TD Bank is going carbon neutral and building LEED-qualified banking centers

From Green Right Now Reports

TD Bank, which touts itself as America’s Most Convenient Bank, has decided to build its next branches to green building standards, the corporation announced today at its first green branch in Farmingdale, N.Y..

The bank, with more than 1,000 stores from Maine to Florida, will be opening another green store, a prototype for more to come, at 214-32 Jamaica Ave., Queens Village, N.Y., this spring.

TD Bank, with headquarters in Cherry Hill, N.J. and Portland, Maine, declared that its entire operation will now be carbon neutral, via its greener buildings, lowered energy consumption and purchases of renewable energy.

The bank expects to open another five to 10 new green stores in 2010, the majority of which will be submitted for LEED certification at the platinum level.

Those new branches will include features such as wood from sustainably managed forests, low VOC building materials, insulated glass to cut heat gain and sensors to control lighting.

The Queens prototype store, and subsequent stores, will have a solar canopy over the drive-through lanes that will generate electricity (hey customers be sure to cut the engine while waiting in line). The Queens location also will have secure bike parking, efficient plumbing and drought-tolerant landscaping.

In 2011, “the vast majority of new TD Bank stores constructed will be LEED certified” and all stores thereafter will be LEED qualified, the bank reported. TD Bank already opened LEED certified offices at 200 State Street in Boston, and it is buying enough wind power to run its entire network of 2,600 Automated Teller Machines (ATMs).

TD Bank’s new 3,800 square-feet stores based on the Queens prototype will reduce energy consumption by 50 percent compared with previous designs, the company estimated, with nearly 20 percent of the store’s energy being produced on-site through solar panels and those solar drive-through canopies.

Tapping the sun. Now that’s convenient.

Photo: SunEdison.com

Residents in Davidson County, N.C. will be getting more of their power from the sun after SunEdison activated the first phase of a 16-megawatt solar farm there.

The initial phase is comprised of 14,000 solar panels designed to produce four megawatts of generation capacity. Over six million kilowatt hours of electricity are expected in the first year of operation.

Duke Energy is buying the farm’s entire output with a 20-year contract. Over the length of the agreement, the farm is expected to generate 115 million kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power 10,000 average homes for a year. That production should offset more than 225 million pounds of carbon dioxide that otherwise would have been introduced into the environment by a traditional coal-burning plant.

“This first phase represents a major milestone in our overall plan to develop 16 megawatts of solar energy at this site,” said SunEdison President Carlos Domenech. “Having financed and completed this initial installation, we have mobilized resources for the next phase of the solar farm.”

The farm is one of several North American utility-scale power plants that SunEdison has financed and developed, and now operates. In all, the company lists 322 operational sites in the U.S., mostly in California and on the East Coast.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The clock has just struck midnight on New Year’s Eve, 2020, and your rooftop cocktail party is in full swing. An urban garden, with potted evergreens and fruit trees, carpets the top of your downtown apartment building. The structure itself is vintage – a 1960’s brownstone that’s been retrofitted, by city-wide mandate. It operates on the new multi-source national electrical grid, which is supplied by wind, solar, geothermal power, as well as fossil fuels whose emissions are trapped underground.

Rooftop Garden (Photo: Adpower99/Dreamstime.)

In your apartment, appliances and plumbing fixtures are energy- and water-efficient – something you were able to afford with the help of government incentives that started in 2010.

As the New Year turns, friends sip mojitos with mint freshly cut from your herb garden, nibbling locally made goat cheese, accented by your own roof-grown tomatoes and cukes. A rainwater-collection system irrigates your vegetable garden, and the rooftop’s community compost fertilizes it. Solar-heated water percolates through your plumbing, and a mobile rooftop solar system heats and cools your home. Several stories below, in the building’s underground parking lot, the family car is getting its nightly re-charge.

It’s a smart, self-contained life, one that consumes no more than it requires, and produces some of its own food and energy on-site. And believe it or not, you are paying less for utilities, transportation – for life, in general – than you did a decade ago. That’s because U.S. policy-makers and legislators pushed so hard ten years before to put the country on an aggressive path toward a sustainable, renewable-energy future.

Imagine if they hadn’t pushed through the Energy and Power Bill in 2010, or the emissions Cap and Trade plan or later, the Carbon Tax bill… Imagine if progressive, quickly instituted policies and incentives hadn’t reassured manufacturers and factory owners that it was a good idea to retool and hire and train all those “green-economy” workers. …

This is the future we could see, the best case scenario we might see, if the White House and U.S. Congress and the rest of us act aggressively – now – to grow a green economy and reduce carbon emissions.

