I recently read an article on PhysOrg.com that made me very excited for how we may be able to use the sun for all our power needs.  (This is going to be a little more technical blog post summary, but check out the article for a complete explanation on how this “breakthrough” technology will work.)

Now, I’ve heard new breakthroughs in energy technology be described as “revolutionary,” but most of the time it seems the new breakthrough is more “evolutionary” - it’s a leap in the right direction…but not our panacea.  However, this is one of the most promising breakthrough technologies I’ve seen. (Warning: I am by no means an energy expert, but I am a bit knowledgeable on the subject.)  Basically, the storage process mimics the water splitting process found in photosynthesis, using the simple, non-toxic, ingredients of water and metal.   During the day, energy needs are met directly from the sun.  The unused daylight energy is then stored by splitting water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen that are held in a tank, and then recombined to emit electricity when energy is needed – like a hydrogen fuel cell.

Basically it’s a simple, easily constructed system, and could really be the breakthrough we need to utilize the sun’s energy.  After all it is said in the article that “in one hour, enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one year.”  It’s time to soak it up.

In a time to seriously reconsider our energy sources and the condition of our environment, I encourage folks to check out an upcoming expo for learning about the latest opportunities for creating a more sustainable culture: The Southern Energy and Environment Expo. 

This exciting 3-day expo will be held August 22-24th at The Western NC Agricultural Center right outside of Asheville, NC in the small town of Fletcher.  It will be a guaranteed good time with people from all across the southeast convening to discuss issues surrounding energy and the environment.  It’s the largest event of its kind in the southeast!  There will be booths to visit, seminars to attend, sustainable businesses to check out, and like-minded people to meet and discuss world, regional, and local matters of sustainability. 

So pack your bag, bring a tent (or a credit card if you’re going the hotel route), and a mind ready to soak up all there is to offer at this wonderful expo!

No, seriously.

Some of you may remember this - as Jack Nicholson was a big time promoter.

On a CBC Marketplace airing in 1978, Jack Nicholson made news by advertising a potentially pollution-free fuel for cars. The fuel: hydrogen produced by solar power. The automobile: a standard Chevy with a standard engine. The emissions: steam (Jack suggests using the emissions for a steam bath). Pollutants are negligible and there's no risk of explosion. And, check it out - Jack made the car go in drive and reverse.

There are definitely other stories of oil-free cars out there. Anyone see the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?

Help us educate ourselves and share your fun and truth-telling links, by commenting to this blog.

Imagine this: an energy-efficiency program that "encourages" consumers to conserve energy by charging them higher rates to make up for any lost profits the power company may lose for not needing to produce as much energy. Because if consumers DON'T conserve, new power plants will have to be built; but if these "virtual power plants" don't have to be built, consumers will get a fabulous 10% savings on the cost of the power plants...that don't exist.

I'm sorry, what?

This rather confusing and underhanded strategy describes Duke Energy's proposed Save-a-Watt program, which has been the subject of much debate this week. From the News & Observer:

"What makes Duke's proposal different from other energy efficiency plans is that the company would not be paid for the actual cost of running Save-a-Watt. Instead, Duke says it should be paid 90 percent of the cost of building new power plants. Duke officials describe Save-a-Watt as a 10 percent savings for customers on the cost of new power plants that would otherwise have to be constructed to meet energy demand."

And from the News and Record:

"Duke would recoup the cost of programs that help consumers save energy by recouping 90 percent of what it would cost to build a power plant to meet the energy needs offset by the conservation effort."

The plan's many critics (including consumer and environmental groups and, uh, Wal-mart...) fail to see this plan as any sort of incentive to save energy because it would price-gouge consumers, only provide modest power savings, and allow Duke to rake in huge profits—literally charging consumers for the lack of using power. [As a side note, I think many groups understand the charges that would be associated with starting an energy efficiency program, but I think it's the exorbitant profit margin of 61% that's causing the real debate.]

The program is currently before review of the Public Utilities Commission, and is being discussed this week.

In the meantime, I encourage Duke Power consumers to start conserving energy now—while it's still affordable.

Why do I have this weird feeling I've been here before...

It's no surprise that President Bush's proclamation "Our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now" has sparked a heated debate between and among party leaders across the state of North Carolina and the country itself.

While offshore drilling has been a long-debated issue, the recent surge in gas prices has, shall I say, fueled the federal government to reconsider the ban on offshore drilling.

Here's the rub, though. Offshore drilling would have many cumbersome side effects, with limited positive outcomes. Firstly, you have the oil companies making more and more money, instead of investing money in renewable and sustainable energy sources. You also have severe environmental impacts on an already vulnerable coast, and although some offshore-drilling supporters envision using profit-sharing from the drilling to renourish beaches, what about all of the other environmental impacts at risk? From the Charlotte Observer:

"Fueled by $4-a-gallon gas, the growing clamor for new energy sources still faces opponents who envision oil spills, blighted ocean views and shorelines industrialized by pipelines and refineries."

