Negawatts and negalitres: steps to a sustainable future

Conservation and efficiency should be measured in negawatts (for energy) and negalitres (for water). These steps have been proposed to the UN General Assembly's OWG studying targets and indicators for Sustainable Development Goals. 

The idea originally came to Amory Lovins when a coal-burning utility sent him a bill with a typo: "negawatt" instead of megawatt. Inspiration struck, when he realized that to consumers there was no difference; that avoided use (i.e. conservation by the consumer, or energy efficiency by the producer) would always be cheaper than new "hard energy". A win-win. But North American utilities have a different ideology: they prefer to blindly continue using massive amounts of fossil fuels, to predict endless rises in demand, lure industry with artificially with cheap rates, and lobby legislators to stick it to householders. So his Rocky Mountain Institute has led a campaign for "soft energy" for more than three decades. See his video Reinventing Fire, reviewed in our blog in 2010.

Measuring energy in negawatts negalitres would not only demonstrate cost savings. It would deliver more human benefit from the same throughput of resources, a concept that needs to be applied to all products of the Earth if planetary boundaries are to be respected, and human needs to be met.

Ecojustice: planetary boundaries and human needs: Kate Raworth's Oxfam doughnut

According to Lovins, gradual but mindful personal lifestyle changes can provide:

20% of negawatts from personal conservation + 20% from energy efficiency = 40% reduction

courtesy smartenergyliving.org

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists' figures, that is the equivalent of eliminating over 500 coal plants! Despite the claims of industry lobbyists, the process could be gradual, eliminate no jobs, and start with the dirtiest plants. A mandatory 5% yearly reduction in all fossil and mineral energy sources over 17 years would result in over 80% reduction in CO2 emissions and noxious pollutants.

And renewable energy increase of 5% a year is quite possible! For example, by solar rooftops. They may already be cheaper than normally generated electricity, according to to new report by Rocky Mountain Institute.

References: RMI, The Economics of grid defection, Feb 2014; OWG, Focus areas of the SDGs, Feb 2014; GEAS report Feb 2014, summarizing IPCC5 and UNEP EmissionsGap Report 2013.

Related concepts: Herman Daly on "throughput" in a steady-state economy, cradle-to-cradle design, Lovins' negawatt and soft energy path (20% efficiency + 20% conservation= 40% reduction in use of present fossil source and GHG emissions), County of Maui water conservation, GCI contraction and convergence, CBDR, Raworth's Oxfam doughnut (satisfy human needs while respecting planetary boundaries), a mandatory renewable portfolio standard, solar rooftops in the US, zero-energy bottle lighting in Kenya.

Thanks to Quaker economic analyst Jack Bradin for this overview. See also David Roberts, "Preventing climate change and adapting to it are not morally equivalent" Grist 16 Sep 2014. 

Renewable power isn’t just safer than nuclear, it’s cheaper -- Amory Lovins

Reprinted from Living on Earth April 14, 2011: Listen to the program.
On March 25, Bruce Gellerman of the Public Radio International program Living on Earth spoke with the co-founder of Rocky Mountain Institute about the true costs of nuclear power.
“Nuclear is such a slow and costly climate solution, it actually reduces and retards climate protection" -- Lovins

