture to create inhabitable land.
He stressed the need for more open space and parkland that is accessible to residents of every neighborhood. This will be implemented by opening city-wide schoolyards as public playgrounds, giving access to the better sports fields to all athletic teams, converting asphalt into multi-use turf fields, and installing lights at fields to allow for nighttime use, among several other initiatives.
A steep tax for cars entering the city below 86th street is one of the several initiatives aimed at improving transportation in the city. In addition to that, Bloomberg hopes to provide new and improved commuter rails to Manhattan, make transit more accessible to neglected areas and improve the transit system throughout the city, finish the city's 1,800 mile bike master plan to increase bicycle use, and many other transit and toll related plans.

Many of the 127 points fall under the energy reform plan, and some of these include adapting building codes that support energy efficiency, creating a city department that focuses on efficient energy use, enpanding New York's natural gas infrastructure, more solar energy in city buildings, and exploring waste-to-energy technology (I knew it wasn't far off!).

To improve water networks, Bloomberg plans to build an ultraviolet disinfection plant, build a filtration plant to protect the Croton supply, begin a water conservation plan to lower consumption by 60 million gallons per day, and complete and repair several of the water tunnels around the city, including a backup tunnel to Staten Island.

In terms of water quality, the plan includes implementing ribbed mussel beds, reduce combine d sewage overflow, and complete the long term control plans for the 14 watersheds in NYC.

Bloomberg connects air quality improvements to the transportation initatives, and also plans to waive sales tax on clean cars, help the MTA, port authority, and dept. of transportation to promote hybrid vehicles, expand the use of biodeisel and alternative fuels for city trucks, ferries, schoolbusses, and taxis. The plan also aims to reforest 2,000 acres of parkland and plant 1 million trees in empty lots over the next 10 years.

To combat climate change, Bloomberg hopes to reduce emissions by 60-80% by the year 2050. This requires creating a special taskforce to maintain the city's infrastructure while implementing new initiatives, teaming up with coastal neighborhoods to create site specific remedies, update FEMA's 100-year floodplain maps to take climate change impacts into account, and changing building codes within the city to address climate change.

It's a very ambitious plan, but I can't quite figure out where all the money for the big clean up will come from. On top of that many of the initiatives are rather vague and don't actually specify WHAT the government will DO to accomplish the goal. But this is the kind of action that all cities need to take, and it's better to be overly ambitious than indifferent. It'll be interesting to see what he DOES accomplish in the 984 days left in office....

Holland opens their first offshore wind farm

Wednesday marked the opening of the Netherland's first offshore wind farm, built by Shell and Nuon, a Dutch power utility. The 200 million euro project boasts a 108 megawatt farm on the North Sea, which will also be function as a research center to expand knowledge and observe how marine life is affected.

Going off land seems to be the only way that Holland's new coalition government can accomplish their (and the EU's) goal of 20 percent of their energy coming from renewable sources by 2020. In 2006, 2.37% of the Netherlands' total electricity came from wind power. Until recently, the licensing process for wind power projects took five years, and the government had prohibited building wind farms on the North Sea.

Offshore windfarms are good for several reasons. For one thing, the wind is much stronger at sea, and the open space allows for much larger turbines. The trend is more popular in Europe, where land area is limited and shallow water is abundant and accessible. The US generally has enough land space to accomodate windmills, although an offshore park is to be built off Cape Cod in the next two years. Much of America's coast is to deep for off-shore farms to be a practical solution, as production cost increases with a greater water depth and larger waves.

Offshore farms are said to be barely visible from land and designed in a place that won't interfere with shipping. Boston based energy consulting firm La Capra Associates predicts the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts to save the New England electricity market $25 million per year, and will decrease the region's harmful emissions. The system will lower demand for natural gas, which could lead to lower natural gas prices in the region.

The nation rallies for response to climate change

While I was chained to a desk for three hours on Saturday morning taking a Psychology GRE Exam, millions of people across the country united to spur Congressional action against climate change. Thousand of New Yorkers clad in blue gathered in Battery Park to create a "sea of people," just one of the many stunts that colored the first National Day of Climate Action. They lined the edge of lower Manhattan to create an aerial image of what the island will look like after the effects of climate change set in-- significantly shrunken, as sea levels are projected to one day rise 10-20 feet.

The organization behind this grassroots effort is Step It Up, and the goal is to persuade Congress to pass pass a bill to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. Though it sounds like a radical request, it would only mean a 2% decrease per year-- and we're clearly facing a problem that calls for drastic measures.

The nation saw more than 1300 rallies on Saturday, covering all 50 states on the map. Scuba divers in Florida went under water and held a Step It Up sign to draw attention to the damage that climate change will incur on coral reefs. Folks in the San Francisco area created a caravan of clean fueled cars and went to a Hummer dealership to protest the gas guzzlers. New Orleans saw citizens form a human chain that spelled out Step It Up, while students at Middlebury College in Vermont rose before dawn to send out a Step It Up message with flashlights.

Bill McKibben is the guy behind the movement-- a Middlebury Alum and environmental guru. Hes the author of "The End of Nature," a global warming treatise, and has organized several other similar events, including leading a 50 mile walk across Vermont to attend an environmental rally in Burlington.

The impressive turnout on Saturday was the first step in the appeal to Congress. The group is now in the process of sending all the pictures to Capitol Hill. They will send each U.S. Senator a copy of every picture that was taken at a rally in their state, and each U.S. rep will receive the same from all rallies in their district.

