Category: Energy

This is the first of several posts on models of the transition to alternative fuel vehicles. The first looks at a static equilibrium model of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Another will look at another model of the LCFS, called VISION-CA, which generates fuel carbon intensity scenarios. Finally, I’ll discuss Jeroen Struben’s thesis, which is a full dynamic model that closes crucial loops among vehicle fleets, consumer behavior, fueling infrastructure, and manufacturers’ learning. At some point I will try to put the pieces together into a general reflection on alt fuel policy.

Those who know me might be surprised to see me heaping praise on a static model, but I’m about to do so. Not every problem is dynamic, and sometimes a comparative statics exercise yields a lot of insight.

In a no-longer-so-new paper, Holland, Hughes, and Knittel work out the implications of the LCFS and some variants. In a nutshell, a low carbon fuel standard is one of a class of standards that requires providers of a fuel (or managers of some kind of portfolio) to meet some criteria on average – X grams of carbon per MJ of fuel energy, or Y% renewable content, for example. If trading is allowed (fun, no?), then the constraint effectively applies to the market portfolio as a whole, rather than to individual providers, which should be more efficient. The constraint in effect requires the providers to set up an internal tax and subsidy system – taxing products that don’t meet the standard, and subsidizing those that do. The LCFS sounds good on paper, but when you do the math, some problems emerge:

We show this decreases high-carbon fuel production but increases low-carbon fuel production, possibly increasing net carbon emissions. The LCFS cannot be efficient, and the best LCFS may be nonbinding. We simulate a national LCFS on gasoline and ethanol. For a broad parameter range, emissions decrease; energy prices increase; abatement costs are large ($80-$760 billion annually); and average abatement costs are large ($307-$2,272 per CO tonne). A cost effective policy has much lower average abatement costs ($60-$868).

Those are strong conclusions, and so far as I can determine from reading an early version of the paper and replicating a piece of the model, completely defensible. Oddly, I haven’t observed any impact on the policy debate around the LCFS or its cousin, renewable portfolio standards (RPS) for electricity. The reason may be as follows:

The political appeal of low carbon fuel standards has several components. First, federal resistance to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions has limited states’ options. In particular, the options for addressing carbon emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for 28 percent of U.S. emissions are severely limited. A LCFS might avoid these federal restrictions. Second, Pigouvian taxes, which can correct negative pollution externalities, have proven politically infeasible. A LCFS is not a tax. Third, cap and trade policies, which are more politically palatable, may be undermined by demand shocks. For example, the RECLAIM emissions market was almost destroyed by the California electricity crisis since it was argued that the rigid emissions limits contributed to high electricity prices. A LCFS, by regulating emissions rates rather than emissions, allows for higher emissions in years with higher demand. Finally, politicians are quite sensitive to the effects of policies on energy prices in general and on gasoline prices in particular. A LCFS certainly does not have a direct effect on prices, and one can imagine scenarios (and we will illustrate one) in which a LCFS reduces carbon emissions without increasing gasoline prices.

The appealing aspects of the LCFS come at a high price:

Despite this political appeal, we argue that low carbon fuel standards have a large cost in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. In particular, we show that a LCFS limiting carbon emissions per unit of energy (the energy-based LCFS) can achieve the efficient allocation only under unrealistic assumptions. Moreover, we find that, contrary to the stated purpose, a LCFS can actually raise carbon emissions. Additionally, we show that the best LCFS—from a regulator’s perspective—“under-taxes” all fuels and may require a nonbinding standard, i.e., the best standard may be no standard at all.

The intuition behind these effects is that the LCFS acts as an implicit tax on any fuel with a carbon intensity above the standard, but acts as a subsidy for any fuel with a carbon intensity below the standard. The efficient allocation cannot be attained since it requires that any fuel emitting carbon should be taxed (not subsidized) in equilibrium. Carbon emissions can increase because compliance with the LCFS can be achieved by reducing the production of high carbon fuels or increasing production of low-carbon fuels. In equilibrium, it is optimal for firms to do both. We show that it is possible that increases in carbon from ramping up production of the low-carbon fuel can outweigh the reduction in carbon associated with decreasing output of the high carbon fuel.