LOE: There are “dangerously high” radiation levels in water leaking from Reactor number 3 at Japan’s Fukushima plant. At our deadline, operators still struggling to gain control of the facility, fear the core might be breached. Prime minister Kan calls the situation “grave and unpredictable” and officials are urging those within 19 miles of the nuclear plant to leave voluntarily, and avoid eating many kinds of green vegetables.To say the least, the nuclear disaster in Japan has refocused attention on the future of the atom as a source of energy. But the threat of global climate change has led even some die hard environmentalists to reconsider and embrace nuclear power. But not Amory Lovins. He’s chairman and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado. Amory Lovins, welcome to Living on Earth!
LOVINS: Thank you.
LOE: So is it possible that we can meet our carbon reduction targets without nuclear power?
LOVINS: Of course! Not only that, but we could do so more effectively and more cheaply. It is quite true that if a nuclear plant displaces a coal plant that would replace carbon emissions.
But if you spent the same money on efficiency, renewables and combined heat and power, you would reduce the carbon emissions by about two to ten times more and about 20 to 40 times faster. So nuclear is such a slow and costly climate solution, it actually reduces and retards climate protection, compared with a best buys first approach.
LOE: When you say it’s slow, isn’t it people like you that are holding up the process with lawsuits, holding up the process of licensing nuclear power plants?
LOVINS: Not in the least! I know the industry likes to blame environmental groups — of which, by the way, we are not one — for holding up licensing for several decades. New nuclear power plants in this country are offered subsidies that now rival or exceed their total construction costs.
And yet, even though that’s been true since 2005, three years before the financial crash, they’ve been unable to raise a penny of private capital, simply because the cost and risks are unfinanceable. Wall Street will not invest in them — it’s an utterly unfinanceable technology, and it’s obvious why — it’s grossly uncompetitive.
LOE: But can renewables, like wind for example, produce enough energy, enough density to replace nuclear power plants, which are huge and hugely powerful. And, plus, the wind doesn’t blow on calm days.
LOVINS: Yeah, well, that’s two separate points. The first one — I’m afraid the industry got it backwards. Actually, if you properly do the math — and count if you count the whole nuclear fuel cycle, not just the power plant, not just the core of the reactor, but the occlusion zone, the uranium mining and so on, it turns out that wind power uses hundreds or thousands of times less land per kilowatt hour, than nuclear does.
Even solar photovoltaics are equal to or might be better than nuclear in that respect. As for the wind not blowing and the sun not shining all the time, that’s true. Every kind of power plant can fail. They differ, however, how much fails at once, how often, how long and for what reasons and how predictably. You can predict pretty well when wind or solar will not work, but you cannot predict when a nuclear plant will fail.
They break without warning about three to five percent of the time — big coal nuclear plants are down about ten or twelve percent of the time — and for that reason, we’ve designed grids for over a century to cope with that intermittence that every power plant suffers from. So you don’t depend on any single plant, you depend on the whole grid.
So it turns out, if you diversify renewables by type so they’re not all affected by weather the same way, you diversify them by location, so they don’t all see the same weather at the same time, and you integrate them with the resources on the grid, both power plants and ways to save or shift electric use, then you can have a largely, or wholly renewable electric supply system at very reasonable cost, with greater reliability and resilience than we have right now.
LOE: I find it a little bit ironic, you know — I see in these pictures from Japan — and if they had put a little bit — if they had put a wind turbine on top of the nuclear complex there, the plant might have had power and would still be running.
LOVINS: Actually, the wind machines in the vicinity were not affected by the earthquake and tsunami, and the utilities have been calling for them to crank out every bit of juice they can to help keep the grid up. Look, here’s a quick summary of what’s going on with nuclear in the world. At the end of 2010, there were 66 nuclear units, officially listed as “under construction” worldwide.
You look a little closer, you’ll find a dozen of them have been listed as “under construction” for over 20 years, 45 of them have no official start up date, half of them are late. All 66 of them are in centrally planned power systems, not a single one of them is a free-market purchase. And since 2007, nuclear growth has added less electricity to our supply each year, then even the costliest renewable — solar power — and it will probably never catch up.
LOE: But they’re having rolling blackouts in Japan right now because they don’t have the nuclear power plants online.
LOVINS: Of course if you lose a lot of capacity, you can be short. And they were already a bit short. But I would actually view that as a drawback of nuclear power in two respects. First, to make it cheap, they tried to put a bunch of plants in one place, which was always a bad idea, because if something goes wrong with one plant, you can’t even get in to fix the others and keep them from developing serious problems.
Second, nuclear plants are shut down abruptly, when there’s a loss of grid connection, like in the tsunami. And the trouble with that is, it is then very hard to restart the plant. So in 2003, we had a big blackout in the northeastern US, nine plants were running perfectly until the blackout and then they went to zero, and it took two weeks to get them all back up. And so they’re like an anti-peaker, they’re guaranteed unavailable when you most need them. Renewables don’t have that problem.
LOE: Amory Lovins is the chairman and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado. Well, Mr. Lovins, thank you so very much.
LOVINS: You’re welcome.

Building a green economy -- Amory Lovins

Climaxing three decades of research and expert discussions, Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute offers this vision of a "green capitalist" transition in the USA. (français en bas)
Building on its 2004 synthesis "Winning the Oil Endgame", RMI's "Reinventing Fire" shows technology that exists, that works, and that makes money. It aims to move the US debate from "it’s impossible" and "how much will it cost?" to "here’s how" and "how can we invest in the next 5 years?"