Is it Possible?

Most conservative think-tanks and government agencies foresee a longer-term conversion to green energy. According to one DOE report, the fastest we could move would be to attain 20 percent wind by 2030, while still relying on fossil fuels for up to 78 percent of  our overall power as late as 2035.

There are quicker conversion scenarios offered by groups ranging from the Union of Concerned Scientists to the American Wind Energy Association , from the Worldwatch Institute and the Renewable Energy and a Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) to former Vice President Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection/Repower America plan.

The latter suggests the U.S. could be at 100 percent renewable in 10 years,  but that roadmap doesn’t give a breakdown on which types of energy would provide what percentage of our overall electricity needs.And Gore’s and similar plans have been criticized as requiring the economy to travel at a warp speed not possible on this planet. They’ve also been challenged as risky, because they’d be based totally on today’s technologies, when solar and geothermal and biofuels are rapidly improving and coming down in price. Of course this could help us get there more quickly, but it also warns against locking in commitments.

In fact, if there’s one thing all parties agree upon, it’s that there is no single, truly reliable breakdown for a ten-year scenario that predicts specifics for how the energy pie would be divided in 10 years; 20 percent solar? 30 percent wind? 40 percent conventional fossil fuels like natural gas? Where does nuclear power fit?
No one has a crystal ball.

According to Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University civil engineering professor and co-author of a recent report in Scientific American – “Evaluating the Feasibility of a Large Scale Wind, Water and Sun Energy Infrastructure” - in theory, the United States shouldn’t have a problem converting all “new production of electricity to renewable by 2020. The issue is, what’s ‘new’? It’s not going to be a high percent of the total. Each year you can replace a certain percent, but a (pre-existing) power plant can last 40 years.”

However, Jacobson adds,  ”It’s certainly feasible in ten years - if everybody put their minds to it – to say  all new power has to be renewable. We could be at 50 percent wind, 40 percent solar and 10 percent everything else, including geothermal, hydro-electric, even some tidal wave power.”

But converting our total energy production to renewables in 10 years is not a likely scenario, he says, because that would require the U.S. government to “take away all the subsidies from fossil fuels and shift them over to renewables” – unlikely, even with a progressive President and Congress.

“These coal plants that are grandfathered in, the way to make those go out of business is to change the subsidies, change the laws, but we’ll have a battle! Getting rid of the old stuff is easier said than done. We have all these people working in the industry and they are going to complain that we’re costing the country jobs, putting their companies out of business. And we’d need a job training program to shift them into other industries.”

But is it technically possible to have all new energy be renewable by 2020?

Yes,  says the professor, adding that we might already be at 25 percent renewable for new power now.

“Right now, wind is the second largest source of all new energy, after natural gas, and if we slowly get rid of the ‘old’ power, how fast that could occur depends on”  introducing things like new laws and incentives, aggressive policies that don’t change with each election, as well as shifting subsidies to green power interests and ridding the powers-that-be of outmoded mindsets.

Jacobson concludes:  ”The scenario of 100 percent conversion to renewables in 10 years is very slim. A 90 percent conversion – maybe a little less slim. … That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. All forces should be aligned to do these things. But given there are so many confliciting interests – there are lobbyists, naysayers, competing financial interests, the economic cycles, the political cycles – so many potential roadblocks. … You can’t just shut down the existing plants and have new generation on-line in 10 years. You could imagine the law suits. The goal is there, but if you think about it as retiring existing things as they go down, there’s probably less of a fight on that front.”

And, as the civil engineer points out, ” electric power is not the only thing you’re trying to change. You’re trying to change the entire infrastructure, so you want to go down the path of least resistance. It’s better to get 25 percent across the board – for everything, for other sectors, and not just (go for) 100 percent for electric power. Those other sectors include industrial, transportation, energy efficiency” for our built-environment.

As for which type of renewable energy will create the largest chunk of power in America, no one can say. So let’s take a look at the three main ones  consistently mentioned by renewable-energy proponents. First up, wind power.

Propelled to action by student protesters who’d been sleeping out in Boston Common for several weeks, Massachusetts state officials introduced a bill this week to study making the state run entirely on green energy.

Students in Boston win fight for clean energy bill (Photo: Ian Maclellan.)

It wasn’t exactly what the protesters had demanded — a bill promising to put the state on 100 percent clean energy by 2020 — but it was a good compromise, student leaders said.

