Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

The economy may be tanking, housing prices may be plummeting and the state's unemployment rate may be in double digits, but growing numbers of California residents continue to invest in the future of clean energy by installing solar panels on their homes and businesses.

Thanks to falling prices for solar panels and generous new federal tax credits, homeowners and businesses installed a record 78 megawatts of solar capacity in the first quarter of 2009, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. Customer-owned solar panels in the state now generate more than 500 megawatts of power, the CPUC said.

Within PG&E's service territory, customers in the first three months filed preliminary applications to install another 43 megawatts of solar panels--more additional capacity than many states have in their entire solar portfolio, according to Lisa Shell, senior project manager for PG&E's customer and solar generation group. In January alone, PG&E's customers installed about 1,200 solar systems, double the usual monthly average.

Some of the more noteworthy business customers who invested in clean solar energy include Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. (which dedicated its new 1.5 MW solar system and electric vehicle charging stations on April 26), Del Monte Foods (which dedicated a 1.9 MW solar system on April 17), and Silver Oaks Cellars, an Oakville winery powered by 1,464 solar panels.

PG&E predicted demand would surge based on last fall's change in the federal tax code, and increased staffing in the customer solar area to process additional rebate applications. So far, the utility has met the surge in demand with few problems.

Since the beginning of 2007, when the California Solar Initiative was launched, PG&E has received more than 10,000 rebate applications. PG&E's customers--amounting to about five percent of the U.S. population--now have about 300 MW of solar capacity installed, about half the residential national total, according to Shell.

Posted by: Jennifer Zerwer

Two new web tools have recently been launched to make being green a little bit easier:

Reegle
For those looking to expand their knowledge of renewable energy and energy efficiency happenings worldwide, look no further than Reegle. This new site pulls together the latest related events, news and a sampling of green energy development projects onto a searchable global map.

Urban EcoMap
In honor of Earth Day, Cisco and the City and County of San Francisco teamed up to develop the Urban EcoMap, a new online resource that will provide local communities with information on their progress toward meeting emission reduction goals. Organized by zip codes, locals will be able to track their greenhouse gas contributions in the areas of transportation, energy and waste. It won't be available to San Franciscans until May 21. Urban EcoMaps for other cities, such as Seoul and Amsterdam, are expected to launch later this year.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

A little-reported "well incident" this week in a remote part of Australia is a sobering reminder of the challenges facing the geothermal industry's next generation of technology.

Geodynamics Ltd., the largest publicly traded company in Australia focused on recovering goethermal energy by injecting water into hot granite rocks deep underground to create steam, acknowledged a breach of its first commercial-scale production well in the Cooper Basin in the southern part of the country.

The company says the crew responsible for commissioning the 1 MW plant is being "progressively demobilised" while experts (reportedly flown in from the United States) assess damage to the Habanero 3 well, which is 13,800 feet deep. Geodynamics offered no estimate of when operations would resume. 

Geodynamics is a leader in the field of enhanced geothermal technology, which holds tremendous promise as a source of renewable energy. A massive report issued by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2007 estimated that it could affordably supply 10 percent of U.S. power needs within 50 years, at about the same low price as today's coal-fired plants.

Today's conventional plants, such as those located at The Geysers in Sonoma County (the world's largest geothermal field, with 850 MW of power capacity), use existing reservoirs of underground hot water or steam to drive turbines. Promising locations for new production including California's Imperial Valley, northern Nevada and the Oregon and Washington Cascades.

But if water can be injected from the surface, the main resource a developer needs is hot rocks, which exist almost everywhere on earth if you dig deep enough. Plants in The Geysers pioneered this concept by injecting treated effluent from nearby cities to supplement natural steam. The trick is finding rocks with the right characteristics to allow water to filter through them and heat up reliably.

Experts say that once the geologic and engineering challenges are worked out, so-called "enhanced geothermal" energy could become one of the 21st century's most promising resources.

"It brings an absolutely gigantic amount of power into the realm of economic feasibility," said Susan Petty, a former MIT scientist and chief technology officer of Sausalito-based AltaRock Energy, an enhanced geothermal energy firm. AltaRock Energy, which is funded in part by Google.org and the Department of Energy, has a major demonstration project in The Geysers area.

Paul Brophy, past president of the Geothermal Resources Council and a consulting geologist to one of the industry's leading drilling companies, agreed. "It would not be unreasonable to say the broad potential for geothermal is almost limitless," he told NEXT100. "Oil and gas wells go down 30,000 feet or more. You could drill down that far almost anywhere in the earth's crust and attain the sort of heat" necessary for geothermal power.

As it happens, however, most of the test wells in this country are being drilled in the West, where hot rocks lie closer to the surface, minimizing drilling costs.

Geothermal isn't the sexiest of renewable energy sources--it certainly can't compete with space solar power in that respect--but it's a proven workhorse. Unlike wind and solar power, it provides power around the clock, every day. It also has a much smaller footprint, Brophy noted, thus creating fewer environmental obstacles.

Around the world, geothermal supplies more than 10,000 MW of power. The United States is the leading producer, and California the leading state. Across the country, 126 new projects are under development--27 of them in California--with the potential to produce as much as 5,500 MW of new power, according to the Geothermal Energy Association.

PG&E played a major part in developing the industry, opening the first commercial geothermal power plant at The Geysers in 1960. The utility was required to divest its plants there in the late 1990s, but PG&E still purchases about 5 percent of its power from them, making geothermal the single largest source of renewable power in its portfolio.

Thanks to significant injections of new R&D money from the Department of Energy in just the past couple of years, the geothermal industry is enjoying a rebirth, with a focus on enhanced recovery techniques. In addition, the Obama administration's new stimulus program set aside $400 million for new geothermal development, a landmark commitment of government resources. "Research is progressing very rapidly," Brophy said.

But Geodynamics' setback is a reminder that enhanced geothermal is still more promise than reality. Some estimates put the cost of their wells at $12 million each, so the company can't afford too many mistakes.

But Brophy takes the news in stride. "When you are trying to do things for the first time, things will go wrong," he said. "We are still in the early stages of research and demonstration."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

In the two weeks since NEXT100 announced PG&E's first-of-a-kind deal to purchase space solar power from Solaren Corporation starting in 2016, the news has been reported, analyzed, debated, praised and ridiculed on more than 26,000 Web sites and other media, according to Google.

I've had time to review only about 0.1 percent of those sites, but several offered significant information, insights or opinions worth sharing.

Scientific American provided one of the most thorough analyses of space solar power and its prospects, including an interview with a co-founder of Space Energy, a Switzerland-based company in the same emerging market. The article quoted Frederick Best, director of the Center for Space Power (CSP) at Texas A&M University in College Station, Tex., as saying that space solar power "is a disruptive technology" that "could change the whole energy equation." 

