Panasonic, the giant Japanese based electronics manufacturer and marketer has launched an LED lightbulb, for the US market at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.  The bulb, which was first launched in Japan in september, is known as the EverLed, requires no change of lighting equipment, fitting in standard screw in fixtures for incandescent light build.  Consumers will be able to swap out a 60watt traditional bulb with a 6.9 watt “bulb” with several LEDs.  Panasonic has branded the bulb, which are expected to last 19 years, as the “EverLed” and they currently sell for approximately $40 USD. The bulb can be expected to save 8200 kwh or about over $500 of electricity at 7 cents per/kwh.

Yes that’s the claim of a study by BC Hydro in Canada reported to their utility commission that in some cases compact fluorescents (CFLs) can actually increase greenhouse gas emissions.  The report explains that because of the great inefficiency of incandescent light bulbs, they generate a great deal of heat in the average home.  In a cold climate the extra heat is appreciated, but when these old, inefficient bulbs are replaced with CFL, the more efficient bulbs don’t give off as much heat.  It turns out that this is enough of a heat loss that people turn up their heat and if it’s gas heat, it’s increasing the emission of CO2.

Unfortunately this headline and the way i’ve seen and heard in the media makes it sound as if the fluorescents will increase global warming, but in fact the study assumes that all BC electricity will be “green” said this:

By 2017, Hydro said, it anticipates efficient lighting could annually save 480 gigawatt hours of electricity.

However, Hydro also states that lighting regulations “will increase GHG emissions in Hydro’s service territory by 45,000 tonnes due to cross effects” of a switch to cool-burning bulbs.

well 480 gigawatts of coal fired power emits about 480,000 tons of CO2, from natural gas about 325,000 tons. The idea that this somehow is an overall negative is ridiculous, until all power is generated without CO2 emissions.  Even if BC was 100% green energy, do all the materials to build the dams, wind farms, nuclear reactors not count? Is having to build an extra nuclear plant really more greenhouse friendly than reducing inefficient lighting?

While it’s interesing to know that there is some emissions that will result from the loss of heat in cold weather, it’s just another factor in calculating overall greenhouse emissions.  Don’t stop changing those bulbs!

It’s hard to admit this to the world, but i think a lot less about driving today than I did in July and August when oil hit it’s all time high around $150 per barrel.  As gasoline prices moved past $5 a gallon, my trip to visit friends and family went from about $8 to over $15, just for gas.  When the reward for doubling up with the wife and taking one car on these visits approaches and surpasses the cost of a lunch at the nearest drive thru, it’s time to reconsider.  Giving up the convenience of being able to change plans, was worth saving $15. Today with the world financial system collapses and gasoline prices following suit,  I’m thinking more about saving green, as in US Dollars and less about going green.

Reconsider I have.  I have reduced trips and even bought a bike for both exercise and for the short 1-2km trip to the local shop.  It was important before gasoline hit $5, when it was easier to savor the reward of going green by reducing your use of single passenger fossil fueled vehicles.  If I could swap money for saving the planet while getting more exercise and using the car less, the choice is simple.  This is what I was convinced of in August and September.  Today it’s November 1st and truth be told, i’ve only used the bike once or twice to get to the store and it’s too uncomfortable for a trip longer than about 10 minutes each way.  Gas is down and some bad habits are back.

Forgive me for going on about this, i’m sure most have considered these issues over the last year, but i wanted to focus on today.  Today gasoline prices are back under $3 per gallon and i already have found myself ready to make a trip in the car, much more rapidly than just 2 months ago!  Fortunately I’ve been able to keep myself from running out and still bundle my trips together. It’s amazing how much the price of oil seems to affect not just my attitude towards the resource and the environment, but also my behavior. Don’t give up the fight to conserve. Using less resources that emit CO2 is helping the planet and it’s likely helping you save some money too.

