Google Will Finance Enhanced Geothermal

Expect Google.org to make investments in the next couple of months in enhanced geothermal energy, says Dan Reicher, the Internet giant's director of climate change and energy initiatives.

Google's philanthropic arm is in talks with universities on funding basic research into tapping into the vast stores of energy underground, Reicher said at a two-day energy summit sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. He said it also expects to finance companies that are working toward advances in this form of renewable energy.

A description of enhanced geothermal, graphics that show how it works, and a map of its potential can be found with this story in U.S. News.
Google announced its "renewable energy cheaper than coal" initiative late last year, but this is the clearest signal yet that the company is poised to add enhanced geothermal to its investment portfolio.

So far, Google's program has made $10 million investments in two companies that seek to produce renewable energy cheaper than coal: eSolar, a concentrating solar thermal power firm, and Makani Power, which seeks to develop ultra-high-altitude wind power. Reicher said tapping into wind power at 3,000 or even 10,000 feet up is "admittedly very high risk" but fits in well with Google's game plan on renewable energy investments.

"We don't have the constraints of venture capital firms, with the usual three-to-six-year exit strategy and need for return," Reicher says. "We're looking for higher-risk, higher-payoff investments." He also said Google.org is likely to invest in commercialization of cellulosic ethanol—another example of a promising technology that has a hard time getting out of the so-called Valley of Death, development of risky, first-of-a-kind plants.

Reicher also addressed why Google is engaged in the issue of renewable energy. As a large user of electricity, Google has aimed to purchase green resources and has often found them not available or prohibitively expensive.

"There's a great deal of optimism about renewable energy, great engagement of the public, and interest of the investment community," Reicher says. "There needs to be a fundamental change in the cost structure of renewables if we expect them to compete. And let's talk about the competitive landscape—first and foremost about coal. The aim has to be to make renewable energy competitive with coal and to do it in years, not decades."

to the source

U.S. Moving Toward Ban on New Coal-Fired Power Plants

In a report compiled in early 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages and talked about a resurgence in coal-fired electricity. But during 2007, 59 proposed U.S. coal-fired power plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned.

In addition to the 59 plants that were dropped, close to 50 more coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged as they reach the permitting stage.

What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations and a fast-growing number of state governments. The public at large is turning against coal. In a September 2007 national poll by the Opinion Research Corporation about which electricity source people would prefer, only 3 percent chose coal.

One of the first major coal industry setbacks came in early 2007, when environmental groups convinced Texas-based utility TXU to reduce the number of planned coal-fired power plants in Texas from 11 to 3. And now even those 3 proposed plants may be challenged. Meanwhile, the energy focus within the Texas state government is shifting to wind power. The state is planning 23,000 megawatts of new wind-generating capacity (equal to 23 coal-fired power plants).

In May, Florida’s Public Service Commission refused to license a huge $5.7-billion, 1,960-megawatt coal plant because the utility could not prove that building the plant would be cheaper than investing in conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. This argument by Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental legal group, combined with widely expressed public opposition to any more coal-fired power plants in Florida, led to the quiet withdrawal of four other proposals for coal plants in the state. Republican Governor Charlie Crist, who is keenly aware of Florida’s vulnerability to rising seas, is actively opposing new coal plants and has announced that the state plans to build the world’s largest solar-thermal power plant.

The principal reason for opposing new coal plants is the mounting concern about climate change. Another emerging reason is soaring construction costs. And then there are intensifying health concerns about mercury emissions and the 23,600 U.S. deaths per year from power plant air pollution. (See data.)

Utilities have argued that carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal plant smokestacks could be captured and stored underground, thus helping keep hope for the industry alive. But on January 30, 2008, the Bush administration announced that it was pulling the plug on a joint project with 13 utilities and coal companies to build a demonstration coal-fired power plant in Illinois with underground carbon sequestration because of massive cost overruns. The original cost of $950 million when the project was announced in 2003 had climbed beyond $1.5 billion by early 2008, with further rises in prospect. The cancellation effectively moves the date for any coal plants with carbon sequestration so far into the future that this technology has little immediate relevance.

Some utilities are being refused licenses for coal plants because they have not examined alternative methods of satisfying demand, such as increasing the efficiency of electricity use. For example, insulating buildings greatly reduces energy needs for heating and cooling. Shifting to more-efficient light bulbs would save enough electricity to close 80 U.S. coal power plants.

The Sierra Club, the national leader on this issue, is working with hundreds of local groups to mount legal challenges in state after state. Other national groups that are actively involved include the Rainforest Action Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense. Information on the grassroots momentum to oppose coal plants is tracked on the Web site Coal Moratorium NOW!.

States that are working to reduce carbon emissions are banding together to discourage other states from building new coal plants simply because it would cancel their own carbon reduction efforts. In late 2006, for instance, the attorneys general of California, Wisconsin, New York, and several other northeastern states wrote to Kansas health officials urging them to deny permits for two new coal power plants of 700 megawatts each. The permits were subsequently denied, citing that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and should be regulated, as determined in an April 2007 Supreme Court ruling. And in a letter on January 22, 2008, a similar grouping of states urged South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control to refuse a permit for the proposed 600-megawatt Pee Dee coal plant.

Coal’s future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the industry. In July 2007, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks. In January 2008, Merrill Lynch also downgraded coal stocks. In early February 2008, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announced that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the utilities demonstrating that the plants would be economically viable with the higher costs associated with future federal restrictions on carbon emissions. On February 13, Bank of America announced it would follow suit.

