Homo Sapiens Redesign: Homo Sustainabilius

I just knew Mother Nature would figure something out! The 6 Billion of us is such a tight squeeze on this planet, with our unsustainable ways!

Ecologists say that eventually climate change will shrink all species. They don't say, but, well, won't that include our own species?

It turns out the degradation of environments around the world due to climate change is limiting food availability, and as a result, smaller animals are doing better now than larger ones that need more resources.

Warmer temperatures limits species size.

Bergmann's rule says that species size decreases as warmth increases. That's because smaller species can radiate heat better to adapt to warm temperatures. The tropics host smaller species. Larger animals have a lower surface-area-to-volume ratio, allowing them to retain more heat and fare better in a cold climate, smaller ones in warm climates.

As a result, "As the world gets warmer, species will shrink."says Wendy Foden, the World Conservation Union biologist studying the effects of climate change on species.

Another population biologist Andy Purvis says that dying early will also reduce size. He says that all species will gradually evolve into smaller versions because as a result of climate change, they'll be coping with sudden changes in their environment and hence dying prematurely, leading to smaller offspring over time

So this will make sustainability more attainable for our species, won't it?

Imagine if we had been only 1 foot tall from the get-go. We'd have much less impact on the planet's resources. We would have set sail for America - where we now tear through five planets-worth of resources- in a boat about the size of one large log.

But of course, this adjustment is going to be in the very, very, very long run.

If only Gaia had had the foresight to make this adjustment to the size of Homo Sapiens a few million years earlier, we might not need five whole planets now to live the unsustainable way that we live now.

Artwork by Slinkachu

For the NRDC OnEarth

Read more...

Hot Data Servers Can Warm A Winter Greenhouse

We recycle everything else: so why don't we reuse heat?

Computer servers create a lot of warmth — so much so that keeping them cooled to 70 degrees is a major expense for data centers.

Remember Google's clever idea to float data servers on the cold cold sea, and pump all that deep cold water up and around their data farms to keep them cool?

Well, here is the reverse idea: Just as data farms need to have that warmth removed, day in/day out, conservatories, on the other hand, need a supply of consistent warmth, summer and winter.

A nice warm data farm can help out a conservatory.

So Indiana's University of Notre Dame is housing its computer servers in a conservatory for cacti and other desert plants. In coal-fired Indiana, air conditioning for data centers creates a lot of carbon emissions. And Indiana has cold snowy winters.

By putting the data servers where the heat they give off is removed and circulated around the conservatory, Notre Dame reduces their $100,000 in data cooling costs. Plus the city saves the $70,000 it spent to warm the conservatory.

And since heating costs had been scrapped entirely from the city’s 2010 budget, this boot-strappingly frugal good idea is a lifeline for the conservatory. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention.

Now, if only there was only somewhere that Notre Dame could sell those saintly carbon credits that will result from this clever low tech plan...oh, wait! Now there is!

Via Terrapass

For Matter Network Read more...

Computers Go Anywhere, So You Don't Have To

Cisco and Amsterdam start a satellite system of multiple Smart Work Centers near home for computer workers

If you're like me ---and probably half the American work force, a computer is your workspace.

So imagine, if instead of driving 20 miles to get to that computer you did the same job but telecommuted from a fully equipped communal office set up a mere 15 minute walk from your home?

Currently, we all commute great distances just to wind up parked in front of a computer somewhere.

We have computers at home, but telecommuting doesn't work for everyone. Maybe your home computer won't run the fancy math necessary to engineer those molecular chemical bonds you build, or maybe your boss just isn't comfortable with the idea of you working in your jammies.

Still, we're doing a ridiculous amount of driving, just to do something that can be done just as efficiently much closer to home. The solution? How about a network of well-equipped work spaces only a 15-minute walk from home? What would it take? Well:

* Office space (that someone cleans at night)
* Computers (good ones with high speed internet etc)
* Virtual meeting video conferencing (like TV pundits use)
* Power supplied using clean energy (to lower your carbon footprint even more)
* High-end catering services (in case you are too pooped to walk home for lunch)
* Proximity to public transportation, and a freeway (for now)
* Quiet private work spaces (if you really need to focus)
* Open work spaces (illustrated above)
* Public area for companionship (to replace the office cooler)
* On-site daycare (so you don't have to drive anywhere else before work)

Give it snappy name; something like the Smart Work Center, and then build more of them only 15 minutes apart. Maybe every new apartment building should have its own Smart Work Center.

