Archive for the ‘Energy Efficiency’ Category

Entropy & Engineering

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

I love Hans Noeldner’s take on our deathmobiling culture. His latest post brings the perspective of a hydraulic engineer to bear on the issue.

Put on your metaphorical thinking cap before clicking over there!

‘Sleeper’ items on Tuesday Council Agenda: Before the Pave, the Pipe

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010
Below is an excellent little analysis of a couple of items destined to be rubber stamped by our paving council this evening. This comes from a small local listserv*:
On just about every City Council Agenda you’ll find ‘sleeper’ items — seemingly innocuous — but which have huge implications in future.
Twenty-or forty-years from now, if someone asks, How did this happen? How did it get this way? What were they thinking?, these are the kinds of items that caused ‘it’ to ‘get this way’.
These items will almost certainly get little or no discussion Tuesday — yet they deserve thought and discussion as surely as The Edgewater did.
66. Felland Road Sanitary Sewer Phase 2 — This is what opens up an area to development — the sanitary sewer. So, here we are, along Felland Road, out in the Town of Burke [far east fringes of Madison], spreading further and further out. I’d love to see a list of names on the Front Page of the State Journal, above the fold, of individuals who will benefit from thi$.
80. MATC Parking – Look at the disaster MATC surface parking is already. When Plan Commission questioned MATC about their paving plans, a while back, we suddenly — coincidence? — saw a flurry of “news” stories about how MATC kids can’t find a place to put their cars. Has this item been thoroughly aired? — and discussed? Will someone pull this item off the Consent Agenda — and challenge MATC on what they’re doing out there?
On the Felland Rd water & sewer: I’d add something that this particular quoted author has said before: “No water, no development.” I’d also add that the city is making a huge mistake in not making bottom-line sustainability demands before approving the water system. For starters, that would include, the most rigorous sustainability, inclusivity and accessibility standards possible (net zero energy homes, walking-oriented, completely interconnected with the rest of the city on a neighborhood street grid, 95% car-free, frequent public transportation, housing affordability levels fully mixed in, and that match the city’s current demographics, etc.).

On the MATC issue: in this age of straitened budgets, high unemployment, and environmental destruction (thanks to our car-oriented lifestyle), the parking lot whiners at MATC deserve no taxpayer funded bailout for their wasteful campus design. And the people who live downstream from the proposed paved acreage should not have to pay by having to suffer from the increased flooding that will result. More paving = more flooding.

In both cases, we are hardwiring our city for waste, unsustainability and economic & ecologic rigormortis forevermore.

It is very, very unfortunate that we have a council that is so uniformly unable to analyze, anticipate and reflect on the long term implications of their votes. The mayor is, of course, a lost cause. Corporate. Bought & paid for. A mindless cash-seeking robot.  But one would think that at least the nominal progressives would question the stupidity.

Instead, we’ll have to duck as they wield their well-worn rubber stamps.

*The author usually likes to fly beneath the radar, thus, the post shall be left unattributed, unless author requests otherwise.

MGE: The Rustbelt Mindset

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Word has it that Madison Gas & Electric was the lead lobbyist in scuttling the state’s green energy plan during the state’s recent budget deliberations.

One major component of the plan: 25% of state’s total energy was to come from renewables. It also included a massive conservation push. There were significant provisions for reeling in cars. It was a multi-frontal assault on gluttony. It was a good plan.

Kristine Euclid, Gary Wolter & Co. should be ashamed of themselves.

As many readers know, I’m a major doubter about renewables. For now. I believe that there is so much low hanging fruit in terms of conservation that it would be unwise to dive into renewables until we have reduced our overall burn to the point that renewables could actually make a dent. As it stands, we burn so much that even a massive, Manhattan Project-scale investment in renewables wouldn’t make a hill of beans difference. We’ve got to burn less — a lot less — in order for renewables to be more than decorative. That said, this plan was so comprehensive, and so, so, just plain good on so many levels — especially conservation — that I think the 25% was a good, achievable target for renewables. I believe we would have been forced to burn a lot less in order to achieve that target number. We could never in a million years gotten to that number trying to build up to it assuming current consumption. We would first have to reduce, reduce, and reduce some more to make that number a reality. A good thing.