This action incited wild national and international media, and will likely be a significant push for legislative action thats already on the table in D.C. Step It Up is teaming up with Moveon.org to circulate a national e-petition for Congress, and encouraging all to make a pledge to put climate change on the front burner in the 2008 elections. Voters can pledge themselves at ClimateVoters.org. Step It Up's websites has many other ways that regular citizens can make a difference by working together-- I guess it just takes a bunch of hippies from Vermont to cultivate the grassroots approach.

Ethanol craze affecting food supply

President Bush has gone on something of an ethanol kick, his response to recent reports warning about the verity and consequences on the horizon as a result of climate change. Yet a recent article in The Economist sides with Fidel Castro's take on "the sinister idea of converting food into fuel." The price of corn has already risen as a result of America's fuel needs. Farmers are dedicating more land to corn, which in turn is increasing prices of other crops which are losing land. On top of that, corn is largely used as animal food, so the price of meat has gone up as a result of ethanol fuel. Our need for independence from foreign oil comes at a cost.

The production of ethanol for fuel in America has only been around 3.5% of total fuel consumption, but the amount is expected to increase at a rate of 25% a year, which is causing a building boom in refineries in the midwest. Subsidized by government funds, ethanol is the only alternative energy source that has widespread political support, as farmers, carmakers, and the oil industry all benefit.

However, according to some studies, corn-based ethanol isn't as green as we might have thought, as it calls for almost as much energy to produce as it uses when burned. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, government funds for ethanol are costing $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion in taxes per year. Sugar cane based ethanol, on the other hand, creates much more energy than is required to produce it, and places where it is currently produced (Brazil's a big one) aren't affecting food supplies as there's sufficient land available for crops. Sugar-based ethanol could be a great export for many developing countries with tropical climates.

Ethanol produced from wood, grasses, and agricultural wastes which contain a great amount of cellulose is a more environmentally viable solution than both sugar and corn, but the process is quite expensive. With more development, this system would be most ideal, as it wouldn't affect food supplies and would create a constructive use for farm waste. I fear that it could lead to the gung-ho use of trees in the production of cellulosic ethanol, which wouldn't help in the fight against global warming.

America presently taxes imported ethanol, which is soon to anger taxpayers as they see the rise in food prices. Importing sugar-based ethanol would both help developing countries and allow us a much more significant impact against global warming, which is one of the reasons that brought the US to this spot in the first place. It seems to me that even when the country tries to do something right, we screw it up by choosing the most convenient option-- in this case "bad" corn-based ethanol.

Scientist turning plastic into fuel...

Richard Gross is onto something. A chemistry professor at Brooklyn's Polytechnic University, Gross has recently developed a "fuel latent plastic," which can be turned into diesel fuel after its been used for it's packaging purposes. Plant oils are already in use in the making of biodiesel, and Gross thought to use the material to first create plastic, which with the help of a naturally occuring enzyme(cutinase) and warm water can then convert the plastic into fuel.
This development could be big for the military. A soldier produces an average of more than 7 pounds of packaging waste a day, which, according to the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency requires special transportation, especially for far away bases. This special plastic would cut transportation needs in half and save substantially amounts of fuel money. Although the process still requires further research, the Pentagon threw in $2.34 million to spur on development.
The process itself takes 3-5 days. The plastic is shredded (a paper shredder would do the trick) and placed in water with a bit of the enzyme. A few days later, the fuel surfaces on top of the water. Gross says that the amount of biodiesel produced by a gallon of soy oil remains the same, regardless of whether it is first made into plastic form or not.

The pentagon refers to the initiative as Mobile Integrated Sustainable Energy Recovery program (MISER), and aims to recapture 90% of packaging energy to convert to electricity.

Depending on the future of oil prices in the US, and if the government decides to tax carbon emissions, this technology could gain economical dependence. Furthermore, the plant base of the plastic/fuel means that it leaves a much smaller carbon fooprint on the atmosphere-- the carbon that is released will be absorbed by subsequent crops that are grown to make the plastic.

Supreme Court decision rules against EPA

Yesterday was a big day in the battle against global warming, as the Supreme Court voted against the EPA in the Massachusetts v. EPA case. The decision, which is perhaps the most important environmental case of the decade, rejected a long list of excuses that the Bush Administration EPA gave for failing to control the emission of greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Hopefully the monuemental decision will spur Americans into action-- the US is one of the leaders in greenhouse gas emissions, yet an international BBC poll found that Americans and Europeans are the least concerned about climate change. Go figure. The decision will likely bring regulations into the car industry and other large scale industrial outfits, but personal regulations for emissions aren't likely for any time soon.

However, there are hundreds of small things that we can each do to reduce our carbon imprint, and Time magazine compiled a list of 51 things that the average person can do to cut their emissions, from using public transportation to insulating your water heater.

Although the EPA isn't on the list of favorites at the current moment, their Energy Star program (shared with the department of Energy) is dedicated to promoting energy efficiency for the sake of saving the environment AND saving money. In 2006, ENergy Star helped people to save $14 billion in Utility bills at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that of 25 million cars. Homes, household appliances, and renovation plans which are Energy Star approved supposedly enable customers to pay one third less in utility bills, and reduce emissions by roughly the same amount. In February 2007, more than 3,200 buildings had earned Energy Star approval, and they rate almost any household and business appliance you can conjure up, from dehumidifiers to vending machines. New York has 696 businesses that have become Energy Star partners, including NYU medical center, among many others.

Yesterday's historical first supreme court decision to deal with global warming brought the issue into the news spotlight, and maybe people will begin to realize that by cutting emissions they can actually save a lot of money. Who can say no to that?

