For anyone who didn’t watch 60 Minutes this last Sunday, I’ll explain why you should watch the video.

The Bloom Box is a fuel cell designed to provide homes electricity from a box the size of a stack of 15 cd/dvds that costs about $3000.  The fuel cell does emit CO2 when fueled by carbon based fuels, but it creates twice as much electricity as traditional natural gas generators. This means that substituting these methane powered fuel cells for coal power plants could cut CO2 emissions by 75%. Deploying small, off grid Bloom devices further reduces transmission loses and grid costs associated with delivering power.  A successful Bloom Box, could have a huge impact on on a world increasingly run on electricity.

Will it work? Well they’ve got systems running at Google, eBay and FedEx in northern California and they’re funded by Kleiner Perkins, et. al. for $400 Million. That makes it seem like it’s coming soon. If this works, my only question is could we capture enough methane, from bio sources to power society without continuing to add CO2 from burning “mined” fuels?

Check out this video:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

It’s been said that “There are liars, lies and statistics”, which those who don’t know anything about statistics have led them to infer that statistics aren’t useful, which is wrong. We’ve heard all about the hacked emails that show English climate researchers, at Univ. of East Anglia talked about manipulating data and the reaction who question the existence of a global warming crisis. What we haven’t heard much of is an explanation as to why this isn’t the smoking gun that the right wing media portrays it to be.  If Glenn Beck, Hannity and the rest of the folk don’t understand how science works, and they are the only ones “explaining” the meaning of this, the whole rational world is in trouble.

First of all, science itself, by definition, is a practice that is designed to avoid just the very problem of the “Cheating Scientist”.  The first two requirements of science are “results that are both measurable and repeatable”. if this scientist and his associates fudged his numbers then the 100s or 1000s of other researchers wouldn’t have found the evidence of climate change that they’ve already documented.  Granted, some people may have used the manipulated data series, but the fact is that researchers in many different fields have done experiments within their areas of studies and most support the idea that their is a climate change crisis.  If all the scientists are wrong, because of one group in the UK, there is a lot more wrong with the world than global warning.

Whatever your opinion on the health care debate, i think you’ll agree, that it’s pushed most other public policy issues off the table. The fight against global warming is no longer a top priority.  In fact any legislation bringing in a carbon cap, doesn’t charge the largest emitters for their carbon credits and it sets the levels much higher than science suggests they need to be to stop and turn back Global Warming.  I personally think that if this is the sort of “carbon cap and trade” system that comes about, it will have little or no impact on the way most Americans live.  With or without cap and trade, it’s time to put a carbon tax on gasoline and other non-renewable fuels. What is needed now is a consumer movement toward greener products and adding a tax to gasoline, to fund green energy, via tax credits.  A movement toward renewable electricity will not only help the environment, but will also create new jobs in research, development, manufacturer, installation and maintenance of these systems

Cash for clunkers is the current raging political debate in the US.  Let’s cut away all the BS and look at what is happening: the cars being bought are on average about 10 mpg better than the clunkers (heard this on CNBC yesterday).  That means for an increase of about 40% for cars and 60% for trucks.  For a vehicle driving 20,000 miles a year, at 25mpg would use 800 gallons of fuel a year, saving about 600 gallons of fuel or 6 tons of CO2. If a car is used for 10 years (much more than average) the newer car would reduce CO2 emmissions by about 60 tons.

Yesterday, US carbon credits on the CCX traded for 40 cents, yes  $ 0.40, per ton.  So the US government is giving a $4500 rebate to protect the environment from $24 worth of CO2, about 200 times more than the market price.  So, if folks want to keep the program growing for the sake of ramping up car sales, that’s great.  Just don’t think the environmental benefit is worth the cost.

As we head toward Earth Hour here in the Americas, i’m asking why?  Why bother with an earth hour, why set it up for saturday night, local time, when most people are out socializing and enjoying their weekend.  The idea, is to “vote” for a fight against global warming by shutting off your lights for the hour .  While i’m all for consciousness raising and spreading the word, but these cute little events also tend to make people feel that they’ve done something hard, when they’re really done very little.

While i’m good with helping people take the first step, i think having a billion people sign petition/oath to strengthen the fight against global warming would be an incredible feat and would send a much louder message.  This earth hour gets “support” by abandoned buildings around the world not using power, while the lights that aren’t extinguished, most likely because they are controlled by timers or the available light will be judged as protests.   So whether you’re city is too bright or nice and dark, it’s won’t be easy to measure “the vote”.  30+ years ago, April 22nd was established as Earth Day as a way to raise conciousness and advocate for the environment.  Instead of finding more ways to make statements, how about something that focuses on making real, long term changes in the way we live.

Some of the best arguments against the US capping CO2 can be summed in a single word.  These words are: India, China, Brazil and Indonesia.  The long winded version of these arguments go something like this:

Even if the US and Europe cut emissions by 100% there are still 3+ billion people, half the world living in the in those countries and they are increasing their CO2 at a stagering pace.  The cost of “green energy” is so much higher than carbon based energy that these and other developing countries will chose the cheaper carbon choice.

So, what can be done about this?  Should we subsidize these developing countries so they go with green power? Should we give up?  The short answer is that we (North America, Europe, Japan, Korea) need to push for deployment and development of wind, sun and hydropower solutions at home, now.  We need to help reduce the cost of these technologies, by supporting this young industry. 