HH&K explore some alternatives that are more efficient than the LCFS, including some interesting options that use moving baselines and exploit individual fuel providers’ incentive to free ride.

I built a small model that incorporates the main features of the analysis and runs interactively (using Vensim’s Synthesim mode). It makes nice visuals of some of HH&K’s points. Playing with it, I noticed some additional issues with this kind of policy:

• knife-edge behavior of market volume of alternative fuels as you approach compliance limits (discussed last year): as the required portfolio performance approaches the performance of the best component options, demand for those approaches 100% of volume rapidly.
• differences in the competitive landscape for technology providers, when compared to alternatives like a carbon tax.
• differences in behavior under uncertainty.
• perverse behavior when the elasticity of substitution among fuels is low

These pose some big challenges for the LCFS. I’ll take a look at these in my next installment.

From Green Right Now Reports

Image: state.pa.us

A combination of federal and private sector funding will be the basis of Pennsylvania’s $48 million Green Energy Revolving Loan Fund, providing money for energy-saving and renewable energy projects in existing, non-residential buildings around the state.

The Recovery Act will contribute $12 million to the fund, while The Reinvestment Fund, TRF, will add $36 million and will serve as the program’s manager. Governor Edward Rendell cited TRF’s track record of investing in green and sustainable energy as key elements in the selection process.

Federal guidelines require any potential manager to contribute at least $18 million to the fund. TRF doubled that commitment.

The $48 million total investment is projected to support 500 jobs on projects designed to reduce energy consumption by nearly 800 billion British Thermal Units — enough to power more than 23,000 average homes in Pennsylvania for one year.

Prior to the new commitment, TRF has financed more than 2,526 projects in the Mid-Atlantic region, delivering $939 million. The Department of Environmental Protection and TRF are in the process of finalizing the fund’s guidelines.

“President Obama and Congress had the foresight to make renewable energy and energy conservation a key part of the federal Recovery Act because these are areas that are critically important to the nation’s future,” Rendell said. “This new revolving loan fund is the latest opportunity to be born of that wise decision and, under TRF’s management, the program will put hundreds of people to work incorporating green technologies into buildings that ultimately, will save consumers millions of dollars each year.”

From ecomagination engines burning landfill gas to “treasure hunts” inside our factories that seek out energy waste, we’ve been presenting a steady drumbeat of GE fuel efficiency stories. This time, we’re turning to our colleagues at Beluga Shipping — a GE preferred shipper — and their amazing use of “kite sails” to reduce fuel costs and help the environment. Who knew that in the 21st century, GE’s advanced engines would literally be sailing to their ports of call?

Come sail away! With wind ever-present on the high seas, especially across the world’s primary shipping routes, Beluga decided to harness it — resulting in a sustainable, cost-effective method to slash fuel costs during long ocean voyages. The SkySails system consists of three simple main components: a towing kite with rope, a launch and recovery system, and a control system for automatic operation.

Chartered by GE’s Project Logistics team, the Beluga SkySails cargo vessel — which has the world’s first practical towing kite propulsion system for commercial shipping — set sail in early February from Albany, New York. It was loaded with 250 to 300 tons of power generating equipment that was manufactured at GE’s plant in Schenectady, NY and was was destined for Samsun, Turkey.

In open water, the cargo ship releases a large towing kite attached to its bow. The kite resembles a parasail and floats high above the ship to help pull it through the water. At present, SkySails can be attached to cargo vessels with an effective load of between eight and 16 tons — SkySails with an effective load of 32 tons are planned for 2012.

Tow-rrific tech: Samsun project team members, including Deepak Parashar, Joe Picciocchi, and Laurie Murling, had the opportunity to board the vessel and meet with SkySail engineers to understand more about the technology and it’s ecological impact. “Our team believes it is everybody’s responsibility, personal and professional, to think green and leverage every opportunity in support of ecomagination,” said GE’s Randy Charboneau, Manager, Logistics Thermal Americas.