“We’re happy…This is a step in the right direction and it seems very practical and rational to get this task force going first,” said Dan Abrams, who handled communications for the campaign. “This task force is charged with proposing ways to get 100% clean electricity by 2020. We’ve given them the goal and asked them to figure out how to get us there. We know it can happen and we know it needs to happen. We have our own policy recommendations that we’ve come up with from our own research and experts and we would like to see what experts on this task force will propose.”

Mass. Rep. William Brownsberger and Sen. Marc Pacheco filed an “Act to Create and Repower Massachusetts Emergency Task Force” on Monday on behalf of The Leadership Campaign, the alliance of student groups that had pushed for the measure.

It asks the Commonwealth to assemble a task force to research what will be needed to get Massachusetts to 100 percent clean electricity by 2020. It asks that the taskforce be chaired by the SEcretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs and include various elected leaders, state officials and members from these eight “communities”: environmental justice, renewable energy companies, student climate advocates, religious organizations, environmental groups, utilities, business, and academics.

The Leadership Campaign, a project of Students for a Just and Stable Future, is asking for results from the task force in six months, in keeping with the urgency of the issue, as they see it.

Student leaders hope to be working with members of the task force for a long time, Abrams said.

Students for a Just and Stable Future is a network of students across Massachusetts fighting for a strong response to climate change. The group held its final sleepout at a snowy, freezing Boston Common this past Sunday with about 80 people sleeping in tents across from the Statehouse.

Reverend Yearwood, President and CEO of The Hip Hop Caucus and one of many leaders who supported the students in their weeks-long effort (including NASA climate scientist James Hansen and noted environmentalist Bill McKibben) spoke at a rally that afternoon.

“There will be young people who look back 49 years from now to what you’re doing in Massachusetts and say thank you,” he said.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Roof-mounted solar panels on Hall's Warehouse in South Plainfield New Jersey. (Photo: Business Wire)

By Melissa Segrest
Green Right Now

The latest generation of workers in clean technology jobs aren’t all engineers, tech experts and scientists. They aren’t all in Silicon Valley – some are from Detroit or Gary, Ind.

They may come from community colleges or be fresh out of high school.

Even with the aching economy, venture capital is flowing to clean technologies at a rate rivaling biotech and software investments. The Federal government is pushing for smarter, sustainable and alternative forms of power, transportation and energy efficiency.

Around the world – in Europe, India, Japan and, especially, China – clean technology is a growing job market.

Unlike the high-tech bubble in California, these industries are spread out. Along with the financial analysts and system designers, there are jobs for laborers with new skills – biofuel boiler operators, insulation workers for green buildings or solar energy system installers.

Those are some details from a recently released study of jobs in clean technology industries. Clean Edge, a research and publishing company focused on the clean-tech sector since 2000, looked for the first time at the various jobs associated with these fields, as well as the top areas in the country where the jobs are emerging.

“This is a dispersed revolution, not concentrated in one place, like Silicon Valley during the dot.com boom,” said Ron Pernick, an author of the report and co-founder/managing director of Clean Edge.  “It’s in dozens of nodes and places all over the globe. And it’s not just one type of profession, but with all levels of education” and a significant range of jobs.

Wind power has more than 400,000 direct and indirect jobs around the globe.

Clean energy jobs are growing faster than other job sectors, according to Pew research cited in the report. In the solar photo-voltaic field alone, there are more than 200,000 jobs (direct and indirect) worldwide. The wind power area, Clean Edge reports, has more than 400,000 direct and indirect jobs around the globe.

What is clean tech? Companies that in some way use or produce renewable materials and energy sources, reduce use of natural resources (or improve efficiency), and limit or stop pollution and toxic waste, the report said.

Among the 36 jobs sampled:

• A boiler operator in a biofuel/biomaterial company could receive (with some years of related experience) a median annual salary of $61,000 with either a high school or associate’s degree.
• A building maintenance engineer for a “green” building (also with mid-level experience) might be looking at a median pay level of $43,300, again with a high school or associate’s degree.
• At higher levels, in entry-level jobs that call for a bachelor’s degree, a solar energy system designer ‘s median pay is $42,600, while a smart-grid software engineer’s median  income is $65,500.

(The job/salary information was determined both by Clean Edge and PayScale, a compensation data publisher. A national median means that half of those doing each job are paid more than the median, and half are paid less.)

