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.