Ahoy, Mate! Solar Powered Boat Crosses the Atlantic

After 117 days at sea, the Sun 21 Catamaran docked Thursday in Miami. The craft, manned by 4 Swiss academics and one Swiss sailor, is the first solar powered boat to cross the Atlantic. The team departed from Seville, Spain, and followed the same route as Christopher Columbus did when discovering the new World over 500 years ago. The crew hoped the voyage would resonate around the world the potential of renewable energy to fight climate change.
The 46 foot long boat is outfitted with 48 solar panels on its 700 square-foot roof, which absorb energy from the sun during the day and store it in batteries, which keep the boat powered during the night. Designed bysolar boat company MW Line, the boat sailed from Basel, Swizerland on October 16th, 2006, and made route via the Rhine River to the North Sea, where it continued along the coast of Europe to Spain and departed onto the open water. The boat, which travels at a rate of 10 kmh, is capable of running for 20 hours with a fully charged battery. A comparably sized gas powered boat would use around 72 liters of diesel each day on the same voyage.

The spokesman for the group, Daniel Weiner, said about the feat "Just as Columbus changed the mindshift [mindset] of his time [by showing] that the Earth was round and not flat, we want to show that the energy future looks different than the past."

Several European lakes and rivers are already home to solar powered boats, which cruise around lakes and rivers (in France and Austria), and then plug into docks where they disperse excess energy to the grid. In Australia, the Solar Sailor ferries passengers around Sydney Harbor, with a design of movable solar panels (they resemble wings) which catch the wind for even more power. A larger version of the Solar Sailor will soon have a home in San Francisco bay as a passenger ferry.

The Sun 21 catamaran will continue its voyage from Miami to New York, where it will remain on display for a period. The fact that a boat can make the long and treacherous Atlantic crossing relying solely on solar power might show skeptics the large scale potential of solar power, and lead people to think outside of the box when it comes to alternative energy uses. A solar powered car may not be such a crazy idea, right?

The Mother of all Solar Plants Built in Portugal

Wednesday marked the inaugeral run of the world's largest solar power plant, as it pumped electricity into 8,000 southern portugal homes. GE Energy Financial Services, PowerLight Corporation and Catavento Lda are the three companies behind the 11 megawatt powerhouse, which covers 150 acres and is priced at $75 million. Located near the town of Serpa in Portugal's Alentejo region, the area is one of Europes sunniest, with a reputation as both an agricultural spot and a poor part of the world.

The plant was supposed to have the highest solar power capacity, but a recently built solar plant in Germany beat them to it. However, Portugal wins the prize for porximity to the equator, which means the greater sunshine will allow it to produce the most power of all the solar energy plants in the world. The 52,000 photovoltaic modules create more than 20 gigawatt-hours per hour.

Portugal, whose greenhouse gas emissions have soared 37% since 1990 is hoping that this plant will save the country from reliance on foreign energy, and curb Portugal's contribution to global warming. Compared with fossil fuel generation, the solar installation will reduce greenhouse gas emission by more than 30,000 tons per year. On top of that, many hope that this addition will be the start of economic growth in the poor region.

Solarworld, a German company, has just announced plans to build the largest solar energy plant on the American continent, in the state of Oregon. Planned for 2009, the plant would have a capacity of 500 megawatts, and will cost upwards of $500 million.

These large scale forms of renewable energy are what the future of energy is apt to look like. The phenomenol difference in greenhouse gas emissions between traditional energy sources and solar systems mean that the world will have no choice but to convert in the coming years. Companies that are looking ahead to invest in renewable energy will be the ones who come out on top here. Even on a smaller scale, I doubt it too be too long before a large chunk of the homes have their own solar panel energy system.

Renewable energy requirements may be a reality

An increased focus on the effects of global warming in recent months has US states and countries around the globe considering laws that require companies and residents to obtain a portion of their electricity from renewable sources. About half of the states in the country already have some sort of requirement for utlities to have a certain percent of energy coming from renewable sources.

Right now, only 2-3% of our country's energy comes from renewable sources, but some proposals in Congress are suggesting a nationwide standard, with a goal of 15% renewable energy by the year 2020. California is ahead of the curve, with a goal for utilities to get 20% of their energy from renewable resources by 2010, which is just three years away.

These requirements would also help to strengthen the local job market, as states would be forced to develop local renewable energy initiatives rather than relying on imported fuel from other states or other countries.

A nationwide standard would also level the playing field for all states. It's much cheaper to burn coal for electricity, so its not fair for environmentally conscious states to spend more on renewable energy, while their neighbor continues to load CO2 into the atmosphere and save money at the same time.

However, all states don't have an equal opportunity for renewable resources, according to a spokesman for Edison Electric. Some Southeastern states have fewer resources to power renewable energy systems, which would force them to purchase renewable energy credits from producers elsewhere.

Fortunately, the Energy Information Administration estimates a national standard to have a minimal affect on the amount that consumers pay in utilities, with an increase of 1% at most, since the cost would be spread across the public.

The EU leads the world in renewable energy sources, and has a goal of 20% of all energy coming from renewable sources by 2020. At 5% more than the US's goal, I feel more confident that the EU will carry out this plan, as the EU president Angela Merkel has been much more active in taking a firm stance against global warming than G.W. Bush.

Hold the burger-- I'll take the grease to go, in my gas tank

Just when you thought the best thing about fast food was the heavy satisfaction in your stomach after a big mac, you might soon get free fuel along with it. A group with a mind for the environment have begun using vegetable oil and old restarant grease to power their cars or even heat their homes.