The same article also shed light on Solaren's 2005 patent, which suggests how the company proposes to keep weight and launch costs down by doing away with structures to hold all the orbiting elements together. For other useful discussions of Solaren's design concept and patent, see Todd Woody's post at Grist, Michael Mecham's blog "On Space" hosted by Aviation Week and Space Technology, and the discussion on the HobbySpace site. 

A number of serious energy authorities applauded the concept while reserving judgment on the practicality of Solaren's plans to use satellites to capture solar energy, then send it via radio waves to an earth receiving station for conversion into electricity.

Ralph Cavanagh, head of the energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "My prediction is this is going to be much more about economics than the environment." Utilities, he said, need to explore unconventional approaches to meet rising demand for energy while dealing with global warming. "You want to encourage them to try lots of different things," he said. "But the caution is that some of these things won't work."

Daniel Kammen, professor of energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, told the London Guardian: "The ground rules are looking kind of promising ... it is doable. Whether it is doable at a reasonable cost, we just don't know."

Solaren's CEO, Gary Spirnak, conceded his job won't be easy. Noting that the company would need "billions of dollars" in funding, he told Dow Jones News Wire, "We're under no illusions as to the difficulty of the task. . . . We understand how to work these things, but you have to put in the time, energy and engineering to make it work."

Green Wombat noted on the plus side that "there are no desert tortoises in space or other protected wildlife" that will stand in Solaren's way, though it will still have to "pass muster with a long list of state, federal and international government agencies." 

Earth2Tech's Katie Fehrenbacher wondered briefly if the announcement wasn't a belated April Fools' Day joke, but grudgingly admitted "it's not as crazy as it sounds." Still, she wondered if Solaren can overcome the "clear technical and economic hurdles" that have kept anyone from deploying a space solar installation to date.

Blogger Chris Nelder has no such doubts; he confidently pronounced the whole deal a "pure fantasy" that got his "blood boiling."

A more generous Sacramento Bee editorial called April 10--the day PG&E filed its contract for review by the California Public Utilities Commission--"the date when imagination docked with the Earthbound economics model in our backyard." The paper concluded, "Who can say whether those technical challenges can be overcome, and at what cost? For now, it's enough to celebrate the progress toward a day when clean energy is no longer an out-of-this-world idea but a reality, thanks to boundless imagination."

And the Daily Breeze in Torrance editorialized, "We're glad that companies are thinking outside the biosphere in the search for alternative energy . . . Orbital solar power stations should be part of the solution to give the United States true energy independence. We hope the state's utilities, entrepreneurs and the scientists and engineers who have driven the South Bay's aerospace industry will make this imaginative idea a reality in the decade ahead." 

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

The number of victims of climate-related natural disasters could jump 50 percent by 2015 to 375 million a year, according to the British charity Oxfam. A representative of the agency told BBC that international aid agencies could be overwhelmed by the impact of floods, storms and droughts.

Global warming may dry up some of the world's greatest rivers, including China's Yellow River, the Niger, the Ganges and the Colorado, according to a study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. The result, especially in poorer countries, could be widespread shortages of fresh water and food.

Proposed legislation to discourage greenhouse gas emissions through a "cap-and-trade" market, derided by critics as an economy-busting measure, would cut the growth rate of the nation's gross domestic product only slightly, according to a new study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's analysis predicts that GDP would still grow from $16 trillion in 2015 to $22 trillion in 2030. 

China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and most ravenous consumer of coal, plans to spend $220 billion over the next two years on "green" stimulus plans, including renewable energy, or twice the commitment by the U.S. government, according to the Center for American Progress.

Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, House minority leader, explained to ABC's George Stephanopoulos why he opposes regulation of greenhouse gas emissions: "George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide." Most scientists would inded laugh at the idea that CO2 is a carcinogen, but not at its contribution to global warming.

Is it any wonder that members of Congress can't always keep their facts straight? According to a new survey by Public Agenda, a non-partisan opinion research group, four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel and half can't name a renewable energy source. Public Agenda's chief issue analyst wondered, "How can they understand something as complex as 'cap and trade,' which has very strong implications for how much they are going to pay and that their local utilities will use?"

Finally, the media had a field day with a report from the International Journal of Epidemiology blaming the rise in obesity for contributing to global warming. Overeating leads to more food production and leads people to drive more, both of which require energy. "Moving about in a heavy body is like driving a gas guzzler," said Dr. Phil Edwards of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• Paris plans to install small wind power turbines on rooftops in four neighborhoods to generate electricity directly for the buildings or feed the power into the state-owned EDF utility. Officials say the turbines won't spoil the skyline but Jean-Louis Butre, head of the French Federation for Sustainable Development, says: "I think we are destroying Paris' historical heritage and I fear these are utopist solutions." He favors less visible internal turbines. The city is also considering placing turbines in the Seine river.
• San Francisco will launch an online "ecomap" to track the carbon footprints of the city's neighborhoods by Zip codes. Cisco Systems Inc. developed UrbanEcoMap.org and city officials gathered information such as  garbage collection and recycling, composting, hybrid-vehicle ownership and other environmental data for the map. The site will be available in mid-May. San Francisco is said to be the first city in the world with an ecomap, with Amsterdam and Seoul to follow. "The ecomap provides citizens with concrete, tangible access to information and resources with relevance to their daily life," says Wolfgang Wagener, director of Cisco's urban development program.
• Vatican City last year put up rooftop solar panels and now the Holy See is planning to develop a 500 million Euro, 100-megawatt solar project north of Rome. "Now is the time to strike," says Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, governor of Vatican City. "One should take advantage of the crisis to try and develop these renewable-energy resources to the maximum, which in the long run will reap incomparable rewards," the prelate adds. The Vatican also is considering a biomass project at the pope's Castel Gandolfo summer residence and there is talk of a low-carbon "popemobile."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Is America in danger of falling behind the rest of the world in harnessing the piezoelectric effect, the property of certain materials, including quartz crystals and some ceramics, to produce an electrical charge when squeezed or stressed?

This effect, first demonstrated by French scientists in the 1880s, has been since been put to use in phonograph cartridges, ultrasonic submarine detectors, and even cigarette lighters.

In a passionate new essay, Kimberley Diamond, vice chair of the carbon and energy trading and finance committee of the American Bar Association, warns that "the U.S. is currently running at the back of the pack of global leaders in this space."

Insisting that "this needs to change," Diamond continues:

Revolutionary developments in piezoelectric technology now permit the kinetic energy generated from people walking and dancing, as well as from moving vehicles, to be converted into clean power. Innovative devices employing piezoelectricity offer vast public benefits and potential business opportunities in both the long and short terms. Increased piezoelectricity usage could be a trend that plays a significant role in shaping tomorrow's world in the alternative energy sector as well as in financial markets. Consequently, new scientific and technological advances in piezoelectric inventions merit endorsement and should be raised to the forefront of U.S. domestic public consciousness and discourse.