Lower costs can be realized through less fuel consumption — and the fuel savings depend on the prevailing wind conditions. A ship’s average fuel costs can be reduced by 10 to 35 percent annually, but under optimal wind conditions up to 50 percent can be cut. On average, using the SkySails system leads to a 39 percent savings in freight costs.

Send it soaring: The ship transports GE’s large generators, gas turbines, and steam turbines.

Reduced fuel consumption leads to less emissions — and implementing wide-scale use of kite propulsion systems could potentially reduce millions of tons of CO2, NOX, and SO2 from the atmosphere. Noted GE’s Randy Charboneau: “This is one way we (GE) are leveraging the technology of our suppliers worldwide to help with (environmental) efforts.”

The answer, my friend: Current estimates indicate that shipping is responsible for more than 7 percent of the worldwide emissions of sulfur dioxide, with a total of 10 million tons per year.

Does this mean commercial shipping is going back to the days of huge rigs and oversized galleons? Not quite. The technology is still in its exploratory phase, so use of SkySails on a large scale is still a few years away. Even so, increased operating costs and the rising price of oil are pushing the shipping industry to further utilize this new technology — with future projects planning to use kites with a larger sail surface, leading to better efficiencies.

* Visit the SkySails website
* Read background materials about the SkySails system
* Learn about the European Union’s wind propulsion project
* Learn more about Beluga Group in their online magazine
* Learn more about GE Energy in these GE Reports stories
* Read about our energy “treasure hunts”

To watch a video about the Beluga system in use, visit Beluga’s press page and click on “Multimedia.”

Howard Lovy wrote:

Konarka Technologies, a Lowell, MA, developer of flexible, nanotechnology-based “Power Plastic” that converts light to energy, will receive $20 million from Konica Minolta in an R&D and investment agreement announced today. The companies will jointly develop and distribute organic thin-film photovoltaics.

Konarka brings to the table its simplified, roll-to-roll manufacturing process, which the firm says can be scaled up with significantly lower labor and capital costs than was possible with previous generations of solar-cell-manufacturing technology. Japan-based Konica Minolta is large, diversified company with its hand in office supplies, imaging, and medical equipment. In the company’s attempt to make inroads in environmental and energy applications, Konica Minolta is developing organic thin-film photovoltaic materials. The firm promises to be Konarka’s lead Asian business partner.

The companies will work together to improve their materials and optical coating technologies to achieve higher conversion efficiency, longer life, and lower manufacturing costs. If the companies are successful, they will establish a joint venture in Japan to produce organic, thin-film photovoltaic panels.

Konarka has revealed at least six new partners or customers over the past year or so who are integrating Power Plasticits photovoltaic material into products such as handbags that store solar energy to recharge electronic devices. Konarka’s other investors include 3i, Chevron, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Good Energies, Mackenize Investments, the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, New Enterprise Associates, Partech International, and Vanguard Ventures.

Comments (1) | Reprints | Share:  

 
 
 

Above-average temperatures that are expected to continue in Alberta may be good news for those who hate long winters in Western Canada, but it’s bad news for companies who want to extend their winter drilling programs into March.

As of Monday morning, the Government of Alberta’s Transportation Department implemented road bans for the southern half of the province.

The rig count is still in the 570s, as it had been through February. However, as the rigs working south of Edmonton finish their wells, road restrictions will make it increasingly difficult for the rigs to relocate, according to Raymond James analyst Andrew Bradford. That means the rig count will begin its seasonal decline.

The region includes the newly popular Cardium play southwest of Edmonton. It should see a seasonal slowdown, followed by a pickup in activity when road bans are lifted later this spring, Mr. Bradford told clients.

He points out that while most Western Canadian rigs work north and west of Edmonton, weather forecasters are also calling for above-average temperatures in Grande Prairie in the coming weeks. As a result, Alberta’s thaw line should continue to move northward in the next few days, impacting more and more oil and gas drillers in the region.