Say you're an escrow writer. Instead of driving 20 miles to an office full of escrow people, you'd walk your 15 minutes and share space with, say, a sitcom script writer, three stockbrokers and four telemarketers. (Uh-oh... there's the reason for those private cubicles.) Throw in a couple of drug rehab grant writers, a shoe designer and a repo man, and wouldn't that be an interesting place to work?

Since you all live in the same neighborhood, this would cut down on the play-date driving for your kiddies, too, because the friends they make at daycare would live nearby. We'd be close enough to walk home for lunch. And if we are on a 10,000-step weight-loss program, why, there's the lion's share of all the walking already. Another walk around the supermarket at night to get dinner, and you're at 10,000.

Meanwhile, you'd stay abreast of things at work by sharing virtual space with your fellow escrow writers. Heck, we're half way to living in the virtual world as it is. I know more environmental activists online than I do my neighbors two blocks away.

This system would be better for the jammies media too. My commute is only 17 stairs down to my computer. While that's an admirable carbon-footprint on my part, that leaves almost 9, 800 steps in my 10,000 steps for my day. I have never seen my editor or my boss, or the writers I share this page with. If I could check in with everyone else at the video story meeting, wouldn't that be great?

Well, the day may be getting closer when I can.

Cisco has taken the first step in creating the first of these Smart Work Centers, incorporating every amenity on my wish-list at a test site in Almere, Holland, near Amsterdam. From there, it's on to San Francisco, Seoul, Madrid, Lisbon, Hamburg and Birmingham, England. But Almere is the perfect site to test out the Smart Work Center, because the town expects to double its number of inhabitants by 2030. It will need 60,000 new houses and 100,000 new jobs, making it a good candidate for a network of work centers.

It also has a mayor who gets it.

"We want to invest in modern employer practice and make lifestyle changes in order to preserve the environment," says Annemarie Jorritsma, Almere's mayor. "We need new knowledge to help us make our lifestyles and production processes as energy-neutral and CO2-neutral as possible.

"Almere is an innovative city. We have a new citywide fiber-optic network, (and) an innovative broadband solution for high-quality visual communication that enables companies to maintain visual contact with their head offices elsewhere – both within and outside the Netherlands. This is the epitome of globalization."

As a sponsor of the Clinton Global Initiative, Cisco had to commit to creating a sustainable solution to climate change. Cisco has picked a sensible option.

For Matter Network
Read more...

Investors Demand Climate Risk Disclosure

Investors are becoming increasingly concerned about potential regulatory risks and economic dangers in a carbon-constrained world

A group of 65 leading US investors with collective assets totaling $7 trillion has teamed up with the European investment management firm, F&C Investment to put a halt to Wall Street financial regulators softening of the rules on tar sands reserves disclosed by oil and gas companies.

The Investor Network on Climate Risk and F&C Investment are concerned that the escalating risks posed by climate change have broad implications for oil and gas companies which could impact their future earnings, and that these risks fall into the category of known trends requiring company disclosure.

At a time when governments around the world are taking an increasingly hard line on carbon pollution, these investor groups feel it is essential that investors be able to assess accurately the risk profile of reported reserves.

As quoted in the UK Guardian, Elizabeth McGeveran, senior vice-president of F&C's governance and sustainable investment team said"Understanding climate risk will assist investors in understanding and evaluating reserves. Regulations already require the disclosure of known trends that companies can reasonably expect will have a material impact on net sales, revenues or income from continuing operations, and we believe that the disclosure of any estimated additional risks posed by the extraction and development of additional reserves will be important."

The SEC had been reviewing the regulations on the way reserves are calculated since 2004, when Shell fell foul of SEC rules and was forced to reallocate a quarter of the assets on its books. The move led to steep fines, the ouster of its chairman and a plunging share price.