I was also surprised to hear this little tidbit from Grist:

"...oil companies already have millions of acres allocated to them upon which they have not gotten around to exploring let alone drilling. When asked the delicate question, as some have been recently, why they have not explored these millions of acres to which the federal government has granted them rights, oil companies typically respond that the public should understand that oil exploration takes time."

Let's face it folks: offshore drilling would do nothing to help us in the next 7 to 10 years. We'll still be sitting here at square one--in dire straights, using the crutch of the mere potential success of offshore drilling to subsidize our energy-hungry lifestyles, which, if it came to fruition, would only provide us with borrowed time anyway.

What happens when 12 Dartmouth students take a 37-foot veggie oil powered bus road tripping across the US?

Well, education for one! If you're in the Chapel Hill area tomorrow,

"The Big Green Bus and its crew will roll into Morehead’s parking lot at 9:30 a.m., June 18. From 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., the crew will give public tours of the bus, explain how its engine works and provide information comparing the energy use of an SUV versus a hybrid vehicle."

From UNC's website, here are more details about The Big Green Bus:

"The mission of the Big Green Bus is to promote education and discussion about environmental responsibility, global energy issues and to show that alternative fuels are available for use right now."

They are also scheduled to stop in Raleigh this Thursday, but I've yet to find details on when and where. Be sure to post a comment below if you know.

Also, check out all the tour stops, meet the crew, and find out how it all works!

Try to ignore the fact that I just recently posted on an eco-friendly car, and check out the YouTube video below, highlighting a car that runs on compressed air. You actually refill the air tank from air compressors at gas stations! It's being marketed as not only environmentally-sound, but inexpensive (about $15,000). It can go up to 60mph, and you get 200 miles per tank. What's more is that guess what it emits? Clean, breathable air. Seems too good to be true! I wonder if it is...

[This blog entry has been cross posted from Toxic Free North Carolina's weblog, Fair Ground, where it was originally posted by Billie.]

I was already a big skeptic of biofuels before today. Using cropland to grow giant monocultures that are then burned as fuel instead of fed to people seems like a not-so-hot idea - think of the pesticides! More mono-cropping means more chemical pesticides and fertilizers that end up harming downwind and downstream communities and ecosystems. Yuck!

Today, I learned that two recent studies confirm that in addition to being a source of pesticide pollution, biofuels aren't actually preventing global warming either. Princeton University and The Marshall Fund published a study in the journal Science, and The Nature Conservancy has put out a study with similar conclusions.

From an article in The Washington Post on these findings:

"(...) As the study from the Nature Conservancy warns, 'converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace.' There are other negative effects. Massive amounts of water are needed to irrigate cornfields, setting up potential competition between farms and homes. The runoff of pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers used by farmers could lead to increased pollution and oxygen-depleted waterways. The natural gas used to make the fertilizer adds to the carbon deficit created by biofuels.

An essay in the May-June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs by two professors from the University of Minnesota highlighted still another problem: The biofuels craze could starve people. "By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world," they wrote. "If oil prices remain high -- which is likely -- the people most vulnerable to the price hikes brought on by the biofuel boom will be those in countries that both suffer food deficits and import petroleum."

Will someone please get the memo to decision makers in Washington who are pouring money into biofuels right now?? Eep!

I'm all about managing my finances and I love the idea of being able to know for certain what my bills are going to be each month (although I don't and am occasionally surprised!) But I must say I have to agree that Progress and Duke Energy's plan of allowing folks to pay a flat rate each month for energy is not only a waste of money (because with the surcharges you end up paying more than you would otherwise), but it's most certainly a disincentive for saving energy. According to the article:

"Duke Energy data show that during times of peak energy demand -- blazing summer afternoons when families are running air conditioners and cooking dinner -- customers on the fixed payment plans used 31 percent more power than other households."

Currently, several different parties are urging a ban on this payment plan and a case has been filed with the NC Utilities Commission who will rule on the dispute.

I'm curious to know if any of our readers have an opinion on this as I had never really thought about it before today!

Many of you may recall one of Heather's blog posts last year stating that the NFL was going to make the 2007 Super Bowl carbon neutral. She then posed the thought that maybe in 2008, the event would go "zero waste."

