By Kenneth Barbalace

Over the past year or so (2009-2010) we undertook a series of weatherization and energy conservation projects on the home we bought in 2009. The first thing we did before undertaking these projects was to have an energy audit conducted (you can read about the energy audit here). Although the audit cost us $415, it was a very important first step in weatherizing our home as it helped us prioritize projects to make sure we used our weatherization budget in the most cost effective manner possible.

I'm way behind on my plans to document the projects we undertook, but now that I have a year's worth of energy usage data collected, I do have some hard figures to report.

We replaced our boiler at the beginning of November 2009, replacing a 20 year old oil boiler with a 96% efficient gas fired boiler. We don't have actual numbers on the fuel usage of the old oil boiler as we had replaced it before having gone through a winter with it. With that said the disclosure provided by the previous owner stated that she used 1,200 gallons of fuel oil per year (for heat and hot water). In our first full year with the new boiler (2010) we used 760 gallons of propane (for heat and hot water). Due to the BTU difference between a gallon of fuel oil and a gallon of propane, this works out to the equivalent of around 500 gallons of #2 fuel oil. We didn't even take extreme measures to save on heating by reducing our thermostat to sweater temperatures; rather keep our thermostat set at a comfortable 72º F.

That's right, based on what the previous owner reported, we have already reduced our home's annual fuel consumption by around 58% and this reduction is accomplished without sacrificing comfort.

It should be noted that due to contractor delays and call backs, the bulk of our weatherization projects weren't completed until March of 2010, so three of the months of propane usage (the coldest months of the year) were before weatherization was completed. Our weatherization projects during the winter of 2009-2010 included adding insulation to the attic, applying two inches of spray foam insulation to the rim of the floor joists in the basement, and air sealing wall/ceiling joints in the attic. This past summer we gutted and totally renovated our bathroom, including replacing the exterior wall insulation. In the fall of 2010 we undertook more air sealing projects to eliminate drafts between the wall and floor joints, better air seal doors/windows. We also undertook repairs to some of the weatherization completed by our weatherization contractor that had come undone.

It will be another full year before we see annual fuel consumption figures that include all of the weatherization projects we have thus far completed. However, I can compare December 2009 (the first full month on our new boiler) to December 2010. In December of 2009 we used on average 5.03 gallons of propane per day or approximately 156 gallons for the entire month. In December 2010, we averaged 3.48 gallons of propane per day or around 108 gallons for the month (the equivalent of 71 gallons of #2 fuel oil). This works out to around a 31% reduction in energy consumption as a direct result of weatherizing our home.

In real dollar terms, in December 2010 propane cost us $3.059/gal or about $270.60 for the month. If we had not weatherized our home and as a result had used the same amount of propane in December 2010 as we did in December 2009, it would have cost us around $477.20 or $206.60 more than what we actually spent. We don't yet know what our annual energy savings are. If, however, December of 2010 is any indication, it is very significant. Certainly from a monthly budget perspective the amount we pay on our weatherization loan is way less than what we would have spent on the extra energy we would have been using otherwise.

You may not be able to control how much energy costs, but you can certainly control how much energy you need to use. Even if you have to take out a modest home improvement loan to pay for it, weatherizing your home can be one of the best investments you make. You may not be able to reduce your energy costs by as much as we have, but done right your savings could be substantial. Conducting an energy audit and carefully planning out your weatherization priorities will help ensure that the cost of servicing the loan is less than the amount of money you will save on energy costs.

By Kenneth Barbalace

In cooler climates like here in Maine, even as we swelter through hot summer days we still typically enjoy cooler, more comfortable nights. Even when temperatures push above 90°F (32°C) nights can drop to around 70°F (21°C) at night. This temperature swing provides for a cheap and easy means of helping to keep a home cooler on hot days without the need for air conditioning.

The strategy could be summed up with four words: "which side is cooler." At night when the temperatures drop below indoor temperatures, open all your home's windows to allow in this cooler air. In the morning before work, and/or before the outside temperatures rise above indoor temperatures close all the windows and in unused rooms, close the blinds. Closing the windows will keep the hot air out and closing the blinds will reduce solar heat gain.

The "which side is cooler" tactic will be particularly effective if your home has been weatherized to reduce drafts, has plenty of insulation in the attic and has proper attic venting. The attic insulation and venting is particularly important as they will reduce heat transfer from attic to the living space and reduce attic heat gain respectively.

Over the past couple of weeks we have been routinely experiencing outdoor temperatures over 90°F (32°C) by mid morning. Despite this, but deploying the tactic of opening windows at night and closing them in the day, we've been able to keep our home's indoor temperatures below 80°F (27°C). It may still be warmer than we prefer inside, but it is not uncomfortably hot and we haven't felt a desperate desire to go buy an air conditioner.

Obviously this tactic won't work if brutally hot days are followed by sweltering hot nights. For those climates with cooler night time temperatures, however, this could tremendously reduce/eliminate cooling bills while providing for a comfortable home even on really hot days. Best of all, there is no cost to deploy this home cooling strategy.

By Kenneth Barbalace

With all the home energy efficiency tax credits being offered up to home owners, I have observed a predictable uptick in advertising related to home weatherization goods and services. Not surprisingly, much of this advertising is targeted towards getting consumers to buy new energy efficient doors and windows. The thing is is that for most consumers replacing doors and windows WILL NOT result in the best possible return on investment (ROI) in regards to cost vs. energy savings. For most consumers, the best possible ROI on the money they spend on home weatherization is normally to add a significant amount of insulation to their attics (up to R-50 or 15" of fiberglass/cellulous) and sealing drafts in the home (e.g. simply adding weather stripping to doors/windows, caulking door/window trim, and sealing other sources of air leaks).

Window and door sellers go all out to sell replacing windows and doors with new energy efficient ones, but it must be understood that in the most extreme cases, going from a single pane of glass to a triple pane Low-E II window only takes that window from an R-1 to an R-3.5 in a best case scenario.

The best time to install energy efficient windows and doors is either when a house is first being built OR when the existing windows/doors need to be replaced because they have reached the end of their useful service life (e.g. 30+ years old).

Unless the windows are really old and can't be effectively sealed, the most cost effective means of dealing with inefficient windows is to caulk and weather strip the windows and maybe add the clear heat shrink plastic window weatherization film over windows in the late fall. These are cheap fixes and when properly done will provide just as much energy savings as replacing the windows, at a fraction of the cost.

We recently had an energy audit conducted on our home and did a lot of weatherization work on it. In our case, upgrading our windows to Low-E energy efficient windows would have had a return of investment of 1.4% and would have taken 72+ years to pay themselves back. The best use of our money was to insulate the attic and our rim joists and reducing air heat loss (sealing wall/ceiling joints, putting gaskets behind electrical wall plates, sealing window/door trim, etc.). Our energy audit projected a ROI 34.8% with a payback of 2.9 years on properly insulating our attic, and a ROI of 29.5% with a payback of 3.4 years for reducing air heat loss. Quite simply, adding proper insulation and air sealing our house will have saved us enough money in energy costs within the next 5-7 years to actually pay for replacing our windows and doors where as replacing our windows and doors will never save enough money in our life time to pay for the other weatherization work even though the costs would have been similar.

Don't be fooled by advertising, when it comes to weatherizing your home and reducing your energy costs. Do your homework and get an energy audit before undertaking any projects to make sure the money you spend will truly save you the most possible money on energy costs. If your primary reason for wanting to replace your windows and/or doors is to save energy, take care of other weatherization projects first.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Yesterday I attended a meet and greet for Pat McGowan who is one of seven candidates who are running for the Democratic nomination to be the next Governor of Maine. One of his key agenda items is to continue Maine on its path to energy self sufficiency within ten years. This would be accomplished through harnessing a diverse array of renewable energy sources.

McGowan's stated that this is totally achievable as within about a year Maine could have a maximum capacity of 400 megawatts of electricity from wind energy. This would be equivalent to almost half the power capacity of the 900 megawatt Maine Yankee nuclear power plant when it was operational. This would be enough electricity to power somewhere around 150,000 homes.

Based on data I compiled from the Natural Resources Council of Maine website, Maine currently produces a maximum of 175 megawatts of wind power, with an additional 202.5 megawatts under construction and up to 229.5 megawatts currently in the permit application process, with even more projects being studied. All told, the short range maximum wind generating capacity either currently operational, under construction or undergoing permitting is over 600 megawatts or around 1.6 billion kilowatt hours per year of electricity. This would be enough electricity to power the equivalent of nearly 250,000 Maine homes. Assuming permitting went reasonably smoothly all of this power generating capability could be online within a couple of years, with more proposed wind farms still in the works.