Jonathan Ratner

As the demand for clean energy is on a rise, inventors all over the globe are working on systems that generate energy using natural resources. While solar and wind energy seem to dominate the field, there is no dearth of green minds that are figuring out systems which make use of living entities to do the needful. From human energy to tree power, research has begun to convert nature into a living battery to power the future. Check out the slideshow after the jump that will take you to a journey of how energy is being generated from different forms of life.

(more…)

The SMH has a report on Australia’s increasing dependence on imported oil, following the release of a report into Australia’s energy resources by Geoscience Australia and ABARE (the Australian Energy Resource Assessment) – Australia’s oil reserves ‘dwindling’.

Australia’s oil reserves are dwindling and the nation is becoming increasingly reliant on imports for transport fuels, a new report shows.

The Australian Energy Resource Assessment (AERA) report has been released by Resources Minister Martin Ferguson.

The peak industry body for oil and gas producers says the report into Australia’s energy resources has debunked the myth the nation won’t have enough energy resources into the future.

But the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) says the report also shows the nation will need to import more oil to run its transport network.

That reliance is likely to increase unless there are new significant discoveries of crude oil or alternatives are made using the development of condensate resources using the offshore gas reserves.

APPEA chief executive Belinda Robinson said in general the report painted a bright picture for the future of the energy industry, citing over $200 million in projects on the drawing board.

BusinessWeek reports that in the short term, production of both oil and natural gas is on the rise – Australian Oil, LNG Production to Increase Next Year.

Australian oil output may rise 6 percent next fiscal year and liquefied natural gas exports may climb 4 percent, boosted by new projects led by BHP Billiton Ltd. and Woodside Petroleum Ltd., a government forecaster said.

Oil production is expected to jump to 29.5 billion liters, or about 508,000 barrels a day, in the year ending June 30, 2011, on projected increases from BHP’s Pyrenees project and Apache Corp.’s Van Gogh development, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics said in a report today. LNG exports may rise to 18 million metric tons, buoyed by Perth- based Woodside’s Pluto venture in Western Australia, it said.

Australia’s total energy exports may increase 20 percent to A$66 billion next fiscal year as a global economic recovery drives oil prices higher, the report said. The average price for the West Texas Intermediate benchmark will gain 25 percent to $77 a barrel in 2010, the Canberra-based bureau forecasts.

“Energy demand is closely linked with economic growth, and in 2010-2011 we are expecting things to rebound,” Alan Copeland, an analyst at ABARE, said by phone today. “When you talk about exports, the numbers paint a fairly positive story.”

Oil production is set to gain 4 percent in 2011-2012, then gradually fall to 25 billion liters three years later, it said. LNG exports may rise at an average annual rate of 9 percent over the following four years and could “increase significantly” after 2014-2015 with first production at Chevron Corp.’s A$43 billion Gorgon venture, ABARE said. Coal-seam gas-to-LNG projects in Queensland state also could add to Australian exports, according to the bureau.

Photo: Green Right Now

From Green Right Now Reports

Californians got just a little more incentive to think solar late last month when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill raising the cap on solar net metering from 2.5 to five percent.

Net metering is the process that allows solar owners to send surplus solar electricity back to the grid in exchange for credit. Customers are billed only for the net energy they consume.

Currently, more than 50,000 California businesses, schools and homes take part in the program to help lower their utility bills.

The legislation became more critical as Pacific Gas & Electric nears the 2.5% net-metering limit. More than 16,000 of the utility’s customers have installed more than 173 megawatts of solar generation, and several thousand more have applied for rebates to install 80 more megawatts, according to government data.

California Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), author of the bill, said the new law will help promote the growth of the solar industry in the state. California leads the nation in solar energy, accounting for more than 65% of all solar installed in the U.S.

“The Governor’s signature signals to the over one thousand solar contractors and companies doing business in California that our solar market is stable and ready for investment,” Skinner said. “California is continuing to let the sunshine in to produce affordable, local power for our businesses, schools and public facilities and homes.”

The tripartisan Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Senate climate squad made a splash this weekend with its decision to drop cap-and-trade from its (eventual) legislative proposal, instead imposing carbon controls on various polluting sectors of the economy. As Brad Plumer points out, this isn’t necessarily bad news for environmental advocates; treating the country as a monolithic source of pollution certainly overlooks the important distinctions between, say, electric utilities and gas-guzzling Hummers.