Greasecar Vegetable fuel systems, of Easthampton, Mass., is a nine year old business which makes conversion kits that enable cars to run on vegtable oil. The kits, which run from $800 to $2,000, have been doubling annually in recent years, thanks to the appeal of free used vegetable oil that restaurants will gladly hand out. In a few short months carowners can makeup for the price of the engine conversion, and the thought of free fuel is nothing short of a miracle. At least until the technology spreads and old vegetable oil is in high demand... but at least we would keep the business in our own backyard, rather than depending on foreign vegetable oil.

Vegetable oil is similar to diesel in terms of fuel consumption, banking around 20-30% more milage than standard gasoline.

Philadelphia Fry-O-Diesel is another company in the market for nasty restaurant grease. Founded in 2004, the company does tests and research on the use of restaurant grease as a biofuel, with a long term goal of creating a large scale plant to turn used grease into biodiesel, which is much more efficient and more biodegradible than petrodiesel, not to mention less toxic. And it'd be doing the restaurants a favor. The company estimates that 4-5 million gallons of yellow grease are produced by restaraunts in the Philadelphia area each year, requiring disposal fees, often avoided by the illegal dumping of the grease, which is harmful to the environment.

It's kind of a wacky idea, but with the cost of gas these days, i'd definitely give vegetable fuel a shot. If you're still unsure, you can test out the style with a sporty "Drive Vegetarian" sweatshirt from Greasecar. Clearly it wouldn't be a movement without a t-shirt!

Bush to Cut Funding for Geothermal Research

The world is at a crucial crossroads with the recent revelations that climate change and global warming are, in fact, most likely due to human activity on Earth. America is one of the leading culprits. And "the madman in charge of the country," as a swedish person I recently met affectionately referred to him, is looking to eliminate funding for geothermal research for the 2008 fiscal year.

Geothermal power is generated by taking heat from inside the earth, in the form of steam or water, which spins a turbine that creates power, and gives off less than half the carbon dioxide emissions than solar, wind, or nuclear power. Geothermal power isn't classified as a form of renewable energy, however, as the sources are capable of depletion, although not for many decades.

Geothermal plants require less land than any other type of power plant, and river damming and deforestation aren't necessary for the construction or process.

The US is currently the biggest producer of geothermal energy, producing 2700 megawatts of electricity, of the 7000 megawatts that 21 countries around the world create. According to the Geothermal Energy Association, the energy from geothermal resources was .36% of total energy resources in the US in 2005, and primarily came from California.

President Bush has made a commitment to combat global warming, but a representative for the Department of Energy says that funding should go toward cutting edge energy research and development. Over the past six years, funding for geothermal energy research averaged $26 million, but scientists say there is still a lot to be done with the resource. An MIT study claims that new geothermal plants could provide 100,000 megawatts of electricity by 2050, which is about equivalent to what US nuclear power plants make today. Over the next 15 years, geothermal development would need about $300-$400 million in order to compete with other types of energy. It looks like they'll need to make some friends in the Whitehouse.

Germany Flagging in Hybrid Race

Porsche, BMW, Audi, Mercedes... We often aspire to be behind the wheel of one of these machines, but resentment of German carmakers is growing among the eco-industry. The nation's carmakers are at the back of the pack in terms of automotive environmental development, According to the German Auto Club. Japan, on the other hand, holds the two top spots for envirnomentally friendly automobiles, with the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic, both hybird cars.

Increased demand for carbon emission regulation in the EU, along with the upcoming International Motorshow in Genva have spurred German carmakers into action. Volkswagon has produced one eco-model, the Polo Blue Motion, the first model of the sustainable Blue Motion line of cars. The vehicle, which was unveiled at the Geneva show in March 2006, consumes the lowest amount of fuel in its class, according to Volkswagon. VW and Porsche have also teamed up to produce a line of ec-friendly cars, scheduled to debut in 2008.

The EU has been warring over car regulations to curb CO2 emissions, and reached a comprimise to increase the use of biofuels and fossil fuels, but did little to instigate standards for cleaner car models. Germany's focus in past years has been on developing cleaner diesel fuel, which is more universally utilized in Europe than the US, where big trucks are the main diesel consumers. Although diesel produces less carbon dioxide than petroluem fuel, it emits harmful nitrates.

Hybrids, on the other hand, give of less of both poisons, and have brought Toyota and Honda great success in recent years. Tierry Dombreval, VP for Toyota Europe, expects annual hybrid sales to exceed 1 million by the beginning of the next decade.

Hybrids are catching on faster in Europe than the United States, but change is in the air. Leonardo Dicaprio's arrival at the Oscars in a Prius had people talking, and other stars who've participated in the "Red Carpet, Green Cars" campaign include Penelope Cruz, Forest Whitaker, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Wall Street: Green is in, in more ways than one

Many of the big investors who call Wall Street home have changed their song to combat global warming. At the head of the pack is Goldman Sachs, who have made several moves in the past few years to flex their environmental muscles, beginning in 2004 with their purchase of 680,000 acres of land in southern Chile near Antarctica, which they made into a nature preserve in collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Society. Goldman Sachs also established a policy in 2005 which prohibits taking on any projects that significantly affect any critical natural habitats, along with a ban against business with illegal logging companies. In the realm of greenhouse gas emissions, the firm has commited to a 7% cut in harmful emissions from its offices, and is getting into the renewable energy business. In 2005 Goldman Sachs acquired Horizon Wind Energy, which has developed wind farms in half a dozen states and has several more projects underway. Huge world banking players like Citi, J.P. Morgan and Merrill Lynch are beginning to do business that takes enviromental consequences into mind, a 180 degree turn from past business that supported everything from oil rigs to SUV plants.

