New York University released its Climate Action Plan (CAP) today, which outlines the first steps toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2040.

The plan was developed after the university took a greenhouse gas inventory, and it outlines the projects and methods it will use to reduce or offsets its emissions.

NYU officials credited both Mayor Bloomberg’s PlanNYC Climate Challenge and the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) for initiating and helping shape its actions. The school is a signor of the ACUPCC .

The goals:

• NYU will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions per square foot by 30 percent from FY 2006 levels by FY 2017. This plan aims to reduce emissions in “an immediate, ambitious and tangible way,” school officials said.

• NYU pledges to achieve “climate neutrality” (i.e. net zero emissions) by FY 2040 by upgrading buildings through efficiency and conservation, planning for green building, generating cleaner on-site and renewable energy,  encouraging behavior changes and offsetting remaining emissions.

“Across the University – from academics to financial and space planning to sustainability – we are striving to plan for the long-term,” said Michael Alfano, NYU’s Executive Vice President. “This Climate Action Plan fits within that template, relying on a rigorous analysis to point the way toward a 30-year goal of attaining carbon neutrality.”

Cecil Scheib, Director of Energy and Sustainability, noted in the news release that NYU has already made progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cutting them by 20 percent over the past three years.

“NYU total emissions have dropped from a fiscal year (FY06) peak of 171,000 MTCE to 136,000 MTCE in FY 2009. This decrease in global warming pollution is a measurable component of New York City’s total emissions, and represents a major step toward confronting the challenge of global warming,” Scheib said.

NYU, which is located in Greenwich Village and comprises 14 schools and colleges,  intends to fulfill its CAP by retrofitting buildings to use less energy, and prioritizing those retrofits to maximize emissions reductions.

The school — already the largest university purchaser of wind power — plans to use more cleaner energy by expanding a cogeneration power plant on site, which is expected to mitigate nearly one-quarter of NYU’s baseline FY 2006 emissions. The university will also replace fuel oil used to heat buildings with cleaner energy sources.

NYU is exploring the possibility of adding wind and solar power to its on-site energy plans, projects that it hopes will be financially feasible because of a positive return on investment, buttressed by state and federal incentives.

Whatever emissions the school can’t reduce or eliminate with these methods will be mitigated through local, socially and educationally redeeming offset programs.

NYU’s Manager of Sustainability Initiatives, Jeremy Friedman said that the CAP plan “fuses” the short-term reductions required by the Mayoral Challenge with the broader goals of the ACUPCC.

And the program does not forget the educational opportunities provided by the changing times. NYU expects to foster a campus-wide appreciation of sustainability through expanded course offerings both at the main campus and the affiliated Polytechnic Institute of NYU.

“The size and scope of this problem,” said Friedman, “are equaled only by our collective capacity to confront it together – by reducing greenhouse gas emissions as individuals, and by educating the next generation of leaders in the struggle to create a more sustainable and just world.”

Calling themselves “Clean Energy Patriots,” dozens of environmental leaders today asked the U.S. Senate to quit serving the interests of “Big Oil” and take action on behalf of Americans who want clean energy and climate solutions.

The leaders from nearly 50 environmental and social responsibility groups signed a declaration at the U.S. Capitol. It demands  that the Senate quit stalling on climate action, and kicks off a 40-day countdown until Earth Day, which celebrates its 40th anniversary on April 22.

They urged citizens to join in what they are calling the Earth Day Revolution.

“The first Earth Day was a success because 20 million Americans demonstrated an urgent need for environmental protection and action,” said Kathleen Rogers, President, Earth Day Network. “Together, we can make the 40th anniversary of Earth Day a pivotal moment in the environmental movement. We will use the next 40 days to build momentum around a demand for comprehensive climate legislation…”

Clean energy legislation would not only protect the environment, it would create jobs and improve national security, the leaders said.

“For too long Big Oil and their special interest allies have stood in the way of a clean energy revolution. It’s time for lawmakers to listen to the millions of citizens who will recognize this Earth Day by demanding the Senate gets working to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation,” said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. “We need more Clean Energy Patriots this year. We need an Earth Day Revolution, not just another celebration.”

The campaign will wind up with a Climate Rally on the Sunday after Earth Day, on April 25.