For full details, see the RMI webpage Reinventing Fire links to proposals for green architecture, transport, manufacturing, and energy -- "a peer-reviewed, industry-validated roadmap of practical steps toward an efficient, resilient, cost-effective, all-renewable energy system".
[Thanks to Bill Curry for calling this to our attention. - Ed.]

En français: lire Andrée Mathieu, Développement durable - Pourquoi pas «réinventer le feu» dans Le Devoir 23 Sep 2010 et d'autres thèmes dans Le Devoir - environnement.

How we reduced our footprint -- by Hugh and Jo-Ann Robertson

Canada has the third highest ecofootprint in the world after the United Arab Emirates and the US. The ecofootprint is the amount of land and water that we require for consumption and subsequent waste disposal. We require 7.5 hectares per person (4 times the earth's biocapacity per person). Switzerland requires 5 hectares, China is presently at 1.8, and Bangladesh only requires 1 ha/pp. If every person on the planet lived at our level of material consumption, we would need four planets. See how you rate with this UBC calculator and tips from the Suzuki Foundation.

Carbon footprint (CO2 tonnes per person) - Wikipedia

A carbon footprint, on the other hand, measures the volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Like our ecofootprint, Canada also has the third highest carbon footprint in the world: 24 tonnes per person. By comparison, the UK is 11 t/pp while China is far behind at 2 tonnes per person. Per year. A more comprehensive carbon footprint not only measures immediate emissions, but the life cycle of a product. Instead of measuring only the electricity that we use to prepare our food, an extended carbon footprint would also include the energy used in the production of the food and its delivery to market. The earth's ability to absorb carbon is fast declining. Scientists estimate we have already overshot it by 30%. The oceans are close to saturation; forest cover is decreasing and fertile soils are eroding. Our lifestyle exceeds the sustainable limits of the biosphere. Our ecological debt is surging. We are no longer living off nature’s interest; we eating up our scarce biological capital.

In September 2005, the (now cancelled) One-Tonne Challenge program assessed our home carbon footprint at 3.4 tonnes of greenhouse gases per individual occupant, just over half the national average and well below the Kyoto target of 4.5. After the changes we describe below, using the same carbon calculator, it came in at about 2.5 - a reduction of more than 25%. Our home's ecological footprint in September, 2005, was 4.3 hectares per person. The latest calculation puts us at 3.5 hectares per person, slightly less than half the national average - a 20% reduction.

We have passed global peak productions in oil, fish and food and we have reached the physical limits of fertile land, freshwater and clean air. We are also close to a tipping point in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and face irreversible climate change.

Furthermore, statistical footprints cannot measure some of the less discernible damage we are inflicting on natural ecosystems. We are choking the oceans with plastic, poisoning our lakes and rivers with chemical toxins, and contaminating the subterranean water table with leachate from our garbage dumps. The extinction of countless species is unraveling the complex web of life underpinning human survival.

Curbing Consumption: The First Step Towards Sustainable Living

"Be the change that you wish to see," said Gandhi. There are no technofixes that will reduce our environmental footprint while keeping our consumer lifestyle. Changing our behaviour is far less expensive, (though more difficult) the only approach that will ensure a sustainable future for the planet, just as conservation is far cheaper than consumption. It is time for the real conservatives to stand up.

For the past 4 years, I and my wife have been engaged in a personal quest to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, to demonstrate that the targets in the Kyoto Protocol and in the (sadly defunct) One-Tonne Challenge are attainable without sacrificing quality of life.

We live in Ottawa (a cold city) in a 19 year old, 1800 square foot townhouse. We started with an energy audit of the house, which gave us a mere 66% energy efficiency rating. Most of the loss is through windows, doors and roof. Other hard-to-find exterior heat losses, such as faulty wall insulation, were located with an infrared scan. The audit took baseline readings of utilities' energy consumption, for post-refit comparison. Our home was one of the first in Ottawa to install a digital smart meter, which allows us to check how each step reduced consumption.