Even at entry level, a high school grad or someone with an associate’s degree would need to have some specialized training for the tech jobs. On Clean Edge’s job listings, “those energy efficiency jobs, and solar installation jobs, all of these jobs, at the end of the day, on the manufacturing side, on the installation jobs, they are technical jobs,” Pernick said.

While it is true the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose metropolitan area is still number one in the study’s clean-tech job activity list Detroit/Ann Arbor, Mich. is 14^th on the list of 15.

“Detroit is a great example, and they’re having a difficult time as you know,” said Pernick. In Wixom, Mich., a former Ford plant closed in 2007 is a 320-acre facility that has been purchased by Xtreme Power (wind and solar power systems) and Clairvoyant Energy (solar panel manufacturing). They are planning to reopen the plant in 2011 and could potentially employ thousands, the report said.

In West Branch, Iowa, a hydraulic pump maker laid off 130 workers in 2003. Now wind turbines are being built by 130 employees there, and more hires are planned. In Newton, Iowa, an old Maytag plant for home appliances had laid off 1,800 people in 2007. Now, TPI Composites are making wind turbine blades there and have hired 325 people since 2008, the report says. They are aiming at 500 employees by 2020.

And it’s not just new companies on the clean-tech bandwagon: Big firms such as Siemens have 5,500 working in their wind-business division, and BP has more than 2,200 solar employees.

Of all the clean-tech businesses in the world, four are in the U.S., three are in China and three in the European Union, the report said.. The largest is Vestas Wind Systems in Denmark, with 21,100 employees.

Pressure for more efficient sources of industry coincides with large numbers of retiring employees. The result, according to Pernick, can be found in the example of California’s Pacific Gas & Electric. PG&E “is a company reinventing itself. . . . They need to build out their energy intelligence and clean energy integration because of other forces. But as they’re facing a huge shift in their existing labor pool, they are going to hire people trained in those new arenas.”

But will Americans who don’t like the idea of public funding for new ventures object to stimulus money for clean tech businesses?

“The government has a history of highly subsidized and deregulated energy sources. Coal, nuclear, oil – they’re all highly subsidy-dependent and regulatory dependent. Time has changed, they don’t create a lot of jobs in those industries (non-renewable), they are not providing energy independence,” Pernick said.

That said, Clean Edge’s report offers five models for publicly financing clean-tech jobs.  Some have interesting precedents in American history. The Green Bank (officially the Clean Energy Development Administration) proposal is moving through the U.S. House and Senate and receiving bipartisan support. The bank could fund lots of renewable energy, energy efficiency and pollution reducing businesses and leverage lots of private investment as well. In the 19^th century, the report says, the government supported private enterprise – the building out of America’s railroads.

Another blast from the past for clean tech support could be a form of “Victory Bonds,” similar to the War Bonds sold to support World War II efforts, the study said. The World Bank and a Scandinavian bank helped raise more than $350 million for “green bonds” in 2008.

Another public-financing idea is the production of more Federal bonds that offer bondholders a tax credit (to some extent) in lieu of interest payments. The report also speaks about Federal loan guarantees and city-administered loan funds — where homeowners could borrow money to be more energy efficient (solar energy cells on their roofs, for example), then repay the loans over a long time via property taxes or utility bills.

Clean-tech companies and financing options are spread across the country, so there will be competition. However, “there are so many players . . . you can try to put together a great package to attract a company (in New York, for example) and they just may end up in Texas or Colorado or Oregon. There’s no way to divine who’s going to get the deal.

“The good news is they (cities) have a chance to get it, and the bad is that there’s a lot of competition,” Pernick said.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

If you’ve ever thought about going solar to take a bite out of your utility bills, you may want to take another look: A perfect storm of events, policies and programs currently makes solar more affordable than ever.

The problem: He who hesitates may miss the best deals.

“People say, ‘It’s too good to be true,’” says John Berger, CEO of Standard Renewable Energy of Houston. “And, you’re right, it is. That’s why it’s not going to last.”

In theory, solar has always been an attractive source of alternative energy. It’s clean. It’s green. What’s not to like about harnessing power from the sun to climate-control your home, keep the lights on, and maybe even run a few appliances?

For the average person, the issue has been cost. Until recently,going solar on any kind of useful scale has been expensive, asking buyers to pony up big bucks, then wait 20 years or more to recoup their investment through monthly utility savings.