The greenification of companies with this much financial sway can only improve the country's status as one of the biggest creators of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Case in point: Two of Goldman Sach's clients, the private equity firms Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group, recently voiced their intentions to buy TXU Corp., a utility company in Texas that is a champion of greenhouse gas emissions. Goldman's advice to their clients strikes a nicer chord for environmentalists: invest $400 million in alternative energy initiatives, and build only 3 of TXU's 11 planned coal fired plants. These deals pleased environmentalists, and TXU accepted the $45 billion purchase last week.

Goldman Sach has plans underway for their $2 billion "Green Tower," which will be situated across from the World Trade Center site and will be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certified, meaning that it will be built with recycled materials and incorperate energy and water conservation. The 43 story world headquarters is expected to receive its first tenants by 2009.

The fact that the big money holders are investing in green technology is a huge step for worldwide efforts-- the rest of America and the world follows the money trail, and the money is becoming an ideal role model.

Gore: Electricity bills surface at an inconvenient time

This strays a bit from my technological angle of the environment, but I couldn't resist...

Al Gore was almost as popular as Ellen Degeneres or Martin Scorsese at Sunday night's Academy Awards, with his film "An Inconvenient Truth" taking home the Oscar for Best Docuementary Feature and Best Original Song (Melissa Etheridge's "I need to wake up"). Gore's celebrations probably ended early as the Tennessee Center for Policy Research brought forth his electricity bills from the past two years, which immediately caused the the father of the fight against global warming to be rechristened as a hypocrite.

The independent, non-profit organization looked at Gore's electricity bills (public record) for 2005 and 2006, and found that the former vice president's 20 room house (and pool house) used 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, which is about 20 times the amount produced by the average American home (approximately 10, 656 kWh). Nashville Electric Services supposedly charged the Gores an average of $1,359 per month in 2006, and gas bills were at an average of around $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house. According to the research group, that comes out to a price tag of $29,268 for the Gore family in 2006. That doesn't seem very economical, does it?

In response to these charges, a spokeswoman for the Gores has cited several reasons why this isn't grounds for forfeiting Gore's shiny Oscar statue. Gore is acutely aware of his "carbon footprint" (You can calculate your own footprint too), and the family supposedly uses the Green Power Switch Program to obtain most of their energy, which consists of solar, wind and methane gas resources. The Gores are also in the midst of installing solar panels onto their house, but I'd like to know why the solar panels aren't already a facet on the "green" family's home. Furthermore, the family uses compact fluorescent lightbulbs rather than incandescent ones, which are considerably more energy efficient.

Despite these admissions, the Gores are failing to set a good example of the ideal, energy conscious family. They could still live a lifestyle twice as lavish (if you quantify lavish as the amount of energy one consumes) as the average family. It's hard to scold the masses for excessive energy use when you are using twenty times the amount-- regardless of the measures taken to offset the damage. Perhaps the Gores could start out by turning the heat off in their swimming pool-- It's Nashville, damnit!

Ready for winter vacation? Try eco-tourism

Most of us aren't to the point of environmental awareness that we feel guilt at the greenhouse emissions caused by the planes that fly us to Carribbean destinations or ski resorts. Vacations are meant to be times of excess and self-lavishing, right? Well, the folks at REI travel have found a way for travelers to pay for the damage they cause with "Green tags." These certificates support renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power. REI is partnering with the Bonneville Environmental Foundation in this effort, and the cost of the green tags is built into the entire price of the trip, covering 100% of the cost of carbon damage generated by each traveler.

Bonneville has an option for independent travelers to buy green tickets for trips as well, with a calculator on their website which determines the number of green tags necessary for miles travelled by plane or car. For example, my upcoming trip to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, involves a round trip journey of approximately 4500 miles, which translates into 5 green tags to neutralize the roughly 6,120 lbs of greenhouse gases that my activities will create. You then have the option of choosing between two types of green tags. "Cooler Future" tags cost $20 each, and 99% of the proceeds go to wind power, with the remaining 1% used to produce solar powered energy. "Brighter Future" tags cost $24, and 90% of the money is spent on wind power, with 10% left for solar power (creating solar energy is a more costly endeavor).

An extra $100 really isn't that much in the big picture, but I am a very poor college student and have already used the past weekend's waitressing tips towards next month's rent. Call me a hypocrite, but i doubt i'll be purchasing any green tags for my upcoming trip.... I already shelled out $850-- i'm not an ATM machine! But one day when i've climbed out of my deep hole of debt (thanks, NYU!) i'll be an eco-tourist, I promise. Who knows, maybe airlines will begin taxing travelers for carbon emissions. What's one more fee?

Australia's Bright Idea

New and improved lighting is afoot down under, with Australian Environment Minister's announcement yesterday that the country will ban all incandescent light bulbs over the next three years. These 125 year old, archaic lightbulbs use only 5% of the energy they consume to produce actual light, compared to compact fluorescent lightbulbs which produce the same amount of light, but with 80% less energy. As of now, lighting is the culprit for 12% of Australian household greenhouse gas emissions, and 25% of emissions from businesses and public lighting (streetlights, etc). Worldwide, lighting uses around 20% of total electricity, and produces about 3/4th the amount of carbon emiited by all the cars on the earth.

The Australian government projects an 800,000 ton/year reduction in emissions for 2008-2012-- not too shabby. Although energy efficient bulbs sell for around eight times the cost of incandescent bulbs, Mal-colm Turnbull (Australian Environment Minister) says that compact fluorescent lights will pay for themselves within a year, last up to 10 times longer than conventional bulbs and save more than 66% in lighting costs.

