The EPA is reviewing rules in the Clean Air Act governing the air pollution associated with oil and gas drilling.

In light of the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the media has increased its focus on U.S. oil and gas drilling pursuits. However, that is not say the media is tipping the scales in its coverage. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is so concerned about ramped-up drilling efforts in recent years that they are revisiting pollution rules associated with drilling under the Clean Air Act. Though the best way of reducing emissions is complete transition to solar and wind, this is certainly a positive step in the right direction.

Current rules regulating the industry have a number of loopholes that have allowed thousands of drilling operations to run without permits (i.e., thousands of sources of air pollution operating “under the radar.”)

As reported by the Associated Press, groups advocating this review of current drilling rules hope the EPA will:

• Increase monitoring of air pollution associated with drilling
• Require studies of the cumulative effects of toxins emitted from drilling pollution
• Limit the use of open-waste pits in favor of closed-loop systems
• Require the incorporation of advanced technologies that will help limit air pollution

“We want to make sure to reduce emissions from oil and gas production,”says Kathleen Sgamma, the Western Energy Alliance’s director of government affairs. “A lot of variables go into deciding what controls and technologies can be used.”

Beyond its own review, the EPA is asking for public input at a meeting in Arlington, Texas, on August 2 and a meeting in Denver, Colorado, on August 3. With all information gathered, the EPA is expected to make changes to three sets of rules in the Clean Air Act by November 30, 2011.

Meredith Simonds Oil, Renewable Energy air pollution, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, gas drilling, oil drilling

In the wake of the BP oil spill, the EPA is taking a closer look at the drilling industry, not only limited to oil but natural gas too.

Closer scrutiny of the oil industry isn’t the only thing to come of the BP spill. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is launching a study of natural gas drilling practices as well. If the drilling industry isn’t responsible enough to regulate themselves on oil – cutting corners to inflate profits – it stands to reason they could be doing the same with natural gas. Though complete conversion to renewable energy sources like solar and wind is ideal, cleaning up the fossil fuel industry is a welcome change too.

The main source of concern regarding natural gas drilling is the fracturing or “fracking” process used to extract the gas.

In its comprehensive coverage of this story, The Huffington Post explains the fracking process like this:

“Water mixed with chemicals and sand is injected at high pressure to fracture shale, the sand holding fractures open so gas can flow up the well.

“Each frack job uses an average of 4 million gallons of water, delivered to a well site by hundreds of tanker trucks. Some of the “produced” wastewater remains in the well – estimates range from 20 percent to 90 percent. What comes back up the well – briny, chemical-laden and possibly radioactive from exposure to naturally existing radon underground – is usually stored in open pits until it’s trucked to treatment plants or underground injection wells.”

Just 6 years ago, the EPA conducted a study of the natural gas industry. The agency reported that fracking posed no safety threat to underground water reserves. In response, Congress ruled federal regulation of the natural gas drilling industry was unnecessary. However, the EPA report has been criticized as scientifically flawed, and the EPA of allowing politics to taint its decision.

The timing of this closer scrutiny of the fracking process is coming at a pivotal point. Natural gas companies are flocking to the East Coat’s Marcellus Shale Region where natural gas is in such abundance that experts say it could power the East Coast for the next 50 years.

Of course, the drilling industry says fracking is a perfectly safe process. But in wake of the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, the drilling industry has lost its credibility, and rightly so.

Meredith Simonds Oil, Renewable Energy BP, drilling, Environmental Protrection Agency, EPA, fracking, fracturing, natural gas, oil spill

After months of trying to put sweeping clean energy legislation centerstage, Democrats have given up as they have not a single vote of Republican support.

After months of back-and-forth debate over what a climate bill should look like, Congress has apparently given up. Democrats failed to get a single vote behind what was watered-down legislation anyway. So as announced yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats are forfeiting the fight. Though an energy bill with a narrower focus is expected to be presented next week, it in no way resembles the sweeping legislation necessary to effectively transition our country to a future dependent on clean solar and wind instead of dirty coal and oil.

As you may recall, there was tremendous momentum behind the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Climate Bill Proposal just a few short months ago. Yet in April, on news from Senator Reid that Congress may give immigration reform priority over energy, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham essentially pulled his support of the bill he helped create.

In April I wrote of the climate bill debacle:

Senator Graham resented Reid’s position, suggesting it is merely a political ploy intended to capitalize on the country’s sensitivity to immigration issues right now….