What are these revolutionary advances? NEXT100 covered one of them in January  -- a proposal by an Israeli engineer to embed piezoelectric crystals in road beds to generate electricity from passing cars. His company, Innowattech, claims that electricity can be generated this way at less than 10 cents per kilowatt hour, but the company's web site is notably silent about the results of a pilot test that was supposed to take place in February.

Another application is in dance floors at two European nightclubs, Club Surya in London and Wvatt in Rotterdam, where as Diamond explains:

The clubs' "bouncing" dance floors are engineered with springs and series of crystal and ceramic blocks. When patrons at each club dance, the pressure they exert on these blocks causes the dance floor to depress slightly and the blocks to rub against each other. The result is the generation of a small electric current. This process effectively captures the dancers' kinetic energy, and feeds it into nearby batteries. In Club Surya, for instance, batteries power the club's lights and air conditioning, and supply up to approximately 60 percent of the club's energy needs. As long as clubbers dance, the floor's movement constantly recharges the batteries. The more dancing, the more power produced. Each person can produce between five and 20 watts, depending on their activity level.

(Here's a diagram of how it all works.)

A more pedestrian application in Ann Arbor uses piezoelectric sidewalk tiles to power colorful LED lights, an example of a concept the inventor calls "Project POWERLeap."

Diamond sees "mind-boggling" potential for expansion of the use of piezoelectricity, but offers no perspective on the cost. But in a suggestion that borders on parody, Diamond offers another alleged benefit:

From an investment banking perspective, if a certain threshold of increased demand is reached over the next decade or two for secured borrowing for large-scale piezoelectric projects, then there is the potential that a new esoteric asset class involving piezoelectric loans or bonds could be formed. The creation of such securities, backed by infrastructure-related or commercial real estate-related debt, could herald additional transaction structuring and trading opportunities in the capital markets. For instance, asset-backed securities in the form of piezoelectric infrastructure or commercial real estate loans could be used in the future as collateral for structured finance transactions such as collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), or other structured investment vehicles.

For myself, if we're looking for ways people can harness their own energy, I vote for turning every health club in America into a mini-power plant by adding dynamos to all of their treadmills. Said the president of California Fitness (a Hong Kong company, go figure):

One person has the ability of producing 50 watts of electricity per hour when exercising at a moderate pace....If a person spends one hour per day running on the machine, he/she could generate 18.2 kilowatts of electricity and prevent 4,380 liters of CO2 released per year.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

With California in its third year of drought, PG&E and its customers face not only the prospect of a significant decline in clean, inexpensive hydropower, but an increase in the risk of devastating wildfires.

U.S. Forest Service experts who gathered last week at the National Seasonal Assessment Workshop in Boulder, CO concluded that this year's fire season in Northern California could start in early May, roughly a month earlier than normal, because annual grasses are drying so quickly.

Worse yet, ample supply of dry, flammable vegetation, stressed by prolonged drought and insect kills, are setting the stage in the northern half of the state for another summer of wildfires that could compare in severity to those of 2008.

Last year's first large fire was the Summit Fire on the Central Coast, which began May 22, 2008. The next month, thousands of lightning strikes lit more than 2,000 fires across Northern and Central California, overwhelming firefighters. In early July, record temperatures--which hit 126 °F at Lake Berryessa--made the flames even more ravenous. By July 11, nearly 800,000 acres had burned, far exceeding the 500,000 acres lost to California wildfires in all of 2007.

Just as memorably, the fire season extended all the way to November, when 35,000 acres in the Los Angeles hills burned, destroying a thousand homes. 

The summer fire storms in Northern and Central California, following the devastating winter storms in January, posed a major challenge to PG&E. From late June to early August, they damaged more than 100 miles of power lines, more than 500 power poles, five transmission towers and 121 transformers. More than 10,000 customers lost service.

With eight hydro facilities and thousands of miles of electrical lines at risk, the damage could have been much worse but for smart preparation and planning. That started with the $170 million a year that PG&E spends on vegetation management in order to protect public safety and the power grid. Clearing fast-growing trees and shrubs around power lines helps prevent summer fires due to sparks as well as winter outages due to short-circuits caused by falling trees.

Last summer, utility crews also pre-treated many poles with fire-retardent, saving 285 poles and almost five million dollars in replacement costs. (PG&E used the same fire-retardent to treat a hospital in the town of Paradise, near Chico, which could not be evacuated in time.)

PG&E emergency planners also used sophisticated geographic information systems to track the risk to utility assets, based on daily fire updates available on the web. PG&E passed the information through liaison officers to local agencies in charge of battling the fires to help them plan their strategy.

For this effort, PG&E was awarded a 2008 Emergency Recovery Award by the Edison Electric Institute, a major utility industry association.

You don't have to be a professional firefighter or utility crew member to start preparing for the long, hot summer ahead. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) urges residents to create a 100 feet zone of defensible space around their homes. By removing all dead vegetation in that zone, and all flammable vegetation within 30 feet of your home, you greatly diminish the chances of being overrun by a wildfire.

Other smart tips include clearing all needles and leaves from roofs and gutters, landscaping with fire-resistant plants, keeping branches at least 10 feet away from chimneys, and not using power equipment during the heat of the day.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

When Washington insiders hear "Waxman-Markey," they instantly think of the proposal by two key Democratic legislators, Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, to create America's first "cap-and-trade" market to limit greenhouse gas emissions, a step that would transform this country's energy industry.

But buried in their draft American Clean Energy and Security Act are a number of energy efficiency provisions that would also slow the march toward global warming significantly.

In fact, according to a new analysis by the independent, non-profit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), these provisions could slash U.S. energy use 10 percent by 2020. The savings would exceed the annual energy use of 49 out of 50 states, including California's. ACEEE figures the measures would avoid emissions of about 660 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020, equivalent to locking 110 million cars in the garage for a year.

"These energy efficiency savings are very substantial and will go a long way towards paying the cost of the cap-and-trade program in the bill," said Steven Nadel, ACEEE's Executive Director, in a prepared statement. "Our analyses indicate that energy efficiency policies are a key cost-control element for climate change legislation because the less energy we need, the fewer new power plants we need, and the fewer existing power plants that need to be upgraded."

Key provisions in the bill include:

• A federal Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, which would make utilities reduce electricity demand by 15 percent and natural gas demand by 10 percent by 2020;
• A Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program to promote energy efficiency improvements in residential and commercial buildings; and
• A requirement that states improve transportation efficiency to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

ACEEE says that while the draft legislation is a great step in the right direction, even more can be done. Its studies indicate that 25 percent of more of U.S. energy use can be cut cost-effectively with today's technology.

For information on how you can save energy--and money--check out PG&E's many energy efficiency programs and incentive rebates for your home or business.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Imagine this: my hometown movie theater has staked out a claim of being "America's first solar major motion picture theater," a worthy record indeed for the Guinness Book.