As I see it, though, there are two main problems with this approach:

First, we have to take for granted that any major energy and climate legislation in Congress will be hijacked by special interests. This happened with the House cap-and-trade bill, which saw huge numbers of pollution permits handed out for free to utilities, coal generators, oil refiners, etc. But under cap-and-trade, no matter how many permits you give away, no matter how much revenue the government loses that could have been spent on valuable clean energy investments, you still have a firm economy-wide emissions cap to show for it — a guarantee that the United States will emit over 80 percent less carbon in 2050 than it does now.

With this proposal, though, it looks like we lose that. If electric utilities successfully lobby the Senate and get it to weaken their emissions target by 20 percent, and coal companies win a 15 percent reprieve, well then you’ve just taken a huge step back in the country’s commitment to fight global warming. It’s possible that when we actually see the text of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill, there will be some provision to prevent this kind of manipulation, but I’ve yet to see anything to that effect.

Second, there’s the annoying truth that you can keep taking the teeth out of climate legislation, but you’re still not going to get many — if any — more Republicans or conservative Democrats to vote for it. Case in point from The Washington Post:

Even some moderate Republicans, seen as possible supporters of a new climate bill, remain opposed to the idea of putting a price on carbon, which Lieberman still calls “sine qua non,” or an essential ingredient, of any such bill. Andy Fisher, a spokesman for Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), said the senator, who has opposed cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, could support pricing carbon “potentially at some point, but not at the moment.”

Which is Congress-speak for: Sure, I’d consider voting for climate legislation, but not until after the midterm elections, when the Democratic majority will be sufficiently reduced to make passing a comprehensive climate bill impossible. At which point I’ll oppose it because “it simply doesn’t have the votes.”

After years of inaction, blatant and willful violations of federal law, and lack of enforcement by previous administrations, the U.S. Department of Energy has just announced that they intend to pursue enforcement actions against the manufacturers of water-using appliances that violate national water and energy savings laws that have been on the books for nearly 20 years.

A number of very simple, but important, water-using fixtures can be designed to work beautifully and yet save enormous amounts of water. That was the idea behind the water-efficiency standards that passed with the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (yes, 1992!). That law put in place rules for manufacturers of toilets, showerheads, and faucets. And since those rules went into effect, a huge amount of water, and energy, and money has been saved.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dr. Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute, an internationally recognized water expert and a MacArthur Fellow.

Read his full bio…

But like all rules and regulations, they are only as good as society’s willingness to follow them and government’s willingness to enforce them. Almost all of the major manufacturers have done a great job in producing high-quality fixtures that meet the standards. But a few manufacturers have flouted the law by either failing to ensure that their water fixtures met the national standards, or by failing to prove it to federal regulators. And until recently, federal regulators looked the other way, or didn’t look at all. (Of course, this isn’t the only instance of the complete failure of the federal government to enforce rules already in place to protect the environment, nor is it the most egregious). Five years ago, the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, California Urban Water Conservation Council, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and the City of Seattle notified federal and state agencies of independent test results for some commercial showerheads showing blatant violations of the National Energy Policy Act. Yet no action was taken at the time.

That is changing. A couple of weeks ago, the US Department of Energy’s Office of the General Counsel issued “Notices of Proposed Civil Penalties” to four manufacturers of showerheads for failing to certify that their products meet the standard flow rate of 2.5 gallons per minute. Unless the manufacturers satisfy the DoE within thirty days, the Department will file action either in District Court or with an Administrative Law Judge.

Water Number: $3,475,120. This is the total of the proposed civil penalties the Department of Energy will impose on these four manufacturers if they fail to certify that their products meet the conservation standards of the law. The cost to society in lost water, higher energy use, unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions, and money out of pocket for homeowners is far, far higher.