What’s up at UPS, the United Parcel Service, regarding going green?  Well the latest news from the company that likes to be know as “Brown” announced their order for the first 7 “Hydralic Hybrid” delivery trucks.  The “Hydralic Hybrid” stores power by pressurizing hydralic fluid, instead of sending electricity to a bank of batteries.  The early testing in metro Detroit have shown that these trucks can reduce fuel usage by 45 to 50% and CO2 emissions by 30%, when compared to conventional diesel engines. 

This new technology began development October 2001 a R&D project between Eaton Corp and the US EPA laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The vehicles that are delivered to UPS will be powered by a high efficiency diesel engine that periodically recharges pressure in the hydraulic store, rather than sending power to the wheels.  This technology is seen as a cost savings solution for large trucks, a way to reduce oil use and a way to reduce CO2 emissions from large vehicles.  It is estimated the the fuel savings will pay for the cost of this solution within 3 years.

The vehicles are being built by Navistar, using the Eaton technology.  Navistar’s participation is based on their ability to offer their customers “performance and reduced emissions with dramatic improvements in fuel economy,” said Steve Guillaume, Navistar General Manager, Medium Trucks.  UPS expects to take delivery of these vehicle in 2009 and 2010.  UPS noted in their press release that they are already the largest “green fleet” or more than 1600 vehicles growing to 2100 as the company ads another 600 vehicles this year.

Eaton’s press release:

http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/OurCompany/NewsandEvents/CT_190984

UPS’ press release:

http://www.ups.com/pressroom/us/press_releases/press_release/0,0,5052,00.html

I recently had to the opportunity to be locked in an internet free location for a day or two which resulted in a lot more thinking than i would admit to.  A few thoughts came thru that were directly related to this blog and the Carbon Offsets business that i run.

First i’ve been worried about this “collapse” of the financial system due to bad mortgages for years and while i imagined this would happen, i guess i never believed it would get this bad, let alone the possibility that it could become even worse. 

Much as we’ve seen in the commodities market recently, there has sharp drop in carbon offset prices.  In the US carbon offset markets, these offsets have dropped in price from about $2.25 a ton in january to about $1.80 today.  That doesn’t sound too surprising or devastating, until i mention that during that time the price peaked at just under $7.50 a ton during the months in between.   While i’m sure this affects many carbon offsetters, we’re small enough and new enough that we can only benefit by these reduced cost of offsets.  The real story here isn’t the cost of the offsets, or the reason for the great swings in value. 

The real story is that Global Warming was controlling the mindspace of American consumers and voters in January and February and is all but an afterthought today.  The shift in society’s focus away from global warming to “Drill, Drill, Drill” (thank you larry kudlow) was prompted, not surprisingly by oil skyrocketing over $100 a barrel right to $150.  Nobody who is trying to afford the SUV they drive to work, doesn’t care about the earth getting hotter, because the night sweats are increasingly chilled as we worry about keeping our jobs, homes and feeding our families.  Unfortunately, much like the entreprenuers who burn the forest of brasil to grow soybeans, our thoughts toward the future have focused on the next few weeks instead of the next 10-20 years.  Until that focus shifts, complicated/abstract ideas like carbon offsets, will be of less interest than green actions that help to save money.  The next few years green needs to focus on helping the family budget to help change the world.

I’ll start this article with the disclosure that i own shares in Amerityre (AMTY) the company i feature in this article.  This company was suggested to me as a longshot, green investment by a friend out west who is into trading stocks (i’m into investing for a period of a year or two).

So, Amerityre manufacturers foam polyurathene tires, the sort that might be found on electric mobility devices and powered wheelchairs.  They make solid tires used in agriculture, they make “tire fill” to go into solid and “run flat” tires.  Most recently they’ve been working on pneumatic (air filled) tires to replace the traditional rubber tires used on cars and trucks.  So, why is this company suddenly on my Solar/Green blog?  Because this company fights global warming.