The following groups have signed the Earth Day Declaration:

1Sky

Audubon

American Hunters and Shooters

American Rivers

American Values Network

Campus Progress

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Clean Water Action

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Climate Protection Action Fund

Climate Solutions

Defenders of Wildlife

Democracia Ahora

Earth Day Network

Environment America

Environmental Defense Action Fund

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Green for All

Hip Hop Caucus

Interfaith Power and Light

La Onda Verde

League of Conservation Voters

National Catholic Rural Life Conference

National Wildlife Federation

NWF Campus Ecology

Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund

Oceana

Operation Free

Rock the Vote

Sierra Club

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

SACE

Southern Energy Network

StudentPIRGs

SustainUS

Truman National Security Project

Union of Concerned Scientists

Veterans for Common Sense

Voces Verdes

World Wildlife Fund

The Wilderness Society

Clean energy and Fortune 500 executives arrived in Washington D.C. today for the fifth and final leg of the “Race for American Jobs: Clean Energy Leadership,” a coast-to-coast virtual race to drive home the economic and job-creation benefits of national climate and energy legislation.

Sponsored by We Can Lead, a coalition of business leaders from 30 states who are pushing for new  energy and climate policies in the United States, the  the four-week campaign included events in Oregon, Colorado, Ohio and New Hampshire, before moving to Washington.

A “race” baton, calling for swift passage of comprehensive climate legislation, was delivered at Congressional today on Capitol Hill. The baton was signed by executives from Best Buy, Nike, Starbucks, Levi Strauss, Jones Lang LaSalle and Stonyfield, and others from clean energy companies, union leadership, and investor and youth groups.

The group believes that comprehensive climate and energy policies such as those that passed in the House could create up to 1.9 million jobs nationally from 2010 to 2020, including up to 26,000 jobs in Oregon and 61,000 jobs in Ohio, according to a recent study by the University of California.

“The time to act is now,” Sarah Severn, director of stakeholder mobilization for Nike Inc., which hosted the first leg of the cross-country race Feb. 16 at its Oregon headquarters, said in a statement. “The U.S. needs legislation that gives clean energy entrepreneurs an even playing field to compete globally for innovation and job creation.”

Jim Hanna, director of environmental impact at Starbucks, said “the sooner we develop national climate policies, the better equipped we’ll be to compete in the global race for clean energy and create new jobs here at home.”

You’ve got to feel for the dirty fuel lobbyist, adrift in a world where suddenly oil and coal energy has competition, where emerging clean tech companies are peddling cheap energy solutions like wind and solar power (cheap because they’re renewable and non-polluting) and environmentalists keep jabbering about how carbon in the atmosphere is ruining the planet. Sheesh!

Such a lobbyist needs respite from the tilting political landscape, someone with whom to cuddle up, share their story, bestow with lots of money — like a U.S. Senator or Representative!

What, you say, a match made in Washington? Yes. We know. Often these matches just come together on their own. It all clicks, and everyone — that is everyone from big established polluting industries and everyone who’s the lucky duck plucked from the U.S. Congress for the windfall — is well served. (You didn’t think we really meant everyone, like the public? Silly!).

But sometimes these potentially perfect pairings need a little nudging along.

Now our esteemed elected leaders and the lonely, over-funded lobbyists who crave their love can get help, and just in time for Valentine’s Day! Polluter Harmony, a matchmaking service just for lobbyists and politicians, can help pair up those who want to hold the status quo on dirty energy with those who need to finance their next election (or overseas junket). Neat, huh?

Here’s how pHarmony works.

Who said environmentalists don’t have a sense of humor? I mean, I laughed, I cried, I wished this satire wasn’t so dead on. Leave it to Greenpeace, which by the way has a completely serious goal in mind here, to expose politicians who’ve been corrupted by big dollars from dirty industries.

See more at the website.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Environmentalism is getting an injection of fun, but with a serious aim.

Today, some of the nation’s best-known and critically acclaimed celebrities, Leonardo DiCaprio, Edward Norton, Jason Bateman, Felicity Huffman and Forest Whitaker, along with rising stars Chace Crawford, Emmy Rossum and Justin Long, are leading a campaign to help citizens sound the call for clean energy in Washington.

(Noted professor Cornell West also makes a cameo appearance in the video, impishly declaring “Tweet this!)