Why is this such a big deal, beyond the fact that the law is the law? Water-efficient fixtures save water, energy, wastewater treatment costs, water purification costs, and money for homeowners. When water utility demand is reduced by improvements in efficiency, new costly investment in water supply can be delayed or even prevented. And the numbers add up:

A ten-minute shower using a showerhead that uses 5 gallons per minute, as opposed to one that meets the standard of 2.5 gallons per minute, will use an extra 25 gallons of water. If you take a shower every other day, this could save as much as 4500 gallons of water per year. 4500 gallons would cost me around $30, including my water and wastewater and local sewer costs. But it would also cost me another $14 in natural gas costs just to heat that extra water. That’s around $44 a year in savings from an efficient showerhead, which typically costs just a few tens of dollars to buy and install. And these savings come year after year after year. And some of the showerheads found to be violating the standards used 12 or 13 gallons per minute, not just 5. [Another problem is plumbers and architects who are starting to install shower “systems” with multiple showerheads. Each single showerhead might meet the federal standard, but this loophole is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law.]

Multiply that waste over the population of California, or the United States, and the water and energy savings are massive. In the Pacific Institute’s 2003 report on the potential for urban water efficiency improvements, we estimated that if all remaining inefficient California showerheads were swapped out for water-efficient models, they would save 40 billion gallons a year now being used wastefully for showers. And some of the newest, well-designed showerheads flow at 1.5 gallons per minute — another massive improvement even over the federal standard of 2.5 gpm.

Some studies suggest that shower length can go up when low-flow showerheads are installed, though others actually have found a drop in shower duration. And no doubt some readers will complain about how crummy their showers feel. But well-designed showerheads, even low-flow showerheads, feel great. If you don’t like your low-flow showerhead because of the feel, get a good one and maintain it — the expense is small.

Here are some websites and groups that talk about the savings, review low-flow showerheads, or provide other useful water efficiency information:

Alliance for Water Efficiency

California Urban Water Conservation Council

Metaefficient (The Guide to Highly Efficient Things)

Flex Your Power

Peter Gleick

Dr. Gleick’s blog posts are provided in cooperation with the SFGate. Previous posts can be found here.

Well, that didn’t take long. Already analysts are crawling out of the woodwork to put the seemingly miraculous Bloom Box fuel cell in its place as yet another energy saving technology that won’t perform as advertised.

This week it was IDC Energy Insights analyst Sam Jaffe, who said that while the fuel cell developed by Bloom Energy CEO K.R Sridhar and his team was definitely “not bogus,” it just doesn’t differentiate itself well enough from already available fuel cell technologies—especially as it pertains to price.

And the device’s supposedly unique “fuel-switching” ability? Not unique at all, Jaffe claimed on his Energy Insight blog, in a post titled “Four Things Bloom Energy Forgot to Tell the World”:

“Any high-temperature fuel cell should be able to do that. The fact that it’s solid oxide and it’s primarily ceramic opens up the possibility of making it much more cheaply, but every start-up in the energy field has an expensive product that they claim one day will be cheap. There is no reason to believe that Bloom has the ability to make it that much more cheaply. I’m pretty pessimistic about it.”

Indeed. Further…fueling Jaffe’s pessimism is the belief that a Bloom Box isn’t really all that green if you’re comparing it to the way we traditionally get power from the grid. At a cost of $7-$8/watt, he contends, the miracle box is no less expensive than photovoltaics that have been purchased at a rate of 100 kW at a time.

Another miracle energy tech bites the dust? Unless Bloom Energy can curb costs and green things up a bit, the answer for now is “maybe.” Unless the unicorns get involved, anyway.

Still confused about fuel cells and the Bloom Box? Be sure to check out our regular Giz Explains column on this very topic! [IDC via CNET]

General Electric wind turbine at Jiminy Peak, Hancock MA (photo: Swerz via Flickr)

Friday’s Washington Post provides Op-Ed space to Sunil Sharan, whom they describe in this way:

The writer, a director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, has worked in the clean-energy industry for a decade. The views expressed are his own.

Sharan titles his piece “The green jobs myth” and then goes on to warn us, in a tone that is ever so serious and with much hand-wringing, that “The facts challenge the prevailing thinking among some policymakers and officials that green jobs are a principal reason for transforming the economy.”