 Let’s start with the product that is still under development, the automotive, pneumatic tires.  The first test indicate that the Polyurathene tires were getting less traction than rubber tires, but also had a lower rolling resistance than rubber, enough to increase gas mileage by 5 to 10%.  So, if you just look at the final product, a tire on a car, this new concept can help reduce the use of gasoline and it’s CO2 output and is a greener product than rubber.  Yet the greatest value of the product is gained, not when it’s mounted a car, but during manufacturing.  To vulcanize rubber and create tires, you must use heat and pressure on the rubber to harden it.  In contrast the heat and pressure, which is a huge cost in terms of energy and CO2 is absent from the Amerityre process.

A second product, being shipped today, is a tire fill.  That is a material used to fill rubber tires that are used for construction or “run flat” and have a rubber outside and some solid form of fill. The “Amerifill” is a lightweight alternative to traditional fill, once again, helping remove weight from vehicles helping save fuel in the shipping and use of these tires.

 Is this a great investment? Will be soon driving on Polyurathene tires? I don’t really know, but it shows another business that is going to make money in the green revolution by causing the evolution of tires into to a product with a lower carbon and energy footprint.

Everyone from Al Gore and Bono to General Electric’s Jeff Immelt are talking green these days and lots celebrities and businesses are “offsetting” their high CO₂ activities with credits that might not really offset the activity they’re supposed to offset.  While the notion of “Cap and Trade” pollution credits, or fees to offset costs of green energy production is not a new idea, but recently it seems that every jet setter is buying the credits to make their lifestyles look like they’re green.  Do these credits help create renewable energy sources or just provide PR for the dangers of global warming?

The article discussed Aspen purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs) for $2 per megawatt/hour of electricity they produce.  This $2 per megawatt fee, is allegedly going to cause more windmill or solar plants to built. Given that electricity retails for 7-12 cents per kilowatt/hour the $2 number is only .2 cents, or only about 1/3 of 1% of the cost electricity sold at 7 cents per kw/hr.  These numbers mean that over a 30 year period a power plant/farm would offset just 10% of it’s cost, hardley a compelling reason to go green if the costs are not equal to current technologies.

There is a very long article on the topic in Business Week this week, which was the inspiration for this article.  The article which discusses buying environmental credits with managers at Aspen Skiing and Johnson and Johnson.  In both cases the credits seemed to be the only way to allow the businesses to grow and do something green.  Companies cannot see any justification in spending money on environmental friend innovations that require 5, 10, or even 20 years to pay off.

As far as i can tell there are about 0 people (ok sure some lefties, hippies, survivalists but they have more of an agenda)  in the US that have any intention or ability to sacrifice their lifestyles to save the plant from global warming.  Why should they, given the masses who refuse to acknowledge the problem, let alone sacrifice to solve it? Why should the individual give up their things, their travel, their lifestyle to be 1 billionth, or less, of the solution?  I can’t see why, it flies in the face of both consumerism and self interest.  Why give up everything, if ice caps will still melt?

So, how do we solve the problem?  Well it’s really quite simple a combination of law and the marketplace. The coordination of laws, tax policy and the marketplace can encourage consumers to make the switch to green technologies as the financial sacrifice to do so decreases.

The leading example of how this can work is the German approach to moving the country toward solar power.  The German government requires that power transmission companies connect alternative power sources as a priority and pay a minimum rate per Kilowatt hour, locked in for a period of 20 years.  This guarantee, has encouraged german entreprenuers and homeowners to install over 1,150 megawatts of solar photovoltaic generating capacity in 2006.  It is this sort of methodology that can jump start the move to more expensive, less carbon intensive technologies.  This early adoption will, as with all technological products, will increase the demand and bring more capacity and ultimately the lower prices.  These lower prices will further speed the switch to renewable energy sources.

So can we save the world without sacrifice?  In reality, we will have to sacrifice some cash, but frankly with the skyrocketing price of oil, the marketplace is reducing the cost of us changing the infrastructure that powers our lifestyle. If you consider the modern, consumer lifestyle, only airplanes and ships seem unable to move without traditional fuels or in the case of ships nuclear power plants.  All other aspects, including cars, can be powered by electricity or carry sufficient hydrogen to be pratical.  Once everything is electric, the game has changed. In an electric world, we only need to replace carbon generating power, with carbon free electricity and that can be achieved thru non-polluting renewable sources, solar, wind, waves, etc. or carbon based fuels if the industry can truly sequester carbon.  In an ideal world, we could take CO₂, use bacteria to break off the O₂ and expell carbon fibre, that can be used to build the consumer products that generate the pollution of our the modern lifestyle.