Armed with baseline readings, energy audit, and recommendations for improvement, we were ready to start. Focussing on low tech energy conservation, we:

• replaced bulbs with compact fluorescents
• installed rain barrels
• installed low-flow showerheads and toilets
• sealed air leaks
• gradually replaced old windows
• put in a wrought iron front door
• awnings on south facing windows (we do not use air conditioning)
• overhead ceiling fans
• an indoor drying rack in stairwell (Dumbarton air dryer, see photo)
  
• reshingled the roof with light shingles, and
• reinsulated and ventilated attic space.

Food consumption: we try to buy produce from a 100 mile radius by shopping at local organic markets and by tending our own vegetable garden in the summer. We reduced our consumption of meat. A locavore vegetarian diet could cut our eco-footprint by as much as 30%.

In addition to energy-saving, we reduced our ecological footprint by almost eliminating garbage disposal -- by minimizing all purchases, recycling and composting biodegradable material. We are down to one small bag every 6 months. We also shop second-hand when possible. All products contain embedded energy (carbon emissions, processed water-- a cotton shirt, for example, has a water footprint of 2,00 litres!). Second-hand shopping is a good way to practise an important environmental R, “re-use.”

The next step

We also bought an inexpensive watt meter to measure individual appliances. Appliances using 220 volts that are wired directly into the panel require a more advanced meter, such as “The Energy Detective” which must be installed by an electrician. All appliances contain embedded energy used in the manufacturing process -- so simply replacing a relatively new fridge, for example, might not be a wise decision, financially or environmentally. Another decision involved the cost of new appliances. Bill Kemp, a renowned Ottawa area energy efficiency specialist, explains the concept of life cycle cost, which he calls “true cost” as opposed to “first cost” (or initial cost) in his book Smart Power: An Urban Guide to Renewable Energy and Efficiency. He argues that basing the purchase of appliances on their energy efficiency and buying quality (and, often, more expensive) products when upgrading will actually outperform the stock market in the long run. We have tried to apply the concept of life cycle costs to all our purchases. Already we can see a return on investment as resource and energy prices continue to rise.

Pursuing these principles, we gradually replaced our major appliances and car with:

• a high efficiency natural gas furnace.
• efficient dish and clothes washers.
• a small 25-gallon electric hot water heater
• a natural gas cooktop
• a small electric convection oven.
• an energy recovery ventilator
• an airtight woodstove
• a smaller barbeque, and
• a Toyoto Prius.

Jo-Ann and Hugh with their airtight woodstove

In order to monitor our energy costs more closely, we ended "equalized utility billing" that gives you the same monthly bill in all seasons. We now know exactly what our natural gas, electricity and water cost. It requires a small amount of extra effort -- reading a meter and phoning in the reading, to correct the company's estimate. We continue to use automatic bank deductions. Equalized billing is supposed to eliminate spikes for winter heating and summer air conditioning. But our new appliances mitigated any major spikes. In fact, with a personal effort to minimize energy use, we have reduced our bills dramatically.

Four years later

Our electricity consumption is now only 375 kilowatt hours per month, compared to the Ontario average of 750-1,000 kwh/m (varying with number of occupants, and use of electricity for space and water heating -- we use lower-cost natural gas). Because our electrical water heater is small, set at 49 degrees C and our showers and appliances are low-flow, power demand is not quite low. For two people, we use half the provincial average.

We need no air conditioning in summer. A screened wrought iron door allows cool night air to circulate through the house; fans and awnings keep the house comfortable during the day. We cook outdoors on a small barbecue or a two-burner hotplate to minimize indoor heat buildup. On smoggy days, we eat cold plates and salads because coal-fired electricity and barbecues both contribute to particulate emissions. Replacing energy-hog dryers, we use an outdoor drying rack for clothes in the summer, and the indoor rack during the winter.

To trim our carbon emissions even further, the Robertsons have signed on to renewable energy from wind and low-impact hydro at marginally higher prices from Bullfrog Power. Because so much of Ontario’s electricity is still coal-fired, this substantially reduces our carbon footprint.

In winter, our home is heated by a high efficiency natural gas furnace, complemented by a low emission airtight wood stove. We also use a gas-fired cooktop in the kitchen. Together with improved insulation, reduced air leaks, our consumption of natural gas 900 cubic meters/year and dropping steadily. The Ontario household average is 3,000 cubic meters for water and space heating alone!