The down side to compact fluorescent bulbs is the potential for toxic danger. The bulbs operate by igniting a gas inside the globe, which requires a small amount of mercury. On top of that, the gas emits ultra-violet rays, another potential problem. However, incandescent lightbulbs are also indirectly at fault, as the coal that is burn ed for electricity produces five times the amount of mercury. Fluorescent lights seem to be the lesser of two evils. And with a new technology that uses plasma to turn all forms of trash (even toxic!) into energy, we shouldn't have to worry about the Mercury problem in a few years. (I'll talk about the Plasma Converter system in depth sometime soon).

California is ready to join the lightbulb revolution, with the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act," which would prohibit the sale of incandescent lightbulbs in the state by 2012. The rest of the world shouldn't be far behind, considering the wasted energy and our urgency for greenhouse gas solutions.

The Future of Air Travel

It's no surprise that airplanes are at the top of the list as major producers of carbon dioxide. Weighing in at around 153,000 pounds and flying as high as 41,000 feet, keeping an aircraft in the air for a long journey is no small feat, especially in terms of the amount of energy required. Planes are the fasting growning creators of greenhouse gases in the world, according to Airport Watch, a UK based organization working to combat the negative environmental and human impact of air travel.

A study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed that in 1990, planes contributed at least 600 millions tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is about equal to the amount of carbon dioxide that the entire continent of Africa produces in one year. Many large airline companies defend themselves with the admission that airplanes are only responsible for 3.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, but that is actually a hefty percentage considering that air travel is a relatively young form of transportation, and hasn't been widely available for long.

The industry continues to expand offering cheaper and more frequent flights as the worldwide fleet of commercial aircrafts continues to expand beyond 16,000. Fortunately, plans are underway for more ecologically friendly aircrafts, but the technology is still very young and will be first utlized for government and miltary purposes, and not reaching the commercial airline market for at least 20 years. On top of that, the amount of people flying is expected to double in the next fifteen years, which will have a devasting effect on our already fragile atmosphere. The IPCC study also indicated that any technological improvements in aircrafts won't make up for the expected growth in damaging gas emissions.

Nonetheless, engineers are on the verge of a new era in aircraft technology. Boeing will begin test flights on a smaller version of the x48-B aircraft (left), which is also known as a blended-wing craft. This design incorperates the fuselage(the part that lifts the airplane) into the part that carries people or cargo, which enables lift from the entire surface of the aircraft. This is more energy effective as it creates less drag, which in turn means less fuel consumption and emissions. The biggest difficulty with this technology is perfecting the electronics and controls to fly it. Without a single tail, the craft requires a much more complicated system of controls than regular planes.

Despite an array of new designs, the growth of the industry and waiting period for new technology equate to huge atmosphere damage. In the meantime,it's in our best interest to step up car and train technology and wean ourselves off the need for flight. It's not an easy task, especially for a travel addict like myself.

This year in energy: Blowing in the wind

Here's some promising news: The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) announced a substantial increase over 2006 in the amount of wind power generated across 70 countries of the world. The additional 15,197 megawatt capacity added in 2006 makes for a total global wind energy capacity of 74,223 megawatts. What does that mean? Well, according to enXco, an American wind developer, one megawatt of wind produces about the amount of electricity that 300 averages North American homes consume in one year. This advancement shows that government and businesses are finally stepping up to combat global warming-- the amount of money invested in wind equipment in 2006 was roughly $23 billion. Germany leads the world in wind energy, with a capacity of 20,621 megawatts, followed by Spain and the U.S., which each have around 11,000-12,000 megawatts, followed by India and Denmark.
Europe definitely has the most widespread wind technology, but the U.S. has been the winner for the past 2 years with 2,454 megawatts installed in 2006, at a price tag around $4 billion. This makes wind the biggest energy producer, besides natural gas, in the U.S. for both 2005 and 2006. Outside of the states, Canda and France both had a big year for wind energy, each investing in at least twice as much wind technology than they already had. Altogether, there are now 13 countries whose wind capacity tops 1,000 megawatts. In terms of other continental contributions, Asia increased wind by 3,769 megawatts, bringing them to a total around 10,600 megawatts. Egypt, Morocco, and Iran were the main spots for increase in Africa and the Middle East, with a 172 megawatt increase to 441 megawatts total. This small growth isn't unsurprising for these countries, but Austrailia showed disappointing numbers, compared to earlier years. They increased capacity by 109 megawatts, for a total of 817 megawatts.
It's nice to see that the U.S. is taking the initiative here, as we are obviously one of the primary producers of CO2 emissions. Hopefully the other world leaders in greenhouse gas emissions will strive to ameliorate the damage they've caused-- Indonesia? China?

On another note, the U.S. has spent around $505 billion of our tax dollars on the war in Iraq. Not that we can get any of that money back now, but even investing just a fraction of that amount in wind energy would give us much better results in the long run. Maybe it's time we declared war on greenhouse gas emissions... would that mean a slice of the defense departments budget?

$25 million? Now thats an incentive.

I recently saw Al Gore's Oscar nominated documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." It's definitely a film worthy of awards-- extremely fact-oriented and clear, and with many jarring and poignant images from natural disasters that we now know were caused by global warming, along with graphics that show the extent of damage we can expect if we continue harming the atmosphere at this rate. Viewers also get a little glimpse of Al Gore's personal side, what motivates him, life changing moments, yada yada yada. I found it to be an all around excellent film, and if an Oscar nomination isn't enough for the former vice president, he's also been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace prize. Way to go, Gore.
If the film isn't a strong enough incentive to curb greenhouse gas emissions, then hopefully $25 million will do the trick. Gore and Sir Richard Branson, a British billionaire, recently announced the Virgin Earth Challange, a $25 million prize for the best technological solution for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Gore, Branson, and 4 other judges will look for a design with a more innovative solution to the problem than current technologies which mainly capture and store CO2, rather than eliminating CO2 emission altogether.