The program, launched today by these actors and the Natural Resources Defense Council, is called  This is Our Moment. It’s main thrust: To help people contact their senators, even flood their email boxes, make videos and generally get viral in pushing for an American clean energy bill.

Those who want to register their support for clean energy action can use social networking tools at the website to spread the message. Fans of the movement will be able to embed a video player on their Facebook page or blog, and more. (Tweet this! says West.)

This is Our Moment supports legislation to shift the nation’s energy production from fossil-fuel based power sources to non-polluting, renewable sources such as wind and solar power.

The viral campaign was timed to begin after President Obama’s State of the Union address, in which he called for passage of a clean energy bill. The U.S. House passed such a measure in 2009, but the legislation, called the Clean Energy, Jobs and American Power Act, has been stalled in the Senate.

Advocates say that passage of the bill would create local jobs, free the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil and greatly reduce carbon emissions, which scientists warn are fueling accelerating climate change.

“This is our moment – our moment to fight for a cleaner and more secure future,” said DiCaprio, a longtime environmentalist and an NRDC Trustee, in a news release. “The time is now for people across the country to stand up and have their voices heard. We all must call on the Senate to act on this historic opportunity.”

Those opposed to a clean energy and climate action bill in the Senate have raised questions about the accuracy of the science of climate change. They’ve also called for the nation to pursue all energy sources, an approach opposed by environmentalists who want less of the nation’s energy to come from the burning of fossil fuels. Gasoline engines and coal-fired power plants generate the majority of carbon emissions in the U.S. and in countries around the world.

In his State of the Union address, Obama called on Congress to pass clean energy legislation so that the U.S. can remain a world manufacturing leader.

China, as well as India and most European nations, are adding wind and solar capacity, creating a large world market for clean energy technology expertise and goods.

Major U.S. firms, such as General Electric among others, make components for wind turbines. Several Silicon Valley companies are developing cheaper and more efficient solar tools, both for large industrial and home installations.

Like what you see on YouTube? Here’s the longer version by the “This is Our Moment” celebs:

Said NRDC President Frances Beinecke: “This is one of the most important pieces of legislation of our time – we cannot let our moment pass us by. Our Senators need to hear all of us loud and clear.”

Dr. James Hansen, the NASA scientist known for sounding an early alarm about climate change, will join student protesters at a “sleep out” in Boston this weekend.

The students, from Boston-area and other Massachusetts colleges, have been sleeping out on Boston Common and at various campuses to push the state to pass a law committing to clean energy. Their target goal: Have Massachusetts pledge to be using 100 percent clean energy by 2020.

They’ve asked Gov. Deval Patrick, already known for signing the Global Warming Solutions Act, to again put the state at the forefront of combatting climate change by introducing clean energy  legislation before the legislature adjourns later this month. The students have won a meeting with the governor on Nov. 17.

The sleep outs began two weeks ago, with the overnight campouts followed by lobbying with legislators on Monday mornings. Four Last week, police ticketed the campers for trespassing, student leaders said.

This weekend the group expects at least 100 student activists to meet with Dr. Hansen (whose Phd is in Physics from the University of Iowa) at a 4 p.m. Sunday rally, followed by the camp out. Dr. Hansen is scheduled to hold a press conference at 9:30 a.m. Monday morning (Nov. 9).

In June, Dr. Hansen, along with actress and environmental activists Daryl Hannah, was arrested for civil disobedience for blocking a road at a coal plant protest in West Virginia. The pair, along with several local residents, were protesting mountaintop removal.

Known for his testimony to Congress in 1988, alerting leaders to the dangers of greenhouse gases, Hansen has said that the world needs to move away from burning coal to create electricity.

The student sleep out was inspired by the idea that protesters would not rely on the “dirty energy” heating their homes and dorms until lawmakers pledged to move in a new direction.

It could be colder in Boston this time of year. With overnight lows in the upper 40s, it’s not the worst or best condition for sleeping outside.

"Sleepers" gather in Boston

Still, that’s what dozens of college students and environmental activists across the state have decided to do to make a point about clean energy and press Gov. Deval Patrick to promote a bill that would power Massachusetts with 100 percent clean energy by 2020.