Three months ago the SEC changed the rules to allow previously excluded resources such as tar sands to be classified as oil and gas reserves that, as with oil or gas, could be listed as probable, possible and proven reserves.

Previously, tar sands were defined as mining materials, and literally speaking they actually contain no oil in their natural state. Only by heating up the rock to boiling point, can any liquid be extracted. However, such large quantities of heat are required to obtain a usable fuel from the rock means that this is a far less efficient source of energy than conventional oil.

"The energy consumption required to extract a barrel from Canadian tar sands is very different to a barrel of crude from the Gulf of Mexico."said McGeveran. As oil prices rise, companies that use a lot of oil in ratio to the product they sell are obviously far more impacted by price rises. Tar sands mining has an input of 1 unit of fossil energy in for every 3.5 units of energy (their product) out. The lower this ratio, the more the cost of producing oil from shale will rise as fossil energy prices go up.

But mostly, this unusually high carbon method of extraction means that the climate impact of tar sands mining is much worse than that of regular oil and gas. So the move reflects changing attitudes among a very large group of mainstream investors about the impact of commercial activities that could worsen global warming. This group of institutional investors, among them the California Public Employees' Retirement System, Ceres and Parnassus Investments have signed a letter of concern about the tar sands proposals and called for the new carbon implications to be taken into account.

Ceres president Mindy Lubber says that there is a need for financial institutions to evaluate these kind of projects with carbon prices that reflect their true long-term costs once carbon-reducing regulations take hold around the world.

"Much of the problem is our reliance on outdated accounting systems. Our economy uses accounting systems that are precise in measuring capital goods and profits, but weak in measuring natural and human resource impacts. This narrowly-defined accounting system means that companies are often able to "externalize" natural resource costs. In other words, they can emit global warming pollution for free without paying for environmental damage. Society and taxpayers shoulders these costs instead."

We're now seeing the capital markets begin to incorporate the external costs of global warming, especially in Europe where government-supported trading systems and pricing mechanisms for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted have fostered a $30 billion a year carbon emissions trading program. "

Therefore, filers of reserves should be required to provide investors with information about the carbon content of proven, probable and potential oil reserves in their portfolio as well as the potential liabilities posed by their continued extraction and use.

Photo S. Jocz

For Matternetwork Read more...

McCain's Green Talk Contradicts His Actions

At a Clinton Global Initiative event, McCain again convinces the media to report a green-friendly position.

On Thursday, Senator John McCain participated in an event sponsored by the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. He used the event to present himself as someone who is allied with Democrats like Gore and Clinton and other movers and shakers on clean energy.

"McCain declared his support for efforts to combat global warming," according to the Washington Post, "dropping his stump speech demands to 'drill here, drill now' in favor of more 'green' rhetoric that would appeal to the crowd at the conference."

McCain said, as quoted by the Post, said "To make the great turn away from carbon-emitting fuels, we will need all the inventive genius of which America is capable," he said. "We will need as well an economy strong enough to support our nation's great shift toward clean energy."

The Boston Globe reported: "While some in his own party, including running mate Sarah Palin, have expressed doubts about how much human activity is fueling climate change, McCain expressed no such doubts."

"We now know that fossil fuel emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in climate," said McCain. "Over time, we must shift our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources."

McCain was one of the first Republican senators to press for action on climate change, but he strongly supports nuclear power as the most effective "clean" energy source. His campaign and public appearances continue to contradict his voting record.

As previously reported, a look at McCain's Senate energy votes reveals that he aligns almost vote for vote with those of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, the member of Congress who has most strongly opposed implementing clean energy. McCain has had 50 opportunities to support the very clean energy agenda he describes, and he has taken all 50 legislative opportunities to vote against it. McCain has voted, like the majority of Republicans, against this clean energy vision.

Participants at the Clinton Global Initiative are asked to take concrete steps to tackle specific global problems before participating in the events. What commitment has McCain made to warrant his use of the Clinton Global Initiative as a backdrop for greenwashing his true record on global warming?