Well, unfortunately, we're not quite there yet. However, the event is going to go carbon neutral again this year.  From E! Magazine:

"Metro Phoenix’s largest power producer, Salt River Project, is supplying SRP EarthWise Energy renewable energy certificates to offset the Super Bowl (and its associated “NFL Experience” activities) with wind and solar power. Some Phoenix hotels will be offsetting their emissions in honor of the occasion, too. The NFL is also planting thousands of trees, enough to reforest more than 42 acres that were destroyed by in the 2002 Rodeo Chediski fire, the worst in Arizona’s history, in which over 400,000 acres were lost in the blaze."

And since the Super Bowl is such a huge event for football fans and non-football fans alike, we're talking about reaching a lot of people on the idea of being environmental stewards. Dare I say the environment is moving more into the mainstream?

Ok, all I could think when I read this article about converting anything organic (like trash) into ethanol was how much it sounded like Doc Brown's own flux capacitor....

Many of you are already know about biodiesel. But, did you know that we have a local co-op (or two) here in the NC Piedmont? Check out one of our friends: Piedmont Biofuels Cooperative.

Most of the biodiesel produced at Piedmont Biofuels comes from chicken fat. However, Piedmont Biofuels Cooperative has taken on the task of collecting more used fryer oil (from local restaurants and cafeterias) in order to improve environmental and economic sustainability. 

In so doing, Piedmont Biofuels is looking for a few good folks to talk with restaurants and cafeterias in the triangle region about using Piedmont Biofuels as their oil collection service. 

It's a great chance to see what it takes to build a waste oil collection business all while spreading the word about biodiesel (while generally doing good). Piedmont Biofuels notes that applicants should be outgoing and good on their feet, excited about sustainability and know the triangle region reasonably well.

Heck, this is such a great and interesting cause that I'm excited enough to go talk to all my favorite restaurants!

If you want to learn more and/or help out, shoot Greg with Piedmont Biofuels an email to learn more.

Back in early December, on one of those nights when the weather dropped below freezing, suddenly our heater started blowing cold air instead of warm. Uh oh. So we called the company that had just given it a tune-up, and they diagnosed a cracked heat exchanger. Since our unit was 15 years old we decided that replacing the whole system made the most sense.  My partner groaned at the cost (minimum $4,500), but my eyes lit up – it’s not often that opportunities to upgrade to a more efficient system come along! 

I soon discovered I knew next to nothing about efficient heating and cooling. The very next day I ran into Sharon Stroud from the State Energy Office who clued me in that air conditioners have an efficiency rating called SEER and the higher the number the better. Heating units are rated on AFUE, and again the higher the better.  The EPA just last year raised the minimum SEER rating from 10 to 13, but to qualify for Energy Star a system has to be at least 14 SEER.  For a furnace to qualify for Energy Star it has to be rated at least 83% AFUE.  “I can do better than the government minimums!” I thought. 

After doing some research, it turned out that the best I could do with the same type of system I have – a package unit with propane heat and electric AC – was 15 SEER and 80% AFUE.  There are much higher rated systems available – up to 20 or 22 SEER and condensing furnaces or heat pumps with AFUE ratings of 97% - but from what I could tell, to get these numbers would require stand alone units and thus significant overhaul of my duct system. For some reason these package gas/electric systems are efficiency constrained. 

I also learned from Sterling at the SEO’s Information and Referral Office that a system’s efficiency has as much to do with how it is installed and that it is sized properly as it does with the technology in the unit. It is important to get an installer who knows what they are doing.

As an added environmental bonus, systems with higher SEER ratings are also being made now with a new refrigerant that is non-ozone-depleting, known as R-410A (one brand name is Puron). Under the Montreal Protocol the current widely used coolant R22 (Freon) is to be phased out by 2010. 

So I went with the 15 SEER/80% AFUE package unit with R-410A. It’s got a multi-speed blower, and a two stage gas valve, which also boost efficiency. It cost about 40% more than your basic 13 SEER unit – which is not an insubstantial amount. According to one energy calculator I used, I won’t necessarily recoup that extra $2000 in energy savings for 15 or more years, though I should get a small tax credit from the Feds. But the environmental benefit and peace of mind was clearly worth it to me.

Luckily we also have a woodstove (stay tuned for a future blog post of my efforts to replace that air-pollution-machine with a clean-burning variety), so we could afford to spend a little bit of time doing research on some alternatives, but still not as much as I would have liked. I wish I had had more time to investigate geothermal systems for instance – that seems like the cat’s meow for sustainability. Though not as top-notch efficient as I would have liked, I did make some headway on making my heating greener.

If your heater or AC unit is over 10 years old you might consider doing some reconnaissance work now to figure out what super efficient system you’ll be installing next.  Or if you've already done it, please share your experience!

It's no secret that wind turbines have caused a good bit of debate here in North Carolina. While providing renewable energy, they also require the construction of huge wind turbines, often off the coast or in ecologically-sensitive areas.