The students, organized through the student-led Leadership Campaign, began their “sleep out” protest this past weekend with about 70 students and community members sleeping out in Boston Common.

Participants came from Harvard and Boston Universities; from Clark University and Worcester Polytechnic Institute and even from Westfield State College and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst in the western part of the state. Community members came from all over the state and included ordained clergy, according to organizers.

The plan: To sleep outdoors instead of in dormitories and houses powered by “dirty electricity”, until a plan is in place to power homes with clean electricity. Monday morning, after the first sleep in, students lobbied legislators at the Statehouse.

How long will the students shiver in the night? They’ll be back every Sunday night in Boston Common, and on other campuses students will continue to sleep out through the week,  until early December, if necessary. The activists want Patrick to introduce and pass a bill before Dec. 7, when global climate negotiations begin in Copenhagen. (Find out more about sleeping out on their website.)

“Massachusetts has already led on this issue,” said protest coordinator Craig Altemose. “When the science said 450 parts per million [of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was the safe upper limit], the Legislature passed a bill putting the Commonwealth on track with this target.

“But now the science says 350 is the highest safe level.  We’re now at 390, so we know that the Legislature and the Governor will again step forward and lead us to a clean energy future with accurate science-based targets.”

What the students and activists are asking for is realistic, says Dan Abrams, a spokesman for the Leadership Campaign.

Tents in Boston

“…There have been numerous reports that state that we can get a very high percentage of our energy in Massachusetts from wind and solar alone.  I have read a report that says we can get around 60% of our energy from wind alone. I also have heard of a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that says we can get 92% of our energy from wind and solar (and that doesn’t include off shore wind or energy conservation),” Abrams said.

But moving to clean energy is not really a choice dictated by how easy or not it will be to shift the infrastructure and electricity generation, he said.

“The science has clearly stated the world needs to cap the carbon in our atmosphere at 350ppm and we must do whatever it takes to get us below that number; 10 years is how long we are giving our government because it’s very scientifically possible to get to this goal much sooner but it is the politics that take a little bit longer.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Not convinced that climate change matters? The Union of Concerned Scientists has concluded that if Americans adopt that stance, they’ll be gambling not just with their lungs, but with their pocketbooks.

The UCS surveyed 60 studies to better examine the anticipated financial toll of global warming if we fail to “dramatically curb emissions.” The nonprofit released the findings today in a report called “Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction”.

It found that rising sea levels, intense hurricanes, flooding, impaired public health and strained energy and water resources would all add up to one monumental price tag.

“By late this century, the Midwest could be inundated with more torrential rainstorms costs tens of billions of dollars [in crop and property damage]. California, Washington and Oregon could be hit with an additional billion dollars in property damage from wildfires every year. The Northeast and Northwest, meanwhile, could lost most of their snowpack, which would kill the ski industry,” said Lexi Shultz, deputy director of the Climate Program at UCS.

But wait, there’s good news: The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration says that developing clean energy and taking steps to slow global warming emissions would be affordable. The EIA says that the cost of fighting global warming would only cost each American household about $10 a month in increases in their energy bills by 2020.

The UCS wants us to stack that price tag of about $120 a year against the staggering costs of inaction. If climate change continues unchecked, with temperatures climbing by 7 to 11 degrees by 2100, the UCS report projects that:

• The federal government could end up spending billions fighting wildfires (which would increase by as much as 53 percent in 2100) considering the feds spent $200 million fighting just three wildfires last year in California.

• California would also suffer from heat-related public health issues and associated costs of billions to mitigate the human effects of ground-level ozone, which would worsen under climate change.

• The loss of snowpack would make many recreation areas in the Northeast and the Northwest unsuitable for skiing and snowmobiling, costing, conservatively, a loss of $405 million in annual skiing revenues.

• Reduced snow melt in all of the nation’s mountainous regions could affect water flow in streams and ultimately cost farmers, such as those in New Mexico where the loss of water from reduced snowmelt could cost $21 million a year by 2080.

• Shrinking snowpack would have huge impact in Oregon and Washington on many industries. Losses to the coldwater fishing (angling) industry could ultimately cost about $1 billion annually.

• In the Northeast, sugar maples would lose habitat, meaning annual loss of $5 to $12 million just to that industry.