What does he choose as his example of how the green jobs movement is going to eat jobs, rather than create them? He chooses that central piece of the green movement that we’ve all been talking about, the “smart meter”. [Yeah, that was snark; I had never heard of smart meters before this column, had you?] Through magical math, Sharan then informs us that the installation of smart electric meters is going to cost us 28,000 meter reading jobs.

But how does he get there? After calculating that installation of the stated goal of 20 million smart meters over the next five years will create 1600 jobs for installing the meters, he then calculates the lost meter reader jobs. The central part of his calculation is here:

Now let’s consider job losses. It takes one worker today roughly 15 minutes to read a single meter. So in a day, a meter reader can scan about 30 meters, or about 700 meters a month. Meters are typically read once a month, making it the base period to calculate meter-reading jobs. Reading a million meters every month engages about 1,400 personnel. In five years, 20 million manually read meters are expected to disappear, taking with them some 28,000 meter-reading jobs.

Really? Fifteen minutes to read a single meter and a reader only reads 30 in a day? What planet does Mr. Sharan come from? Just a few seconds with teh Google found this as an alternative for the work load of a meter reader:

Suczynski is a NIPSCO meter reader.

/snip/

Suczynski spends five workdays a week crisscrossing front yards, backyards and side yards from Gary to Crown Point with a sense of proprietary right that even a sworn police officer would hesitate to exercise.

/snip/

This time of year, his trek to read 500 or so natural gas and electric meters per day is often through a foot or more of snow and in temperatures down to 0 degrees. That also means the meter is often shrouded in ice, fence gates are frozen shut, and dogs seem edgier than usual.

Hmmm. Sharan is off by just a bit. What happens to his numbers if a reader is responsible for 500 meters a day instead of 30? That would reduce the jobs lost by a factor of 500 divided by 30, or reduce his estimate of 28,000 jobs lost to 1680 jobs lost. When a realistic workload for meter readers is taken into the calculation, the jobs situation looks to be pretty close to break-even, 1600 created and 1680 lost.

Thanks for playing, Mr Sharan, and please try again some day when we could all use another laugh.

Tags: alternative energy, Books, Washington Post

CHICAGO (STMW)  — The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded a $500,000 grant to the Chicago Green Healthcare Initiative (CGHI) to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Chicago-area hospitals by reducing their energy use, according to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin’s office.

The Chicago Green Healthcare Initiative is a partnership between Health Care Without Harm and the City of Chicago. The Initiative’s goal is to protect public health by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution generated by energy use in the health care sector, according to a release Friday from Durbin’s office. CGHI is assisting more than 20 area hospitals reduce their energy consumption by as much as 10 percent, reversing current trends of annual energy usage growth up to 3 percent. CGHI’s ultimate goal is to work toward carbon neutral health care facilities.

The announced funding is part of $7.8 million awarded nationwide to 20 different communities by the EPA on Friday. The awards will be used to increase energy efficiency, save consumers money, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as create jobs and provide green job training, the release said. Preliminary calculations estimate that projects funded by these awards will result in 135,000 fewer metric tons of greenhouse gases being emitted annually by 2012, roughly the same result as removing 25,000 passenger vehicles from the roads, and will save more than $4.5 million per year in energy costs, according to Durbin’s office.

Read the original article from WBBM News Radio.

Distributed via Chicago Press Release Services

ANTV, a citizen journalism site recently awarded for its contribution to freedom of the press in Azerbaijan, posts a YouTube video [AZ/EN] interview with Elmin Badalaov, a fourth year student at Baku's Oil Academy expelled allegedly because of his investigation into corruption at the prestigious institute.

Luke Timmerman wrote:

3Tier Group, the Seattle-based company that has developed a map of the world’s best places for wind and solar power plants, has raised $3 million in new equity financing, according to a regulatory filing. The company raised $10 million in December 2008, and recently completed its detailed map of solar power hotspots. The company, which has 60 employees, doesn’t disclose its financial results, although CEO Ken Westrick said earlier this week in an interview that the company is “close” to turning profitable as the economy is beginning to improve for alternative energy.