From permitting application to fully operational Maine will have brought online 2/3 the electrical generating capacity of the now decommissioned Maine Yankee Nuclear power plant. This will have happened in a fraction of the time it would take to permit and build a modern nuclear power plant for a fraction of the cost and none of the long term risk. Furthermore, the wind farm projects are spread out across the state bringing desperately needed local jobs to communities across the state. Best of all, this will be zero CO2, clean, renewable energy with none of the hazardous waste or pollution that is produced by nuclear or fossil fuel based power plants.

Could Maine really become energy independent within ten years? Well, at least from a power generation standpoint, the answer is yes, this is a very achievable goal. Maine won't be able to do it on wind power alone, but if wind generation capacity is coupled with solar, hydro and tidal energy projects we could become the first state in the U.S. to have a 100% renewable energy grid. We will, however, still need to work really hard to reduce our dependence on oil, especially when it comes to heating our homes.

Maine Wind Farms and Production Capacity

Source: Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Last updated: 3/4/2010

Location	Owner Operator	Max Capacity (MW)			Number of Turbines	kWh/yr Produced/ Projected	Phase (year)			Equivalent # of Maine homes supplied
		Live	Being Built	Proposed			Live	Permit Approved	Permit Applied For
Mars Hill, Aroostook	First Wind	42.0			28		2007			25,000
Stetson Ridge, Washington County	First Wind	57.0			38	169,269,000	2009			23,500
Beaver Ridge, Freedom, Waldo County	Patriot Renewables, LLC	4.5			3	12,500,000	2008			2,000
Kibby & Skinner Townships Franklin County	TransCanada	66.0	66.0		43	357,000,000	2009			50,000
Oakfield	First Wind		51.0		34	135,000,000		2010		20,000
Lincoln, Lee, Winn, Burlington & Mattawamkeag, Penobscot County	First Wind		60.0		40	168,000,000		2009		23,500
Stewart-Bald Mountains and Briggs-Burnt Hill, Highland Plantation, Somerset County	Independence Wind			130.5	48	360,000,000			2009	48,000
Jimmey and Owl Mountains, Washington County	First Wind		25.5		17	81,468,000		2009		11,500
Vinalhaven, Knox County	Fox Islands Wind, LLC	4.5			3	11,600,000				1,500
Spruce Mountain, Woodstock, Oxford County	Patriot Renewables, LLC			20.0	11	55,000,000			2010	8,500
Saddleback Ridge, Carthage, Franklin County	Patriot Renewables, LLC			34.5	19	106,000,000			2010	16,500
Sisk Mountain, Kibby and Chain of Ponds Townships, Franklin County	TransCanada			45.0	15	120,000,000			2009	17,000
Totals		174.0	202.5	229.5	299	1,575,837,000				247,000

Related Articles

• CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant?
  Why is carbon dioxide, a life sustaining, compound considered pollution and how do scientists know that humans are responsible for the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming?
• Renewable Energy, National Security and Social Justice
  Too often the discussion of renewable energy development focuses on climate change (aka global warming) to the exclusion of other equally important environmental, national security and social justice concerns. While yes, climate change is a serious concern, we need to invest in and not unduly burden the development of renewable energies like wind and solar energies for many other reasons.
• Giving environmentalism a bad name; the death of good sense
  Many people try to wrap their arguments and obstructionism against projects like wind farms in environmental terms when the real reason for their opposition is NIMBY (not in my back yard). They simply don't want their aesthetic sensibilities offended by the infrastructure required to sustain our civilization.
• Environmental Justice and the NIMBY Principle
  In whose backyard does our hazardous waste end up?

By Kenneth Barbalace

At the Frankfurt Motor Show, Toyota unveiled a plug-in hybrid version of its popular Toyota Prius. This concept car is based on the third generation Prius and uses first generation lithium-ion batteries. Read more at http://behindthewheelnews.toyota.com/?id=252

By Kenneth Barbalace

Recently, I noticed my Senator, Susan Collins (Maine, Republican), had introduced a bill called the "Energy Assistance Fund Act" (S.855) whose purpose is to help make the U.S. more energy independent by improving the energy efficiency of homes via weatherization (a really big issue here in Maine) and providing tax credits for consumers to invest in renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. for their homes. What really impressed me about this legislation is that it addresses several issues in a very effective manner. By providing money to weatherize homes and tax credits for home based renewable energy consumers the bill will:

1. Result in immediate savings for families due to reduced energy costs, which will be a big help to many households in these tough economic times.
2. Improve our nation's energy security by reducing our need for imported energy.
3. Help reduce our nation's carbon footprint by reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn.
4. Help stimulate the economy by creating thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs weatherizing homes and installing renewable energy systems in homes.

When we look at investments into renewable energy and spending tax dollars on economic stimulus, the most effective place to spend that money is at the individual home owner level via tax rebates, low interest loans, etc. because the money would almost immediately get pumped back into the economy creating a demand for related goods and services. Furthermore as a nation the impact on our energy needs would be almost immediate as every home that gets properly weatherized will see a very significant reduction in energy consumption (maybe around 40% on average). The money consumers save from the reduced energy consumption could be then spent on other household needs.

Unlike this bill cosponsored by Senator Collins, typical energy bills target big industry, pie in the sky projects that do little to help the individual consumer's energy costs. Furthermore, the projects funded by typical energy bills take years to to reach fruition and oftentimes turn out to be boondoggles that provide very little return on investment.

It is very heartening to see legislation that ties economic stimulus, energy security, household energy efficiency, sustainability and reducing our nation's carbon footprint into such a tidy common sense approach. This bill will rely on trickle up from the consumer instead of empty promises of trickle down from industry.

One thing I love about living in a state with a small population base like Maine is that our Senator's are so much more accessible. A couple weeks ago I wrote Senator Collins about her bill and this is the response I got back today. Even when I disagree with my Senators, which isn't uncommon, I appreciate the fact that they take time to respond to my letters. Here is Senator Collin's response to my inquiry:

Dear Mr. Barbalace:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's energy policy and for including information about your website. I appreciate your interest in environmental issues.

I noted your support for my legislation, S. 855. In a bipartisan effort to help Americans overcome the challenge of our dependence on foreign oil and restore and strengthen our nation's economy, I introduced the "Energy Assistance Fund Act" on April 22, 2009, along with my colleague Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). This legislation, introduced on Earth Day, would assist people who want to invest in energy conservation and alternative energy technologies and help set the nation on a path toward energy independence by providing additional loan authority to support current federal programs that help families and small businesses finance energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. This bill has not yet passed Congress. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where it awaits further consideration. I have attached a copy of the bill and a summary of it for your review.

I also have supported legislation to provide tax credits for consumers to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts like solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources in both new and existing homes. These renewable energy production tax credits have been extended through 2012, as part of the economic stimulus package. Also included in the package was $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program. For the latest Maine funding updates, I suggest that you visit the website: www.maine.gov/recovery/ For further information on renewable energy job certification, I suggest that you visit: http://www.efficiencymaine.com/certifications.htm

I remain committed to working to advance effective energy and environmental legislation that increases America's supply of energy and decreases our demand for foreign oil, which will help us to achieve energy independence and to stabilize gas and oil prices. As the Senate continues to consider energy legislation, I will work to advance these objectives and will continue to support policies that benefit Maine families.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Susan Collins
United States Senator

No bill can get passed without support so please take some time and write your senators and encourage them to support this bill. This bill does have bipartisan support. It will help stimulate our economy, it will help reduce our dependence on foreign energy (e.g. oil), and is good for the environment.

Download text of S.855 (pdf)

By Kenneth Barbalace

Fuel tax breaks are nothing but election year pandering

Politicians are nothing if not creative when it comes to political pandering without bringing real relief. The latest proposals to cut fuel taxes during this summer (e.g. before the election) is just such example. The claim is that this will save Americans eighteen cents per gallon or $3.60 per 20 gallon tank of gas. This makes for great sound bites, but things are not that simple.