The next American president will be an important player in determining whether this nation can transition to a new carbon-constrained world, or will be left behind in a fossil-based economy.

Perhaps McCain's Clinton Global Initiative commitment should be to let the world know his real energy position.

For Matternetwork Read more...

The Other Sub-Prime Investment - Tar Sands

With 3 times the CO2 of gasoline how can tar sands pan out in the carbon constrained world of tomorrow?

Products derived from tar sands, which have three times the carbon emissions of traditional gasoline, are a risky investment, because new low carbon fuel standards will increasingly close off sections of the American market.

Requirements that alternative fuels must be at least 20% lower in carbon emissions than oil have already been implemented in California, where Democrats predominate in the legislature.

Clean fuel standards are supported by Obama and Senate Democrats who could gain a fillibuster-proof 60 vote majority in November. Given the Democrats' votes to implement the 20% low carbon fuels rule, a majority in 2009 would likely put an end to tar sands oil.

McCain stopped this bill from becoming law by his "veto" of the 2007 energy bill cloture-vote in December, killing the clean fuels requirement and many other clean energy requirements, but it will come up for a vote again, and in the meantime, voters are becoming more aware of the dangers of scraping the bottom of this barrel while climate catastrophe looms.

The Guardian quotes Mark Hoskin, senior partner at investment advisors Holden & Partners as saying, “There is a good chance that tar sands could be to the oil industry what sub-prime lending was to the banking sector.

The recent banking crisis has shown how the financial markets can totally misjudge both the risks and values inherent in company balance sheets. Oil companies depend on oil reserves for their market values. "

DesmogBlog lists the sub prime aspects of this ghoulish bet against the environment:

Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year.
At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in ends up in tailing ponds so toxic that propane cannons are used to keep ducks from landing.
Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes.
The toxic tailing ponds are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The ponds span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space.
Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil.

So, why would you invest in a fuel that is likely not going to even be legal within a decade? I guess you would be counting on a McCain/Palin victory.

Related stories:

McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
Obama's Clean Energy Voting Record
Queensland Premier Follows In Rudd's Carbon Footsteps

Via Mathew McDermott

For Matternetwork Read more...

How Obama Has Voted On Clean Energy

There is a real choice this year between these two presidential candidates on clean energy. This year, as we are now at 7 years to tipping point on climate change, the color of your president matters for the first time. There is only one candidate who is green.

As the companion piece to McCain's 50 votes against clean energy, by comparison, I list below how Obama voted on the same bills. I will begin Obama's vote list at McCain vote number (27) when Obama first began in the Senate in 2005.

Obama was not present for the last three clean energy votes, so I contacted his Senate office to find out how he would have voted, and was told by his energy staffer that he would have voted yes on all three, which is consistent with his record, as these were repeat attempts to pass legislation that he had previously voted yes on multiple times.

I counted these three absences as yes, and had counted McCain's thirteen absences the same way, as no, because McCain's staff had told the Forbes reporter that McCain would have voted no on these bills. As he had done previously, the staffer said he would have supported the Republican fillibuster again.

Beginning in 2005, with his first vote (27) when he started in the Senate, till vote (50), Obama had 24 opportunities to vote for clean energy. He chose clean energy 23 times out of 24. On the Boxer/Inhofe scale, by contrast with McCain, who scored at the Inhofe end of the Inhofe scale: Obama is almost completely allied with Boxer on clean energy: only one single vote apart.

Summary:
Obama voted with Boxer except on McCain-Lieberman - vote (33)
Obama voted against Inhofe except on the all-of-the-above energy bill (34)
Inhofe crossed over to vote with Boxer and Obama to prevent wind NIMBYism (35)

1-(27) '05 (D) Increase clean energy R&D funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 53-46

2-(28) '05 (R) Appoint Stephen L. Johnson to head of EPA
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 61-37

3-(29) '05 (D) Clean energy incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 47-53

4-(30) '05 (D) Try again to establish a RPS
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 52-48

5-(31) '05 (D) Tax oil company windfall profits rebates to consumer
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 35-64