Here’s what has happened to change all that:

• Since the middle of 2008, the price of solar panels has dropped about 40 percent. Credit increased production of polysilicon and the opening of more panel-producing plants, particularly in China.
• The global economic slowdown: Installations in Europe – long a hotbed for solar power – are expected to be off 26 percent from last year, according to consulting firm Emerging Media Research. More supply + less demand = lower prices.
• More generous government subsidies: In 2008, homeowners could get a 30 percent tax credit on solar installations, but the credit was limited to $2,000. That ceiling was removed on January 1.
• And, yes, even many of your old-guard utilities are helping make solar more affordable. For the moment, at least, rebates from your regular utility can further slash your bottom line.

Put it all together, and going green by way of the sun isn’t only for those enjoying deep pockets. With so many moving parts, however, the current opportunity may be fleeting.

According to SRE’s Berger, the decline in materials cost will almost certainly lead to reduced government incentives. (If it’s already cheap – or cheaper – why subsidize?) At the same time, utilities have begun backing away from rebates. (In Northern California, Pacific Gas and Electric is cutting its rebate program by 29 percent; Phoenix’s Salt River Project trimmed 10 percent from its homeowners rebate in June.)

“Any incentives you can get from your local utility, or the state, or the federal government, you need to wrap them up now,” Berger says. “We’re already faced with incentives getting cut because of the price decline. We anticipate more by the end of the year, and we expect a whole lot more next year.”

For now, those with the resources to invest can enjoy big bargains.

About a year ago, Greg Hare of Magnolia, Texas, priced a system for his 7,000-square foot house and garage at about $100,000. He decided to wait. Over time, the drop in panel prices trimmed about $23,000 from that bill, and the beefed-up tax credit nearly doubled his savings. Ultimately, Hare took advantage of the situation and opted for a larger system, installing 64 panels rather than the originally-planned 42.

For those with more modest means, Berger estimates that a typical homeowner can cut 20 percent off his bill with a post-tax credit investment of $15,000 or less.

As prices become affordable to a wider range of potential customers, the long-term implications may be more significant than the current run of attractive short-term deals. Regarded by detractors as an environmentally friendly but largely impractical solution, solar appears to be in the process of becoming a real and viable industry.

When you think silicon, you think of computers. Yet, in 2008, more silicon went into solar panels than microchips, says Mike Splinter, CEO of Applied Materials, a Silicon Valley company that makes the machines that manufacture microchips.

“We are seeing the industrialization of the solar business,” he told The New York Times. “In the last 12 months, it has brought us a $1.3 billion business. It is hard to build a billion-dollar business.”

Where does your local utility fit in this picture? That depends largely on where you live and who controls the market.

In Austin, Texas, municipally-owned Austin Energy offers an aggressive rebate program, featured prominently on its website. Similarly, San Antonio’s CPS Energy touts the new kids on the energy block. In those cities, you can go solar and get considerable help in doing so.

In Colorado, on the other hand, the state’s largest utility (Xcel) tried passing a surcharge on homes and businesses using rooftop solar power. The initiative quickly crumbled in the face of public outcry and pressure from the governor’s office. (Environment Colorado is now lobbying the state to increase subsidies for residential solar power.)

“Typically, the municipal utilities are the ones more embracing of it,” Berger says. “The industrial utilities…hate it with a passion.”

Still, even seemingly-entrenched industrial power companies may have to reassess their position. According to data compiled by Credit Suisse Securities, wholesale power demand in the United States was down 15.3 percent in the second quarter of 2009 compared to a similar period a year ago.

Experts attribute much of that to the economic slowdown, but concede that conservation efforts and a move to alternative energy sources have played a part. If that’s the case, utilities that have dominated their markets may be forced to seek a different kind of role in a changing landscape.

Already, John Berger senses a change in the perception of the power of the sun.

“A lot of the utilities thought this was a social do-gooders business,” he says. “I’ve had some execs ask me that. ‘It’s really nice, what you’re doing for the planet, John.’ And I’ve always told them that I wanted to make one thing clear: We’re here to make money and help people basically get off the debt you keep putting on their backs.

“That wasn’t taken seriously until this year. A lot of it is being taken seriously now.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

We’re used to windy debates in Washington. Now the debates about wind have blown in gale force.

It’s been a while coming. At first, wind power seemed hard to argue against. It is emissions-free, technologically proven, shovel-ready, local and works well on the gusty plains of the US – with one key roadblock, there are some kinks to work out in getting it from there to here on the unprepared national grid system. The plan for many was straightforward: Fix the grid, keep building turbines, replace fossil-fuel dependent energy with renewal wind, and keep adding to an already robust wind sector job force of some 80,000.