Comments | Reprints | Share:  

 
 
 

The need to customize and tailor energy solutions by region was a key theme emerging from “The Future of Alternative Energy Summit” that just wrapped in Salzbergen, Germany. The two-day series of technology briefings and panel discussions, convened by GE and held at our European Headquarters for Renewables and Wind Turbine Manufacturing, brought together a mix of business leaders, policy experts and media from across Europe to tackle the complex issue of how to help Europe achieve its ambitious energy targets and emission reduction goals despite recent setbacks. As Kenneth Backgard, from the Assembly of European regions, said at the event: “To have success and really engage the population with climate change, you have to go down to the individual level. In Scandinavia where I come from we have made a lot of progress in producing heat from waste. I was in Italy recently where there has been less development in the area but when you start to talk to people about how they will see benefits on their bill and save money they start to understand.”

Ready for inspection: Industry leaders, politicians and journalists had an opportunity to get a first hand look at GE’s next generation of wind turbines being constructed at our plant in Germany, seen above. A panel discussion included Hungarian MEP, Edit Herczog; Kenneth Backgard, Chairman of the Working Group on Climate Change and Energy for the Assembly of European Regions (AER); Dr. Cord Landsmann, Chief Financial Officer of E.On Renewables; and Jörg Fischer, Chief Financial Officer of EnviTec Biogas.

The importance of a regional approach, with communities finding their own local responses to the climate change challenge, was echoed by Hungarian MEP, Dr Edit Herczog, who said that while broad legislation would help deliver results, it could only have a limited impact, partially because most key decisions still rested with each European state rather than being made at a European level. She explains more in the clip below:

The stringent demands of the Europeans Union’s 20-20-20 targets call for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is 20 percent below that of 1990; reducing primary energy use compared with projected levels by 20 percent; and ensuring that 20 percent of the EU’s energy consumption should come from renewable resources.

Describing the summit and the ecomagination line of more energy efficient options that are available in the region, GE Energy President for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia and CIS Rod Christie told us: “We had a great opportunity to put our money where our mouth is and show how an environmentally conscious program can make good financial sense, while not proving a burden to an existing system. The goal was to help educate the attendees about what the opportunities and realities are in their home countries, so that they can ask better questions of government and industry leaders.”

In the clip below, Klaus Klipp, CEO of the Assembly of European Regions, gives his thoughts on the summit:

Rod added that one of the key issues surrounding the implementation of alternative energy options in Eastern Europe is perception in the region. There is often not a clear understanding as to what is myth, and what is reality — as there is often an assumption that alternative sources are too expensive or not viable. For example, some customers may believe that wind farms might be more expensive to build and maintain, he says, when that is not necessarily true. There has been a vast improvement in wind capture technology today, enhancing productivity versus just several years ago,” he said. Nuclear and cleaner coal are also alternative energy options, as are technology options such as GE’s ecomagination Jenbacher gas engines, which are already operational throughout the continent and can create huge efficiencies, such as harnessing biofuels and coal mine gas as energy sources.

Leap-frogging: At the summit, Rod Christie, above, also highlighted GE’s progress in developing alternative energy initiatives in Eastern and Central Europe. “There are a lot of interesting projects being developed in this region. Eastern and Central Europe are often at an advantage compared to ‘old Europe’ as there is more opportunity to jump forward to newer technologies,” he said. “Many people are surprised when I tell them that the largest onshore wind farm outside the US is in Romania, powered by GE turbines. The region has the potential to be a world leader in this area.”

* Learn more about the energy summit
* Read coverage from the event about our offshore wind technology
* Read “Port of Rotterdam sailing to sustainability on tech wave” on GE Reports
* Read “GE’s “sustainable cities” road show tours Europe” on GE Reports
* Read “Google & GE call for home energy info in Copenhagen” on GE Reports
* Learn about four GE cities projects that received “Benchmark of Excellence” awards
* Learn about Europe’s biggest initiative to reduce urban greenhouse gas emissions
* Learn more about the European road show
* Learn more about GE’s work on “Building Sustainable Cities”