The $0.18 per gallon tax on fuel goes toward paving roads and repairing bridges (e.g. the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi that collapsed in Minnesota). Unless the money lost from suspending fuel taxes is replaced from another source there will not be money to carry out necessary road repairs and tens to hundreds of thousands of workers who repair U.S. highways and bridges will be out of work. Any failure to repair roads will lead to increased maintenance expense for cars and trucks due to the damage bad roads do to vehicles (e.g. potholes wrecking the wheel alignment, tires and suspensions).

There is a proposal to replace the fuel tax money with a windfall profits tax on the big oil companies (everyone's favorite public enemy #1). The thing is, however, this isn't going to happen. With an upcoming election, Congress will be more than eager to show it is helping the American consumer by reducing fuel taxes at the pump, however, industry lobbyists and key congressional leaders will make sure the windfall profit tax never happen and there still wouldn't be much needed funds for highway repairs.

The reduced fuel price fallacy

It is a fallacy that lowering fuel taxes will actually lower prices at the pump. Fuel prices are controlled by supply and demand. When supplies are tight, and demand is high like during the summer driving months, fuel prices keep climbing until they reach a point where supply and demand reach a balance point. Removing the fuel tax will temporarily lower fuel prices, but this will in turn increase demand and the price of fuel will quickly increase to absorb the savings from eliminating the taxes. As a result, over the course of the summer the tax "holiday" will do very little to nothing to actually reduce the cost of fuel for consumers and truckers. The fuel tax cut could even end up driving up the cost of fuel that is not taxed to fund highway repairs (e.g. heating fuel, industrial uses, farm tractors and other vehicles that do not go on public roads).

Changing the way you drive is the best way to save money at the pump

The reality is, only your habits can save you money at the pump. If you can't reduce the amount you drive or can't replace your vehicle with a more fuel efficient model, the best way to save money at the pump is to change the way you drive. With good vehicle maintenance and good driving habits a car with a 20 gallon gas tank might be able to go an extra 30-40 miles or more between fill ups. One example of this is the difference in the way my wife and I drive. Consistently I can average 4-5 miles per gallon better fuel economy than she does driving the same car under very similar conditions. We drive a 2006 Hyundai Elantra, which is rated at 34 mpg highway. With highway driving, she typically gets 32-34 mpg, while I can get 36-40 mpg for the same driving conditions.

Drive smoother, not just slower

Getting better fuel economy isn't just driving slower; it also requires driving smoother and predicting driving conditions well in advance. The goal should be to keep an even pressure on the gas peddle and to avoid having to frequently let off the gas to slow down and then press harder on the gas to speed back up. You also want to avoid putting yourself in a position where you need to tap or press on the brakes, especially at highway speeds. Every time you have to tap the brakes, you are turning forward motion, which you burned fuel to achieve into wasted heat energy.

Don't tailgate

One of the best ways to smooth out your driving is increasing the following distance from the vehicle in front of you. While vast majority of drivers drive way too close to each other from a safety standpoint, this close driving also lowers fuel efficiency. The closer you drive to another vehicle, the more often you have to switch between tapping the brakes and pressing the gas peddle, this wastes fuel. When you increase your following distance, you are able to smooth out your driving and simply let off the gas without touching the brakes to accommodate changes in speed from the driver in front of you. If you find you frequently have to touch your brakes because of the vehicles in front of you, you are driving too close and wasting fuel.

One trick I find particularly effective to smoothing out my driving on freeways is to drive slightly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic when the rest of traffic is exceeding the speed limits (which it usually does). What this does is always keep vehicles moving away from you so you don't have to slow down as often for vehicles in front of you. Slowing down to something closer to the posted speed not only reduces the risk of a speeding ticket, but also actually saves fuel. For instance our car gets the best fuel economy on highway driving where driving speeds are around 50 mph. The faster I go above this speed, the fewer miles per gallon I get. I used to try to keep my speeds to no more than 70mph on a 65mph posted road, but with the higher fuel prices I'm finding traffic is slowing down and I can more comfortably drive closer to 65 mph without impeding traffic behind me or having as many vehicles whizzing by me.

Hilly terrain, bleed your speed

Highway driving in hilly terrain is another opportunity for saving fuel. Typically people try to keep an even driving speed up and down hills, which requires pressing harder on the gas up hill and riding the brakes down hill to maintain a safe and presumably legal speed. This wastes fuel up hill and opportunity down hill. If you maintain an even pressure on the gas peddle up a hill and allow some speed to bleed off near the crest of the hill you will have used less fuel to crest the hill and will have a wider margin of speed you can increase going down the other side before you have to touch the brakes. This habit has to be moderated by other considerations like how many cars are behind you and how long/steep the hill is, but it can be a useful way to save gas. Also when driving in hilly terrain, don't use your cruise control as they tend to waste a lot of fuel in these conditions because they are designed to keep an even speed and thus push too hard up the hills and (depending on their design) can ride the brakes down hill.

City driving, don't race to the stop

City driving is another place where there is lots of room for saving fuel. All too often, drivers (my wife included) keep their foot on the gas almost all the way to a traffic light and then hit the brakes to slow down at the last moment. Again having to hit the brakes (especially at speed) is an indication of wasted energy. Look two or three blocks of where you are driving and watch what traffic lights are doing. If the light a block away just turned red, let off the gas well in advance of the intersection and let the car slow down on its own. If your timing is right, you might get to the intersection just as traffic starts to move again and thus not only will you avoid wasting energy by pressing the brakes, but you might not have to waste energy by having to start moving from a complete stop.

In many cities, traffic lights are timed and if you figure out the optimal driving speed for a stretch of traffic lights you can time your arrival at each light to when they are green and traffic in front of you has started moving again. This can help you totally avoid having to come to a complete stop at intersections and can save a tremendous amount of fuel. The best things about learning to predict traffic lights and adjusting your speed accordingly is that you spend less time at a standing stop and when done right, it doesn't increase your total driving time.

When you do come to a complete stop, don't try to accelerate quickly as this just wastes fuel. Instead, accelerate at a more modest rate. This won't increase your driving time all that much especially if you are in stop and go traffic anyways, but accelerating slower is easier on the engine and uses less fuel.

Maintain your vehicle

While improving fuel mileage by changing driving habits will take practice, an easy way to improve fuel economy is to just maintain your car better. The easiest and cheapest way to improve fuel economy is to make sure you keep your tires properly inflated. Tire pressure should be checked at least once a month. Not only do properly inflated tires improve fuel economy, but it makes the vehicle safer and reduces tire wear.

Another really important maintenance item is getting regular tune ups using premium spark plugs. The fuel economy of our car was really suffering and the first thing my mechanic suggested was to replace the plugs before doing anything else. He put in some Bosch Platinum 2 spark plugs that have two electrodes instead of the standard one electrode. Apparently having multiple electrodes allows for a more powerful spark, which results in more efficient burning of fuel and greater power. The result was that the fuel economy of my 2006 Hyundai Elantra went from 28mpg to 37mpg on the freeway under similar driving conditions. With more careful driving and not using the air conditioning I could probably get 38-39mpg on the freeway (~65mph driving speeds) and over 40mpg highway (~50mph). Given the cost of fuel, the $37 I spent replacing my spark plugs was money very well spent considering it increased my fuel economy by over 30%.

When budgets are tight, one thing that frequently gets sacrificed is routine maintenance. In the long run, however, routine maintenance like oil changes, tuneups, tire rotations wheel alignments, etc. will save money in reduced repair expenses and better fuel economy.

Don't be fooled by political pandering

Don't fall for empty quick fix election year promises to save you money at the pumps. Driving smarter, maintaining your vehicle and when the time comes replacing your vehicle with a more fuel efficient model are the only short term ways to really save money at the pump.

Related Reading

• Dumb as We Wanna Be NY Times Op Edl by Thomas Friedman
• The Gas-Guzzler Gambit NY Times Editorial
• Clinton Gas-Tax Proposal Criticized: Economists Share Obama's View Washington Post
• McCain’s Gas-Tax Plan May Be a Clunker Wall Street Journal
• Empty rhetoric by the tankful Boston Globe Editorial

By Kenneth Barbalace

Whatever their motivation - be it energy independence for the U.S. or an attempt at fighting climate change for Europe - world governments are now heavily subsidizing biofuels. U.S. President George Bush pledged up to $150 million for work on cellulosic ethanol in his 2006 State of the Union address, and as recently as March 2007 he visited Columbia to convince the Brazilian and Columbian governments to become the "green fuel" centres of the world.

