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?