Our water footprint is down to 80 litres per person per day because of rain barrels, efficient appliances and low flush toilets. The daily Ottawa consumption is 250 litres per person; the national average is about 300. More than half the City’s operating budget is spent on electricity charges to pump, clean and distribute water and then remove and treat wastewater and sewage. Imagine how happy citizens would be if their city taxes were cut by one-third!

Three years back, we replaced our 13 year old Volvo with a hybrid Prius. Our gasoline consumption has dropped by two-thirds. This and no repairs have saved us at least $3000 per year, helping to offset the capital costs of the Prius. The initial cost of $30,000 is more expensive than many cars in the family sedan category. But based on life cycle expenses, Consumer Reports recently rated the Prius “least expensive” car in this category.

Driving is still the largest part of the our carbon emissions. They are not proud of the fact that they average 25,000 kilometres per year, slightly more than the national average. The high mileage is partly for family reasons (“love miles” in the words of George Monbiot, author of Heat) and partly because they avoid flying for environmental reasons. We are all too aware that driving accounts for half of the carbon footprint of Canadians who own a vehicle.

Our first energy audit rated our house at 65 out of 100. Minor refits improved it to 72. Further improvements have now pushed its rating to 79, qualifying us for Energy Star status. We came within a whisker of the R2000 level of 80. If our 18 year old townhouse can be transformed into virtually an R2000 home, why are we as a society not demanding construction of energy efficient houses? Retrofitting is a more expensive way of improving efficiency and fighting global warming than new-build. Approximately half the greenhouse gases created by each Canadian are generated in the home.

Return on investment - sunlightelectric.com

Costs and gains

How cost effective are retrofits and renovations? What is the cost recovery period? These are legitimate questions for homeowners. Our improvements were done gradually, as regular maintenance, upgrading substandard workmanship, or replacing worn out appliances or. We had no major capital projects, such as installing solar panels. Over the past 4 years we have spent about $30,000, partly financed by government rebates and dramatically lower utility bills. We have established our own carbon fund to offset the emissions of the Prius. We use these “carbon dollars” for our energy-saving projects. Real estate consultants advise homeowners to set aside 5% of the value of the house per year for maintenance -- such as Energy Star doors and windows, and energy efficiency. Last year we had to replace the roof shingles. We chose a light colour, to reflect sunlight during the summer, thereby reducing heat build up in the attic and keep the house cooler. Our roof shines out clearly on Google Earth. At least we are safe from a heat seeking missile!

A recent CMHC study shows most home renovations are undertaken for cosmetic reasons. These may no longer enhance the resale price of a house, as resources become scarce. In the UK, the law will soon require that home sellers get an energy audit. Energy efficiency rather than cosmetics may soon determine home prices. So retrofit and energy-conserving appliances make both economic and ecological sense. Improvements will increase the value of a house, both short and long-term. Monthly utility costs, paid in after-tax dollars, are reduced and generally our homes are healthier and more comfortable. Unlike other possessions, homes are free of capital gains taxes when sold.

Our upgrading costs over the past 4 years were $30,000 for home improvements and $30,000 for a Prius. Neither of these expenditures is excessive by current standards for renovations and vehicles. We estimated the cost recovery periods home, appliances and car at between 3 and 12 years. But rising energy and resource prices may well shorten these periods. For us, money was not the main motive – moderating climate change by reducing our footprints may be the most rewarding result.

We do not live like ascetics. In winter, our thermostat is set at 20 degrees during the day and 17 at night. We also run an Energy Recovery Ventilator which circulates fresh air but recaptures the heat from the outgoing air. Our energy and carbon savings have not imposed a dramatic change in quality of life. So it is doable, by ordinary people. We can live more sustainably at no great cost or inconvenience. Individuals can make a difference in the battle against climate change.

Obama-China deal gives new life to Copenhagen

The Obama-China deal announced 16 Nov 09 gives new life to the Copenhagen process. China is also a lever to move the recalcitrant Senate and G20. Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes gives us the US-China statement and details of its joint plan.

Reading between the lines, we see:
1. The Copenhagen treaty must be "comprehensive" and "immediate" -- this means setting by 19 Dec 09 binding emissions targets for major polluting countries (Annex 1 and BRIC), and promising adequate mitigation funding to poor countries. There is bound to be a lot of slipping and sliding. I will update my summary frequently.

