Sustainable energy isn’t going to become the standard until it makes economic sense for people to turn from fossil fuels to renewable sources. One way to bring down costs is to use economies of scale to produce energy from renewable sources in large proportions.

The idea is similar to the way we produce energy from fossil fuels right now. People don’t have coal-burning generators behind their homes; they are connected by wires to a power plant. There are definitely more opportunities to capture clean energy in small batches via solar panels, but there’s no reason that communities can’t take advantage of large-scale energy production projects. The costs of individual solar panels or a wind turbine are still prohibitively expensive and geographically unfeasible for most people. A central source of renewable energy makes sense can make sense for individuals, communities, businesses, and institutions.

In today’s New York Times, Matthew Wald takes a look at large-scale alternative energy projects.

It’s all about the economics.

First posted at The Proving Ground

I just received this update on Milwaukee’s sustainability efforts from One Wisconsin Now, a progressive public policy institute based in Milwaukee:

Are Milwaukee’s Leaders Ready to Go Green?
Recently the top scientists from around the world published a report stating what most people have come to already accept, climate change is real and human activity is making the matter much worse. Last week we published an Echo Chamber piece by James Rowen that stated, “Climate Change Report Should Spur Local Action.” It appears that this advice was not lost on some public officials, namely Milwaukee County Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Supervisor Dimitrijevic proposed that Milwaukee County adopt higher environmental and conservation standards. In a press release she said, “Higher energy costs have put a major strain on departmental budgets within the County, which owns more than 800 buildings. Many of them have not been updated in decades. Modernizing the way we operate will pay dividends to our community over the long-term.” Supervisor Dimitrijevic’s plan includes the following items:

• Create a Director of Sustainability position to oversee current and future energy efficiency and eco-friendly initiatives and help County departments comply with the Green Print.
• Retrofit County buildings with high-performance, energy efficient technology.
• Require all departments to perform an internal audit of ways to improve energy efficiency.
• Direct the Public Works Director to purchase hybrid and alternative fuel powered vehicles.
• Turn unused parkland back into native grassland and prairie reserve areas, which would require no maintenance or the burning of fossil fuels.
• Manage storm runoff from County facilities and place recycling containers in all parks.
• Examine the potential use of “gray water” where treated water may not be needed.
• Require that all county supported construction projects meet Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) standards by 2008.
• Examine the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy to power County buildings.

Earlier this week Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett gave his state of the city address in which he highlighted various green programs in the city. He touted the new office of Sustainability, and plans to reduce energy costs at City Hall by $35,000. He also committed to reduce total energy usage by 15 percent by 2012 in addition to pledging action on various other environmentally friendly initiatives.

To make a global impact on our climate change crisis, we need more actions taken by leaders locally. It was just on Sunday when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Wisconsin’s carbon dioxide emissions levels have grown faster over the last 25 years than they have nationally. These newly energized efforts in Wisconsin’s largest city is a major step in the right direction. Hopefully these things will be greeted with enthusiasm and support by other local leaders and officials throughout the state.

These are all great ideas to both save money for taxpayers and reduce Milwaukee’s environmental footprint. Nothing in Supervisor Dimitrijevic’s plan is revolutionary or especially expensive… it all takes advantage of existing technology and construction guidelines. The way to gain support for sustainability is to highlight the economic benefits and it looks like Milwaukee is taking the right approach.

First posted at The Proving Ground

Is ethanol the answer?

As for the debate over ethanol, I agree with Brett on most points. Ethanol is no silver bullet. To extend the analogy, it may be more of a rubber bullet. We really haven’t seen conclusive evidence that ethanol will produce a significantly greater amount of energy than the fossil fuels required to create it. All of the hype is coming from corn-producers and the governments (state and federal) that subsidize them.

If we are to use ethanol as a means of alternative energy, it would be best to use the most efficient types of biomass to produce it. This means using sugarcane instead of corn, as ethanol derived from sugarcane is more efficient. Brazil is currently the world’s largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, but the U.S. is currently imposing trade restrictions on its sale in the state to bolster domestic production of ethanol. (I hate to source Wikipedia here… but it’s the most comprehensive source I could find right now)

Oddly enough, it is several Senate Democrats including Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) are urging President Bush to maintain the current trade restrictions in an effort to support corn ethanol producers. Read their letter to President Bush. Democrats including Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Barack Obama (D-IL). It seems that serving their already-heavily-subsidized corn-producing constituents is more important than finding the most efficient fuel source for Americans.