But the old, gray industrialists at MGE didn’t like it. Why? For one, by forcing reductions in the total burn of coal in the state, the bill probably would have reduced the value of their recent investment in 19th century coal technology at the Oak Creek power plant (or Elm Road, or whatever the latest euphemism for that rusting relic is).

It gets worse. Not only did they scuttle a visionary, 21st century green energy policy, they now want to hammer their green power paying customers with the cost of keeping their coal fired power plants.

More below….

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 27, 2010

MORE INFORMATION

Michael Vickerman

RENEW Wisconsin

608.255.4044

mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

RENEW: Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase

Higher costs associated with fossil fuel generation are driving Madison Gas & Electric’s costs higher, according to testimony submitted by company witnesses. The utility filed an application last week with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to collect an additional $32.2 million through a 9% increase in electric rates starting January 2011.

The bulk of the rate increase can be attributed to expenses associated with burning coal to generate electricity. A 22% owner of the 1,020-megawatt (MW) Columbia Generating Station near Portage, Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) and the owner plant owners plan to retrofit the 35-year-old facility to reduce airborne emissions. The cost of Columbia’s environmental retrofit is expected to total $640 million, of which MGE’s share is about $140 million.

MGE also owns an 8% share of the state’s newest coal-fired station, the 1,230-MW Elm Road Generating Station located in Oak Creek. A portion of the proposed rate hike would cover lease payments and other expenses at that plant.

MGE’s application does not attribute any portion of its proposed rate hike to renewable energy sources. However, MGE plans to increase the premium associated with its voluntary Green Power Tomorrow program from 1.25 cents per kilowatt-hour to 2 cents. RENEW estimates that the premium hike will collect more than $1 million in 2011 from the approximately 10,000 customers participating in the program.

According to the utility’s web site, 10% of MGE’s electric customers purchase some or all of their electricity from renewable resources. Moreover, Green Power Tomorrow has the second highest participation rate of all investor-owned utilities in the country according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Not surprisingly, MGE anticipates subscribership in Green Power Tomorrow to decrease if the PSC approves the higher premium. Currently, the program accounts for about 5% of total electric sales. Program subscribers include the City of Madison, State of Wisconsin, Dane County Regional Airport, Madison West High School, Goodman Community Center and Home Savings Bank.

According to MGE, sinking fossil fuel prices have widened the difference between wholesale power costs and the cost of supplying customers with renewable energy. However, it is worth remembering that the cost of supplying power from MGE’s renewable energy assets, such as its Rosiere installation in Kewaunee County and Top of Iowa project, did not increase last year and will not increase in the foreseeable future.

“Even though the cost of MGE’s windpower supplies is not going up, Green Power Tomorrow customers will take a double hit if the PSC approves this rate increase and request for higher premiums,” said RENEW Wisconsin executive Director Michael Vickerman. “It’s a ‘heads-I-win-tails-you-lose’ proposition that will wind up rewarding customers who drop out of the renewable energy program because coal is cheaper.”

“It would be short-sighted to penalize renewable energy purchasers just because fossil fuel prices are in a temporary slump,” Vickerman said. “But if MGE is allowed to institute this penalty at the same time it imposes the cost of cleaning up an older coal-fired generator on all of its customers, including its Green Power Tomorrow subscribers, it would have a profoundly negative impact on the renewable energy marketplace going forward.”

“This is the wrong time to be throwing up barriers to renewable energy development. We at RENEW will fight proposals that reward fossil fuel use and penalize renewable energy,” Vickerman added.

END

RENEW Wisconsin (HUwww.renewwisconsin.orgUH) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Green Collar Job Symposium, Saturday May 1 — Tomorrow

Friday, April 30th, 2010

I will be a panelist at the May Day shindig tomorrow (newsrelease below). Robbie Webber may be a panelist with me as well. Our session will be around 11:30.

Hope to see you there!