In August 2007, coal took a heavy political hit when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had been opposing three coal-fired power plants in his own state, announced that he was now against building coal-fired power plants anywhere in the world. Investment banks and political leaders are beginning to see what has been obvious for some time to climate scientists, such as NASA’s James Hansen who says that it makes no sense to build coal-fired power plants when we will have to bulldoze them in a few years.

In early November 2007, Representative Henry Waxman of California announced his intention to “introduce legislation that establishes a moratorium on the approval of new coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act until EPA finalizes regulations to address the greenhouse gas emissions from these sources.” If a national moratorium is passed by Congress, it will mark the beginning of the end for coal-fired power in the United States.

We may be on the verge of a monumental victory in the worldwide effort to stabilize climate. In our new book, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, I propose cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020. The first step is to stop building any new coal-fired power plants. If the United States imposes a moratorium on such construction, as Denmark and New Zealand have already done, it would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world, bolstering the effort to cut carbon emissions. The next steps are to quickly exploit the vast worldwide potential to raise energy efficiency and to massively develop renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar, and geothermal, in order to phase out existing coal-fired power plants.

The world is moving toward a political tipping point on the climate issue. If it comes soon enough, we may yet avoid catastrophic climate change.

Lester R. Brown -- Earth Policy Institute

Carbon Capture Strategy Could Lead To Emission-free Cars

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed a strategy to capture, store and eventually recycle carbon from vehicles to prevent the pollutant from finding its way from a car tailpipe into the atmosphere. Georgia Tech researchers envision a zero emission car, and a transportation system completely free of fossil fuels.

Technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions from large-scale sources such as power plants have recently gained some impressive scientific ground, but nearly two-thirds of global carbon emissions are created by much smaller polluters — automobiles, transportation vehicles and distributed industrial power generation applications (e.g., diesel power generators).

The Georgia Tech team’s goal is to create a sustainable transportation system that uses a liquid fuel and traps the carbon emission in the vehicle for later processing at a fueling station. The carbon would then be shuttled back to a processing plant where it could be transformed into liquid fuel. Currently, Georgia Tech researchers are developing a fuel processing device to separate the carbon and store it in the vehicle in liquid form.

“Presently, we have an unsustainable carbon-based economy with several severe limitations, including a limited supply of fossil fuels, high cost and carbon dioxide pollution,” said Andrei Fedorov, associate professor in the Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech and a lead researcher on the project. “We wanted to create a practical and sustainable energy strategy for automobiles that could solve each of those limitations, eventually using renewable energy sources and in an environmentally conscious way.”

Little research has been done to explore carbon capture from vehicles, but the Georgia Tech team outlines an economically feasible strategy for processing fossil or synthetic, carbon-containing liquid fuels that allows for the capture and recycling of carbon at the point of emission. In the long term, this strategy would enable the development of a sustainable transportation system with no carbon emission.

Georgia Tech’s near-future strategy involves capturing carbon emissions from conventional (fossil) liquid hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles with an onboard fuel processor designed to separate the hydrogen in the fuel from the carbon. Hydrogen is then used to power the vehicle, while the carbon is stored on board the vehicle in a liquid form until it is disposed at a refueling station. It is then transported to a centralized site to be sequestered in a permanent location currently under investigation by scientists, such as geological formations, under the oceans or in solid carbonate form.

In the long-term strategy, the carbon dioxide will be recycled forming a closed-loop system, involving synthesis of high energy density liquid fuel suitable for the transportation sector.

Georgia Tech settled on a hydrogen-fueled vehicle for its carbon capture plan because pure hydrogen produces no carbon emissions when it is used as a fuel to power the vehicle. The fuel processor produces the hydrogen on-board the vehicle from the hydrocarbon fuel without introducing air into the process, resulting in an enriched carbon byproduct that can be captured with minimal energetic penalty. Traditional combustion systems, including current gasoline-powered automobiles, have a combustion process that combines fuel and air — leaving the carbon dioxide emissions highly diluted and very difficult to capture.

“We had to look for a system that never dilutes fuel with air because once the CO2 is diluted, it is not practical to capture it on vehicles or other small systems,” said David Damm, PhD candidate in the School of Mechanical Engineering, the lead author on the paper and Fedorov’s collaborator on the project.

The Georgia Tech team compared the proposed system with other systems that are currently being considered, focusing on the logistic and economic challenges of adopting them on a global scale. In particular, electric vehicles could be part of a long-term solution to carbon emissions, but the team raised concerns about the limits of battery technology, including capacity and charging time.

The hydrogen economy presents yet another possible solution to carbon emissions but also yet another roadblock — infrastructure. While liquid-based hydrogen carriers could be conveniently transported and stored using existing fuel infrastructure, the distribution of gaseous hydrogen would require the creation of a new and costly infrastructure of pipelines, tanks and filling stations.

The Georgia Tech team has already created a fuel processor, called CO2/H2 Active Membrane Piston (CHAMP) reactor, capable of efficiently producing hydrogen and separating and liquefying CO2 from a liquid hydrocarbon or synthetic fuel used by an internal combustion engine or fuel cell. After the carbon dioxide is separated from the hydrogen, it can then be stored in liquefied state on-board the vehicle. The liquid state provides a much more stable and dense form of carbon, which is easy to store and transport.