6-(32) '05 (D) Tax oil companies windfall profits to fund clean energy
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 41-65

7-(33) '05 (R) Cap and trade funded nuclear subsidies McCain-Lieberman
Boxer No
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 38-60

8-(34) '05 (R) Let wind NIMBYs prevent wind development
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 32-63

9-(35) '05 (R-D) Energy funding: both fossil and clean energy
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe Yes
McCain No
passed 85-12

10-(36) '05 (D) Tax oil to fund energy efficiency assistance
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 48-50
11-(37) '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 57-36

12-(38) '07 (D) Increase science and new technology funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present

13-(39) '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 62-32

14-(40) '07 (D) Tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 65-27

15-(41) '07 (D) To expand liquid natural gas development
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 37-56

16-(42) '07 (R) Inhofe's coal-to-liquids fuel
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Not present
failed 43-52

17-(43) '07 (D) Ensure that "renewable fuels" are green
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 58-34

18-(44) '07 (D) Include RPS in final energy bill
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 56-39

19-(45) '07 (D) Cloture to vote on bioenergy funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 55-42 (cloture needs 60)

20-(46) '07 (D) Cloture to vote on 2007 Energy Bill included PTC
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 53-42 (cloture needs 60)

21-(47) '07 (D) Cloture Full 2007 Energy Bill still including production tax credits
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed by one vote* 59-41 (cloture needs 60)

22-(48) '07 (D) 2/3 stripped down 2007 Energy Bill: only CAFE
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 86-8

23-(49) '07 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 52-44 (need 60)

24-(50) '08 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 53-43 (need 60)

Obama was not the first choice of half of the Democratic voters. Compared with Hillary, his support for nuclear power, shown by his vote for McCain-Lieberman (35) was troublesome for many Democrats. Before he voted with most of the Democrats against Inhofe's bill to fund coal to liquids fuels (42) he let Inhofe think that he would support it.

As a result a roar of disapproval went up in the environmental activist community, and Obama (along with eight others) disappointed Inhofe with a change of heart, as CNS newsman, now Inhofe staffer Marc Morano bitterly noted on the Environment Committee website at the time.

Senator Bingaman then inserted an amendment (43) that only low carbon synthetic fuels (such as genetically engineered algae biodiesel) could qualify for subsidy, which Obama supported. While this has made for good strong policy, many Clinton supporters felt that a truly green president should have been already aware of this problem, even though Obama ultimately voted no to coal-to-liquids fuel.

However, based on Obama's consistently very green voting record, he is apparently far from the wolf in sheep's clothing that Hillary-voters feared: there is virtually no discrepancy between Obama's frequently voiced concern with climate change, and his record of votes to deal with it.

Photos: Hillary campaigning for Obama this month
By dailykos blogger Al Rodgers

Related stories:
McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
Obama Plans Zero Energy Buildings Nationwide By 2030

For Matternetwork Read more...

Obama Plans Zero Energy Buildings Nationwide By 2030

Obama's energy plan includes zero energy building codes nationwide for all new buildings starting by 2030, when buildings must then produce all their own energy.

California has already legislated this starting by 2020.

Architects already meet energy efficiency standards like title 24 in California: zero energy buildings are an easy next step for them.

Laws like Title 24 work to save money in the long run. Even if it costs a little more initially, it pays off in energy savings later.

Currently, LEED certified buildings generate a 6.6 percent improved return on investment. Zero energy buildings will do even better, because their energy costs are not just reduced. In the end they will have no energy costs at all.

Solar panels can be incorporated into the roof design in lieu of traditional roofing. Ground heat pumps can warm and cool buildings. Building from scratch already entails digging deep enough to build the earthquake-proof foundations that California building codes demand. Next time, we can pop a geothermal heat pump in there as well.

Zero energy laws won't meet resistance from the architectural design community, as we see with the auto industry. Architects and designers can brush up on new design innovation. They don't have to retool factories. Just mindsets.