-Mike

**************************

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Green Collar Job Symposium, Saturday May 1, Madison Labor Temple, 1602 South Park Street, 9:30 – 5:30.

The Green Collar Alliance will be holding the first annual Green Collar Symposium and networking event Saturday, May 1 at the Madison Labor Temple.  The purpose of the event is to create a model which if implemented in local communities can create sustainable 100% employment.  The Symposium will feature a presentation by the Natural Step Organization and three panel discussions as well as a musical performance by the Raging Grannies.  Admission is free and everyone is welcome.

Americans Ditching Deathmobiles in Droves

Thursday, April 1st, 2010

Highest & Best Use

For the first time in history, Americans scrapped more cars than they bought.

WOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile, liberals anguish. And Detroit is more worried than ever.

Of course, they tried to put a brave face on it: “It foreshadows what may be pentup demand.” Yeah, that’s it, pentup demand! They’ll be back in the showrooms in no time! Willy Loman would be proud.

While the article may be partially right in that any rebound in employment will result in more cars bought, I seriously doubt it will ever go back to the levels of the years just before the bust. There has been a growing awareness across the generations that the car-oriented lifestyle just isn’t sustainable on any level. People of all ages have discovered biking, transit & walking. Mature families are happily letting their 2nd car die, scrapping it, and not replacing it. Younger people are going without a car altogether and loving the economic freedom. Car sharing is booming (both formal & informal). And a growing number of people across the generations & socio-economic divides are determined to simply not own a car at all. No way. No how.

It’s over Detroit. Retool to build buses, streetcars & trains. Embrace the hipster entrepreneurs struggling to gain a toehold in your city. Establish urban farmsteading on those empty lots. Cherish your ruins and foster industrial ruins tourism. Let go of the dreams of the glory days of Motown. The days of mega-industry anchoring the economy of your city are over. Deal with it.

And if places like Madison, Wisconsin don’t get a handle on their car-mandatory development patterns (to the detriment of our schools and economic future, I might add), it too will suffer the fate of every other rust belt city of its size.

Pay No Attention to the Trainwreck on the Left

Saturday, March 20th, 2010

Reluctantly, very reluctantly, and after much pleading from the organizers, I agreed to show up to a meeting entitled, “What’s Up With The Left in Madison.”

My reluctance was based in my long involvement with Progressive Dane from its inception (’93?) until a couple of years ago. For all of those years I tried to get the party’s leadership as well as elected officials to understand the economic & environmental trainwreck around the bend if they didn’t start applying the brakes to all of that car-mandatory development out in the ‘burbs. I even worked hard for countless candidates — many of whom won — who promised to do something about all of the bad planning.

All of those efforts were to no avail.

Not only did they not listen, but PD alders & county supervisors actively accelerated the paving at an alarming rate.

The result:   An economic and environmental policy trainwreck with one train piling into the next in a fog of bad decisionmaking.

Trainwreck #1: Foreclosures. Housing in Madison’s ‘burbs, extending out into rural subdivisions and horsey-doggie sprawl, is now so far flung and anti-pedestrian and anti-transit that the poor, the young, the elderly and the conscientiously carless cannot access it. And for those who just value a human-scaled place (regardless of their socio-economic demographic pigeonhole), it has no value. This destruction of value was brought about by a widely recognized lack of universal access planned into these developments. Walls of distance and speeding car traffic as it were.

In a sense, cosmic justice prevailed as the foreclosure crisis hit car-mandatory places the hardest. Unfortunately, however, it is hurting us all, as the cratering real estate values out there are devastating Madison & Dane County’s tax base.

These economically unsustainable development patterns were heartily supported by elected progressives with nary a peep from party membership (yours truly excepted, of course).

Did the price crash have to happen, given the national foreclosure crisis? Nope. Most of our walking/biking/transit-friendly ‘hoods have either a) maintained their value or b) actually increased in value. This same trend has occurred across the country with human-scaled neighborhoods holding their value while cul-de-sacs tank in the same region. Instead of seeing the foreclosure crisis for what it is — a disaster for all — progressives see it as an opportunity to…squat! (Yes, this is the next direct action actually proposed at the meeting.) So ok, it will make for great theater. And I like theater. But then what? Do we sit there all self-satisfied that we have stuck-it-to-the-man while continuing to support policies that continually drive down our tax base?! What sort of vicious cycle of insanity is this?