The Georgia Tech paper also details the subsequent long-term strategy to create a truly sustainable system, including moving past carbon sequestration and into a method to recycle the captured carbon back into fuel. Once captured on-board the vehicle, the liquid carbon dioxide is deposited back at the fueling station and piped back to a facility where it is converted into a synthetic liquid fuel to complete the cycle.

Now that the Georgia Tech team has come up with a proposed system and device to produce hydrogen and, at the same time, capture carbon emissions, the greatest remaining challenge to a truly carbon-free transportation system will be developing a method for making a synthetic liquid fuel from just CO2 and water using renewable energy sources, Fedorov said. The team is exploring a few ideas in this area, he added.

The research was published in Energy Conversion and Management . The research was funded by NASA, the U.S. Department of Defense NDSEG Fellowship Program and Georgia Tech’s CEO (Creating Energy Options) Program.

source - ScienceDaily

Car-Free, Solar City in Gulf Could Set a New Standard for Green Design

In an ever more crowded world facing environmental limits, the push is on to create entire communities with reduced needs for energy, water, land and other resources.

The latest effort comes not in some green hub like Portland, Ore., but in the Persian Gulf, fueled as much by oil wealth — and the need to find postpetroleum business models — as environmental zeal.

Groundbreaking is scheduled for Saturday for Masdar City, a nearly self-contained mini-municipality designed for up to 50,000 people rising from the desert next to Abu Dhabi’s international airport and intended as a hub for academic and corporate research on nonpolluting energy technologies.

The 2.3-square-mile community, set behind walls to divert hot desert winds and airport noise, will be car free, according to the design by Foster + Partners, the London firm that has become a leading practitioner of energy-saving architecture.

The community, slightly smaller than the historic district of Venice, will have similar narrow pedestrian streets, but shaded by canopies made of photovoltaic panels. It will produce all of its own energy from sunlight.

Water will flow from a solar-powered seawater-desalinization plant. Produce will come from nearby greenhouses, and all waste will be composted or otherwise recycled, said Khaled Awad, property manager for the project.

The first phase, to be completed over the next two years, will be construction of the Masdar Institute, a graduate-level academic research center associated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Readers can see a simulated video tour of the city and post comments on the Dot Earth blog.
Attempts at such green communities have had mixed results. Arcosanti, the ecotopian town in the Arizona desert, was started three decades ago. Still a work in progress, it is now being encroached on by Phoenix’s suburban expansion.

China, with help from American partners, has embarked on building instant rural communities and cities designed to limit environmental impacts, but recent reports have disclosed many problems.

Still, environmental campaigners appear enthusiastic about Masdar City, which is part of a planned $15 billion investment in new energy technologies by Abu Dhabi.

At an international energy conference in that city last month, Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, director of the One Planet Living initiative of the environmental group WWF International (known in North America as the World Wildlife Fund), said independent monitoring would help ensure that the project lived up to its billing.

the source

Farm bill would allow continued subsidies for millionaires

The House and Senate farm bills would allow millionaire landowners to continue to cash big government subsidy checks despite language in the proposals intended to cut off crop subsidies for the wealthy, according to a new analysis of tax data by GOP Senate aides.

Finance Committee ranking member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) yesterday released the analysis, which is based on data from the Internal Revenue Service and Congressional Budget Office. It estimates that under the proposed new farm bills, hundreds of millions of dollars in crop subsidies would continue to go out to landowners whose overall adjusted gross income for the year exceeds $1 million.

“The House and Senate farm bills left loopholes that a 9630 John Deere tractor could drive through. It was reform in name only. Now I hope we can move to legislation that includes real reform,” Grassley said.

Grassley is a member of the conference committee charged with hammering out an agreement on the House and Senate farm bills. The Senate’s version of the farm bill, approved in December, would stop payments to non-farmers who make more than $750,000 a year but has no income caps for farmers. The House bill would cut off farm payments for millionaire farmers or non-farmers who make more than $500,000.

The Bush administration is pushing for a much lower cap of $200,000 in adjusted gross income. White House officials have threatened to veto the bill if it does not include more reform.

Other members of the conference committee said yesterday that income limits will be a major topic of negotiation for the farm bill, but the panel is unlikely to go as far as Grassley or the administration has suggested.

“The White House is insisting on it so the prospects of additional reform are probably pretty good in the conference,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “But it is not going to be what the administration is calling for.”

Conrad said the $200,000 income cap is “not in synch” with the high costs of farming, as fertilizer and other prices have almost doubled.

Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said the income limits are the “big sticking point right now” that members “have to work out.”

Harkin said the proposal from Grassley and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) — which would have placed a hard cap on how much any farmer can receive in federal subsidies rather than basing the limits on income — has already had its chance in the Senate and is unlikely to be included in the conference. The Grassley-Dorgan amendment failed in a 56-43 vote during the farm bill debate. It needed 60 votes for passage.

In 2006, the Agriculture Department paid more than $230 million to landlords and farm operators who exceeded the House income cap and $137 million to those exceeding the Senate cut-off. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 83 percent of those funds would continue to go out under the House bill, and 95 percent would continue to be paid under the Senate bill.

Grassley said the continued payouts would be possible because landowners could switch the way they collect rent from the people farming their land, so their tenants could continue to receive the commodity payments. High-income farmers could also buy more land to bring their adjusted gross income level down or divide the payments among other family members.

Grassley based the analysis on data he requested from IRS on how many recipients of farm payments have an income above the cap and whether or not they were landlords.