The Fairfax 5 Theatre in Marin County, a neighborhood institution dating back to 1952, has installed 170 rooftop solar panels that now generate 31.5 kilowatts of power, more than a third of the theater's total electricity demand. (Full disclosure: both of my daughters once had jobs at this theater.)

Dave Corkill, founder of the small Cinema West chain that owns the Fairfax Theater, said his latest monthly power bill for the theater was $919, down from the usual $2,500.

Cinema West recently claimed a second record, this one for the largest solar system on a movie theater in America. A monster system on Livermore Cinemas uses 805 tubular solar modules made by Solyndra to generate 132 kilowatts of power.

PG&E provided rebates for both installations under the California Solar Initiative, $40,000 for the Fairfax Theatre alone. Said Corkill, "It was a very smooth process. It amazes me that people who are taking money out of PG&E's pockets by being their competitor are received so warmly. PG&E is geared up to do this in a very user-friendly way."

What will all this clean power bring you besides cold soda and hot popcorn? According to the latest movie schedule, the Fairfax Theatre's offerings include "Hannah Montana: The Movie" and "Monsters vs. Aliens 3D," not exactly prime uses of solar power in my book. On the other hand, you can also catch "State of Play" (featuring Rachel McAdams as a blogger) and, appropriately, the Disney nature documentary "Earth" (starting Wednesday).

If you prefer drive-in movies, and you happen to find yourself in east-central Illinois, you may want to check out what claims to be the world's first wind-powered theater, the Harvest Moon Holiday Twin Drive-In in Gibson City, Illinois. Their two turbines can generate 100 percent of the theater's power needs when the wind is blowing 12-15 miles per hour.

What's next? A movie theater powered by a geothermal vent, featuring "Journey to the Center of the Earth"?

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

The peregrine chicks are hatching atop PG&E's headquarters in San Francisco! See the offspring of Dapper Dan and Diamond Lil in real time on PG&E's webcam (requires QuickTime):

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

• Carbon dioxide may be the single biggest contributor to global warming, but scientists now believe a not-too-distant second is soot, or black carbon, released by dirty fires prevalent in the developing world. The tiny dark particles absorb solar radiation, accelerating the melting of glaciers. Soot particulates are also a major cause of premature human deaths. The good news is soot emissions can be dramatically reduced by replacing primitive stoves with more modern smokeless technology. 
• Migrating birds will have to fly farther between breeding ranges and wintering areas in Africa due to global warming, according to a team of scientists at Durham University. Small birds like the garden warbler, who already fly thousands of miles on these annual journeys, will be pushed to their limit to extend their journeys, the scientists predict.
• Congressional legislation to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions "is absolutely essential" to the Obama administration's hopes of spurring global action on climate change this December in Copenhagen, according to Carol Browner, the White House adviser on energy and climate change issues.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• Newspapers are really on the outs. The Marriott hotel chain says it will no longer drop a free newspaper outside your room. Each paper represents half a pound of carbon dioxide emissions, Marriott figures. The move should cut distribution by 50,000 papers a day, or by 18 million papers a year, reducing carbon emissions by 10,350 tons annually. A guest can still request a paper but the future at Marriott will be news on screens in the lobbies or via the TV or laptop in your room.
• A new bill in the California legislature would charge shoppers 25 cents for each plastic and paper bag in supermarkets, pharmacies and convenience stores. The bag fee would go into a fund to offset costs to help clean up plastic waste and paper trash. The aim is to encourage consumers to take reusable bags to the shops like folks in Europe have been doing for years. Environmentally-conscious San Francisco has mandated reusable bags in supermarkets and pharmacies and it seems to be working well.
• Just in time for spring. LighterFootstep has looked at some examples of earth-friendly lawnmowers to spruce up the yard with zero gasoline emissions. Here are a few ideas to consider: Remington Cordless PowerMower ($499.99 retail); Brill Razorcut 38 Push Reel Mower ($249 retail, shipping included); and one of the most ancient cutting tools of all -- a scythe ($60 to $80, with snaths -- the handle -- priced at about $80). A gas-powered mower running one hour spews as much pollution as 40 late-model cars, according to the California EPA. I haven't tested any of these or other mowers because I got my fill of cutting lawns way back in my summer-job days, thank you very much.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

As part of PG&E's commitment to providing more renewable energy to its customers, the utility has supported a wide range of technologies, including wind, geothermal, biomass, wave and tidal, and at least a half dozen types of solar thermal and photovoltaic power.

Now PG&E is extending that approach to tap renewable energy at an entirely new level: solar power in space.

PG&E is seeking approval from state regulators for a power purchase agreement with Solaren Corp., a Southern California company that has contracted to deliver 200 megawatts of clean, renewable power over a 15 year period.

Solaren says it plans to generate the power using solar panels in earth orbit, then convert it to radio frequency energy for transmission to a receiving station in Fresno County. From there, the energy will be converted to electricity and fed into PG&E's power grid. (See interview with Solaren CEO Gary Spirnak.)

Why would anyone choose so challenging a locale to generate electricity? For one, the solar energy available in space is eight-to-ten times greater than on earth. There's no atmospheric or cloud interference, no loss of sun at night, and no seasons. That means space solar can be a baseload resource, not an intermittent source of power.

In addition, real estate in space is still free (if hard to reach). Solaren needs to acquire land only for an energy receiving station. It can locate the station near existing transmission lines, greatly reducing delays that face some renewable power projects sited far from existing facilities.

While the concept of space solar power makes sense, making it all work at an affordable cost is a major challenge, which Solaren says it can solve.

Solaren's team includes satellite engineers and scientists, primarily from the U.S. Air Force and Hughes Aircraft Company, with decades of experience in the space industry. Its CEO, Gary Spirnak, was a spacecraft project engineer in the U.S. Air Force and director of advanced digital applications at Boeing Satellite Systems, among other positions.

They also have a long history of research to draw upon. The U.S. Department of Energy and NASA began seriously studying the concept of solar power satellites in the 1970s, followed by a major "fresh look" in the Clinton administration.

In 1997, John C. Mankins, manager of NASA's Advanced Projects Office, wrote:

Based on the recently-completed "fresh look" study, space solar power concepts may be ready to reenter the discussion. Certainly, solar power satellites should no longer be envisioned as requiring unimaginably large initial investments in fixed infrastructure before the emplacement of productive power plants can begin. Moreover, space solar power systems appear to possess many significant environmental advantages when compared to alternative approaches to meeting increasing terrestrial demands for energy - including requiring considerably less land area than terrestrially-based solar power systems.

The economic viability of such systems depends, of course, on many factors and the successful development of various new technologies - not least of which is the availability of exceptionally low cost access to space. However, the same can be said of many other advanced power technologies options. Space solar power may well emerge as a serious candidate among the options for meeting the energy demands of the 21st century.

In 2007, a major study by the Defense Department's National Security Space Office gave the concept another boost, concluding that "there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship . . and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability."

The study group further declared, "Space-Based Solar Power is more technically executable than ever before and current technological vectors promise to further improve its viability."