• Sea level rise all along the East Coast would require seawalls. Possible cost in the Northeast: Up to $1.2 billion, and more in the Southeast

• In the Southeast, where a projected rise of 18 inches is anticipated in sea levels, the beach recreation industry could incur $11 billion in cumulative damages by 2080.

• Georgia alone could lose 5,000 tourism jobs.

• Florida could be especially hard hit, experiencing residential real estate losses of as much as $60 billion a year by 2100, due to sea level rises. The tourism industry could be slapped with more than $175 billion in annual losses due to beach erosion. Property damage from hurricanes could top $100 billion annually by 2100.

• In the Midwest, flooding and heavy downpours predicted by a collaboration of 13 federal agencies, could cause billions of dollars of crop damage and exacerbate erosion, raising the price of food production. Looking at just one state, Illinois, the annual costs to agriculture could reach $9.3 billion.

• Alaska, where warming is occurring disproportionately faster than in other states, would suffer continued damage to infrastructure as the permafrost melts, costing up to $6 billion just by 2030.

As for those who might ask whether these projections are alarmist, a spokesman for the UCS notes that the report was based on “mainstream” studies and that scientists, if anything, tend to err on the of conservatism.

“Most climate scientists acknowledge that current methods of predicting the consequences of climate change may underestimate the real impact and costs of climate change. More carbon dioxide is staying in the atmosphere as the ocean absorbs less and less over time. At the same time, ice sheets appear to be melting more rapidly than scientist have expected,” said Aaron Huertas, press secretary for the UCS, which is based in Massachusetts.

“…If these costs seem large it’s only because our dependence on the relatively stable climate of the past century or so is immense,” Huertas said. “Every home, every crop, every road — our entire civilization — has been built for today’s climate. A rapid shift in our climate will mean major disruptions for our way of life.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

We’ve been told that the switch to green energy will cost us a lot or a little, depending on who’s putting out the information.

Now, the Natural Resources Defense Council is telling us that switching to clean energy, as supported in the pending American Clean Energy and Security Act in Congress, would save us money on our electricity bills — at least by 2020.

It does make intuitive sense. Green, local(ish) energy harvested directly from the wind, solar and geothermal powers already in abundant supply in various U.S. locations – minus expensive wars to nail down rights to the world’s last drops of oil – should come at a fair price, at some point.

The NRDC’s model projects “modest” savings per household over “business-as-usual” — ranging from a few states where there’s no savings predicted up to savings of $8 or even $11 a month, with the average being $5.99 a month. (See the map above — click to view it larger.)

We’re sure this is a respectable analysis. Still, we have to say, who really knows? There are so many variables. Who will control these new energy sources? What will their front end costs be, and how much will they want to extract from consumers? Will we build sensible new buildings to help keep costs in line (efficient buildings can help ease peak demand; net zero buildings can even feed the grid)? Will the population projections (which the NRDC used for this model) remain stable? How hot will it get out there?

What if there are missteps? Remember the frenzy over biofuel from corn?

We do appreciate that the NRDC has stepped in with what appears to be a rational assessment of where we might end up in 2020, cost-wise, especially with others trumpeting less analytical assessments, stoking fears about the costs of change.

The NRDC’s view is simpatico with the EPA’s, which projects American will save some seven percent on household energy costs by 2020.

The bottomline: We hope so.

The skies are getting cleaner thanks to efforts made by Continental Airlines in partnership with Boeing, GE Aviation/CFM International, and Honeywell’s UOP. In early January of this year, Continental Airlines conducted the first biofuel demonstration flight by a commercial carrier in North American. Wednesday, Continental Airlines said it was “very pleased” in announcing its analysis of the flight.

The 90-minute test flight, taking off from, and then returning to, Houston, successfully completed many necessary flight operations. Engine 1 operated on 100 percent jet fuel, while Engine 2 of the Boeing 737-800 operated on a blend of 50 percent jet fuel and 50 percent biofuel. The biofuel was made from a combination of algae and jatropha plants, which do not impact food harvests, water resources or contribute to deforestation.

While reducing the amount of traditional jet fuel used was an accomplishment because it potentially reduces dependency on crude oil — the use of biofuel provided an even greater benefit in lessening air pollution.