So mandating zero energy building is an easier way to reduce carbon emissions, than car efficiency mandates like CAFE. Architecture is driven by individual designers who thrive on innovation, and seek out solutions to problems. And there is an industrial revolution happening in sustainable design and green building.

Design to prevent climate change is a technological and economic challenge, but it is not beyond us. Obama could even move the date up to 2020, like California.

Rolf Disch's solar village: Solarsiedlung

For Matternetwork Read more...

So much sun, so many people, so much heat...

So, wouldn't you think that surely someone should have come up with a solar air conditioner by now?



Well, someone has.

GreenCore Air has come up with the solar-panel powered AC that can cool a 600 square foot room and is powered by a single 170 watt solar panel.

It already runs on DC power, so there's no need for users to put an AC inverter between the solar panel and the air conditioner, sparing any power loss while converting AC to DC.

The only AC power is to recharge the batteries at night when the sun goes down. But the more solar panels and/or batteries added to the system, the less AC power required for battery charging.

The solar panels charge the batteries and the air conditioner runs off the power stored in the batteries. Depending on outdoor temperature, thermostat setting, global position and season, the system will run for four to eight hours before automatically switching to allow the batteries to charge from standard AC grid power. When the sun is not out the unit runs on the battery bank which is integrated within the unit.

The power required to charge the batteries is far less than the power required to run a conventional air conditioner. A full charge is complete in about three hours, and it keeps working during the charging process.

Prices start at $5,700, depending upon the model. The mobile unit comes standard with a solar panel top lid of the box, but you can add more. The US Navy has picked up some for their more offgrid locations in faraway places.

GreenCore Air says you could run this off a wind turbine too, but I expect that if you have enough wind, you probably don't have the problem that this invention solves.

Photo by Flikr user yezi9713

For matternetwork Read more...

Climate Change Measures To Boost Economy

A California study accounts the benefits to accrue as we start to invent solutions to the mother of all necessities.

A study quoted in the Sacramento Bee this morning showed that the improvements in fuel and energy efficiency and additional clean technology jobs needed to achieve required emissions reductions would result in a net household savings of up to $500 a year and a net $4 billion gain in the total annual output of goods and services in California.

So when you minus all the coal miners and plus all the solar roofers: you come to the apparently surprising news that a clean energy industrial revolution will improve your economy.

But surely: hands-on jobs like those of solar roofers cannot be outsourced or replaced. And mandated solar roofs? That's a lot of jobs. By definition, the zero carbon innovation economy will be an expanding one, throwing off new jobs and businesses as new problems and solutions surface to solve climate change.

By contrast, the extractive economy is a mature economy. 75,000 miners have lost their jobs in the last decade. Now in Wyoming, a mere 5,000 workers produce 40% of America's Coal.

The giant coal company Peabody employed fewer than 8,300 people making a quarter of our coal to earn $5 billion in 2007. By comparison, the 20 year old wind turbine company Vestas employed more than 13, 000 people, the year that it made $5 billion.

Now, from a strict economist's point of view, the coal company CEO is doing a better job, eking out the same $5 billion off fewer people. And that one CEO probably is doing fine. But looked at from a bigger picture point of view: which state would be better to live in, even do business in, the one with really only one customer, the CEO, or the one with 13,000 people with bucks in their pockets to buy your goods?

I would have thought that that was obvious simply by the disparity between the economies of the thriving Green States versus the Brown States. It is a choice between a Belgian economy and the Belgian Congo's:

"Now let's look at the countries that are heavily dependent on extractive industries. The first five out of the top six are uniformly crummy places to live: Mongolia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Serbia and Montenegro, and Australia. More Belgian Congo than Belgium."

Then there is the problem with a strict economist's accounting of goods and services. What is an emergency-room visit for pollution-related asthma? That's a service.

The expensive prescriptions her $8-an-hour mother can ill afford, but now must buy her weekly? That's a good.

Or is it? Are these really goods and services? By my accounting, these are environmental costs that we are all laboring under now. Our health insurance costs rise to help cover every kid raced into the emergency room with that asthma.

Because of the skewed accounting we currently use, I suspect that this California study actually greatly undercounts the actual huge economy-wide benefits that will accrue as we set about inventing solutions to the mother of all necessities.