Even with sugarcane ethanol, there’s the issue of the fuel costs to transport it to the U.S.

The solution to decreasing atmospheric pollution, slowing global warming, protecting ourselves from the exhaustion of fossil fuels, or whatever other energy-related problems you may think we have begins with investment in a “diverse portfolio” of renewable energy solutions.

Ethanol isn’t the end-all-be-all of fuel sources. There is no one answer, despite what our politicians might be telling us. In areas where there is lots of sunlight, install solar panels. In areas with lots of wind, install wind turbines. And so forth.

Moving energy only wastes energy. The farther you have to move fuel or the longer your electrical lines are, the less benefit there is.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, global warming is being used by anti-environmentalists and oil company cronies as an easy target. The media is displaying the question as being about whether or not there is global warming. The issue really should be boiled down into two facts: 1) Pollution harms human health and the environment 2) Fossil fuels won’t last forever.

Brett’s completely right that it would be careless to waste taxpayer dollars on research that is unnecessary and unlikely to produce real results. But, energy and sustainability research is absolutely necessary and has already produced results. The longer we wait to combat our energy problems, the tougher they’re going to be. In the end, I’m confident that the time, energy, and resources spent limiting our contribution to air pollution and lowering our dependence on fossil fuels will most not have been wasted.

As Brett noted, only 1% of the U.S. budget is spent on science and technology. I can only assume that major portions of that 1% go to medical and military research. And even the money we’re using for energy development is being spent on the wrong thing. According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, “our economic health depends on the continued availability of reliable and affordable fossil fuels”. They are still pouring money into, “research and development of future fossil energy technologies”.

It’s about time we stop living in the industrial revolution and start working towards a sustainable future.

First posted at The Proving Ground 

In the last few years, it has become a widely acknowledged scientific fact that global warming is a dire and urgent issue facing the human race. However, there are some who still deny its existence or downplay its significance.

To them, I say: global warming doesn’t matter.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that global warming won’t cause the ice caps and glaciers to melt. Let’s assume that the oceans won’t rise to drive millions from their homes and the weather won’t change in unpredictable and dangerous ways.

The main rationale of those who deny global warming is that human action isn’t the cause for global climate change. Even if this were a logical argument, it is impossible to argue that human action has no effect on the environment.

Whether or not it heats up the earth, air pollution is harmful

Regardless of its effect on climate change, air pollution is extremely dangerous to both humans and the environment.

According to CBS News:

“Air pollution threatens the health of human beings and other living things on our planet. While often invisible, pollutants in the air create smog and acid rain, cause cancer or other serious health effects, and diminish the protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere…”

Pardon the double negative, but you can’t argue that air pollution is not bad… no matter how much the oil companies pay you.

It’s so easy to ignore or hide facts that, if accepted, would demand a change in the western life of convenience and, to be honest, excess, that we in the U.S. have come to accept and embrace. I understand that it’s tough for any politician to get re-elected by telling voters that they shouldn’t use as much electricity and shouldn’t drive as much. In fact, politicians are trying to promote renewable resources right now as a means of continuing our current lifestyles. They argue that average citizens shouldn’t have to pay more for gasoline and energy. Very few of our representatives make the argument for conservation and efficiency.

Many of those who actually deny global warming due so in an effort to support the unbridled right of humans to consume as much energy and fuel as they please. Most of these so-called experts also happen to be paid by oil companies. One example is Chris Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (more like the “Idiot’s Guide) and counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received over $1.3 from ExxonMobil.

Even if oil companies stand to make billions from the sale of fossil fuels, it is impossible to argue that fossil fuels will last forever.

Fossil fuels, by definition, are non-renewable. We can’t create more fossil fuel, at least not without burying tons of biomass far beneath the earth’s crust and waiting around for hundreds of millions of years.

The undeniable fact is that fossil fuels will run out. And, if we keep gobbling them up like Takeru Kobayashi, we’re going to face a world-wide energy shortage all too soon.

To be continued…