A coalition of environmental, religious, sustainable farming and taxpayer groups have advocated for lowering the income level or including the payment cap in the new farm bill. They say the current payments unfairly favor large industrialized agriculture. The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition suggested applying the lower income cap to the land, rather than the landlord or producer.

“No one on the farm bill conference committee should suffer under any illusions that taking action on an AGI limit is, by itself, doing anything very significant for payment reform,” Sustainable Agriculture Coalition director Ferd Hoefner said yesterday of the analysis.

the source

The sixth mass extinction to affect life on Earth.

All the creatures we share the Earth with are important in some way, however unprepossessing or insignificant they may appear. They and we are all part of the web of life.

From the dawn of time, extinction has usually progressed at what scientists call a natural or background rate. Today the tempo is far faster.

Many scientists believe this is the sixth great wave - the sixth mass extinction to affect life on Earth.

We were not here for any of the previous mass extinctions, but this time our sheer preponderance is driving the slide to oblivion.

We have more than doubled our numbers in half a century, and that is the most obvious reason why there is less room for any other species.

We are taking their living room to grow our food, their food to feed ourselves. We are exploiting them, trading in them, squeezing them to the margins of existence - and beyond.

Often the choice is hard: conserve a species or feed a community, tourists' dollars or turtles' nests.

In 2003 the World Conservation Union's Red List said more than 12,000 species (out of 40,000 assessed) faced some extinction risk, including:

• one bird in eight
• 13% of the world's flowering plants
• a quarter of all mammals.

That gives you a ballpark figure. Science has described 1.75 million species, some experts estimate that there may be 13 or 14 million in the world in total - but until they are catalogued, nobody knows.

Our pillage of the natural world has been likened to burning down the medieval libraries of Europe, before we had even bothered to catalogue their contents.

Many species keep us alive, purifying water, fixing nitrogen, recycling nutrients and waste, and pollinating crops.

Plants and bacteria carry out photosynthesis, which produces the oxygen we breathe. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas given off by human activities.

Pandas and microbes

Some years ago, when the global annual gross product was about $18 trillion, US researchers calculated the value of the goods and services provided by the Earth to the world economy: $33 trillion.

Tropical cone snails contain toxins which show promise for treating some forms of cancer and heart irregularities. One toxin may be a thousand times more potent than morphine for pain relief.

But millions of cone snails are now killed annually for their shells, and their habitats are under pressure.

That is the argument for utility. But the creatures we can see, and those we can use directly, are just the start of the story.

Lord May, president of the Royal Society (the UK's national academy of sciences), has said: "Most conservation effort goes into birds and mammals - creatures like the panda, a dim, dead-end animal that was probably on the way out anyway.

"Yet arguably it's the little things that run the world, things like soil microbes. They're the least-known species of all."

Complex network

And we continue to tug at the loose threads of the web of life, thinking we can split it into its separate parts.

Brazil nuts are a lucrative harvest in the Amazon. But an experiment to produce them in plantations failed, because the trees bear a good crop in the forest, but are barren in isolation.

We are not removing individual species from the Amazon: we are destroying the entire forest.

US researchers estimate that by 2020 less than 5% of it will remain in pristine condition.

Within 15 years, about a fifth of central Africa's forests will have gone, by one estimate. And the forests of Indonesia are in headlong retreat.

Some species are bucking the trend towards extinction. In 1953 there were about 2.5bn people: today there are 6bn.

Ensuring other species keep their living space is not sentimental. It is the only way we shall survive.

Extinction, whatever Steven Spielberg says, really is for ever.

The web is unravelling...

Planet Under Pressure -- BBC News

Humans Force Earth into New Geologic Epoch

Humans have altered Earth so much that scientists say a new epoch in the planet's geologic history has begun.

Say goodbye to the 10,000-year-old Holocene Epoch and hello to the Anthropocene.

Among the major changes heralding this two-century-old man-made epoch:

Vastly altered sediment erosion and deposition patterns.
Major disturbances to the carbon cycle and global temperature.

Wholesale changes in biology, from altered flowering times to new migration patterns.

Acidification of the ocean, which threatens tiny marine life that forms the bottom of the food chain.

The idea, first suggested in 2000 by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen, has gained steam with two new scientific papers that call for official recognition of the shift.

Vivid metaphor

In the February issue of the journal GSA Today, a publication of the Geological Society of America, Jan Zalasiewicz and Mark Williams of the University of Leicester and colleagues at the Geological Society of London argue that industrialization has wrought changes that usher in a new epoch.

Scientists of the future will have no trouble deciding if the proposal was timely. All they'll need to do is dig into the planet and examine its stratigraphic layers, which reveal a chronology of the changing conditions that existed as each layer is created. Layers can reflect volcanic upheaval, ice ages or mass extinctions.

"Sufficient evidence has emerged of stratigraphically significant change (both elapsed and imminent) for recognition of the Anthropocene — currently a vivid yet informal metaphor of global environmental change — as a new geological epoch to be considered for formalization by international discussion," Zalasiewicz's team writes.

The paper calls on the International Commission on Stratigraphy to officially mark the shift.
In a separate paper last month in the journal Soil Science, researchers focused on soil infertility alone as a reason to dub this the Anthropocene Age. (The term "age" is sometimes used interchangeably with "epoch" or to indicate a transition period between epochs.)

As an example, they said, agriculture in Africa "has so degraded regional soil fertility that the economic development of whole nations will be diminished without drastic improvements of soil management."