[However] Some suggest the Republican Graham has been wavering on the climate issue for some time anyway, feeling the heat from Republicans for supporting a bi-partisan climate bill with the Democratic Kerry and Independent Lieberman. In other words, the suggestion is that Graham is using Reid’s position as a scapegoat of sorts.

Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman never wavered in their support of the bill, but it wasn’t enough. Republicans continued to object over what they viewed as a national energy tax.

What Democrats wanted the bill to do was encourage industry to incorporate more renewable energy into their power supplies. The plan? To charge fees to power plants, manufacturers and other large polluters for their dirty energy output.

Republicans countered that the industry would simply pass the additional cost of dirty energy onto the customer, hiking up electricity bills and the cost of fuel. They also argued that manufacturers would simply set up shop overseas where they can use all the dirty energy they want for free.

To appease Republicans and get something passed, Democrats limited the bill to the electricity sector only. Still a no go, this bare-bones version failed to get support from a single Republican in the Senate.

Now the Senate is set to vote on a narrower energy bill next week — one limited to issues surrounding the Gulf Coast oil spill and the generic-sounding “improvement of energy efficiency.”

Meredith Simonds Climate change, Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind Power clean energy, climate bill, energy bill, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Lindsay Graham, Solar, Wind

Thousands of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the country are being funded through the federal ChargePoint America program.

One of the challenges most often cited regarding mainstream use of electric vehicles is the lack of infrastructure necessary to charge them. For these alternative fuel vehicles to replace gas-guzzlers as the vehicle of choice, like gas stations now, woudn’t we need charging stations on every corner too? Well, thanks to a new government program, we could see just that real soon.

ChargePoint America is a $37 million federally-funded government program that is allocating the funds necessary to provide thousands of electric vehicle charging stations for selected cities across the country.

Based on consumer interest in electric vehicles by geographic location, the following cities have been selected for the ChargePoint Program:

• Austin, TX
• Bellevue-Redmond, WA
• Detroit, MI
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York City, NY
• Sacramento, CA
• San Jose-San Francisco Bay area, CA
• Washington, D.C.

And we’re not talking about a program with a start date months or years down the road. On July 15, New York City received its first electric vehicle charging station – the first of hundreds more planned throughout the city.

As reported by Earth911:

“ChargePoint will provide Level II (220-240 volts) charging stations only, meaning that a vehicle can charge within four to six hours, deemed optimal for overnight or long-length charging. Lowenthal says that the stations accept credit cards just as a gas pump does.

“The charging systems are provided at no cost to the recipient through the DOE program, although the cost of installation is the recipient’s responsibility. These costs range between $1,000 and $10,000, with home charging stations being less expensive and public curbside charging stations being more expensive.”

Meredith Simonds Cars, Renewable Energy alternative fuel, ChargePoint America, electric vehicles, New York City

If you've got the smartest "smart grid" idea, GE will reward you handsomely for it.

If you’re tired of government and big biz missing the most obvious solutions to our biggest problems, this is your chance to enlighten them – at least when it comes to GE’s approach to the smart grid system. They’re looking to more effectively incorporate and deliver clean energy, from solar to wind, and regardless of your educational or professional background, they want your ideas on the best way of doing it. 

Between now and September 30, GE and four venture capital companies are sponsoring the $200 million ”Ecomagination Challenge: Powering the Grid.” Anyone can submit ideas for consideration, with six cash prizes and the potential to enter into a partnership with GE for the commercial development of the idea.

THE CATEGORIES

GE poses three questions for your consideration in three areas of smart grid development:

1) Renewables. Making the best use of the energy created by renewable resources is critical to a reliable supply of affordable energy. What kinds of technologies or processes do you think will maximize the penetration of renewables into the grid?

2) Grid efficiency. In terms of technology, processes and policy, what do you think are the best means to help us realize greater gains in grid efficiency and outage management?

3) EcoHomes/EcoBuildings. What new technologies, processes or business models can help consumers use energy more wisely and improve our energy balance?

THE PRIZES

All ideas are posted live to the Ecomagination website where readers can vote on their favorites. The winner of the popularity contest will receive $50,000. In addition, the competition’s judges (reps from GE and the venture capital firms involved) will choose five other winners, each one of whom will receive $500,000.

Though GE makes no promises, any one of these ideas may be backed by the $200 million allocated for this project.