Branson hopes that governments will follow suit, matching his award or offering a similar incentive. The contest will last over the course of the next 5 years, with an annual review of entries by the judges. There's a chance that no one will win the money if there isn't an adaquate idea, and the contest won't necessarily last the full five years if a winner is found before then.

It's pretty interesting that Branson, Virgin Atlantic Airlines mogul, is taking this venture. The airline industry is one of the biggest producers of harmful CO2 emissions, so the move could be seen as rather hypocritical. On the other hand, it's nice to see that Branson is making a huge investment to counteract the damage he's already caused-- if all of these huge companies that play substantial roles in pollution backed a similar initiaive, we'd create much more motivation among scientists. However, $25 million would also allow for a lot of concrete energy improvement-- more efficient engines, investments in solar and wind energy, rather than waiting and hoping that someone comes up with a genius plan.

The Growing Demand for Palm Oil

The development of palm oil as a source of cleaner energy was an exciting prospect for several European political and environmental groups a few years ago. Palm Oil, which is produced primarily in regions of Southeast Asia including Malaysia and Indonesia, is largely used as an ingredient in many foods and products (around 10% of products at the grocery store contain palm oil). Some energy companies developed generators which utilized only palm oil, and all the excitement drew a huge increase in demand for palm oil. Farmers cleared out massive areas of rainforest all across South Asia, and often used damaging chemical fertilizer. Furthermore, they often clear out more space for palm plantations by draining and burning peatland, which releases great amounts of CO2 into the air, essentially counteracting the effort. Because of these practices, Indonesia has become the country that emits the 3rd highest amount of CO2 in the world (after the US and China), according to a study by Wetlands International and Deft Hydroulics, two Dutch companies. In the past 8 years, there has been a 118% increase in the amount of Indonesian land devoted to palm oil cultivation.

It turns out that there is a big risk that comes with the production of biofuels. This experience can teach us to proceed with caution, and research the benefits and drawbacks of biofuel production, and make sure the production of biofuels doesn't create worse emissions than the fossil fuels that they are trying to counter. Thats not to say that ALL palm oil production is harmful to the environment, but much of the southeast Asian production failed to take ecological factors into account. Hopefully we can overcome such issues by creating a more universal energy system-- if we cant have all stages of production under a single authority, then we need to make sure that the communication between the different stages of energy production is clear, and that we administer very thorough research before investing all that dough.

Algae: Coal's latest replacement

Algae is yet another solution that researchers have thrown onto the table as we continue the fight to decrease harmful emissions into the atmosphere. There are a handful of companies around the country who've been experimenting with algae based fuels. Algae is a natural oil-producer, and we can even use existing oil refineries to process algae and make biocrude, which is the renewable alternative to petroleum. On the other hand, other types of algae that have less oil and more carbohydrates can be processed to make ethanol. One company at the forefront of the algae energy field is GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, which was recently ranked #3 in the country for cutting edge ecological advancement by Plenty Magazine (An environmental media company "dedicated to the Green Revolution). GreenFuel is unique in its technology, which involves closed bioreactors which pump CO2 emissions through algae enriched waters. Photosynthesis allows the algae to feed on the CO2, and every few hours the algae doubles in mass.
GreenFuel Technologies and similar companies tout their technology as an ideal solution, because algae uses the process of photosynthesis, so the process would create reusable fuel, at the same time absorbing damaging CO2 emissions (the company claims it can capture 80% of a factory's emission during one day of sunlight). One of the major problems with Ethanol production is the need for huge quantities of soybean, corn, and other food crops, much more than is currently produced for consumption. Furthermore, these crops are only able to be hearvested at certain times. Algae, on the other hand, multiplies every hour and is able to be harvested daily. Furthermore, algae grows in ponds and other marshy, non-harvestable areas, so the dilemma with crop space for ethanol farming would be solved with algae.
Like most of the suggested energy solutions, the question is no longer whether or not it is scientificaly possible. It's more of a question of how cheaply the new technologies can be administered, and algae based fuel production isn't necessarily a cheap solution. Unfortuntely we are nearing the point where investing millions in new environmental technology is absolutely necessary. With the rate of progress in the War of Iraq, and the amount of money that the government invests in the war each day, I think we could invest a fraction of that sum into ecological technology and see loads more progress-- the science and knowledge are there, and most of these companies are now just waiting on funding.

Bicycles in Paris? Oui!

It's nice to see that some cities are finding ways for all citizens to positively affect the climate. I was in Amsterdam last year and wa amazed to see the prevalence of bicyclists-- almost all the roads have bike lanes, and its fairly common for people to bike to work everyday. The only time i've seen a similar phenomenon in New York was during the transit strikes, and most people adjusted, albeit kicking and screaming on the way.

Paris has just announced a plan to provide free bicycles for just about anyone to borrow in Paris. The program will be administered by JCDecaux SA, a French outdoor advertising firm, and will have around 14,100 bikes available around the city by the beginning of the summer. Commuters, tourists, and anyone else will be able to borrow a bike (for free!) from one of 1,451 stations with the swipe of a card, and return it after use to any other station.

The same company is in charge of a similar program in the City of Lyon, which authorities claim has been very popular and effective in reducing motor transportation.