Texas wind turbines (Photo: Texas State Energy Conservation Office.)

The Department of Energy jumped on board the trend toward wind, announcing in 2008 that wind energy could supply 20 percent of US electricity needs by 2030.

Then the naysayers caught up. This month, a conservative group called the Institute for Energy Research (IER) presented a study of wind in Denmark that suggested that Danish wind generation, held up as a model of renewable energy, causes more problems than it solves.

The study, Wind Energy, The Case of Denmark, reported that:

• Denmark only supplies about 5 percent of its electricity needs with wind power – not 20 percent as is widely understood.

• Ebbs in wind power mean that Denmark has to network with neighboring countries to import power, which means its wind power system does not reduce carbon emissions.

• National subsidies make Danish electricity “the most expensive in the European Union” and its wind jobs have been so generously supported by government subsidies that they haven’t substantially contributed to the economy.

Wait a minute, cried the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Sensing that oil-interests were lurking behind what it saw as a collection of “misleading” and “outright false claims,” the AWEA released a counter report.

The non-profit advocacy group’s response, outlined in a fact sheet called Wind Power in Denmark and the U.S., reports that Denmark does indeed:

• Produce 20 percent of its electricity needs from wind power. In 2008, it produced nearly 3,200 megawatts of wind power, enough to power roughly 1 million US homes. (“How does the IER twist these numbers to claim that Denmark only produces 5 percent of its electricity from wind?” asks the AWEA blog. “By not counting any electricity that ever flows across the country’s borders, even if  an equal amount of electricity is then transferred back to Denmark.”

• Wind power generated in Denmark does reduce carbon emissions, because it “displaces the most expensive fuel source, commonly natural gas, but also coal and oil. Wind energy can also be used to reduce the output at hydroelectric dams, where water can be stored to later displace fossil fuels.”

• The Danish wind power industry employs nearly 30,000 people in the Scandinavian nation because Denmark also builds turbines and their components.

Government subsidies, the report adds, are not exclusive to the wind industry. In the US, subsidies support an array of energy programs and power utilities, and from 2002 to 2007, the fossil fuel energy sources received five times what renewable energy source did, according to the GAO.

The AWEA, not wanting to leave any pillar of the IER report standing, also pointed out (in its blog) that the price of Danish electricity grew in the 1980s, before the country developed its extensive network of wind turbines.

The IER report appealed to fears that new electricity generation will raise rates.

But, as the AWEA and others advocating wind note, the US has relied mainly on fossil fuels for decades. That infrastructure is in place and to many, it looks more affordable — until one factors in the potential spike in fossil fuels as the Earth’s reserves are depleted.

The AWEA is concerned that entrenched interests in the US could cause the nation to miss an important turn in the road toward sustainable energy generation.

With its great land mass, strong wind potential (it enjoys more land with higher average wind speeds than the European nations who are ahead in wind development), the US could seize the day in wind technology.

The advocacy group wants the companies it represents to be free to develop the wind farms and grid infrastructure that can carry wind power from the high plains to the urban centers where it is most needed.

The wind industry “represents a once-in-a generation opportunity for the U.S. job market as the global wind industry builds out its supply chain and decides where to locate factories,” notes the AWEA report.

Want to read more about the oil-connected sources behind the opposition to wind? See this Natural Resources Defense Council blog and this article from Facing South, the online magazine for the Institute for Southern Studies.

For a non-partisan look at the history and potential of wind power, see the WorldWatch Institute’s recent report Going to Work for Wind Power.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Looking to improve the cost efficiency and aesthetics of solar power, a New Jersey company, EarthSure, has decided that solar panels should be buried in the earth.

No they’re not trying to win the “renewal energy miscalculation” award, they have developed a way to funnel solar light to the buried panels, which would gather solar power from the transported light (like solar tubes). The new operation would be unseen, and would not require that rooftops be converted into glassy conversation pieces.

Homeowner’s associations listen up:

“No unsightly above-ground solar panels need to be used anymore. This is an enhancement not only in economics and in the green movement, but a great technological improvement in the area of design and construction as well,” the company reports in a news release.

More importantly, says Ray Saluccio, the founder and CEO of EarthSure, burying the “Subterranean Solar” panels (also dubbed “Subsolar” panels) would take them out of the elements. And by placing them in sealed underground containers — essentially entombing them in prefabricated pressurized casings — they would be far better protected than a rooftop installation would be, he says.