Speaking of allocated funds, last year President Obama designated $11 billion for upgrades to the nation’s electric grid. Currently it is largely run on an analog system, whereas a “smart” grid relies on digital technology.

As of this blogging, there are 221 ideas and 603 votes cast for the Ecomagination Challenge, and that’s less than a week into the competition with more than 2 months to go. To enter, learn more and register at the Ecomagination Challenge site. You have until September 30 to submit as many smart ideas as you like!

Meredith Simonds Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind Power clean energy, Ecomagination, Ecomagination Challenge, GE, smart grid, Solar, Wind

In the first Solar Decathlon Europe, the team from Virginia Tech took home the top honors for its design of a consumer-friendly home.

I’ve grown so accustomed to news of the U.S. lagging behind other countries in clean energy that I’m pleased and proud to share news of an American victory in an international solar competition.

As reported by Earth911, the team from Virginia Tech took home first place in the Solar Decathlon Europe!

The Solar Decathlon started in the U.S. in 2002. It’s a challenge posed to colleges worldwide, asking teams to build solar-powered homes that are judged on the same standards required of LEED-certified homes:

1) Sustainable site development

2) Water savings

3) Energy efficiency

4) Materials selection

5) Indoor environmental quality

But, the Solar Decathlon goes one BIG step further: Entries must produce as much or more energy than they consume. Beyond that, “the winner of the competition is the team that best blends affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence with optimal energy production and maximum efficiency.”

Since the mission of the Solar Decathlon is to make solar homes more appealing to consumers, entries built on participating college campuses are disassembled and rebuilt at the National Mall in Washington D.C. There they are not only judged for the competition, but open to tours for the public.

Virginia Tech has participated in the U.S. competition from the beginning, with entries in the 2002, 2005 and 2009 Solar Decathlons. So it should come as no surprise that the school took top honors at the first Solar Decathlon Europe.

There were 191,000 visitors to the Solar Villa in Madrid, Spain, where the University of Florida placed 8th in the competition.

Meredith Simonds Solar Solar, Solar Decathlon, Solar Decathlon Europe, University of Florida, Virginia Tech

On June 8, 2010, the Solar Impulse solar-powered plane completed a record-setting voyage - a non-stop 26-hour flight at a maximum height of more than 28,000 feet.

Yesterday a solar-powered plane completed its record-setting flight in Switzerland — a non-stop 26-hour flight at more than 28,000 feet above the sea level, at its height. Veteran pilot Andre Borshberg piloted the journey. As reported by The New York Times, the pilot’s thoughts upon landing reflect a sense of awe at the possibilities of the solar-powered future of clean energy flight:

“I’ve been a pilot for 40 years now, but this flight has been the most incredible one of my flying career…. Just sitting there and watching the battery charge level rise and rise, thanks to the sun.”

Constructed of carbon fiber materials, the Solar Impulse:

• Weighs 3,500 pounds
• Runs on batteries charged by 12,000 solar panels to power 4 small engines
• Rivals commercial jets for its wingspan, at a width of more than 200 feet
• Travels at an average speed of 26 miles per hour
• Reached a maximum speed of 78 miles per hour and a height of 28,543 feet during its record-setting flight

Seven years ago, the Solar Impulse project was born, the brainchild of project co-founder Bertrand Piccard, the same visionary who, in1999, was the first to fly a hot air balloon non-stop around the world – a journey planned for the Solar Impulse one day.

The Solar Impulse made its maiden voyage last year, traveling a distance of 1,000 feet, several feet off the ground. USA Today reported then that the Solar Impulse project founders plan an Atlantic voyage next, then a trip around the world by 2011 or 2012.

That said, theoretically, the Solar Impulse could make multiple loops around the world. Running on solar power that is stored during the day for use at night, the Solar Impulse could very well fly indefinitely.

Meredith Simonds Renewable Energy, Solar Andre Borshberg, Bertrand Piccard, Solar Impulse, solar-powered flight, Switzerland

Feel like hopping into the solar panel arena and don’t have the first clue where to start? We do all the work for you – just open this solar calculator web page and it tells you how many solar panels you will need to install in your area of the country. No need to type in a thing!