Biofuels, or fuels derived from living matter, however, are nothing new. Rudolph Diesel unveiled the first generation biodiesel-fueled engine which ran on peanut oil in 1898 at the World Exhibition in Paris, and Henry Ford intended his 1908 Model T to run on ethanol.... Read entire article

By Anonymous

When I embarked upon my recent trip to China, I was ready for the worst in terms of pollution. I had been told that tap water was not only not potable, but also not suitable for bathing because it was so murky that nobody would want to bathe in it. (Showers were considered to be ok). I guess they figured the impurities would just roll off. We were told to take dust masks with us so that we could breathe outside. I expected the hotel rooms to be lacking in environmentally friendly technology.

How surprised I was when I walked into my hotel room in Beijing! Lights, TV and all other electronic systems were operable only when the hotel key card was inserted into a slot provided on the wall just inside the hotel room door. When one left the hotel room and removed their key card, all of the electrically operated gadgets in the room would go dead. No energy was wasted when nobody is present in the room. A remote control center next to the bed allowed occupants to operate any light, television, etc. in the hotel room without getting up.

I got out my water-purifying device and filled it with water from the tap. Wow! It wasn't murky (not that I would have drunk it, but at least it looked ok). I did use it to brush my teeth, as we were told it was safe to do so. Surprisingly, Beijing air didn't seem any more polluted that one of the major cities in USA, and I found no reason to don a dust mask. What I did notice was that the streets were clean. They had plenty of manpower to pick up litter and keep the streets immaculate. Street cleaners consisted of people with brooms and huge dustpans cleaning up the solid debris, and one individual on a bicycle with a tank of water on the back. Another man walked along behind directing the hose and scrubbing the roads. There was no wasted water, and no need for fossil fuel to propel the vehicle. Needless to say, there was not much of an obesity problem in Beijing.

The vast majority of people traveled to work on bicycles. Some used motorbikes, and a small percent of Chinese drove automobiles. Because of the density of people living in Chinese cities, the roads are packed with cars even though most people don't drive. If the percent of Americans riding bikes or motor scooters to work equaled that of most China cities, America wouldn't have much of a carbon emissions problem. Shanghai has a novel way of encouraging people to ride bikes or take public transportation. Cars are readily available for purchase. The only problem is that it costs more to register a car than it does to purchase one. License plates have codes that indicate what city the vehicle is registered in. If an individual tries registering a vehicle in another city to avoid paying the high registration fee, they are out of luck. According to our Chinese tour guide, it is illegal to drive a vehicle that is not registered in Shanghai on shanghai highways during the day on weekdays.

Shanghai also boasts the fastest train in the world, the Maglev, which can reach speeds of 300km/hr in 2 minutes flat, and cruise at 500km/hr. The Maglev uses magnetic levitation by traveling on a magnetic field generated by both the train and the rails. It is reported to be "pollution free," though there is some concern about "magnetic pollution." Since the entire length of the present run from Pudong Airport to down town Shanghai is only 30km, the train can never reach maximum speed before it has to slow down. The entire trip takes about 10 – 15 minutes. Travel during rush hour from the Pudong Airport to Shanghai would take 1 ½ or more, as I found out when our plane arrived at Pudong Airport during rush hour; so who wouldn't choose to take the Maglev rather than drive?

The whole idea is to make other means of transportation so convenient and travel by private vehicle so expensive and inconvenient that people will use alternatives. Public transportation is readily accessible and quite convenient, even for tourists who do not speak Chinese.

One difference was immediately obvious when comparing new apartments in USA and new apartments in China. Almost all new structures had solar panels on the roof. According to Worldwatch Institute, an environmental group based in Washington D.C., 60% of the solar capacity installed in the world (30 million households) are found in China ⁽²⁾. Solar panels are being installed throughout Beijing, including 1,100 Solar panels on the Beijing's National Indoor Stadium, ahead of the 2008 Summer Olympics ^{(1, 3)}. China takes solar power back to the basics. Even in the cities there were typically clothes hanging on lines outside the windows and balconies of every apartment – again, no need for pollution producing energy.

Not everybody in China lives in apartments. I saw many housing developments in the suburbs of Shanghai. While there were many beautiful flowering shrubs and vines growing along fences and walls, there weren't huge weed-free lawns. Instead, between these houses were patches of corn, mounds of melons, apple, pear and pomegranate trees; and behind the homes, there were rice paddies and tethered goats grazing between the paddies. Chicken coops were more common in the yards than were garages. Basically, no land was wasted. Zoning ordinances in the USA would usually prohibit such land use in typical housing developments.

When we flew north from Beijing on our way back over the pole to JFK airport, I was thrilled to see wind-farms sitting on hills above little cities and towns. In checking, I discovered that at the end of 2005 China had 59 in-grid wind-farms with a total of 1,854 wind turbine generators. China ranked 10th in the world with 1,266 megawatt in-grid wind power installed capacity ⁽⁶⁾. In addition, by the end of 2004 China had produced 200,000 off-grid wind turbine generators (usually rural single family generators), and was ranked number one in the world ⁽⁶⁾.

China is sitting at a crossroads in terms of energy sources. They are making tremendous strides into alternative energy sources. But let's look at their present predicament a little closer. At the present time 70% of china's energy comes from coal ⁽⁸⁾. It is a country rich in coal, and with a rapidly growing economy, the need for coal will likely continue. The energy produced by 3 Gorges Dam is predicted to reduce the China's dependence on coal, but even the Dam Project has the environmental community wondering and worrying. At the same time, the China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation's (Sinopec) Xinjiang Oil Field will likely boost China's oil reserves to 1 billion tons by 2010 ⁽⁹⁾. So, it appears that fossil fuel will not be making an exit from China any time soon.

With a population of 1.3 billion people, China has more than 4 times the population of the USA. 20% of the world's population lives in China, but China consumes only 10% of the world's energy and 4% of the world's oil ^{(6, 10, 11)}. On the contrary, USA is the home to just 5% of the world population and consumes 23% of the world's energy and 25% of the world's oil ^{(10,11, 13)}. Remember also that China is a developing industrial power. Americans depend upon China to manufacture a huge amount of products we use every day. Why? Because China can make the products cheaper! So, much of their pollution and energy use goes to products sold to Americans and not to the Chinese, who are living within a small environmental footprint.

China has suffered growing pains as it attempts to meet the criteria of the Kyoto Protocol (of which China is a member). Realizing that the vegetation in cities such as Shanghai were disappearing at an alarming rate, they decided to move many trees from other areas of China and plant them in cities. A major undertaking, referred to as the "Great Green Wall," involves planting a shelterbelt of trees 4,480km (2,800 mile) long across northwestern China skirting the Gobi Desert ⁽¹³⁾. This is a 75 year project which started in 2000 and is now well underway. Initially they moved many large trees in order to hasten the development of the wall of trees that is intended to block the desert sands from Beijing and other cities. They also moved trees into Shanghai. Indeed, it did work. The trees look as if they have always been there. A problem that they failed to consider, however, was how many trees they could remove from a given area without affecting the ecology of that ecosystem. According to our tour guide, they are now conducting reforestation in some areas from which too many trees had been taken.

Does China have environmental problems? Undoubtedly. When I was in Shanghai, the air pollution was much worse than it was in Beijing. Why? Most likely it is because there were many more vehicles on the road. The vehicle ownership in China is 10 vehicles/1000 ⁽⁷⁾. While in the USA there are 800 vehicles/1000 people ⁽⁷⁾. Imagine if China had the same ratio of automobiles/person as is common in the USA. China recognizes their problems and has set their benchmark very high. It is obvious everywhere one travels in China. Billboards everywhere have the same message, "We must protect the environment."

China has a long way to go, but their commitments are quite evident in their achievements to date. Before the USA is too critical of China, they should look at their own record. For the first time China is the world's #1 producer of CO2 emissions at a rate of 6.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2006 of carbon/year or 4.9 metric tons per capita. The USA comes in #2 with 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon of carbon or 19 metric tons per capita in 2006. Imagine how much carbon emissions China would have if they lived the 2007 American Dream and wasted energy as Americans do.