Trainwreck #2: The abovedescribed tax base destruction (developers churning out soulless subdivisions -> 1960s-educated planners collaborating -> ‘progressive’ elected officials wielding rubber stamps approving every car-mandatory subdivision ->  gullible homebuyers (or, perhaps more likely, homebuyers given no choice) -> crazy bankers -> (soon) crazy squatters) is now squeezing every city & county department, including those departments forming the social safety net advocated for by the good progressives. At today’s meeting, progressives at first stood stunned, then started casting about for scapegoats. People, only one department has continued to receive double digit year-over-year budget increases, and it is the very people who brought the housing crisis to you in the first place: The highway department! Pavement expansion is raging at 10 times population growth + inflation. TEN times! That’s good money chasing after bad, folks. We’ve been there, done that…and crashed. Yet we keep piling the people’s cash into the same bad land use patterns. It’s not a goat you’re looking for, it’s a hog; and the hog sits in the chief of highways seat. And your endorsed ‘progressive’ elected officials continue to slop that hog.

The car-mandatory nature of our elected leaders’ policies has created trainwreck #3: Increasingly filthy air, thanks to city-mandated driving (a direct result of car-mandatory places). The air is getting so filthy, in fact, that Madison is soon to be designated a dirty air zone by the EPA (‘non-attainment’ in the jargon). This will seriously damage Madison’s ability to attract & retain good jobs, as potential employers will recoil at the extra hoops mandated by the feds when air pollution exceeds the allowable levels.

And while progressives perseverate mightily about the need for good, family-supporting jobs, they fail to see the environment as anything but a white environmentalist/elitist/hobbyist’s concern. (Emphasis on white; there was much hand-wringing about the overwhelming whiteness of the progressive community.). Folks, dirty air is bad for everybody. But the poor — disproportionately non-white — will be disproportionately hit. Those jobs the poor need? Gone thanks to dirty air. (Milwaukee and other rustbelt cities, perpetually under the EPA’s thumb have been hemorrhaging jobs since the inception of the Clean Air Act. Coincidence? Me thinks not. And no, it isn’t the Act’s fault, it is the fault of short-sighted local & state leaders who worship cars more than their constituents’ economic and physical health.)

Then there are the children of the poor. We know that they will suffer disproportionately from air pollution-induced asthma (do I need to go into how bad this is for the developmental progress of a child?).

Fighting against dirty air is not a hobby. Nor is it only a concern of only white enviros.

Trainwreck #4: Dirty drinking water. So much land is paved over that our aquifers are no longer recharging as they should, thus rendering increasingly contaminated water. Combine the paving with constant leaking of petrochemicals onto that pavement (tire & brake grit, exhaust that settles on soil & pavement, oil leaks, etc.); then, after a rain, that filth rushes across that pavement, to sewers, then directly to our surface waters (which now feed the aquifer thanks to paving over of infiltration zones) and you’ve got a recipe for hydrologic disaster…. Case in point: the combination described here has put the kibosh on developing a well for the industrial southeast side, perhaps imperiling hundreds of jobs. Jobs, people!

The biggest trainwreck of all is upcoming: energy. The $4/gallon summers of 2007 & 2008 were the first dominos to set in motion the housing market catastrophe. (In car-mandatory places families faced 2 choices: fill the SUV or pay the mortgage; in the end, neither was economically sustainable.)

But that is nothing compared to what we will be facing soon.

So far, the military has been able to keep the oil supplies open, but the endless wars over oil are proving to be costly in lives, treasure, constitutional rights and basic justice. Social justice advocates often bemoan the de-facto military draft (crushing economic necessity forcing individuals to ‘volunteer’ for the military, etc.), but they typically fail to see first causes: Most of our military is now dedicated to fighting for oil. The world’s #1 consumer of oil? The military. For what? Fighting for oil. The snake is eating its tail.