As an additional point of interest, the complete math-and-methodology on how the number of panels were estimated are presented so you can verify the numbers on your own.

http://www.altfuelsnow.com/solar-energy/hands-free-solar-calculator.php

Kristy Wesh Solar hands free, methodology, solar calculator, solar power

Obama's recent announcement of $2 billion for solar energy investments increases $13 trillion national debt, which is largely owed to China.

As much as I support solar energy in the U.S., my enthusiasm is always tempered knowing the majority of the solar panels we install are made in China. What’s the point of investing in clean American energy only to inflate our carbon footprint by transporting the necessary parts from thousands of miles away?

With that in mind, my first instinct was one of support for President Obama’s recent announcement that the federal government is investing $2 billion in solar projects dependent on panels and other components made in the U.S.

Obama announced this plan in his radio address on Saturday. The $2 billion will come from federal stimulus funds, investing in:

• Abengoa Solar to build one of the largest solar plants in the world in Arizona, capable of powering 70,000 homes. Reportedly, at least 70 percent of the necessary construction materials will be American-made. This project will create 1,600 construction jobs.




• Abound Solar Manufacturing to build two new plants in Colorado and Indiana, creating 2,000 construction jobs. Abound is a solar panel manufacturer, so it will additionally create 1,500 permanent jobs for the manufacturing process.

On the surface it all sounds good, especially to Obama who is hard pressed to create jobs right now in light of unemployment numbers that don’t add up to economic recovery.

There’s just one big problem, as noted in a response from Republicans. Though the necessary $2 billion funding is coming out of the federal stimulus fund, it’s still coming out of American pockets.

But the fact that we’re carrying a $13 trillion national debt isn’t my biggest objection. It’s who we owe that debt to: China, of course.

In The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of this story, reporter Shayndi Raice quotes Georgia Sen. Saxby Cambliss who delivered the GOP’s weekly radio address:

“Just as with our energy and food supplies, America is vulnerable when we disproportionately rely on other nations,” he said. “It is a matter of great concern that we are in deep debt to countries that often don’t share our values or positions.”

What a way to usher in Independence Day – increasing our dependence on a country that in no way reflects the values we celebrate on the Fourth of July.

Meredith Simonds Solar

A study by Global Water Intelligence shows that every day 12 billion gallons of water are produced by desalination plants worldwide, a number expected to double by 2016.

Today I was reminded that a great number of people get their drinking water from the ocean. More notably, I learned that the process of desalination — making saltwater fit for human consumption or irrigation — is largely dependent on the fossil fuels that are poisoning our seas. To make desalination a more eco-friendly process, the “ProDes” initiative is pushing for education of officials around the world, as wind, solar and geothermal are viable options too.

“ProDes” stands for Promotion of Renewable Energy for Water Production Through Desalination. The importance of this initiative cannot be overestimated considering the widespread dependence on desalination today, and tomorrow.

As reported by Treehugger, a study by Global Water Intelligence shows that every day 12 billion gallons of water are produced by desalination plants worldwide. The majority of desalination is in coastal regions where there is a water shortage, primarily in Arab countries, as well as Spain, Greece and Italy.

By 2016, this dependence on desalination is expected to double, meaning the world will be producing 24 billion gallons of water daily for human consumption or irrigation.

Fortunately, the majority of these high desalination areas are in zones where sunlight is abundant, meaning solar power is an exceptionally viable option. That said, both wind and geothermal are eco-friendly alternatives. In fact, Australia currently runs a desalination plant that runs on all three of these clean energy sources.

Beyond the issue of energy sources for desalination, Treehugger also points out the threat that desalination may pose to marine ecosystems (beyond what deepshore drilling for oil and natural gas already do, the very fuels that desalination is so dependent on). The additional threat comes not only from removing large amounts of saltwater from marine ecosystems, but also the fact that the brine leftover from the process is deposited back into our oceans.

Learn more about the ProDes initiative.

Meredith Simonds Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind Power desalination, geothermal, ProDes, Renewable Energy, Solar, Treehugger, water production, Wind

The chemical dispersant used in the Gulf includes propylene glycol, a common ingredient in beauty products, as well as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, a detergent and common ingredient in laxatives. The dispersant also includes 2-butoxyethanol, used in the ink for inkjet printers.

As for chemicals used in natural gas drilling during the fracturing or “fracking” process, they include toluene, a toxic volatile organic compound used in nail polish, and xylene, a cleaning agent. Both of these chemicals are also used in paint thinners.