References

1. Chi-Chu Tschang; China Aims to Clean Up in Solar Power; Businessweek; April 11, 2007; Last accessed 10/24/07 http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb20070411_628994.htm
2. Areddy, James T.; Heat for the tubs of China; Wall Street Journal; Updated: 2006-03-31; Last accessed 10/24/07 http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB114374984648312629- A0F_dVhGloFXtoF8doVDS_kg_0k_20060406,00.html?mod=regionallinks
3. Editor; Shanghai to Install Solar Panels on Building Roofs; Shanghai Daily September 15, 2005; Last accessed 10/24/07; http://russian.china.org.cn/english/environment/142288.htm
4. Doe, Charlie /Beijing Bergey WindPower; Renewable Energy in China: Development of the Geothermal Heat Pump Market in China; NREL International Programs; 2004; Last accessed 10/24/07; www.nrel.gov/international
5. Mayfield, James; commercial officer, US Commercial Service, heads the Construction, Environmental, and Marine Technologies Team, US Consulate General, Shanghai; Top 10 Questions on Environmental Projects: Answers to the most frequently asked questions about China's environmental sector; China Business Review; 3/11/02; Last Accessed 10/25/07; http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0311/02.html
6. Feller, Gordon; China's Wind Power: The World's Most Populous Country Harnesses Wind to Help Power Burgeoning Economy; EcoWorld; 7/15/06; Last Accessed 10/25/07; http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/articles2.cfm?tid=390
7. Corning Environmental Technologies; China - on the fast track to Lowering Emissions; Emissions Control Technology Magazine; 1/25/2004; Last Accessed 10/16/07; http://www.corning.com/environmentaltechnologies/auto-emissions-magazine/ archive-edition/2004-1/article1.aspx
8. Lim, Louisa; China's Coal-Fueled Boom Has Costs; National Public Radio – Morning Edition; 5/2/07; Last Accessed 10/26/07; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9947668
9. Wang yu; Xinjiang provides Succor to Sinopec; China Daily; Vol 27 no. 8571 October 12 Page 1
10. Wingfield-Hayes, Rupert, BBC correspondent, Beijing; Satisfying China's demand for energy; BBC News; 2/16/2006; Last Accessed 10/26/07; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4716528.stm
11. NationMaster; from CIA The World Factbook; Updated 10/18/2007; Last Accessed 10/16/07 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
12. Population and Energy Consumption; World Population Balancev; (Data courtesy of BP, "Statistical Review of World Energy 2005;" and United Nations, "World Population Prospects: 2004 Revision"); Last Accessed 10/26/07 http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/pop/energy/
13. China's Great Green Wall; BBC News; 3/3/2001; Last Accessed 10/26/07; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ monitoring/media_reports/1199218.stm

By Kenneth Barbalace

Yesterday (9/20/2007), the National Park Service's Appalachian Trail Superintendent Pam Underhill of West Virginia, stated that global warming was "irrelevant" while testifying in opposing to the placement of Maine Mountain Power's proposed 18 wind turbines on Black Nubble Mountain near Sugarloaf Maine. Underhill, who was testifying in her official capacity as a NPS superintendent front of Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), said she has fought hard to protect trail for 30 years and considers it her middle child. In her testimony she said didn't want wind turbines located anywhere near what she considers to be a pristine section of the Appalachian Trail because she didn't want hikers to have to see them. Under questioning she acknowledged that global warming was a concern, however, Underhill refused to say whether she would prefer to see the development of renewable energy over the development of more coal fired power plants.

In response to the National Resources Council of Maine's support for the wind farm, which would be three miles from the Appalachian Trail at its closet point, Underhill stated:

"I do not know why the National Resources Council of Maine decided to throw the Appalachian Trail under the bus on this one, but it is not something we will forget any time soon."

In the past, the National Resources Council of Maine had opposed the wind farm, but after negotiations lead Maine Mountain Power to reduce their proposed project from 30 turbines spread over two mountain tops to just 18 turbines on one mountain top, the NRC of Maine threw their support behind the project.

In an interview aired on a Maine Public Broadcasting news report of Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission's public hearings for the proposed wind farm project Shawn Mahoney, Vice President of Conservation Law Foundation's Maine chapter, said he was stunned to hear Underhill say that global warming was irrelevant when considering this project.

Personally, I'm more than just stunned that Underhill stated global warming is irrelevant, I'm beyond disbelief on so many levels. First I see this as an issue of someone from a distant state forcing her view of the way things should be on another state that is trying to satisfy part of its energy needs in more environmentally sustainable ways. Second, I wonder, what is worse, hikers occasionally seeing wind turbines on a distant mountain peak or hikers not seeing the mountain peak at all because of pollution from coal fired power plants? Maybe she prefers that power plants burning West Virginia coal continue to belch out mercury laden pollution that then rains down and poison the fish in our lakes and streams such that the fish are not safe for hikers to eat? Maybe she prefers to do nothing to try and reduce our contributing to the melting of the polar ice caps and driving species that depend upon those icepacks for survival.

Wind turbines are not appropriate on every mountain top, but they can be an important part of our renewable energy mix and with other renewable energies can help reduce the need for more coal fired power plants. It is Mainers who will see these wind turbines the most and if Mainers are willing to accept some visual blemishes on our horizons to reduce our overall environmental impact, who is Underhill, to interfere. After all, she lives in a state that removes mountains to get to coal (I wonder what that does to their scenic views?). I remember working in the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia along the Appalachian Trail some twenty years ago and not being able to see distant mountains because of pollution. I'd much rather see an occasional wind farm on a distant mountain than not see the mountains at all. I'd prefer not to lose parts of some costal State and National parks here in Maine to rising oceans caused by the melting of polar ice caps. I don't want my grand children or great grand children to never experience the taste of Maine maple syrup because a warming planet did in our sugar maples. Finally, I'd love to be able to have our lakes and streams free of mercury pollution so that I could go fishing with my children and eat the fish we catch.

Related coverage elsewhere

• Maine PBN report of LURC hearing (requires Windows Media Player)
• Wind farm generates political tempest: A federal official's stance on Maine's Black Nubble project is questioned by a California congressman (MaineToday.com)

By Kenneth Barbalace

What is nanotech, how can it help us bridge the gap to sustainability and what are its risks? Our second article by Wilma Pretorius, Ph.D. takes a closer look at the promises and risks of nanotechnologies, which are literally products, created at the atomic scale. The promises of nanotech are great, but there may be great risks and hidden dangers. Read more.

By Anonymous

Three states recently announced ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse emissions because, in the words of New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, "…In the absence of leadership on the federal level the burden has now fallen upon the state executives and legislatures to lead the way on this issue…". In addition to protecting the residents in their own states, proactive states are blazing the trail for others to follow.

This approach is not a typical one for the states that often prefer that the federal government stay out of state affairs, especially ones that are likely to cost everyone money. The difference is that individuals at the state level realize the seriousness of the situation and that they owe it to their constituents to mitigate on behalf of their people when the federal government refuses to take action.

Exactly what do these states plan to do to alleviate the situation? Each strategy is very different, but the anticipated outcome is the same, significant reduction of emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as quickly as possible.

According to the bill passed in the New Jersey Legislature on June 21, 2007, greenhouse gas emissions generated by every sector of New Jersey's economy will be required to drop to the 1990 level (a reduction of about 13%) by 2020 and that emissions will be capped at 20% of the 2006 level by 2050. The bill will also require a statewide greenhouse-gas monitoring program that will apply to emissions from out-of-state power plants exporting electricity to New Jersey. There is a plan to charge emission fees to every company that emits CO2. The bill has resulted in complaints from business and industrial groups. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in coming months. (New York Times article (subscription required), University of California press release)

In a bill signed into law by Governor Schwartzenegger in late January 2007, transportation fuels sold in California will have to contain 10% less carbon by 2020 (American Chemical Society: Environmental Science and Technology Online). This bill is unique in that it will provide a way to judge fuels from a life-cycle standpoint, not just from the tailpipe. This means that the amount of CO2 emitted during any phase of mining, manufacturing, transportation, etc. would have to be taken into account in measuring the CO2 emission, not just the CO2 emitted when the fuel is burned (known as cradle to grave). This bill will penalize high carbon fossil fuels (coal to liquid), because while the coal to liquid fuel may burn cleaner than gasoline, the process of producing it emits much more CO2 into the atmosphere

According to Professor Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, "This new (California) policy is hugely important, and has never been done before. It will likely transform the energy industries...We anticipate much greater reductions after 2020." (A New Era for A New Era for Transportation Fuels: Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Other Carbon Fuel Standard and Other Transportation Initiatives).