This is a feasible project for many cities and towns in the United States, and we will hopefully follow suit soon. Clearly bicycles are far from the end all solution to all our problems, but it is a personal contribution that everyone is capable of doing. It may be tough to give up the warmth and luxury of a car, but think about the dollars you'd save in gas. Furthermore, 20-40 minutes of biking wach day might just add a couple years to your life, or at least help to take off a few pounds! If I wenre't terrified of the crazy cab drivers zooming around New York, I'd bring my old magenta Huffy into the City... right now i'm waiting for more bike lanes. It could take a while. In the meantime, I guess I have another excuse to go back to Paris or Amsterdam.

Super Bowl Sunday is just days away, and the NFL is attempting to make up for the approximately 500 tons of carbon dioxide the event produces by planting 3,000 red mangrove trees in Miami. The effort began in August and will continue through May. Now, i'm all about planting trees, but this idea seems a bit too superficial. Trees take in only 1/25 of the amount of carbon emitted by fossil fuels, and every tree that is cut down or killed releases all the CO2 it has gathered back into the atmosphere. But what would the Super Bowl be without all the glamour and grandiosity that define it? Could the two "best" teams (unfortunately the true best team lost to the Colts last weekend...) in the league just play a game, without the NFL experience Super Bowl theme park and the massive generators required to power all of it? This may be a touchy subject, mixing football and environmental babble, but it's nice to see that the NFL is making some sort of effort to combat the damage they've already done. Unfortunately, we're past the point in time when planting trees can control the massive amounts of greenhouse gas that we continue to produce. Perhaps a future half time show will revolve around windmills. Just think-- dancers waving flags around windmills, which simultaneously provide the power to light up the field. It's a little out there, but thats where we're eventually headed!

The NFL's environmental plan also includes buying renewable energy certificates from a company called Sterling Planet. The company creates these certificates by recording the amount of electricity generated by alternative fuels rather than fossil fuels, and business in turn can directly purchase renewable power, or pay for the certificate and continue using traditional energy sources. So the NFL is essentially investing money in alternative power, yet utilizing traditional, CO2 emitting energy at the same time. Again, I praise them for environmental awareness... if anyone can afford to buy off the atmospheric damage they cause, I guess the NFL fits the bill.

Kudos to the Sports industry for making the environment a priority. The World Cup in Germany, the Torino Olympics, and the IndyCar series all have made profound efforts to amend the situation, with organizers of the 2006 Torino Olympics claiming to have offset nearly 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions they produced.

The State of our Union is.... getting greener??

President Bush focused significantly more on energy issues in last night's State of the Union address than in prior years, and we can only hope that the initiatives won't end up in the pile of empty promises that seems to accumulate each year. The President called for measures to wean the country off of foreign oil sources through the use of alternative fuel (mainly ethanol), proposing that we reach 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel per year by 2017, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18% within the year 2012. Along this vein, President Bush also expressed the need to "reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars," projecting to conserve 8.5 billion more gallons of gas by 2017. Additionally, the President proposed a plan to double the size of the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to maintain a normal energy level until fuel production changes are carried out.

The environmental focus pleased many progressives, yet many continue to question the feasibility of the plan. Ethanol is in some ways the solution we've been waiting for, but to reach the 35 billion gallon mark would require more corn than the country's entire yield last year, which was 11.1 billion bushels. Hopefully we can supplant that portion with some big advances in cellulosic ethanol (made from woodchips and grass), although the cellulosic technology must undergo significant progress in order to turn a profit, and will require several million more acres of farmland.

President Bush made a somewhat vague reference to the whole global warming issue, avoiding the problems posed by electric power plants, which make up a hefty 40% of greenhouse emissions. Furthermore, liquified coal is likely one of the alternative fuels on Bush's list, which would totally defeat the emission-reduction plan-- liquified coal creates twice the harmful gasses as it's gasoline counterpart. On the whole, the country may be on the way to curbing our oil addiction and gaining indepedence from foreign sources, but it will probably take a few more speeches before we stabilize the State of the Ozone.

Investing more energy in alternative energy

This freakishly warm winter and sky high gas prices are just two of the many dark omens of what's in store if we continue at this rate and manner of consumption. We are certainly not simplifying life, with the constant influx of new gadgets-- I have a hard time finding enough outlets in my apartment for all my "necessities," and the perimeter of my room is a mess of wires and cords.
Environmental activists have been pushing for widespread alternative energy use, and politicians and big businesses are finally gathering behind the effort as well. 25x'25 is an iniative headed by a variety of people across the country with widespread interests, including business, farming, forestry, and environment. The coalition is backed by a bipartisan group of senators and representatives in Washington, and the goal is for the country to consume 25% of total energy from renewable sources by the year 2025. Considering that roughly 6% of total energy consumed in 2004 was renewable, the initiative will require a large commitment.
The Des Moines Register published a story about an eight home neighborhood thats spreads across 16 square miles in Decorah, Iowa, which is ahead of the pack. This "off the grid" neighborhood relies solely on renewable energy, mainly using solar and wind power and heating with wood burning stoves. The families manage to live in relative luxury, but are much more aware of the amount of energy they consume-- something that we should all pay more attention to. The initial investment in solar and wind equipment for one house is in the range of $10,000 to $15,000. It's a hefty addition to the already pricey house-building process, but monthly utility fees over the course of 20-30 years would easily amount to a similar value.
This might be quite feasible for new developments in sparsely populated midwest areas, but what sort of urban counterpart exists? Where might we find space in Manhattan for wind powered water pumps, enough to support all the buildings packed onto each block? The age of sole reliance on alternative energy may be eons away, but we are turning a new corner government and big business commitments to renewable energy.