A third dangerous compound used in natural gas drilling is naphthalene,  used to make lubricant, insecticide, resin, solvents, and many other commercial and consumer products.

By noting how we already incorporate these chemicals into our lives, it is not my intent to minimize their use in our oceans and earth. On the contrary, what I mean to suggest is that we open our eyes to our complicit, systematic poisoning of our bodies and planet on a daily basis.

As I have learned in recent research for a comprehensive Green Living Checklist I am writing for AltFuels Now, beauty product manufacturers are not required to prove the safety of their products. As a result, ingredients associated with numerous health problems are common in everything from shampoo, to mouthwash, to moisturizer.

We’re not just hurting ourselves by using chemical-laden products. We’re hurting the entire world, as these chemicals ultimately make their way down the drain and into our rivers and streams. And no, sewage treatment plants do not effectively break down chemicals into safe, eco-friendly substances.

So beyond objecting to the chemicals fossil fuel companies are pouring all over the planet, object to the same in the products you buy for your home and body every day. Choose healthy, green alternatives instead.

Meredith Simonds Oil, green living beauty products, BP, chemical dispersant, cleaning products, Green Living Checklist, Gulf Coast, natural gas drilling, oil spill

On Saturday, June 26, thousands will gather on beaches all over the world to protest offshore drilling and embrace clean energy instead.

Tomorrow marks the first worldwide Hands Across the Sand event, the largest anti-offshore drilling gathering in history. On Saturday, June 26, 2010, thousands are expected to gather on beaches all around the world to join hands in solidarity for clean energy.

Hands Across the Sand started in Florida on February 13, 2010. That’s when 1,000 Floridians gathered on beaches across the state to protest the proposition of offshore drilling along Florida’s coast.

In light of the BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast, it is hard to imagine a more appropriate time to take Hands Across the Sand worldwide. Hands Across the Sand Founder Dave Rauschkolb echoes this sentiment:

The Deepwater Horizon disaster is a wake up call.  Even as the Gulf disaster grows, British Petroleum and other oil companies continue to push for new offshore drilling anywhere oil might be found regardless of the risks they pose. The offshore oil industry is a dirty, dangerous business and no one industry should be able to place entire coastal economies and marine environments at risk.  

Where else in America is this allowed to happen?

America could be, should be the world leader in expanding cleaner energy sources yet our political process is paralyzed by oil money. It is time for our leaders to take bold, courageous steps and open the door to clean energy and renewables and free our country from its addiction to oil.

As stated in the organization’s official press release, the mission of Hands Across the Sand is ”to change our energy policy away from its dependence on fossil fuels and into the light of clean energy. The aim is to convince our leaders to abandon expanded offshore oil drilling and adopt policies that encourage clean and renewable energy sources.”

To participate, find a Hands Across the Sand gathering near you, including solidarity events in cities that are not near beaches. 

We’re gathering at 11 a.m. and joining hands at noon.

While you’re at the website looking for an event near you, take just a moment to send a letter to President Obama and your local representatives in Congress.

I just sent my letter and I’m attending the Hands Across the Sand event at Santa Monica pier.

Meredith Simonds Oil, Renewable Energy BP oil spill, clean energy, Deepwater Horizon, Florida, Gulf Coast, Hands Across the Sand, offshore drilling, President Obama

Why bring in dirty coal to provide 60 more megawatts of energy than SSVEC customers need now or even in 10 years time?

In a review of utilities nationwide, the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) named an Arizona utility the leader in transitioning to a solar-powered future. Yet based on the same utility’s new proposal to invest in a coal-fired transmission line, the SEPA  may want to rethink the clean energy designation.

In addition to its solar ambitions, the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative (SSVEC) wants to build a 69,000-volt coal fire-powered transmission line in Southern Arizona.

Aside from the obvious question of why a seemingly green, forward-thinking utility company would want to set its customers back with an investment in new coal-fired energy, consider the question raised by this sobering fact:

The area that this new coal fire-powered transmission line would serve does not need the extra power!

Currently, said SSVEC customers are served by a 7 megawatt-capable power line. However, they only use about 5 megawatts of that. And here’s the real kicker. It’s estimated that by the year 2019, they will only need an additional 1.5 megawatts.

Why bring in dirty coal to provide 60 more megawatts of energy than SSVEC customers need now or even in 10 years time?

That’s precisely what concerned citizens intend to ask next week at a public hearing before the Arizona Corporation Commission, though many think they already know the answer to that.

It turns out the area is also home to an open-pit mine owned by Canadian mining company World Silver. They’re preparing it for mining now and some suspect a tie between this endeavor and SSVEC’s coal-fired ambitions.

Beyond the hazardous greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power, plans for this particular transmission line could:

• Destroy unique grassland habitats impacting dozens of threatened and endangered species
• Raze a nearly 200-year-old historic ranch
• Displace film and rural jobs

To learn more about coal-fired power motivations, check out Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland , a book by Jeff Biggers whose in-depth article for The Huffington Post served as the source for this post.

Meredith Simonds Solar Arizona, coal, Jeff Biggers, SEPA, Solar, Solar Electric Power Association, SSVEC, Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative

Tesla is partnering with Toyota in the production of the Model S, a fully electric sedan priced below $50,000 and scheduled for availability in 2012.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine posted to my Facebook page news of the Smart Car’s fully electric model available in 2012. I responded back that even this ideal alternative fuel feature couldn’t win me over to the Smart Car design, electric or not. I posted a link to the elite Tesla Roadster, noting that I would hold out for a model under $100,000. Way under.

Looks like I’m getting my wish.

Tesla is partnering with Toyota in the production of the Model S, a fully electric sedan priced below $50,000 and scheduled for availability in 2012.

Though the Tesla Roadster sells for a hundred grand, it has only sold 1,063 Roadsters since 2003. As a result, Tesla Motors is losing money, thus its foray into production of a model affordable enough to go mainstream.

In addition to a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy for the Model S production, Tesla is hoping to raise an additional $185 million through its intial public offering this year (IPO). Then after the IPO, Toyota has committed to investing $50 million into the Model S.

Beyond the $50 million incentive for partnering with Toyota, Tesla will be using one of its plants, utilizing the “Toyota Production System” that Toyota has successfully used to cut down on production waste.

The Model S will sell for $49,900, including a federal tax credit for $7,500. The features of this fully electric luxury car include:

• 300-mile range
• 45-minute QuickCharge
• 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds
• Seats 7 people
• More cargo space than sedans
• 2X as efficient as hybrids
• 17 inch infotainment touchscreen

And you can use any electric outlet to charge the car.

Tesla is taking “reservations” for the Model S, with deliveries expected in 2012. As for the IPO, 11.1 million shares of Tesla stock are expected to go on sale later this year for between $14 and $16 each.

Meredith Simonds Solar 2012, alternative fuel, electric car, Model S, Tesla Motors, Tesla Roadster, Toyota

According to a new study by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, biochar ultimately emits more greenhouse gases than coal. And that will do Massachusetts little good in its effort to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050.

In March, I blogged about the benefits of biochar as a means of helping Haiti solve its deforestation problem. However, according to a new report inspired by Massachusetts’ biochar investment in the pursuit of alternative fuel, biomass evidently emits more CO2 emissions than coal.

Granted, in a country like Haiti where they’ve chopped down 98 percent of their trees to burn as fuel, primarily for cookstoves, the biochar alternative certainly seems a welcome one.

As noted in my blog post, Cooking Up a Solution to Haiti’s Deforestation: Biochar to the Rescue?:

“Biochar is the end-product created through the burning of biomass under oxygen-free conditions. Instead of relying on the logging of forests for fuel, the biochar creation process known as pyrolysis can utilize twigs, and plant and animal waste.

“Biochar [may be] the ideal solution for Haiti where they currently burn the equivalent of 30 million trees a year. In fact,this practice is the primary reason 98 percent of Haiti’s tree cover is gone, with just 100,000 acres of forest left!”

And in reference to its use in the United States:

“According to the Associated Press:

‘The USDA estimates biochar has the potential to replace about 25 percent of the annual oil consumption in this country. They say it especially seems promising as a soil amendment and to lock up greenhouse gases.’ ”

Yet according to a new study by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, biochar ultimately emits more greenhouse gases than coal. And that will do Massachusetts little good in its effort to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Here’s what I don’t get.

If we’re going to seek alternatives to conventional fuel, why not invest in significantly cleaner energy sources, like solar? Instead, Massachusetts has invested a million dollars in the development of four proposed biomass plants. Fortunately, the state’s mandate calls for solar and wind investments too. Hopefully, Massachusetts will abandon its biomass pursuits, lesson learned for the rest of us.