Florida has taken a totally different and yet logical approach to the problem of climate change. In July 2007 Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced that he wants utilities to generate one-fifth of their electricity from renewables to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. This action is necessary because the federal government has failed to act on this critical issue. How will this be accomplished? The sunshine state has plenty of sunshine to power rooftop solar panels and renewable energy advocates are urging the state to help residents create thousands of mini power plants in their homes. Crist plans to call on the state to permit people who generate power at homes and businesses to lower utility bills by putting excess electricity back into the grid. Crist has also suggested the use of wind generators to accomplish the 20% reduction in use of electric energy. While he has not set a proposed date for reaching the goal, Mike Sole, secretary of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, suggested that the target date is 2020. (Reuters)

Other states have indicated their intent to take action in order to curb the emission of CO2. If the leaders of our country find the truth too inconvenient and choose not to see the handwriting on the wall, then someone else will have to do it for them. Fortunately, there are state leaders who are courageous enough to do what has to be done.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Google through its philanthropic arm Google.org is giving away tens of millions of dollars in grants to research and develop plug-in hybrid technologies for cars. This includes a Google test fleet of Toyota Prius and Ford Escape Hybrids which have been modified with larger battery packs and plugs so that they can be plugged into electrical outlets.

As most people drive no more than 35 miles on a typical day, a car with enlarged battery packs charged from the electric grid will be able to significantly reduce their need for gasoline by using power stored in batteries. At the same time because they have gasoline engines, these plug-in hybrids are still able to take long trips or go without recharging via electrical outlets when necessary.

According to Google:

• the average fuel economy of cars in the United States is 19.8 mpg;
• Google's standard Toyota Prius hybrids get 40.9 mpg; and
• Google's modified plug-in Toyota Prius hybrids are getting 73.6 mpg.

In terms of gasoline saved, the plug-in Prius hybrid used 73% less gasoline than the average American car and almost 45% less gasoline than the standard Prius. Now, obviously, the plug-in hybrid consumes electricity from the electric grid to replace gasoline and Google reports that their cars are currently consuming 113.9 Wh/mile. Still, Google estimates that at an average of $0.08/kWh for electricity and $3.00/gallon for gasoline, someone who drives 12,000 miles per year would save $1,200 per year and eliminate 68% of their car CO2 emissions. Best of all, because most plug-in hybrids would be charging themselves at night, when electrical demands are at their lowest, the current U.S. national electrical capacity could power around 160,000,000 plug-in hybrid cars or 3/4 of the total U.S. passenger vehicle fleet without needing to add new power plants.

In a novel extension of their funding of plug-in hybrid research, Google is working with California electric utility PG&E to capitalize on the fact that plug-in hybrids can charge themselves at night when electrical demands on the grid is at its lowest. Google and PG&E are experimenting with turning plug-in hybrids' relationship with the electrical grid into a two way affair. Their idea is that if there were tens-of-thousands or millions of hybrids plugged into the grid at any one time they could act as a massive electric storage array. Just as the consumer would pay the power company for the electricity to charge the batteries of their plug-in hybrid, the power company could pay the consumer to draw some power off of the hybrid's batteries during periods of very high demand. This in turn could significantly reduce pressure on an electrical grid during periods of extreme demands.

Over the past few weeks I have written extensively about the coal industry's efforts to lobby Congress to fund tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids (CTL) research and development. Their justification is that the U.S. needs the CTL technology to help reduce our dependence on foreign crude oil. By the coal industry's own estimates, however, it will cost over $200 billion and take 20 years to replace just 10% of our nation's crude oil needs with coal via CTL. On top of its high cost for marginal results, CTL will have a tremendous negative environmental impact in regards to climate change. As I reported previously, the EPA estimates that compared to normal crude oil derived diesel fuel, diesel fuel derived from coal will produce 3.7% more greenhouse gases if carbon capture and sequestration is used or 118.5% more greenhouse gases if carbon capture and sequestration is not used.

Juxtaposed against each other are two visions of our energy future. On one hand, the coal industry is busy lobbying Congress for massive grants on what will most certainly be a boondoggle and potentially an environmental disaster. On the other hand, Google is busy making partnerships and funding research that will most certainly produce real solutions to our energy and environmental crisis. Google's efforts promise to bring cost effective plug-in hybrid technologies to the consumer on a large scale that could quite literally displace 30% of the total U.S. crude oil needs and 52% U.S. oil import needs. It would also reduce total U.S. CO2 emissions by 27%. This technology could even start to have an immediate impact on our crude oil consumption.

The next time you fill up your vehicle with fuel and look at how much you just spent, ask yourself this question: whose vision of the world do you like best? Do you prefer the coal industry's vision where they get tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to produce a product that still must be sold at today's fuel prices in order to be cost effective and does nothing to reduce the average consumer's energy expenses? Or do you prefer Google's vision of the world where your vehicle consumes up to 73% less fuel, we have a real decrease in dependence upon foreign oil and saves you over a thousand dollars a year in fuel costs?

Related Editors' Blog entries

• Coal-to-liquids vs. energy efficiency and renewable energies Thu, 14 Jun 2007
• Google and Intel found computer energy efficiency initiative Wed, 13 Jun 2007
• Subsidies for coal to liquids compared to funding for other energy research Mon, 04 Jun 2007
• Congress proposes massive subsidies to convert coal into diesel fuel Thu, 31 May 2007
• Cities will be able to monitor carbon emissions with online Microsoft application Fri, 18 May 2007

Related Articles

• Compact Florescent Lights: Are They Worth the Switch? Apr 18, 2007
• Global Trends in Energy Technology Innovation: An Introduction Jun 18, 2007
• Hydrogen Fuel Cells: Energy of the Future Aug 22, 2006

On Other Websites

• Toyota's comments on the challenges of plug-in hybrids
• U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration quick oil facts
• Google.org's vehicle calculator - this provides Google's comparison data between standard cars, Google's hybrids and plug-in hybrids.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Today the New York Times has a new article on the coal-to-liquids (CTL) subsidies and loan guarantees that are working their way through Congress. The more I look at this issue the more I see that CTL is not about getting the best value out of our energy investments, but rather it is another big industry trying to get as much pork out of the federal treasury as is possible.

For just a moment, let us compare and contrast CTL against other measures to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and fossil fuel energies.

As I reported yesterday, Google and Intel have founded the Climate Savers Computing Initiative. This initiative has the stated goal of reducing computer energy consumption 50% by 2010. This is the equivalent of removing 11 million cars from the road or shutting down twenty 500 megawatt coal or oil fired power plants. When you compare how much energy savings that can be achieved by ideas as simple as building better computers against how much it will cost to replace just 10% of the U.S. need for crude oil with coal-to-liquids; you will start to see that there are much better ways for the U.S. Congress to be investing taxpayer money to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The problem is that big energy industries like the coal industry want to find ways to increase their profits and thus increase our dependence on their energy products. If Congress focused their energy investments on energy efficiency and renewable energies (e.g. more efficient solar panels put on private homes), the big energy companies would not be able to sell us as much energy, and would not make as much money. Thus, the energy industry lobbies Congress for investments in technology like CTL that are really good for their own interests, but are not that good for our national interests.

Everything in our lives from the computers we use, to the cars we drive, to the homes we live in are so inefficient that we may be able to virtually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil if these things were simply made more energy efficient using existing technologies. As has been pointed out, in the case of computers, over half of the energy they consume is wasted. The same is true with the average home we live in. By simply using better building techniques the energy consumption of the typical home could be cut by at least half. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, only 12.6% of the potential energy in the fuel cars burn actually translates into forward motion; the rest is wasted to heat, friction, idling, etc. How much oil would be saved if the fuel economy of the cars we drive was increased by 10mpg? How much would this really cost compared to the investments required for CTL?

The best the coal industry can "promise" with a $200 billion investment is a replacement of 10% of the U.S. crude oil needs in twenty years. Yet the computer industry is saying it can deliver a 50% world wide reduction in energy consumed by computers by 2010. According to a report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy by enacting basic energy codes using existing technologies all new homes and buildings being built today could consume 50% less energy for an added construction cost that would be offset by lower energy costs in about 10 years for the average homeowner.

Coal-to-liquids is a boondoggle because it is an unneeded technology that is way too expensive. The money that the government would spend on CTL would be much better spent on investments in energy efficiency and renewable resources, as these would have a much higher payback in terms of reducing our dependence upon oil and other fossil fuels. In addition, investments in energy efficiency and renewable resources would have the environmental advantage of significantly cutting our greenhouse gas emissions and thus would help slow climate change.

We need energy policies that place a priority on getting the best possible return on investment, and coal-to-liquids is not that investment.