2. Obama's Plan A is ACES legislation, but if blocked by red&bluedog Senators + lobbyists, his Plan B is unilateral Clean Air enforcement by EPA under the SCUS Massachusetts ruling. His deal with China removes one of the favourite Senate excuses, that a China without emissions controls would suck energy intensive industries out of USA. Anyway, the excuse is obsolete: GM and General Electric (and doubtless others) just announced expansion plans there that dwarf their current US operations. Corporate decisions have already been made. Corporate feet have moved, no matter what lips say.

3. There will be subsidies and boondoggles to make US fossil and nuke lobbyists* drool; their "China market" is estimated to grow to $1 trillion a year:

• $150 million/5 yr for a bilateral US-China Clean Energy Research Center, including CCS and syngas by Peabody, GE, AES
• a slowdown? (hopes Revkin of NYT) of Chinese coal liquefaction projects (see Wikipedia)
• Electric Vehicles Initiative: joint fuel emission standards, demos in 12 Chinese cities, electric vehicle production & export (probably joint projects with US automakers). Revkin sayspowering EVs with dirty-fuel electicity is the great danger.
• new nuclear generators: the gold rush is on with Bechtel, Areva, GE, Hitachi and others (see my list of participants)
• Energy Efficiency Action Plan: joint green-building codes, tests and inspector training, joint Forum yearly [=exports]. For details see CSEP. A comment on Revkin's report blames inaction within USA on mortgage lender rules not building codes.
  
• joint Renewable Energy Plan: tech transfer to states and regions, smart grids, joint Forum yearly [=exports]
• jojnt solar-power projects with Suntech in Jiangsu etc; Suntech solar panel production and joint First Solar powerplant in AZ
• joint wind-power projects in Arizona (previously planned by Pickens for Texas)
• China Greentech Initiative including CISCO, Westinghouse and 80 other companies
• DOE government research (free to corporations, not to taxpayers): ARPA-E at Sandia, fusion and maglev at Livermore; U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; USAID.

*Here's an incomplete list of major US players in the above: Bechtel, Goldman Sachs, General Motors, General Electric, Duke Energy, Peabody Coal, American Electric, AES, Aqua International, VantagePoint Venture Partners, Lexecon, Bradbrook, Applied Materials, First Solar, CISCO, Westinghouse, Weyerhauser, American Wind Energy Association, ACORE, Gore's Repower America, Pew Center Climate Tech (and its Feb 2009 Roadmap report by Pew with Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations, Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and Environmental Defense Fund), NRDC, ACCORD, China-U.S. Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Duke U's Nicholas Institute.

4. huge renewables subsidies (labelled "mitigation") from US cap-and-trade will flow apparently to poor countries, but flow right back (via patents, tech transfer, project management, etc) to US-China manufacturers who hope to dominate world market share**, squeezing out Europe which so far leads the field in renewables. This also marks a strategic move away from oil dependency, so the Chinese Peoples' Army, CIA and Pentagon will be onboard.
** cf. Anna Fahey in Grist 17 Jul 09; GE on export strategy 22 Oct 09.

5. a fight for control of $trillions in world "green" financing among Wall St (via bilateral agreements), World Bank carbon funds, over-the-counter offsets, EU-ETS, or a reformed GEF to replace CDM. My guess is that they will cross the finish line in that order. Very bad news. Worse news: part of the pie will be REDD with little MRV -- for example the "conservationist" offsets promoted by CELB in its CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance.

6. GHG emissions by China are now the world's highest, exceeding US. Also, China's and India's rate of GHG increase is the most rapid in the world, says the latest scientific study by Corinne Le Quéré et al. (see her 17 Nov 09 abstract, and a more readable resume by Bristol U). In a personal interview Le Quéré says 6 degree warming is now possible, because sinks are failing, emissions rising ever faster, tipping points come sooner. This Business As Usual (BAU) path will lead to a "die-off" of 6-8 billion people, 85% of humanity (says James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia, p.141).

Click on this graph for more visible text and full-screen display






Environmental groups will be happy with the "renewables" in the US-China deal, but not with the (oxymoronic) "clean coal" and nukes, and cap-and-trade boondoggles. NGO watchdogs must bark loudly at the worst of these. If ecojustice groups want to have any influence at all they will have to understand the details, where the devil is, and be willing to sup with the "better" corporate interests, using a long spoon. Are they willing and able to make the effort?