Meredith Simonds Renewable Energy, Solar biochar, biomass, coal, deforestation, Haiti, Massachusetts

A solar power moon station like the one envisioned by Japan's Shimizu Corporation would generate enough clean energy to provide power to everyone on Earth, and then some!

For all the good solar panels do our planet in the pursuit of clean energy, they could be far more valauble to us if their installation were not limited to Earth. Japan’s Shimizu Corporation is exploring just that possibility with its $21 billion investment in a solar power station on the moon!

Though the solar panels we currently utilize do a fine job of generating clean energy, they are limited by the following facts:

1) Earth-based solar panels cannot collect power from the sun at night

2) Some of the solar-generated power collected on Earth inevitably bounces back into the atmosphere, unused

A solar station on the moon addresses both issues. As Treehugger explains:

“The general idea is: You build a massive ‘belt’ of solar cells around the Moon’s equator (that’s about 6,800 miles, or 11,000 kilometers).

“You convert that electricity to microwaves or lasers that you beam back to Earth from the near-side of the Moon (the side always closest to Earth) with a 20km-diameter antenna, and you convert those beams back to electricity at power stations using receiving rectennas. (A rectenna is a rectifying antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to directly convert microwave energy into DC electricity.)

“A guidance beacon will make sure that the beam is always going where it is supposed to go (and if not, the power will be instantly cut).”

All of the necessary construction would be carried out by robots - construction that would utilize as much material as possible collected from the moon’s ground. And all of this would be managed by a team of moon-stationed astronauts.

Best of all, a solar power moon station of this nature would generate enough clean energy to provide power to everyone on Earth, and then some!

The idealist in me loves this idea unconditionally, but the cynic in me cannot be silenced: What government bodies and/or companies outside of Japan are going to step in to stand in the way?

Related Reading: Solar Energy Articles

Meredith Simonds Renewable Energy, Solar clean energy, Japan, moon, Shimizu Corporation, Solar, solar energy, Solar Panels, solar station

Trees cut cooling costs by shading in the summer, and cut heating costs by acting as wind breaks in the winter.

World Environment Day (WED) was Saturday, June 5th. I was in Dallas so I checked out the local WED event at the J. Erik Jonsson Central Library where I learned all about the energy-saving, eco-friendly benefits of trees.

The event drew a modest crowd, but I was pleased to see a dozen or so people there for a presentation by a local Citizen Forester who is a member of the Urban Forest Advisory Committee for the City of Dallas.

Here’s what I learned, most of which is common knowledge that it’s just nice to be reminded of:

Trees act as filters, cleaning our air, water and soil. For example, over the course of one year, a tree can filter 60 pounds of pollution out of the air. And every ton of wood that a forest grows removes 1.47 tons of carbon dioxide from the air and emits a ton of oxygen.

As for their practical use for saving energy, trees:

1. Cool your home in the summertime. You’ll get the maximum shading benefits by planting trees on the south, east and west sides of your home. Deciduous trees can cut cooling costs by well over 15 percent. And if a tree shades your a/c unit, it can increase its efficiency by 10 percent.
2. Protect your home from wind in the wintertime. Trees act as wind breaks, actually reducing the infiltration of cold air by 50 percent!

Of course, the roots of trees help prevent soil runoff as well, which as it turns out is a big problem in Dallas and, of course, many other parts of the country.

So if you want to save on your own cooling and heating costs, while also filtering pollutants and protecting from soil runoff, plant trees in your yard, and encourage your family, friends and neighbors to do the same. Just be sure you do your research on picking the best tree for your yard.

Beyond planting trees for shade and wind breaks, check out more practical ways you can save energy at home.

Meredith Simonds Conservation Conservation, Eco-Friendly, energy-saving, shade trees, trees, wind breaks, World Environment Day

To help cut down on the demand for oil, we can cut down on your consumption of petroleum-based products.

Instead of fueling my feelings of powerlessness over the out-of-control Gulf Coast oil spill, I’m exploring answers to a question we’re all asking ourselves:

What can I do?

Specifically, aside from driving an alternative fuel vehicle, what can I do to help curb the dependence on oil that got us into this mess in the first place?

Well, consider this:

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest is used to make other things we consume on a regular basis.

So we can do a lot simply by making petroleum-free choices instead.  Granted, some are items for which substitutes are difficult or impossible to find, like motor oil and tires, but below is a sampling of products for which we can easily find eco-friendly alternatives.

To help cut down on the demand for oil, we can cut down on your consumption of petroleum-based:

1) Plastics. Choose glass, metal or other non throw-away materials instead. And if you must choose plastic, look for corn-based and/or biodegradable alterantives, particuarly when it comes to trash bags and water bottles.

2) Inks. Limit your printing as much as possible, but when you must print do so on a soy-based ink printer. As for ink pens, choose refillable soy-based fountain pens.

3) Fabrics. Polyester, nylon and acrylic are all made from petroleum. Choose natural fabrics instead, such as cotton, linen, hemp and bamboo.

4) Beauty and cleaning products. From toothpaste to detergent, beauty and cleaning products are packed full of petroleum. Look for natural, biodegradable products instead. Beware though. There is a big difference between a biodegradable product and a product made with biodegradable ingredients. Those biodegradable ingredients are often coupled with petroleum.

5) Fertilizers. The only way to grow healthy plants that are good for you and the environment is to choose natural, biodegradable ingredients. So instead of using chemical fertilizers, use what you’ve already got – food waste that you can turn into nutrient-rich fertilizer for your flowers, fruits, veggies, lawn and household plants.

Beyond that, you may want to peruse this list of 144 petroleum-based products and explore other creative ways of making eco-friendly choices instead.

Meredith Simonds Oil alternative fuel vehicle, Gulf Coast oil spill, petroleum, petroleum products

Accurate information about the wind potential in each state is required for federal and state policy initiatives that will expand the use of wind energy in the United States. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and AWS Truewind have collaborated to produce the first comprehensive new state-level assessment of wind resource potential since 1993. The estimates are based on high-resolution maps of predicted mean annual wind speeds for the contiguous 48 states developed by AWS Truewind.

These maps, at spatial resolution of 200 meters and heights of 60 to 100 meters, were created with a mesoscale-microscale modeling technique and adjusted to reduce errors through a bias-correction procedure involving data from more than 1,000 measurement masts. NREL used the capacity factor maps to estimate the wind energy potential capacity in megawatts for each state by capacity factor ranges. The purpose of this presentation is to (1) inform state and federal policy makers, regulators, developers, and other stakeholders on the availability of the new wind potential information that may influence development, (2) inform the audience of how the new information was derived, and (3) educate the audience on how the information should be interpreted in developing state and federal policy initiatives.

See the Map and Read More

Kristy Wesh Wind Power wind energy potential, Wind Power, wind power map

Bill Gates and Senator Lindsey Graham share thoughts on how we are going to get our hands on economically viable alternative energy technologies - carbon pricing.

In consideration of what’s happening with the Gulf oil spill, it seems everyone is singing the praises of more agressively exploring alternative fuels, even President Obama and former President George W. Bush! Realistically though, Bill Gates – one of alternative fuels’ biggest supporters before the spill – says we’re decades away from technology advanced enough to completely replace fossil fuels.

Bill Gates is a major investor in TerraPower, a company creating the technology for turning nuclear waste into clean energy. It’s still in the research and development stage though, and critics wonder if it will ever be economically viable.

Gates too recognizes the challenge of economic viability, not only regarding his own nuclear energy embitions, but renewable energy as well. He says what we need to see is a bigger investment of capital behind renewable energy research. So where does the richest man in America suggest the money should come from? Putting a price on carbon.

Senator Lindsey Graham echoes Gates’ ideas regarding carbon pricing:

“We do need to price carbon to make nuclear power and wind and solar and some alternative technologies economically viable. On the transportation side, maybe you can reduce emissions without a cap. I don’t know. But you need to put a price on carbon in the power production area at a minimum to jump-start these other technologies.”

Graham is one of three senators originally behind the much-anticipated, hotly debated climate change bill. Of course, Graham is also the senator who infamously pulled his support of that bill because it wasn’t getting the priority he wanted to see from Congress. 

In fact, Graham is proposing a new energy bill – one that is restricted to an electric utility industry tax – and one he believes has a realistic chance of getting all the 60 votes required to pass. That said, the President’s support is reportedly still behind the original Kerry-Lieberman-Graham legislation.

Meredith Simonds Climate change, Nuclear Power, Oil, Renewable Energy Bill Gates, carbon pricing, climate bill, fossil fuels, Oil, Senator Lindsey Graham, TerraPower