Carbon

Archived Posts from this Category

January 11, 2010

eSolar Inks Deal For Solar Thermal Plants In China

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Solar, Thermal | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

ESolar, based out of Pasadena, CA, just announced a deal to help build a series of solar thermal power plants (AKA concentrating solar power or CSP) in China capable of generating 2 gigawatts (2,000 megawatts).  Under the arrangement, eSolar will provide Shandong Penglai Electric Power Equipment Manufacturing with the technology and information to build a $5 billion series of CSP power plants.

China has set a goal for 15% of the nation’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2020. The Associated Press reported on Saturday that due to market pressures, and recent success in generating renewable energy the Chinese government may increase that goal to 20%. Further, Chinese law requires that energy companies buy all energy available through renewable sources (such as wind, solar, and geothermal) before they can use energy from non-renewable sources such as coal.

This deal not only shows China’s interest in generating power from renewable sources, it also shows China’s interest in acquiring knowledge about alternative fuel technologies.  Though China is not allowed to export any technology acquired under the deal, all of the manufacturing for the plants will occur in China.  With that kind of expertise, it will be tough to keep Chinese industry from using the knowledge to build similar plants in China.

ESolar counts Idealab, Google, and Oak Investment Partners as some of its investors.  The New York Times also ran an interesting story about the eSolar deal and some of China’s apprehension about CSP.

 

January 3, 2010

Book Review! Hot, Flat, And Crowded By Tom Friedman

Posted by Steve Sacks under Book Review, Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , |
1 Comment 

Happy New Year!

Publishing a blog is a far cry from writing a book, let alone a number of best-selling books, so my credentials for reviewing Tom Friedman’s book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, may be a little thin.  But, since I recently read the book, it’s a free country, and I do publish a blog, here goes…buckle up, it’s the California Green Building Blog’s first book review!

Tom Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times among other publications.  He also writes non-fiction books, and back in 2005, he wrote the wildly popular bestseller, The World Is Flat (about the tech revolution).  I read The World Is Flat, as well as Hot, Flat, And Crowded, and I will say I like Mr. Friedman’s easy-to-read style.  As with most essayists, he finds a topic of the times, researches the heck out of it, and comes up with conclusions (though often not really his own).

Hot, Flat, and Crowded follows that model.  It is a quick review of the climate crisis and how we can solve the problem of global warming.  However, I think Friedman was a little “late to the party” with The World Is Flat, (written in 2005 about the tech revolution) and I think he’s a little late with Hot, Flat, And Crowded.  Anyone who saw Inconvenient Truth, or anyone who has been following the climate crisis, will find some of the ideas a little stale.

But, don’t get me wrong;  Hot, Flat, and Crowded is enjoyable.  Mr. Friedman condenses the need to “Green” the world into some convenient and, yes, some unique themes and provides examples of those themes in action.  He has a knack for getting to the point which I appreciate, but there are some places where that comes at the expense of facing hard facts.  For example, his “feel-good” story about an Indonesian oil and gas company’s preservation of a rain forest gives light treatment of the unique market forces at work.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded will grab the attention of  readers with any level of expertise in Green.  I did find some of Friedman’s conclusions compelling – particularly some of the terms he coins, and his comparison of the green movement to the civil rights movement.  The book is well-organized, and won’t take long to read (unless you read it in 10 minute blocks on the subway like I did).  Further, the statistics Friedman compiles are unique and staggering.

As with most climate change research these days, the numbers are depressing, and Friedman doesn’t shy away from shock value.  Thankfully, the second half of the book focuses on solutions.  From a Green building perspective, Friedman’s discussion of appliance energy efficiency, metering, and smart grid opportunities is particularly interesting.  Thankfully, Friedman spends a decent amount of time on those topics.

Pick up Hot, Flat, and Crowded if you want some great new stats and some new thoughts and themes for redirecting the Unites States mentality.  Also, stay tuned for our next book review.  I’m almost done with Al Gore’s Our Choice…a far more comprehensive work.