"With more than half of all soils on Earth now being cultivated for food crops, grazed, or periodically logged for wood, how to sustain Earth’s soils is becoming a major scientific and policy issue," said Duke University soil scientist Daniel Richter.

Richter's work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Origin of a term

Earth's 4.5-billion-year history is divided into major eras, then periods and finally epochs. The Holocene Epoch began after the last Ice Age.

As early as the late 1800s scientists were writing about man's wholesale impact on the planet and the possibility of an "anthropozoic era" having begun, according to Crutzen, who is credited with coining the term Anthropocene (anthropo = human; cene = new) back in 2000. That year, Crutzen and a colleague wrote in the scientific newsletter International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme about some of the dramatic changes:

"Urbanization has ... increased tenfold in the past century. In a few generations mankind is exhausting the fossil fuels that were generated over several hundred million years."

Up to half of Earth's land has been transformed by human activity, wrote Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer of the University of Michigan. They also noted the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases and other chemicals and pollutants humans have introduced into global ecosystems.
The epochal idea has merit, according to geologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University.

"In land, water, air, ice, and ecosystems, the human impact is clear, large, and growing,"Alley told ScienceNow, an online publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "A geologist from the far distant future almost surely would draw a new line, and begin using a new name, where and when our impacts show up."

original article

MASS - Commonwealth Solar Program is Open!

Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles has announced that Commonwealth Solar, the state's new program of rebates to encourage the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) power is now accepting applications from businesses and homeowners looking to reduce the cost of putting solar panels on their roofs.

Announced in December, the program, which makes use of existing renewable energy funds, is expected to result in the installation of more than 27 megawatts (MW) of solar power capacity over the next four years. Commonwealth Solar is part of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's pledge to increase installed solar power from 5 MW today to 250 MW by 2017. This was made in April in connection with Evergreen Solar Inc.'s commitment to locate its first full-scale U.S. manufacturing facility in Massachusetts.

"Commonwealth Solar is open for business, and that's good news for the economy and the environment," Bowles said. "Solar energy is a key component of the clean energy economy we are developing here in Massachusetts, and a rebate is the most efficient, cost-effective way we can make solar power more affordable. Now is the time for businesses and homeowners to find out what Commonwealth Solar has to offer.

"Information on how to get a Commonwealth Solar rebate can be found at http://www.commonwealthsolar.org/.

the source

Whole Foods Market Does Away With Plastic Bags

Whole Foods Market is joining the anti-plastic bag movement, announcing today it will end the use of disposable plastic grocery bags at all of its 270 stores in the U.S., Canada & the U.K. It says the goal is to be plastic bag-free by Earth Day, 4/22/08.

The first U.S. supermarket to commit to completely eliminating disposable plastic grocery bags, Whole Foods Market has declared today "Bring Your Own Bag Day" and will give out over 50,000 reusable shopping bags to customers at the checkouts to celebrate the announcement.

The company says beginning immediately, each store will work on depleting stocks of disposable plastic grocery bags at the checkouts and will help raise awareness about the benefits of reusable bags. Over the next three months, stores will reduce plastic grocery bag inventories and increase selections of reusable bags for purchase.

Although the natural and organic grocer says it hopes to inspire shoppers to bring their own reusable bags, the it will continue to offer 100% recycled paper grocery bags. Last year, Whole Foods Market became the first and only food retailer in North America to offer grocery bags made with 100% recycled fiber content.

A.C. Gallo, co-president and chief operating officer for Whole Foods Market, said "More and more cities and countries are beginning to place serious restrictions on single-use plastic shopping bags since they don't break down in our landfills, can harm nature by clogging waterways and endangering wildlife, and litter our roadsides. Together with our shoppers, our gift to the planet this Earth Day will be reducing our environmental impact as we estimate we will keep 100 million new plastic grocery bags out of our environment between Earth Day and the end of this year alone."

Whole Foods Market already encourages shoppers to bring their own bags by offering a refund of either five or ten cents at the checkouts. The company also sells different types of reusable bags, ranging from canvas to a new large bag made from 80% recycled plastic and costing only 99 cents.

Recently, Whole Foods Market stores began using all-natural fiber packaging at its salad and food bars. The fibers for the new containers come from plants that are cultivated or grow wild and are harvested annually. Additionally, the company says it continues to seek alternatives to plastic bags in its bulk, produce, bakery and seafood departments.

"We realize there are many more steps to take, and we recognize it's an ongoing process to provide as much Earth-friendly packaging as possible," said Gallo. "We will continue to evaluate each department within our stores as we seek to continually improve."

to the source

HP, L’Oreal, Pepsi, Others Asking Suppliers For Emissions Info

Hewlett Packard, L’Oreal, PepsiCo, and Reckitt Benckiser have joined the Carbon Disclosure Project’s Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration, which wants to create a single standardized approach to measuring the carbon footprint of supply chains. The companies join Cadbury Schweppes, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, Tesco, Imperial Tobacco, and Unilever, who signed on last fall. In December, Dell announced that it was joining the program. Wal-Mart has also partnered with the CDP on measuring suppliers’ energy use.

Each member of the Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration has selected up to 50 suppliers to work with them and to respond to the CDP pilot information request by March, 2008. Some members will work with suppliers at national level, others will work internationally.