That is to say, expect even more of the above.

Unless. Unless, we get a handle on our resource consumption and the fouling of our own nests. Because folks, if we don’t, there won’t be any justice left to attain. For anyone.

But this was entirely too mind-blowing for the good progressives to grasp at the meeting Saturday. When we were asked to write down our vision for the city if we achieved a progressive majority on the city council, most people dreamed their dreams as the exercise intended. Affordable housing for all. Racial harmony. Family supporting jobs. Full funding for social services. A strong Regional Transit Authority. And on & on, the same litany we’ve come to know & love about the progressive vision. (And yes, I do love it. As far as it goes. Which isn’t far enough to do any of the above….)

My response to what Madison would look like with a progressive majority? Massively increased paving over of rich, precious, Dane County farmland. Dirtier air. Filthier water. More car traffic. Poor people cut off from jobs due to walls of distance. Planning that plans universal access out of our urban landscape.

Face it, our ‘progressive’ elected officials voted for all of the above in the past and continue to do so. There is no evidence it would change with a majority.

Thus, many of us have simply quit working for any candidates. (At least until we see some evidence of real change.) With the loss of key electoral volunteers, progressives have continued to lose strength on the council.

For no amount of pressure from organized groups seems to have any bearing on their decisions. Neither 20 hours a week of volunteer labor….Nor being a ward captain turning out margins of victories….Nor cold hard progressive cash…Nothing seems to work with these people. (This was, thankfully, alluded to by several other participants).

Many at the meeting lamented the high level of apathy in Madison. I strongly disagree. This city is so organized around mutually supporting — and countless — progressive causes that it should be clear to our elected officials that we do, in fact, want progress. Not Detroit’s vision of a city-enforced car mandate. Not the Teabaggers’ vision of an unstable, grindingly impoverished and violent future. We have stated over & over that we want something better. In fact, I view Madison’s strong civic culture much like a venerable Roman arch, with each organization forming the arch & wall (each brick in the pillar or stone in the arch representing an organization) mutually reinforcing neighboring, allied organizations.

We all hang together or....

But when the keystone element at the top is missing/weak/lacking in conviction, the whole edifice falls apart. In this metaphor, the keystone element is each of our elected officials. Given that they are universally AWOL with regard to the desires of their constituents, the whole edifice falls apart, just as a Roman arch would.

In the case of Madison, the people are doing a yeoman’s job of holding things together, pulling together the increasingly tight resources they have in their non-profits to make things work as best they can for those who have very little. Yet there was a lot of self-flaggelation/blaming ourselves for this sorry situation. Again, I vehemently disagree; the hardworking, civically-engaged people of Madison are not to blame. What is missing is that strong keystone element, starting with the out-of-touch mayor, but including every alder — yes, the ‘progressive’ ones inclusive.

There is no hope of getting through to the current crop of elected officials. In their hands, our destiny lies in gluttonous energy use, car-mandatory land use patterns, transportation only for the well-wheeled, dirtier & dirtier air  and filthier & filthier water.

They simply do not have the capacity to get it.

The Sustainability Mirage: A NYT Update

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Back in January I had an article published entitled “Madison’s Sustainability Mirage,” thesis of which was, all the groovey-green gizmos in the world won’t make a hill-of-beans difference as long as we keep siting “green buildings” in car-mandatory places. Looks like the smart gate-keepers at the NYT just figured it out, too.

The Next Messianic Miracle Fuel

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

Ok, so lithium is not a fuel, it is a material component for storing fuel– in this case, electricity. Lithium-ion batteries are the latest “green” holy grail. Eco-mirage of the hip. Messianic miracle material for the eco-techie. Any good (paid) environmentalist tell you that if only we had enough hybrids on the road, we would all be saved!

Indeed, it is the latest goldrush, replete with mega-corporate mining and all the environmental degradation that goes along with it.

I suppose we should probably start gearing up to invade Bolivia to secure our access to battery-making material for those Toyota Piouses the enviros keep telling us we should buy.

Lithium-induced Piousness

How many times do we have to see this movie, people?