UPDATE: Click Here For Our Review Of Our Choice, By Al Gore

 

December 10, 2009

Green Neighborhood Pops Up In Sonoma

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Green Economy, Sustainable Community, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

One of the most interesting sessions I attended at Greenbuild discussed sustainable neighborhoods.   Greg Searle from One Planet Communities provided a great case study of Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO), a new community being built in Sonoma California.

SOMO, a partnership between developer, Codding Enterprises, and consultant, BioRegional, is a fantastic example of green building.  Not only is SOMO striving to be a net zero community, it is also being built on a defunct business campus, so it is a brownfield site.  Along with municipal buildings, the 200 acre development will include commercial, office, retail, and residential space including 1,900 homes of all sizes and types for sale and rent.    According to the SOMO website, the development has already generated more than 600 jobs, and will lead to 4,400 jobs by completion.

One Planet Communities is a fantastic concept, and I love the flexibility it offers… flexibility as long as you hit the very high benchmarks, which is not the easiest thing to do…. To achieve designation as a One Planet Community, a development must follow these ten principles:

  1. Zero Carbon – All buildings and their fittings and fixtures must be energy efficient and supplied by renewable energy.
  2. Zero Waste – At least 70% of waste by weight to be reclaimed, recycled or composted and ideally no more than 2% should be sent to landfill.
  3. Sustainable Transport – CO2 emissions of persons travelling to and from the site and within it must be reduced relative to an agreed regional benchmark. Ideally all unavoidable CO2 emissions from transport should be offset by a certified carbon sequestration scheme.
  4. Local & Sustainable Materials – Use of local, reclaimed, renewable, recycled and low environmental impact materials in construction and estate management should be increased and optimised.
  5. Local & Sustainable Food – Healthy diets should be promoted and minimum targets achieved for supply of organic or low-environmental impact food and local sourcing.
  6. Sustainable Water – Water efficiency and recycling must be promoted in line with country-specific best practice.
  7. Natural Habitats & Wildlife – Local biodiversity and natural resource stocks must be increased.
  8. Culture & Heritage – Valuable aspects of local culture and heritage must be maintained, enhanced or revived.
  9. Equity & Fair Trade – Targets must be set to boost the local economy, notably in disadvantaged areas, and to ensure a set ratio of imported goods are fair trade certified.
  10. Health & Happiness – Health and happiness of residents must be promoted based on emerging findings from ‘happiness’ research and periodic residents’ surveys

OK, I know some of these categories may sound like “fluff,” so you’ll have to go to the Principles Page on the One Planet Community website to read more.

The beauty of One Planet’s concept is the lack of rigid  checklists found in the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) system (just emerging from pilot phase).  LEED-ND is certainly a step in the right direction, but I think the One Planet Communities approach makes more sense for neighborhoods.  LEED works well for buildings because builders want and need uniformity in methodology.  Costs come down when you can reuse building methods from one building to the next.  But neighborhoods are regional and unique.   One Planet Communities’ flexibility acknowledges that difference with a simple approach that is easy to understand.  In the end, the standards are set high, and that’s what matters.

It is unclear if SOMO will strive for LEED-ND, and with One Planet Communities certification under its belt, one has to wonder if a LEED-ND designation for SOMO is necessary at all.

 

August 28, 2009

Inefficient, But Green…Is That Good?

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Water, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Some power generation facilities store energy during peak hours to later use during off peak hours (and vice versa).  The best example of this is battery storage of energy from wind and solar generators.  Wind and sun generate most of their power during the day, and in the case of solar, there is no energy generated in the evening.  An example of how this process works both ways is in the case of hydroelectric power generation when water is pumped to higher elevations during off-peak hours.  During peak hours the water pumped up is released, and extra power is available.  This method is called “pumped storage.”

These processes result in some energy loss, but proponents say the cost to generate the electricity is minimal, so why not?  For a small hit in efficiency, you get clean, carbon neutral power around the clock.  For the most part, I agree.  Wind, sun and water are in high abundance for power generation, and not an ounce of carbon is produced (though the added wear and tear on equipment eventually leads to shorter life spans, higher maintenance costs, etc…)  This leads to more manufacturing and likely more carbon emissions. Regardless, these methods are all far better than popping up a new coal plant.