I'd love to hear what our readers are thinking about wind power. Check out this short blog post which hits some of the major points on wind power: 50% of UK Power Soon Coming from Wind? (make sure to read the comments too) and let us know what you think about wind power...not just in the UK, but here in NC as well!

An article in yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor notes that data management takes an incredible amount of energy:

"US data centers and servers now consume more electricity each year than the entire state of Colorado. In five years, they could require nearly twice as much juice."

Recognizing its heavy electric demand, Google announced earlier this week that, through its philanthropic arm, the corporation will invest $100 million dollars into renewable energy research, with the goal of finding technologies that can generate 1 gigawatt of energy more cheaply than coal, within five years.

With energy prices certain to rise, and Google’s business strategy calling for its own energy demand to climb, you’d think this is a wise investment.  And, Google’s stock went up following the announcement, suggesting stockholders agree.

But, here’s one investment analyst’s take, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times:

"It's a good thing that Google's core business is performing so well because this seems like a project that goes pretty far afield… This is an example of Google being Google.   That said, there is well over $200 billion of market cap riding on Google's ability to continue to exceed estimates. I would hope the management team would stay focused."

In other words, to heck with creativity and innovation; it’s management’s duty to provide steady earnings growth, quarter after quarter.  

For my part, I think I’d rather watch American companies take smart, sustainability-oriented gambles.  I’ve no doubt the ultimate payout is better, from them and for me.

An article on Bloomberg.com today notes that ethanol has turned out to be 2007’s worst energy investment.  The article is mostly focused on the ethanol industry as a target for investment, but mentions in passing one of the controversies associated with ethanol: does it in fact take more energy to create a given quantity of ethanol than you can get out of it by burning it?

The article presents two conflicting views:

"'It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it actually gives off,' says David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor who has studied production of the fuel for two decades….Harvesting, crushing, fermenting and distilling corn requires 29 percent more energy than ethanol produces, says Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agriculture.

Michael Wang, an environmental engineer at the Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago, says Pimentel is wrong to include energy spent on making fertilizers and pesticides. Ethanol production results in a 33 percent gain in combustible energy, Wang says."

The article doesn’t explain Wang’s alleged position, leaving me to wonder, why would it be wrong to include the energy involved in fertilizers and pesticides?  If one cares about greenhouse gas emissions, the distinction that matters when calculating energy in versus energy out is, how much non-solar energy goes in to the fuel compared to the total energy produced by burning it.  Pesticides and fertilizers, like to fuels burnt to run the harvesting and distillation equipment, derive from fossil fuels.  

Some basic internet research makes me wonder if the Bloomburg reporter misunderstood Wang (the article seems to represent Pimentel’s position [pdf] faithfully).  In a 2003 paper [pdf] published by the US Department of Agriculture, Wang (and two coauthors) does argue that ethanol yields more energy than it takes (from fossil fuels) to make, but his differences with Pimentel don’t center on inclusion of pesticides and fertilizers.  Rather, the two use different estimates of corn yield and energy inputs.   

Even if Wang’s estimates are right, it’s clear that ethanol shouldn’t be an excuse to continue to increase fuel consumption – production of each unit of ethanol may be less destructive than production of each unit of gas, but it’s still destructive.  

[Perhaps because its lens is investment in corn-based ethanol production, the Bloomburg article doesn’t make any mention of cellulosic ethanol, made from wood and grass, with better benefits for the environment.  The Rocky Mountain Institute has some helpful information on the difference, and the cost challenges facing cellulosic ethanol.]

Popular Mechanics recently released their 2007 Breakthrough Awards--honoring emerging projects and ideas for a better world. One of the awards went to a 28-year old (Shawn Frayne) working in Haiti who was struggling for a way to power LED lamps and radios for the poor. His solution? A small-scale wind power device he calls the "Windbelt."

Frayne envisions the Windbelt costing a few dollars and replacing kerosene lamps in Haitian homes. “Kerosene is smoky and it’s a fire hazard,” says Peter Haas, founder of the Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group, which helps people in developing countries to get environmentally sound access to clean water, sanitation and energy. “If Shawn’s innovation breaks, locals can fix it. If a solar panel breaks, the family is out a panel.”

Check out the video and find out how the Windbelt works. I, for one, was very impressed with not only the concept of the Windbelt, but also the environmental, social, and economic sustainability wrapped into the entire project which truly makes it "breakthrough."

Let us know what you think, and if you've seen other innovative ideas like this one!

I'm constantly being amazed by the folks at Google. According to some recent calculations, if their search engine screen was black instead of white, 750 mega watts/hour per year would be saved. So what did they do? They teamed up with folks at Heap Media and created Blackle (http://www.blackle.com).

Just like Google search, but in the dark.