Photo By Steve Jurvetson

Related stories:
While Markets Turn Red, The Future Looks Green
Sweden Exceeds Kyoto Targets; Economy Booms
Why Eco Businesses Should Move To Brown States Read more...

Fleet Owners Want Their Fords Electrified

The Canadian company Envia converts Fords into plug-ins or completely electric models that have more torque than the gas version Ford provides.

While a Ford converted to an electric truck can get the same speeds as the gasoline original; the range is shorter. Depending on which battery is chosen; you'd get a 50 to 125 mile range between recharging.

These electric Fords are FastCharge capable in under 3 hours using 220 volt, and of course can be recharged each night like a cell phone in household 120 volt plugs.

But range is not much of an issue in commercial use where a truck typically can recharge at the work site, as well as at night.

Fuel cost is a big issue, though. For the average commercial truck driver the difference between the high cost of gas and the low cost of electricity can make for enormous savings that more than justify the cost of the conversions.

The conversion expense has a pay back time of about 4 years for a truck in typical commercial use. Not a bad investment.

I spoke with Jay Giraud, the owner of Envia yesterday. He told me that most of his work has come from fleet owners who contact him to have their current fleet converted to EVs or PHEVs, but he also converts even brand new Fords.

Giraud's company shares a large building with fellow EV enthusiast David Gilroy's business bmcmotorworks where finishing touches are being made to a new Rapid Electric Vehicles showroom targeted for opening in October.

Envia also partners with local Ford dealer Metro Ford to provide charging stations and for parts and service on the Fords he has converted to electric. They will continue to honor the Ford warranty on Envia's conversions. Giraud is currently working on creating a solar partnership to provide the power for the charging stations.

Fleet owners are finding a solution to the high cost of running gasoline vehicles.

Its bad news for Ford when their best customers need to get their great commercial trucks redesigned to meet their needs, but the customer is always right.

As Wired puts it, it's been a really Ford Tough year for Ford.

For Matternetwork

Read more...

Solar Power Stations In Freeways

Every 10 years or so, roads need to be dug up and replaced. Next time, tuck a power station inside.

Theres something very appealing about solving our energy needs by utilizing raw materials we already have in abundance, and we do have plenty of freeways and parking lots. Why not make them sources of energy? The Dutch are designing roads that can literally clean up pollution and we are about to put up solar power arrays along the sides of freeways in Oregan.


Now, lets put all that solar heated asphalt to work as well, to heat water. Hot water flowing from an asphalt energy system could be used “as is” for heating buildings or in industrial processes, or could be passed through a thermoelectric generator to produce electricity.

A research team at Worcester Polytechnic Institute is developing a solar collector that could turn roads and parking lots into ubiquitous—and inexpensive–sources of electricity and hot water. The research, undertaken at the request of Novotech which holds a patent on the concept of using the heat absorbed by pavements is being directed by Rajib Mallick, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, who says there are many advantages to using the solar energy in roads.

"For one, blacktop stays hot and could continue to generate energy after the sun goes down, unlike traditional solar-electric cells. In addition, there is already a massive acreage of installed roads and parking lots that could be retrofitted for energy generation, so there is no need to find additional land for solar farms."

Now, you may be saying, but who wants to dig up all those roads?

Apparently, we already do. "Roads and lots are typically resurfaced every 10 to 12 years and the retrofit could be built into that cycle." says Mallick. "Extracting heat from asphalt could cool it, reducing the urban heat island effect. Finally, unlike roof-top solar arrays, which some find unattractive, the solar collectors in roads and parking lots would be invisible."

The tests were conducted on slabs of asphalt in which were embedded thermocouples, to measure heat penetration, and copper pipes, to gauge how well that heat could be transferred to flowing water. The highest temperatures are found a few centimeters below the surface. This is where a heat exchanger would be located to extract the maximum amount of energy. Experimenting with various asphalt compositions, they found that the addition of highly conductive aggregates, like quartzite, can significantly increase heat absorption, as can the application of a special paint that reduces reflection.