“Overall life cycle greenhouse gas emissions related to using a biofuel like the one used on our demonstration flight are estimated to be reduced by 60 percent to 80 percent as compared to traditional jet fuel,” said Susannah Thurston, Corporate Communications Manager at Continental

“We are very pleased with the findings of the demonstration flight,” Thurston said Thursday.

As far as when travelers can expect biofuels to be used on commercial flights, Susan Gross with UOP Communications expects it to be another three years. UOP expects to receive the licensing rights at the end of this summer. It will then take an approximate two-and-a-half years until the fuel is produced in commercial quantities and widely used.

In regards to the cost of biofuel in comparison to traditional jet fuel, Susan Gross says “at this time, we are unable to predict the actual cost.” There are two large factors when computing the cost of the biofuel, 85% is directly related to the cost of the products used and 15% is the cost of refining the fuel. The refining cost will stay the same. For example, the two alternatives used in the Continental demonstration flight, algae oil and jatropha plants, are more expensive than crude oil at this time. UOP hopes that with increasing demand for alternative fuels, more plants will be harvested and the prices will be comparable.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Solazyme Inc., a Bay Area algal fuel company, has won the San Francisco Business Times’ Bay Area Green Business Award for Renewable Energy  Fuels.

The awards, presented June 11, recognize the Bay Area’s clean technology companies. A panel of area experts judged more than 200 nominations in 14 categories. Judging took three months.

“The San Francisco Bay Area is the heart of Green Technology innovation, we are proud to be selected for this honor, recognizing the work we’ve done in bringing renewable oil production and algal fuel to commercialization,” said Jonathan Wolfson, chief executive officer of Solazyme, in a statement. “This award further demonstrates the importance of our technology and research and recognizes our position in the industry during this critical time for our environment and for energy security.”

For more information about Solazyme, which was founded in 2003 with headquarters in South San Francisco, see this story on Green Right Now. The companies microbial conversion process converts algae into an oil that can replace fossil petroleum or plant oils in a range of products, serving as biofuels and also as components of household cleaning supplies, cosmetics and foods (it’s edible).

There’s a new wind whirly-gig on the block. You may not recognize him. Unlike those tall towers with outstretched airplane-style propellers, this new guy has a compact stance, a whole new look. Arms tucked in, he whirs more slowly and congregates with just a few others to power a building at time.

This wind power generator, called a vertical axis wind turbine, can be puzzling. Looking at one, it’s difficult to fathom how it works, though it simply uses a different aerodynamic concept than its propeller cousins, catching up winds that come from different directions bouncing along closer to the ground. The idea has actually been around for at least 2,000 years “but it’s just never been made to work very well,” says Michael Hess, CEO of Mariah Power.

Hess and company say they’re changing that. Using technology and metals (lightweight aluminum and steel) that weren’t available to the ancients who first tried the design, and correcting issues that afflicted more recent incarnations,  they’re taking the vertical axis to a new level of efficiency, says Hess, whose Reno, Nevada-based company is one of a handful of vertical wind turbine manufacturers.

“People had made them out of plastic and fiberglass before but that made them wear out, so we use metal (and) we solve the problems of stress and rust…,” he said. “We have to have a very straight pole, for instance, otherwise you have vibrations and movement. It’s straight within 1/16 of an inch over 20 feet.”

The result is Mariah’s “Windspire” – a spare-looking whizzy that stands just 30 feet tall and is only four feet across, making it readily available for single-site use by homes, small businesses and commercial buildings.

It doesn’t produce power at the same rate as those towering edifices on the prairie, because it operates differently and doesn’t ply the faster winds at higher altitudes. But given sufficient ground-level winds, each one can cover about 20 to 30 percent of a home’s energy needs. Specifically, the 1.2 kilowatt Windspire will produce approximately 2000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year in 12 mph average winds, according to the manufacturer. (The annual consumption of the average American home is about 8,700 kw.)

And it does this for a realistic price. A standard Windspire is $6,500 – or about $4,550 after a federal tax credit for 30 percent of the cost.

Or even less, if your state also offers a clean energy tax incentive that can be used for small wind on top of the federal credit.

There are about 200 Windspires on the ground or set to be installed in residential, commercial and university settings, says Hess. Some, like the one installed at the NC Solar Center of NC State in Raleigh, are demonstration projects.

Others are empowering homes and small facilities in scattered locations across the country.