“Participating in the CDP Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration is one of the steps that will help P&G achieve its new five year sustainability goals, which include improving the environmental profile of our products across their lifecycles,” said Dr. Peter White, Director, Global Sustainability, Proctor and Gamble. “Working within supply chains to innovate and reduce CO2, as well as other environmental impacts, will be a key part of this work.”

The project will be rolled out in May 2008, and CDP is inviting more companies to join the program.

“The Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration is a key step towards a unified business approach to climate change,” said Paul Dickinson, CEO of CDP. “By bringing together the purchasing authority of some of the largest companies in the world, CDP will encourage suppliers to measure and manage their greenhouse gas emissions. This will enable large companies to work towards managing their total carbon footprint, as the first step to reducing the total carbon footprint is to measure its size.”

The CDP information request gathers information on companies’ supply chains. It encourages suppliers to report carbon footprints and climate change-relevant information, such as greenhouse gas emissions data, emissions reduction targets and climate change strategy.

to the source

Consumer Demand for Green Practices Changing the Business of Home Improvement Contractors

Pristine Home Solutions, a Massachusetts home improvement contractor serving Middlesex and Worcester County, says that increasing demand for eco-friendly home solutions will further influence consumer buying decisions.

As Americans become more eco-conscious, consumer-driven companies industry-wide have begun offering more ecologically friendly products and services to retain a competitive edge.

Massachusetts home improvement contractor Warren Fish, president of Pristine Home Solutions, says that an increasing number of homeowners are seeking out his company because of its eco-friendly home improvement practices.

Pristine Home Solutions has for years used eco-friendly products such as low VOC paint and green cleaning products, and HEPA (High-Efficiency Particulate Air) filtration vacuums for cleanup after jobs are complete.

Fish makes it a point to partner with green companies for products ranging from cleaning supplies to countertops. “Eco-friendly countertops made of recycled glass and concrete as opposed to granite have become a hot item in households where people are committed to green living,” says Fish.

Even with the growing popularity of green products and practices, Fish says that quality still reins the number one priority among consumers. He says that over the past decade, green products have made major leaps in the area of quality and can now be integrated into the company’s high quality home improvement contractor jobs.

“Even homeowners that prefer green materials still will often choose quality over the environmental impact. Because of the improvements in green materials, we have been able to include many more environmentally friendly products and practices into our standard service offerings. As more manufacturers address this growing trend the more you will see green materials being used by building and home improvement contractors,” says Fish.

to the source

Google’s Next Frontier: Renewable Energy

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 27 — Google, the Internet company with a seemingly limitless source of revenue, plans to get into the business of finding limitless sources of energy.

The company, based in Mountain View, Calif., announced Tuesday that it intended to develop and help stimulate the creation of renewable energy technologies that were cheaper than coal-generated power.

Google said it would spend hundreds of millions of dollars, part of that to hire engineers and energy experts to investigate alternative energies like solar, geothermal and wind power. The effort is aimed at reducing Google’s own mounting energy costs to run its vast data centers, while also fighting climate change and helping to reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.
“We see technologies we think can mature into very capable industries that can generate electricity cheaper than coal,” said Larry Page, a Google founder and president of products, “and we don’t see people talking about that as much as we would like.”

The initiative, which Google is calling REBear Stearns agreed that “the headlines were a little scary at first” and said investors were initially worried that this was another example of Google “trying to bite off more than they can chew.”

But Google’s stock closed up more than 1 percent Tuesday in a higher market, Mr. Peck said, when investors ”realized this is more of a Google.org initiative and backed off.”

Mr. Page, in an interview, said that failing to investigate new businesses could hurt Google more than any potential distraction. “If you look at companies that don’t do anything new,” he said, “they are guaranteed never to get bigger. They miss a lot of opportunities and they miss the next big things.”

As part of the initiative, executives at Google.org said they are working with two companies that have “promising, scalable energy technologies.” One of these, eSolar, based in Pasadena, Calif., uses thousands of small mirrors to concentrate sunlight and generate steam that powers electric generators. The other, Makani Power, of Alameda, Calif., is developing wind turbines that will run on powerful and generally more predictable winds at high altitudes.

In a conference call Tuesday with reporters, Sergey Brin, Google’s other founder and president of technology, said the effort was motivated in part by the company’s frustrating search for clean, cheap energy alternatives.

“It’s very hard to find options that aren’t coal-based or other dirty technologies,” he said. “We don’t feel good about being in that situation as a company. We feel hypocritical. We want to make investments happen so there will be alternatives for us to use down the road.” Both founders declined to specify what the company spends on energy.

Idealism is hardly new at Google. In their Letter from the Founders before the company’s 2004 initial public stock offering, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin wrote: “Our goal is to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible. In pursuing this goal, we may do things that we believe have a positive impact on the world, even if the near term financial returns are not obvious.”

Mr. Rohan of RBC Capital Markets said that the returns were not obvious. “The only positive byproduct of this project that would be anything other than environmental,” he said, “is that it might make Google managers and executives even prouder of the fact that they work there, and it may help retain key employees who think their goal is to do good in the world. But I’m really stretching.”

Google is only the latest Fortune 500 company to embrace green technologies. Also Tuesday, Hewlett-Packard said it would install a one-megawatt solar electric power system at its manufacturing plant in San Diego, and buy 80 gigawatt-hours of wind energy in Ireland next year. H.P. said that together, the agreements would save it around $800,000 in energy costs.