So much for the concept. Can Solaren really deliver electricity to PG&E customers by 2016, the year it has contracted to begin commercial operation?

If Solaren succeeds, PG&E's customers have a great opportunity to benefit from affordable clean energy. There is no risk to PG&E customers; PG&E has contracted only to pay for power that Solaren delivers. 

Solaren will work with citizen groups and government agencies to support the project's development. Solaren is responsible for getting all the necessary permits and approvals from federal, state and local agencies. Among other things, Solaren will have to prove that its technology satisfies all applicable safety standards, an issue that space power enthusiasts have addressed in detail, but is nonetheless sure to be controversial.

From PG&E's perspective, as a supporter of new renewable energy technology, this project is a first-of-a-kind step worth taking. If Solaren succeeds, the world of clean energy will never be the same.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

NEXT100 asked Solaren CEO Gary Spirnak to offer his perspective on the business strategy and technological approach behind his company's contract to deliver 200 MW of baseload space solar power to PG&E's customers by 2016. Here are his answers:

Q: What is Solaren Corporation?

A: Solaren is a California C Corporation that formed in 2001 and is based in Manhattan Beach, CA.  Solaren was formed by a team of satellite engineers and space scientists to build a space energy company to generate and distribute electricity at competitive prices from Space Solar Power (SSP) stations in geosynchronous orbit. Solaren currently consists of about ten engineers and scientists, but plans to grow to more than 100 over the next twelve months.

Q: What was the impetus for forming the company?

A: The impetus for forming Solaren was the convergence of improved high efficiency energy conversion devices, heavy launch vehicle developments, and a revolutionary Solaren-patented SSP plant design that is a significant departure from past efforts and makes SSP not only technically, but economically viable.

Q: What kind of experience does your team have?

A: Each Solaren team member each has 20 to 45 years experience in the aerospace industry, primarily with Hughes Aircraft Company and the US Air Force, and has successfully developed and managed many first-of-a-kind, innovative space projects.

Q: Has anything like this been built before?

A: This will be the world's first SSP plant. While a system of this scale and exact configuration has not been built, the underlying technology is very mature and is based on communications satellite technology. For over 45 years, satellites have collected solar energy in earth orbit via solar cells, and converted it to radio frequency (RF) energy for transmissions to earth receive stations. This is the same energy conversion process Solaren uses for its SSP plant.

Q: What gives you the confidence that you can design the system?

A: The SSP pilot plant system design will work hand and glove with an extensive Solaren engineering development program. Before the Solaren SSP plant is constructed, an engineering development program will be implemented to reduce the cost, schedule and engineering risk associated with the Solaren SSP pilot project.  The engineering development program is a meticulous step-by-step process that will validate all SSP components, subsystems and systems. In addition to laboratory and ground tests, Solaren plans to test and evaluate critical SSP system deployments and functionality in space. The rigorous SSP pilot plant design will be created from the foundation of engineering data generated through the SSP development program's component, subsystem and system tests.

Q: What gives you confidence that you can launch this system into space?

A: The SSP pilot plant satellites are designed to use existing launch capabilities. No new space launch vehicle capabilities need to be developed to launch our satellites into space. The SSP pilot plant design for the power satellites and ground receive station will be built and validated and the power satellites prepared for shipment to the launch site during the construction phase. At the launch site, the power satellites are launched into space using existing launch vehicle capabilities and moved to their final orbital positions.

Q: Finally, what gives you the confidence that you can start generating power by 2016?

A: What gives us the confidence that we can start generating power in 2016 is the experience of Solaren's team and suppliers, and these five steps. First, our meticulous SSP engineering development program will reduce program risk.  Second, our rigorous SSP Pilot plant design will ensure that we meet or exceed our SSP system performance requirements and that the design is buildable. Third, the construction of the SSP Pilot plant is built to exacting specifications, which are each verified and validated. Fourth, the SSP satellites undergo a final verification prior to launch, and use low risk, existing launch vehicle capabilities for delivery to space. Fifth, once in geosynchronous orbit, a series of SSP pilot plant system tests will validate the satellites and ground receive station functions and verify performance, safety and key parameters to ensure successful operations. When we complete these steps, we will then be ready to deliver power to PG&E in 2016.

Q: Does Solaren have the option to not deliver power? Is this a best-effort contract?

A: No. We are required under this PPA to deliver the contracted 200 MW of baseload power on the contracted start date to PG&E, and Solaren is committed to making that date.

Q: Why go this route instead of sticking with more familiar terrestrial solar technology?

A: Solaren's patented design and proprietary approaches result in a baseload power generation system that is competitive both in terms of performance and cost with other sources of baseload power generation.  We believe terrestrial solar power will play an increasing role in satisfying peak electricity demand.  Solaren SSP is fundamentally different from terrestrial solar in that we address baseload power not peaking power.

Q: How does your SSP pilot plant work?

A: Solaren's patented SSP plant design uses satellites in Earth orbit to collect solar energy in space and generate power, which is transmitted to the ground receive station for conversion to electricity for delivery to PG&E. Specifically Solaren's SSP satellites use solar cells in space to convert the sun's energy to electricity. This electricity powers high efficiency generator devices, known as solid state power amplifiers (SSPA). The SSPA devices on-board the satellite convert electricity into RF energy. Next the SSP satellite, using the RF energy and the satellite's antenna, directs and transmits the RF power to the California ground receive station.  The ground receiver directly converts the RF energy to electricity, and uses the local power grid for transmission to the PG&E delivery point.

Q: What is the potential of Space Solar Power?

A: Collecting solar energy in space and transmitting it to earth offers a significant untapped energy resource. The sun's energy is almost continuously available to a satellite located in a GEO orbit about the earth.  According to an October, 2007 US Department of Defense (DOD) National Space Security Office (NSSO) study which included representatives from DOE/NREL, DARPA, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin: "A single kilometer wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt-years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW-yrs)."

Q: Is the renewable energy generated from this project completely carbon-free?

A: Yes. Solaren's SSP energy conversion process is completely carbon-free.

Q: How will this project impact the environment?

A: The construction and operations of Solaren's SSP plant will have minimal impacts to the environment.  The construction of the SSP ground receive station will have no more environmental impact than the construction of a similarly sized terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) solar power plant.  Space launch vehicles will place the SSP satellites into their proper orbit. These space launch vehicles primarily use natural fuels (H2, O2) and have an emissions profile similar to a fuel cell.  When in operation, the Solaren SSP plant has a zero carbon, mercury or sulfur footprint.  In addition, the high efficiency conversion of RF energy to electricity at the SSP Ground Receive Station does not require water for thermal cooling or power generation, unlike other sources of baseload power (nuclear, coal, hydro).

Q: How was the SSP ground receive station site selected?

A: We had three major requirements for the selection of the SSP ground receive station. First, was the selection of a site that is close to a large load center, second the site had to be a short distance from a PG&E substation, and third was not to use any long distance transmission lines.