With solar rooftop panels, “you have a leaking issue, you have an installation issue, you have the elements. I don’t know of any harsher atmosphere than somebody’s roof,” Saluccio says.

The Woodbridge, N.J., entrepreneur, who operates a commercial garbage collection company using automated sweepers, has not yet obtained funding to build a prototype.  He says he has received a lot of positive feedback from colleges and others interested in exploring his model and he believes that his new buried energy generators will generate interest among forward-thinking builders and architects.

The SubSolar system (patent pending) would have just a small rooftop presence, employing a solar collection disk that’s about three feet in diameter to capture and magnify the sun’s rays, which would be transferred via fiber optics to the underground storage panels.

Company tests show that the light can be transferred successfully, and while some is lost to diffusion, the Subsolar system can make up for that loss with collection efficiencies. Unlike a flat panel roof solar installation that can only capture a portion of the day’s sunlight (when the angle of the light hitting the panel is right) the Subsolar’s smaller mounted collection disk tracks the sun, collecting rays all day long, Saluccio says.

Furthermore, the underground chambers would keep the panels cool and dry, making them more productive and longer lasting, he says. Rooftop solar panels, by comparison, get baked in the sun and can be harmed by storms.

Will it all work? Time will tell. One thing’s for sure. It’s an idea that’s out of sight.

Talk about a hot and windy debate as Washington grapples with the first big bill to try to power up a new clean energy economy. Studies and accusations are whipping around like wind propellers as the constituencies of fossil fuels and new energy square off.

While this seems like a flurry of much ado — is it possible that the American Clean Energy and Security Act wouldn’t pass?

Still, there’s much at stake. As we know from last year’s blockbuster stimulus bill, no one really reads all the copy, so there could be a lot of caveats, crumbs and sneaky insertions embedded into the 1,000-plus page act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

One hot button issue (funny how the political cliches fit this climate change topic) has been whether the bill will drive up electricity costs. Stands to reason that re-jiggering how we get power and the sort of power we use will come with costs. It also seems reasonable to expect that over time, clean energy, coming as it does from ongoing natural phenomena like the wind and the sun, would have cost efficiencies compared with crude oil, which must be siphoned from the earth and shipped around.

In my earlier blog, I asked who really knows how much these changes will affect household electrical bills; I mean really, how can we tell? It’s such a tar pit of variables.

Apparently, The Pew Center on Global Climate Change does think it has a handle on this issue. At least they’re trying harder than most to decipher the variables and forecast the future. For their take see their “Eight Myths About the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill.”

Myth #2 deals with energy costs and Pew seems to conclude that this switch to clean energy might (maybe) cost US households somewhere around $100 a year over the next few decades.

They also agree with our “who knows” thesis, saying essentially that: “Given the limitations of economic modeling, no analysis should be assumed to give a correct answer.”

They also note, a bit illogically, that even though we can’t count on any given economic analysis, if a group does undertake such an analysis (which might not be worth much) they definitely should “faithfully represent what is actually required by the bill”.

Right. Let the wrangling recommence.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Public support for wind energy is strong and crosses party lines, according to a poll being released today by the American Wind Energy Association at the opening of WINDPOWER 2009, an industry conference being held this week in Chicago.

The poll shows that 75 percent of American voters support a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) that would require utilities to generate at least 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025.

The support was bipartisan with 86 percent of Democrats favoring the RES, 62 percent of Republicans favoring it, and 71 percent of Independents.

The support spanned the country with supporters overwhelmingly favoring  such a standard in the Northeast, Midwest and West (with 75 to 84 percent support), and 71 percent supporting the proposal in the South.

“The American people support a RES because it will create jobs and reduce carbon emissions,” said AWEA CEO Denise Bode. “Our job now is to make sure that Members of Congress follow their constituents.”

Renewable energy comes mainly from wind, solar and geothermal power, with other technologies, using ocean waves, also emerging.

The AWEA conference in the Windy City is expected to attract more than 18,000 people with more than 1,200 companies exhibiting. A full dais of officals will address the conference, including Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar; Governors Chet Culver of Iowa, Jim Doyle of WIsconsin, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Pat Quinn of Illinois and Ted Strickland of Ohio.

The poll was conducted by Garin Hart Yang Research Group, which surveyed 801 people April 29-May 1.

One degree Fahrenheit.

On average, that’s how much the Earth’s temperature has increased over the past century, according to a report by the EPA. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that during the 21st century the global temperature will increase by 2-6° C.