By BRAD STONE
Published: November 28, 2007

N.H. Resident Creates Whirlwind of Turbine Controversy

Neighbors, officials oppose man's plan to build 3 towers for power

AMHERST, N.H. - In an era when going green is all the rage, one man's effort to harness wind energy has run up against a powerful opponent: zoning laws.

Norm Hebert, a computer consultant, is seeking to erect three wind turbines on his property in his suburban subdivision. He says he will not sell the energy created; he will use it to power his house and keep the air cleaner for everyone.

He wants "to make a positive difference," he told town officials at a recent public hearing on the matter.

But town officials say that the zoning code mandates that no building be taller than 35 feet. They have barred him from erecting his turbines, which could reach 121 feet. Hebert argues that his wind turbines are not buildings and therefore not subject to the zoning code's height restrictions. He has appealed the decision to Hillsborough County Superior Court.

Neighbors, too, are up in arms. They say Hebert clear-cut a large swath of his land to make way for the turbines without consulting them. The trees had acted as a noise buffer from nearby highway traffic. Moreover, they say, Hebert's property, wooded and at a relatively low elevation, is unlikely to have the sort of gusts necessary for the wind turbine.

"It's not that we New Hampshire people don't want wind power," said Merrie Kincaid, who lives across the street from Hebert's property. "But, be reasonable."

Hebert did not return phone calls seeking comment.

His attorney, Silas Little, did not return phone calls seeking comment on the neighbors' concerns.

The dispute highlights a key issue facing alternative energy use, wind power specialists say. Few town zoning codes provide specific regulatory guidance for wind turbines. As such, as more residents and commercial energy producers seek to harness wind energy, height and siting issues are expected to surface in towns across the region.

The clash also underscores the challenges New Hampshire faces as it seeks to meet a legislatively enacted goal of producing at least 25 percent of the state's energy from renewable sources by 2025.

With such a mandate, some say, individuals must be empowered to erect wind turbines.

"We have to take the buckshot approach as opposed to the silver bullet approach," said William Chase, a state representative and supporter of wind energy. "If we are going to hit the 2025 mark, we need to have a lot of medium and small energy production."

But Amherst officials say the issue of turbines, for now, is one of enforcing existing rules.

"We are not picking on alternative energy. We are just following the ordinances," said Robert Rowe, vice chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Wind turbines of the sort that Hebert envisions are different from commercial wind farms, like one proposed for Nantucket Sound or the soon-to-be-constructed wind farm in Lempster, N.H., which will be the state's first. Those projects, specialists say, are far larger. The Lempster wind farm will have a dozen 400-foot-tall turbines on the Lempster Mountain ridge and will generate about 24 megawatts, or enough power for roughly 10,000 homes.

Hebert's proposal, by contrast, would generate only a fraction of that power, alternative energy specialists say. But to be functional, residential wind turbines must still be relatively tall, often 30 to 50 feet higher than anything around it.

Statewide efforts to accommodate wind turbines in zoning codes that limit building or structure heights have failed. Last year, Chase, a Democrat from Westmoreland, proposed legislation that would exempt wind turbines from zoning code height restrictions that do not apply specifically to wind turbines. The legislation also provided guidelines for wind turbine noise generation and location relative to abutters.

The bill stalled in committee after critics said the measure gave the state too great a hand in municipal matters. Chase, a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, said he plans to rework the language of the bill and continue pushing it in the State House.

Meanwhile, Amherst officials are considering a change to their zoning bylaws. R. Gordon Leedy, chairman of the Planning Board, said height restrictions had been enacted at a time when residents were building tall houses.

"No one was thinking about putting up wind turbines then," Leedy said. "Given the current climate - no pun intended - it seems like a change is something people might want to do."

Ultimately, the issue of wind turbines in residential neighborhoods will come down to revised notions of acceptable land use, said Laura Richardson, of the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association.

"It's all about getting accustomed to seeing something and recognizing that you need it," said Richardson. "I don't like cellphone towers, but it's a tool and plenty of people have been saved by them."

Wind power, she said, will come to be seen the same way.

By Sarah Schweitzer, Globe Staff

Expert Provides Insight Into Cellulosic Research

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — “Biomass technology really is in its infancy,” said Tom Richard, director of the Penn State Biomass Energy Center.But its future may hold a lot of promise. At least that’s what scientists who attended the CrossOver 2007 conference at Penn State this week are hoping.

The two-day conference, held Tuesday and Wednesday, was an event designed to highlight research into bioenergy.

This year’s theme, “Bioenergy: From Fields To Wheels,” focused on emerging technologies that could turn a variety of things — pond scum, grasses and plant bacteria among them — into vital sources of energy for the future.

With energy consumption projected to increase dramatically over the next few years and oil prices continuing to be high, most experts believe alternative energy sources will be vital in the next 10 years.

Tom Foust of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Denver, Colo., keynote speaker on Tuesday, believes that alternative energy sources will make big strides in the future.

But they will never replace oil and gasoline for good, he believes. At least it doesn’t look that way now.

According to Foust, a study commissioned in 2005 called “the billion ton study,” claimed the U.S. has enough resources to sustainably produce about 1.3 billion tons of biomass per year.

Foust said the 1.3 billion tons would equal about 1.9 billion barrels of oil — or about 30 percent of the 6.4 billion barrels of oil consumed in the country today.Making it economical and sustainable will be key.

Right now, ethanol, backed by large government subsidies and lots of support, is one of the biggest alternative fuels being produced, largely by corn.

The vast supply of corn in the Midwest coupled by the government’s desire for quick results, is what Foust said is driving the corn ethanol movement.