Q: When will Solaren be able to provide more details about your SSP pilot plant project?

A: We are currently supporting the CPUC regulatory filing process, and plan to provide additional details about our SSP pilot plant project in early Summer 2009. 

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

• People in high places must be reading NEXT100. On April 8, a day after this blog completed a two-part series on geoengineering, President Obama's top science adviser, John Holdren said of this controversial approach to controlling global warming, "It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table." Stephen Salter at Edinburgh University, a leading proponent of the cloud seeding measures described in Tuesday's post, said: "Everyone working in geo-engineering works with some reluctance: we hope it'll never be needed, but we fear it might be needed very, very urgently. Holden is echoing that exactly. It's very encouraging."
• People must be reading NEXT100, part two: Only a week after this blog commented on the surge of interest in carbon-free nuclear power, engineering giants The Shaw Group and Westinghouse Electric Company announced that they received full notice to proceed from Southern Company for an engineering, procurement and construction contract to build two new nuclear reactors. Can the timing be a coincidence? This project puts Southern Company on track to become the first utility to start construction of a nuclear power plant from scratch in more than three decades.  If the utility receives final licensing and funding authority and construction goes as planned, the first unit will come online in 2016.
• Global warming may claim another set of victims: pets who aren't used to harsh climates. According to new scientific papers, ticks, fleas and mosquitoes are spreading more infectious diseases among household animals as milder winters allow these disease vectors to spread.
• As global warming progresses, the world may come to resemble Australia, according to scientists who link climate change to the deaths of 200 people from heat waves and 173 from wildfires earlier this year. Other calamities to strike the country include monsoon flooding, wildlife kills, mosquito-borne diseases, and the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef. However, the country is reluctant to kick its dependence on carbon-rich coal power, according to the Los Angeles Times.
• From the department of faint silver linings: the economic downturn contributed to a drop of 3 percent in carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants between 2007 and 2008. Emissions from industrial facilities in Europe fell 6 percent. 
• The latest carbon tax proposal comes from the world's poorest countries, who asked a UN climate forum for a surcharge of about $6 on every airline ticket to help fund measures to help them adapt to floods, droughts, crop failures and other disasters that may arise from global warming. Can you afford it?

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• Help Wanted: Bee Counters. Bee biologist Gretchen LeBuhn, an associate professor at San Francisco State University, has launched the "Great Sunflower Project" to help determine whether something in the environment may be causing bee "colony collapse disorder" in commercially managed hives and a decline in honey bees in North America. Volunteers are asked to plant sunflowers in their yards and observe the behavior of the bees the sunflowers attract. Volunteers will receive free sunflower seeds and instructions for monitoring the bees. More information on bee pollination studies is available at LeBuhn's Web site: The Buzz: Pollinator Week!.
• General Motors and Segway, maker of the hyped Segway Personal Transporter that never caught on, will jointly develop a battery-powered, two-seat vehicle designed for city traffic. The vehicle -- called the PUMA for Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility -- would cover 35 miles on a battery charge and travel at a top speed of 35 miles per hour. A prototype may be available in the fall.
• Here's another way to get around town. The Zipcar car-sharing company is partnering with Zimride, an online carpooling venture, to combine their features into a ride-sharing service aimed at colleges and universities, beginning with Stanford University. Zipcar members can post the details of their trips onto a Zimride Web site which matches riders and drivers. The new service reminds me of my social-networking, ride-sharing system back in the day -- hitchhiking.

Posted by: Katie Romans

Televisions and computers have gotten a bad rap over the years from critics who say we'd all be better off if they were sent to the scrap heap. Today, they had their redemption...with a little help from their friends.

Today, PG&E and SMUD announced a joint launch of the Business and Consumer Electronics program. The program will provide participating retailers with point-of-purchase signage, in-store training and co-marketing efforts to promote and sell more energy-efficient desktop computers, computer monitors and flatscreen televisions. The program will also work alongside manufacturers to accelerate specs for the next generation of energy-efficient products.

Up until now, the kitchen has been the primary focus of the ENERGY STAR brand. Not any more. ENERGY STAR is stepping out of the kitchen and into the office and home entertainment center to help PG&E and SMUD in their effort to educate businesses and consumers about their energy-efficient options when purchasing electronics.

PG&E studies show that, while consumers are interested in purchasing energy-efficient electronics, they usually operate under the assumption that electronics are already as efficient as possible, due to the fact that they are high-tech products. Other surveys show that consumers will even pay a premium for electronics that are gentler on the planet. So, identifying which products actually fit the bill becomes a very important component in helping to drive the demand needed to transform the market.

And, transformation could be just what televisions and computers need to clear the rap sheet and get back in the green. 

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

The San Francisco Giants open their 51st National League season today at AT&T Park on the city's waterfront and a newly energy-efficient Gilroy Garlic Fries concession stand on the Pomenade Level. With the Giants not expected to be a playoff contender this season, garlic fries are getting a lot of press. The popular stand has been retrofitted with a raft of new equipment, among them fryers that slash gas consumption by a third, new lights to save 36 percent more electricity, signage made from biodegradable, recyclable materials, and recyclable drink cups and compostable carry trays.

The Giants and their local utility, PG&E, are veterans at greening the park, beginning in 2007 with the first installation of solar panels in Major League Baseball, saving 360,000 pounds of greenhouse gases so far, according to the club. The Giants will add more eco-friendly features this season, including a "Green Team" to help fans recycle and compost their trash.

Baseball clubs across the country are embracing green parks to save money by reducing energy use, conserving water and adopting recycling. The Seattle Mariners have saved almost $500,000 by reducing gas and electricity at Safeco Field by about 36 and 18 percent, respectively, the past two seasons. The club also recycled 342 tons of plastic, glass and cardboard last year for a savings of $60,000 in disposal costs. That's not much cash to put a dent in a player's salary but with attendance likely to slump this season as jobless figures climb, every bit of the green stuff is valuable.

Baseball is also teaming up with environmental organizations for assistance. Major League Baseball joined with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) last year to push a Team Greening Program to protect the environment. "This effort is really changing baseball for the better. Baseball isn't green yet, but it's in the process of greening," says Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist and coordinator of the sports greening project at the NRDC.

Two new parks in New York -- Yankee Stadium in the Bronx and the Mets' new Citi Field in Queens -- are drawing a lot of attention this opening week. New lighting systems will save the Yankees more than 100 tons of carbon emissions per night game, and Citi Field will feature water-saving lavatories with hands-free faucets and waterless urinals.

Beyond baseball, other professional sports are making similar moves. The National Basketball Association has teamed up with the NRDC for the inaugural NBA Green Week now running through April 10 to generate awareness and funding to protect the environment through special oncourt apparel, auctions to support environmental groups, community service projects and other programs.