To the average person, one degree might not seem like a problem. But to scientists studying the climate, it is cause for concern. At this rate of warming, climate changes would occur faster than any of the climate changes over the past 10,000 years.

The warming of a few degrees would lead to more frequent droughts and heat waves; it can also cause an increase in rainfall and change the strength of storms. While some areas of land might benefit from the increased rainfall, others will be devastated by lack of rain.

Lately, some scientists have revised their projections on when global warming will spell the end of the Arctic ice cap. Now, some feel that the ice could be gone within five years, which could trigger a “tipping point” with the oceans warming and rising, and the Earth’s ability to reflect sunlight greatly impaired. In a recent Newsweek interview, Department of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu defined “tipping point” as the point where “no matter what humans do, it’s out of our control.”

Some scientists suggest that the rise in ocean temperatures has led to the increased intensity of hurricanes. There is no way to definitively prove that this is directly related to the rise in global temperatures. However, in 2005 the Science journal released a study regarding hurricane strength and the connection to global warming. The study showed as the storms were becoming more intense, the global temperature was also increasing. The study is quick to point out that Hurricane Katrina and other damaging hurricanes can not be blamed on global warming. However, there appears to be a connection emerging.

]]> http://www.greenrightnow.com/stjoechannel/2009/04/22/no-math-needed-a-look-at-global-warming-by-the-numbers/feed/ 0 http://www.greenrightnow.com/stjoechannel/2009/02/02/solar-thermal-turns-up-the-heat-in-renewables-market/ http://www.greenrightnow.com/stjoechannel/2009/02/02/solar-thermal-turns-up-the-heat-in-renewables-market/#comments Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:21:14 +0000 Catherine Girardeau http://www.greenrightnow.com/?p=2639 By Catherine Girardeau Green Right Now Renewable energy companies are no doubt pleased that the proposed economic stimulus plan being considered by Congress could double the nation's clean energy capacity -- enough to power six million American homes. The White House agenda calls for even more progress: The administration wants incentives to increase private sector spending in renewable energy; a cap-and-trade system that would make heavy industries like coal-burning power plants pay for carbon pollution and a declared goal that America reduce greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050. It’s shaping up to be a perfect storm for companies that can figure out how to generate renewable energy, including solar thermal companies which intend to compete with wind and direct solar as large-scale energy providers, despite the cool economy. ]]> By Catherine Girardeau
Green Right Now

Renewable energy companies are no doubt pleased that the proposed economic stimulus plan being considered by Congress could double the nation’s clean energy capacity — enough to power six million American homes.

The White House agenda calls for even more progress: The administration wants incentives to increase private sector spending in renewable energy; a cap-and-trade system that would make heavy industries like coal-burning power plants pay for carbon pollution and a declared goal that America reduce greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050.

It’s shaping up to be a perfect storm for companies that can figure out how to generate renewable energy, including solar thermal companies which intend to compete with wind and direct solar as large-scale energy providers, despite the cool economy.

“You’ve got all the market drivers. You’ve got climate change, you’ve got the broader awareness of policy makers that we’ve got to do something, you’ve got countries seeking energy independence,” said Keely Wachs, senior director of corporate communications at Oakland, CA-based BrightSource Energy.

“The Energy Information Administration predicts that electricity demand will double by 2030,” Wachs said. “Is it best for us to meet that demand with fossil fuels, or should we meet that demand with clean energy?”

Solar thermal, also called “Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)”, uses sunlight to produce steam, which is then used to generate electricity. Solar thermal systems concentrate the sunlight, in much the same way that a magnifying glass does, to harness its heat.  The sunlight heats water, which makes steam, which drives an electricity-generation engine.

By contrast, photo-voltaic (PV) systems convert sunlight (photons) into heat energy (electrons) to generate electricity directly.

Purveyors of solar thermal energy are not making solar arrays you can put on your roof. Solar thermal is large-scale, and solar thermal companies are positioning themselves to make a much bigger impact by selling solar energy to industrial users and utilities.

Why solar thermal?

For one, solar thermal plants are cheaper to build on a large scale. Steel and glass are the main ingredients of a solar thermal system, whereas photovoltaic (PV) systems require specialized and more expensive materials like poly-silicone. Solar thermal is also more efficient than PV systems. PV systems can typically utilize about 20% of the sunlight that hits them, whereas BrightSource claims its solar thermal systems can turn 60% of the available sunlight into energy.

]]> http://www.greenrightnow.com/stjoechannel/2009/02/02/solar-thermal-turns-up-the-heat-in-renewables-market/feed/ 0