Hot water accounts for 17 percent (per us DOE) of the energy used by U.S. homes and buildings, making it a decent-sized chunk of greenhouse gas emissions to target. So starting with water already warmed by the sun can make a huge difference in saving energy costs.

Many countries are encouraging increased use of solar hot water tech­nology. Worldwide installations grew 14 percent in 2005, led by China with almost 80 percent of today’s world­wide market. On a per-person basis, Israel leads the way with 90 percent of all homes taking advantage of the technology. Worldwide, solar hot water capacity reached 88 gigawatts-thermal (GWth) in 2005, with 46 mil­lion houses equipped with systems.

The United States currently has 1.6 GWth of solar hot water capacity installed, or 1.8 percent of global capacity. Hawaii, with a strong re­bate program, installed almost half of the 9,000 new systems in the U.S. in 2006. California, Florida, and Ari­zona each installed about a thousand systems in the same year.

Passive solar water heating like this is not a new idea. The first Solar water heater was invented in 1891. In the nineteenth century, no easy way existed to heat water. People generally used a cook stove for this purpose. Wood had to be chopped or heavy hods of coal lifted, then the fuel had to be kindled and the fire periodically stocked. In cities, the wealthier heated their water with gas manufactured from coal. Still, the fuel didn't burn clean and the heater had to be lit each time someone wanted to heat water. If someone forgot to extinguish the flame, the tank would blow up. To add to the problem of heating water, in many areas, wood or coal or coal-gas cost a lot and many times could not be easily obtained.

To circumvent these problems, many handy farmers or prospectors or other outdoors men devised a much safer, easier, and cheaper way to heat water - placing into the sun a metal water tank painted black to absorb as much solar energy as possible. These were the first solar water heaters on record.

Of course, back then we did not realize that in a century or so, we would be blessed with an abundance of nice warm blacktop, the perfect spot for our national solar water heating system.

Traffic
Solar Freeway

For MatterNetwork Read more...

A Lifeform Discovered With Million Year Lifespan

Microbes Devise Superior Evolutionary Strategy

One of the prerequisites for us humans to achieve interstellar travel is faster spaceships.

But what if we could do the opposite: what if instead we could evolve as slower people?

Imagine us with million year lifespans. Imagine if we lived on a geologic timescale.

If we could live a million years, then travel to a star 60,000 light years away would have all the traveltime investment of a bus trip cross town.

Compared to us, a butterfly doesn't seem to get much done in it's tiny two week span. Imagine how much more we would achieve as a species if we could live a million years.

For one thing, locating and colonizing other planets looks a lot easier. So it is exciting news that scientists have found a new life form that looks to be working on exactly this evolutionary feat: learning to live for millions of years.

No doubt this is to make sure that theres a more feasible exit strategy when they evolve to our level and need 5 more planets for all the stuff they make, like we do.

This new lifeform is just a speck of stuff right now, living under the sea floor, but hey, where was your big fancy SUV a billion years ago? You too evolved from a tiny speck of stuff just like these newly discovered lifeforms.

ScienceDaily (July 22, 2008)

Tiny microbes beneath the sea floor, distinct from life on the Earth's surface, may account for one-tenth of the Earth's living biomass, according to an interdisciplinary team of researchers, but many of these minute creatures are living on a geologic timescale . While the Bacteria Escherichia Coli, as an example, doubles its numbers every 20 minutes, these Archaea double on the order of hundreds or thousands of years and consume very little energy.

"In essence, these microbes are almost, practically dead by our normal standards," says House. "They metabolize a little, but not much."

According to House, organisms metabolizing at such slow rates is what we could expect to find in other areas of our solar system because such environments have much less energy available than on Earth. Perhaps, similar organisms may be in hydrothermal vents beneath the ice of Europa -- the second moon of Jupiter -- or in subsurface aquifers of Mars.

"We do not expect the microbes in other places to be these microbes exactly," says House. "But, they could be living at a similar slow rate."

"For example, how do they die?" asks Biddle. "It is a simple question that we cannot answer."

Photo from NASA Read more...