The National Football League is also tackling green efforts. The Dallas Cowboys' new $1.1 billion stadium in Arlington, Texas, opening this year aims to reduce solid waste, energy use and water consumption. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Director Richard Greene says the stadium "will have national standards that perhaps will become part of the way facilities like this are operated from now on."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

What would it take to manipulate the earth's environment to offset the impact of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Finding some way to reflect just 1.7 percent of incoming sunlight would tame the greenhouse effect and keep the average global temperature roughly in check, scientists estimate.

As noted in yesterday's post on geoengineering, proposals to just that include launching trillions of sun shades into orbit or lacing the upper atmosphere with reflective sulfur aerosols. Critics claim that such schemes would either cost an exorbitant amount or cause major environmental hazards of their own.

But what if we could just make ordinary clouds a little brighter so they would reflect more sunlight? What if the main requirements were wind and seawater? What if the cost were just a few billion dollars? And what if the process could be turned on or off at will to minimize any  unintended consequences?

That's the promise of a cloud seeding proposal by John Latham, senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and former head of the Atmospheric Physics Research Group at the University of Manchester. His idea, first broached in 1990, has been gaining traction in peer-reviewed scientific articles, TV documentaries for BBC and the Discovery Channel, and two papers last year in the prestigious journal, The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

In a nutshell, Latham and a couple of colleagues propose seeding ocean clouds with tiny droplets of saltwater. In theory, the clouds should reflect more sunlight, possibly offsetting greenhouse warming for up to 100 years. In effect, the scientists propose speeding up the natural process of cloud formation over water much as cloud seeders do over land.

(Latham told me he got the germ of the idea while standing on top of a mountain in Wales, explaining to his eight-year-old son why the clouds they saw were so white. His son called them "soggy mirrors" and the phrase stuck with Latham ever since.)

The team proposes ingeniously to do the job with a fleet of 1500 300-ton ships powered by vertical spinning wind turbines called Flettner rotors. The rotors would both propel the ships and spray seawater into the atmosphere to promote cloud formation around salt nuclei. (A ship powered by Anton Flettner's rotors actually crossed the Atlantic in 1926. A German wind turbine manufacturer, Enercon, has plans to finish building a state-of-the-art ship based on similar technology this year.)

They estimate that the ships would cost $2 million to $4 million each, and the research and design program could be financed for about $100 million--cheap insurance by almost any measure.

The best sites to operate the ships, according to their calculations, would be off the coasts of California, Peru and Namibia.

Since the salt nuclei last in the atmosphere at most about five days, the scheme could be tested with no lasting impact to the environment. If put into operation, the ships could be controlled remotely to fine-tune their effects.

Latham told me that computer climate models show very encouraging results for the scheme, but only field testing can prove the concept. He estimates that preliminary scientific work to lay the foundation would cost only a quarter million dollars.

I asked Ken Caldeira, a leading expert on climate change and geoengineering at Stanford University, for his opinion. While he prefers the idea of injecting dust into the stratosphere to cool the earth quickly in case of a climate emergency, he likes the fact that Latham's cloud-seeding scheme can be tested at small scale, uses benign mechanisms, appear to be affordable and could be stopped quickly if needed..

So what's the downside? Perhaps the biggest is shared by all schemes to offset global warming by reflecting sunlight: even if the average temperature of the globe did not change, regional changes caused by the greenhouse effect could still be significant and disruptive. In addition, Latham's scheme would do nothing to prevent continued emissions of carbon dioxide from making the oceans more acidic, threatening many species of sea life.

That's why Latham, and other students of geoengineering like Caldeira, strongly advocate curbs on greenhouse gas emissions as the best remedy for global warming. But while they wait for the world's governments to summon the political will to enforce emissions controls, they're busy working on Plan B.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

In 1988, NASA climate expert James Hansen riveted the country with his Senate testimony about the dangers of global warming. Two decades later, in a letter to President-elect Obama, Hansen reflected on how little progress has been made and warned of the "profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet."

As we document here almost every week in the feature Climate Changes, scientists now see frightening signs that climate feedback effects from the melting of polar ice and tundra appear much worse than predicted just a few years ago, and could accelerate the devastating effects of global warming on the environment and human society.

Even so, there's no guarantee that Congress will take the tough measures necessary to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The specter of political leaders seemingly fiddling while the Earth burns has prompted some otherwise sober scientists to propose a radical Plan B: geoengineering.

Geoengineering is the idea of intervening on a planetary scale to modify the earth's environment, in this case to prevent runaway global warming. Instead of (or in addition to)  dealing with the cause--overproduction of greenhouse gases--typical geoengineering solutions would cool the earth one of two ways: either reducing incoming solar radiation or by capturing and storing greenhouse gases after they are produced.

Hardly anyone admits to being a cheerleader for geoengineering; it smacks too much of the kind of hubris that got our planet into this mess in the first place. But more and more experts are quietly concluding that humankind had better keep the option open lest a worse evil overtake us.

As the futurist Jamais Cascio put in in a guest essay on Gristmill, "Geoengineering is risky, likely to provoke international tension, certain to have unanticipated consequences, and pretty much inevitable."

Creative minds have proposed an astonishing array of proposals for planetary-scale environmental engineering, some hairbrained and some remarkably clever.

One idea is to launch trillions of sunshades into orbit to offset greenhouse warming. Unfortunately, this "solution" would require 135,000 rocket launches a year to put 31,000 square kilometers of sunshades into space. It will probably be cheaper just to relocate Disney World to Fairbanks, Alaska.

Then there's a proposal from Ohio State University climate scientist Jason Box to cover Greenland's ice sheets with giant rolls of white plastic to reflect the sun and slow the rate of melting. He's testing his idea over a 10,000 square meter patch of ice. No word yet from the plastics industry's lobbyists about federal support for this idea.

Another idea that's won much wider currency and ongoing testing is fertilizing the oceans with iron to promote the growth of tiny algae to increase their uptake of carbon dioxide. As they die, they will drift to the seabed, locking that carbon away for millennia. With one apparent exception, however, recent ocean tests have thrown cold water on the prospects for this solution. The results from one German-Indian test found that iron did promote algae growth, but animals came along and ate the blooms, preventing them from falling to the ocean floor. The amount of carbon locked up was "a small amount, almost negigible," according to one scientist.

Perhaps the most widely analyzed proposal--advanced by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen--is to mimic nature by injecting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect just enough sunlight to keep the earth from overheating. Without any political consultation, Mount Pinatubo did just that in 1991, releasing 15 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide clouds that cut average global temperatures more than half a degree Celsius over a period of about 15 months. A recent study published in Atmospheric Chemisty and Physics found that this method would have the greatest potential of any proposed to date to cool the globe.

Unfortunately, sulfur dioxide reacts to create sulfuric acid, falling as acid rain to harm terrestrial ecosystems. Worse yet, sulfates might eat a much bigger hole in the earth's ozone layer, exposing us all to dangerous UV radiation and aggravating global warming in the southern hemisphere. Oh, well, back to the drawing board.