Yes, the old rules of the marketplace work here, the more solar and wind generation is deployed, the faster the cost of these power sources decline.  The early affect of Germany’s efforts to encourage solar and wind power has helped to both reduce the cost of solar panels and wind turbines with increased the demand for these technologies. Much in the way that VCRs, PCs, microchips and Flat Panels have dropped in pricing as a result of increased demand and sales, economies of scale and competition, solar and wind technologies have followed that model.  When the cost of these new technologies create power for less than the cost of fossil fuels, we’ll see developing countries choose green.

So if you want to keep the developing world from building 1000s of fossil fuel power plants, tens of millions of gas powered vehicles and 100s of millions of carbon burning homes, it’s best to encourage the developed world to increase the speed of green energy deployments here.  Let’s hope the US either leads the way, or follows germany’s lead.  Fortunately with the exit of the Bush administration, the US has gotten out of the way.

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!

If you were listening to President Obama’s speech before congress and the American people you may have missed it, but he did call for a carbon cap.

• “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” Obama told lawmakers in last night’s speech to Congress.
• “So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America.”

It’s important to note that he did not say what the cap would be, how soon it should start and who would be affected.  Rather he set the goal of answering these question in the years ahead.

My conclusion is that i don’t expect any legislation to pass before winter/spring 2010.  The markets seem to agree, the price of Offsets on the CCX rose just 2.5% today in reaction to the presidents speech.  If you want to change the world, don’t wait for washington, reduce, upgrade or offset to reduce your CO2 footprint.

First off, my disclosure, i’ve lived my whole life within 50 miles of the headquarters of each of the Big 3, now the Detroit 3, first in Michigan and now in Ontario.  So, i have a vested interest in the US auto companies surviving, while at the same time, i want to solve global warming.  There is an inherent conflict between the goal of saving the planet and gasoline powered cars and trucks. The only way to achieve an environmentally friendly vehicle is to create only non-emitting vehicles, most likely the electric vehicles that are starting to be launched and announced over the last year.  The transition to electric vehicles is expected to take 20 years, in the mean time, governments are increasing fleet mileage requirments to help reduce emissions.

Higher mileage requirements are on the way, the state of California has legislated it, others states have joined the standard and President Obama has weighed in with his support of the same.  Is it any surprise that the Detroit 3, Michigan’s govenor, senators and congressional deligation are less receptive to these tougher standards.  Whenever it’s come to high mileage (translate that to small) cars, Detroit has repeatedly failed to succeed in the marketplace, so the reaction in auto country is understood.  But what if we can help put Detroit in (dare i say ‘The Driver’s Seat’) an adventageous position through legislation that helps auto makers meet these standards by rewarding them for alternative energy vehicles.

My proposal is simple, reward automakers for selling rechargeable electric cars, that can run at least 40 miles without charging, whether a 100% electric or a plug-chargeable hybrid.  The idea would be to take the EPA mileage rating of a plug-in hybrid on a single tank tank of gas and let automakers double it for the purpose of calculating an overall average fleet fuel mileage.  Say the new Chevy volt can be charged up, filled with 10 gallons of gas and driven 500 miles for a average of 50 miles per gallon of gas, GM could add the sale of 1 car with a 100 mpg (50 miles x 2) to their overal fleet.  If a car was fully electric, with no gas engine, the manufacturer could take the range of the vehicle, per charge and triple it. For a 100% electric car that had a 100 mile range, the auto manufacturer who sold it could count it as a 300 mpg vehicle.  This incentivizes all auto manufactures, not only the Detroit 3, to introduce electric cars to help reach higher mileage standards, without limiting the range of hydrocarbon fueled vehicles they offer.  In short, this let’s Detroit sell SUVs and Pickups, if they can sell enough green vehicles to keep their fleet averages about the government’s minimum.

Electric vehicles are inherently more efficient than the internal combustion engine, so less CO2 is generated for each mile driven.  Electricity can be generated from large traditional power plants which are efficent to operate and limits the number of pollution sources compared to 100s of millions of gasoline powered vehicle.  Finally electric has number sources of generation including a growing number non-emitting, renewable sources.

If you find yourself more concerned with US energy independence and not just global warming, the prospect of clean burning natural gas (methane) has to sound pretty good.  Even a number of dedicated environmentalists include the use of methane, albeit recovered from agriculture and landfills, as part of a green energy plan.  Unfortunately, that’s where the similarities end.  The energy industry and the domestic development industry aren’t interested in recovery methane that currently leaks into the atmosphere.  The industry is particluarly interested in drilling to release gas trapped in rocks under Pennsylvania another nearby states, called the Marcellus Shale.

There are numerous problems with this approach, first and foremost is that it adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It is true that methane burning generates about 30% less CO2 than a gasoline engine, mile for mile and that it would be better for the planet to displace gasoline with methane, but unless and until the vast majority of methane leaking from landfills, coalmines, oil wells and agriculture is being burned for power, drilling new gas well, just adds more GHGs to the atmosphere.  The second problem and the scariest one right now, is that the method for recovering this gas from the rock formations, commonly called “Hydro Fracturing”.  Hydro fracturing sounds innocent, just pump water down the hole under pressure, crack the rock and free the methane to float to the top of the well where it is collected, cleaned and sold.  Well this is where the dirty secrets come into play, the “Hydro” in Hydro Fracturing, it’s more than just water, it also includes benzene, methanol, diesel fuel and other toxic chemicals, which the exploration companies are refusing to indentify, citing their formulas are trade secrets.  It is feared that these known carcinogens and others yet to be indentified will contaminate underground water tables, destroying the resource. The leading exploration companies using these method in the US include Haliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services.

So, while it would be great reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions by burning methane, it really only makes sense if it takes advantage of leaking methane.  When you add in the possible damage to the water tables in the exploration areas, green energy seems worth the extra efforts and costs upfront.