So can we save the planet without sacrifice? Without individual sacrifice, yes, but as a society, we need to make laws, tax policies and grants, a a shared sacrifice to help rapidly change the infrastructure of our modern world to be sustainable.

Funny how environment and business interacts.  In the case of the earth, until recently, business always ruled over the “natural world”.  As long as business wanted to dump their waste in the rivers, they could.  As long as someone owned the land (was rich) or had an army (was powerful) they could do as they pleased.  As cities came to be and health became an issue; think of a plague, caused by filthy water and sewage in the streets.  The was the beginnings of concern health and the local environmental. 

Only in the last 60 years has humanity had the knowledge and tools to measure, test and track the impact of human activity. Today the focus on the environment has moved from local to global.  The environmental movement truely took off in the 1960s and since then a worldwide battle between the forces of green and the “anything for money” crowd: Laissez Faire Capitalists/Conservatives rages on. While some people who consider themselves L.F. Capitalist and Conservatives are surely environmentalists, the general belief of these folks is that the richest and strongest in society should act without restrictions, especially on financial and real estate issues.

These people, who have preached that “evidence” proves capitalism is superior, have simultaneously bristled at science that shows that this sort of behavior jeopardizes the environment and humanity.  In fact when such evidence is presented, they deny the science.  They deny the science since it threatens to curb the “freedom” to destroy the environment and put humanity at risk.

How does the battle of Science vs Conservatives get fought? In the US and Canada, it originally took the form of finding “Experts” who initially denied that there was any sort of problem.  As problems became more evident, they argued they couldn’t be proven to endager people.  When science had finally won the day and convinced the world there was a problem, that it hurt people, the fake experts would then explain that changes can’t solve the problem anyways.

More concretely, this has led to reports written by US government scientists being edited by political appointies in order to remove content that puts at risk the conservative agenda of letting business do anything to the environment if it makes someone rich.  The best metaphore here is from Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth corrects previous statements and facts to square with the realities (read that politics) of the day. It’s hard to believe that the environment is debated politically, just because it might cost a few dollars more to live in cleaner, more environmentally stable world.

Fact: there is more CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 150 years than all but several periods in earth’s geology.

Fact: As industrial growth and use of hydrocarbon fuels grew, CO2 grew

Fact: The average temperature of earth has increased since human industrialization

Generally accepted as Fact: CO2, Methane increases in atmosphere are responsible for the increase heat.

Theory - reducing or eliminating CO2 from human activity will slow or reverse heating.

We’ve been talking about Germany and how it has become the leading user and manufacturers of solar power solutions.  A trip between Dusseldorf and Amsterdam, will show further demonstrate the adoption of wind power in germany too.  The strangest thing i found in germany, were incandescent light bulbs.  How can a country/people that are so on top of alternative energy still be willing to waste electricity and generate heat with a technology that hasn’t changed much since the 1890s.  I’m the first to admit that i hated the old style, glaring, flashy fluorescent bulbs of the 1970’s.  Who would sit and read a book under that kind of a light.  Today, i use compact fluorescent bulbs virtually everywhere.  They use significantly less power, give off less heat, and last 5 to 10 times longer than old bulbs.  You’d think every commercial property management company would have gone fluorescent, just wanting to save the extra labor of changing bulbs.

Mass Transit, what a concept!  Trains that go between various cities, trolleys and busses within the city, all running off electricty.  The US had trollies in most cities until the late 1940’s when the “transportion industry” destroyed it to sell gasoliine powered buses and automoblies. You can learn more about The Conspiracy to Destroy Mass Transit using that link or just searching for “GM” and “trolley”.  How much easier it is to deal with 1 power plant’s emissions than that of 50,000 autos.