The other end of the pipeline

Get off your asses and walk! Ride a bike! Take a bus!

Ditch your deathmobile!

It is not now, nor will it ever be, a perpetual motion machine.  The Laws of Physics simply won’t allow perpetual denial.

Q: What’s the Greatest Threat to the Planet?

Monday, March 1st, 2010

A: http://www.youtube.com/user/1standMain#p/u/1/VGJt_YXIoJI

…. a fun & lighthearted take on a serious topic thanks to our friends over at the Congress for New Urbanism.

Robbie Webber exasperatedly declared that they captured her entire 50 minute class talk on the Environment & Urbanism in 3 minutes! D’Oh!

Efficiency Pays, Renewables Cost

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Duh.

Relevant parts from the article itself (in case FT gives hassles you about registering):

Governments around the world could make rapid, substantial and relatively cheap cuts to carbon emissions by pursuing energy efficiency in place of more ambitious, but expensive, technological solutions, says a new study.

The analysis, based on data provided to the Financial Times by McKinsey, the consultancy, identifies more energy-efficient cars, lighting and buildings as the “low-hanging fruit” in the global warming battle.

The findings are particularly relevant in the US, the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, as Washington prepares to join international efforts to fight global warming at a UN conference beginning in Copenhagen next week.

The McKinsey analysis says that for the US the initial upfront expense of buying an electric or hybrid car would be rapidly offset by lower fuel costs, which in turn result in lower emissions per vehicle. It estimates a saving of €79 ($119, £52) for every tonne of carbon dioxide mitigated by 2030 through greater vehicle efficiency. For lighting the saving is €50 and €44 for buildings. Carbon capture and storage, a much touted technology to cut emissions, is by contrast likely to remain much more expensive. The cost of taking a tonne of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere this way would initially be €76 in the US in 2015, the consultancy found, falling to €39 a tonne by 2030.

US companies should also invest in energy efficiency before they turn to buying carbon offsets overseas, if they wish to get the most “bang for the buck”.

This contrasts with the view of many US businesses which believe they will need to buy cheap carbon credits from abroad if they are to cut emission mitigation costs under a federal cap-and-trade system up for consideration in the Senate.

For companies looking to invest in renewables, the most cost-effective place to do so through the UN carbon trading scheme, is likely to be South Africa – which currently offers generous feed-in tariffs – according to a study by the Technical University of Braunschweig in Germany.

Smaller hydroelectric power plants, which are among the most popular small-scale projects registered under the UN system, are also highly costeffective, the study claims.

These costs contrast sharply with other forms of renewable energy that have a higher profile. Solar power, for instance, would cost €34 per tonne of carbon dioxide avoided in India in 2015, while in China the cost would be €43 per tonne, according to McKinsey’s estimates. Wind turbines are lower cost but still relatively expensive. In China, McKinsey calculates wind turbines would cost €8 per tonne of carbon avoided in 2015, and €15 in India.

Making renewable energy investments in developed countries is far more expensive, according to the data.

This reflects one of the founding philosophies of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism – that it would help rich countries achieve their obligations to cut emissions under the 1997 Kyoto protocol by allowing them to invest in lower cost projects in the developing world. Poor nations meanwhile could gain access to low-carbon technology which they could not otherwise afford.

But the scheme has fallen short of expectations, prompting calls for its overhaul at the Copenhagen conference. The greatest single reducer of emissions under the CDM, is the elimination of certain industrial gases – such as hydrofluorocarbons, a by-product of the manufacture of refrigerants.

But while this should in theory be one of the cheapest methods of cutting emissions – at an estimated $1 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent destroyed, according to Point Carbon, a carbon consultancy – the international community ends up paying much more, with high profits accruing to factory owners and intermediaries such as carbon traders.

Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, said Copenhagen must produce “mechanisms . . . that will allow for prompt action on emissions, to deploy new technologies, and to build capacity in developing countries”. Some form of carbon trading would remain a key mechanism, he said.

Too bad they left out the lowest of low hanging fruit: walking-, biking-, transit-friendly land use patterns.