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

 

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.

 

January 15, 2009

San Diego Energy . . . and SANDEE Awards!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Awards / Competitions, Energy, Incentives and Rebates, Materials and Manufacturing, Research, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Every now and then, I do random web searches to see what emerges.  That’s how I found the California Center for Sustainable Energy located in San Diego, California (www.sdenergy.org).  Talk about resources, geez!  This organization is all things energy for San Diego, but a lot of their information can be applied anywhere.  

The center has articles, research, forums, and events.  They have reports on legislation, too.  They even present the San Diego Excellence in Energy (SANDEE) award.  

According to their website, the SANDEE is awarded to “outstanding projects and activities that have achieved significant energy savings and/or contributions toward the goals of the San Diego Regional Energy Strategy 2030 through the implementation of energy efficiency, energy conservation, renewable energy measures and CO2 reduction in San Diego County.”

There are many different categories for individuals as well as small and large businesses, and yes even an award for municipalities.  Nominations for a SANDEE award are due February 2, 2009, so if you know someone who might be eligible, you better hurry.  For more information, “Click Here.“

 

January 5, 2009

Passive Homes – No Additional Heat Required?

Posted by kevinjeong under Building and Design, Energy, Green Economy, Innovators, Just Plain Cool, Materials and Manufacturing, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , |
[4] Comments 

You wake up to a cold winter morning.  You want to get out of bed, but dread having to step on the freezing cold bathroom tiles.  Even under your warm blankets, you can feel the cold air inside your bedroom.  Despite this, you refuse to turn on the central heating unit because of rising heating costs. 

Now imagine this ~ No more cold tiles.  No more visible breath reminiscent of something out of The Six Sense.  The temperature of the air, floor, walls ~ all a balmy 70 degrees.  Even better, all of this without having to lay a hand on the thermostat. . .   

In Germany, this scenario has become plausible through the rise of “passive homes.”  Passive homes are hermetically-sealed homes that use advanced insulation and heat-exchange ventilation systems to minimize heat loss while allowing sufficient air circulation.  By using ultra-thick insulation and a series of complex doors and windows, architects create an airtight shell that keeps warm air in and cold air out.  By efficiently trapping heat (up to 90%), a passive home can stay heated with the use of sunlight, everyday household appliances, and even body heat.

But, don’t expect to jump on the passive home bandwagon anytime soon.  In the United States, this method of heat exchange is still new, which means LEED officials will have a difficult time determining whether or not it meets LEED certification.  Unlike Germany, where individuals pay around 5 – 7 percent more for passive homes, people here can expect to pay significantly more due to its rarity.  Moreover, the feasibility of passive homes is highly dependent on climate, location, and sunlight.  Finally (and perhaps most significant), passive homes are meant for small, box-shaped homes.  This means that the sprawling 4,000+ sq ft suburban tract homes are not likely to be conducive to passive heating. 

Plead read this New York Times article for more information.

 

« Previous Page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers