DropYourEnergyBill

Category: Energy

  • Baghdad’s batteries

    Baghdad’s batteries

    Baghdad Battery or Parthian Battery

    A set of three artifacts were found together: a ceramic pot, a tube of copper, and a rod of iron. It was discovered in modern Khujut Rabu, Iraq, close to the metropolis of Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthian (150 BC – 223 AD) and Sasanian (224–650 AD) empires of Persia, and it is believed to date from either of these periods.

    It was in 1938, while working in Khujut Rabu, just outside Baghdad in modern day Iraq, that German archaeologist Wilhelm Konig unearthed a five-inch-long (13 cm) clay jar containing a copper cylinder that encased an iron rod.

    More than 60 years after their discovery, the batteries of Baghdad – as there are perhaps a dozen of them – are shrouded in myth.

    “The batteries have always attracted interest as curios,” says Dr Paul Craddock, a metallurgy expert of the ancient Near East from the British Museum.

    “They are a one-off. As far as we know, nobody else has found anything like these. They are odd things; they are one of life’s enigmas.”

    No two accounts of them are the same. Some say the batteries were excavated, others that Konig found them in the basement of the Baghdad Museum when he took over as director. There is no definite figure on how many have been found, and their age is disputed.  Skilled warriors, the Parthians were not noted for their scientific achievements.

    “Although this collection of objects is usually dated as Parthian, the grounds for this are unclear,” says Dr St John Simpson, also from the department of the ancient Near East at the British Museum.

    “The pot itself is Sassanian. This discrepancy presumably lies either in a misidentification of the age of the ceramic vessel, or the site at which they were found.”

    It was in 1938, while working in Khujut Rabu, just outside Baghdad in modern day Iraq, that German archaeologist Wilhelm Konig unearthed a five-inch-long (13 cm) clay jar containing a copper cylinder that encased an iron rod.

    The vessel showed signs of corrosion, and early tests revealed that an acidic agent, such as vinegar or wine had been present.

    In the early 1900s, many European archaeologists were excavating ancient Mesopotamian sites, looking for evidence of Biblical tales like the Tree of Knowledge and Noah’s flood.

    Konig did not waste his time finding alternative explanations for his discovery. To him, it had to have been a battery.

    Though this was hard to explain, and did not sit comfortably with the religious ideology of the time, he published his conclusions. But soon the world was at war, and his discovery was forgotten.

    Scientific Awareness

    The artifacts consist of a terracotta pot approximately 130 mm (5 in) tall (with a one-and-a-half-inch mouth) containing a cylinder made of a rolled copper sheet, which houses a single iron rod. At the top, the iron rod is isolated from the copper by bitumen, with plugs or stoppers, and both rod and cylinder fit snugly inside the opening of the jar. The copper cylinder is not watertight, so if the jar were filled with a liquid, this would surround the iron rod as well. The artifact had been exposed to the weather and had suffered corrosion.

    More than 60 years after their discovery, the batteries of Baghdad – as there are perhaps a dozen of them – are shrouded in myth.

    “The batteries have always attracted interest as curios,” says Dr Paul Craddock, a metallurgy expert of the ancient Near East from the British Museum.

    “They are a one-off. As far as we know, nobody else has found anything like these. They are odd things; they are one of life’s enigmas.”

    No two accounts of them are the same. Some say the batteries were excavated, others that Konig found them in the basement of the Baghdad Museum when he took over as director. There is no definite figure on how many have been found, and their age is disputed.

    Most sources date the batteries to around 200 BC – in the Parthian era, circa 250 BC to AD 225. Skilled warriors, the Parthians were not noted for their scientific achievements.

    “Although this collection of objects is usually dated as Parthian, the grounds for this are unclear,” says Dr St John Simpson, also from the department of the ancient Near East at the British Museum.

    “The pot itself is Sassanian. This discrepancy presumably lies either in a misidentification of the age of the ceramic vessel, or the site at which they were found.”

    Possible Uses

    Some have suggested the batteries may have been used medicinally.

    The ancient Greeks wrote of the pain killing effect of electric fish when applied to the soles of the feet.

    The Chinese had developed acupuncture by this time, and still use acupuncture combined with an electric current. This may explain the presence of needle-like objects found with some of the batteries.

    But this tiny voltage would surely have been ineffective against real pain, considering the well-recorded use of other painkillers in the ancient world like cannabis, opium and wine.

    Other scientists believe the batteries were used for electroplating – transferring a thin layer of metal on to another metal surface – a technique still used today and a common classroom experiment.

    This idea is appealing because at its core lies the mother of many inventions: money.

    In the making of jewellery, for example, a layer of gold or silver is often applied to enhance its beauty in a process called gilding.

    Grape Electrolyte

    Two main techniques of gilding were used at the time and are still in use today: hammering the precious metal into thin strips using brute force, or mixing it with a mercury base which is then pasted over the article.

    These techniques are effective, but wasteful compared with the addition of a small but consistent layer of metal by electro-deposition. The ability to mysteriously electroplate gold or silver on to such objects would not only save precious resources and money, but could also win you important friends at court.

    A palace, kingdom, or even the sultan’s daughter may have been the reward for such knowledge – and motivation to keep it secret.

    Testing this idea in the late seventies, Dr Arne Eggebrecht, then director of Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim, connected many replica Baghdad batteries together using grape juice as an electrolyte, and claimed to have deposited a thin layer of silver on to another surface, just one ten thousandth of a millimetre thick.

    Other researchers though, have disputed these results and have been unable to replicate them.

    “There does not exist any written documentation of the experiments which took place here in 1978,” says Dr Bettina Schmitz, currently a researcher based at the same Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum.

    “The experiments weren’t even documented by photos, which really is a pity,” she says. “I have searched through the archives of this museum and I talked to everyone involved in 1978 with no results.”

    What Happened to Batteries

    A little prior to the invasion of Iraq on March 20 in 2003, the museum closed its doors to the public. Nearly 8,366 small items were hidden away at a storage location, sworn not to be revealed to anyone, by a few members of the staff. The larger ones that could not be moved and a few other items were covered with foam and rubber for protection. On April 10 in 2003, the museum was plundered and more than 10,000 items were stolen. One of those was the Baghdad Battery. An assessment of losses incurred and an investigation report was submitted by US Marine Colonel Matthew Bogdanos, who made an extensive list of the number of stolen artefacts. Bogdanos was convinced that the stealing had taken place in 3 parts in different instances.

    Due to a local amnesty programme, and through seizures, around 3,037 items were recovered by January 2004. A year later, by January 2005, the museum had received another 2,307 items that had been stolen. On January 30 in 2012, 45 missing relics were returned to Iraq by Germany. However, according to the general director of the museum, Amira Eidan, nearly 10,000 antique national treasures were still missing at that time. The National Museum of Iraq officially reopened to the public in February 2015. One of the rare artefact that is still missing is the Baghdad Battery.

    The purpose and the current location of the Baghdad Battery, both remain a mystery till date. The Baghdad Battery is just one of the many unexplained ancient phenomena that have been encountered by modern man.

    Sources:  BBC

    STSWorld

  • Germany’s Green New Deal Debacle

    Germany’s Green New Deal Debacle

    Renewable zealots tout Germany as the benchmark for the inevitable transition to wind and solar, but its energy system is a complete debacle.

    Germany’s so-called Energiewende (energy transition) has turned into a power pricing and supply calamity.  The goal of Energiewende is to make Germany independent of fossil fuels. But it hasn’t worked out. The 29,000 wind turbines and 1.6 million PV systems provide only 3.1% of Germany’s energy needs and have cost well over 100 billion Euros so far and likely another 450 billion Euros over the next two decades. (1)

    Germany’s vision of a clean, environmentally friendly energy supply system, all to be discreetly nestled in an idyllic landscape, is in reality morphing into an environmental dystopia of catastrophic proportions.  (2)

    The German state of Hesse’s largest contiguous forest area will become a wind industry area if profit seeking planners get their way. The place is known as the ‘treasure house of European forests’ or ‘Grimm’s fairy tale forest.’ Twenty million square meters of 1000-year the old ‘fairy tale’ forest will be designated as an industrial wind park zone. Approval procedure in final phase. The 1000 year old ‘fairy tale’ forest is slated to be industrialized for ‘green’ energy.  (3)

    The first 20 wind turbines of unprecedented size are planed, the approval procedure is in the its final phase. And that would only be the beginning. A total of more than 60 of these gigantic wind turbines could be built on 7 large areas.

    Concurrently, pressured by climate activism, power generator Vattenfall announced it will shut down its recently commissioned modern Moorburg coal power plant in Hamburg, Germany.  The plant was commissioned in 2015 and is still considered as brand new on a power plant scale. It came with a 3 billion euro price tag and was scheduled to run until 2038. The power plant plays an important role in the power supply in northern Germany, in Hamburg and the surrounding area with its port, metal operations and Airbus.

    With Moorburg’s rated capacity of 1.65 GW, it will take over 1600 wind turbines with a rated capacity of 5MW (operating at 20%) to replace the power plant. That could mean a profound impact on forests and landscapes in Germany if they have to be cleared for more wind parks. (4)

    The goals of the German transition to green energies are simple in terms of energy policy:

    1. phase-out nuclear energy by 2022
    2. phase-out coal by 2035
    3. phase-out oil and gas in parallel and completely by 2050

    The energy needed for electricity, heat, mobility and industrial processes in climate neutral Germany will then have to be supplied by wind and solar energy and a few percent by hydropower and biomass. This is at least

    according to the plans of the German government, which are supported by all major social players.

    To meet all requirements, two-thirds of Germany would need to be outfitted with 200 meter tall rotating wind turbines at a distance of 1000m, no matter if there is a city, a river or a highway, a forest, a lake or a nature reserve.

    Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says the German transformation to green energies will fail due to wind power. (5)

    A paper by Swiss researchers further intensifies doubt, finding that solar power remains an inefficient way to produce energy in most cases. It’s beginning to appear that Europe has wasted tens of billions of euros in a mass energy folly. (6)

    From today’s point of view, one has to expect a tenfold higher electricity price. Any person can imagine the consequences for jobs and prosperity.  (5)

    Not only has electricity gotten expensive in these countries, but the supply is highly unreliable. Germany’s massive 110 GW of installed sun and wind produced next to nothing over a period of five days early in November 2020, not even close to meeting the country’s demand. (7)

    In 2017 German families and businesses were pummeled by 172,000 localized blackouts. In 2019, some 350,000 German families had their electricity cut off because they couldn’t pay their power bills. In Britain, millions of elderly people had to choose between heating and eating decent food; many spent their days in libraries to keep warm and more than 3,000 die every year because they cannot heat their homes properly, making them more likely to succumb to respiratory, heart, flu, or other diseases. (8)

    Last year, Germany was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase out of coal, and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments.  (9)

    Today the German Energiewende energy policy finds itself stalled and floundering. Germany’s carbon emissions have stagnated at roughly their 2009 level. The country remains Europe’s largest producer and burner of coal. Moreover, emissions in the transportation sector have shot up by 20 percent since 1995 and are rising with no end in sight, experts say.  (10)

    A final note on Energiewende: Joanne Nova reports, “Compare the outrage: Germany abandons carbon target, but stays in Paris agreement. US abandons Paris but makes actual carbon cuts. One of these nations is a global pariah. Which is more important, paper promises you don’t keep or lower outputs of planet destroying gas?”  (11)

    References

    1. “Germany’s renewable energy program, Energiewende, is a big expensive failure,” energyskeptic.com, July 20, 2019
    2. P. Gosselin, “Germany’s enviro-dystopia: wind parks devastating rural regions at catastrophic proportions,” notrickszone.com, December 1, 2020
    3. P. Gosselin, “Environment of dystopia: Germany plans to wipe put 20 million square meters of 1000-year old forest, for wind parks,” notrickszone.com, December 8, 2020
    4. P. Gosselin, “Energy masterminds announce latest folly: shutdown of modern coal power plant commissioned just 5 years ago,” notrickszone.com, December 11, 2020
    5. Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, “The German transformation to green energies will fail due to wind power,” kaltesonne.de, November 14, 2020
    6. Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk, “Energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation,” Energy Policy, 94, 336, July 2016
    7. P. Gosselin, “Unreliable, most expensive: green energies make Germany’s electricity prices highest in Europe,”notrickszone.com, November 28, 2020
    8. Paul Driessen, “How exactly to they plan to replace fossil fuels?,”wattsupwiththat.com, March 16, 2020
    9. Tom Finnerty, “The false promise of affordable green energy,” principia-scientific.com, November 14, 2020
    10. Paul Hockenos, “Carbon crossroads: can Germany revive its stalled energy transition?”, e350.yale.edu, December 13, 2018
    11. Joanne Nova, “Germany drops carbon target,” joannenova.com.au, January 12, 2018

    Source:  Principia Scientific Intl.

  • Electromagnetic absorption by water

    Electromagnetic absorption by water

    Electromagnetic absorption by water

    The absorption of electromagnetic radiation by water depends on the state of the water.

    The absorption in the gas phase occurs in three regions of the spectrum. Rotational transitions are responsible for absorption in the microwave and far-infrared, vibrational transitions in the mid-infrared and near-infrared. Vibrational bands have rotational fine structure. Electronic transitions occur in the vacuum ultraviolet regions.

    Liquid water has no rotational spectrum but does absorb in the microwave region. Its weak absorption in the visible spectrum results in the pale blue color of water.

    Absorption spectrum (attenuation coefficient vs. wavelength) of liquid water (red),[1][2][3] atmospheric water vapor (green)[4][5][6][4][7] and ice (blue line)[8][9][10] between 667 nm and 200 μm.[11] The plot for vapor is a transformation of data Synthetic spectrum for gas mixture ‘Pure H2O’ (296K, 1 atm) retrieved from Hitran on the Web Information System.[6]

    The water molecule, in the gaseous state, has three types of transition that can give rise to absorption of electromagnetic radiation:
    • Rotational transitions, in which the molecule gains a quantum of rotational energy. Atmospheric water vapour at ambient temperature and pressure gives rise to absorption in the far-infrared region of the spectrum, from about 200 cm−1 (50 μm) to longer wavelengths towards the microwave region.
    • Vibrational transitions in which a molecule gains a quantum of vibrational energy. The fundamental transitions give rise to absorption in the mid-infrared in the regions around 1650 cm−1 (μ band, 6 μm) and 3500 cm−1 (so-called X band, 2.9 μm)
    • Electronic transitions in which a molecule is promoted to an excited electronic state. The lowest energy transition of this type is in the vacuum ultraviolet region.

    In reality, vibrations of molecules in the gaseous state are accompanied by rotational transitions, giving rise to a vibration-rotation spectrum. Furthermore, vibrational overtones and combination bands occur in the near-infrared region. The HITRAN spectroscopy database lists more than 37,000 spectral lines for gaseous H216O, ranging from the microwave region to the visible spectrum.[5][12]

    In liquid water the rotational transitions are effectively quenched, but absorption bands are affected by hydrogen bonding. In crystalline ice the vibrational spectrum is also affected by hydrogen bonding and there are lattice vibrations causing absorption in the far-infrared. Electronic transitions of gaseous molecules will show both vibrational and rotational fine structure.

    Units Edit

    Infrared absorption band positions may be given either in wavelength (usually in micrometers, μm) or wavenumber (usually in reciprocal centimeters, cm−1) scale.

    Rotational spectrum

    The water molecule is an asymmetric top, that is, it has three independent moments of inertia. Rotation about the 2-fold symmetry axis is illustrated at the left. Because of the low symmetry of the molecule, a large number of transitions can be observed in the far infrared region of the spectrum. Measurements of microwave spectra have provided a very precise value for the O−H bond length, 95.84 ± 0.05 pm and H−O−H bond angle, 104.5 ± 0.3°.[13]

    Part of the pure rotation absorption spectrum of water vapor

    The three fundamental vibrations of the water moleculeν1,O-H symmetric stretching
    3657 cm−1 (2.734 μm)ν2, H-O-H bending
    1595 cm−1 (6.269 μm)ν3, O-H asymmetric stretching
    3756 cm−1 (2.662 μm) 

    The water molecule has three fundamental molecular vibrations. The O-H stretching vibrations give rise to absorption bands with band origins at 3657 cm−1 (ν1, 2.734 μm) and 3756 cm−1 (ν3, 2.662 μm) in the gas phase. The asymmetric stretching vibration, of B2 symmetry in the point group C2v is a normal vibration. The H-O-H bending mode origin is at 1595 cm−1 (ν2, 6.269 μm). Both symmetric stretching and bending vibrations have A1 symmetry, but the frequency difference between them is so large that mixing is effectively zero. In the gas phase all three bands show extensive rotational fine structure.[14] In the Near-infrared spectrum ν3 has a series of overtones at wavenumbers somewhat less than n·ν3, n=2,3,4,5… Combination bands, such as ν2 + ν3 are also easily observed in the near-infrared region.[15][16] The presence of water vapor in the atmosphere is important for atmospheric chemistry especially as the infrared and near infrared spectra are easy to observe. Standard (atmospheric optical) codes are assigned to absorption bands as follows. 0.718 μm (visible): α, 0.810 μm: μ, 0.935 μm: ρστ, 1.13 μm: φ, 1.38 μm: ψ, 1.88 μm: Ω, 2.68 μm: X. The gaps between the bands define the infrared window in the Earth’s atmosphere.[17]

    The infrared spectrum of liquid water is dominated by the intense absorption due to the fundamental O-H stretching vibrations. Because of the high intensity, very short path lengths, usually less than 50 μm, are needed to record the spectra of aqueous solutions. There is no rotational fine structure, but the absorption bands are broader than might be expected, because of hydrogen bonding.[18] Peak maxima for liquid water are observed at 3450 cm−1 (2.898 μm), 3615 cm−1 (2.766 μm) and 1640 cm −1 (6.097 μm).[14] Direct measurement of the infrared spectra of aqueous solutions requires that the cuvette windows be made of substances such as calcium fluoride which are water-insoluble. This difficulty can alternatively be overcome by using an attenuated total reflectance (ATR) device rather than transmission.

    In the near-infrared range liquid water has absorption bands around 1950 nm (5128 cm−1), 1450 nm (6896 cm−1), 1200 nm (8333 cm−1) and 970 nm, (10300 cm−1).[19][20][15] The regions between these bands can be used in near-infrared spectroscopy to measure the spectra of aqueous solutions, with the advantage that glass is transparent in this region, so glass cuvettes can be used. The absorption intensity is weaker than for the fundamental vibrations, but this is not important as longer path-length cuvettes can be used. The absorption band at 698 nm (14300 cm−1) is a 3rd overtone (n=4). It tails off onto the visible region and is responsible for the intrinsic blue color of water. This can be observed with a standard UV/vis spectrophotometer, using a 10 cm path-length. The colour can be seen by eye by looking through a column of water about 10 m in length; the water must be passed through an ultrafilter to eliminate color due to Rayleigh scattering which also can make water appear blue.[16][21][22]

    The spectrum of ice is similar to that of liquid water, with peak maxima at 3400 cm−1 (2.941 μm), 3220 cm−1 (3.105 μm) and 1620 cm−1 (6.17 μm)[14]

    In both liquid water and ice clusters, low-frequency vibrations occur, which involve the stretching (TS) or bending (TB) of intermolecular hydrogen bonds (O–H•••O). Bands at wavelengths λ = 50-55 μm or 182-200 cm−1 (44 μm, 227 cm−1 in ice) have been attributed to TS, intermolecular stretch, and 200 μm or 50 cm−1 (166 μm, 60 cm−1 in ice), to TB, intermolecular bend[11]

    Visible regionEdit

    Predicted wavelengths of overtones and combination bands of liquid water in the visible region[16]
    ν1, ν3 ν2 wavelength /nm
    4 0 742
    4 1 662
    5 0 605
    5 1 550
    6 0 514
    6 1 474
    7 0 449
    7 1 418
    8 0 401
    8 1 376

    Absorption coefficients for 200 nm and 900 nm are almost equal at 6.9 m−1 (attenuation length of 14.5 cm). Very weak light absorption, in the visible region, by liquid water has been measured using an integrating cavity absorption meter (ICAM).[16] The absorption was attributed to a sequence of overtone and combination bands whose intensity decreases at each step, giving rise to an absolute minimum at 418 nm, at which wavelength the attenuation coefficient is about 0.0044 m−1, which is an attenuation length of about 227 meters. These values correspond to pure absorption without scattering effects. The attenuation of, e.g., a laser beam would be slightly stronger.

    Visible light absorption spectrum of pure water (absorption coefficient vs. wavelength)[16][21][22]

    Electronic spectrumEdit

    The electronic transitions of the water molecule lie in the vacuum ultraviolet region. For water vapor the bands have been assigned as follows.[11]
    • 65 nm band — many different electronic transitions, photoionization, photodissociation
    • discrete features between 115 and 180 nm
      • set of narrow bands between 115 and 125 nm
        Rydberg series: 1b1 (n2) → many different Rydberg states and 3a1 (n1) → 3sa1 Rydberg state
      • 128 nm band
        Rydberg series: 3a1 (n1) → 3sa1 Rydberg state and 1b1 (n2) → 3sa1 Rydberg state
      • 166.5 nm band
        1b1 (n2) → 4a1 (σ1*-like orbital)
    At least some of these transitions result in photodissociation of water into H+OH. Among them the best known is that at 166.5 nm.

    Microwaves and radio waves

    The pure rotation spectrum of water vapor extends into the microwave region.

    Liquid water has a broad absorption spectrum in the microwave region, which has been explained in terms of changes in the hydrogen bond network giving rise to a broad, featureless, microwave spectrum.[24] The absorption (equivalent to dielectric loss) is used in microwave ovens to heat food that contains water molecules. A frequency of 2.45 GHz, wavelength 122 mm, is commonly used.

    Radiocommunication at GHz frequencies is very difficult in fresh waters and even more so in salt waters.[11]

    Atmospheric effects

    Synthetic stick absorption spectrum of a simple gas mixture corresponding to the Earth’s atmosphere composition based on HITRAN data[5] created using Hitran on the Web system.[6] Green color – water vapor, WN – wavenumber (caution: lower wavelengths on the right, higher on the left). Water vapor concentration for this gas mixture is 0.4%.

    Water vapor is a greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region, and about 60% of the atmospheric absorption of thermal radiation by the Earth known as the greenhouse effect.[25] It is also an important factor in multispectral imaging and hyperspectral imaging used in remote sensing[12] because water vapor absorbs radiation differently in different spectral bands. Its effects are also an important consideration in infrared astronomy and radio astronomy in the microwave or millimeter wave bands. The South Pole Telescope was constructed in Antarctica in part because the elevation and low temperatures there mean there is very little water vapor in the atmosphere.[26]

    Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm,[27] but its presence in the Earth’s atmosphere accounts for just 26% of the greenhouse effect.[25] Carbon dioxide gas absorbs energy in some small segments of the thermal infrared spectrum that water vapor misses. This extra absorption within the atmosphere causes the air to warm just a bit more and the warmer the atmosphere the greater its capacity to hold more water vapor. This extra water vapor absorption further enhances the Earth’s greenhouse effect.[28]

    In the atmospheric window between approximately 8000 and 14000 nm, in the far-infrared spectrum, carbon dioxide and water absorption is weak.[29] This window allows most of the thermal radiation in this band to be radiated out to space directly from the Earth’s surface. This band is also used for remote sensing of the Earth from space, for example with thermal Infrared imaging.

    As well as absorbing radiation, water vapour occasionally emits radiation in all directions, according to the Black Body Emission curve for its current temperature overlaid on the water absorption spectrum. Much of this energy will be recaptured by other water molecules, but at higher altitudes, radiation sent towards space is less likely to be recaptured, as there is less water available to recapture radiation of water-specific absorbing wavelengths. By the top of the troposphere, about 12 km above sea level, most water vapor condenses to liquid water or ice as it releases its heat of vapourization. Once changed state, liquid water and ice fall away to lower altitudes. This will be balanced by incoming water vapour rising via convection currents.

    Liquid water and ice emit radiation at a higher rate than water vapour (see graph above). Water at the top of the troposphere, particularly in liquid and solid states, cools as it emits net photons to space. Neighboring gas molecules other than water (e.g. Nitrogen) are cooled by passing their heat kinetically to the water. This is why temperatures at the top of the troposphere (known as the tropopause) are about -50 degrees Celsius.

    Credits: wikipedia

  • Global Temperatures 2500 AC – 2040 BC

    Global Temperatures 2500 AC – 2040 BC

    Global Temperatures 2500 AC – 2040 BC

  • Illinois’ legislative lockdown will leave solar industry waiting until 2021

    Illinois’ legislative lockdown will leave solar industry waiting until 2021

    As surging coronavirus cases prompt leaders to cancel a November legislative session, solar developers and advocates fear irreparable harm to the industry.

    Hopes for new Illinois energy legislation this year have been dashed by the pandemic-related cancelation of the state’s annual November veto session. 

    Several new energy bills are pending in the state legislature, including the Clean Energy Jobs Act, backed by clean energy and community groups, and the Path to 100 bill, backed by renewable energy developers. With the veto session nixed, solar developers and advocates are looking to 2021 but say the nascent industry may suffer irreparable harm in the meantime. 

    The news comes as several solar projects are being unveiled, demonstrating the success of incentives created by the 2017 Future Energy Jobs Act — incentives that will no longer be available unless new legislation passes.

    The state’s largest solar installation on a school went online this month, part of 23 megawatts of solar developed and partially owned by ForeFront Power. The projects represent a $46.7 million investment in Illinois, aided by incentives under the Future Energy Jobs Act. And the company has more major projects slated to go online soon, according to Rachel McLaughlin, vice president of sales and marketing.

    Meanwhile, suburbs north of Chicago this month launched a program to offer residents guaranteed 20% savings if they subscribe to community solar projects that were also made possible by the 2017 law.

    When the Future Energy Jobs Act passed, “all of a sudden solar made sense for customers in Illinois,” said McLaughlin. “But now the incentives are gone. We have demand from customers every day, but we won’t be able to do [new installations] without something like Path to 100. … Without a long-term consistent program that provides certainty for the market, we’ll continue to see these boom and bust cycles.”

    School savings and union jobs 

    The ForeFront project with the Huntley school district involves three ground-mounted installations totaling 5.5 MW on farmland owned by the district northwest of Chicago. The district has a power purchase agreement with ForeFront, which owns the installation and sells solar renewable energy credits made available by the Future Energy Jobs Act as well as collecting federal tax incentives.

    Huntley CFO Mark Altmayer said that based on the low 20-year rate they’ve locked in with ForeFront, the school district expects to save at least $200,000 a year compared to what it would have paid utility ComEd otherwise. The money is crucial to a cash-strapped district in a state that ranks dead last for state contributions to education funding.

    “We’re going to spend money on learning versus burning” fossil fuels for energy, said Altmayer, who is also president of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials. “Every dollar we save is a dollar that can go into the classroom.” 

    Altmayer lamented that other schools won’t be able to do similar projects unless new energy legislation passes. “Solar will die if Illinois doesn’t do anything, that’s the unfortunate piece,” he said. “I’m at one of very few school districts in the state that did this. After we pulled the trigger, I talked about it at national conferences, and every school in the state wants to do this now.” 

    The solar renewable energy credits that ForeFront is able to sell, passing the savings on to the school district, are worth about $5 million a year, McLaughlin said. Combined with an inverter rebate and the federal tax credit, much of the cost of the array is covered. 

    The solar credits “are a huge win-win for us as well as ForeFront,” Altmayer said. He noted that the school district also benefits from sending energy back to the grid through net metering, though ironically that might put the district in a bind if schools continue to be online-only during the pandemic — using little electricity — and the panels generate more energy than net metering ComEd customers are supposed to send back to the grid. 

    ForeFront is providing kiosks for every school building showing real-time energy generation and analytics, and providing curriculum to help educate students and teachers about solar energy. Altmayer said it’s a key component of the district’s larger sustainability initiatives, which include LED lighting and replacing diesel buses with cleaner propane ones.

    ForeFront, a subsidiary of the global company Mitsui, also developed and owns a 2,900-panel array for the auto supplier Aisin located about 300 miles south of Chicago, another power purchase agreement arrangement involving incentives under the Future Energy Jobs Act.

    McLaughlin said 71 jobs were created by their Illinois projects, most of them being “high-quality union jobs.” A coalition of labor unions that this fall entered the legislative negotiations has expressed particular interest in installing solar on schools, and public sector projects like schools require a set prevailing wage and often union labor. 

    Community solar 

    Residents of seven communities on the North Shore north of Chicago can subscribe to community solar projects and get guaranteed 20% savings under agreements brokered by the communities and multiple developers under the wildly popular community solar incentive program created by the Future Energy Jobs Act.

    The communities also secured promises that there would be no credit checks or termination or enrollment fees, and all billing is handled through one provider, simplifying the process.

    “We’re showing people there are options today to go solar that are very easy and that save the environment and actually save you money,” said Art Wilde, co-founder of the group GoGreen Deerfield, which is helping promote the solar program. “This is what people have been asking for, for many years, and it’s here now — so let’s do this.”

    Wilde signed up for a similar community solar program earlier this fall and wants to help educate residents about the ease and potential. 

    “People who have been pondering private solar panels — those people will definitely find this appealing. It’s so much easier, you don’t have to make all these assessments and calls,” he said. “And from there the next level of interest comes from people who’ve wanted to go solar, but really haven’t had the time to look into it, and, wow, here’s something our village is supporting and all you have to do is click this link and get on the waiting list.”

    The towns since last fall have been getting energy for municipal operations through the first community solar project to go online in Illinois, also sparked by the Future Energy Jobs Act — a 3,700-panel array in one of the communities, Elgin.

    Glen Cole, assistant to the village administrator in Lake Bluff, said the new community solar program for residents grew out of the Elgin project’s success — Lake Bluff estimates it will save $12,300 over its 20-year term.

    Cole said town leaders were motivated to make sure residents could access solar under beneficial conditions negotiated by the governments, especially since some alternative retail electric suppliers have peddled deceptive or problematic renewable energy deals in the state.

    “We’re playing the middle-man, [matching residents with projects under] one set of business terms,” Cole said. “It’s kind of odd for us to be playing energy brokers and it’s kind of odd for us to be playing consumer protection agency, but we felt it was important for us to have a program that is municipally sponsored.”

    In early November, just a week after the program was announced, 90 residents were already on the waitlist. Thus far developers have committed a total of 10 MW available for community solar subscribers in the seven municipalities, and Cole said he expects the scale to grow.

    Cole said the program appears to be unique, especially given the fact that the municipalities sought commitments from developers rather than running a typical competitive request for proposals.

    “Our residents are not seeing the movement they want on climate and energy issues nationally, so we’re being asked to do what we can,” Cole said. “We’re not energy brokers by trade, but we found an innovative solution that contributes to making those changes in our state and our nation. It’s a cool program.”

    The large community solar and ForeFront projects will help Illinois make progress toward its renewable portfolio standard of 25% renewable energy by 2025, though the state is still far from meeting that target, and delay in passing energy legislation will only exacerbate the problem.

    GoGreen Deerfield co-founder George McClintick is planning to volunteer to help build momentum for the Clean Energy Jobs Act.

    “The more solar they build — it of course replaces other forms of power, namely coal here in Illinois,” he said. “We reduce our carbon footprint, and if people save some money that’s good too.”

    Correction: This article has been updated to correct the amount that Lake Bluff expects to save and to clarify the details of ForeFront Power’s solar investment in Illinois.

    Written by KARI LYDERSEN

  • Building Of A Fusion Power Plant

    Building Of A Fusion Power Plant

    US Physicists Urge The Building Of A Fusion Power Plant

    Written by Adrian Cho

    U.S. fusion scientists, notorious for squabbling over which projects to fund with their field’s limited budget, have coalesced around an audacious goal. A 10-year plan presented last week to the federal Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee is the first since the community tried to formulate such a road map in 2014 and failed spectacularly.

    It calls for the Department of Energy (DOE), the main sponsor of U.S. fusion research, to prepare to build a prototype power plant in the 2040s that would produce carbon-free electricity by harnessing the nuclear process that powers the Sun.

    The plan formalizes a goal set out 2 years ago by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and embraced in a March report from a 15-month-long fusion community planning process. It also represents a subtle but crucial shift from the basic research that officials in DOE’s Office of Science have favored. “The community urgently wants to move forward with fusion on a time scale that can impact climate change,” says Troy Carter, a fusion physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who chaired the planning committee. “We have to get started.”

    Fusion scientists and DOE officials strived to avoid the sort of meltdown they suffered during their last planning exercise. Six years ago, the fractious community was already reeling from budget cuts that forced DOE’s Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program to shutter one of three major experiments. Then, the associate director for FES decided to write the plan himself, with limited input. Many researchers rejected the road map.

    This time, DOE wants no infighting. “We’ve been told in no uncertain terms that either you guys get in line, or you’re going to get nothing,” says Nathan Howard, a fusion physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For the first time, FES leaders let researchers hash out consensus in a series of workshops and meetings. Howard and other leaders of that process used anonymous polling and even hired a facilitator to ensure the “loudest voices in the room” couldn’t dominate deliberations.

    The process was also comprehensive, says Carolyn Kuranz, a plasma physicist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. FES mainly funds research on magnetically confined fusion, in which an ionized gas or plasma is squeezed and heated until atomic nuclei fuse and release energy. But it also supports smaller efforts in plasma physics, such as using high-power lasers to re-create plasmas like those in stars. The consensus building did not neglect them. “This was the first time we included the whole portfolio and the entire community,” Kuranz says.

    The plan that emerged does not call for a crash effort to build the prototype power plant. During the next decade, fusion researchers around the world will likely have their hands full completing and running ITER, the international fusion reactor under construction in southern France. ITER, a huge doughnut-shaped device called a tokamak, aims to show in the late 2030s that fusion can produce more energy than goes into heating and squeezing the plasma.

    ITER will teach valuable lessons about a “burning plasma,” researchers say. But they add that its cost of more than $20 billion is far too steep for an actual power plant. So, after ITER, U.S. fusion researchers want to build a much smaller, cheaper power plant, leveraging recent advances such as supercomputer simulations of entire tokamaks, 3D printing, and magnet coils made of high-temperature superconductors.

    The new fusion road map identifies technological gaps and nearer-term facilities to fill them (see partial list, below). “By identifying [a power plant] as a goal, that can trigger more research in those areas that support that mission,” says Stephanie Diem, a fusion physicist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. For example, in a fusion power plant a barrage of energetic neutrons would degrade materials, so the report calls for developing a particle-accelerator–based neutron source to test new ones.

    Fusion Wish List

    U.S. researchers have agreed on the need for projects that would aid a future power plant (first three rows) and advance basic plasma science. However, funding limits could curtail plans.

    Project Flat budgets 2% increases Unconstrained
    Neutron source to test materials for fusion power plant Yes, but highly delayed Yes, but delayed Yes
    Tokamak to test integrated systems for fusion power plant No Yes, but highly delayed Yes
    Facility to test “blanket” that would surround reactor and absorb neutrons No No Yes
    Matter in Extreme Conditions Upgrade No, but develop further No, but develop further Yes
    Solar wind facility No No Yes
    Multipetawatt laser No No Yes

    POWERING THE FUTURE FUSION AND PLASMAS, FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (2020). 

    uch technology development pushes a sensitive boundary for the fusion program. Fusion investigators have long complained that DOE’s Office of Science has limited them to basic research. Now, DOE leaders are more receptive to a practical approach, says James Van Dam, DOE’s associate director for FES. “There’s been much more openness and interest in fusion moving ahead.”

    To realize their ambitions, fusion scientists will need more funding from Congress. The planning committee considered three scenarios: flat budgets, increases of 2% per year, and unconstrained budgets. Only the most generous scenario would allow DOE to build new facilities, the report says. FES’s annual budget is now $671 million, including $247 million for ITER.

    Tighter budgets might strain the newfound consensus. Plasma physicists want several new facilities, such as one to simulate the solar wind. But without a funding boost, they won’t even be able to build a project DOE has already said it wants: the Matter in Extreme Conditions Upgrade, which would improve a petawatt laser at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory to create energetic plasmas so they can be probed with the lab’s x-ray laser.

    No matter how things play out, the fusion plan expresses the will of younger scientists who led the community exercise, says Scott Baalrud, a plasma theorist at the University of Iowa. “People don’t get into this career just to study the science that may one day, long after they’re dead, lead to a fusion reactor,” he says. “They want to get going and change the world.”

  • Ohio wants to ban Solar & Wind

    Ohio wants to ban Solar & Wind

    The bill’s sponsors voted last year to gut state clean energy standards while subsidizing nuclear and coal bailouts.

    An Ohio bill introduced last month would halt most large solar or wind energy development for up to three years — an echo of previous policies that stunted the state’s renewable growth for much of the last decade.

    The legislation does not appear to have broad support, but it is concerning to critics nonetheless because it reflects some lawmakers’ ongoing hostility to renewable energy, despite its growing economic importance.

    “It’s a relentless attack on the inevitability of where the energy market is today and where it’s going,” said Rep. Casey Weinstein, D-Hudson, who opposes the bill. “It’s a bury-our-heads-in-the-sand mentality that is just so, so locked in with the status quo, while the rest of the world and country are moving on.”

    House Bill 786 would prevent regulators from certifying any new solar or wind facility designed to produce more than 50 megawatts of electricity, as well as smaller “economically significant” wind farms with a capacity of 5 MW or more.  The ban would end after three years or further legislation from the General Assembly, whichever comes first.

    In a memo seeking co-sponsors for the bill, primary sponsor Rep. Todd Smith, R-Farmersville, referred to complaints about “unregulated solar and wind farms” and claimed the bill’s goal was “merely to press the pause button.” He did not respond to the Energy News Network’s request for comment.

    “The impetus for this legislation is completely without merit,” said Dan Sawmiller, director of Ohio energy policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, noting that the bill is also “inconsistent with what is happening on the ground.”

     “Despite the fact that large-scale renewables have been a reality for years, now without any justification they’re saying we shouldn’t do this anymore,” said Neil Waggoner, Ohio campaign leader for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal program. “It’s not just a bad policy. It’s terrible policy.”

    “The sponsors of HB 786 are apparently unfamiliar with the rigorous certification process of the Ohio Power Siting Board and the mechanisms through which local residents can provide input,” said Jane Harf, executive director of Green Energy Ohio. “There has been considerable testimony to the benefits that have come to many rural communities in Ohio from the presence of large-scale projects that support local infrastructure, school systems, and businesses. This bill has no merit and once again puts Ohio on a clear path backward while neighboring states are embracing the future.”

    The bill also has drawn ire from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, whose members work on many energy construction projects.

    “IBEW is emphatically opposed to this misguided legislation,” said IBEW Fourth District Representative Steve Crum. “The solar industry is bringing thousands upon thousands of jobs to Ohio and our members see this [as] a tremendous opportunity to get work in the more rural parts of our state, where many of them are living. Bad ideas like this need to be soundly rejected by our state leaders.”

    An ongoing fight

    Efforts by utilities and some Ohio lawmakers to slow or stop renewable energy development go back to 2012. Indeed, the “pause button”phrase in Smith’s co-sponsor request echoes rhetoric from 2014. At that time, lawmakers froze further requirements under Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards for two years. Weaker versions of the standards resumed in 2017 and were then gutted by HB 6.

    HB 786 co-sponsor Dick Stein, R-Norwalk, chaired the subcommittee that shepherded that bill through the House. Smith and co-sponsor Don Jones both voted for HB 6, which also provides huge subsidies for two 1950s-era coal plants and two nuclear plants owned by Energy Harbor (formerly FirstEnergy Solutions). The law is at the center of an alleged $60 million conspiracy case involving dark money and former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder. The complaint’s references to Company A suggest that most of the money came from FirstEnergy and its current and former subsidiaries.

    Current House Speaker Bob Cupp has said he wants to make the repeal of HB 6 a priority. However, Waggoner said, “it’s been over four months since Householder was arrested. The legislature has had a third of the year to repeal HB 6, and they still have not made this a priority.”

    Bills to repeal HB 6 were first introduced in late July. Despite a majority of House members being willing to vote for a complete repeal in August, repeal bills have been held up in committee since then.

    In contrast, five days after HB 786 was introduced, House leadership referred it to the Commerce and Labor Committee. That Nov. 17 assignment is unusual. Normally House bills dealing with energy would be considered either by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee or the Public Utilities Committee.

    Weinstein is doubtful about whether the bill will progress. “But it perfectly exemplifies how much they want to keep us in the past and prevent us from embracing the environmental benefits and the massive economic benefits of an energy transformation in Ohio,” he said.

  • Green Prince of Darkness

    Green Prince of Darkness

    Green Prince Of Darkness….

    Exposed

    Today’s Guest, November 28, 2020

    About the author: Joseph A Olson, PE: Co-founder of Principia Scientific Intl. and co-author of the ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory. Retired Texan engineer and impassioned science writer, Joe Olson PE is a respected innovative thinker with over 100 major civil engineering and climate-related articles to his name. Olson is famed as a staunch advocate of the traditional English scientific method and combines a wealth of hard-edged industry experience with an insightful and deft writer’s touch to convey complex scientific concepts in a unique literary style.

    There were a myriad of factors that contributed to the demise of the British Motor Industry in the mid seventies.  The storied brands of Jaguar, Bentley, Aston Martin and MG of the automotive and Triumph, BSA and Norton of motorcycle industry all suffered under onerous labor union contracts and government ownership and controls.  All of these brands also suffered with defective electrical components produced by the Joseph Lucas Company.

    Quality control issues were so bad that a popular bumper sticker for those marquees read “All of the parts that fall off of this car are of the highest quality British craftsmanship”.

    While purist can indulge a certain level of hardship with mechanical devices, they have little patience for the electrical gremlins that did not affect other manufacturers.  For this reason, Joseph Lucas was nicknamed “The Prince of Darkness”.

    Today we have a new Green Prince poised to plunge the western world into a self imposed darkness.  This Prince first creates the fiction that Carbon causes climate change, then adds the fable that green energy exists which can dispel this nonexistent problem.  The entire range of ‘green solutions’ are all nonsensical.  We’ll limit this discussion to just solar cells and batteries, saving bio-fuels and windmills for another time.

    The Sun Gives Us Nothing for Free

    As alluring as the premise may be, the promise of solar energy is not free.  The first solar cell was created in 1883 by Charles Fritts using a sheet of Selenium with thin Gold facings.  The Sun radiates approximately 1000 watts per square meter at maximum.  The Fritts cell produced 10 watts per square meter or 1% efficiency. The Russell Ohl patent of 1946 is considered the first modern solar cell.  Today’s solar panels are high purity Silicon with a light doping of Phosphorus and Boron to provide breaks in the Silicone for electron movement.

    The Universe is a radiation chamber with EMR and particle emissions from all concentrated mass, and decay particles from individual atoms.  Solar radiation strips protons from Nitrogen atoms, creating Carbon-14.  Stripping exposed electrons is even easier.  Silicon has four rather stable outer shell electrons in an orbit that can hold eight electrons.  Boron has five outer-shell electrons, and Phosphorus has only three.  Silicon forms a cubic crystal grid, and slightly impure Silicone matrix sheets can then be embedded with Boron and Phosphorus atoms.

    When exposed to sunlight, the Boron atom losses it’s easily excited fifth electron, which travels the Silicon matrix using the Phosphorus “hole” to the conducting collection grids on both sides of the photovoltaic cell and permanently exits the cell.

    Only segments of the solar spectrum activate this flow and it must be captured on both sides of the panel to create a circuit.  The required capture grid blocks some of the incoming energy and the net result is 10% efficiency, or approximately 100 watts per square meter, and only within limited ambient temperature ranges which prohibit lenses or mirrors for simple amplification.

    Efficiencies as high as 40% are available with exotic materials, but then one must address the ‘high cost of free’, which applies to every ‘green’ technology.  Silicon, Phosphorus and Boron are common elements, but to mine, refine and bring on line has a cost.  That cost is reflected in ‘cost payback’ of 5 to 7 years depending on the system and level of government forced subsidy.  But these costs are based on low cost carbon based energy systems providing these materials.   Regardless, this is a ONE-TIME, ONE-WAY EROSION PROCESS with a total system life of less than 20 years.

    Solar cells produce only Direct Current, which is electric power by the migration of electrons, and in typical PV cells is only 1.5 volts.  Alternating Current creates a voltage, but transfers power as a wave, rapidly cycled between positive and negative, with little actual electron migration.  The first municipal Edison power systems were DC, but transmission loss and multiple voltage issues prevented success, and the Tesla-Westinghouse developed three-phase AC system became the driving force for modernization.

    Converting DC to AC involves a conversion loss in an inverter, boosting to higher voltage and converting to more efficient three phase causes additional losses due to the Carnot Cycle. If you connect a hydro-turbine to a pump, you can only pump a portion of the water flowing from a dam into water pumped back to the dam.  If you use the hydro-turbine to generate electricity, then use an electric pump to pump water back ablve the dam, then the losses are even greater.  The combined losses converting 1.5 volt DC to usable 50 kV, three phase transmissible AC power is forever technically impossible.

    Ignoring just these physical limitations, supposed science leading publications like Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and Discover, regularly show fanciful space based systems where vast arrays of solar panels, positioned around the planet, beam “sustainable” microwave energy back to Earth based antennas to provide 24 hour service.  Never mind all the limitations above, now add the Carnot loss converting to microwaves on both ends of this system.  Limitations to the field density of this transmission would require massive antennas, or large, “no fly zones” for humans, and instant on the fly cook zones for any stray birds.

    To overcome solar wind and lunar gravity changes, these microwave transmitters would require constant realignment, or the transmissions would wander off the receiving antenna.  The fact that this science fiction is presented as anything other than TOTAL FICTION, is proof that these publications are all “pop” and no science.

    Much like paying your Visa bill with your Master Card, this parasitic ‘clean’ energy cannot provide the ‘spare’ energy to avoid ‘dirty’ energy.  There is a constant loss of electrons in this system and power production erodes over time until, at twenty years, they are useless.  The Silicon sheets are protected with glass covers which require periodic cleaning and are subject to damage from hail and wind debris.

    Solar cells efficiency is also a function of azimuth angle and reduces with higher latitudes, and seasonal tilt angle.  Systems with tracking ability have higher efficiency, but not recoverable installation costs.  You get progressively less energy at the poles, precisely at the time when you need the MOST energy.  To have usable power over extended periods requires a storage system. The most common of these is the battery, which is the heart of that ‘other’ planet saver.

    Dream Green Machine

    Soon Electric Vehicles, aka EVs, will replace the nasty internal combustion engine and humanity will be in harmony with the Universe.  The transition technology in this race is the hybrid auto and the front runner is the Toyota Prius.  This undeniable marvel has a 120 pound Nichol-Metal Hydride battery that costs $3500 to replace or approximately $20 per pound.  There again, a cost based on carbon energy providing the material production.

    The ‘Metal Hydride’ portion of these batteries includes the rare Earth elements of Lanthanum, Cerium and Neodymium.  These required green components do not willingly join the green cult movement.  To have your treasured EV, this planet must be mined and those elements must be extracted and refined.

    Due to chemical erosion thru use, these batteries have an eight year or 100,000 mile warranty period.  You can save $450 per year on gasoline if you spend $450 per year on a battery.  You can walk forever up the down escalator and still get nowhere.  There is no way to improve or even ‘sustain’ our carbon-based life forms without expending some geologically stored carbon energy.

    To the blue-green Hollywood Eco-Smurfs and Na’vi wannabe’s, we are NOT living on a green Pandora that needs rescue from the evil RDA mining company.  Humanity will not be saved by mythical noble savages or a forced return to a primitive life style.  It took most of the nineteenth century to formulate the Laws of Thermodynamics.  It took most of the twentieth century to apply those laws to the benefit of society.  There will be no solutions to problems in the twenty first century that do not comply with these laws.

    Curiously missing from the Climatology degree plan is any mention of Thermodynamics.  Avoidance of these Laws must give license to break these Laws.  Thus clouds can have a negative factor during the day, with their pesky ‘albedo’ effect reflecting sunlight back into space and then just hours later have a positive effect by blanketing the warmth at night….a reflector or greenhouse at the whim of a Climatologist.

    Climatologist can ignore the specific heat and thermal mass of the entire planet and provide a computer model PROVING that the trace human portion, of a trace gas, in the trace portion of the Earth mass that is the atmosphere, is the single greatest climate forcing factor.  They can then empower this three atom molecule the unique ability to radiate in a reverse flow in opposition to all proven Thermodynamic Laws.  This is lawless behavior, which is by definition, criminal behavior.

    Lady Gaga’s Underwear

    If you don’t know what color underwear this pop icon is displaying for us today, it is only due to your willful avoidance of the main stream media message.  If you recognize the need to open our ‘Pandora’ and mine some ‘Unobtainium’ to improve life for all humanity, then we need your support.  Awaken your friends and family to the futility of the Green Utopia.

    This manufactured crisis and faux consensus has been brought to you with your tax dollars by your government officials.  This has been a bi-partisan effort.  Think of the RNC-DNC Crime Syndicate as the ultimate Costa Nostra upgrade.  The IPCC, EPA, DOE, NSF and NAS are all guilt of lying, suborning scientific perjury and attempted tax collection fraud.

    There have been five high profile whitewash attempts since Climate-Gate, the blessed Hadley hacking event of Nov 19, 2009 by Penn State University and the British government.  But now the cherry picked science and the cherry picked whitewash inquires face a serious challenge.

    If the ‘Hockey Stick Maker Mann’ did indeed knowingly delete conflicting data to force a curve match of proxy CO2 to match his proxy temperature, then he has no protection under academic freedom.  Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a Civil Investigation Demand and was rejected by Mann’s former employer, the University of Virginia.  In a hearing, July 13, 2010 the judge ruled that UVA must provide this material within one week and prepare for oral arguments in a month.

    Now a jury of peers, who are NOT government paid academics, will hear evidence denied to skeptics by countless Freedom of Information Act requests.  A legitimate inquiry will for the first time review the ‘science’ of this faux hypothesis.  The evidence that will pour forth in this court will be the final death knell for the warmists and their elite handlers.  Humanity does not need to be plunged back into the darkness of their green hell.

    As America struggled to avoid the world conflict of the 1940’s, then Prime Minister Winston Churchill made this observation, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”  We do not need try everything else.  We know science, we know what works and we know when our leaders are systematically lying to us.  If you reject the green group think and feel true science, true debate and true democracy are humanity’s best hope, then come join us.  We are the anti-barbarians.

    Environmental Side Note

    “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the twin millstones of taxation and inflation”  ~ Vladimir Lenin

    Every ton of pure Polycrystalline Silicon, refined for photovoltaic use, produces EIGHT tons of Silicon Tetrachloride and Ammonium Chloridadized Silicon TOXIC waste.  Similar levels of toxic waste are produced in the mining, refining and production of all batteries and the rare Earth elements needed for DC motors in Electric Vehicles and windmill DC generators.

    Western monarch-monopolists have no use for meritocracy and have been at war with freedom and property rights for eternity.  When the Chinese democracy movement threatened Universal Democracy at Tiananmen Square, it was feudal elites who rushed to prop up the Chinese dictators with western capital and western technology.  The trade off was Chinese slave labor and environmental degradation to destroy competitiveness.

    The reason that China is the main producer of all of these ‘green products’ is that China has a vast slave labor population, no property rights, no land use restriction and NO environmental restrictions.  Just more proof of the blindness induced by wearing green goggles.  We are borrowing money to subsidize non functional green energy to supplant functional energy….taxing, regulating and inflating our way to extinction….the ultimate darkness.

    BOOTNOTES

    Since This article was published, so much of the Green Energy lie has emerged that even the far left activists, Michael Moore felt compelled to expose the fraud.  His movie “Planet of the Humans” was available on FewTube briefly, removed for copyright strikes. This Sky News Australia newscast has a good summary.

    See: “Exposing Green Energy Fraud” > https://youtu.be/c4NvDaMQs6g

    You can also find Joe Olson at PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

  • EV Battery Metals

    EV Battery Metals

    EV Boom Is Sending Battery Metals Into The Stratosphere

    The MINING.COM EV Metal Index, which tracks the value of battery metals in newly registered passenger EVs (including hybrids) around the world surged to an all-time high in September, rebounding from two-year lows struck at the height of the pandemic in April.

    According to the Toronto-based researcher, during the month lithium used in newly-sold EVs nearly doubled from September 2019, at just over 9,500 tonnes. Deployment of cathode materials nickel and cobalt boomed by 88% and 67% year over year, while 96% more graphite was deployed in anodes compared to the same month in 2019.

    All materials tracked by the index set new monthly records, with cobalt topping 2,000 tonnes and nickel 9,000 tonnes in one month for the first time.

    Usage of battery metals was not only boosted by the overall increase in EV sales during the month, but also the relative outperformance of full-electric cars, which saw the total battery capacity of EVs sold increase 86% to over 15,000 MWh, according to the Adamas battery capacity tracker.

    That, combined with a sharp year-to-date rally in cobalt and a recovery in the price of nickel used in battery supply chains lifted the value of the MINING.COM EV Metal index to $315 million for the month, beating the previous record set in December last year by nearly $70 million.

    At $1.52 billion year-to-date, the index has now wiped its deficit compared to the same period last year and barring unexpected subsidy changes in China or strict lockdowns in Europe, 2020 should be another record year for the nascent industry.

    By Mining.com

  • Energy-Efficient Window Guide

    Energy-Efficient Window Guide

    Guide to Energy-Efficient Windows

    Replacing your home’s windows with ENERGY STAR® qualified windows will improve indoor comfort and filter out damaging ultraviolet light, while potentially saving you hundreds of dollars a year on heating and cooling costs.

    ENERGY STAR Standards:

    ENERGY STAR qualified windows meet strict performance standards established under the ENERGY STAR program by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ENERGY STAR qualified windows feature:

    • Double or even triple panes of glass with inert gases such as argon between them that vastly improve the ability to insulate against unwanted heat flow into or out of the house, depending on the time of year.
    • Window frame materials designed to improve the window’s insulating abilities.
    • Spacers that keep a window’s glass panes the correct distance apart to reduce heat flow and help prevent condensation.
    • Special coatings to create low emissivity (“low-E”) glass. Such low-E glass reflects heat energy either into or out of the house, further enhancing insulation. It also reflects ultraviolet (UV) light away from the house and can protect your household furnishings from UV-induced fading by as much as 75%.

    Anatomy of an Effiencient Window

    Replacing Old Windows

    Traditional window materials used in houses across the United States – single glass pane and later double pane clear glass – do a poor job of keeping out the cold and excessive heat. If you have these windows in your home, you are likely spending hundreds of dollars a year more in home heating and cooling costs than you would with the latest ENERGY STAR qualified windows.

    Replacing old windows represents a significant investment, but the payback in terms of improved thermal comfort, reduced energy usage, and money saved over the long term makes replacement a smart choice. Upgrading to ENERGY STAR qualified models can save you 7%-15% on annual household energy bills, or roughly $71-$501 annually, depending on your geographic location and the type of window being replaced.

    Before replacing your windows, be sure you have already properly insulated and air sealed your home. 

    Window Installation Essentials

    Even the most energy-efficient windows can result in a drafty house and moisture condensation if they are not properly installed. Make sure to follow manufacturer instructions, seek out trained installers, and watch for lead dust. Most homes built before 1978 contain lead paint, which can pose a serious health hazard during home renovation. Learn about the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Renovate Right” campaign – and make sure your window installer is EPA certified.


    Factors to Consider

    When purchasing ENERGY STAR qualified windows, look for the U-Factor and the Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SGHC). The U-Factor measures how well the window insulates. While the U-Factor can take any value, in general for windows it ranges from 0.20 to 1.20. The lower the U-Factor, the better the window insulates. The SHGC measures how much of the sun’s heat comes through the window. It can range in value from 0 to 1. The lower the SHGC, the less solar heat the window lets in.

    Purchasing ENERGY STAR
    Windows

    Follow these steps when purchasing ENERGY STAR qualified windows:

    1. Look for the ENERGY STAR label when buying new windows. The label shows the climate zones where that window will perform best.

    2. Determine U-Factor and SHGC ENERGY STAR standards based on your climate zone. The ENERGY STAR climate map below shows four climate zones for the United States.

    3. Consider window orientation. Enhance your savings by selecting specific windows for different sides of the house. See table above for more information.

    4. Ask about ENERGY STAR options that are eligible for the federal tax credit and other incentives. New windows can be a considerable investment with potentially an extended payback period. On average, homeowners recoup about 78% of the cost when the home is sold. You may be able to defray part of the cost upfront. Use the ENERGY STAR Rebate Finder (under Further Reading) to see if your local utility also offers incentives.

    Further Reading

    DOE Guide to Insulation and DOE Guide to Air Sealing 

    ENERGY STAR Rebate Locator www.energystar.gov/index. cfm?fuseaction=rebate.rebate_locator

    ENERGY STAR Windows www.energystar.gov/windows

    Energy Windows Collaborative www.efficientwindows.org/energystar.cfm

    EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

    National Fenestration Rating Council www.nfrc.org

    Financial Incentives Tax credits, incentives, and rebates may be available in your area. www.energysavers.gov/taxcredits 

     

  • Shell To Shut Down Louisiana Refinery

    Shell To Shut Down Louisiana Refinery

    Royal Dutch Shell will shut down its Convent refinery in Louisiana after failing to find a buyer for the facility, stated by the company.

    The move, due to be completed before the end of the month, is in line with Shell’s plans to reduce the number of refineries it operates from 14 to 6 over the next four years. The plans, in turn, are part of its strategy to shift away from its core business and into alternative energy.

    The supermajor will “invest in a core set of uniquely integrated manufacturing sites that are also strategically positioned for the transition to a low-carbon future,” Shell said in the statement. “A key advantage of these core sites will also come from further integration with Shell trading hubs, and from producing more chemicals and other products that are resilient in a low-carbon future.”

    Last year, Shell sold its Martinez refinery to PBF Holding Company for $1 billion, but last year oil was trading a lot higher than it is trading now, and demand for oil and oil products was not devastated by a coronavirus pandemic that has infected more than 47 million people so far.

    The Convent refinery has a capacity of 211,100 barrels of oil daily, and it appears that no other company with downstream operations is interested in additional refining capacity. Bloomberg points out, refiners are closing facilities in response to the demand slump. Phillips 66 and Marathon Petroleum both have refinery closure plans as well as plans to convert other refining facilities to biodiesel production sites.

    Shell, for its part, wants to keep the refineries that also have petrochemical units, including one in Louisiana, one in Texas, one each in Germany and the Netherlands, one in Singapore, and one in Canada.

  • Lost Transmission

    Lost Transmission

    How Much Electricity Disappears Between A Power Plant And Your Plug?

    To find the answer, we need to break it out step by step: first turning raw materials into electricity, next moving that electricity to your neighborhood, and finally sending that electricity through the walls of your home to your outlet.

    Step 1: Making Electricity

    Power plants – coal, natural gas, petroleum or nuclear – work on the same general principle. Energy-dense stuff is burned to release heat, which boils water into steam, which spins a turbine, which generates electricity. The thermodynamic limits of this process, meaning only two-thirds of the energy in the raw materials actually make it onto the grid in the form of electricity.

    Step 2: Moving Electricity – Transmission and Distribution

    Most of us don’t live right next to a power plant. So we somehow have to get electricity to our homes. This sounds like a job for powerlines.

    Transmission

    First, electricity travels on long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines, often miles and miles across country. The voltage in these lines can be hundreds of thousands of volts. 

    Why so much voltage?  Ohm’s law describes how the amount of power in electricity and its characteristics – voltage, current and resistance – are related. It boils down to this: Losses scale with the square of a wire’s current. That square factor means a tiny jump in current can cause a big bump in losses. Keeping voltage high lets us keep current, and losses, low. 

    When that electricity is lost, where does it go? Heat. Electrons moving back and forth crash into each other, and those collisions warm up power lines and the air around them.

    You can actually hear those losses: That crackling sound when you stand under a transmission tower is lost electricity. You can see the losses, too: Notice how power lines sag in the middle? Some of that’s gravity. But the rest are electrical losses. Heat, like the kind from lost electricity, makes metal power lines expand. When they do, they sag. Powerlines are saggier, and leakier, on hot days.

    Distribution

    High-voltage transmission lines are big, tall, expensive, and potentially dangerous so we only use them when electricity needs to travel long distances. At substations near your neighborhood, electricity is stepped down onto smaller, lower-voltage power lines – the kind on wooden poles. Now we’re talking tens of thousands of volts. Next, transformers (the can-shaped things sitting on those poles) step the voltage down even more, to 120 volts, to make it safe to enter your house.

    Generally, smaller power lines mean bigger relative losses. So even though electricity may travel much farther on high-voltage transmission lines – dozens or hundreds of miles – losses are low, around two percent. And though your electricity may travel a few miles or less on low-voltage distribution lines, losses are high, around four percent.

    Step 3: Using Electricity Inside Your Home

    Utility companies meticulously measure losses from the power plant to your meter. They have to, because every bit they lose eats into their bottom line. But once you’ve purchased electricity and it enters your home, we lose track of the losses.

    Your house, and the wires inside your walls, are kind of a black box, and figuring how much electricity gets lost – electricity that you’ve already paid for – is tricky. If you want to find out how much electricity gets lost in your home you’ll either need to estimate it using a circuit diagram of your house or measure it by putting meters on all of your appliances. Are you an energy wonk attempting this? Let us know, we’d love to hear from you!

    Energy lost in the wiring inside your walls: We don’t know! It could be negligible, or it could be another few percent.

    The Future Of Transmission and Distribution Losses

    Grid engineers are working on technologies like superconducting materials that could essentially reduce electricity transmission and distribution losses to zero. But for now, the cost of these technologies is much higher than the money lost by  utility companies through their existing hot, leaky power lines.

    A more economical solution to reduce transmission and distribution losses is to change how and when we use power. Losses aren’t a constant quantity. They change every instant based on things like the weather and power consumption. When demand is high, like when we’re all running our ACs on hot summer days, losses are higher. When demand is low, like in the middle of the night, losses are lower. Utilities are experimenting with ways to spread out electricity use more evenly to minimize losses.

    The same principle applies to your house, which is basically your own personal grid. You can reduce losses in your home by spreading out your electricity use evenly throughout the day, instead of running all your appliances at once.

    Adding Up The Losses

    • Generating electricity, we lost 22 quadrillion Btu from coal, natural gas, nuclear and petroleum power plants – that’s more than the energy in all the gasoline we use in a given year.
    • Moving electricity from plants to homes and businesses on the transmission and distribution grid, we lost 69 trillion Btu – that’s about how much energy Americans use drying our clothes every year.

  • Discrediting Human Attribution In Global Warming

    Discrediting Human Attribution In Global Warming

    The forcing uncertainties and lack of observational measurements in the top-to-bottom global ocean preclude an assessment that modern warmth is due to anthropogenic activities.

    Key points from a new paper (Gebbie, 2021):

    • 93% of the changes to the Earth’s energy budget, manifested as warming of the Earth system, are expressed in the global ocean. Just 1% of global warming is atmospheric.

    • Even with the advent of “quasi-global” temperature sampling of the ocean since 2005 (ARGO), these floats (“do not measure below 2,000-m depth.” This means that temperature changes in “approximately half the ocean’s volume” are still not being measured today.

    • To detect the effects of anthropogenic forcing, it would require energy budget imbalance measurement precision of 0.1 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Uncertainty in the forcing changes affecting climate is ±4 W/m², meaning that uncertainty is about 80 times greater than an anthropogenic signal detection.

    • Past changes in global ocean heat content, such as the last deglaciation, have been 20 times larger than modern changes.

    • Ocean heat storage during the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Anomaly, or MCA) was much greater than modern. Modern global ocean heat uptake is “just one-third” of what is required to reach the levels attained during Medieval times.

    One final point. Dr. Gebbie asserts that approximately 15% of modern global warming (ocean) can be attributed to geothermal heat fluxes through the seafloor that “persistently heat the ocean.”

    Interestingly, he also assesses that the value attained for geothermal heating of the ocean, 87 mW/m², is similar to that which is required to end a glacial period (melt ice sheets) and transition into an interglacial.

    Considering the ocean bottom waters warmed up 2°C from 19,000 to 17,000 years ago about 1,000 years before the surface warmed (and CO2 began rising) (Stott et al., 2007), and that Arctic bottom waters were 6-10°C warmer than today at the beginning of the Holocene about 10,000 years ago (Beierlein et al., 2015), geothermal heat fluxes could potentially explain a large portion of glacial-interglacial transitions – as well as millennial-scale global ocean temperature changes.

    Credits: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL

  • Mystery Flaw Of Solar Panels

    Mystery Flaw Of Solar Panels

    ‘Real Engineering’ video describes the inherent but unreported flaw of solar panels – they degrade in efficiency as soon as the leave the factory. At the outset, a typical solar panel has 20 percent efficiency.

    In other words, it is capable of translating 20 percent of the energy it receives from the sun to convert into useful energy. But this number falls off a cliff during regular use and a lot of potential energy is lost.

    Scientists have been looking for the cause of the problem in the photovoltaic cells, as explained in the video below:

    Credits: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL

  • History of Electricity

    History of Electricity

    Affordable, reliable electricity is fundamental to modern life. Electricity provides clean, safe light around the clock, it cools our homes on hot summer days (and heats many of them in winter), and it quietly breathes life into the digital world we tap into with our smartphones and computers. Although hundreds of millions of Americans plug into the electric grid every day, most of us don’t give the history of electricity a second thought. Where does it come from? What’s its story?

    When we take a fresh look at electricity, we see that keeping America powered up is actually an amazing feat—an everyday miracle. 

    Here’s the Story of Electricity.

    Revolutionary Power

    Although people have known about electricity since ancient times, they’ve only been harnessing its power for about 250 years. Benjamin Franklin’s electricity experiments – including his famous kite experiment in 1752 – showed just how little we knew about electricity in the era of the American revolution and the first industrial revolution.[1] In the time since Franklin’s experiments, our grasp of electricity has grown tremendously, and we are constantly finding new ways to use it to improve our lives.

    One of the first major breakthroughs in electricity occurred in 1831, when British scientist Michael Faraday discovered the basic principles of electricity generation.[2] Building on the experiments of Franklin and others, he observed that he could create or “induce” electric current by moving magnets inside coils of copper wire. The discovery of electromagnetic induction revolutionized how we use energy. In fact, Faraday’s process is used in modern power production, although today’s power plants produce much stronger currents on a much larger scale than Faraday’s hand-held device.

    In the era of modern power plants, coal has always generated more electricity in the U.S. than any other fuel source. In recent decades, we have seen other sources compete for second place: first hydroelectricity, then natural gas, nuclear power, and natural gas again.

    Electricity generation mix by fuel type, 1949-2011

    We also use electricity to power an increasing number of devices. Our modern electric world began with applications like the telegraph, light bulb, and telephone, and continued with radio, television, and many household appliances. Most recently, electrons have powered the digital age to create what energy expert Vaclav Smil calls our “instantaneously interconnected global civilization.”[3] Technology expert Mark Mills points out that electricity powers an increasing portion of our economy. The always-on data centers that support the internet and “cloud computing” will continue to increase demand for electricity, overwhelming the modest decreases in electricity use in other parts of the economy, such as manufacturing processes.[4][5]

    The ever-growing applications of electricity explain the increasing use of fuels like natural gas, oil, and coal in power generation as opposed to direct uses such as heating or transportation. In 1900, for example, less than two percent of natural gas, oil, and coal were used to make electricity. A century later, 30 percent of our use of natural gas, oil, and coal was devoted to electric power.[6] Smil explains electricity’s appeal: “Electricity is the preferred form of energy because of its high efficiency, instant and effortless access, perfect and easily adjustable flow, cleanliness, and silence at the point of use.”[7]

    Increased electricity access has lit corners of the world that were once dark. As international development groups and economists point out, access to electricity is a hallmark of advanced societies and a basic requirement for economic progress.[8] “Next to the increasing importance of hydrocarbons as sources of energy,” economist Erich Zimmermann wrote in 1951, “the rise of electricity is the most characteristic feature of the so-called second industrial revolution.”[9] In recent years, people in countries from China to Kenya have experienced rising living standards, as more people are able to use electricity to keep their homes and schools cool during torrid summers, to refrigerate food that would have otherwise spoiled, and to purify water that would have otherwise been unsafe to drink.

    There is, of course, still much more to be done. In 2009, the International Energy Agency estimated that nearly 70 percent of people in Sub-Saharan Africa lacked access to electricity. That means 585.2 million people remain in the dark.[10]

    The Dawn of Electric Light in the U.S.

    One of the greatest pioneers in electricity was Thomas Edison, who saw electricity as his “field of fields” to “reorganize the life of the world.” Working tirelessly on electricity from his laboratory in New Jersey in the 1870s, America’s greatest inventor brought the incandescent electric light bulb into practical use by the end of that decade and patented the incandescent light bulb in 1880.[11] “When Edison…snatched up the spark of Prometheus in his little pear-shaped glass bulb, ”German historian Emil Ludwig observed, “it meant that fire had been discovered for the second time, that mankind had been delivered again from the curse of night.”[12] Yet Edison’s electric light was even better than fire—it was brighter, more consistent, and safer than the flame of candles or lamps.

    Edison’s light bulb was one of the first applications of electricity to modern life. He initially worked with J. P. Morgan and a few privileged customers in New York City in the 1880s to light their homes, pairing his new incandescent bulbs with small generators. Edison’s electric lighting systems were basic by today’s standards but bold at the time—they not only threatened the existing gas lighting industry but radically challenged the status quo by introducing people to an entirely new type of energy. In a few short years, Edison transformed electricity from a science experiment into an exciting, safe, and coveted luxury.

    The Rise of an Industry

    In order for the magic of electricity to truly take hold in American life, new industries were needed to build the generators to supply electric power, as well as the new appliances and electric lights that used it. In 1882, with J.P. Morgan funding his efforts, Edison launched the businesses that would later be known as General Electric. In September of that year, he opened the United States’ first central power plant in lower Manhattan—the Pearl Street Station.

    Pearl Street was a stroke of genius. Edison connected a large bank of generators to homes and businesses (including the New York Times) in the immediate area through a network of buried copper wires. At that time, there was no “electric grid.” Before Pearl Street, customers who wanted power for electric lights or motors relied on generators located on-site, typically in the basement. Pearl Street’s “central” power plant design was an important shift from small-scale, on-site generation to industrial-scale power, and soon became the model for the entire power generation industry.[13]

    The Dynamo Room at the Pearl Street Station; The first power plant in the U.S.

    Enter Samuel Insull

    Although Edison was a brilliant inventor, he was a disorganized businessman. His inventions came to him faster than the financial capital necessary to carry them out, and Edison preferred to focus on the inventions themselves rather than the paperwork they created. The inventor needed a managerial counterpart. That counterpart arrived in 1881, in the form of a promising 21-year-old from England. Samuel Insull, who began his career in the U.S. as a personal assistant to Edison, astounded the inventor with his business prowess—so much so that Edison soon granted Insull power of attorney over his businesses.[14] But the work with Edison would be just the beginning for Insull—over the next four decades, he built an electricity business that made him the Henry Ford of the modern electricity industry.

    Electricity required a different business model because it was different than virtually every other commodity. Electricity had to be consumed the moment it was produced. (Storage was very costly and limited—and still is.) In order for electricity to become accessible and affordable, someone needed to bring together mass efficiencies in production and consumption. Insull saw the opportunities in front of him. Whoever mastered the engineering and the economics of the power grid could take the reins of the rising electricity industry—an industry that was already toppling the stocks of gas light companies and attracting big investors like J.P. Morgan. In 1892, Insull left his job as an executive at the lighting company Edison started (General Electric near New York City) for Chicago Edison (an electricity generation/distribution company, later known as Commonwealth Edison).[15] It was a move that would indelibly change the industry.

    Insull Builds the Modern Power Grid

    Insull was able to achieve what economists call “economies of scale” (cost savings from large-scale operations) by consolidating the mom-and-pop electricity providers and closing small generators in favor of larger, more efficient units manufactured by General Electric. He also found efficiencies in customer sales—the more customers he had, the more efficiently he could run his generators, and the cheaper it was to provide power. As Insull’s business grew, he was able to find better ways of providing electricity to more and more people.

    Insull became a master salesman for all things electric. In order to use his generators more efficiently (i.e., run them at full capacity for more hours of the day), he offered to power elevators and streetcars during the daytime when there was less demand for electric lighting.

    Insull also used high-voltage transmission lines to spread electricity to the suburbs and then to the countryside. Because customers inside and outside cities used power at different times, Insull was able to provide power to both types of customers more efficiently than if he had served them independently. Such diversification, served by ever-larger and more efficient generators, brought the price of a kilowatt-hour down. Electricity prices fell year after year as the young industry grew between 1902 to 1930.

    Insull also created new electricity pricing schemes. For example, he introduced two-part pricing to handle customers whose electricity use fluctuated widely or spiked for brief periods. Given that electricity has to be produced and consumed simultaneously, providing power to a customer who demanded electricity in large surges could be unprofitable—new generators built to meet the intermittent surges in demand would only run a fraction of the time, but would have to remain constantly at the ready. Examples of customers that have “peaky” demand[16] include metal-smelting factories that use huge amounts of power in brief bursts to run electric furnaces.

    To be able to provide power for “peaky” customers, Insull implemented a demand charge (a fixed fee) in addition to the typical usage charge. That way, the customer paid for the privilege to use a lot of electricity in a little time. In this way, Insull could profitably expand his business to include all types of customers.

    Lastly, Insull found efficiencies by interconnecting or “networking” power grids for backup and reliability, eliminating the need to build (redundant) generation in the same service area.

    Consolidation. Mass production. Mass consumption. Rural electrification. Two-part pricing. Networked power. Samuel Insull did for electricity what Henry Ford did for the automobile—he turned a luxury product into an affordable part of everyday life for millions of Americans. Where Edison provided the novelty of electric light to Manhattan’s upper class, Insull’s innovations made electricity accessible to all.

    Electricity Becomes Politicized

    The electricity industry in the U.S. was intertwined with politics from the beginning. Before Pearl Street ever opened, Edison had to bribe New York politicians just to begin laying the foundations of his work. As Time magazine recounts, Edison “obtained with great difficulty the consent of New York’s famously corrupt city government to build his proposed network on the southern tip of Manhattan. (He got their approval in part by plying them with a lavish champagne dinner at Menlo Park catered by Delmonico’s, then New York’s finest restaurant.)”[17] As the early electricity industry grew, it became more involved with city politics over lighting contracts. Electricity providers had to receive franchise rights from city officials in order to serve local areas, opening the door for those officials to extort power companies for campaign contributions or personal bribes.

    Early on, electricity pioneers faced two populist threats from local governments. One was rate ordinances that could arbitrarily require rate rollbacks or impose rate ceilings, thus ruining profitability. The second was municipalization, whereby private investments in electricity infrastructure would be taken over by city or county government.[18] This was the political environment that Samuel Insull found in Chicago and other electricity entrepreneurs faced across the country.

    Insull’s solution was new legislation that would replace local regulation with statewide regulation of power companies by public utility commissions (modeled after state railroad commissions). In this arrangement, the state commissions would establish a maximum rate for the power company to charge its customers based on the company’s cost of providing electric service (plus a reasonable rate of return).

    In exchange for such rate regulation, the state commissions gave the power company an exclusive franchise to serve a given geographical area (a legal monopoly). The early electricity industry was a natural monopoly (according to many economists and regulators, and Insull himself) which turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy: state regulators assumed power companies were bound to be monopolies, so they regulated them accordingly and gave them legal monopoly status. The prospect of a true, laissez-faire electricity market was never on the table.

    Insull needed time and a huge public relations effort to convince the industry that statewide public utility regulation was the best way to provide low-cost power and dodge harsh local regulation or takeover. Wisconsin and New York were the first states to extend state-level rate regulation to the electricity industry in 1907. By 1914, forty-three other states had followed suit and created state-level commissions to oversee electric utilities.[19]

    These state public utility commissions, formed in the early 20th century, still regulate utilities. In theory, their rate regulation is supposed to protect the consumer, but in practice it often benefits other interest groups—or the utilities themselves—at the expense of consumers. Despite these regulations, Insull continued to provide inexpensive power to a greater number of customers through the first three decades of the 20th century.

    Tragically, the Great Depression financially ruined Insull’s expanding enterprises. His indebted holding company collapsed and legal battles ensued. Facing trial in 1934, he was quoted in newspapers as saying “I am fighting not only for freedom but for complete vindication. I have erred, but my greatest error was in underestimating the effects of the financial panic on American securities, and particularly on the companies I was trying to build. I worked with all my energy to save those companies.”[20]

    Insull was acquitted but lost his companies and wealth, and fell into disrepute and obscurity. Public knowledge of his contributions as a pioneer of the modern power grid seems to have died along with him in 1938. As Forrest McDonald wrote of the acquittal in Insull’s biography, “For his fifty-three years of labor to make electric power universally cheap and abundant, Insull had his reward from a grateful people: He was allowed to die outside prison.”[21]

    State regulation and Insull’s tragic fall ultimately led to federal intervention into electricity beyond hydroelectric licensing, the founding job of the Federal Power Commission (est. 1920.) In 1935, the Federal Power Act authorized the Federal Power Commission—now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—to apply “just and reasonable” cost-based rate regulation to the wholesale power market (along the same lines as state-level regulation of retail rates). Another law, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, required multi-state companies to divest properties to operate in only one state.[22]

    Federal intervention grew again in the energy-troubled 1970s. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 required electric utilities to buy power from independent generators, successfully creating a new industry segment but also opening the door for intermittent generation from renewable sources to enter—and even destabilize—the growing grid. 23] In fear of using up limited energy and natural resources, Congress also passed new legislation designed to curb electricity use and promote environmental goals. New agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (1970) and the Department of Energy (1977) were created to regulate different aspects of electricity, including generation from coal-burning power plants.

    In the 1990s, federal regulation of electricity shifted towards a market-based approach.[24] Deregulation had proven beneficial in reducing the cost and improving the quality of tightly regulated areas like the airline industry, and regulators were interested in bringing the same benefits to the electricity industry.

    In 1996, FERC attempted to restructure the industry by imposing an “open access” model[25] on utilities.[26] FERC’s intent was to “remove impediments to competition in the wholesale bulk power marketplace.” Despite FERC’s focus on competition, electricity transmission remains heavily regulated. Hence, the “deregulation” of electricity in the 1990s was in fact “re-regulation.” Wholesale electricity markets continue to evolve, with market forces and federal regulations colliding at each step.

    Currently, the electric power sector faces an unprecedented amount of federal intervention from several different agencies. Some of the most active are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FERC, and the Department of Energy.[27]

    The EPA proposed a new rule in 2014 to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The rule threatens to close a large portion of the reliable coal-fired electricity supply in the U.S. As a result, the rule will undercut power companies’ ability to meet electricity demand safely and reliably.[28] The EPA rule also comes at huge cost to American families and businesses that use electricity every day—by 2030, the rule is estimated to increase electricity bills by a combined $290 billion.[29]

    FERC, with its mandate to ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates, has long been involved in every aspect of wholesale electricity markets. In 2005, it received increased authority from Congress to further regulate the reliability of the power grid, and to oversee wholesale electricity markets. Recent FERC rules favoring renewable sources of electricity have made the agency more political than ever before and raised its profile. Conflicts over FERC leadership—between Congress, the White House, and policy and industry groups—reached a fever pitch in 2013 and 2014 with two nominees to chair the agency being denied the job by Congress.

    Meanwhile, the Department of Energy has also encouraged renewable sources of electricity through its national laboratories and essentially banned the use of certain technologies—such as the familiar incandescent light bulb—by establishing energy efficiency mandates. In short, nearly every aspect of electricity is now heavily regulated by multiple federal agencies.

    Vision

    Electricity remains a growth industry today, in spite of political meddling at the local, state, and federal level. New vistas for electricity will always be there for people to discover, but that discovery will require the freedom to inspire new inventions. Let the next generation of electricity entrepreneurs be driven—like Edison and Insull—by the productive forces of human ingenuity and healthy competition.

    Foot Notes:

    [1] Carl Van Doren, An Account of the Kite Experiment, UShistory.org, http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/info/kite.htm

    [2] Engineering timelines, Faraday’s work- the electrical generation, http://www.engineering-timelines.com/how/electricity/generator.asp

    [3]Vaclav Smil, The Energy Question, Again, Current History, December 2000, p. 408.

    [4] Mark P. Mills, The Cloud Begins With Coal, August 2013, http://www.tech-pundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cloud_Begins_With_Coal.pdf?c761ac

    [5] Energy Information Administration, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Data Show Large Reductions in Both Manufacturing Energy Use and the Energy Intensity of Manufacturing Activity between 2002 and 2010, March 19, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/reports/2010/decrease_use.cfm

    [6]Vaclav Smil, “The Energy Question, Again,”Current History, December 2000, p. 409.

    [7]Vaclav Smil, “The Energy Question, Again,”Current History, December 2000, p. 409.

    [8] International Energy Agency, Access to Electricity, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/

    [9] Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 596.

    [10] International Energy Agency, Access to Electricity, http://www.iea.org/publications/worldenergyoutlook/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/

    [11] National Archives and Records Administration, Thomas Edison’s Patent drawing for an improvement in electric lamps, patented January 27, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals_iv/images/thomas_edison/patent_drawing.html

    [12] These quotations are taken from Robert Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies (Hoboken, NJ: Scrivener Publishing and John Wiley & Sons, 2011), p. 30.

    [13] Robert L. Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies. (Hoboken, NJ: Scrivener Publishing and John Wiley & Sons, 2011), p. 42.

    [14] Conot, Robert. Thomas A. Edison: A Streak of Luck. New York: Da Capo, 1979. (p. 273)

    [15] ComEd, Carrying On a History of Innovation and Service, https://www.comed.com/about-us/company-information/Pages/history.aspx

    [16] Australian Department of Industry, Energy Efficiency Exchange, http://eex.gov.au/energy-management/energy-procurement/procuring-and-managing-energy/understanding-your-energy-requirements/#Why_are_demand_profiles_important

    [17] Thomas Edison: His Electrifying Life, Time Magazine Special Edition, 2013.

    [18] R. Richard Geddes, A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation, Winter 1992 http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/1/v15n1-8.pdf

    [19] Emergence of Electric Utilities in America: State Regulation,http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/past/h1main.htm

    [20] Forrest McDonald, Insull (University of Chicago, 1962).

    [21] Ibid., p. 333.

    [22] Robert L. Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies. (Hoboken, NJ: Scrivener Publishing and John Wiley & Sons, 2011), p. 219, 513.

    [23] Travis Fisher, PURPA: Another Subsidy for Intermittent Energies, January 22, 2013, http://www.masterresource.org/2013/01/purpa-renewable-energy-subsidies/

    [24] Market Economics: The Push for Deregulation, http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/past/h5main.htm

    [25] Clyde Wayne Crews, Rethinking Electricity Deregulation: Does Open Access Have It Wired- Or Tangled, June 24, 1999, http://cei.org/outreach-regulatory-comments-and-testimony/rethinking-electricity-deregulation-does-open-access-have

    [26] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, History of FERC, http://www.ferc.gov/students/ferc/history.asp

    [27] Institute for Energy Research, EPA’s Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Reduction Mandate, https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/111d-emissions-map

    [28] Institute for 21st Century Energy, Assessing the Impact of Proposed New Carbon Regulations in the United States, http://www.energyxxi.org/epa-regs#

    [29] Institute for 21st Century Energy, Assessing the Impact of Proposed New Carbon Regulations in the United States, http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf

  • Emerging Technology in Electricity

    Emerging Technology in Electricity

    Could these technologies power the world of tomorrow?

    Since the dawn of the industrial age, the world has been powered by a relatively small set of technologies. The 20th century was the age of coal, but this side of 2000, that’s changed.

    The need to curb emissions and the rise of renewables, from wind to solar to biomass, has significantly changed how we fuel our power generation.

    Microbial fuel cells

    Harnessing the power of bacteria

    Bacteria are all around us. Some are harmful, some are beneficial, but all of them ‘breathe’. When they breathe oxidation occurs, which is when something combines with oxygen at a chemical level, and when bacteria do this, electrons are released.

    By connecting breathing microbes to a cathode and an anode (the positive and negative rods of a battery), the flow of these released electrons can be harnessed to generate power. This is what’s known as a microbial fuel cell (MFC). MFCs are used largely to generate electricity from waste water, but are expanding into more exotic uses, like powering miniature aquatic robots.

    New developments are constantly expanding the power and applications of MFCs. Researchers at Binghamton University, New York found that combining phototropic (light-consuming) and heterotrophic (matter-consuming) bacteria in microbial fuel reactions generates currents 70 times more powerful than in conventional setups.

    Solar

    The New Dawn

    Solar power may not be a new technology, but where it’s going is…

    BIPV solar technology

    Building-integrated photovoltaics, as the name suggests, seamlessly blend into building architecture in the form of roofs, canopies, curtain walls, facades, and skylight systems. Unlike traditional solar PV panels, BIPV can be aesthetically appealing rather than a compromise to a building’s design.

    Of course, aesthetics alone is not enough for solar buyers; economics matters too. The good news is that the BIPV solar panel systems enable homeowners to save on building materials and electric power costs. By substituting BIPV for standard building materials, you can cut down on the additional cost of solar panel mounting systems.

    BIPV technology, when used on the building’s facades, atrium, terrace floor, and canopies, provides the following benefits:

    • Increased energy efficiency

    • High thermal and sound insulation

    • Clean and free power output from the sun

    • Decreased O&M costs

    • Zero carbon footprint

    The photovoltaic PV glasses installed as building materials act as an energy-generating device, allowing natural light inside homes and offices, just as conventional architectural glasses.

    Solar Skins

    Solar skins are a novel PV technology to integrate custom designs into solar panel systems. The solar skin technology is similar to the ad wraps displayed on bus windows.

    Sistine, the manufacturer of solar skins, is testing the technology at the United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory to increase its efficiency. Solar thin-film skins maintain high efficiency due to its selective light filtration advancements. The sunlight falling on solar skins is filtered to reach the solar cells beneath it. As a result, it simultaneously displays the custom image and provides solar energy.

    These imprinted custom images, embedded into solar panels, can exactly match your grassy lawns or rooftops of your homes.

    Solar skin panels can also be beneficial for businesses or government offices. They can be customized to display business logos, business advertisements, a country’s flag, and so on.

    Moreover, solar skins utilize rail-less racking systems, sit lower, have a sleek finish, and hide metal components, giving the panels a super cool look. If panel aesthetics stops you from going solar, Sistine’s SolarSkins might be the solution you are looking for.

    The future of solar looks bright

    Solar power was earlier generated only by means of ground-mounted or rooftop panels. But thanks to all the advancements mentioned above, solar is set to become lighter, more flexible, and applicable everywhere.

    Imagine all this tech is available and you visit another city. You can buy food at a solar-powered food cart, eat it while traveling on a solar-powered highway, and charge your phone from your solar-powered clothes. This is what the near future looks like!

    And there are actually lots of other innovative residential solar technologies in development or currently being rolled out in 2020. Perhaps the most promising new tech is Perovskite solar cells, which could soon be used to create solar paint. 

    Tidal Power

    Changing the Wave

    A more predictable power source than intermittent renewables like wind and solar, tidal power isn’t new, however its growth and development has typically been restrained by high costs and limited availability. That’s changing. Last year saw the launch of the first of 269 1.5 MW (megawatt) underwater turbines, part of world’s first large scale tidal energy farm in Scotland.

    Around the world there are existing tidal power stations – such as the Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station in South Korea, which has a capacity of 254MW – but the MeyGen array in Scotland will be able to take the potential of the technology further. It’s hoped that when fully operational it will generate 398MW, or enough to power 175,000 homes.

    We might not know exactly how the electricity of tomorrow will be generated, but it’s likely some or all of these technologies will play a part. What is clear is that our energy is changing.

    We might not know exactly how the electricity of tomorrow will be generated, but it’s likely some or all of these technologies will play a part. What is clear is that our energy is changing.

  • 2020 Arctic Blast

    2020 Arctic Blast

    Get Ready for Winter

    It’s beginning to look a lot like winter across parts of the north-central United States as waves of snow and frigid air have frequented the region this week, but the next blast of Arctic air will be the coldest one yet.

    Temperatures will tumble to the lowest levels so far this season, and in some cases, they will challenge records that have stood for more than 100 years, as a blast of Arctic air sweeps across the Plains and Rocky Mountains.

    Accumulating snow will precede the Arctic blast, laying the groundwork for the core of the cold to penetrate well into the central U.S. during the second half of the weekend and into the start of the new week.

    Strong winds that accompany the arrival of the cold air will pose a threat for high-profile vehicles traveling across the region, as well as spelling an end to the leaf-peeping season where dead leaves are still holding on to the trees.

    Sunday, by far, appears to be the coldest day of the weekend for much of the region, particularly along the Front Range of the Rockies and High Plains.

    In Billings, Montana, the lowest temperature ever recorded on Oct. 25 was 18 degrees Fahrenheit set in 1997, but the high temperature on Sunday may not even reach this benchmark. This will be followed up by a low temperature on Sunday night within a few degrees of zero F.

    The same can be said for Casper, Wyoming, with the low temperature on Sunday night expected not only to shatter the current record for the date but also come within a few ticks of the all-time lowest temperature recorded in the month of October.

    The Arctic plunge will continue to surge southward into the start of the new week, bringing about dramatic changes to the southern Plains.

    In Amarillo, Texas, the mercury may plunge from the mid-70s on Saturday to the teens on Sunday night followed by icy conditions on Monday.

    The drop in temperature is not forecast to be quite as extreme farther east in Dallas, but residents will experience nearly a 30-degree drop in temperature from Sunday to Monday.

  • Costly Carbon

    Costly Carbon

    Net Zero Goals Impossible Without CCUS

    Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS)

     is the only group of technologies that contributes both to reducing emissions in key sectors directly and to removing CO2 to balance emissions.

    “Reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS,” the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a recent report on the role of carbon capture, utilization, and storage in the energy transition.

    Many governments, especially in mature economies, as well as all oil and gas supermajors, also seem to concur that carbon capture and storage is a critical part in achieving the emission reduction targets and net-zero goals that various countries and businesses, including the European oil majors, are pursuing.  

    Governments and oil firms are betting big on CCUS, but a large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage projects is still years away.

    Technology and costs continue to be significant hurdles on the road to making CCUS a vast and truly global industry capable of abating emissions not only from new energy generation, such as the production of blue hydrogen, but also from existing energy systems and from heavy industries such as cement, steel, or chemicals production.

    Governments and industry need to invest hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars over the next two to three decades if CCUS stands a chance of becoming the pillar of the energy transition and “the only group of technologies that contributes both to reducing emissions in key sectors directly and to removing CO2 to balance emissions that are challenging to avoid,” as the IEA describes it in its report.

    The Potential Is There

    Various studies and pilot projects have shown that CCUS has the potential to become the industry that will help heavy industry and fossil fuel industries to cut emissions.

    Globally, there are more than 60 operational CCS projects of varying capture capacity, with the United States leading with 28 percent of those operational projects, followed at quite a distance by China, Canada, Japan, and Australia, Wood Mackenzie said in a report on the North Sea potential to net-zero last month. 

    Most recently, Norway has just launched the Longship project, which includes funding for the Northern Lights joint project of supermajors Equinor, Shell, and Total to capture CO2 from industrial sources in the Oslo fjord region (cement and waste-to-energy) and shipping of liquid CO2 from these industrial capture sites to an onshore terminal on the Norwegian west coast. The government funding is US$1.8 billion (16.8 billion Norwegian crowns) out of the total US$2.7 billion (25.1 billion crowns) project costs.

    “For Longship to be a successful climate project for the future, other countries also have to start using this technology,” Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg said.

    Government Support Is Critical

    The Norwegian project goes to show what analysts have been saying about CCUS all along: government support and sponsorship is critical for getting this industry off the ground, and large-scale deployment is essential to achieving meaningful emissions reductions on a global scale.

    To overcome those constraints, governments and industries need to improve technologies, but they also need to cut costs to make CCUS feasible and not so cost-prohibitive.

    “A significant scale-up of deployment is needed to provide the momentum for further technological progress, cost reductions and more widespread application in the longer term. Without a sharp acceleration in CCUS innovation and deployment over the next few years, meeting net-zero emissions targets will be all but impossible,” the IEA said in its report.

    “The rapid deployment hinges critically on a massive increase in government support, as well as new approaches to public and private investment,” the Paris-based agency says.

    Big Oil has embraced CCUS as one of the pathways to emission reductions, as many European majors have pledged to become net-zero businesses by 2050 or sooner. Shell, BP, Total, Equinor, and ENI are all working on and investing in carbon capture and storage projects.

    Investment Is Critical Too

    However, the industry and governments need to invest hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars over the next three decades in order to make CCUS the game-changing emission-cutting industry that the IEA envisages today.

    The UK alone will need around US$78 billion (60 billion British pounds) in investments in CCUS over the next 30 years, and even higher investments in offshore wind and green hydrogen, if it is to build a net-zero energy system, WoodMac’s Chairman and Chief Analyst Simon Flowers said.

    Commercialization is still some way off due to technical challenges and the need for the carbon price to be at least double today’s carbon price, according to the energy consultancy.  

    “Significant policy incentives such as carbon taxes and the development of CCUS clusters are likely needed to help CCUS be competitive,” WoodMac said in its report about the potential in the UK Continental Shelf.

    Globally, the world will need CCUS to reduce emissions from existing infrastructure as renewable energy and electric vehicles (EVs) are not enough to curb the effects of climate change on the planet. Without the right policies and support, large-scale CCUS could be a nearly impossible task, according to WoodMac.

    “Emissions will continue increasing unless there is an incentive to rationalize the carbon-heavy assets or retrofit with carbon capture and storage — a herculean task without an appropriate tax on carbon,” Prakash Sharma, head of markets and transitions for Asia-Pacific at Wood Mackenzie, said.

    “If the world is to achieve the Paris goal for global warming, green hydrogen and CCUS will have to be part of the solution, and that means sustained policy support. Attracting the investment to lift these technologies from the demonstration phase to full commercialization needs higher carbon prices and, ultimately, a coherent, global carbon policy,” WoodMac said in its Energy Transition Outlook 2020.

    Industries and governments recognize that CCUS could play a pivotal role in the energy transition, but a lot more efforts, policy support, government funding, corporate investments, technology improvements, and cost cuts are needed to make CCUS the game-changer in the fight against climate change.  

  • Hydrogen Boost Energy

    Hydrogen Boost Energy

    Hydrogen Gives Boost Renewable Energy


    As a Biden presidency is increasingly being viewed as a big win clean energy emerges strong. 

    However, one corner of the market has really been hogging the limelight: The hydrogen sector.

    From a Wall Street pariah that was burdened with too many challenges to become a practical energy source during our lifetimes, suddenly giant utilities have charted highly ambitious hydrogen roadmaps.

    Bank of America says hydrogen could supply our vast energy needs, fuel our cars, heat our homes, and also help to fight climate change. BAC says we have reached the tipping point of harnessing this element effectively and economically and predicts the hydrogen marketplace to reach a staggering $11 trillion by 2050.

    It, therefore, comes as no surprise that the hydrogen boom is likely to provide a significant boost to renewable energy in some sort of virtuous cycle by creating substantial investment opportunities for solar and wind energy, the scaling of which could lower hydrogen production costs even further.

    Scores of global energy heavyweights, including BP, Siemens Energy, Repsol, and Orsted have already outlined their green hydrogen strategies.

    U.S.-based Plug Power(NASDAQ:PLUG) has struck a deal with Apex Clean Energy to develop a green hydrogen network using wind power offers a chance to tap into “very low cost” renewable power and helps accelerate the shift to clean energy. Plug has a goal for over 50% of its hydrogen supplies to be generated from renewable resources by 2024.

    Green hydrogen

    None, however, comes close to matching the EU’s hydrogen ambitions.

    Three months ago, the European Union has set out its new hydrogen strategy as part of its goal to achieve carbon neutrality for all its industries by 2050. 

    In a big win for the hydrogen sector, the EU outlined an extremely ambitious target to build out at least 40 gigawatts of electrolyzers within its borders by 2030, or 160x the current global capacity of 250MW. The EU also plans to support the development of another 40 gigawatts of green hydrogen in nearby countries that can export to the region by the same date.

    But here’s the kicker: The regional bloc intends to have 6GW of green hydrogen produced from renewable energy up and running by 2024.

    The world currently produces about 70 million metric tonnes of hydrogen per year, of which only about 4% is generated from renewable energy as per the World Energy Council.

    That’s the case because green hydrogen is currently the most expensive hydrogen source, with grey hydrogen produced from fossil fuels via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) and coal gasification the cheapest. But the EU does not seem bothered with costs at the moment, with its main goal being to become carbon neutral by 2050.

    Or maybe it just wants to gain a first-mover advantage in a market that will surely enjoy some of the biggest growth of any energy sector in the coming decades.

    So, what does the EU green hydrogen goal mean for the renewables sector?

    According to BNP Paribas Asset Management’s Lewis, developing these green hydrogen commitments will require ~$400B, fully half of which will go to developing new renewable energy capacity, thus increasing the growth opportunity of a sector that’s already red-hot.

    That’s a $200B boost for the global renewable sector, or nearly 4x the EU’s ~$55B investments in clean energy in 2019.

    A lot of that hydrogen is probably going to be used to decarbonize the mobility sector, giving EV investors some serious food for thought.


  • R-Values and U-Values simplified!

    R-Values and U-Values simplified!

    Thermal conductivity, R-Values and U-Values simplified!

    Thermal Conductivity of insulating materials

    The primary feature of a thermal insulation material is its ability to reduce heat exchange between a surface and the environment, or between one surface and another surface. This is known as having a low value for thermal conductivity. Generally, the lower a material’s thermal conductivity, the greater its ability to insulate for a given material thickness and set of conditions.

    Thermal conductivity, also known as Lambda (denoted by the greek symbol λ), is the measure of how easily heat flows through a specific type of material, independent of the thickness of the material in question.

    The lower the thermal conductivity of a material, the better the thermal performance (i.e. the slower heat will move across a material).

    It is measured in Watts per Metre Kelvin (W/mK).

    To allow you to get a feel of insulating materials – their thermal conductivity varies between about 0.008 W/mK for vacuum insulated panels (so these are the best, but very expensive!) to about 0.061 W/mK for some types of wood fibre.

    K-Values

    K-value is simply shorthand for thermal conductivity. The ASTM Standard C168, on Terminology, defines the term as follows:

    Thermal conductivity, n: the time rate of steady state heat flow through a unit area of a homogeneous material induced by a unit temperature gradient in a direction perpendicular to that unit area.

    This definition is really not that complex. Let’s take a closer look, phrase by phrase.

    Time rate of heat flow can be compared to water flow rate, e.g., water flowing through a shower head at so many gallons per minute. It is the amount of energy, generally measured in the United States in Btus, flowing across a surface in a certain time period, usually measured in hours. Hence, time rate of heat flow is expressed in units of Btus per hour.

    Steady state simply means that the conditions are steady, as water flowing out of a shower head at a constant rate.

    Homogeneous material simply refers to one material, not two or three, that has a consistent composition throughout. In other words, there is only one type of insulation, as opposed to one layer of one type and a second layer of a second type. Also, for the purposes of this discussion, there are no weld pins or screws, or any structural metal passing through the insulation; and there are no gaps.

    What about through a unit area? This refers to a standard cross-sectional area. For heat flow in the United States, a square foot is generally used as the unit area. So, we have units in Btus per hour, per square feet of area (to visualize, picture water flowing at some number of gallons per minute, hitting a 1 ft x 1 ft board).

    Finally, there is the phrase by a unit temperature gradient. If two items have the same temperature and are brought together so they touch, no heat will flow from one to the other because they have the same temperature. To have heat flow by conduction from one object to another, where both are touching, there must be a temperature difference or gradient. As soon as there is a temperature gradient between two touching objects, heat will start to flow. If there is thermal insulation between those two objects, heat will flow at a lesser rate.

    At this point, we have rate of heat flow per unit area, per degree temperature difference with units of Btus per hour, per square foot, per degree F.

    Thermal conductivity is independent of material thickness. In theory, each slice of insulation is the same as its neighboring slice. The slices should be of some standard thickness. In the United States, units of inches are typically used for thickness of thermal insulation. So we need to think in terms of Btus of heat flow, for an inch of material thickness, per hour, per square foot of area, per degree F of temperature difference.

    After picking apart the ASTM C168 definition for thermal conductivity, we have units of Btu-inch/hour per square foot per degree F. This is the same as the term K-value.

    C-Values

    C-value is simply shorthand for thermal conductance. For a type of thermal insulation, the C-value depends on the thickness of the material; K-value generally does not depend on thickness (there are a few exceptions not in the scope of this article). How does ASTM C168 define thermal conductance?

    Conductance, thermal, n: the time rate of steady state heat flow through a unit area of a material or construction induced by a unit temperature difference between the body surfaces.

    ASTM C168 then gives a simple equation and units. In the inch-pound units used in the United States, those units are Btus/hour per square foot per degree F of temperature difference.

    The words are fairly similar to those in the definition for thermal conductivity. What is missing is the inch units in the numerator because the C-value for a 2-inch-thick insulation board is half the value as it is for the same material 1-inch-thick insulation board. The thicker the insulation, the lower its C-value.

    Equation 1: C-value = K-value / thickness

    R-Values

    The R-value is a measure of resistance to heat flow through a given thickness of material.  So the higher the R-value, the more thermal resistance the material has and therefore the better its insulating properties.

    The R-value is calculated by using the formula

    R-Value

     

    Where:

    l is the thickness of the material in metres and

    λ is the thermal conductivity in W/mK.

    The R-value is measured in metres squared Kelvin per Watt (m2K/W)

    For example the thermal resistance of 220mm of solid brick wall (with thermal conductivity λ=1.2W/mK) is 0.18 m2K/W.

    If you were to insulate a solid brick wall, you simply find the R-value of the insulation and then add the two together. If you insulated this with 80mm thick foil-faced polyisocyanurate (with thermal conductivity λ=0.022W/mK and R-value of 0.08 / 0.022 = 3.64 m2K/W), you would have a total R-value for the insulated wall of 0.18 + 3.64 = 3.82 m2K/W. Therefore it would improve the thermal resistance by more than 21 times!

    U-Values

    The U value of a building element is the inverse of the total thermal resistance of that element. The U-value is a measure of how much heat is lost through a given thickness of a particular material, but includes the three major ways in which heat loss occurs – conduction, convection and radiation.

    The environmental temperatures inside and outside a building play an important role when calculating the U-value of an element. If we imagine the inside surface of a 1 m² section of an external wall of a heated building in a cold climate, heat is flowing into this section by radiation from all parts of the inside the building and by convection from the air inside the building. So, additional thermal resistances should be taken into account associated with inside and outside surfaces of each element. These resistances are referred to as Rsi  and Rso respectively with common values 0.12Km²/W and 0.06Km²/W for the internal and external surfaces, respectively.

    This is the measure that is always within Building Regulations. The lower the U-value is, the better the material is as a heat insulator.


    This is calculated by taking the reciprocal of the R-Value and then adding convection and radiation heat losses, as follows.

    U-Value

    U = 1/ [ Rsi + R1 + R2 +… + Rso ]

    In practise this is a complicated calculation, so it is best to use U-Value calculation software.

    Units are in Watts per metre squared Kelvin (W/m2K).

    As a guide an uninsulated cavity wall has a U-Value of approximately 1.6 W/m2K, while a solid wall has a U-Value of approximately 2 W/m2K

    Using U-Values, R-Values and Thermal conductivity

    If you are confronted with thermal conductivity, R-values and U-values going forward, here are 3 simple things to remember, to make sure you get the best insulating product.

    •  Higher numbers are good when comparing the Thermal Resistance and R-Values of products.
    •  Low numbers are good when comparing U-Values.
    •  The U-Value is the most accurate way to judge a material’s insulating ability, taking into account all the different ways in which heat loss occurs, however it is more difficult to calculate.

  • CA bans new car sale of gas-powered vehicles

    CA bans new car sale of gas-powered vehicles

    California plans to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars and trucks starting in 2035 in a dramatic move to shift to electric vehicles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    The move would be the most significant to date by a US state aimed at ending the use of internal combustion engines for passenger travel.

    California is the largest US auto market, accounting for about 11 percent of all US vehicle sales.

    President Trump has sought to bar California from requiring the sale of electric vehicles, while his rival Joe Biden has pledged to spend billions to speed the adoption of electric vehicles.

    California’s clean vehicle goals have not always come to pass and in some cases have been pushed back.

    California Air Resources Board also plans to mandate by 2045 that all operations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles be zero emission where feasible.

    The executive order does not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market.

    In response to a record wildfire season in the state, the governor said earlier this month California needed to “fast track” its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. “Across the entire spectrum, our goals are inadequate to the reality we are experiencing,” he said on Sept. 11 while touring a burned area in the state.

    A group representing major automakers including General Motors, Toyota and Volkswagen said “neither mandates nor bans build successful markets.”

    The group noted electrified vehicles account for less than 10 percent of new vehicle sales in California, which is still best in the United States.

    California and nearly two dozen other US states have sued the Trump administration, which has rolled back Obama era vehicle emissions standards and sought to undo California’s authority to set strict car pollution rules.

  • More Rolling Blackouts

    More Rolling Blackouts

    California

    More Rolling Blackouts

    California grid operator warns of rotating power outages in record heat wave

    The California Independent System Operator (ISO) declared a “Stage 2” power emergency late on Saturday, warning that rotating power outages were possible amid a record heat wave.

    A Stage 2 power emergency means the ISO has taken all mitigating actions but can no longer provide its expected energy requirements.

    Temperatures of up to 125 degrees Fahrenheit (49 Celsius) were set to punish California through the Labor Day weekend, raising the risk of wildfires and rolling blackouts.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday declared a state of emergency, a proclamation that allows power plants to operate beyond normal limits through the three-day holiday weekend.

    The National Weather Service (NWS) forecast a heat wave carrying “rare, dangerous and very possibly fatal” temperatures across Southern California for the holiday weekend.

    State officials urged Californians to turn off unnecessary appliances and lights to help avoid blackouts from an overwhelmed power grid.

    Authorities also asked power generators to delay any maintenance until after the weekend to prevent blackouts like the two nights of rolling outages in mid-August as residents cranked up their air conditioning.

    This weekend was expected to be hotter than the one in mid-August that helped trigger the second- and third-largest forest fires in California history. Those fires are still burning.

    Death Valley in California’s Mojave desert registered one of the hottest air temperatures recorded on the planet of 130F (54C) on Aug. 17, and highs of around 124 were expected there on Sunday, the NWS said.

    San Francisco-based power provider PG&E Corp said on Saturday that it may be asked by the grid operator to turn off power due to the “extreme heat.” It urged customers to conserve power.

    The company said it may have to cut power early on Monday and Tuesday in parts of Northern California as hot, dry winds are expected to threaten the region.

    PG&E said its potential power shut-offs may impact parts of 17 counties, which would include about 103,000 customers.

  • Why Aren’t Home Efficiency Scores for Real Estate Listed?

    Why Aren’t Home Efficiency Scores for Real Estate Listed?

    Why Aren’t Home Efficiency Scores for Online Real Estate Listed?

    Realtors say such scores are useful for buyers and can open the door to broader conversations about home energy use.

    Home-Energy-Efficiency

    Portland now requires Home Energy Scores to be included in online aggregators such as Redfin and Zillow.

    Consumers rely on labels and scores to understand the attributes and performance of the products they buy. There are miles-per-gallon ratings for cars, nutrition labels for food and Energy Star ratings for appliances. But when it comes to the energy efficiency of their biggest investment — buying or renting a home — Americans are largely on their own.

    Many U.S. consumers take on mortgages without knowing how much energy a home uses, consigning themselves to needlessly high future utility bills. But the right information delivered at the right time can nudge homebuyers to select the more energy-efficient option before closing papers are signed.

    A dozen cities or states, including Berkeley, California and Austin, Texas, now ask for at least some form of home energy information disclosure during residential real estate transactions. But according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Portland is the only jurisdiction to require Home Energy Scores to be included at time-of-listing for use by the Regional Multiple Listing Service and popular online aggregators such as Redfin and Zillow. 

    Homes are scored on a 10-point scale based on DOE’s Home Energy Score system: homes with a “1” rating use the most energy; homes with a “10” rating use the least.

    What a realtor thinks about energy efficiency transparency

    Based on the anonymized responses, it’s clear that Home Energy Scores are informing the decision-making for at least some Portland homebuyers.

    Respondents reported using Home Energy Scores and reports in several ways: to target high-performing homes that need few efficiency improvements; to help calculate the full cost of homeownership; to negotiate with sellers over energy-saving upgrades to be performed before the home is sold; and to identify improvements to tackle after move-in.

    Ms. Green, realtor, “Many buyers do ask for the Home Energy Scores.  Those who are aware and are bummed to see a low score will definitely ask questions about the options and costs required to improve the score.”

    High efficiency scores reassure buyers, Green said.

    “Seeing a home with a ‘10′ energy score (the highest possible) gives buyers a sense of confidence in the care and overall soundness of a home. People want to know this huge investment they are making has been built well and cared for well,” she said.

    Making Home Energy Scores and reports available has also empowered all homebuyers — not just highly educated or green-minded ones — to think about energy consumption.

    “A score is so simple to understand and offers a warm opener for a deeper conversation about home energy use and associated costs,” noted Green.

    “In the past, buyers often only had the advice of their realtors to educate them on the relative importance of so many different energy-related systems. Now, the report offers a simple metric making it quick to compare house vs. house.”

    The case for Home Energy Scores in more online listings

    The potential looks big for similar programs in other parts of the U.S.

    The ACEEE recently asked more than 1,500 prospective homebuyers to peruse listings on a mock real estate website. Unlike most online real estate listing sites in the United States today, this one provided some participants with information on the homes’ energy efficiency, which was delivered via several renderings of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Home Energy Score rating system.

    Homebuyers who received energy use information ended up clicking on the least-efficient listing 23 percent less often and the most-efficient option 14 percent more often.

    The study bolsters the argument that local and state governments should require that energy efficiency information be included in online real estate listings, the ACEEE says. More than 90 percent of homebuyers now begin their searches online.

    The importance of identifying upgrades before closing deals

    Authors of the ACEEE report urged policymakers to replicate the Portland model. They recommend that energy efficiency information be included in real estate website listings, that listings include energy consumption information for all homes, not just the most efficient ones, and that programs use an intuitive scoring system, such as DOE’s Home Energy Score, to deliver information to homebuyers.

    With prospective homebuyers able to identify energy-efficiency upgrades before closing, there is the potential to wrap the improvements into the loan. Fannie Mae’s HomeStyle Energy mortgage, to cite one example, enables homebuyers to add upgrades recommended in the Home Energy Report into their loan.

    More work is needed to spread the word about energy-efficient mortgage products.

    “While a handful of local lenders have become aware of this product, they are not yet marketing this type of loan offer to homebuyers,” the authors observe in the report.




    Leaky House

    OR

    Air tight with Geothermal

  • Climate-Change Fight Hurts the Poor

    Climate-Change Fight Hurts the Poor

    U.S. EPA chief claims climate-change fight hurts the poor

    The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday accused Democrats of hurting the poor with policies aimed at fighting climate change, and said the agency would keep supporting development and deregulation if President Donald Trump is re-elected.

    The speech, on the EPA’s 50th anniversary, laid out agency priorities if Trump wins a second term in office. It reflected the gaping ideological divide between Democrats and the administration, which has loosened regulations for pollution and vehicle fuel efficiency and promoted oil and gas drilling.

    “Some members of former administrations and progressives in Congress have elevated single issue advocacy – in many cases focused just on climate change … over the interests of communities within their own country,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a speech that was streamed live on YouTube.

    Critics said the administration’s deregulatory agenda has undermined public health by rolling back water and air protections, disproportionately harming low income communities. Congressional Democrats argue that a transition to clean energy will create jobs across the economy.

    Wheeler said if Trump were re-elected the agency would focus on community revitalization, water quality, permitting reform, Superfund cleanups, and pesticide administration.

    “This will do more for environmental justice than all the rhetoric in political campaigns,” he said in the speech, given at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California, whose namesake President Richard Nixon, a Republican, created the EPA in 1970.

    He criticized California for efforts to replace fossil fuels with renewable power sources like solar and wind, blaming that push for the state’s rolling blackouts.

    Former EPA officials decried the speech, saying it was an attempt to justify gutting a slew of green regulations.

    “Their decisions… send a clear message that the lives of Black, Brown and Indigenous lives have little value to the current Administration.” said Mustafa Santiago Ali, who was EPA’s top environmental justice official during former President Barack Obama’s administration.

  • Saving $$ on Hot Water with Geothermal

    Saving $$ on Hot Water with Geothermal

    We all know geothermal heat pumps are ultra-efficient and can save you up to 75% on your heating costs, but did you know they can also help you save money in other areas of your home’s energy consumption? That’s right, your geothermal heat pump will also save you up to 55% on your hot water cost using a desuperheater. 

    How Geothermal Water Heaters Work

    Heat pumps reduce hot water costs through a component called a desuperheater. While most geothermal heat pump manufacturers have this as an add-on, all of our residential heat pumps come with a desuperheater included for domestic hot water preheating.

    The discharge gas from the compressor is significantly hotter than the condensing temperature, and condensing is the main heat source for space heating.  A desuperheater is a small double-wall heat exchanger that takes this extra heat from the discharge gas and puts it in your domestic hot water tank.

    In layman’s terms: A geothermal heat pump heats your home using a compressor. The compressor produces extra heat, which is what we use to preheat your domestic hot water tank. The desuperheater harvests the extra heat using a pump and heat exchanger and deposits it into your electric hot water tank.

    Since we are harvesting waste heat, the desuperheater does not affect the heat output of the geothermal heat pump. Also, since we can only harvest the heat when the compressor is running (when the geothermal heat pump is operating), we can’t supply 100% of your domestic hot water needs. Instead, it is estimated that a desuperheater can provide between 50% and 60% of your domestic hot water requirements. Your hot water tank provides the rest of the heat.

    Desuperheaters operate in both heating and cooling mode, but the greatest savings occur in heating mode and the savings while in cooling mode are relatively small. Overall it evens out to 55% year-round.

    How Much You Can Save With a Geothermal Water Heater

    Just how much can you expect to save on your electricity bill? Let’s look at the following example to get some real world numbers.

    According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic hot water heating makes up approximately 17.7% of your home’s electricity consumption.

    geothermal water heater

    Source: eia.gov

    So, if you spend on average $350 per month on your electricity bill, here’s how much of that is due to domestic hot water use:

    $350 x 17.7% = $61.95/month

    $61.95 x 12 months = $743.40/year

    So if you install a geothermal heat pump, you’ll save between 50-60% on your domestic hot water costs. Let’s split the difference and estimate a 55% savings rate. That means you’ll save:

    $61.95 x 55% = $34.07/month

    $34.07 x 12 months = $408.87/year

    That’s significant yearly savings on top of the 75% you could save on your heating bills. Geothermal heat pumps provide cost-effective heating and cooling, but their benefits go far beyond that. The desuperheater comes with all our geothermal unit; it is just one of the many pros of this innovative heating technology.

  • 2020-2021 Geothermal Tax Credits

    2020-2021 Geothermal Tax Credits

    Federal Geothermal Tax Credit

    Your Questions Answered

    2020

    throughout the year
    26%
    / YR

    •  

    2021

    throughout the year
    22%
    /YR

    •  

    Q: What is the Geothermal Tax Credit?

    A: Let’s start here. What is the tax credit and how does it work? The initial federal investment tax credit was part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This bill was passed to help solve energy problems and provide tax incentives for existing and new types of energy production, including wind and solar.
    At the time, the credit only lasted through 2007, but it was so successful that it was extended several times. In 2008, the program was broadened to include geothermal heating and cooling systems.
    In 2016, the tax credit did actually expire. However, it was reinstated in 2018 to include not just households with geothermal heat pumps installed in 2018, but it also retroactively included any geothermal heat pumps installed after January 1, 2017.
    The federal tax credit initially allowed homeowners to claim 30 percent of the amount they spent on purchasing and installing a geothermal heat pump system from their federal income taxes. The tax credit decreases to 26% in 2020 and 22% in 2021.
    Homeowners who install geothermal can get the tax credit simply by filling out a form declaring the amount you spent when you file your federal income taxes. As long as your system is up and running by the end of 2020, you can claim the 26 percent from your federal income taxes.
    It’s an incredible advantage and can significantly reduce the cost of the system overall. There’s no limit to the value of the tax credit. As long as you still own the house where the system is installed, you can claim the true percentage based on the year you installed the system.

    Q: Do I qualify for the geothermal tax credit?

    A: To be eligible for the federal tax credit for geothermal, your geothermal heat pump must be placed in service between October 3, 2008, and December 31, 2021. For most homeowners, this means the installation is complete and the equipment is ready for use.
    But if the system is installed as part of the construction or renovation of a house, it’s considered placed in service when the taxpayer moves into the home.

    Q: What is the System Criteria?

    A: Your geothermal heat pump has to meet Energy Star (a federal energy-efficiency program) requirements. This means the heat pump must meet or exceed specific efficiency standards. In fact, all Energy Star geothermal heat pumps are over 45 percent more energy efficient than standard options. Not every geothermal heat pump is qualified, so make sure your geothermal installer meets these standards up front. Dandelion Geothermal is an Energy Star Certified geothermal installer!


    See Criteria


    Overview

    Q: What are Residency Requirements?

    A: You must own the home where the geothermal heat pump is installed to qualify for the tax credit. It doesn’t need to be your primary home, though — it can be a second home or vacation property as long as it’s located in the United States.
    The geothermal credit can’t be claimed for rental properties unless you rent a second home for part of the year. In that instance, you may be able to claim the credit for the portion of time you live in the home. For example, if you live in your second home for 6 months out of the year but rent it out the rest of the time, you may be able to claim 50% of the 26% tax credit.


    Click here

    Q: System Payment Method

    A: It doesn’t matter if you buy the system upfront or finance your purchase. Either way, you’re eligible for the tax credit.

    Q: What are the Tax Liability?


    Tax Credit

    A: A tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the income tax you owe. So in order to qualify for the Federal Tax Credit, you need to have a large enough tax burden to benefit.
    Some types of tax credits are refundable. That means you can still receive the full amount of the credit even if the credit exceeds your entire tax bill. For example: If your tax bill is $300, but your refundable tax credit is $1000, you will receive a $700 refund.
    The Geothermal Tax Credit, however, is a non-refundable personal tax credit. It can only reduce or eliminate your liability (how much money you owe to the IRS). If you credit is greater than your tax liability, it will not generate a tax refund. For example: If your tax bill is $300, but your non-refundable tax credit is $1000, you will only use $300 of your credit (and will have $700 unused).
    Fortunately, the Geothermal Tax Credit allows homeowners to apply their tax credit over multiple years. If your tax burden in 2020 is less than the full amount of your credit, you can carry over the remainder when filing your taxes in 2021. You can even keep doing this as long as the tax credit is active. The Geothermal Tax Credit can offset regular income taxes and even alternative minimum taxes.
    For example: Let’s say you purchase a geothermal system for $20,000. That could mean you’re eligible for a $5,200 tax credit. But let’s say you only owe $3,000 in taxes. In this situation, you can simply claim $3,000 in credit this year and $2,200 next year.
    To benefit from the Federal Tax Credit, you must owe at least as much in taxes as you would claim for the credit, even if it’s over several years.


    Alternative Minimum Tax

    Q: How do I claim the Geothermal Tax Credit?

    A: After you’ve had your geothermal system installed, you’ll simply fill out an additional form when it’s time to file your federal income taxes. The form you’ll need to fill out for the IRS is 5695. You can follow the form’s instructions here.
    Although the name doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, it can be a big help come tax time. It’s best to work with a tax professional who will know exactly how to fill out your new form for the tax break. This will ensure that everything is filled out accurately, and they can also help advise you on other potential energy tax credits you might be eligible for.
    Of course, you can fill this form out yourself, but be sure to read and thoroughly follow the instructions before you do. If you’d prefer to reach out to the IRS directly, you can contact them through their website or by calling 1-800-829-1040.


    5695 Form


    IRS Website

    Q: What expenses are eligible for the Federal Geothermal Tax Credit?

    A: The Geothermal Tax Credit covers expenses including labor, onsite preparation, assembly, equipment, and piping or wiring to connect a system to the home. Electrical upgrades may also be eligible.
    Add-on components, like ductwork or a new generator, are not covered by the tax credit. What other expenses aren’t covered by the tax credit? Equipment used only for hot tub or a swimming pool, zoning, and used components (like a pre-owned geothermal heat pump).

    Q: Are there other incentives available?

    A: Many states offer incentives and rebates. Each state has a unique incentive.


    ITC Info


    Dept of Energy



    Save $$ on Hot Water with Geo

  • Oil Demand Continues to Decline

    Oil Demand Continues to Decline

    World’s Largest Offshore Rig Owner Files Bankruptcy

    This company is the largest rig owner in The World.

    UK-based offshore drilling contractor Valaris has filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States, offering creditors to swap some $6.5 billion of its $7.8-billion debt pile for equity.

    Valaris follows Diamond Offshore Drilling and Noble Corp in bankruptcy court as the offshore drilling segment suffers the hardest blow from the latest oil industry crisis.

    The company has been in luck: about half of its bondholders have agreed to the proposed deal, which will allow the company to clear up most of its debt, the Wall Street Journal reports, quoting Valaris chief executive Tom Burke as saying the pandemic was likely to cause an extended downturn in the industry.

    The offshore drilling industry has been pummeled hard by the pandemic and the oil price crash. Many analysts see a lot more bankruptcies down the road as most companies in the field are heavily leveraged, and demand for offshore drilling is extremely tight as E&Ps go into survival mode, cutting or postponing all non-essential expenses, including costly offshore drilling.

    The Global Rig Count Hits A Record Low

    – The U.S. rig count has hit its lowest level in decades, but the global rig count is also at a record low.

    – Offshore rig providers are going bankrupt at the fastest pace in years. Valaris (NYSE: VAL) filed for bankruptcy this week, seeking to restructure $7 billion in debt.

    – “Offshore drilling is structurally damaged, and recovery is not imminent,” Bernstein wrote in a note to investors.

    – Valaris has a fleet of 55 rigs, but the company’s CEO Tom Burke said that the offshore rig market will suffer from a prolonged contraction.

    Wind and solar financing scales up

    – Solar PV and onshore wind (and increasingly offshore wind, although from a small base) have attracted trillions of dollars in asset finance over the past decade. In 2019 alone, the sectors attracted $271.5 billion.

    – The sectors are now perceived as low-risk by investors, flipping the script when compared to oil and gas. Poor (and volatile) returns from oil and gas has led to capital shifting into renewables.

    – Bloomberg profiled a Texas rancher who wants to install over 700,000 solar panels on his land, who specifically noted that oil and gas appeared financially risky – the rancher expected to see declining royalties over time. Solar, by comparison, was a safer bet.

  • Rolling Blackouts

    Rolling Blackouts

    Why are they turning off MY electricity?

    Rolling Blackouts

    Q: What are rolling blackouts?

    A: Rolling blackouts are a rationing scheme utilities resort to when electricity demand outstrips supply, which can happen in heat waves as air conditioners and fans are cranked up to cool homes, offices and stores. They take blocks of circuits and the customers hooked up to them offline to balance demand with supply.

    California Expresses Frustration as Blackouts Enter 4th Day

    Lawmakers and consumer groups expressed outrage on Monday that the operator of California’s electricity grid had not adequately prepared for a heat wave and was resorting to rolling blackouts.

    Steve Berberich, president and chief executive officer of California I.S.O., said the system could be short about 4,400 megawatts of power in the late afternoon. “It’s going to be highly disruptive to people,” Mr. Berberich said. “We’re going to do everything we can to narrow that gap.”

    Q: How are rolling blackouts different from other outages?

    A: Outages caused by damage to electrical equipment are common during winter storms and heat waves, and last until utility crews repair the damage.  Safety Power Shutoffs, which preemptively shut down power lines to prevent damage from high winds and low moisture that can spark devastating wildfires. Those can last as long as dangerous conditions continue.

    Sweltering Heat

    … has smothered much of the West over the last week and is expected to strain the electric grid that serves about 80 percent of California. Temperatures in Death Valley reached 130 degrees.

    The heat is expected to continue through Wednesday evening. The governor, the grid operator and utilities have been asking consumers to reduce electricity use between 3 and 10 p.m., when power demand typically peaks in the state.

    2000-2001

    Beginning of blackouts

    Q: Why did those occur?

    The rolling blackouts of 2000-2001 resulted from California’s flawed electricity deregulation system.

    2020 – Steve Berberich, president and chief executive officer of California I.S.O., said the system could be short about 4,400 megawatts of power in the late afternoon. “It’s going to be highly disruptive to people,” Mr. Berberich said. “We’re going to do everything we can to narrow that gap.”

    After 20 years, and one of the largest states for new solar installation…

     

    Q: Why is it happening again?

    Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, which represents consumers before the California Public Utilities Commission, called on lawmakers to investigate California I.S.O. to determine why the agency did not adequately prepare for the heat wave.

    “Why did they not do a better job of managing the grid, which is their job?” Mr. Toney said.

    State Senator Jerry Hill, who heads a Senate energy subcommittee, said he had learned that blackouts on Friday took place in part because a natural gas power plant unexpectedly went offline.

    “It failed to produce when called on,” Mr. Hill said. “There’s something wrong, and it’s up to the Legislature and the governor to find out.”

    Q: Is it up the legislatures?

    Its time for YOU to be responsible and DROP YOUR ENERGY BILL !

    Q: Higher electric Bills?

    YES !

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been monitoring California’s energy troubles. The commission said it had discussed the electricity demand and wholesale power prices, which spiked in California over the weekend, with California I.S.O.

    Review previous Post related to

    Is Green really green


    Learn more

  • High Costs Of Electric Cars

    High Costs Of Electric Cars

    High Costs And Low Benefits Of Electric Cars

    The rush to decarbonize every nation in the world in one or maybe two decades reflects the “I want it all NOW!” philosophy imbued through modern education systems.

    Current and recent former students – and their teachers – demand a perfect world (since they can envision one) and exhibit zero patience (hence the nationwide riots in the U.S.).

    Hopefully, the mad stampede to destroy the West’s ability to use fossil fuels at all will be sidelined by harsh realities of economics, logistics, and resource availability (including a hoped-for reticence to rely on child slave labor to satisfy their blood lust).

    Yet the United Kingdom, formerly a bastion of sanity, has mandated, as part of its drive toward an all-electric society, the installation of electric vehicle charging stations in every home by 2030 and that all new cars and vans be hydrogen or electric vehicles (and not hybrids).

    Let’s start with the use of child labor in the intensive effort just to obtain raw materials for electric vehicle (EV) batteries.

    As international energy economist Tilak Doshi reports, the most important component in the EV, the lithium-ion rechargeable battery, relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and manganese.

    According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, two-thirds of the global output of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a quarter of which from dangerous small-scale (artisanal) mines that employ child labor.

    Moreover, a recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report by Michael Kelly found that replacing just the United Kingdom’s fleet of petrol-powered vehicles with electric vehicles (as has been mandated) will require nearly twice the annual global production of cobalt, three-quarters of the world’s production of lithium carbonate, nearly the entire world’s production of neodymium, and more than half the world’s production of copper.

    Replacing every internal combustion engine in the U.S. would take likely five or six times as much of these costly ores.

    Add in the rest of Europe (including Russia) and the Americas – and even ignoring Africa, China, India, and the rest of Asia, you begin to realize that the world cannot find, much less permit and extract, enough of these minerals to build a worldwide EV fleet by 2040 (let alone sooner).

    It takes almost that much time these days just to get a permit to start up a new mining operation – if you can get past the environmental and NIMBY objections. And, as Kelly concludes,

    The environmental and social impacts of vastly expanded mining for these materials — some of which are highly toxic when mined, transported, and processed – in countries afflicted by corruption and poor human rights records can only be imagined.

    Okay, so maybe you are fine with accelerated permitting (no environmental impact statements or public comment periods) to dig up or even import ore from Mars or the Moon. Whether children or AI robots do the work, in either case by slaves.

    The next hurdle is overcoming the shock of learning that you are not doing that much for the environment by imposing electric vehicles on entire populations.

    Doshi reports that about half the lifetime CO2 emissions from an electric vehicle come from the energy used to produce the car – largely the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery.

    Only about 17 percent of lifetime CO2 emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles are attributed to their manufacture.

    Moreover, manufacturing an EV expends about 30,000 pounds of CO2, while manufacturing a gasoline vehicle expends only about 14,000 pounds of CO2.

    Doshi explains that the on-road CO2 emissions of EVs depend on the power generation fuel used to recharge its battery.

    If from a coal power plant, it amounts to about 15 ounces of CO2 for every mile driven – 3 ounces MORE than from a similar gasoline-powered car.

    If an EV is only driven about 50,000 miles over its lifetime, it will put more CO2 into the atmosphere than a comparable gasoline vehicle.

    Yet over 90,000 miles with the battery charged by cleaner natural-gas power plants, the EV will generate just 24 percent less CO2 than its gasoline-powered twin.

    A 2012 peer-reviewed Yale University study had found that electric vehicles offer only a 10 to 24 percent decrease in “global warming potential,” yet they also exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts.

    The study concluded that with a vehicle lifetime of 100,000 kilometers (about 62,000 miles), the global warming potential of EVs is no more than 14 percent with respect to gasoline vehicles and indistinguishable in impacts compared to diesel vehicles.

    And you thought “zero-emissions vehicle” ACTUALLY meant zero emissions. But in the UK, at least, there is an added problem. The wise owls of London are just as eager to phase out natural gas to operate home appliances (including heating systems).

    Yet, retired engineer Mike Travers argues that decarbonizing the UK economy will likely require homeowners (and landlords) to install electric heat pumps, EV charging points, and electric stoves and showers.

    This extra demand will require the installation of larger breaker boxes, along with new circuit breakers and distribution boards – plus rewiring between the breaker box and the distribution network.

    In urban areas, where most electric cabling is underground, trenches will have to be dug between the home and the feeder circuits in the street.

    All of this will vastly increase electricity costs. The same goes for Californians, whose governor just signed a law mandating 100 percent renewable energy by 2045.

    But wait! There’s MORE!

    Travers notes that many EV advocates envision “vehicle to grid” charging, in which vehicle owners feed electricity back into the grid from their vehicle’s battery when demand is high.

    Duh! One problem: The EV battery is direct current, while the grid requires alternating current.

    To feed the grid, the homeowner would have to spend a grand on a DC-AC converter, and why would anyone do that – or drain his own vehicle’s battery during unstable times?

    Source: Principia Scientific

  • Renewable Green Energy Myth

    Renewable Green Energy Myth

    THE RENEWABLE GREEN ENERGY MYTH: 50,000 Tons
    Of Non-Recyclable Wind Turbine Blades Dumped In The Landfill

    Posted by SRSROCCO IN ECONOMY, ENERGY, NEWS

    Funny, no one seemed to consider what to do with the massive amount of wind turbine blades once they reached the end of their lifespan.  Thus, the irony of the present-day Green Energy Movement is the dumping of thousands of tons of “non-recyclable” supposedly renewable wind turbine blades in the country’s landfills.

    Who would have thought?  What’s even worse, is that the amount of wind turbine blades slated for waste disposal is forecasted to quadruple over the next fifteen years as a great deal more blades reach their 15-20 year lifespan.  Furthermore, the size and length of the newly installed wind turbine blades are now twice as large as they were 20-30 years ago.

    graphic courtesy of Ahlstrom-Munksjo.com)

    Honestly, I hadn’t considered the tremendous amount of waste generated by the so-called “Renewable” wind power industry until a long-term reader sent me the link to the following article, Landfill begins burying non-recyclable Wind Turbine Blades:

    Hundreds of giant windmill blades are being shipped to a landfill in Wyoming to be buried because they simply can’t be recycled.  Local media reports several wind farms in the state are sending over 900 un-reusable blades to the Casper Regional Landfill to be buried.  While nearly 90 percent of old or decommissioned wind turbines, like the motor housing, can be refurbished or at least crushed, fiberglass windmill blades present a problem due to their size and strength.

    “Our crushing equipment is not big enough to crush them,” a landfill representative told NPR.

    Prior to burying the cumbersome, sometimes nearly 300-foot long blades, the landfill has to cut them up into smaller pieces onsite and stack them in order to save space during transportation.

    Wyoming isn’t the only landfill accepting worn-out wind turbine blades.  They are also being dumped in IOWA and SOUTH DAKOTA.  Although, there’s probably a lot more landfills across the country, especially in Texas, that are accepting old wind turbine blades.  Texas has the largest amount of wind-generated energy in the United States at 27,036 MegaWatts, followed by Iowa (8,965 MW), Oklahoma (8,072 MW), Kansas (6,128 MW), and California (5,842 MW). (source: Wikipedia)

    So, with Texas powering more wind energy than the next three  states combined, they will be discarding an enormous amount of wind turbine blades in the state’s landfills over the next 10-20 years.

    Now, why is the Wind Power Industry discarding its blades in landfills?  Unfortunately, due to the way the blades are manufactured, it isn’t economical or practical to recycle them even though some small-scale recycling has been done.  Here is an image from the Low-Tech Magazine website explaining why the large wind turbine blades aren’t recyclable:

    (graphic courtesy of Low-Tech Magazine)

    The wind turbine blades are a toxic amalgam of unique composites, fiberglass, epoxy, polyvinyl chloride foam, polyethylene terephthalate foam, balsa wood, and polyurethane coatings.   So, basically, there is just too much plastic-composite-epoxy crapola that isn’t worth recycling.  Again, even though there are a few small recycling centers for wind turbine blades, it isn’t economical to do on a large scale.

    As I mentioned, the wind power units built today are getting much taller and larger.  Check out the 83.5 meter (274 feet) long wind turbine blade being transported for a 7 MegaWatt system:

    (photo courtesy of GCR – Global Construction Review)

    This picture was taken in 2016.  So, in about 15-20 years, this blade will need to be replaced.  Just think of the cost to remove three massive blades this size, cut them up, transport them to the landfill and cover them with tons of soil.  Now, multiply that by tens of thousands of blades.  According to the data from Hochschule Bremerhaven & Ahlstrom-Munksjo, the wind industry will generate 50,000 tons of blade waste in 2020, but that will quadruple to 225,000 tons by 2034.  I have read that some estimates show an even higher amount of blade waste over the next 10-20 years.

    I don’t believe the public realizes what a horrible waste of resources that wind energy is when you start to look at the entire operation from beginning to end.  Wind energy is definitely not RENEWABLE.  And, even worse… the wind turbines are not lasting as long as the 20-25 years forecasted by the industry.  A study that came out in 2012 by Gordon Hughes, researching the relatively mature Dutch and U.K. Wind Industry, suggested that only a few of the wind farms would be operating for more than 12-15 years.

    Wind & Solar A Disaster On The Electric Grid

    The one thing not mentioned by the “Renewable Energy Aficionados” is that the more solar and wind that is added to the grid, the more volatile and problematic it becomes.  You see, the U.S. Electric Grid has been powered by BASELOAD energy from Coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear… for the most part.  This type of energy generation is very stable, which is precisely why it’s called BASELOAD ENERGY.

    When wind and solar came onto the picture, the Renewable Energy Aficionados thought this “CLEAN GREEN ENERGY” was going to get rid of the dirty fossil fuel power plants.  Unfortunately, the more wind and solar that are added, the more BASELOAD energy has to be removed.  Why is that unfortunate?  Because when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, then the Electric Utility Industry is forced to TURN ON the Natural Gas Power Plants to make up the difference.

    And let me tell you, this is becoming much more of a big problem when the wind energy that was generating 40% of the electricity in the area totally falls off the very next day when the wind stops blowing.  I have read several articles showing examples of the extreme shut-in of wind and solar electric generation in a very short period of time.

    There is so much information out there about this “Intermittency” problem, let me provide a perfect example taking place in Germany.  Germany installed one hell of a lot of wind and solar, and it is now becoming a nightmare because they are suffering from black-outs, while at the same time their citizens are paying some of the highest electricity rates in Europe.

    Germany’s Renewable Energy Disaster – Part 1: Wind & Solar Deemed ‘Technological Failures’

    Germany’s wind and solar experiment have failed: the so-called ‘Energiewende’ (energy transition) has turned into an insanely costly debacle.

    German power prices have rocketed; blackouts and load shedding are the norm; and idyllic rural communities are now industrial wastelands (see picture).

    Hundreds of billions of euros have been squandered on subsidies to wind and solar, all in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide gas emissions. However, that objective has failed too: CO2 emissions continue to rise.

    But you wouldn’t know it from what appears in the mainstream media. Its reticence to report on what’s actually going on in Germany probably stems from the adage about success having many fathers, and failure being an orphan. Having promoted Germany as the example of how we could all ‘transition’ to an all RE future, it’s pretty hard for them to suck it up and acknowledge that they were taken for fools.

    REST OF ARTICLE HERE: Germany’s Renewable Energy Disaster – Part 1: Wind & Solar Deemed ‘Technological Failures’

    That article above came from the website, StopTheseThings.com, which I highly recommend checking out.  They put out a lot of excellent material on the global wind industry.

    For example, I found this interesting article about a wind turbine that was purchased by Akron-Westfield’s School Board that went operational in 1999.  The wind turbine was supposed to provide the School District with approximately (2) teachers’ salaries worth of revenue once the loan was paid off after ten years.  According to the article from StopTheseThings.com, Turbine Trouble: School Board’s Wind Turbine ‘Investment’ Ends in Financial Disaster:

    After a decade of dashed financial hopes, mechanical failures and punishingly costly repairs, the school has been left to lick its wounds and lament. The experience to date has been a total financial failure. And now comes the whopping cleanup bill to have the nightmare removed, for good.

    A-W wind turbine removal may become budget item
    The Akron Home Towner
    Julie Ann Madden
    11 October 2019

    What will it cost to remove the Akron-Westfield’s inoperable wind turbine from its site?

    According to A-W School Board Member Nick Mathistad, about $220,000:

    $183,000 for disassembly and disposal of the wind turbine; and
    $37,000 for foundation removal/disposal, dirt fill and seeding of site.
    “These are budget numbers, and the scope of work would be bid out at a later date if it comes to that,” Mathistad explained in a text to The Akron Hometowner.

    I recommend reading the entire article because it is worth a GOOD LAUGH.  I believe the author of the article misunderstood and thought the town of Akron was in Ohio, but it was located in Iowa.  Once you read the article, it plays like the typical TRAIL OF TEARS as the poor school board was plagued with mechanical failures and issues that cost one hell of a lot of money and just when the wind turbine was going to be paid off after ten years, it broke down for good… LOL.

    That’s correct, and the wind turbine has been sitting there idle for nearly a decade… rotting away.  And now, it seems that the school board is placing the $220,000 cost to disassemble and dispose of the wind turbine in their $5.2 million bond.  Again… LOL.

    I have to tell you; I am simply amazed at the level of INSANITY and STUPIDITY taking place by individuals, companies, corporations, and countries that are ramping up wind and solar energy.  They are a complete disaster and will only get worse as time goes by.

    Lastly, the world should have used the energy that has been investing in wind-solar and put it into transitioning our society to a smaller footprint or DEGROWTH.  That was the smart and logical move.  However, we are taking the last bit of good fossil fuel energy and putting into Non-Recyclable “supposedly renewable” Green Technology Boondoggles that will become serious liabilities in the future as we won’t have the available energy to properly disassemble and dispose of the tens of thousands of wind turbines dotting the landscape.

  • Is Green Really Green

    Is Green Really Green

    Today we have a new Green Prince poised to plunge the western world into a self imposed darkness.  This Prince first creates the fiction that Carbon causes climate change, then adds the fable that green energy exists which can dispel this nonexistent problem.  The entire range of ‘green solutions’ are all nonsensical.  We’ll limit this discussion to just solar cells and batteries, saving bio-fuels and windmills for another time.

        The Sun Gives Us Nothing for Free

    As alluring as the premise may be, the promise of solar energy is not free.  The first solar cell was created in 1883 by Charles Fritts using a sheet of Selenium with thin Gold facings.  The Sun radiates approximately 1000 watts per square meter at maximum.  The Fritts cell produced 10 watts per square meter or 1% efficiency. The Russell Ohl patent of 1946 is considered the first modern solar cell.  Today’s solar panels are high purity Silicon with a light doping of Phosphorus and Boron to provide breaks in the Silicone for electron movement.

    The Universe is a radiation chamber with EMR and particle emissions from all concentrated mass, and decay particles from individual atoms.  Solar radiation strips protons from Nitrogen atoms, creating Carbon-14.  Stripping exposed electrons is even easier.  Silicon has four rather stable outer shell electrons in an orbit that can hold eight electrons.  Boron has five outer-shell electrons, and Phosphorus has only three.  Silicon forms a cubic crystal grid, and slightly impure Silicone matrix sheets can then be embedded with Boron and Phosphorus atoms.

    When exposed to sunlight, the Boron atom losses it’s easily excited fifth electron, which travels the Silicon matrix using the Phosphorus “hole” to the conducting collection grids on both sides of the photovoltaic cell and permanently exits the cell.

    Only segments of the solar spectrum activate this flow and it must be captured on both sides of the panel to create a circuit.  The required capture grid blocks some of the incoming energy and the net result is 10% efficiency, or approximately 100 watts per square meter, and only within limited ambient temperature ranges which prohibit lenses or mirrors for simple amplification.

    Efficiencies as high as 40% are available with exotic materials, but then one must address the ‘high cost of free’, which applies to every ‘green’ technology.  Silicon, Phosphorus and Boron are common elements, but to mine, refine and bring on line has a cost.  That cost is reflected in ‘cost payback’ of 5 to 7 years depending on the system and level of government forced subsidy.  But these costs are based on low cost carbon based energy systems providing these materials.   Regardless, this is a ONE-TIME, ONE-WAY EROSION PROCESS with a total system life of less than 20 years.

    Solar cells produce only Direct Current, which is electric power by the migration of electrons, and in typical PV cells is only 1.5 volts.  Alternating Current creates a voltage, but transfers power as a wave, rapidly cycled between positive and negative, with little actual electron migration.  The first municipal Edison power systems were DC, but transmission loss and multiple voltage issues prevented success, and the Tesla-Westinghouse developed three-phase AC system became the driving force for modernization.

    Converting DC to AC involves a conversion loss in an inverter, boosting to higher voltage and converting to more efficient three phase causes additional losses due to the Carnot Cycle. If you connect a hydro-turbine to a pump, you can only pump a portion of the water flowing from a dam into water pumped back to the dam.  If you use the hydro-turbine to generate electricity, then use an electric pump to pump water back ablve the dam, then the losses are even greater.  The combined losses converting 1.5 volt DC to usable 50 kV, three phase transmissible AC power is forever technically impossible.

    Ignoring just these physical limitations, supposed science leading publications like Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and Discover, regularly show fanciful space based systems where vast arrays of solar panels, positioned around the planet, beam “sustainable” microwave energy back to Earth based antennas to provide 24 hour service.  Never mind all the limitations above, now add the Carnot loss converting to microwaves on both ends of this system.  Limitations to the field density of this transmission would require massive antennas, or large, “no fly zones” for humans, and instant on the fly cook zones for any stray birds.

    To overcome solar wind and lunar gravity changes, these microwave transmitters would require constant realignment, or the transmissions would wander off the receiving antenna.  The fact that this science fiction is presented as anything other than TOTAL FICTION, is proof that these publications are all “pop” and no science.

    Much like paying your Visa bill with your Master Card, this parasitic ‘clean’ energy cannot provide the ‘spare’ energy to avoid ‘dirty’ energy.  There is a constant loss of electrons in this system and power production erodes over time until, at twenty years, they are useless.  The Silicon sheets are protected with glass covers which require periodic cleaning and are subject to damage from hail and wind debris.

    Solar cells efficiency is also a function of azimuth angle and reduces with higher latitudes, and seasonal tilt angle.  Systems with tracking ability have higher efficiency, but not recoverable installation costs.  You get progressively less energy at the poles, precisely at the time when you need the MOST energy.  To have usable power over extended periods requires a storage system. The most common of these is the battery, which is the heart of that ‘other’ planet saver.

       Dream Green Machine

    Soon Electric Vehicles, aka EVs, will replace the nasty internal combustion engine and humanity will be in harmony with the Universe.  The transition technology in this race is the hybrid auto and the front runner is the Toyota Prius.  This undeniable marvel has a 120 pound Nichol-Metal Hydride battery that costs $3500 to replace or approximately $20 per pound.  There again, a cost based on carbon energy providing the material production.

    The ‘Metal Hydride’ portion of these batteries includes the rare Earth elements of Lanthanum, Cerium and Neodymium.  These required green components do not willingly join the green cult movement.  To have your treasured EV, this planet must be mined and those elements must be extracted and refined.

    Due to chemical erosion thru use, these batteries have an eight year or 100,000 mile warranty period.  You can save $450 per year on gasoline if you spend $450 per year on a battery.  You can walk forever up the down escalator and still get nowhere.  There is no way to improve or even ‘sustain’ our carbon-based life forms without expending some geologically stored carbon energy.

    To the blue-green Hollywood Eco-Smurfs and Na’vi wannabe’s, we are NOT living on a green Pandora that needs rescue from the evil RDA mining company.  Humanity will not be saved by mythical noble savages or a forced return to a primitive life style.  It took most of the nineteenth century to formulate the Laws of Thermodynamics.  It took most of the twentieth century to apply those laws to the benefit of society.  There will be no solutions to problems in the twenty first century that do not comply with these laws.

    Curiously missing from the Climatology degree plan is any mention of Thermodynamics.  Avoidance of these Laws must give license to break these Laws.  Thus clouds can have a negative factor during the day, with their pesky ‘albedo’ effect reflecting sunlight back into space and then just hours later have a positive effect by blanketing the warmth at night….a reflector or greenhouse at the whim of a Climatologist.

    Climatologist can ignore the specific heat and thermal mass of the entire planet and provide a computer model PROVING that the trace human portion, of a trace gas, in the trace portion of the Earth mass that is the atmosphere, is the single greatest climate forcing factor.  They can then empower this three atom molecule the unique ability to radiate in a reverse flow in opposition to all proven Thermodynamic Laws.  This is lawless behavior, which is by definition, criminal behavior.

     Environmental Side Note

    Every ton of pure Polycrystalline Silicon, refined for photovoltaic use, produces EIGHT tons of Silicon Tetrachloride and Ammonium Chloridadized Silicon TOXIC waste.  Similar levels of toxic waste are produced in the mining, refining and production of all batteries and the rare Earth elements needed for DC motors in Electric Vehicles and windmill DC generators.

    Western monarch-monopolists have no use for meritocracy and have been at war with freedom and property rights for eternity.  When the Chinese democracy movement threatened Universal Democracy at Tiananmen Square, it was feudal elites who rushed to prop up the Chinese dictators with western capital and western technology.  The trade off was Chinese slave labor and environmental degradation to destroy competitiveness.

    The reason that China is the main producer of all of these ‘green products’ is that China has a vast slave labor population, no property rights, no land use restriction and NO environmental restrictions.  Just more proof of the blindness induced by wearing green goggles.  We are borrowing money to subsidize non functional green energy to supplant functional energy….taxing, regulating and inflating our way to extinction….the ultimate darkness.

    Article source: https://principia-scientific.com/green-prince-of-darkness-exposed/

  • GREEN CAR MYTH

    GREEN CAR MYTH

    THE GREEN ELECTRIC CAR MYTH:

    772 Pounds Of Petro-Chemical Plastics In Each Vehicle

    (Source SRSrocco Report)

    How can an electric car be called “Green” when it contains more than 700 pounds of plastic??  Electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers are using more plastic to lower the weight of the car due to the massive battery used, weighing more than 1,000 pounds.  Unfortunately, plastic is still made from petrochemicals, the so-called “Dirty Fossil-fuel Industry.”

    So, without petrochemicals, the manufacture of electric cars would be extremely difficult.  And the primary feedstock for plastic is natural gas liquids (NGLs).  Due to the rapid rise in NGLs production, especially in the United States, plastic production has surged.  

    So, with all this extra NGLs production, the United States has a monopoly on the Global NGLs Feedstock for going GREEN.  Of the 3.8 million barrels per day (mbd) of NGLs global production growth since 2007, the United States accounted for 3.4 mbd of that total.

    In tearing apart the “Green Electric Vehicle Myth,” I will focus this article only on the plastic component.

    There seems to be this notion that cars manufactured 50 years ago were much heavier than vehicles today due to a higher percentage of metals used.  This turns out to be false when we look at the data.  According to an Autoweek article by Murliee Martin titled, 50 years of car weight gain: from the Chevelle to the Sonic, the Fairlane to the Focus, a 1967 mid-sized Chevy Chevelle weighed in at 2,915 pounds versus a 2,955 pounds for a 2017 Chevy Sonic subcompact car:


    (image courtesy of Autoweek.com, General Motors & Pinterest)

    Looks are deceiving… eh?  If you read the article linked above, the 1967 Chevy Chevelle with all that metal and very little plastic actually weighed 40 pounds less than the subcompact 2017 Chevy Sonic.  Go figure…

    I know what you all might be thinking.  How much plastic was in that 1967 Chevy Chevelle?  Well, I don’t have the exact figure, but using data from the Chemical & Engineering News article, Plastics makers plot the future of the car, the chart below provides the amount of plastic for each year.


    I estimated about 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of plastic for the 1967 Chevy Chevelle and 150 kilograms (331 pounds) for the 2017 Chevy Sonic.  So, with both cars weighing about the same, the 1967 Chevelle only contained 2% of plastic while the 2017 Sonic consisted of 11% plastic.


    How interesting… the newer cars contain more than 10% plastic, but the vehicle’s weight is heavier than the older cars built 50 years ago.  Again, the 1967 Chevelle is 40 pounds lighter than the 2017 Chevy Sonic… and the Sonic is a smaller car.

    Now, let’s move to the supposed “GREEN” Electric Vehicles.   To keep the weight of the EV as low as possible, more plastic is being used.  In the VisualCapitalist.com INFOGRAPHIC, How Much Oil Is In An Electric Vehicle, they provided the following quote:

    …According to IHS Chemical, by 2020, the average car will use 772 pounds of plastic.

    That is where I found the figure for the 2020 Tesla Electric vehicle in the chart above.  The approximate average weight of a Tesla EV is 5,000 pounds +/-.  Please understand, these figures are just guidelines, not actual amounts… but I would imagine they are in the ballpark.

    How can the Electric Vehicle Industry be called “Green” if it consumes a massive amount of petrochemicals in the form of plastics?? Thus, each Electric Vehicle contains at least 15% of the weight in plastic, and I believe this amount will only increase going forward.

    Without Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal, there wouldn’t be any Electric vehicles, Wind or Solar power.  When the world wakes up to this fact, then we can start to consider “DEGROWTH” as an option than wasting more fossil fuels on pointless UN-RENEWABLE NON-GREEN EVs, Wind and Solar power.

    HOW TO SUPPORT THE SRSROCCO REPORT SITE


    Click here

  • Grand Solar Minimum

    Grand Solar Minimum

    grand solar minimum

    What does it mean for life on earth

    The Sun has entered a period of reduced activity, known as a solar minimum, which happens on a cyclical pattern; meaning the burning heart of our solar system swings between energetic peaks and lows. When the sun peaks in activity – the solar maximum – more sunspots and solar flares erupt.

    Sun Cycles

    The sun has a cycle that lasts between nine and 14 years—typically 11 years, on average—and right now we’re in the trough. At the peak of that cycle—called solar maximum—the sun produces more electrons and protons as huge solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

    From a visual perspective, the solar cycle is a “sunspot cycle” since solar scientists can gauge where the Sun is in its cycle by counting sunspots on its surface.

    what is a sunspot

    It’s an area of intense magnetic activity on the surface of the sun—a storm—that appears as an area of darkness. Sunspots are indicative of solar activity, birthing solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs).


    What is a solar minimum

    Solar Minimums are prolonged periods of reduced solar activity, typically every 11 years.  In the past have gone hand-in-hand with times of global cooling.

    Just as solar maximum sees many sunspots, the trough of solar minimum features zero sunspots—and that’s what’s going on now. However, it’s been continuing rather longer than expected, which means the sun is in the midst of a particularly deep solar minimum. The most infamous happened between 1645 to 1715 when a “Maunder Minimum” saw a prolonged sunspot minimum when sunspots were very rare for an extended period.

    According to Spaceweather.com reports that there have already been 100 days in 2020 when our Sun has displayed zero sunspots.   That makes 2020 the second consecutive year of a record-setting low number of sunspots


    The last time we had a GSM (the Maunder Minimum) only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.

    This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

    Note: never look at the Sun with the naked eye or through binoculars or a telescope that aren’t fitted with solar filters.

    “This is a sign that the Grand solar minimum is underway,”

    “So far this year, the Sun has been blank 76% of the time, a rate surpassed only once before in the Space Age. Last year, 2019, the Sun was blank 77% of the time. Two consecutive years of record-setting spotlessness adds up to a very deep solar minimum, indeed.” (source1), (source2)

     

    During a Solar Minimum, the sun’s magnetic field weakens. This ‘heliosphere’ usually protects the solar system from charged particles from deep space known as cosmic rays, and with its strength diminished, more of these rays can sneak through.

    Earth has a second line of defense in the form of its own magnetic field and atmosphere, but for people and objects in space, such protection isn’t afforded, and cosmic rays can cause technical complications.

    It’s more the activity of the sun in the years following Solar Minimum that we should be paying attention to.

    “After our sun passes the current Solar Minimum, solar activity like eruptive prominences are expected to become more common over the next few years,” said NASA.

    These prominences can be huge – the entire earth would easily fit inside them – and may erupt in a Coronal Mass Ejection, expelling hot gas into the solar system.

    In 1859, a Coronal Mass Ejection was so large it caused a geomagnetic storm called the ‘Carrington Event’.

    “The Carrington Event compressed the Earth’s magnetic field so violently that currents were created in telegraph wires so great that many wires sparked and gave telegraph operators shocks,” said NASA.

    “Were a Carrington-class event to impact the Earth today, speculation holds that damage might occur to global power grids and electronics on a scale never yet experienced.”

    // How does the grand solar minimum affect earth?? //

    A new study predicts that the next grand solar minimum could see the sun with almost a 7% reduction in light and heat – and this is 7% below the normal solar minimum. So pretty darned cold.

    Historians believe that a grand solar minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715. That event was named the Maunder Minimum after the scientists who studied it at the time.

    It got so cold that the Thames River in England froze solid. The Baltic Sea also froze and the Swedes were able to invade the Danes by marching across the frozen sea.

    This wasn’t the first grand solar event in history. Another one is figured to have occurred from 1450-1540 called the Spörer minimum. (source)

    The things preppers would need to focus on would be a food supply, alternative ways of growing, and ways to keep warm. An event lasting multiple decades would definitely outlast any supplies that most of us could squirrel away, so the key to survival would be adaptation to the new climate.

    It is unlikely to send us the way of the dinosaurs, but should it begin to occur in earnest, you’d want to take prepepping steps to an entirely different level.

     

  • Net Zero Ready Home Packages

    Net Zero Ready Home Packages

    visionary

    Born to Build Greener Than Green Energy Efficient Homes

    No one understands the holistic concept of homebuilding like Rodney Leatherman, founder of the EnergySource Home. Leatherman’s unique whole systems approach to the home design and building materials used in his affordable, energy efficient homes embraces the concepts of interrelationships and connectivity, important home issues that are frequently overlooked by architects and builders. For example, Leatherman sites the significant different between the average homeowner’s annual $2,200 energy bill and an EnergySource homeowner’s ultra-low energy bill.

    Nearly half the cost for heating and cooling is directly related to windows, doors and insulation. “The windows used in an EnergySource Home, which add to the aesthetic look of rooms, are designed to optimal standards that minimize the home’s heating, cooling and lighting costs. Depending on the EnergySource technology that the homebuyer selects the result is zero energy bills or their energy costs as low as $50 per month,” says Leatherman.

    Dedication and Commitment

    Passionate about making sure that the potential homebuyer gets to check off everything on their “wishes and wants” list for a zero-energy home. Leatherman is also dedicated to offering Empty Nesters the energy saving benefits of downsizing to smaller yet beautifully appointed living spaces. He’s also committed to making sure that weekend wanderers in search of a getaway second home don’t have to give up energy savings for quality, beauty and comfort.


    Peace of Mind for the Homeowner

    “An EnergySource home that includes geothermal technology has a consistent temperature throughout, which means that even in the winter, the temperature on the floor is the same temperature as that on the ceiling level. Our technology and holistic approach to building, whether it’s luxury home, tiny house, hospital, church or school, is not affected by outside temperatures. It doesn’t matter where any one of our homes is built; we know what the energy consumption rate is going to be. This gives the homeowner the peace of mind for their monthly budget,” explains Leatherman.

    All EnergySource Home Packages are scalable – starting at $49/sq ft.

    flexibility

    Our in-house designers can help finish or tweak existing plans per YOUR specifications.

    Rodney, can consult with builders to ensure the home is built to the ENERGY specifications.

    Building Technology Beyond Any Industry Standards

    “We have hundreds of affordable floorplan solutions with efficient building components from the foundation and footing to the roof. Any of them can be built with technology that results in ultra energy savings,” advises Leatherman, who helped to develop today’s technology for net zero energy homes while working with scientists and researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) near Knoxville, Tennessee. This multi-program science and technology national laboratory is the largest science and energy national laboratory in the U. S. Department of Energy system. “Eventually I created my own energy efficient specifications and designs for building materials such as windows and doors,” says Leatherman, whose building technology has created zero energy bills for homes or bills less than $50 per month.

    Achieving a Balance Without Sacrificing Beauty and Convenience

    A futuristic thinker with a heart for conserving Earth’s natural resources, Leatherman is a man born for this time in history to help solve two of the world’s major dilemmas—energy conservation and balancing environmental responsibility, economic demands and comfort—without sacrificing convenience. He does it one home at a time moving green building from marginal to the mainstream. Leatherman explains the benefits and savings that are the result of building ultra-efficient energy saving homes and offers in-depth information on his advanced designs and superior building components such as geothermal heating and cooling, a renewable energy source that has an extraordinarily long life span and lower maintenance costs with no pollution. “This is part of the proprietary technology used in EnergySource designs,” advises Leatherman.

    for more information

     or to arrange a model home tour call 877-224-1447 or visit EnergySourceHome.com.

    Natural Awakenings Original Article Enclosed

  • Energy Saving Tips

    Energy Saving Tips

    FAQS

    Reduce Energy and Save Money
    Every day, whether you rent or own a home, you can save energy in ways ranging from big to small. Some of these tips you can do yourself and some may require help from a contractor or expert

    Buying Appliances

    • Investing in high-efficiency appliances from furnaces to refrigerators can save you big over the lifetime of the product. Some energy efficient equipment may also qualify for rebates.
    • You could save $50 or more per year on your electric bill by upgrading to a new, energy-efficient refrigerator or freezer.
    • If you have an older, spare fridge or freezer in your home, it could be costing you over $100 per year. Save on your bill and get a rebate by letting us recycle it for you for free.

    Heating Your House

    • Buy a programmable or smart thermostat. They can help you save on energy costs by adjusting the temperature when you’re at work, away, or asleep. Proper use of a programmable thermostat can cut your energy bills by almost $180 per year.
    • Rather than turning up your heat in the winter, keep your thermostat at a moderate temperature and bundle up. Save 1% of your total heating bill for every degree you set back your thermostat.
    • Vacuum out vent covers, peel back accumulated layers of paint, dust radiator fins for better heat distribution, get an annual tune-up to check efficiency, and bleed radiators annually for your furnace and boiler.
    • Replace or clean your furnace filter every three months or when they appear dirty. Clogged filters can cause your system to work less efficiently.
    • Heat a smaller area to stay warmer when you’re in one place for a while, either by closing heating vents in unused rooms or by turning off the heat in some areas if you have a zoned home.
    • Keep interior doors open to help air circulate more freely and maintain constant heat and cooling levels.
    • Run a ceiling fan in a clockwise direction to push warm air down from the ceiling to add comfort and savings. ENERGY STAR® rated ceiling fans offer the best efficiency ratings.
    • Strategically placed on the North side of your property, dense evergreen trees or shrubs can function as a windbreak to reduce annual home heating costs by 10 to 15%.
    • Turn down your thermostat when using your fireplace to keep your fireplace from drawing heat out of the room. Keep your fireplace flue damper tightly closed when not in use.

    Cooling Your House

    • Buy a programmable or smart thermostat. They can help you save on energy costs by adjusting the temperature when you’re at work, away, or asleep. Proper use of a programmable thermostat can cut your energy bills by almost $180 per year.
    • Having your air conditioner coils cleaned improves efficiency to help save energy.
    • By only using AC in your most needed room, like your bedroom, you can cut down on electric use.
    • When you can, go down to your basement where it’s naturally cooler, so you can run the AC less.
    • Install ceiling fans to keep cool air circulating, so you can turn down your AC. Ceiling fans can make temperatures feel up to eight degrees cooler.  ENERGY STAR® rated ceiling fans offer the best efficiency ratings. Make sure to turn off your fan when you leave the room.
    • Run ceiling fans counter-clockwise in the summer to circulate cooler, conditioned air.
    • Windows aid natural ventilation and create airflow throughout your home.
    • Keep interior doors open to help air circulate more freely and maintain constant cooling levels.
    • Positioning trees and shrubs can shade your AC unit, helping it run up to 10% more efficiently.
    • Plant more trees. Carefully positioned trees can save up to 25% of cooling energy. Summer temperatures can be three to six degrees cooler in tree-shaded neighborhoods than in areas without trees.
    • Draw your shades or blinds to keep rooms cooler during the day.
    • When it’s time to replace your roof, consider installing a white roof or lighter-color shingles to help reflect heat away.

    Energy Proofing

    • Invest in high-quality insulation to help keep cool or warm air where in belongs, inside our home. 
    • Get a home x-ray. Thermal imaging of your exterior can reveal leaks and locations of poor insulation.
    • Have a qualified contractor seal air leaks with fire resistant materials. Foam sealant works best on larger gaps and windows, baseboards, and other places where air may leak.
    • Your attic works like a hat for your home, helping it keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer. A qualified contractor can help ensure your attic has proper venting and vapor barriers.
    • Seal air leaks where plumbing or electrical wiring comes through walls, floors, ceilings, and soffits over cabinets. Find and seal drafts around doors and windows, fireplace dampers, and other places where air might escape. Pure silicone works well for caulking seams in ducts and areas exposed to high temperatures.
    • Use window treatments that provide insulation to slow down heat loss in the winter and heat gain in the summer.
    • New exterior doors with insulation will keep energy in; foam filled work best.
    • When buying new windows:
      • Multiple panes are best. Triple-pane, and even quadra-pane windows are available.
      • Use gas fillings to fill space between panes. It’s like invisible insulation because it’s clear and doesn’t conduct heat as quickly as air.
      • Get special coatings that reflect infrared heat back into your home, preventing it from escaping via the window.
    • Installing foam gaskets behind electric outlets and switch plates on walls will seal leaks.
    • Having a green roof provides great insulation, helps soak up rain, and is environmentally friendly.
    • Look into using solar panels for generating electricity or hot water if you live in a sunny area. If rooftop solar isn’t right for you, explore the other renewable options available for you.
    • A ground source heat pump can deliver heating efficiencies 50% to 70% higher than many conventional heating systems and can provide cooling efficiencies 20% to 40% higher than available air conditioners.

    Using Lights

    • High-efficiency, LED light bulbs can save you money over the life of a product.
    • Switch to LEDs, especially ENERGY STAR®-qualified products, which typically use 70 to 90% less energy and last at least 15 times longer than traditional bulbs they replace.
    • Consider taking a quick tour of your home and think about which lights you use most often, and replace those with LEDs first to help save more on bills.
    • Pick the right bulb for you. LEDs use less energy. Choose a wattage that’s about 1/4 of what you usually buy for an incandescent bulb.
    • Recycle your CFLs for free. They contain mercury and need to be recycled.  LED bulbs do not need to be recycled.
    • Always turn off lights when you leave the room, even if you’ll only be gone for a moment.
    • Use outdoor motion detection lighting, so you only use energy when you need it.
    • Always unplug cords from outlets when not in use and use power strips to easily turn power on and off.

    Washing Dishes

    • Simply rinse dishes with cool water instead of hot water to save energy.
    • Newer dishwashers with internal heaters and load sensors can use 25% less energy.
    • Not using heat in the drying cycle can save up to 20% of your dishwasher’s total electricity use.

    Doing Laundry

    • Always wash full loads of clothes to maximize water use and savings.
    • Using cool settings on your washing machine saves hot water and energy.
    • Cleaning out the exhaust vent on your dryer can help it to run more efficiently and use less energy.
    • Clean out your lint trap in your dryer to help it work more efficiently.
    • Add tennis balls to your dryer to help clothes dry faster and save energy.
    • Save using your dryer by hanging laundry out to dry in nicer weather.

    Using Water

    • Set your hot water heater to no higher than 110 degrees. Lowering it 10 degrees saves you 3% to 5% on water heating costs.
    • A water heater insulation blanket can save you 7% to 16% in water heating costs, and it can pay for itself in about a year.
    • On-demand or tankless water heaters can save up to 35% for smaller households, using 51 gallons or less daily. Larger households can save up to 14%, using 86 gallons per day – versus a conventional water heater.
    • Install a drain-water waste heat recovery system to capture energy from waste hot water to preheat cold water entering the water heater.
    • Install an under-the-sink, on-demand water heater in your kitchen to save energy by using it only when you need it.
    • Plug all leaky faucets. A leaky faucet wastes gallons of water in a short period of time, and it’s very costly for hot water leaks.
    • Low-flow water faucets can help reduce hot water consumption and save energy. Faucet aerators can reduce your water flow from the usual 2.2 to as low as .5 gallons per minute, saving you on hot water use, while still providing the water flow you need.
  • What is Energy?

    What is Energy?

    E N E R G Y

    The simplest definition of energy is “the ability to do work”. Energy is how things change and move. It’s everywhere around us and takes all sorts of forms. It takes energy to cook food, to drive to school, and to jump in the air.

    Different forms of Energy

    Energy can take a number of different forms. Here are some examples:

    • Chemical – Chemical energy comes from atoms and molecules and how they interact.
    • Electrical – Electrical energy is generated by the movement of electrons.
    • Gravitational – Large objects such as the Earth and the Sun create gravity and gravitational energy.
    • Heat – Heat energy is also called thermal energy. It comes from molecules of different temperatures interacting.
    • Light – Light is called radiant energy. The Earth gets a lot of its energy from the light of the Sun.
    • Motion – Anything that is moving has energy. This is also called kinetic energy.
    • Nuclear – Huge amounts of nuclear energy can be generated by splitting atoms.
    • Potential – Potential energy is energy that is stored. One example of this is a spring that is pressed all the way down. Another example is a book sitting high on a shelf.

    Units of Measure for Energy

    In physics, the standard unit of measure for energy is the joule which is abbreviated as J. There are other units of measure for energy that are used throughout the world including kilowatt-hours, calories, newton-meters, therms, and foot-pounds.

    Law of Conservation of Energy

    This law states that energy is never created or destroyed, it is only changed from one state to another. One example is the chemical energy in food that we turn into kinetic energy when we move.

    Renewable and Nonrenewable

    As humans we use a lot of energy to drive our cars, heat and cool our houses, watch TV, and more. This energy comes from a variety of places and in a number of forms. Conservationists classify the energy we use into two types: renewable and nonrenewable. Nonrenewable energy uses up resources that we cannot recreate. Some examples of this are gas to run our car and coal burned in power plants. Once they are used, they are gone forever. A renewable energy source is one that can be replenished. Examples of this include hydropower from turbines in a dam, wind power from windmills, and solar power from the sun.

  • SRSrocco Report

    SRSrocco Report

    Independent Researcher & Precious Metal Analyst

    Independent researcher Steve St. Angelo (SRSrocco) started to invest in precious metals in 2002.  Later on in 2008, he began researching areas of the gold and silver market that, curiously, the majority of the precious metal analyst community have left unexplored.  These areas include how energy and the falling EROI – Energy Returned On Invested – stand to impact the mining industry, precious metals, paper assets, and the overall economy. He has written scholarly articles in some of the top precious metals and financial websites. Visit his website SRSrocco Report.


    Listen

    Steve’s Work






  • Electric Aircraft takes Flight

    Electric Aircraft takes Flight

    World’s Largest All-Electric Airplane Flies for Historic 30 Minutes

    A nine-passenger, all-electric Cessna 208 flies for 30 minutes

    On a clear and gorgeous day in inland Moses Lake, Washington, the specially fitted Cessna 208B Grand Caravan took off for an expected 20- to 30-minute test flight. 

    MagniX emerged in 2009 to disrupt the air travel industry by making alternative power more attractive for owner operators. The company’s team includes members from companies like Airbus, Boeing, Google-X, SpaceX, and Tesla, according to its website.


    Watch Flight

    The Grand Caravan is outfitted with magniX’s battery-powered electric engine, the Magni250, which turns 375 horsepower into up to 3000 RPM. The Cessna is a propeller plane, and the engine literally turns torque into propulsion.

    The company’s CEO, Roei Ganzarski, said that for retrofitted Cessnas, which is what Harbour Air’s fleet will be, the range is up to about 100 miles. For concept and experimental aircraft being designed with electric power in mind, the range could be up to five times that. Ganzarski says the cost to run even the retrofitted electric fleet could be as much as 50 percent less than conventional fuel aircraft.

    “The world’s largest electric aircraft just finished her first flight,” Ganzarski said during the broadcast. In the background, people grabbed phones to video the final approach. “You just witnessed history,” Ganzarski concluded.

  • Solar Breakthrough

    Solar Breakthrough

    Perovskite Solar Breakthrough

    Each hour, the sun sends 430 quintillion Joules of energy our way, more than the 410 quintillion Joules that humans consume in a whole year. With the sun likely to be around for another five billion years or so, we have a virtually unlimited source of energy–if only we could tap it efficiently.

    Unfortunately, we are currently only able to harness a minuscule amount of this energy due to technical limitations.

    But that could be about change, thanks to advances in one wonder-crystal–perovskite.

    The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has forged a public-private consortium dubbed the US-MAP for US Manufacturing of Advanced Perovskites Consortium, that aims to fast track the development of low-cost perovskite solar cells for the global marketplace.


    Silicon Panels

    More than 90% of those photovoltaic (PV) panels installed were constructed from crystallized silicon. 

    Silicon panels have their advantages: They’re quite robust and relatively easy to install. Thanks to advances in manufacturing methods, they’ve become quite cheap over the past decade, particularly the polycrystalline panels constructed in Chinese factories.

    However, they have one major drawback: Silicon PV panels are quite inefficient, with the most affordable models managing only 7%-16% energy efficiency depending on factors like placement, orientation, and weather conditions. Si panels are wafer-based rather than thin-film, which makes them sturdier and durable, but the trade-off is a sacrifice of efficiency.  

    To meet the world’s rapidly growing energy appetite–and achieve the kind of de-carbonization goals that would help slow the impact of climate change–it would take hundreds of years to build and install enough silicon PV panels. 

    This is way too slow, given that we have a mere 10-year window to act to avert irreversible and catastrophic climate change.

    More critically, the best (and most expensive) silicon panels to-date boast an efficiency rating maximum efficiency rating of 26.7%, pretty close to the theoretical maximum of 29.1%.

    Thin-film PV panels can absorb more light, and thus produce more energy. These panels can be manufactured cheaply and quickly, meeting more energy demand in less time. There are a few different types of thin-film out there, all of them a little different from standard crystalline silicon (c-si) PV panels. 

    Amorphous silicon (a-Si) panels are the oldest form of thin-film: a chemical vapor deposits a thin layer of silicon onto glass or plastic, producing a low weight panel that isn’t very energy efficient, managing 13.6%. Then there are cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels, which uses the cadmium particle on glass to produce a high-efficiency panel. 

    The drawback there is the metal cadmium, which is toxic and difficult to produce in large quantities. 

    These panels are usually produced using evaporation technology: the particles are superheated and the vapor is sprayed onto a hard surface, such as glass. They are thin, but not as dependable or durable as c-si panels, which currently dominate the market.

    NREL Perovskite Breakthrough

    Perovskite has now managed to break the efficiency glass ceiling.

    Perovskites are a family of crystals named after Russian geologist Leo Perovski, “perovskites.” They share a set of characteristics that make them potential building blocks for solar cells: high superconductivity, magnetoresistance, and ferroelectricity. Perovskite thin-film PV panels can absorb light from a wider variety of wave-lengths, producing more electricity from the same solar intensity.

    In 2012, scientists finally succeeded in manufacturing thin-film perovskite solar cells, which achieved efficiencies over 10%. But since then, efficiencies in new perovskite cell designs have skyrocketed: recent models can achieve 20%, all from a thin-film cell that is (in theory) much easier and cheaper to manufacture than a thick-film silicon panel. 

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL has been able to build composite Silicon-Perovskite cell by putting perovskites atop a silicon solar cell to create a multijunction solar cell, with the new cell boasting an efficiency of 27% compared to just 21% when only silicon is used. 

    But perhaps more significant is that the organization has been able to boost the longevity of Perovskite solar cells by altering their chemical composition to overcome light-induced phase-segregation– a process through which the alloys that make up the solar cells break down when exposed to continuous light. 

    Low-Cost Perovskite Panels

    Solar power has become more affordable, accessible, and prevalent than ever before thanks to technology improvements, competitive procurement, and a large base of experienced, internationally active project developers.

    According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), solar power generation is now fully competitive with fossil fuel power plants, with the global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for utility-scale solar PV cells having declined 75% to below USD 0.10/kWh since 2010.

    However, there’s still work to be done.

    At an LCOE of $0.085/kWh for photovoltaic cells and $0.185/kWh for concentrating solar projects, solar power(utility-scale + residential rooftop) remains more expensive than other renewable sources including hydro, onshore wind, geothermal and bioenergy.

  • $110T Renewable Energy Stimulus Package

    $110T Renewable Energy Stimulus Package

    $110 Trillion Renewables Stimulus Package Could Create 50 Million Jobs

    The past few weeks of current events have led us to unprecedented levels of job and capital destruction, decimated consumer spending, underperformance by nearly all major financial markets, and a breakdown in the world fiscal order. 

    Even giant economic powerhouses have not been spared, with California–one of the wealthiest states in the United States thanks to its booming tech sector–having obliterated all its job growth over the last decade in just two months.

    But now a renewable energy think-tank says directing those stimulus dollars to renewable energy investments could not only help tackle global climate emergency but spur massive economic gains for decades to come.

    The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)–an organization dedicated to promoting global adoption of renewable energy and facilitating sustainable use–says that it will cost the global economy $95 trillion to help return things to normal. 

    Investing $110 trillion in renewables could, on the other hand, potentially spur an even more robust economic recovery from COVID-19 by creating massive socioeconomic gains as well as generate savings of $50 trillion-$142 trillion by 2050. 

    The big question is: Will the world’s governments be willing to put their money where their mouths are?

    A Deluge of New Jobs

    IRENA alleges that channeling all those stimulus dollars into the renewable energy sector would grow global GDP about 2.4 percentage points faster than the currently recommended scheme and spur a 13.5% increase in global welfare indicators such as education and health.

    Related: This Oil Price Rebound Is Only Temporary

    But here’s the kicker: investing that amount of money in renewables could quadruple the number of jobs in the sector to 42 million as well as create tens of millions more in related industries. In other words, it could easily create more than double the 26 million jobs that the United States has so far lost to the pandemic.

    IRENA director-general Francesco La Camera says COVID-19 has “…exposed deeply embedded vulnerabilities of the current system…” notably the fossil fuel sector which is finding itself in dire straits due to an epic collapse in demand amid a global lockdown. Francesco has opined that the world needs more than a kickstart and that accelerating renewables can potentially achieve multiple economic and social objectives that would help build a more resilient economy.

    Beyond 2050 and over the long-term, the report identifies investments in ‘five key pillars of decarbonization,’ namely electrification, renewable energy generation, system flexibility, green hydrogen, and innovation–as being necessary for the achievement of a near- or zero-carbon global economy.

    Too Much Rhetoric

    Not surprisingly, the renewable energy sector has lauded the report, with Ignacio Galán, CEO of Spanish power company Iberdrola, saying aligning economic stimulus with climate goals is crucial in enhancing the long-term viability of the global economy.

    A previous report by the IEA aired pretty much similar views, with IEA executive director Fatih Birol saying some of the stimulus packages being rolled out by governments should be invested in the renewables sector:

    “We have an important window of opportunity. Major economies around the world are preparing stimulus packages. A well-designed stimulus package could offer economic benefits and facilitate a turnover of energy capital which will have huge benefits for the clean energy transition,” he said.

    The IRENA report has also come in for some panning, with Charles Donovan, executive director of the Centre for Climate Finance and Investment at Imperial College London, saying its long on facts and figures but short on actionable interventions that governments can undertake right now to bend the carbon emissions curve.

    Related: Shale’s Decline Will Make Way For The Next Big Thing in Oil

    But what are the chances that IRENA’s ambitious ‘Transforming Energy Scenario’ that aims to lower global CO2 emissions by 70% by 2050 through channeling stimulus dollars into clean energy will see the light of day?

    Unfortunately, slim-to-none.

    The report has already sounded a warning on the “widening gap between rhetoric and action” by governments regarding climate change.

    COVID-19 has resulted in a significant reduction in CO2 emissions due to travel restrictions and depressed economic and manufacturing activity, it will end up being far more inimical to the sector.

    The IEA has warned that governments are likely to deeply scale back on clean energy investments, with the current year set to record the first fall in solar energy growth in nearly four decades. 

    Meanwhile, EV sales are expected to come to a standstill for the first time in more than a decade as well as trigger a dramatic reversal in the incremental shift away from coal-fired power plants.

    The unfortunate fact is that whereas governments everywhere have been paying lip service to climate change and clean energy, in reality, they are wont to go to much greater lengths to try and save the fossil fuel sector from collapse than invest in clean energy projects with much longer and unproven paybacks.

    Credits: Oilprice.com

  • Utility Companies Helping Out

    Utility Companies Helping Out

    Utilities take steps to help customers during coronavirus

    Utility companies across the U.S. are suspending service shutoffs for failure to pay bills during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

    • Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK) says it is suspending disconnections for nonpayment for all home and business accounts in Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee.
    • New Jersey-based PSE&G (NYSE:PEG) says it is taking the same step because of the health and financial hardship people may soon face.
    • California’s PG&E (NYSE:PCG) says it began a moratorium on service disconnections for residential and commercial customers, and says it will offer flexible pay plans as needed.
    • Exelon (NASDAQ:EXC) says ComEd in Illinois is suspending service disconnects and providing payment accommodations for customers who may have challenges paying their monthly energy bill due to the coronavirus.
    • Virginia’s Dominion Energy (NYSE:D) says it suspended all service disconnections for nonpayment earlier this week.

    Check with your local provider for updates.

  • How A Virus Makes The Case For Renewable Energy

    How A Virus Makes The Case For Renewable Energy

    In an interview with Forbes last week, Charles Donovan, executive director of the Center for Climate Finance and Investment at Imperial College Business School in London, laid out the reasons why he thinks building a global economy based on fossil fuels makes the world more vulnerable to market disruptions like the one caused by the coronavirus.

    “I think we’re entering a whole new phase of volatility,” Donovan said. “These are the unfortunate repercussions of a global market that’s exposed to the volatility of the oil markets and suffers when unforeseeable events like coronavirus arise at the worst time. We are now seeing the downsides of the choices we’ve made about the kind of energy economy that we have.” He suggests that rather than shoveling cubic miles of dollars at energy companies, we should prioritize developing economies that are not coupled to oil and gas.

    Here’s another factor in favor of renewables in Donovan’s view. They are far less likely to be monopolized by cartels (like OPEC) which means they are more difficult to manipulate (or fight wars over). Donovan says monetary policy has an historical bias toward fossil fuels, as happened last week when central banks pumped trillions of dollars into the markets after the OPEC nations failed to agree on new pumping limits, sending oil prices into free fall. That move ultimately failed due to another major shock to financial markets — the coronavirus.

    “We’re coming to a very important point now where policymakers can ensure that this round of easing is not hugely biased towards keeping oil producers on a lifeline,” Donovan said. Bailouts could, instead, be structured around a strategy of decarbonization and preparing countries for low-carbon transitions. “To my mind those interventions need to be targeted towards structural investments and things like job retraining for people in industries that can no longer keep going,” Donovan said.

    Economies built around more durable, sustainable energy rather than those built on finite, volatile hydrocarbons will be better able to withstand unexpected disruptions such as the one created by the coronavirus, he argues.

    War, pestilence, polluted ground water, festering skies, oil spills, railway fires, pipeline leaks — all of them can be eliminated by building economies on renewables. So why aren’t we doing so? Because the fossil fuel companies have bought and paid for national governments for 100 years. So there’s always the possibility that abundant renewable energy would lower the incidence of corruption at the local, state, and federal level thanks to fewer fossil fuel lobbyists throwing campaign cash around. Could that really happen? It might be interesting to find out. 

  • Batteries for Grid Backup

    Batteries for Grid Backup

    Distributed energy platform provider AutoGrid has been developing “co-optimisation” capabilities that will allow residential battery storage deployed to mitigate power outages to continue participating in market opportunities such as joining virtual power plant (VPP) programmes.

    In a recent interview with Energy-Storage.news, AutoGrid general manager for new energy, Rahul Kar, acknowledged that California’s recent wildfires had led to people “putting in a lot more batteries,” in the state as they seek to keep their lights and appliances running as utilities enact public power shutoffs that can last for days, or even weeks or months. A report out this week from analysis firm Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables appears to back this up, finding that California was by far the US leader in behind-the-meter residential storage deployment in the final quarter of 2019.

    As reported by this site previously, Kar said that Japan – where AutoGrid is participating in a 10,000 asset virtual power plant (VPP) programme with local partner ENERES – and Australia are also markets where disaster consciousness, be it from storms, fires or earthquakes, are helping drive a strong uptick in interest and purchases of batteries. It helps that these markets already had experienced some deployment of home storage, Kar said.

    “One of the use cases is something we are working on with ENERES, is how we provide emergency planning,” Car said.

    “Suppose you have an imminent disaster or suppose there’s a storm coming, if there’s an earthquake warning, is there some way that you charge up all the batteries under your control so that it provides relief for whatever period that battery is available for?”

    While a technical barriers to doing that is having in place the right software and intelligence to co-ordinate the charging of those batteries, for instance processing weather forecast data and feeding it to networks of many many units, being able to create “co-optimisation capabilities” could turn out to be important for the economic case for customer-sited, behind-the-meter energy storage. It also helps that batteries bought to backup loads for at least several hours at a time tend to be higher capacity in kilowatt-hours than those sold purely for optimising solar self-consumption. 

    “Suppose someone needs to be ready for offering emergency services like in an imminent storm, while participating in the market, while making sure you’re still optimising the rate tariffs that the customer is on, while making sure that you’re not feeding it back to the grid,” AutoGrid’s Rahul Kar said.

     

    “All of these things are like constraints in the multi-scale optimisation algorithm, and that’s not easy to solve in real-time across hundreds of thousands of DERs. That’s why we invested quite heavily in solving that problem for well over two and a half years and that’s bearing fruit right now.”

    Customer acquisition the primary barrier for grid services programmes

    After all, Kar said, there have been some VPP projects around the world that show great promise. South Australia’s VPP network programmes that battery storage system providers Sonnen and Tesla have signed up to participate in, are planned to reach a scale of tens of thousands of units over the next few years.

    With those being government-run programmes that include systems deployed on public housing helping bulk up numbers, the main barrier until now – and likely in the future – for other VPPs is getting customers to not only buy the batteries but also sign up to join programmes. The latter consideration extends also to making not only the customer understand what they’re signing up to, but also to making the network and the battery manufacturers come to a mutually beneficial arrangement.

    “The primary limitation [to VPP participation] is, as with any aggregation play, customer acquisition. That’s where the primary cost goes to. [But also] customer comfort, when you’re acquiring the customer, that you have the right contracts in place.

    “In certain cases the battery manufacturer may not give you complete control over the battery while the customer wants complete control, stuff like that in the contracting phase. There has to be a very simple and clear communication to the customer as to what they’re signing up for.

    “If you want to use their batteries for grid services, what sort of payment they’ll get from that and so on. The simpler you make it for them, the easier the customer acquisition. That still is kind of the primary barrier of scalability, which is, especially on the residential side, if you’re trying to aggregate tens of thousands of batteries and sign up residential customers, that’s a pretty significant cost,” Kar said.  

    Energy-storage.news

  • Micro-Energy-Grids

    Micro-Energy-Grids

    All across N. America, sustainable microgrids are emerging as a vital tool in the fight against climate change and increasingly common natural disasters. In the wake of hurricanes, earthquakes and wildfires, the traditional energy grid in many parts of the country is struggling to keep the power flowing.

    Microgrids — power installations that are designed to run independently from the wider electricity grid in emergency situations — have been around for decades, but until the turn of the century, relied almost exclusively on fossil fuels to generate power. While it’s taken another 20 years for solar panels and battery storage costs to fall far enough to make truly sustainable microgrids an economic reality, a recent surge in interest and installations have shown that they’ve reached an inflection point and could very well be the future of clean energy.

    These solar-plus-battery-storage microgrids would greatly enhance the ability of chosen schools to serve communities during natural disasters or power outages, like the ones induced by California’s PG&E electric utility that affected hundreds of thousands of residents last October. The sites will provide a place to coordinate essential emergency services, store perishable food and provide residents with light, power and connectivity in times of distress.

    A completed feasibility study for the microgrid installations is expected in June, and while initial estimates put the final cost around $40 million, long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) will allow the school district to have the sites set up for free and paid for over time via its normal electric bill — at a cost no greater than grid power. Agreements like these have only become economically viable in the last few years as renewable energy generation costs have continued to fall, and are a major driver of the microgrid boom.

    Hurricane Maria

    Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the country, successive disasters are already proving the value of solar-plus-storage microgrids in Puerto Rico. In 2017, Hurricane Maria catastrophically damaged the centralized electricity grid in the U.S. territory and left many without power for more than a year.

    A project funded by the Rocky Mountain Institute, Save the Children and Kinesis Foundation installed solar-plus-battery-storage microgrids at 10 schools in the mountainous central regions of the island, designed to provide energy for on-site libraries, kitchens and water pumps indefinitely during power outages. The installations were completed in December 2019, just weeks before a series of earthquakes that began in January endangered the island’s already sluggish economic recovery. The RMI Island Energy Program told Microgrid Knowledge that while grid power around several of the sites had gone down, the microgrids had continued to operate successfully and provide critical services.

    Microgrids go beyond schools though. Several communities are also linking solar-and-storage systems mounted on their homes, employing inverters and controllers that have only become efficient and affordable in the last few years to create “community microgrids” that share power among the participants to supplement or replace grid energy.

    Residential retail energy prices in Puerto Rico were as high as 27 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2019, while the calculated cost from home solar-plus-battery-storage systems fell as low as 24 cents in good conditions.

    The cost of solar installations has plummeted 90% in the past decade.  At the same time, the early effects of a warming climate and associated natural disasters have started to take a toll on American energy infrastructure already struggling to keep pace with regular maintenance and demand growth. Impacted communities have already seen the value of microgrids and are racing to adopt them, even as many larger utility providers look to natural gas or other partial solutions that rely on the aging centralized power grid.

    The greatest impact of these early sustainable microgrids may reach beyond the emergency power they provide to nearby residents. They offer a glimpse of a radically different way for communities and energy consumers to think about how power is produced and used. In community microgrid systems, residents have a concrete, practical connection to their source of energy and are asked to work together with their friends and neighbors to control their energy demand so there is enough to go around.

  • Night Solar….Hmmm?!!

    Night Solar….Hmmm?!!

    What if solar cells worked at night?

    That’s no joke, according to Jeremy Munday, professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at UC Davis. In fact, a specially designed photovoltaic cell could generate up to 50 watts of power per square meter under ideal conditions at night, about a quarter of what a conventional solar panel can generate in daytime, according to a concept paper by Munday and graduate student Tristan Deppe. The article was published in, and featured on the cover of, the January 2020 issue of ACS Photonics.

    Story Source:  Materials provided by University of California – Davis. Original written by Andy Fell. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

    Munday, who recently joined UC Davis from the University of Maryland, is developing prototypes of these nighttime solar cells that can generate small amounts of power. The researchers hope to improve the power output and efficiency of the devices.

    Munday said that the process is similar to the way a normal solar cell works, but in reverse. An object that is hot compared to its surroundings will radiate heat as infrared light. A conventional solar cell is cool compared to the sun, so it absorbs light.

    Space is really, really cold, so if you have a warm object and point it at the sky, it will radiate heat toward it. People have been using this phenomenon for nighttime cooling for hundreds of years. In the last five years, Munday said, there has been a lot of interest in devices that can do this during the daytime (by filtering out sunlight or pointing away from the sun).

    Generating power by radiating heat

    There’s another kind of device called a thermoradiative cell that generates power by radiating heat to its surroundings. Researchers have explored using them to capture waste heat from engines.

    “We were thinking, what if we took one of these devices and put it in a warm area and pointed it at the sky,” Munday said.

    This thermoradiative cell pointed at the night sky would emit infrared light because it is warmer than outer space.

    “A regular solar cell generates power by absorbing sunlight, which causes a voltage to appear across the device and for current to flow. In these new devices, light is instead emitted and the current and voltage go in the opposite direction, but you still generate power,” Munday said. “You have to use different materials, but the physics is the same.”

    The device would work during the day as well, if you took steps to either block direct sunlight or pointed it away from the sun. Because this new type of solar cell could potentially operate around the clock, it is an intriguing option to balance the power grid over the day-night cycle.

     

  • Who’s afraid of 100%

    Who’s afraid of 100%

    The following is a contributed article by Jurgen Weiss, Principal at The Brattle Group.

    Reducing GHG emissions 80% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels — often referred to as an “80 by 50” goal — is quickly becoming the consensus decarbonization target, and more and more states and utilities are committing to a goal of this kind. Increasingly, many stakeholders are calling for the pursuit of even more ambitious goals, such as striving for 100% renewable energy or net-zero emissions by 2050. However, just as many voices suggest that a 100% clean energy goal is unnecessary, infeasible or too expensive.

    All three of these arguments — that a 100% goal is unnecessary, infeasible and too expensive — are questionable and quite likely incorrect.

    A 100% carbon-free energy supply for electricity, buildings, transportation and portions of the industrial sector likely is necessary to support an 80% economy-wide decarbonization by 2050, because decarbonizing other sectors, such as agriculture and certain industries, is harder and more expensive. Achieving 80% economy-wide reductions therefore likely requires a carbon-free energy sector so that there is room for residual emissions in other sectors. This is particularly true for the electricity sector, which likely will grow significantly as we electrify significant portions of transport, buildings and industrial energy supply. For this reason, this article focuses on the feasibility and likely cost of a 100% emissions-free electricity sector.

    Operating a 100% carbon-free electricity sector by 2050 certainly is feasible. When questioning how a 100% carbon-free electricity system can function, people often confuse the terms “carbon-free” and “dispatchable.” Our ability to operate an electricity system with high shares of variable renewable energy resources — in the U.S. primarily wind and solar PV, with smaller amounts of hydro, biomass and geothermal — has dramatically improved over the past couple of decades.

    Challenges on road to 100%

    It is nevertheless true that, as the share of renewable generation grows towards 100%, new challenges emerge that require significant amounts of dispatchable generation resources — especially those that can provide power for longer periods of time when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Because periods of low wind, solar and hydro generation can last several days, weeks, or go through seasonal or even multi-year cycles, existing battery storage technologies would be prohibitively expensive to address this challenge. But, while still expensive, we already have storage technologies that can address this problem, and new ones are emerging rapidly.

    Beyond batteries, there are three promising storage technologies that can help us deal with the challenges of a 100% renewable electricity system: gravity, heat and electrolysis. There are a number of proposed or emerging low-cost storage options using gravity to store vast amounts of energy for long periods of time, including pumped hydro, lifting blocks of concrete on a tower or putting rocks on a train that gets pulled up a hill, or literally cutting a cylinder into granite and lifting it. Heat (or cold) can also be stored daily, seasonally or perhaps even longer. For example, the city of Toronto uses the natural temperature of Lake Ontario to cool buildings in the summer, and geothermal systems can be designed to “pre-heat” the ground in the summer and use the same heat in the winter.

    Wind and solar electricity can also be used to make hydrogen from water through electrolysis. The hydrogen can be stored directly or it can be used along with CO2 captured from carbon-neutral processes (such as bio-feed stocks or from the air) to make methane (CH4) and other energy-dense substances such as methanol, ammonia or even a carbon-free substitute for jet fuel. These chemical processes, sometimes called “P2X” (Power to “fill in the blank”), are still expensive today, but for a variety of reasons, significant capital is already flowing into their development and significant cost reductions likely are feasible with further technological development.

    The important point is that the process for turning water and electricity into hydrogen, methane and other substances is well understood and functioning today. We can store hydrogen, methane or liquids for long periods of time and convert them back into electricity with fuel cells or gas turbines when we need to — thus creating a carbon-neutral, dispatchable resource to fill in the gaps when we do not have enough solar and wind power to meet electricity demand. In addition to these options, it is also possible that carbon capture and sequestration will become more cost-effective for removing the carbon from easily storable fossil fuels that can be used to power dispatchable generation when needed.

    Not too expensive

    Finally, a 100% carbon-free energy system is unlikely to be too expensive. Even though storage and carbon-free dispatchable resources are currently expensive when compared to, say, storing and using natural gas in the United States, there is no obvious way of telling whether a 100% renewable energy system using emerging technologies to balance the electric system will lead to substantially higher energy costs for consumers.

    Meeting the large portion of demand that can be met directly with wind, solar, batteries, demand response and other existing technologies before running into long-term storage and dispatchability issues is getting cheaper all the time. Even only five years ago, few industry participants anticipated the low cost of solar and storage devices already achieved today. In many parts of the country, un-subsidized new renewable resources are already cheaper than new fossil-fueled plants and, in the near future, some of them will be cheaper than operating existing fossil plants.

    Even with the additional cost of new transmission infrastructure needed to connect all these renewable energy resources, the average cost for this portion of a carbon-free electricity sector will likely not be dramatically higher than the average cost of electricity today. Hence, even if the dispatchable portion of a future 100% carbon-free grid were quite a bit more expensive, there is a good chance that resulting average customer rates remain at or below historic values.

    As an aside, comparing the projected costs of carbon-neutral new approaches to dealing with the “last 20-30%” of getting to 100% to the current fossil-fuel-based solutions (such as natural gas-fired power generation) likely overstates the cost of these new approaches. Since operating a fossil-fuels based infrastructure involves a significant amount of fixed costs, the costs per kWh of fossil-based energy would increase if the overall volume of fossil-based energy production declines, as it most likely will.

    In this context, today’s relatively low energy costs are quite unusual. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average share of household disposable income spent on energy has been around 4-5% in recent years, down from 6-8% in the 1970s and 1980s. Hence, the U.S. economy has been through periods with energy costs being 50-100% higher than they are now without any catastrophic impacts and without stunting economic growth.

    Electrification shift

    Importantly, achieving the stated 80% economy-wide decarbonization goal will almost certainly require shifts towards electric cars and electric heating. The two primary technologies involved, electric motors and heat pumps, already are significantly more efficient than their fossil counterparts. Therefore, shifting to electric transportation and heat pumps could potentially provide significant cost savings to consumers.

    The bottom line is that, given all the progress we are likely to make, we likely will be able to reduce the cost of a significant portion of our energy consumption. Consequently, there is no obvious reason to believe that energy will become unaffordable, even if we have to use relatively expensive means to decarbonize perhaps the last 20-30% of our electricity supply by creating carbon-neutral and dispatchable sources of power generation.

    Ironically, a lower-cost outcome is more likely if we commit to a 100% rather than just 80% carbon-free electricity sector. Committing to 100% will provide additional certainty for innovations and cost reductions, such that the dispatchable carbon-free solutions will become available in time to decarbonize the last 20-30% of our electricity supply.

    I am thus optimistic that (1) we will be able to develop and operate a 100% carbon-free electricity system to achieve 80% economy-wide decarbonization within 30 years, and that (2) the cost to consumers (and businesses) of such a system will not be fundamentally different from costs the U.S. has seen historically or that are experienced in many other developed countries today. In fact, I am virtually certain that such a system will be less expensive than the consequences of climate change if we do not manage an expedited transition to such a system.

    We should be much more worried about our ability to ramp up our efforts to get there in time, given the discrepancy between the current pace of change and the much faster pace that almost certainly will be needed over the next decades. Unless we keep our foot on the clean-energy accelerator, we likely won’t achieve anything near even an 80% carbon-free economy and hence the difficult question of how to manage a fully decarbonized electric system won’t have to be answered. And that would be a shame, or much worse.

  • AC vs DC

    AC vs DC

    Alternating Current (AC) vs Direct Current (DC)

    The current (electric charge) only flows in one direction in case of DC. But in AC electric charge changes direction periodically. Not only current but also the voltage reverses because of the change in the current flow.

    The AC versus DC debate personifies the War of Currents, as it is now called, in which the two giants of electric power were embroiled in the late 1890s. Thomas Edison, the proprietor of Direct Current, was so threatened by Tesla’s invention that, in order to discredit Alternating Current, he resorted to falsely misleading Americans. Apprehensive about losing his royalties to this new technology, Edison went so far as to electrocute an elephant to show Alternating Currents’ fatal dangers.

    However, this did not stop Tesla from fulfilling his dream of powering the United States with cheap and highly efficient energy. Even now, we see long and thick wires tightly strung between soaring electrical towers like the strings of a guitar. AC took over the throne and reigned for a century, dominating households, offices and buildings, until now, when DC seems to be gradually making a comeback. Why did AC fare so well? And why might DC make a comeback? 

    Why is AC better?

    Despite now having the technology to transmit DC over grids across long distances, we still persist to use AC. AC is pushed to higher voltages to overcome resistance, and when the power reaches the user, it is stepped down and rectified to power, for example, a computer. However, these technologies, like renewable technologies, not only cost a fortune, but their efficiency might also be questionable. Yes, DC provides stable outputs, but higher efficiency is achieved after eliminating losses.

    Although the losses might be less than those incurred with AC, the step-up/down factor comes into play. The simplicity with which AC voltages can be modulated and transported is still unmatched, which is why AC might be still preferred. Both sources of power are excellent in their own ways, so determining who is triumphant would depend on the criteria under contention – the playing field. The judgment essentially relies on the application of the power.

    Nowadays, both work in tandem. AC runs above us on wires, like the lines of an empty diary that terminate at your house. The AC voltage then is converted to DC with a rectifier, like the adaptor that your charger contains, to power household devices, such as bulbs, lamps and other appliances. The War of Currents might not be as dramatic as it once was, but it still subtly exists.

  • Energy Consumption by Country

    Energy Consumption by Country

    2020

    Few people can argue that electricity isn’t one of our world’s most greatest inventions. After all, electricity allows up to light up our homes without the need for candles or lanterns, lets us watch television, and even is used to charge or power the computer or smartphone you’re using to read this.

    While electricity does have its advantages, there are also some disadvantages. This includes the need for large, expensive infrastructure, millions of wires and cables, and dangers in the home, such as electrical fires. Power plants also create pollution, which degrades the quality of the air that we breathe as well as contributes to global warming.

    In this article, we’re going to explore the top consumers of electric energy around the world. Topping this list is China. Based on data from 2017, China consume over 6.3 trillion kilowatts of energy per hour annually. However, the highest consumption of energy per capita does not go to China. Instead, that honor goes to Iceland. Overall, Iceland is ranked 73rd in the world based on its total energy consumption at 17 billion kilowatts per hour annually. However, the average energy use per capital is about 50,613 per person per year. Compare this to China, which has a much larger population and an average energy use of 4,475 kilowatts per person per year.

    The United States is the second largest consumer of electric energy in the world with over 3.9 trillion kilowatts per hour used each year. Other nations that use at least 1 trillion kilowatts per hour per year include Russia and India.

    On the flip side, there are nations that consume very little electric energy as a whole. The lowest is the Gaza Strip, which consumes roughly 200,000 kilowatts per hour per year. 

  • World’s Largest HVAC Show

    World’s Largest HVAC Show

    AHR show (Orlando, FL)

    Learning and collaborating

    The AHR Expo is the world’s largest HVACR event, attracting the most comprehensive gathering of industry professionals from around the globe each year. The Show provides a unique forum where manufacturers of all sizes and specialties, whether a major industry brand or innovative start-up, can come together to share ideas and showcase the future of HVACR technology under one roof. Since 1930, the AHR Expo has remained the industry’s best place for OEMs, engineers, contractors, facility operators, architects, educators and other industry professionals to explore the latest trends and applications and to cultivate mutually beneficial business relationships.

    FROM PRODUCT DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS TO INSTALLERS & END-USERS

    We go to the show each year to source the latest products, learn about new technologies and develop mutually beneficial business relationships.

    770 CATEGORIES, INCLUDING:

    • Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Equipment,
      Systems, Components & Products
    • Heating Equipment
      (Boilers, Burners, Exchangers, etc.)
    • Ventilation Equipment
      (Fans, Blowers, Diffusers, etc.)
    • Instruments & ControlsBuilding Automation & Controls
    • Renewable Energy Equipment

    To name a view.


    2021 CHICAGO • JAN 25-27


    Learn More

  • Dishwasher Water Consumption

    Dishwasher Water Consumption

    WHY ASK?

    Dishwashers use water. And fresh, clean water is an extremely limited resource. This limited resource is heavily impacted with things like droughts, contamination, and wasteful use. So basically, anyone who has easy access to fresh water should take careful steps to limit their water use.

    Water Conservation

    People should do their best to conserve water for three reasons.

    1. The less water used or wasted by people, the less clean water will become contaminated. Using excess amounts of water can put strain on septic and sewage systems. Which in turn, can lead to contamination of groundwater. This happens as the untreated, dirty water seeps from the sewage system into the ground.
    2. Water conservation reduces energy use and saves households money. The less water a household uses, the less they have to pay each period. Appliances that use water, such as washing machines and dishwashers, also use a considerable amount of energy.
    3. Conserving water now allows cities and regions to plan for more efficient use of the water resources in the future. If most of an area’s clean water is wasted, there will not be water for future generations to use. This means that the city will need to come up with new ways to produce clean, fresh water, which will ultimately be at your expense (yup, a lose lose)

    Environmental Impact

    A study out of the University of Bonn in Germany, reported by Pablo Päster in the May/June issue of EatingWell Magazine, found that washing a load of dishes (12 place settings) by hand uses on average 27 gallons of water and 2.5 kilowatt-hours of energy to heat the water. This energy consumption is equivalent to running a hair dryer for two and a half hours.

    By comparison, an energy-efficient dishwasher uses about four gallons of water and 1 kWh of energy per load. Researchers also found that dishwashers cleaned better, as half of the hand-washers failed to reach an “acceptable level” of cleanliness. Due to our hands inability to withstand scalding hot water, which is necessary for proper cleaning.

    So as you can see, dishwashers use less water, less energy, and less time. Crazy to think, but that big box under your counter is actually a super energy and time efficient device.

    -benefits-

    Dishwashers save energy:

    An Energy Star certified dishwasher can use as little as 3 gallons per load, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. In fact, an Energy Star certified dishwasher can save almost 5,000 gallons of water per year. If your dishwasher was manufactured in or after 2013, it will meet the new standards that require dishwashers to use as little as 5 gallons per load. If that sounds like a lot, units built before 1994 used as much as 10 gallons per load. 

    Dishwasher require hot water to work. Where does this hot water come from you ask? Well it comes from your (outdated and energy inefficient) water heater. So, less water equals less heating which saves you energy and money. Additionally, most newer dishwashers actually have heaters inside that warm up water more efficiently than your water heater. 

    Dishwashers get dishes cleaner:

    It takes water that is 140 or 145 degrees Fahrenheit to fully sanitize dishes. And unless you’re superman, your hands can’t handle that kind of heat. So, let your dishwasher deal with the high temperatures while you sit back and relax.

    Dishwashers are convenient: 

    Perhaps the greatest advantage of using a dishwasher is convenience and time savings. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that using a dishwasher can save you up to 230 hours of personal time each year.

    Additional Tips

    • Don’t rinse by hand:

    Rinsing your dishes before you stick them in your dishwasher is majorly wasteful. Pre-rinsing wastes more than 6,000 gallons of water per household every year. In fact, most newer dishwashers can handle bits of food. Don’t worry, your dishes will still come out clean as long as you scrape the big stuff into the trash (or compost pile).

    • Make sure you have a full load:

    All of the savings that I stated only apply to full loads. If you can’t seem to fill up your dishwasher once a day, use the rinse and hold feature. This will prevent food from drying and sticking until you get around to starting a load and will still help you be green.

    FINAL WORDS

    Let’s get some terms down. Non-Energy Star dishwashers use about 6 gallons per wash, while Energy Star dishwashers only consume about 4 gallons per wash. Price is not everything when it comes to efficiency. As long as it is Energy Star rated, it will still only use 4 gallons and have the same results as a more expensive machine. 

  • Texas and Renewable Energy

    Texas and Renewable Energy

    2019 Texas Produced More Renewable Energy Than Coal

    Last year Texas generated more energy from renewable sources than from coal, according to data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

    Texas produces the most wind energy of any state in the nation, and its solar energy capacity is growing rapidly.

    Earlier this year, Texas’ wind energy output surpassed its coal energy production for the first time. 

    Texas uses the most coal in summer and winter, during which hot and cool temperatures lead to high air conditioning and heat use and put more demands on the energy grid.

    In 2019, the sum total of renewable energy produced in Texas did turn out to be more than coal. Last year, energy facilities in the state produced 21.5% of energy from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro and biomass) and 20.3% from coal.

    Here’s the catch: Those hoping to see Texas produce primarily renewable energy, have a long wait ahead. The state still makes more energy from gas, a largely non-renewable resource, than from any other form of energy.

    Although Texas generates three times the wind energy of the next most prolific state, Oklahoma, and is poised to increase solar power production by up to 30 times the current level, according to the council’s numbers, this year Texas generated 47.3% of its energy from gas sources.

    Data from Electric Reliability Council of Texas

    While natural gas burns cleaner than coal, most of it still has to be extracted from the ground, it exists in a finite quantity and creating energy from it still pollutes the atmosphere.

    Some natural gas can be gleaned from decomposing natural matter in places like landfills and waste water, but right now the process is expensive and complicated to produce. If the process is refined, it might become a viable source of energy, especially because bio gas, as this form of natural gas is known, can be stored in and travel through existing natural gas infrastructure, per Michael E. Webber, a professor of energy resources at the University of Texas at Austin, stated last year.

    Because of the sheer quantity of existing natural gas facilities, and their owners’ expectations that they continue to be used, switching to a more renewable energy future in Texas is more complicated than simply installing more wind turbines and solar panels and connecting them to the energy grid, Webber said. Still, over time, as renewable production becomes cheaper and easier, the trend toward more green energy production is likely to continue.

  • Jan. 4, 2020 – In Studio

    Jan. 4, 2020 – In Studio

    &nbsp Ouchita Electric – Live in Studio &nbsp



    Ouachita Electric is making a huge impact in their community by offering their members on-bill financing for energy upgrades and renewable energy options.

    Members save money with energy upgrades, which in turn saves Ouachita Electric money on their wholesale power costs. 

    Other utilities are currently raising rates, but Ouachita Electric is implementing a 4.5% DECREASE.

    What A DIFFERENCE!

    Listen to the show (below) or call 1-877-252-4538 to take advantage of the many benefits Ouachita Electric has in place for their members.

    Audio – Live in Studio with Leslie Holloway / Ouachita Electric Coop


    Contact Leslie Here

    &nbsp Now is the time

    Every person can help to make this world a better place

  • 2020 Electric Cars

    2020 Electric Cars

    The Future in now

    Virtually every automaker is ramping up research, development, and production in anticipation of a future where the roads are populated with battery-powered electric cars, crossover SUVs and, yes, even pickup trucks. To that end, Ford just announced it would electrify its sales-leading F-150 full-size pickup for an as-yet-undisclosed model year.

    Coming from both long-established automakers and high-tech upstart companies, the next wave of EVs is expected to operate for increasingly longer periods on a charge, with the best of the bunch expected to run for as much as 400 miles with a full charge of kilowatts.

    Here’s a quick look at some of the most significant electrified rides expected to reach dealers’ showrooms in the months ahead:

    Most frequent questions and answers

    Tesla 3


    Click here

    Tesla Truck

    Click here

    telsa roadster

    Click here

    mercedes eqc

    Click here

    mercedes e-Sprinter

    Click here

    nissan leaf

    Click here

    kia niro

    Click here

    kia soul ev

    Click here

    kyndai kona

    Click here

    porsche taycan

    Click here

    mitsubishi Rivian R1T

    Click here

    audi e-tron

    Click here

    Auston Martin rapide-E

    Click here

    mini -e cooper

    Click here

    Bollinger B1

    Click here

    volkswagen iv

    Click here

    volvo polestar

    Click here

    jaguar i-pace

    Click here

    &nbsp Now is the time

    to make the switch to electric and take advantage of the rebate.

  • Powering Christmas Shopping

    Powering Christmas Shopping

    Powering $1 Trillion Black Friday

    Thanksgiving, Black Friday and Cyber Monday; it forebodes a massive amount of food, but it also forebodes a massive amount of online shopping and the digital hunt for holiday deals. 

    Holiday sales this year could climb 5 percent and exceed $1.1 trillion. The e-commerce sector is expected to enjoy another bumper year, with digital sales expected to clock in at $144B-$148B, good for 14-18% growth compared to 11.2% last year. 

    Meanwhile, shoppers are not all that jazzed about lining up for hours in retail stores, jostling with other sweaty shoppers or throwing down with someone over the last doorbuster. Instead, shoppers are planning to spend 59% of their 2019 holiday budgets online vs. 36% in brick-and-mortar stores.

    So, what will all this shopping translate into in terms of our internet usage? Specifically, how many barrels of oil will the planet need to burn to power the deluge of data moving between data centers and user devices on Thanksgiving, Black Friday, and Cyber Monday?

    Growing Digital Storm

    Source: Statista

    The internet is growing so big and so fast that its scale is already awe-inspiring.

    It’s estimated that there are 4.4 billion internet users across the globe with the figure expected to reach 4.7 billion in another two years. Yet, it’s the sheer amount of data that flows through the so-called cyber network that’s hard to wrap your head around. 

    To get an idea of how the holiday traffic compares to other days, we can look at holiday sales vs. normal day sales.

    Statista comes to the rescue once again, with estimates that people spend $996,956 online every minute. That works out to $1.44 billion every single day.

    While that sounds like a whole lot of cash to spend online over the course of just 24 hours, it still pales in comparison with what people spend on Black Friday and the holiday season in general.

    Last year, shoppers spent $6.2B online on Black Friday (23.6% growth); $3.7B on Thanksgiving (28% growth) and a staggering $7.9B on Cyber Monday, the highest one-day tab of all time.

    In other words, people spent 4.3x online on Black Friday as they do on normal days. If this year’s Black Friday sales grow at the midpoint of Deloitte’s estimates, then that figure is likely to grow to ~5x.

    While that heightened spend is partly due to bigger shopping baskets during the holidays, it’s likely due in large part to more people shopping online as evidenced by rampant website failures as well as this claim by Bob Buffone, CTO at Yottaa, a web-optimization software company:  

    Black Friday, we will require a grand total of 2.2 million barrels of oil to power the internet on Thanksgiving, Black Friday and Cyber Monday.

    That’s nearly a fifth of daily oil output by the United States, the world’s largest producer.

    Again, it’s important to bear in mind that these figures are only rough estimates since online shopping does not consume as much data as watching videos and Netflix and also because a 5x increase in e-commerce traffic does not necessarily translate into a corresponding increase for other forms of traffic.

  • Turkey saves you Energy

    Turkey saves you Energy

    Cooking Turkey

    Saves
    Money

    At Tom’s Expense

    This Thanksgiving

    Americans will suck up

    350 gigawatts

    of electricity–equivalent to the entire world’s nuclear power capacity in 2012–making turkeys.

    What is a Gigawatt

    So, while we spend time being thankful this Thursday as we gather around the dinner table with family and friends, we should take a moment to extend that thanks to the energy that will be consumed making the turkey and all the trimmings.

    But you might be surprised to know that Americans consume far less energy on Thanksgiving than on just any old Thursday.

    Size Matters

    Americans aren’t the only ones with a weight problem. The average Thanksgiving turkey size in 2019 is 30 pounds! That’s more than double from the 13 pound average sold in the 1930s.

     

    The fact that turkeys have bulged into enormous proportions means that it takes longer to cook. A 30 lb. bird (stuffed, or course, because who doesn’t like in-the-bird stuffing?) can take 6.25 hours to cook in a 350° oven. The unstuffed equivalent takes about 1.25 hours less time to roast.

    Cost of Roasting

    The average electric oven (non-convection) of the 2000-2400-watt variety will chew through a little over 12 kWh of electricity to cook that Tom for 6 hours. The National Electric kilowatt rate in America is 13.3 cents per kwh; the cookers will pay about $1.60 for the electricity to cook their birds

    Pennies more if you

    If you’re looking, you’re not Cooking.

    All Together Now

    Americans will consume a staggering 46,000,000 turkeys this Thanksgiving. At 12 kWh each, that’s 552,000,000 kWh—for a single meal. That’s surely a large number.  Let not forget the remainder of the meal… average 50% or $.80 kWh.

    Gobble it up!

    But fret not. You can eat your turkey in good conscience—you’re actually doing your part to save the environment by eating the turkey.

    And here’s why:
    An estimated 88% of all Americans eat turkey on Thanksgiving. There are 327,000,000 people living in America, so this means that 287,760,000 people eat turkey on Thanksgiving.

    And here’s why:
    An estimated 88% of all Americans eat turkey on Thanksgiving. There are 327,000,000 people living in America, so this means that 287,760,000 people eat turkey on Thanksgiving.

    Other Thanksgiving Day Energy Considerations

    Also, while families are together on this day waiting for the turkey to be done, fewer TVs are playing the requisite football games. Less energy.

    Related: A New Pipeline Could Undo America’s Influence In Asia

    More people are traveling. More energy. According to Gas Buddy, 65% of Americans travel by car. Gasoline inventories in the US rose last week, but gasoline prices are holding pretty steady compared to the last three thanksgivings.

    Residential heating. Less energy. As people are grouped into fewer abodes on Thanksgiving Day, heating sources are turned down or off while they stay with family—sometimes for days if they have traveled significant distances. This decreases the amount of energy used for heating.

    Estimates are that energy usage typically drops 5-10% on Thanksgiving Day, compared to the November average, all thanks to that delicious turkey.

    So, with conscience clear, travel to visit your family. Roast that bird. Eat well and be merry.

  • Green License Plates

    Green License Plates

    Green coloured number plates will be issued for electric cars under government plans to encourage drivers to buy zero-emission vehicles.

    The government said the new licence plates would make the least polluting cars easily identifiable and help their drivers benefit from incentives such as free parking or access to clean air zones.

    A consultation has been launched on the proposals, modelled on a scheme in Canada which appeared to push up electric car sales.

    The transport secretary, Grant Shapps, said: “Green number plates are a really positive and exciting way to help everyone recognise the increasing number of electric vehicles on our roads.

    “By increasing awareness of these vehicles and the benefits they bring to their drivers and our environment, we will turbo-charge the zero-emission revolution.”

    The Department for Transport said the green number plates would provide a useful visual identifier for local authorities pushing schemes for zero-emission vehicles, potentially allowing them to use bus or other priority lanes. The plates would retain black lettering but on a green background, although the design could be modified to a simple green stripe or blob after the consultation.

    The government’s behavioural insights team (Bit) said the distinctive plates would make people aware of fellow drivers’ decisions to drive greener vehicles. Elisabeth Costa, a senior director at Bit, said: “The number of clean vehicles on our roads is increasing but we don’t notice, as it’s difficult to tell clean vehicles apart from more polluting ones. Green number plates make these vehicles, and our decision to drive in a more environmentally friendly way, more visible on roads.

    “We think making the changing social norm noticeable will help encourage more of us to swap our cars for cleaner options.”

    The government has said it wants to ban the sale of fossil-fuelled cars after 2040, as part of its Road to Zero strategy, although hybrids are currently exempted. Shapps has said he would push for a 2035 deadline instead.

    CREDITS

  • Reducing Greenhouse Gases

    Reducing Greenhouse Gases

    An instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

    The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the world’s first and so far the largest installation-level ‘cap-and trade’ system for cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The system is intended to assist the EU in reaching both its immediate as well as longer-term emissions reduction objectives by “promoting reductions of emissions in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner”1.

    The main features of the EU ETS are the emission cap (a ceiling on the maximum amount) and the trading of EU emission allowances (EUAs). The cap guarantees that total emissions are kept to a pre-defined level (and does not rise above it – in the period for which the cap applies). Covered installations have to submit an EUA for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) they emitted during a year.


    Figure 1: If companies emit less than the cap, they are permitted to sell the excess carbon permits to companies that are polluting more. The company polluting less will profit from this transaction.Source: adapted from Energy Royd, 2013

    EUAs are allocated for free or they are auctioned. The trading system offers flexibility to the businesses covered by the scheme as they can decide on taking action or buying EUAs depending on the EUA price. Emitters who have reduction costs lower than the price are encouraged to take action. Emitters with high reduction costs can buy EUAs and postpone their own action thereby complying with the GHG policy more cheaply than they otherwise would have been able to (if, for example, all emitters had to cut emissions by the same ratio).

    For accurate tracking of EUAs, participants of the EU ETS open up an account in the Union registry. Anyone possessing an account is able to buy or sell EUAs irrespective of whether they are covered by the EU ETS or not. Trading does not require brokers and can be directly conducted by buyers and sellers through organized exchanges or via intermediaries.

    2. A brief history of the EU ETS

    The origins of the EU ETS can be traced back to 1992 when 180 countries agreed to avoid dangerous level of human made global warming and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As a means of specifying action to be taken as part of this global joint effort, the Kyoto Protocol (KP) was consequently agreed upon in 1997. The KP introduced two principles essential for the establishment of the EU ETS:

    1. It contained absolute quantitative emission targets for industrialized countries and
    2. Included a set of so-called flexible mechanisms, which allowed for the option to exchange emission units between countries as an International Emissions Trading system.

    The EU (then consisting of only 15 Member States) agreed jointly under the Protocol to an 8% reduction of GHG emissions from 1990 levels in the period 2008 to 2012 (read more: Overview of climate targets in Europe). At that point in time, it however, lacked the policy instruments to bring about this reduction. Internal debates on plans to introduce a carbon or energy tax had not proven to be successful.2 Several countries were moving ahead with national emission reduction policies (such as support for renewable energy), but others were waiting for common and coordinated policies and measures to be introduced EU wide (read more: European Climate Policy – History and State of Play). In this general context, the European Commission (EC) started elaborating a proposal for an EU emission trading system to tackle the emissions from key economic sectors (especially energy and industry). As a result of these deliberations, the EU ETS was instituted as one of the key policy measures to reach the Kyoto targets. Currently, it covers the 28 MS and since 2008, the neighboring countries of Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway.

    Where EU ETS is organized in trading periods (or phases), of which four are currently decided and more may follow. Currently the system is in its third period. Each of the four is described below as follows:

    2.1 Phase 1: 2005-2007

    The European Parliament (2003) passed a law3 to4 set up the EU ETS in October 2003 and regulated the first and second trading phase. The first phase of the EU ETS was a pilot phase to test the system. The Member States had the freedom to decide on how many EUAs to allocate in total as well as to each installation in their territory by preparing national allocation plans (NAPs). Almost all EUAs were allocated for free and were based on historic emissions called grandfathering. In this phase, CO2 emissions were covered from installations for power and heat generation and in energy intensive industrial sectors like iron, steel, cement and oil refining, etc. The penalty imposed on the companies for non-compliance was 40 Euro per tonne of CO2. 

    This initial phase was able to establish a price for EUAs, free trade throughout the EU and the infrastructure for monitoring, reporting and verifying (MRV) actual emissions from the covered installations. Approximately 200 million tonnes of CO2 or 3% of total verified emissions were reduced due to the ETS at nominal transaction costs.5 However, after the first year of operation, when real world emission data started to be published for the first time, it became obvious that too many EUAs had been allocated to businesses, leading to an oversupply of EUAs and a consequent fall in their price, eventually to zero at the end of the period (see Figure 2).6

    2.2 Phase 2: 2008-2012

    Since phase two was concurrent with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the EU imposed a tighter emission cap by reducing the total volume of EUAs by 6.5% compared to 2005. In this phase Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein joined the EU ETS and the scope was amended to include nitrous oxide from nitric acid production from several Member States. In addition, from 1 January 2012 onwards, the scheme also included flights within the borders of the EU ETS countries. Up to 10% of the allowances could be auctioned by the Member States instead of free allocation. The penalty for non-compliance rose to 100 Euro per tonne of CO2eq. Businesses were allowed to use credits from the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) leading to a total of 1.4 billion tons of CO2 equivalent credits on the market (with the exception of those for nuclear facilities, agricultural and forestry activities) 7. This move was meant to offer cost-effective mitigation options to businesses and it made the EU ETS the main driver of the international carbon market. Yet, the additional credits and the economic crisis of 2008, which reduced emissions from EU companies, resulted in a large surplus of EUAs, causing a fall of the price from 30 Euro to less than 7 Euro. Figure 2 illustrates how the prices of EUAs have fluctuated over the years and how it fell to zero during the peak of the crisis.

    2.3 Phase 3: 2013-2020

    The EC (2009) revised the EU ETS for the third phase.8 The reasons for these modifications were manifold. Firstly, the fall of EUAs during phase two greatly undermined the reliability of the EU ETS. Secondly, the EU ETS did not generate substantial transformations or movement towards renewable energy industries or low carbon technologies as was expected. Thirdly, it was not as cost-effective as initially anticipated. Lastly, it was subjected to several frauds and scams. To deal with the inherent weaknesses of the system, the changes introduced in this phase particularly include the emission cap applying uniformly over the EU to achieve the GHG reduction target more effectively. The cap decreases by 1.74% per year to reduce emissions by 21% in 2020 compared to 2005.

    The main allocation method was modified from grandfathering to auctioning as a principle and some remaining free allocation based on benchmarks. In 2013, allowances for more than 40% of all verified emissions were auctioned. The auctioning platforms are accessible to any country that participates in the EU ETS although the auctions take place at a national level. The process of auctioning is supervised by the EU ETS Auctioning Regulation to ensure that they are conducted in an open, transparent, harmonized and non-discriminatory manner. The amended EU ETS Directive instructs that auctions must match criteria like predictability, cost-efficiency, and fair access to auctions and simultaneous access to relevant information for all operators.9

    Free allocation applies to industrial installations other than for power generation based on benchmarks (BMs). A BM determines the number of free EUAs based on the installation’s output (or input). There is a BM for each product such as for steel, cement or lime. The installations received 80% of the EUAs they would get according to the BM-allocation. This level will be reduced annually to 30% in 2020. Industries at risk of carbon leakage receive 100% of the BM- allocation over the whole trading period.

    The main challenge in the third trading period is the large surplus of EUAs transferred from the second to the third trading period leading to an EUA price of only 3-7 Euro. The EU therefore decided to postpone the auctioning of 900 million EUAs to the end of the trading period (so-called backloading, which was adopted only after a drawn out and controversial political process).10 In addition, the European Commission proposed a market stability reserve to be implemented in the next trading period, which should balance demand and supply by adjusting auctioning volumes.11

    2.4 Phase 4: 2021-2018

    This phase will begin 1 January 2021 and finish on 31 December 2028 wherein the EC intends to conduct a full review of the EU ETS Directive by the year 2026. In January 2014, the EC had put forward a legislative proposal for a Market Stability Reserve (MSR) as a part of their proposed policy framework for climate and energy for 2030. It had also given indications that it might tighten the EU ETS cap further.

    3. Conclusions

    The EU ETS, a cap and trade system for GHGs from energy and industry, was implemented to ensure that the EU would achieve its GHG emission targets in a cost-effective manner. The system offers flexibility to businesses covered by the scheme as they have the choice between reducing emissions and purchasing emissions from other companies depending on the price of carbon. This promotes the realization of cheap GHG reductions while the costly reduction measures can be postponed.

  • Clean Energy Industry

    Clean Energy Industry

    Clean energy in U.S. a $1.3 trillion annually

    CLEAN ENERGY: A new study estimates the “green economy” in the U.S. generates $1.3 trillion in annual revenue, or about 7% of GDP. (Bloomberg)

    ALSO:
    • Google announces plans for $150 million in clean energy investment; the figure represents about 0.1% of the company’s 2018 revenue. (CNET)
    • A growing number of colleges and universities seek help from the private sector to run their utilities and meet emission-reduction targets. (Utility Dive)
    • ExxonMobil is spending millions on clean energy researchers, which some critics say raises questions about scientific independence. (Axios)

    ***SPONSORED LINK: Register for Infocast’s Southeast Renewable Energy Summit, October 28-30 in Atlanta, to meet the top players in the market and explore the new renewable energy growth opportunities in the region. You’ll engage in networking and deal-making exchanges with the decision-makers driving the Southeast industry forward. Sign up today!***

    EPA:
    • Staffers say the California EPA office was bypassed as the Trump administration escalated its political dispute with the state. (New York Times)
    • An EPA attorney the political atmosphere means “things have basically come to a standstill here” with regards to enforcement actions. (The Revelator)

    CLIMATE:
    • Maryland releases its long-awaited plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, with a target of 44% below 2006 levels by 2030. (Baltimore Sun)
    • A Florida Republican says a recent climate change discussion in that state’s legislature reflects a new generation of conservatives “who aren’t so much in denial about some of these issues.” (WJCT) 

    OIL & GAS:
    • California inspectors are working to determine the cause of yesterday’s explosions and fire at NuStar Energy’s East Bay oil storage facility that destroyed thousands of gallons of fuel and and prompted a hazardous materials emergency. (Associated Press)
    • A slump in oil prices has brought job creation around the oil and gas industry in the Permian Basin to a halt and led to a steady trickle of layoffs. (Reuters)

    NATURAL GAS:
    • Columbia Gas of Massachusetts creates a new position of chief safety officer after a spate of mishaps and brings in an executive well known in the state’s industry. (Boston Globe)
    • Southern California Gas Co. is trying to find the source of a “mysterious” ground fire at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. (Associated Press)

    BIOFUELS: Ethanol advocates say the Trump administration has reneged on its promise to boost biofuel demand with a proposal that allows more waivers for oil refineries. (Cedar Rapids Gazette)

    UTILITIES:
    • Top Exelon official Anne Pramaggiore retires as the company receives federal subpoenas connected to its Illinois lobbying activities. (Chicago Sun Times)
    • A U.S. bankruptcy judge says he will confirm FirstEnergy Solutions’ bankruptcy plan. (Crain’s Cleveland Business)

    NUCLEAR:
    • An engineer at the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago uses supercomputers to determine what advanced nuclear reactor designs might work. (Energy News Network)
    • The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the federal government does not have to restart construction on a nuclear fuel facility in South Carolina. (Post and Courier) 

    ***SPONSORED LINK: The Midwest energy landscape is changing. Find out what’s in store for the policy and business side of solar, storage, and wind energy at Solar and Storage Midwest. Join us November 14-15 in Chicago.***

    SOLAR: A new study says adding solar to homes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania provides the greatest increases in their value nationally. (Pittsburgh City Paper)

    COMMENTARY: “What the events in California and Miami and Houston tell us is that we are living through the risks of an altered climate now, not a hundred years from now.” (New York Times)

    CREDITS 

  • All Electric = Low Carbon

    All Electric = Low Carbon

    All-electric homes offer a prototype for low-carbon housing in Colorado

    Huddled in a construction trailer last year, a team overseeing development of an affordable housing complex in the Colorado mountain town of Basalt agreed to make a bold statement about future energy use.

    No natural gas lines were to be laid through the red soil to Basalt Vista, an affordable housing project. Electricity instead fuels kitchen stoves and delivers hot showers. Electricity, not gas, warms chilled autumn air. All units also have charging equipment for electric cars.

    Beneficial electrification, the concept in play, has been defined as the application of electricity to end uses that would otherwise consume fossil fuels. That includes both transportation but also buildings. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says residential and commercial buildings sectors account for about 40% of total U.S. energy consumption. 

    Basalt Vista serves as a demonstration of building electrification but also as a living laboratory with national implications. New technology designed in a partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory allows homeowners greater decision-making in energy allocations. Holy Cross Energy, the local electrical utility, also has been using the all-electric units to understand implications for its operation as it shifts toward increased renewables. The co-op expects to be at 70% renewable by 2021 and has ambitions to go higher.

    While multiple California cities are considering bans on new natural gas connections, building electrification remains an infant concept. Natural gas remains the go-to fuel source for heating and other purposes in new construction in most places. In Colorado, legislators and other state officials have begun considering how to reduce use of natural gas as they plan how to achieve the goal adopted earlier this year of 90% reduction in economy-wide carbon emissions below 2005 levels by 2040.


    Learn more

  • .

    .

    Malawian Teen Taught Himself How To Build A Windmill From Junk, Brought Power To His Village, ALL Learned From Library Books!

    Many people think about changing the world, making a difference, or becoming something more, but few have the courage to act on that impulse. Stories of innovation and success inspire us and should be shared, and none are as inspirational as the actions of a Malawian teenager who taught himself how to build a windmill and brought power to his village. 

    William Kamkwamba was 14 when he struck with poverty and famine; today, he is an influential inventor and speaker.

    Dropping Out of School Didn’t Stop Him

    Kamkwamba was born on August 5, 1987, in Dowa, Malawi. His childhood was spent on his family’s farm in Masitala Village, Wimbe, about two hours from Malawi’s capital city. Kamkwamba was the second eldest child among six sisters, Annie, Dorris, Rose, Aisha, Mayless, and Tiyamike.

    Kamkwamba studied at the Wimbe Primary School from first to eighth grade and was accepted to the Kachokolo Secondary School. However, a severe famine in 2002 forced him to drop out of school when his family was unable to pay the $80 annual school fee. He had completed only a few months of his freshman year and was unable to return for the next five years.

    Still, Kamkwamba wouldn’t be defeated by his unfortunate circumstances. At 14, he began borrowing books from a small community lending library at his former primary school. There he found the book that would change the course of his life. 

    It was an 8th grade American textbook called Using Energy and it had wind turbines on its front cover. It inspired his idea to create a windmill to power his family’s home. Until that point, the house used kerosene for power, which resulted in weak, smoky, and expensive light after nightfall.

    The Windmills Were Just the Beginning

    The teenager went to work. First, he built a prototype of his invention with a radio motor. Then he constructed his first 5-meter windmill out of a broken bike, tractor fan blade, an old shock absorber, and blue gum trees. He hooked the windmill to a car battery for storage, and his invention was complete. He successfully powered four light bulbs and charge mobile phones for his neighbors. His windmill even had a light switch and circuit breaker created from nails, wire, and magnets.

    Later on, he expanded this windmill to 12 meters to catch more wind and create more power. Then he built another windmill to pump water for an irrigation system.

    The young inventor was just getting started. His next projects provided clean water for the village, malaria prevention, solar power and lighting for six households, a deep well with a solar-powered pump to create clean water, a drip irrigation system, and uniforms and shoes for the Wimbe United village team. Quite appropriately, the uniforms are sun and wind-themed and took the team on a winning streak that filled the village with unity and pride. 

    Word spread about the wonderful windmill, catching the attention of Dr. Hartford Mchazime, Ph.D., the deputy director of the MTTA, the Malawian NGO responsible for the community library that inspired the young inventor in the first place. 

    Mchazime brought the press, including the Malawi Times, who wrote a long cover story about Kamkwamba. Soyapi Mumba and Mike McKay, engineers at Baobab Health Partnership in Malawi wrote about the article, and news of Kamkwamba’s inventions spread to Emeka Okafor, the program director for TEDGlobal. Okafor searched quite diligently to find Kamkwamba and invite him to the conference as a speaker. Kamkwamba’s talk led to additional mentors, donors, and companies to support his education and further projects.

    In 2014, Kamkwamba graduated from Dartmouth College and began to work at Ideo.org as a Global Fellow. There he focused on Human Centered Design, which sent him on missions around the world including sanitation projects in India and preventing gender-based violence in Kenya.

    Today, he works with WiderNet to create a technology curriculum that will allow students to make the connection between “knowing” and “doing,” as he did at their age. This content will be distributed around Malawi and across the continent. [1]

    ​It’s safe to say he’s now famous, and deservedly so. We need more heroes like him, and his story might be the inspiration they need to take action. [2] 

  • 800,000 CA Customers without Electricity

    800,000 CA Customers without Electricity

    Portions of 34 Counties Will be Impacted by Widespread, Severe Wind Event Beginning Wednesday

    SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Asa precautionary measure to reduce wildfire risk during the forecasted severe wind event, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) confirmed that it will implement a Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) in portions of 34 northern, central and coastal counties, affecting electric service for nearly 800,000 customers.

    PG&E expects to begin turning off power in some areas early Wednesday, just after midnight. The power will be turned off to communities in stages, depending on local timing of the severe wind conditions, beginning with counties in the northern part of the state.

    “The safety of our customers and the communities we serve is our most important responsibility, which is why PG&E has decided to turn power off to customers during this widespread, severe wind event. We understand the effects this event will have on our customers and appreciate the public’s patience as we do what is necessary to keep our communities safe and reduce the risk of wildfire,” said Michael Lewis, PG&E’s senior vice president of Electric Operations.

    Customer notifications and impact

    The company has been notifying potentially impacted customers and will continue to do so, via automated calls, texts and emails. However, customers not impacted by the PSPS may experience power outages due to PG&E equipment damaged during this major wind event; those customers will not be notified in advance.

    It is very possible that customers may be affected by a power shutoff even though they are not experiencing extreme weather conditions in their specific location. This is because the electric system relies on power lines working together to provide electricity across cities, counties and regions.

    Portions of Kern, Humboldt, Trinity and Marin counties have been added to the potential scope of this PSPS, in addition to the 30 counties identified Monday. Customers can find the full list of impacted counties, cities and communities at www.pge.com/pspsupdates.

    Estimated time of restoration

    Overall, based on the latest weather forecasts and models, PG&E anticipates that this weather event will last through midday Thursday, with peak winds forecasted from Wednesday morning through Thursday morning and reaching 40 to 55 mph, with isolated gusts up to 60 to 70 mph.

    Before restoring power, PG&E must inspect its equipment for damage and make any necessary repairs. That process cannot begin until the severe weather event has subsided.

    Given the prolonged period during which the wind event will unfold, and the large number of power line miles that will need to be inspected before restoration, customers are being asked to prepare for an extended outage.

    PG&E will work with state and local agencies to provide updated restoration timelines following the conclusion of the severe weather event.


    Read More

  • Recycling

    Recycling

    Recycling Saves Energy

    The more we recycle; the less energy is needed, costs are lower and we also alleviate the harmful impacts of the processing and extraction of virgin resources on the environment.

    Did you know by recycling we are helping to save landfill space and conserve natural resources; also did you know that by recycling you are saving a lot of energy?

    It’s true!

    Processing of usable items like wood, paper, plastic and metal needs huge amount of energy.

    Raw virgin material extraction also often involves other negative effects such as water pollution, air pollution, and impacts on local communities and ecosystems.

    Making products from recycled materials requires a much simpler, less energy-intensive process. Recycled materials are collected, transported, separated from other recycled items, processed, and then made into new products.

    Saving Energy

    ENERGY IS LIFE– all life processes are dependent on energy to grow. By utilizing less energy, we conserve the natural resources and reduce pollution. Thus, being energy efficient helps in retaining the natural resources for a longer period. Consuming energy releases carbon and other poisonous gases that can harm the environment.

    Reason’s to be Energy Wise

    • Conserving energy helps in saving a lot of money. Perhaps, one of the main reasons for saving energy is to cut down the expenses.
    • Fossil fuels are unclean source of generating electricity and hence its conservation can help in reducing carbon footprints and greenhouse gas emissions;
    • Conservation of energy can also help in reduction of oil spills and threats caused during procurement of oil and coal, thus, minimizing the harm to ecosystems
    • In an attempt to reduce the depletion of renewable resources, scientists have pumped in a lot of money, time and efforts to develop nuclear reactors. These reactors produce immense radioactive waste, causing radioactive pollution.

    “He that plants trees loves others besides himself.”

    —Thomas Fuller

    Easy recycling tips

    ANYONE CAN FOLLOW

    WATER

    Reusing your grey water (e.g. bath water, dish water, laundry, basin water), can reduce the requirement for and reliance on the council’s main water supply system.
    This water can be recycled by pouring it into a flower bed or garden. Recycling water allows gardens to be watered during period of drought and also minimizes diversion of freshwater from sensitive ecosystems.

    FOOD

    Food waste should be recycled by composting that helps to capture methane emissions.
    Recycling of one ton of food waste helps to curb emissions of around one ton of CO2 equivalent.
    Composting food scraps will also ensure that your kitchen waste basket fills up more slowly and also does not smell.

    GLASS

    Glass can be recycled endlessly; it is one item that does not deteriorate and degrade in quality, even after repeated recycling.
    It is 100% recyclable

    Buy Recycled

    Your Dollars speak loudly – Show your support in buy recycled goods.

    BIN SYSTEM

    It is important to keep a proper bin in your home for your general items meant for recycling (e.g. newspapers, cardboards, glass, plastic-lined paper drink cartons, fast food wrappers made of plastic, corrugated cardboard, plastic bottles).
    Simple plastic tub in the laundry room does the trick to throw your mixed recycling into.

    SHOP SMART

    Take a couple extra minutes to and double check your shopping list and ensuring that you buy only those items which are not present in your kitchen shelf or in the refrigerator…think twice, do I really need it?!!
    The truth is that the best source of energy savings is the extra energy that we don’t need to obtain in the first place.

    A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people. ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Materials Recycled per 1 Ton Energy Saving by kWh Oil Saved in Barrels Omitted pollutants in lbs Water saved in gallons Landfill space no used in cubic yrds Other resources saved
    PAPER 4,100 11 60 7000 3 17
    PLASTIC 5774 16 — — 30.4 1-2,000 gals of gasonline
    GLASS 42 .12 70 — 2 —
    ALUMINUM 14,000 40 — — 10 —

  • Entergy Residential Incentives

    Entergy Residential Incentives

    Arkansas Weatherization Program

    Up to $1,058 Incentive: Program
    Source: Entergy Arkansas
    Category: Whole House, New Home Programs, Home / Residential, Weatherization, Insulation & Air Sealing, Air Conditioning & Fans, Central Heating
    To Qualify:
    The Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP) is a utility funded program for all Arkansans that have utility service with one or more of the participating utilities. This program will include a pre-audit and a list of recommendation of corrective measures to be made

    Air Conditioning Tune-Ups
    The air conditioning tune-up helps each home’s system to run more efficiently and provides better comfort to residents while lowering energy costs. This is achieved by a certified technician cleaning your system and adjusting refrigerant charge.

    Duct Sealing
    A duct system that is well-designed and properly sealed can make your home more comfortable, energy efficient and safer. Duct sealing is available for homes with electric heating and cooling systems whose ductwork is significantly leaky.

    Air Sealing
    Reducing the amount of air that leaks in and out of your home is a cost-effective way to cut heating and cooling costs, improve durability, increase comfort and create a healthier indoor environment. Air sealing is available for homes with electric heating and cooling systems whose envelope is significantly leaky.

    Energy Survey

    An Entergy Arkansas-qualified field technician will perform an energy survey of your property’s common areas at no cost. This will identify ways to improve your property’s energy efficiency. At the end of the survey, the technician will provide you with a summary of recommendations.

    Summer Advantage Program$50 to $80Incentive: Program
    Source: Entergy Arkansas
    Category: Whole House, New Home Programs, Home / Residential, Air Conditioning & Fans
    To Qualify:
    Here’s how it works. Air conditioners require a lot of energy in the summer. But through the Summer Advantage Program, Entergy will install a small device called a Direct Cycling Unit (DCU) on your air conditioner. During hot summer afternoons when air conditioners are working overtime to keep homes cool, Entergy can activate your DCU and decrease the amount your air conditioner runs during peak energy hours. This helps Entergy lower its operating costs � which helps everyone save. Plus, your enrollment in the Summer Advantage Program means you will earn an annual cash reward based on your participation. If you run 50 percent less, you will earn $25 for installng the DCU plus $25 each year for your participation during cold season. If you run 75 percent less, you will earn $40 for installng the DCU plus $40 each year for your participation during cold season.

  • Declaring 100% Net Zero – Renewable Energy

    Declaring 100% Net Zero – Renewable Energy

    We are asking mayors, CEOs, pastors, principals, civic and community leaders, parents and students to commit to solutions that help us achieve 100% clean, renewable energy. 

    Powered by 100% Renewable Energy: These communities have fully transitioned to 100% clean, renewable energy sources to power the community’s electricity needs. 

    Committed to 100% Renewable Energy: These communities have made community-wide commitments to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy no later than 2050. 

    Across the U.S. over 90 cities, more than ten counties and two states, have already adopted ambitious 100% clean energy goals. Six cities in the U.S.–Aspen, Burlington, Georgetown, Greensburg, Rock port, and Kodiak Island–have already hit their targets. These six cities now generate 100% of the energy used community-wide from clean, non-polluting and renewable sources. A city commitment to 100% renewable energy is a mandate for action. 

    Numerous U.S. cities have made public commitments to cut carbon and address climate change through initiatives like the Compact of Mayors, We Are Still In, or by establishing their own Climate Action Plans.

    Building on this history of climate leadership, we are calling on cities to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy.  

    Cities Committed to 100% Renewable Energy

    1. Abita Springs Abita Springs, LA is committed to transition 100% of the town’s electricity to renewable energy sources by December 31, 2030. Contact LeAnne Pinniger MageeTake Action Take Action Mayor Greg Lemons has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    2. Ambler Borough Ambler Borough, PA is committed to is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Bill Sabey
    3. Amherst Amherst, MA is committed to enabling a community-wide transition to 100% clean, renewable energy and is calling on the State of Massachusetts to adopt a statewide goal of 100% renewable energy.
    4. Angel Fire Angel Fire is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030.Learn More
    5. Apex Apex, NC is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050. Contact Blake Flemming
    6. Athens Athens, GA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Marquese Averett Mayor Kelly Girtz has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    7. Atlanta Atlanta is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2035. Contact Marquese Averett Take Action
    8. Augusta Augusta, GA is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2050.Contact Ted Terry
    9. Berkeley The City of Berkeley is committed to transitioning to 100% clean, carbon-free energy by 2030, including electricity, transportation and buildings, by 2030. Contact Richard Rollins Mayor Jesse Arreguin has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    10. Blacksburg In December 2017, Blacksburg, VA City Council adopted a goal of transitioning to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2050. 
    11. Boise Boise, ID is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and adopted “Boise’s Energy Future” plan as a roadmap toward its goal. Contact Zack Waterman Take Action
    12. Boulder In December of 2016, Boulder City Council made the commitment to 100% renewable electricity by 2030! Contact Leslie Glustrom Take Action Take Action Mayor Suzanne Jones has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    13. Breckenridge Breckenridge, Colorado is committed to powering municipal operations with 100% renewable energy by 2025, and a goal of 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035. Contact Beth Groundwater Take Action
    14. Cambridge In April 2017, Cambridge committed to transition 100% clean and renewable energy community-wide, including building energy use and transportation, by 2035.
    15. Cheltenham Township Cheltenham Township, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% renewable energy for heat and transportation by 2050. Contact Bill Sabey
    16. Chicago Chicago, IL is committed to transitioning to 100% clean, renewable electricity for all buildings by 2035 and to a 100% renewable, electric bus fleet by 2040. Contact Kyra Woods Learn More
    17. Chula Vista Chula Vista, CA, is committed to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035. Contact Pete Hasapopoulos Mayor Mary Casillas Salas has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    18. Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035. Contact Nathan Alley Mayor John Cranley has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    19. Clarkston Clarkston, GA is committed to a community-wide goal of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2050. Contact Ted Terry Mayor Ted Terry has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    20. Cleveland Cleveland, OH is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2050. Contact Jocelyn L. Travis Take Action
    21. Columbia Columbia, SC is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity by 2036. Contact Penny Cothran Learn More Mayor Steve Benjamin has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    22. Concord Concord, NH, commits to 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and for all energy sectors, including heat and transportation by 2050. Contact Ally Samuell
    23. Conshohocken Borough Conshohocken Borough, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Bill Sabey Mayor Yaniv Aronson has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    24. Cornish Cornish, New Hampshire is committed to 100% renewable electricity by 2030, and 100% renewables for heat & transportation by 2050. Contact Ally Samuell Take Action
    25. Cottonwood Heights Cottonwood Heights, UT is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy for city operations by 2022 and community-wide by 2032. Contact Lindsey Beebe
    26. Culver City In 2019, when the LA County Community Choice Energy Program, Culver City residents and businesses will all be powered by 100% renewable energy.
    27. Del Mar Del Mar, California is committed to achieving 50% renewable electricity by 2020, and 100% by 2035. Learn More Deputy Mayor D. Dwight Worden has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    28. Denton Denton, TX is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity community-wide as early as 2020.
    29. Denver Denver, CO is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2030. Contact Emily Gedeon Take Action
    30. Downingtown Downingtown Borough, PA commits to 100% clean renewable energy by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heat and transportation by 2050. Contact Sarah Caspar Mayor Josh Maxwell has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    31. Dunedin Dunedin, FL is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050. Contact Alan Brand Mayor Julie Ward Bujalski has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    32. Eagle Nest Eagle Nest is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030.Learn More
    33. East Bradford East Bradford, PA is committed 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heat and transportation by 2050. Contact Paula Kline
    34. East Hampton East Hampton, New York is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2022 and 100% renewable heating, cooling and transportation by 2030.Learn More
    35. East Pikeland Township East Pikeland Township, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050 Contact Jim Wylie
    36. Eau Claire Eau Claire, WI is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2050 . Contact Jeremy Gragert
    37. Edmonds Edmonds, WA, is committed to 100% renewable energy for the City’s community electricity supply by 2025, and 100% renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019. Contact Victoria Leistman
    38. Encinitas Encinitas, CA adopted a comprehensive Climate Action Plan, with a goal to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030. Contact Pete Hasapopoulos Mayor Catherine Blakespear has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    39. Eureka The City of Eureka, CA is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2025.
    40. Evanston Evanston, IL is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2030 and carbon neutrality across all sectors by 2050. Contact Caroline Wooten Mayor Stephen H. Hagerty has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    41. Fayetteville Fayetteville, AR is committed to powering all government operations with 100% clean, energy by 2030 and the entire community by 2050. Contact Glen HooksMayor Lioneld Jordan has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    42. Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2030. Contact Will Walters Take Action!
    43. Frisco Frisco, Colorado is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035. Contact Emily Gedeon Mayor Gary Wilkinson has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    44. Gainesville Gainesville, FL is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity and net zero greenhouse gas emissions community-wide by 2045. Contact Roberta Gastmeyer
    45. Golden Golden, CO is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2030 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Emily Gedeon
    46. Goleta Goleta, California, is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity for municipal facilities and community-wide supply by 2030. Contact Katie Davis Goleta: Set a 100% Clean Energy Goal
    47. Hanover The Town of Hanover, New Hampshire is committed to a community-wide goal of transitioning to 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and a 2050 goal of transitioning heating and transportation to run on clean, renewable sources of energy. Contact Ally Samuell Take Action Mayor Julia Griffon has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    48. Haverford Township Haverford Township, PA is committed 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heat and transportation by 2050.Contact Jennifer Pavao
    49. Hillsborough The Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina commits to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy for all sectors by December 31, 2050 or sooner and 80% clean, renewable energy by 2030. And calls on The State of North Carolina to do the same!Contact Caroline Hansley
    50. Kansas City Kansas City, MO is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide Contact Gretchen Waddell Barwick
    51. Keene Keene, NH is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2030 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Patricia A. Martin Take Action Mayor Kendall W. Lane has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    52. Kennett Township Kennett Township, PA is committed to transition to 100% clean and renewable energy community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heat and transportation by 2050. Contact Paula Kline
    53. La Crosse La Crosse, WI is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide by 2050. Contact Kathy Allen Take Action Mayor Tim Kabat has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    54. La Mesa La Mesa, CA is committed to transition to 100% renewable electricity by 2035Contact Pete Hasapopoulos Mayor Mark Arapostathis has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    55. Lafayette Lafayette, CO is committed to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030.Contact Emily Hiltz Mayor Christine Berg has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    56. Largo Largo, FL is committed to transition the community-wide energy supply to 100% clean and renewable energy for all, and to transition the municipal energy supply to 100% clean and renewable energy by 2035 with 50% by 2030. Contact Bryan Beckman Let’s go Largo!
    57. Longmont Longmont, CO is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2030. Contact Karen Dike Longmont, CO Is Ready For 100% Renewable EnergyMayor Brian Bagley has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    58. Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2045 and 100% carbon reduction across all sectors by 2050.Contact Graciela Geyer Take Action Mayor Eric Garcetti has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    59. Lowell Lowell, MA has committed to transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2035.
    60. Madison Madison, WI has committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2050. Contact Elizabeth Katt Reinders
    61. Menlo Park Menlo Park has committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2030, and is setting the example today by already powering all municipal operations with 100% renewable energy. Contact Diane Bailey Mayor Kirsten Keith has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    62. Middleton Middleton, WI is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity by 2040 and 100% renewable energy sources for all energy sectors by 2050. Contact Elizabeth Ward
    63. Milwaukie Milwaukie, OR is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide by 2035 and carbon neutrality across all sectors by 2050. Contact Laura StevensMayor Mark Gamba has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    64. Minneapolis Minneapolis, MN has committed to 100% renewable electricity for municipal facilities and operations by 2022, and 100% renewable electricity for community-wide by 2030. Contact Alexis Boxer Mayor Jacob Frey has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    65. Missoula Missoula, MT is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2030. Contact Caitlin Piserchia Mayor John Engen has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    66. Moab Moab is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity by 2032.Contact Lindsay Beebe
    67. Monona Monona, WI is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2040 and for all energy sectors, including heat and transportation, by 2050.
    68. Monterey Monterey is committed to transition to renewable electricity community-wide by 2040. Learn More Mayor Clyde Roberson has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    69. Narberth Borough Narberth Borough, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Bill Sabey
    70. Nederland Nederland, Colorado is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2025. Contact Eryka Thorley
    71. Nevada City Nevada City, California, commits to transition to 100% renewable energy for its community electricity supply by 2030, and 100% renewable energy in all sectors including transportation and heating systems by 2050!
    72. New Brunswick New Brunswick, NJ is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035.
    73. Norman The City of Norman, OK committed to 100% clean energy in the form of wind, solar, energy efficiency measures and other renewable sources within the electricity sector by 2035 and all energy-use sectors including heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Adrienne Gautier
    74. Norristown Borough Norristown Borough, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Bill Sabey
    75. Northampton Northampton, MA is committed to enabling a community-wide transition to 100% clean, renewable energy and is calling on the State of Massachusetts to adopt a statewide goal of 100% renewable energy.
    76. Ojai Ojai, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019. Mayor John F. Johnston has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    77. Orlando The city of Orlando, Florida, is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030 and community-wide 100% clean electricity by 2050! Contact Phil ComptonVICTORY: Orlando Set a 100% Clean Energy Goal! Mayor Buddy Dyer has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    78. Oxnard Oxnard, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019.
    79. Palo Alto Since 2013, Palo Alto, California’s electricity is 100% carbon neutral. Learn More Mayor Greg Scharff has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    80. Park City Park City, UT is committed to transition to 100% renewable electricity by 2032. Contact Lindsay Beebe Learn More Mayor Jack Thomas has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    81. Petoskey Petoskey, MI is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2040. Contact Andrew Sarpolis
    82. Phoenixville Phoenixville, PA commits to transition to 100% clean and renewable electricity by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heat and transportation by 2050.Contact Paula Kline Mayor Michael J. Speck has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    83. Plainfield Plainfield, New Hampshire is committed to 100% renewable electricity by 2030, and 100% renewable energy for heat & transportation by 2050. Contact Evan and Lee Oxenham Take Action
    84. Plymouth Township Plymouth Township, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Jim Wylie Township Manager Karen Weiss has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    85. Portland Portland, Oregon is committed to transition to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035, and to meet all energy needs, including transportation, heating and cooling, and electricity, with 100% renewable energy by 2050.  Contact Laura Stevens
    86. Portola Valley Portola Valley, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019. Contact James Eggers Mayor Craig Hughes has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    87. Pueblo Pueblo, CO is committed to transitioning to a healthy, affordable 100% renewable energy system with greater community control and equitable access by 2035. Contact Jory Miller Take Action
    88. Questa Questa is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Learn More
    89. Radnor Township Radnor Township, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Jocolyn Bowser-Bostick
    90. Reading Reading, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Stephanie Andersen
    91. Red River Red River is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030.Learn More
    92. Rolling Hills Estates Rolling Hills Estates, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019. 
    93. Safety Harbor Safety Harbor, FL is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide by 2050. Contact Bryan Beckman Take Action! Mayor Joe Ayoub has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    94. Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah is committed to achieving 100% renewable energy for community electricity supply by 2032 and 50% renewable electricity for municipal operations by 2020. Contact Lindsay Beebe Learn More Mayor Jackie Biskupski has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    95. San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019.
    96. San Diego San Diego is committed to 100% renewable electricity by 2035. Learn MoreMayor Kevin Faulconer has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    97. San Francisco San Francisco is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Contact Melissa Yu Learn More Mayor London Breed has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    98. San Jose San Jose, California is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2050. Learn More Mayor Sam Liccardo has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    99. San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo is committed to 100% carbon-free, clean electricity by 2035. Mayor Heidi Harmon has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    100. Santa Barbara The Santa Barbara City Council approved a measure that establishes a community-wide goal of transitioning to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030. The resolution also commits the city to transition all municipal buildings and operations to 50 percent clean electricity by 2020. Contact Katie Davis Take Action Mayor Helene Schneider has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    101. Santa Monica Santa Monica, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2019.Learn More Mayor Ted Winterer has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    102. Sarasota Sarasota FL is committed to achieving 100% zero-emission, renewable electricity by 2045. Contact Phil Compton Mayor Shelli Freeland Eddie has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    103. Satellite Beach Satellite Beach, FL is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2050. Contact Brooke Alexander
    104. Schuylkill Township Schuykill Township, PA is committed to is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Paula Kline
    105. Solana Beach Solana Beach has committed to transition to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035. Contact Pete Hasapopoulos Learn More
    106. South Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe is committed to transitioning entirely to renewable sources of electricity by 2032. Contact John Friedrich
    107. South Miami South Miami, Florida is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide by 2040 Contact Emily Gorman South Miami is #ReadyFor100 Mayor Philip K. Stoddard has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    108. South Pasadena South Pasadena, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019.
    109. Southampton Town of Southampton has committed to meet 100% of the community-wide electricity consumption needs through renewable energy sources by the year 2025.Learn More
    110. Spokane Spokane, WA is committed to transitioning 100% clean, renewable energy for the City’s community electricity supply by 2030.
    111. Springfield Township Springfield Township in Montgomery County, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2035. Contact Jocolyn Bowser-Bostick
    112. St. Louis St. Louis, Missouri, commits to transition to 100% clean energy in the form of wind and solar and energy efficiency measures within the electricity sector by 2035.Contact Trisha Boyle Take Action Mayor Lyda Krewson has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    113. St. Louis Park St. Louis Park, MN is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity by 2030. 
    114. St. Paul St Paul, MN is committed to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2030.
    115. St. Petersburg St. Petersburg is committed to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity. Contact Lisa Hinton Mayor Rick Kriseman has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    116. State College State College, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide by 2050. Contact Chloe Selles
    117. Tallahassee Tallahassee, FL is committed to 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide by 2050 and for all city operations by 2035. Contact Phil Compton
    118. Taos The City of Taos, NM is committed to transitioning its electricity to 100% renewable energy by 2030. Learn More
    119. Taos Ski Valley Taos Ski Valley is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Learn More
    120. Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019.
    121. Traverse City Traverse City, MI is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2040. Contact Jordan Chrispell Mayor Jim Carruthers has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    122. Truckee The Town of Truckee, California is committed to achieve 100% renewable electricity for municipal facilities by 2020, 100% renewable electricity town wide by 2030, as well as all energy sources by 2050. Contact Brian Beffort Mayor Morgan Goodwin has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    123. Uwchlan Township Uwchlan Township, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Paula Kline
    124. West Chester West Chester Borough, Pennsylvania, is committed to transition community-wide to 100% clean renewable electricity by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heat and transportation by 2050. Contact Jim Wylie Mayor Jordan Norley has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    125. West Hollywood West Hollywood, CA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019. Mayor John Heilman has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    126. Whitemarsh Township Whitemarsh Township, PA is committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for heating and transportation by 2050. Contact Bill Sabey
    127. Windsor The town of Windsor, Massachusetts has committed to 100% renewable electricity community-wide.

    Cities Powered by 100% Renewable Energy

    1. Aspen As of 2015, Aspen, Colorado is powered by 100% renewable electricity – a mix of approximately 50% wind, 45% hydropower, and the remaining 5% from solar and landfill gas. Contact Emily Hiltz Learn More Mayor Steve Skadron has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    2. Burlington As of 2014, Burlington, Vermont is powered by 100% renewable electricity.Learn More Mayor Miro Weinberger has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    3. Georgetown As of 2018, Georgetown, TX is powered by 100% renewable electricity.Learn More Mayor Dale Ross has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    4. Greensburg As of 2013, Greensburg, Kansas is powered with 100% renewable electricity.Learn More Mayor Bob Dixson has pledged their support for a community-wide transition 100% renewable energy.
    5. Kodiak Island Since 2012, Kodiak Island is powered by 100% renewable electricity.
    6. Rock Port Rock Port, MO is powered by 100% wind energy. Learn More

    Counties Committed to 100% Renewable Energy

    1. Buncombe County Buncombe County, North Carolina, commits to the goal of 100% clean, renewable energy for municipal operations by 2030, and for the larger community and county by 2042.
    2. Floyd County Floyd County, VA adopted a commitment to 100% clean, renewable energy on October 24, 2017.
    3. Multnomah County Multnomah County, Oregon is committed to transition to 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035, and to meet all energy needs, including transportation, heating and cooling, and electricity, with 100% renewable energy by 2050.  Contact Laura Stevens
    4. Orange County North Carolina, Orange County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution committing the County, the State, and the United States to a 100% clean renewable energy for all energy sectors-based economy, by January 1, 2050 or sooner.Contact Caroline Hansley
    5. Pueblo County Pueblo County, CO is committed to 100% renewable electricity county-wide by 2035. Contact David Cockrell
    6. Summit County Summit County, Utah, is committed to transition to net-100% renewable electricity across the county by 2032. Contact Lindsay Beebe
    7. Summit County Summit County, CO adopts a resolution for 100% clean, renewable energy community-wide by 2035. Contact Kent Abernathy
    8. Taos County Taos County is committed to achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Learn More
    9. Ventura County Ventura County, CA has committed to 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2019 through community choice aggregation for all unincorporated areas of the county.
    10. Wake County Wake County, NC has committed to 100% clean, renewable energy across all energy sectors by 2050.
    11. Whatcom County Whatcom County, WA adopted an ordinance that commits the County to transition County Operations and the larger Whatcom County community to 100% renewable electricity. 

    States, Districts, and Territories Committed to 100% Renewable Energy

    1. Hawaii Hawaii is the first state in the U.S. to set a state-wide goal of 100% renewable electricity by 2045 Contact Jodi Malinoski
    2. California California is the second state in the U.S. to set a state-wide goal of 100% renewable electricity by 2045 Contact Evan Gillespie
    3. Washington D.C. As part of the the Clean Energy D.C. Omnibus Act of 2018 — Washington, DC is committed to achieve 100% clean, renewable electricity supply across the district, including the White House, by 2032. Contact Rebekah Whilden
    4. New Mexico In March 2019, New Mexico adopted the Energy Transition Act (SB 489), which requires electricity generation in the state to be 80% renewable by 2040, and 100% carbon-free by 2045. Contact Camilla Feibelman
    5. Puerto Rico The Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act, adopted in 2019, established a territory-wide goal of 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2050. | La Ley de Política Pública de Diversificación Energética de Puerto Rico, adoptada en 2019, establece la meta de obtener el 100% de la electricidad de fuentes limpias y renovables. Contact Pedro Cruz 
    6. Nevada Nevada SB538 was passed unanimously by both the Senate and Assembly in 2019, setting the goal of 50% renewable electricity statewide by 2030, & 100% clean energy by 2050. Contact Brian Beffort
    7. Washington In 2019, the Washington State legislature passed Senate Bill 5116, which mandates an equitable transition to 100 percent clean electricity generation for the entire state by 2045. Contact Jesse Piedfort Take Action
    8. Maine In June 2019, Maine adopted a new Renewable Portfolio Standard (LD 1494), committing the state to 80 percent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. Contact Alice Elliot
    9. New York On July 18, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which mandates New York reduce 85% greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by 2050; sources 70% of electricity from renewables, like wind and solar, by 2030; achieves a 100% carbon-free electric sector by 2040; requires 35% of climate adaptation benefit frontline communities through efficiency, renewable energy, jobs programs and more; protects disadvantaged communities by requiring an air quality monitoring program and prohibits carbon offsets for the electric, transportation and building sectors. Contact Lisa Dix Take Action
  • Green Realtors

    Green Realtors

    A real estate agent trained in sustainable homes can help you identify whether or not the home you are considering is truly a zero or zero energy ready home

    The following organizations train and certify real estate agents in Best Building Practices for Energy Efficient Homes. Click on the links below to find certified agents in your area.

    Looking for a REALTOR® who gets green real estate? Search for a GREEN designee in your area

    NAR Greenhttps://green.realtor/work-green-designee/find-member

    The Earth Advantage Broker accreditation course provides real estate professionals with a competitive edge in communicating features and benefits for green and energy efficient home opportunities in their market.

    https://www.earthadvantage.org/training/course/earth-advantage-broker.html

    EcoBrokers are advocates in the world of real estate.https://www.ecobroker.com/search/findeb.aspx

  • What is Net Zero

    What is Net Zero

    What is Net Zero?

    A Net-Zero home is one that has the ability to produce as much energy as it consumes. This is done by having a tight envelope and reducing consumption.

    1. Higher Market Value

    While the initial cost of construction may be higher, the benefits of a Net-Zero home make up for the expense in the end.

    The extra cash spent during the construction of a Net-Zero home is a strong investment as the market value of these homes are highly sought after.

    2. Lower Long-Term Ownership Costs

    Installing the most energy efficient Heating, cooling, water heating, lighting, appliances, and the dozens of electronics we plug in every day are likely to add up to more than the difference in mortgage payments so you’ll come out ahead. Plus, many Net-Zero homes are able to produce more energy than they consume so you could end up getting paid for the energy you add to the grid.

    3. Increased Comfort

    One of the key elements of a Net-Zero home is lots of insulation and airtight construction. This means that there are no more cold drafts in the winter causing you to grab a sweater, and no more hot rooms in the summer that do not ever seem comfortable. Extra thick walls and windows also block out more noise making your home a quiet refuge, and the use of fewer chemicals throughout the home make the air better to breathe.

    4. Earth Friendly

    Using smart energy sources like solar power means no carbon emissions to poison the air and contribute to climate change. Avoiding nonrenewable energy sources reduces carbon emissions. Not depending on fossil-fuel-burning power plants for electricity is just as Earth-friendly.

    5. A Net-Zero Home Will Set You Free

    Having a Net-Zero home means that you’ll no longer be at the mercy of fluctuating energy prices and months of extreme temperatures that break the bank. 

    If the electricity ever goes out, the higher levels of insulation will keep your home comfortable for longer stretches of time and your overall energy needs would be so low that backup power is easier to provide in the event of a long-term outage. Not being bound to the energy companies will set you free.

    Your changes makes a huge impact

    It’s not easy to step out ahead of the pack and make bold changes that go against the conventional lifestyle. It takes courage and leadership to know that every small step towards sustainable living can make a difference. 

     A Net-Zero home can be a symbol of this adaptation. It can be an inspiration for the neighbors or the next generation.