*****

See also previous posts on Copenhagen negotiations and Environmental Networks, with links to summary documents which are updated frequently.

How India could lead Asia -- Julian Stargardt

Julian Stargardt is a Quaker and CEO of Cambridge Business Group. See also his article "Global Change: the future of the world economy" in Offshore Investor (Oct 2009).

*****

In Asia Confidential on Bloomberg TV 11 Nov 09, I asked Anan Mahindra, CEO of Mahindra and Mahindra:

"To avoid major CO2 emission increases in India why don't you (and for that matter Tata) produce mass market electric vehicles? Power plants and power outages are an issue in India, but because pollution from power plants is centralised, it is easier to deal with than emissions from millions of vehicles. Could India lead Asia in electric transport ?"

Our ensuing discussion made four points:
1. electric vehicles are the way of the future.
2. Mahindra has some electric vehicles in production and others in prototype.
3. Mahindra produces the only non-Japan hybrid.
4. "highly efficient" light diesel is likely in the near future.

The other guest, Australian financier Shane Oliver of AMP, added:

• Electric vehicles have a much much smaller carbon footprint than petrol or diesel -- even allowing for the "dirty" electricity needed to run them, generated by coal and oil-burning fired power plants.
• China, India and other industrialising countries' carbon emissions are increasing exponentially but they are using less polluting technologies than Europe and the US did.

Speaking as an Asian, I pointed out responsibilities for CO2 levels:

• The developed world gave us the first 50ppm rise above "normal" 284 ppm
• The subsequent 70 ppm (rising fast) comes substantially from the developing world.
• Current production methods are more "energy efficient" (less polluting per unit of GDP) but their scale and growth in Asia are making a difference in kind, not just in degree.
• The greatest danger is attitudes and policies such as those in the India World Economic Forum. [See the previous post in this blog.]

*****

See also numerous ideas by India's green capitalists in India Microfinance.

Comparing renewable energies – Mark Jacobson

Stanford civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson proves that the options touted by coal and ethanol lobbies and the media, are 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best renewables. Full text of his paper in Energy and Environmental Science; video interview, PDF of his slideshow. Photo: Stanford News
Sources of electric power, best choices to worst:

1. wind power
2. concentrated solar power (CSP)
3. geothermal power
4. tidal power
5. solar photovoltaics (PV)
6. wave power
7. hydroelectric power
8. equally bad: nuclear power, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)

For transport vehicles, the same results are followed by ethanol as the worst choices:

9. corn-E85
10. cellulosic-E85

Jacobson's is the first quantitative, scientific comparison of US energy sources to compare their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. It received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.

When energy options for all of these impacts are considered, wind is by far the most promising, with over 99% reduction in carbon and air pollution; it would need less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbines to run the entire U.S. fleet (if BEV: battery-electric vehicles); saving thousands from premature air-pollution-related deaths; and virtually no water consumption.
Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space. A BEV fleet would require 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. By contrast, corn ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country every year, and take 15% of agricultural land. Cellulosic ethanol is even worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.

Current US energy subsidies throw money away on the wrong options, he says. “Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make. Recent research shows they not only produce more CO2 ... [but] actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels."

So-called "clean coal" is not clean at all, he says. "Coal with CCS emits 60 to 110 times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy.” It has no effect on pollution due to mining or transport of the coal, and requires about 25 percent more coal, increasing mountaintop removal, water and air pollution. Coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct; adding years of emissions from outmoded "dirty" plants while waiting for the new energy sources to come online.

Nuclear emits about 25 times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy. It has other risks. "Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it's straightforward to start refining uranium,” as Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do. "The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase.” He calculates that deaths from one terrorist nuke in a small city would be double the deaths from current vehicle air pollution over 30 years in the entire USA.

Though some call his highest-ranked renewables variable and therefore unreliable, previous studies by his research group showed that a national energy grid coordinating output from different locations would overcome variability and deliver a steady supply of baseline power to users.

He says, "There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession. Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

See also Amory Lovins, The Negawatt Revolution (1989), Wikipedia on negawatt power, load management, renewable energy; summary of 22 Oct 08 Deutsche Bank study Investing in Climate Change 2009.

New Energy Economy Emerging in the United States - Lester Brown

Learning to think about the future poster by Trinifar

Excerpts from Lester Brown's full text at Earth Policy Institute:

"A new US energy economy based on wind, solar, and geothermal energy is emerging at a pace and scale that could not have been imagined a year ago.

"Wind appears destined to become the centerpiece of the new U.S. energy economy, eventually supplying several hundred thousand megawatts of electricity. Texas has overtaken California... [with] nearly 6,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity online and a staggering 39,000 megawatts in the construction and planning stages... (think 45 coal-fired power plants). Other leaders among the 30 states with commercial-scale wind farms are Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, and Colorado. In South Dakota, Clipper Windpower and BP are teaming up to build the 5,050-megawatt Titan wind farm, the world’s largest. Already under development, Titan will generate five times as much electricity as the state’s 780,000 residents currently use [and feed Illinois]. In Wyoming... Philip Anschutz is developing a 2,000-megawatt wind farm, a 900-mile high-voltage transmission line to California [ and another line to] Colorado cities of Fort Collins, Denver, and Colorado Springs. Wind-rich Kansas and Oklahoma are looking to build a transmission line to the U.S. Southeast to export their wealth of cheap wind energy. California is developing a 4,500-megawatt wind farm complex in the Tehachapi Mountains northwest of Los Angeles.... Maine—a wind energy newcomer—is planning to develop 3,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity, far more than the state’s 1.3 million residents need. Delaware is planning an offshore wind farm of up to 600 megawatts, which could satisfy half of the state’s residential electricity needs. New York State, which has 700 megawatts of wind-generating capacity, plans to add another 8,000 megawatts, with most of the power being generated by winds coming off Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. And soon Oregon will nearly double its wind generating capacity with a 900-megawatt wind farm in the wind-rich Columbia River Gorge.

"Solar power is also expanding at a breakneck pace.... California, with its Million Solar Roofs plan, is far and away the leader. New Jersey is also moving fast, followed by Nevada. The largest U.S. solar cell installation today is a 14-megawatt array at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, but photovoltaic electricity at the commercial level is about to go big time. PG&E has entered into two solar cell power contracts with a combined capacity of 800 megawatts. Together, these plants will cover 12 square miles of desert with solar cells [with] peak output comparable to that of a large coal-fired power plant. Solar power plants are appealing in hot climates because their highest output coincides with the peak demand for air conditioning. The United States has the world’s only large solar thermal complex, a 350-megawatt project completed in 1991, [but] 10 large solar thermal power plants are under construction or in development... Eight of the plants will be built in California, one in Arizona, and one in Florida. Within the next three years, the United States will likely go from 420 megawatts of solar thermal generating capacity to close to 3,500 megawatts—an eightfold jump.

"96 geothermal power plants now under development in twelve western states are expected to double U.S. geothermal generating capacity....

"It is historically rare for so many interests to converge at one time and in one place...

• No one can cut off the supply of wind, solar, or geothermal energy.
  
• It also avoids the price volatility that has plagued oil and natural gas in recent decades... the price is stable since there is no fuel cost.
  
• [It will] dramatically cut carbon emissions, moving us toward climate stability and thus avoiding the most dangerous effects of climate change.
  
• It will staunch the outflow of dollars for oil, keeping that capital at home to invest in the new energy economy, developing national renewable energy resources and creating jobs here.
  

"At a time of economic turmoil and rising joblessness, these new industries can generate thousands of new jobs each week. Not only are the wind, solar, and geothermal industries hiring new workers, they are also generating jobs in construction and in basic supply industries such as steel, aluminum, and silicon manufacturing. To build and operate the new energy economy will require huge numbers of electricians, plumbers, and roofers. It will also employ countless numbers of high-tech professionals such as wind meteorologists, geothermal geologists, and solar engineers.

"To ensure that this shift to renewables continues at a rapid rate, national leadership is needed in one key area—building a strong national grid....

"[We are] now tapping energy sources that can last as long as the earth itself. Oil wells go dry and coal seams run out, but for the first time since the industrial revolution we are investing in energy sources that can last forever. This new energy economy can be our legacy to the next generation."

*****

For more information on Earth Policy Institute’s plan to cut carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020, see Chapters 11-13 in Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (PDF)