Tomorrow: A novel scheme to cool the planet by seeding clouds.

 

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several items on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

• A draft report on California's future climate, compling 37 research papers on how global warming will affect the state's resources, concludes that by the latter half of this century, forest fires could claim more than double their usual acreage, water shortages will force a 20 percent shrinkage of Central Valley farms, and statewide electricity demand will soar by more than 50 percent, increasing ozone pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.
• Ice may disappear altogether from the Arctic during the summer in as little as 30 years, according to a new analysis published today in Geophysical Research Letters. Oceanographer James Overland, one of the co-authors, said the faster-than-expected transformation of the polar climate is due in part to "warmer air and sea conditions caused by increased greenhouse gases."
• Two senior House Democrats, Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, this week produced draft legislation to cap greenhouse gases at 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, using a market in tradeable permits to minimize the cost. 
• The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a diverse coalition of 25 major businesses (including PG&E) and five national environmental organizations, hailed the draft legislation as a "thoughtful" and "strong" basis for creating a "climate strategy that both protects our economy and achieves the nation's environmental goals."
• PG&E Corporation Chairman, CEO and President Peter Darbee said the company was "pleased to see that the draft recognizes the need for both aggressive emissions reduction goals and measures to protect consumers and the economy against electric and natural gas price shocks, along with the need to invest in technology and advance energy efficiency, among other initiatives." 
• House Republicans generally deried the cap-and-trade proposal as a national energy sales tax, but said they might find ways to work with the majority party on other aspects of the draft bill, which includes a federal renewable energy standard, energy efficiency programs and a low-carbon motor fuels program. 
• MIT researchers, among others, pounced on House Republican leader John Boehner for misrepresenting their findings by claiming that curbs on greenhouse gas would raise electric utility bills an average of $3,100 per household. The real impact would be far lower, and would be mitigated by programs to recycle revenue to customers, proponents say.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• Venture capital investments in clean technology plunged 48 percent in the first quarter to $1 billion compared with the 2008 first quarter, according to the Cleantech Group. It was the lowest level of clean tech venture capital investment since the 2006 fourth quarter.
• Greenwear? Sears is coming out this spring with a line of men's suit separates blending wool with a polyester yarn made from recycled plastic soda bottles. The jacket will cost $175 and the pants $75, says Bagir Group Ltd., an Israeli company that tailors the suits for Sears' private label. And they're machine washable.
• IBM will help build a smart grid for EnergyAustralia, the country's biggest electricity distribution network. IBM, which has worked on a smart grid for Denmark and plans a utility and water system for Malta, will build software for 12,000 sensors to monitor the Sydney power grid and pinpoint outages.
• The San Francisco Giants open the baseball season on April 7 at AT&T Park, and in addition to winning the National League West this season, the Giants are partnering with PG&E to make the ballpark the greenest in the country. Among other eco-friendly features, the bayside park will unveil an energy-efficient garlic fries stand. The Giants are also working with PG&E and Linc Facility Services to make the yard the first major league park to receive the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED certification.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Imagine finding an oily mess under the hood of your shiny new car. That's a bit how I felt about a new MIT study's conclusion that the solar panel industry, among other new manufacturing industries, engages in "seemingly extravagant use of materials and energy resources."

Summarizing the study, which appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, MIT's news office noted that "the inherent inefficiency of current solar panel manufacturing methods could drastically reduce the technology's lifecycle energy balance -- that is, the ratio of the energy the panel would produce over its useful lifetime to the energy required to manufacture it."

This isn't the first time the solar photovoltaic (PV) industry, which represents one of the great hopes for the earth's environment, has taken hits for its environmental record. Production of solar panels often involves the use of toxic materials such as lead, mercury, cadmium and silicon tetrachloride. Some plants in China have reportedly disposed of wastes on nearby farmland and even school playgrounds to cut costs, causing havoc to the local environment.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition warned in January that as solar panels proliferate, millions of them could someday end up in landfills, polluting the earth with toxic chemicals. To its credit, the Solar Energy Industries Association, a leading trade group, supports take-back programs to reclaim and recycle old panels.

Last but not least, a gas widely used in the production of solar panels (as well as flat-screen TVs and computer displays), nitrogen trifluoride, turns about to be a greenhouse gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and four times more prevalent in the atmosphere than scientists once thought, according to researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

In fairness, most of these issues aren't unique to the solar PV industry, and as PV technology evolves to use more thin-film and other materials-saving techniques, its environmental footprint will shrink along with costs. The industry is working hard on solutions. But reports like the one from MIT are a healthy reminder that few environmental issues are ever simple, and there's usually a little brown mixed in with any green.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

The long-awaited "nuclear renaissance" is here at last--at least in the media. I can't remember when I've seen so much coverage of nuclear power as a promising option for meeting the nation's growing electricity demand while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

USA Today's Paul Davidson reported on March 29 that the nuclear power industry is coming out of its "decades-long deep freeze" with momentum "driven by growing public acceptance of relatively clean nuclear energy to combat global warming." Though he addressed a host of challenges, Davidson wrote of "enhanced safety features" and relatively low operating costs, as well as freedom from greenhouse gas emissions as major points in nuclear's favor.

A day earlier, the Philadelphia Inquirer weighed in with a story on the nuclear power industry being "poised for a rebirth" after a long hiatus in new plant construction. "The impetus is climate change," the story explained. "Nuclear power is touted as the one major electricity source that's emission-free and reliable, able to generate massive amounts of power night and day, in wind and calm."

Thanks in part to such coverage, as well as the industry's relatively good operating record, a new Gallup poll shows that 59 percent of respondents now favor the use of nuclear power, up from 50 percent in recent years. More than one in four Americans (27 percent) say they strongly favor nuclear energy.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently said nuclear power "has to be" part of our energy future, although he nixed the use of Yucca Mountain as a central repository for used nuclear fuel. And abroad, even traditional opponents of nuclear power like Sweden are now overturning longstanding bans on its use.

Furious debates over safety, used fuel storage and licensing will of course continue to dog the industry. Perhaps the biggest obstacle will come not from environmentalists but from Wall Street. It's hard to get any project financed these days, but multibillion dollar nuclear plants, based on new designs and subject to regulatory uncertainty, will be an especially tough sell. Big construction snafus at a reactor project in Finland--which is three years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget--won't help the industry's case.

If critics are right that the true cost of nuclear power is more than 20 cents per kilowatt hour, more than many renewables and most energy efficiency investments, then nuclear's rebirth may be a long time coming.

On the other hand, global power contractor Black & Veatch pegs the cost of new nuclear power at only half that amount, making it highly competitive with both fossil and wind energy. If even a handful of new reactors can get built on time and on budget, with the benefit of federal loan guarantees and streamlined regulation, the clouds of doubt may lift and nuclear may indeed enjoy its long-awaited renaissance.