But many experts, Foust included, believe corn ethanol is not sustainable enough to replace large amounts of gasoline and oil.

He believes cellulosic ethanol, which is derived from plants and grasses, is the wave of the future. “If we are going to produce biofuels, we need to move into cellulosic,” he said.

Making it competitive for companies to produce is not easy. Not to mention that the technology is still only in the development stage and is probably years away.

The cost of producing cellulosic ethanol right now is more than $2.50 a gallon, according to Foust. Feedstock costs and low yields contribute to most of the expense, he said. Add on additional taxes and surcharges and Foust said it would bump the retail price to between $3.50 and $4 per gallon, compared to gasoline which ranges anywhere from $2 to $3 per gallon, depending on oil prices and demand.

And when the fuel is produced, how will it get to consumers? Even though there are now 1,000 E-85 (fuel made from 85 percent ethanol) stations in the country, more than a 10-fold increase from 2002 when there were only 85, the number still pales in comparison to the amount of gasoline stations in existence.

Flex fuel vehicles, cars that are able to operate on E-85, are only now being made available.

For ethanol to become truly competitive with fossil fuels, Foust estimated production costs would have to be reduced to about $1.31 a gallon to get it down to $2.50 at retail.

But it’s a big task, he said, considering the efficiency of cellulosic ethanol production would have to be vastly improved to reduce feedstock costs and to meet the government’s goal of 2012 to get cellulosic ethanol to a point where it is competitive. “The potential is there,” he said, but he added,

“I think there is too much focus on ethanol.

”In Europe, biodiesel research is getting serious attention, with a proposal to eventually run 70 to 80 percent of the European car and truck fleet on biodiesel.

Foust said there is also work being done here that looks at gasification technology, with a similar goal of getting production costs to $1.31 a gallon by 2012. Gasification is a process in which certain carbon-based products such as coal, petroleum and biomass are converted into carbon monoxide and hydrogen, creating something called “syngas” which can be used as a fuel. But the technology is also still in its beginning stages.

In the end, some still believe ethanol may prove to be the best alternative to quenching the country’s thirst for fuel.“The political forces that control the funds are looking for five to 10 year solutions. And that money now is going into ethanol,” Foust said.

And it could be a boon for farmers. “It’s going to provide them another cash crop. Another alternative that will help them stay in business.”

CHRIS TORRESS

Focus on carbon 'missing the point'

The focus on reducing carbon emissions has blinded us to the real problem - unsustainable lifestyles, says Eamon O'Hara. In this week's Green Room, he argues that bigger problems await us unless we shift our efforts.

Focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live Is it not time to recognise that climate change is yet another symptom of our unsustainable lifestyles, which must now become the focus our efforts?

Yet governments, and those organisations who have now assumed the role of combating climate change, subscribe to the notion that climate change is our central problem and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is the cause of this problem.

Undeniably, climate change is a serious problem but it is only one of a growing list of problems that arise from a fundamental global issue.

For many decades, the symptoms of unsustainable human exploitation of the natural environment have been mounting: species extinction, the loss of biodiversity, air and water pollution, soil erosion, acid rain, destruction of rainforests, ozone depletion - the list goes on.

Common cause

These problems all clearly have a common origin, yet the search for solutions has invariably focused on targeted treatments rather than addressing the root cause.
Success has, at best, been patchy. In general, none of these problems have completely disappeared and many have continued to worsen.

Renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency.

Global warming - the latest in this list of environmental woes - is a particularly worrying development, not only because it is potentially catastrophic, but because it is going to be incredibly difficult to control.

The solutions currently being put forward, such as those being championed by the European Union, focus almost exclusively on reducing carbon emissions.

However, by focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live our lives.

This oversight has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies.

This approach to curing our problems is a bit like relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroin.

The large-scale transition to renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency, which will continue to expand in line with economic growth.

Before long, we will discover that even renewables have their limits. We are already being warned about the dangers of excessive demand for biofuels, which is reportedly leading to the clearing of rainforests and increasing competition for land between food and energy production.

The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe.

Ultimately, our problem is consumption, and the environment is not the only casualty.

The modern Western lifestyle also has an inbuilt dependency on the cheap resources and the low carbon footprint of developing countries, which has compounded global injustice.

Worse still, maintaining our relatively wealthy, comfortable and unsustainable lifestyles is now dependant on maintaining this imbalance.

Seventy-five percent of the world's population - more than 4.5bn people - live on just 15% of the world's resources, while we in the West gorge on the remaining 85%.

The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe.

Change of direction

So, what can we do? Obviously, the first thing we need to do is act, and act fast. Every day we wait, another 30,000 children needlessly die; between 100-150 plant and animal species become extinct; 70,000 hectares of rainforest is destroyed and another 150m tonnes of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, another $3.0bn (£1.5bn) is spent on arms and weapons of mass destruction.

We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability.

In my view, we need to embrace this as an opportunity and not see it as a responsibility. Living a more sustainable lifestyle does not have to be a burden, as some people fear.

It could be a liberating and rewarding experience to participate in creating a better world. After all, how good do we really have it at the moment?

How many people are tired and weary of modern living? The endless cycle of earning and consumption can be exhausting and does not necessarily bring happiness and fulfillment. Can we do things differently, and better?

If we don't, then we are heading for certain disaster, regardless of whether or not we manage to reduce our emissions.


The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website