Related Articles

• Congress proposes massive subsidies to convert coal into diesel fuel
• Subsidies for coal to liquids compared to funding for other energy research
• Google and Intel found computer energy efficiency initiative
• Earth Day resolutions you should make

By Kenneth Barbalace

Google and Intel have founded the Climate Savers Computing Initiative, which stated goal is to reduce computer energy consumption 50% by 2010. According to the initiative, this would reduce computer caused greenhouse gas emissions by 54 million tons annually by 2010. If successful, this is the equivalent of removing 11 million cars from the road or shutting down twenty 500 megawatt coal fired power plants and could save $5.5 billion dollars in energy costs annually.

The energy efficiency standards being set by the Climate Savers Computing Initiative (CSCI) exceed standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's voluntary Energy Star program. As an example, while the Energy Star program requires computer power supplies to be 80% efficient, the CSCI's standards will call for power supplies in personal computers to be 90% efficient and server power supplies to be 92% efficient by 2010.

What many people don't realize is just how much electricity a typical non-Energy Star rated desk top computer can waste. The typical computer wastes over half of the electricity it consumes with the power supply being one of its biggest offenders. A laptop computer consumes a lot less electricity than a desk top computer, but there is still massive room for improvement. Buying an energy efficient computer may be more expensive right now (about $20 on average), however, the added cost is expected to disappear in time and the energy savings will more than make up for the added purchase cost fairly quickly.

So the next time you go to buy a computer, make sure it is an Energy Star computer and make sure to purchase it from a Climate Savers Computing Initiative member (which many of the major computer makers are). You will not only be doing something good for the environment, but will be keeping extra money in your wallet.

In addition to buying an Energy Star rated computer, other ways you can reduce the power your computer consumes include:

• turning it off when it is not needed or at least sending it into sleep or hibernation mode;
• setting the monitor to turn off automatically when the computer has been idle for five or ten minutes rather than using a screensaver will save electricity and wear on your monitor;
• using power management to turn off hard drives when computer is inactive;
• purchasing flat screen monitors rather than traditional CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors will save electricity and reduce the amount of hazardous materials (e.g. lead, mercury, etc.) that have to be disposed of at the end of the monitor's lifecycle.

Further reading

• Climate Savers Computing Initiative white paper
• Climate Savers Computing Initiative website
• Climate Savers Computing Initiative Members

Related Articles

• Coal-to-liquids vs. energy efficiency and renewable energies
• Earth Day resolutions you should make
• Saving money with compact florescent lights

By Kenneth Barbalace

Bills in Congress to provide tens of billions of dollars in subsidies tax credits and loan guarantees for coal to liquids production (see my last blog entry) got me wondering just how much money the United States spends each year on energy research and development. Fortunately, my curiosity was easily satisfied as the International Energy Agency (IEA) tracks such things and makes their data available in an online database that allows one to query the Energy R&D budgets of participating countries. What I learned was very interesting and made the coal to liquids (CTL) proposals working their way through Congress even more disturbing.

According to the IEA, between 2001 and 2005 (the latest year data is available for) the United States spent just under eight billions dollars on energy R&D. Of the R&D expenditures, for this five year time frame, 23.46% ($1.87 billion) was spent on nuclear research (presumably, a large portion went to disposal research), 18.77% ($1.49 billion) went into coal research and 13.46% went to energy conservation in transportation (see table below). By comparison, all renewable sources combined (solar, bio-energy, wind, geothermal & hydropower) accounted for only 16.02% ($1.27 billion), with 35% of the renewable R&D going towards bio-energy (probably, corn ethanol being the chief beneficiary).

As was reported by the Motley Fool, by the coal industries own estimates the projected cost of R&D for coal to liquids production capacity capable of displacing only 10% of the U.S. crude oil needs will cost at least 200 billion dollars, for which the coal industry wants the American taxpayer to underwrite the majority of the tab.

Think about this for a moment; from 2001-2005 the U.S. spent an average of $1.59 billion on energy generation, conservation and remediation (e.g. spent nuclear fuel) R&D. Now the coal industry wants taxpayers to underwrite a significant portion of the $200 billion in R&D just for coal-to-liquids. This is how much the U.S. would be spending on energy R&D for the next 125 years if R&D budgets were to remain at 2001-2005 levels. Another way to think about $200 billion is that at $20,000 per home, this is enough money to put solar panels on 10,000,000 homes, which on average would supply 60% of those homes electric needs and help make them more self-sufficient in the event of power outages.

Does the U.S. need to spend more money on energy R&D? The answer is probably yes. Does the U.S. need to find a way to wean itself off of crude oil produced in geo-politically unstable parts of the world? The answer is most definitely yes. However, it does not make any sense for U.S. taxpayers to underwrite tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of R&D for a single source of energy. CTL is an especially dubious investment because of its high cost of production. By the coal industry's own estimates, in order for CTL to remain profitable the price of oil must remain above $50 per barrel. In addition, even with carbon capture and sequestration CTL will increase greenhouse gas emissions, which will be counterproductive towards efforts to reign in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming (see my last blog post).

Rather than putting massive amounts of taxpayer dollars into researching a single highly dubious energy source, Congress should be looking at more modest and pragmatic funding increases for wide range of energy sources. Diversifying Federal investment in energy R&D will reduce the overall risk if specific investments don't pan out and help create a diverse range of energy sources that can be tapped where they each make the most sense. Simply dumping tens of billions of dollars into a highly risky and extremely expensive source of energy, such as coal to liquids, is a sure way to a boondoggle, like we saw with the Synthetic Fuels Corporation fiasco. Is this how you want your taxpayer dollars spent?

U.S. Energy R&D Budgets 2001-2005 (in Millions of U.S. Dollars)

	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Total	Percent of Total
Nuclear	323.81	312.35	390.95	393.97	444.54	1865.63	23.46%
Coal	263.71	346.32	347.01	324.43	211.03	1492.51	18.77%
Oil & Gas	122.50	110.28	91.58	78.03	78.76	481.15	6.05%
Hydrogen & Fuel Cells				153.76	171.39	325.15	4.09%
CO2 Capture & Storage				40.46	45.36	85.82	1.08%
Solar	101.46	96.22	86.82	82.95	85.07	452.53	5.69%
Bio-Energy	94.44	94.33	89.94	86.94	80.85	446.49	5.61%
Wind	43.30	41.11	43.91	40.90	40.80	210.02	2.64%
Geothermal	29.46	29.09	29.94	25.30	25.27	139.06	1.75%
Hydropower	5.46	5.36	5.29	4.80	4.86	25.78	0.32%
Transportation Energy Conservation	279.59	264.80	183.67	177.14	165.41	1070.61	13.46%
Industrial Energy Conservation	162.70	155.05	102.11	92.94	74.80	587.60	7.39%
Residential & Commercial Energy Conservation	142.56	134.71	61.51	59.39	65.46	463.63	5.83%
Other Energy Conservation	51.83	67.33	65.90	61.33	60.42	306.81	3.86%
Totals	1620.83	1656.96	1498.64	1622.32	1554.03	7952.78

Source of data: International Energy Agency
Note: This data excludes non-energy specific research (e.g. storage technologies, energy transmission, etc.).

Further Reading
Congress proposes massive subsidies to convert coal into diesel fuel

By Kenneth Barbalace

Key congressional lawmakers with the support of intense lobbying by the coal industry are pushing legislation through both the House of Representatives and the Senate that could potentially provide tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, low interest loans and tax breaks to the coal industry to produce diesel fuel, jet fuel and fuel oil from coal. According to the International Herald Tribune, the list of key congress persons pushing legislation includes:

• Representative Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee;
• Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat whose district is dominated by coal mining;
• Senator Barack Obama, a Illinois Democrat and Presidential candidate;
• Senator Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican;
• Senator Larry Craig, a Wyoming Republican; and
• Other "coal state Republicans".

This legislation is being pushed forward under the guise of alternative energies to make the United States energy independent and is expected to have the support of President Bush who has stressed the need for "alternative energies" rather than "renewable energies", thus making room for coal.

The legislation being proposed includes: loan guarantees of upwards of $30 billion for 6-10 coal-to-liquid plants; $0.51 per gallon tax credit for all coal derived fuel sold through 2020; and federal subsidies if the price of oil drops below $40 per barrel.