Now, add a “new” tool to the tool box.  Compressed Air Energy Storage (“CAES”).  I guess it’s been around for a while in Germany and Alabama, so it’s not so “new.” But it is possibly new to California!   An article from the San Francisco Chronicle on August 27, 2009 details how PG&E is seeking a federal grant of $25 Million to design a facility in Kern County, CA using CAES.  Kern County is about half-way between LA and San Francisco.  The facility would use power generated by solar and wind to pump air into porous rock reservoirs.

Then, at night when the sun’s gone, or on a day when the wind won’t blow, the compressed air is released and generates electricity.  The plant PG&E would like to see would provide 300 MW for 10 hours…that’s enough to power 750 homes.

The total cost of the facility would be about $300 Million over five years.  That may seem like a lot, but when you realize that once it’s up and running there are no added costs for fuel, it starts to make sense.

By 2010, PG&E needs to generate 20% of it’s power from renewables.  They’re not going to make it, but with efforts like this and the recent deal with BrightSource Energy (full disclaimer, BrightSource is a client of Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes, the workplace for the authors of this blog), no one can say PG&E isn’t trying.  According to a recent article in the Sacramento Business Journal, Peter Darbee, CEO and Chairman of PG&E stated PG&E has contracts that will allow the utility to deliver up to 24 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2013.

CAES doesn’t sound ideal, but creativity like this can only lead to better things.  Also, with a carbon credit market likely around the corner, facilities like this may generate unforeseen dividends.

For the San Francisco Chronicle article that includes a great illustration of CAES, click here

For the Sacramento Business Times Article, click here

 

May 19, 2009

A Solar Solution to the Economy*

Posted by kevinjeong under Carbon, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Mortgages, Save Money | Tags: , , , , |
1 Comment 

Everyone seems to have a “solution” to the economic problem these days.  One attorney, perhaps a little self-servingly (and rightfully so), implores the government to forgive student loan debt to stimulate the economy. (Click here)   A group of Ohio University students continue with the decades-old mantra that America must protect its economic interest through restrictions on free trade.  (Click here)  While I am able to easily dismiss these solutions as fanciful ideas–more idealistic than pragmatic–there is one recent solution that has caught my attention.

A recent Forbes article written by an ex-Lehman Brothers VP raises an interesting solution to solving the ever-increasing foreclosure problem: subsidizing solar panels for distressed homeowners.  In his article, Robert Luty states that the government has already launched over a trillion dollars in spending programs designed to help distressed homeowners and banks.  His solution would, in his words, “help possibly a million homeowners, unleash strengthened bank capital for new lending and increase gross domestic product with the same solution and at the same time.”  In addition, it “could also make a significant advance in the country’s renewable energy goals in the process.”  Now imagine all of this, with the same trillion dollars the government is already spending.  Talk about teaching a person to fish!

At first glance, I was ready to throw this solution into the “it’s a great idea, but . . .” pile.  However, I decided to read on.  After all, here was a Wharton-educated Wall Street capitalist writing in favor of tree-hugging green technology.

Luty throws some fancy numbers and finance terms around, but the gist of his proposed solution is this:

Imagine an average homeowner who purchases a house in 2006 that loses 25% of its value.  Add to that lost household income of about 20%.  This puts the household’s debt-to-income (DTI) ratio at about 47% (ah, the good old days when your mortgage comprised only 20% of your income).  

Now, he roughly calculates a solar photovoltaic (PV) system would cost about 10% of the home value and generate 100% of the household energy needs.  The total cost of the solar PV system would be subsidized by the government of course.  In return, the homeowner would no longer be subject to increasing energy costs and the value of the solar PV system (both in terms of current energy savings and future potential) would bring the value of the house almost back to its pre-crisis value.  As a result, the homeowner would be able to refinance the home with current low interest rates and lower his or her DTI to the desired 31%.  

Yes, I had some trouble following the logic of a finance guru, but to put it in laymen terms:  (1) create value and equity by adding government-subsidized solar power to the home, (2) refinance the now “detoxified” asset, (3) save money, (4) produce clean energy, and (5) help the environment.  It seems like a win-win situation.