While converting coal to diesel type fuels would help the United States become energy independent it would also be extremely counterproductive to our efforts to decrease carbon dioxide emissions to slow global warming. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (see graph below), even if carbon capture and sequestration was implemented in the coal to diesel conversion process the net amount of total lifecycle greenhouse gases that would be released per BTU of fuel produced and consumed would be 3.7% higher than using traditional production techniques to produce diesel fuel from crude oil. Without the use of carbon capture and sequestration, the amount of greenhouse gases released from the coal to diesel fuel conversion process would increase by 118.5%.

The coal to liquid fuel proposals working their way through Congress have all the hallmarks of pork barrel politics that will make coal executives rich at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer with dire consequences for efforts to reign in CO₂ emissions and global warming. Taxpayers should be very wary of tens of billions of tax dollars being sunk into what is essentially an industry driven experiment. History has shown that when corporate interests lobby for and get such huge amounts of taxpayer money the result is invariably a boondoggle and at the very least a waste massive amounts of money. The failure of the synthetic fuel initiatives of thirty years ago and the billions in taxpayer dollars that were wasted on the government owned Synthetic Fuels Corporation is just such an example.

If the coal industry wants to move forward with finding new markets for coal via turning it into liquid fuels, it is their purgative. U.S. taxpayers, however, should not be the ones funding the research into this technology and said technology MUST NOT result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions for the total lifecycle of the fuel produced.


Data for graph came from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f07035.htm

Further Reading
Subsidies for coal to liquids compared to funding for other energy research

By Kenneth Barbalace

Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul at the helm of News Corporation, whose conservative leaning newspapers and Fox News channel have long sided with climate change skeptics, has announced that he and News Corp. are going carbon neutral by 2010. In addition, Murdoch plans to use his media empire to encourage readers and viewers to do the same. Australia's The Age quoted Rupert Murdoch as saying last November in Japan:

"I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue."

"Some of the presumptions about extreme weather, whether it be hurricanes or drought, may seem far-fetched. What is certain is that temperatures have been rising and that we are not entirely sure of the consequences. The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Although the announcement that News Corp. is going green was just announced, the company started working towards going carbon neutral some time ago. Rupert Murdoch found through an independent audit that News Corp. produces 641,150 tons of CO2 annually through its daily activities. In his "Global Energy Initiative Webcast" to all News Corp. employees Rupert Murdoch stated:

"This one is clear. Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."

"When all of News Corporation becomes carbon neutral it will have the same impact as turning off the electricity in the city of London for five full days."

Rupert Murdoch's plan to take News Corp. carbon neutral by 2010 consists of three parts: 1) News Corp. will reduce its consumption of energy as much as possible; 2) they will switch to alternative "green" energies where it is feasible; and 3) as an absolute last resort they will offset those carbon emissions that they can not eliminate with carbon offset credits. Some of the ways News Corp. is reducing their energy consumption include solar powered golf carts for Fox Studios, replacing their fleets of vehicles with hybrids, and using the latest in LED lighting technologies in their new construction. According to Murdoch, two News Corp. companies, News International and Harper Collins Publishing, are already on track to be completely carbon neutral by the end of 2007.

News Corporation's efforts to measure their carbon footprint has extended so far that Fox Home Entertainment even calculated the total carbon footprint of individual DVDs they sell from manufacturing through the store shelf (0.75 lbs), and The Times of London calculated the carbon footprint of a single copy of their newspaper from tree to disposal (5.36 oz).

Beyond initiatives to reduce News Corp's own carbon footprint, its properties will reinvent the message of taking action on climate change from "doom and gloom" to "telling the story in a new way" to make addressing climate change "exciting" without "preaching". This includes a channel on MySpace called "OurPlanet" dedicated to climate change.

Given the traditionally conservative leanings of many News Corporation properties and their traditional favorable treatment of climate change skeptics, some more cynical types may think this is calculated a marketing ploy by Rupert Murdoch. However, after watching his webcast (which included comments by U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a discussion after Murdoch's comments), and seeing what News Corp. has already done, I don't believe this is a marketing ploy.

Climate change really appears to be a very genuine concern for Rupert Murdoch. I for one applaud his goal to take his company carbon neutral and to strive to get others to do the same; after all, as Rupert Murdoch stated, when it comes to climate change "we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."

By Kenneth Barbalace

It is often said that to find someone's true agenda or motivations all one needs to do is follow the money. So, the question is where does the money trail lead when it comes to the skeptics of climate change? This was a question I asked as the result of a discussion I was having with some others on the topic of climate change. The answer is a disturbing page from the tobacco industry's playbook to discredit the science around the health hazards of smoking. So, who is funding what? I sifted through the web for most of yesterday evening, and this is what I found (it is pretty startling for only one evening's worth of digging):

ExxonMobil using tobacco industry tactics to subvert science and public policy

From what I have found, of those who have been funding climate change skeptics, ExxonMobil has spent the most money. Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil funneled $16 million to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue of climate change. These organizations, which were often staffed with the same people, published and republished non-peer-reviewed works of a small group of scientific spokespeople. These papers, which had been discredited by reputable climate scientists, were a calculated effort to manufacture the appearance of debate and disagreement over climate change when in fact there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists on the issue of climate change.

Between 2000 and 2006, ExxonMobil through its political action committee and people affiliated with ExxonMobil contributed over $4 million to election campaigns with much of that money going to President George W. Bush's election campaign.

Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil spent over $61 million on lobbyists in a highly effective effort to gain access to key decision makers in Congress and the Bush administration and influence U.S. public policy.

Organizations that have been funded by ExxonMobil and ExxonMobil has used to disseminate disinformation and/or manufacture debate include (but is not limited to): American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the International Policy Network, Frontiers of Freedom, Global Climate Science Team, Center for Science and Public Policy, George C. Marshall Institute, Chicago-based Heartland Institute, Tech Central Station, The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Free Enterprise Education Institute (a.k.a. Free Enterprise Action Institute), et al.

(See: Union of Concerned Scientists: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science PDF 1.8mb).

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) paying scientists to undermine climate change report

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which is an ExxonMobil-funded think tank, sent out letters to scientists and economists offering them $10,000 each to undermine a report UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) before it was released on Feb. 2, 2007. According to the Guardian, the AEI has received more than $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staffers have worked as consultants to the Bush Administration.

(See: Guardian Unlimited: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study)

Intermountain Rural Electric Association paid $100,000 to a prominent climate change skeptic

The Colorado electric cooperative Intermountain Rural Electric Association, which is heavily invested in coal fired power plants, paid $100,000 to climate change skeptic Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

(ABC News: Making Money by Feeding Confusion over Global Warming)

Leading climate change skeptics and their money trail

Frederick Seitz, Ph.D.: A physicist who worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from the late 1970s to late 1980s and has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (both organizations have been funded by ExxonMobil).

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.: A meteorologist who has frequently testified in front of Congress. In 1995 Harpers Magazine reported that he was charging oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; in 1991 his trip to testify in front of the U.S. Senate was paid for by the Western Fuels Association and a speech he wrote entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. He is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received funding from ExxonMobil. Dr Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute and George C. Marshall Institute, which have received funding from ExxonMobil.

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D.: an ecological climatologist, he is editor of "World Climate Review," a newsletter and blog funded by the Western Fuels Association. He has received money from the German Coal Mining Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the Cyprus Minerals Company and the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (see above).

Robert C. Balling, Jr. Ph. D. (in geography): a former senior consultant to the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, he has written numerous books including Heated Debate, published by the Pacific Research Institute (which has been funded by ExxonMobil), True State of the Planet, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute (has also received funding from ExxonMobil) and co-wrote The Satanic Gases with Patrick J. Michaels, which was published by the Cato Institute (yet another beneficiary of ExxonMobil). He has also received over $200,000 from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere as well as having been paid by the Kuwaiti government for a version of his book A Heated Debate to be released in the Middle East. Dr. Balling also conducted an ExxonMobil funded study in 2002.

(See PBS Frontline: The doubters of Global Warming)

Can a tiger change its stripes?

Since the release of the Feb. 2, 2007 IPCC report on climate change, ExxonMobil appears to be changing its stance on global warming. Their chief executive, Rex W. Tillerson, has acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and industry are factors in global warming. This is not a complete about face, but it is a sign that ExxonMobil is reevaluating their position on the issue of climate change.

(See: the Boston Globe: Debate over global warming is shifting)

More reading on the climate change deniers' money trail

Climate change special: State of denial
Organizations in Exxon Secrets Database