And yet, being the proverbial Chicken Little, I can’t help but be a bit skeptical and pessimistic at this overly-simplistic solution.  As a colleague of mine stated, “People won’t buy into this.  It’s like rewarding irresponsible individuals for overextending themselves.”  Maybe so, but isn’t the government already doing that for the same homeowners and banks?

(Click here for the full article)

* The author of this post is in no way advocating Luty’s proposal.  Rather this post is meant to be a simple observation on how green technology can possibly be an economically viable solution.

 

April 28, 2009

“New” Bills Propose Zero Net Energy Buildings And Zero-Limits On Net Metering

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Assembly Member, and Speaker Pro Tempore, Lori Saldaña from the 76th Assembly District (based in San Diego County) has sponsored a great idea!  AB 212 proposes to have all new residential buildings in California meet zero net energy by 2020.  AB 212 was sponsored last year, and passed the Assembly before dying in the State Senate (much like AB 1920 which died last year, but was resurrected as AB 920 this session.  Check out our quick update of former AB 1920 below).

AB 212 proposes:

“The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt building design  and construction standards and energy and water conservation standards to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consuption of energy, including energy associated with the use of water. 
 
This bill would require the commission to adopt, in collaboration with specified parties,  building design and construction standards and energy and water conservation standards to require new residential constructions commenced on or after January 1, 2020, or on a date by which the commission determines that the use of photovoltaic technology is cost effective, whichever is later, to be zero net energy buildings, as defined.”

 

The bill defines a “zero net energy building” as:

“[A] building that implements a combination of building energy efficiency design features and clean onsite or near-site distributed generation that result in no net purchases from the electricity grid on an annual basis and produces enough electricity to  offset the energy use attributable to an onsite use of purchased natural gas.”

 

Of course, we would like to see this bill pass, and we would also like to see it extended to non-residential construction as well!  Critics argue the legislature should focus on refurbishing old construction, and they are correct to that extent.  However, there is no reason to only focus on old construction.  Contrary to the critics, we have full confidence the legislature can walk and chew gum at the same time.  The legislature must address both old and new construction!

We will track the progress of AB212, and report back regularly.  For the full text of AB 212, click here

Also, since we’re on the topic of legislation, remember AB 1920 sponsored by Assembly Member Jared Huffman?  That bill proposed elimination of  limits on net metering (among other things).  Well the bill has been re-introduced as AB 920 and is now in front of the Natural Resources Committee for a vote.  You can read more about the original bill from our previous posts ( click here) and (click here) and our Interview with Assembly Member Huffman (click here).  Our understanding is AB 920 is essentially the same as AB 1920.   Let’s hope AB 920 doesn’t get lost in politics as its predecessor did.

 

April 24, 2009

Carbon Emissions – The Great Debate

Posted by Sarah Grilli under Carbon, Just Plain Cool | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

In honor of Earth Day this week, NPR broadcasted a live debate hosted by Intelligence Squared; the motion on the floor:

“Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money.“

If you are not familiar with Intelligence Squared, they are a fantastic organization that hosts Oxford style debates live in New York City that are broadcasted to a national audience on NPR. The Oxford format is interesting because the audience weighs in at the outset of the debate and once again after completion, and the “winner” is the side that is able to sway a higher percentage of attendees’ minds.

This heated earth day debate include heavy hitters on both sides:
For the motion: Peter Huber, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute; Bjorn Lomberg, Copenhagen Business School professor and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist; and University of London professor Phillip Stott.
Against the motion: L. Hunter Lovins, founder of The Rocky Mountain Institute and author of Natural Capitalism; Adam Werbach, the youngest ever president of the Sierra Club and San Francisco native; and British journalist Olive Tickell.

I won’t give away the winner because both sides make insightful comments so the debate is definitely worth listening to yourself.

And if you are intrigued by the topic of carbon emissions, another interesting article to read is a NYTimes article on renown scientist Freeman Dyson that has recently sparked controversy and produced a significant amount of feedback from readers.

 

« Previous Page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers