That old Hollywood line, actually a misquote, has been used for comic relief more than a few times since the Treasure of the Sierra.  And while you may have hoped this would be another, that’s about all the humor………….
 The reason i bring up badges, is because of the CO2 offset badge there on the upper right of this website. It represents that this web site is running carbon neutral by virtue of a carbon offset provided by 4Offsets.com.  4Offsets.com helps individual and businesses offset their CO2 emissions as a way to speed adoption of renewable.  These offsets are based on CO2 offset commodity contracts, that have been ‘retired’ from circulation.  The contracts were awarded to people, projects and companies for efforts that eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases.  The contracts, that might be awarded to a wind farm or for planting and maintaining a forest, are sold to companies who have either a legal or self-imposed madate to reduce their CO2 production.  The theory and the reality, is that this market helps to increase the cashflow on green investments.  As the demand for these offsets increase and the price increases, the amount of money an offset will deliver to green project will increase the investment’s rate of return.  The next part is that the higher rate of return will attract more investment and therefore more wind, solar, and trees, at an increasingly fast pace.

I wrote about these carbon offsets and their use by Aspen Skiing and the concern, expressed by Aspen Ski’s environmental officer, these offsets really are helping speed change.  Following some research, I’ve concluded that while the offset market is less effective at incentivizing green energy, than $100 a barrel oil, it is a sound theory.  Any additional return on investment helps to increase it’s attractiveness.  This is especially true for new, expensive technologies such as solar.  If the market for these offsets increase, causing the price of offsets to generally rise, it will further fuel the march to a sustainable world.

The result of my research was to decide that i should focus my business efforts on fighting the greenhouse crisis and that carbon dioxide offsets are the best option available to ‘kick start’ US society’s shift away from hydrocarbon fuels.  I would like to announce that i have joined with a couple of friends to create a CO2 offset business at www.4Offsets.com.  We currently are running our beta testing, so please let us know what you think.

I have to admit, while i was probably likely to write up a story on biological production of methane, i.e. Farts, I never imagined it would be for my sustainable energy blog.  If you’ve been paying attention to global warming over the last 10 to 20 years, you’ve probably heard:

1. Methane gas in the atmosphere is 20 times more damaging  greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide.
2. Cattle, other livestock and humans, release a huge percentage of the methane free in the atmosphere.  This gas is produced by digestion and released, intermittently, when the said mammal “breaks wind”.

Now, it’s certainly tough to be all serious about this sort of object, yet it’s a serious global warming issue.  How do we keep this methane out of the atmosphere? Strangely enough, for those familiar with Carbon Dioxide offsets, the best way to dispose of the methane in a greenhouse friendly way is to BURN it.  Yep, burn it and generate CO₂ , is apparently a net gain for the atmosphere, when it comes to global warming.  This “practical solution” ignores an even better idea, either capture and sequester the methane or even better, stop the production.

Now before people accuse me of being a vegetarian or start thinking that i’m planning on outlawing meat, i am not.  The point of this story is some research in Australia to stop the production of methane, during digestion, by livestock.  Yes, stop these animals for producing methane and “releasing” it into the atmosphere.  What makes these researchers think they can change mammals to running “methane” free?  Some sort of genetically engineered life form?

The answer is maybe, but for those who don’t know this, it will rock your world, vis a vis the biological portion.  It turns out that Australia’s most prominent symbol, the kangaroo does not produce methane when it digests it’s food!  Further, the kangaroo digests it’s vegetarian diet more effectively than say Cows, pulling 25% more water out of the plant material, very important in mainly arid/desert country such as Oz.  So scientists are trying to implant bacteria from the kangaroo’s digestive track into cows and sheep, to see if this kangaroo trait can be introduced into traditional livestock animals.

The Kangaroo Story in Aussie Paper

The USA finally relented and stopped blocking an agreement on negotiating a new climate change treaty.  The frustration of the conference with US intransigence, finally came out when Papua New Guinea delegate, Kevin Conrad, challeged the US: “If for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way.” A statement directed at James Connaughton who indicated earlier in the week that the US was leading and other countries “…requires others to fall in line and follow”.  Following an outbreak of boos and catcalls by the international delegates at the US,  ambassador Paula Dobriansky relented. 

Ambassador Dobriansky told the conference “We came here to Bali because we want to go forward as part of a new framework.  We believe we have a shared vision and we want to move that forward. We want a success here in Bali. We will go forward and join consensus.”

After spending so much of my personal energy pushing the idea of hydrogen as a storage medium for solar or wind energy, i’ve found some new facts that “Explode the Myth”, bad pun intended.  Simply stated, the idea was that any excess electricity generated by the sun, winds, tides, could be used to make hydrogen from water, as way of storing energy.  At night or in periods when the solar panel isn’t generating electricity, the hydrogen can be used to power a traditional styled, gas fired generator, but without creating carbon dioxide.

First it’s important to point out that the technology of what i have described is available. We can make hydrogen from water, using electrolysis to split the H2 and O2 from the water.  The hydrogen gas can be burnt, without producing CO2, but hydrogen gas will only return 50% of the energy used to split the water that supplied the hydrogen. In other words, it would take 2 tons of hydrogen powering a generator, to produce 1 ton of hydrogen from water.  So if 50% is too low, what is enough?

The 50% energy return on hydrogen may not be too low, rather there are better technologies currently envisioned which have an energy return at or above 70%.  These storage methods include “pumped storage”, compressed air pressure CAES and hydraulic/mechanical systems. In fact a CAES plant in germany has been online since 1978.  So don’t fret over the “loss” of hydrogen, it’s just that there are better ways to naturally generated electricity.

To learn more, check out this article:

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf

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.

Whenever oil prices are cheap, there is no discussion of oil being a limited resource or a cause of pollution or as a source of greenhouse gases.  As prices begin to climb, the voices of conservation, environment and technology, are once again heard.  This latest increase in the price of oil (the last several years) have, excuse the pun, fired the discussion right up.  Terms like $100 oil and Peak Oil, combined with projections of increasing scarcity do to politics around the world, has had the effect of increasing intrest and more importantly implementation, of alternate sources of energy.  In a world so committed to fossil fuels, price is likely to be the most important factor in leading to a switch to renewable energy. This is no suprise to dyed in the wool capitalists, but still hasn’t sunk in with the general public.

The solution to human generated Carbon Dioxide is in the marketplace, as it has always been.  When the price of oil, gas and coal are expensive enough, that alternate energy production becomes feasible, not just possible.  In so much of the industrialized world, there is a shortage of generation and distribution for extreme peak periods, threatening blackouts, somewhere, each summer.  In the industrializing world, read that India and China, there is a serious shortage of power.  Companies that need to work in the world markets, must provide backup power and communications, to prevent regular brown outs and black outs to overcome these obstacles. 

As the world economy and population grows, the need for oil rapidily increases. As demand increases, price increases unless there is additional supplies available to meet the demand.  So $70 a barrel oil is this expensive because of simple “Supply and Demand” models.  Well, not entirely, there are also bad news events that put future, expanded oil capacity online.  Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela’s revolution and a 35% drop in oil output, Iran’s production dropping.  When combined with violence in the middle east, nigeria and indonesia production capacity is dropping and the major international oil companies to have been force leave/sell assets to government monopolies in what was once a number of promising new sources.

Finally the last concept, the one that is most controverisal of all factors affecting the oil market specifically and the energy market generally, is the “Peak Oil” theory.  Simply stated, “Peak Oil” states, that 1) Oil is limited resource, it will run out someday.  2) The oil output is now peaking as all the oil that can possibly be pumped out of the ground is now being pumped out at maximum capacity.  I don’t necessarily believe that we have reached that point, but when we do, it should result in a steady, unstopple increase in prices, until demand drops below the production capacity at that time.

So, it summary, there are political worries,  increased demand and a decrease in new major oil fields that are combining to push up oil prices.  As these prices rise solar and wind solutions become increasing affordable.  So while petroleum prices are rising the cost of solar and wind generating deployments are decreasing, the world moves to alternate energy as a response to the marketplace.  Had someone told me back in 1980 capitalism would be the best way to spread the move to alternative power, the “socialist” me would have rolled my eyes in amazement.   And yet…..

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.

If you follow the news of the world, whether it be politics, health, science, or business, you’ve likely heard of the dwindling supply of safe, clean drinking water.  Throughout the world, growing populations and contamination of watersheds, the air and general stupidity, by the human race, puts millions of people, possibly billions, in jeopardy of losing access to potable water.  And if you’ve gotten to know anything about me, you know i have a solution and you know it’s the SUN!

Solar stills, that is a “water distillation system” that uses the heat and light(arguably the UV light helps kill biohazards) from the sun to evaporate water from sea water or other non-potable sources and condense the pure H₂O into liquid that is collected to drink. The concept of a solar still is well known as a survival tool.  A most basic solar still can be built with a large (1 sq meter ) piece of black plastic, and a can/cup to collect the water.  Dig a hole in a sunny area, 18-36″ deep and place the cup at bottom center of the hole and cover the hole with the black plastic.  With a small stone weighting the plastic down into a cone shape, with the point of the cone directly over the water collector (the can or cup).  Secure the outside edge around the outside of the whole with rocks or wood.  During the day, the heat of the sun will evaporate water out of the ground, it will condense on the inside of the black plastic and drip inside the cup.  A square meter(about a sqare yard) of area can generate a litre of water a day.

Emeril might say “Let’s kick that up a few notches” and that would be a permanent, large scale solar still. Think of a short, glass, greenhouse covering a concrete storm drain with gutters on the side.  So build a concrete “drainage canal”, in the shape of a V, so that we maximize the surface area exposed to the sun, we make this canal 8 feet wide, with 1 foot gutters on each side, cover the today 10 foot width, with a glass, vapor capturing roof.  Then run this canal a few miles thru a desert/hot area and run seawater thru the center canal.  The sun heats the water, the water evaporates, the water vapor, condenses on the glass sealing which peaks in the middle, causing the condensed water to drop to run down the glass sealing to the edges, with then lead to the gutters.  The water captured in the gutters is salt free. 

here is a little drawing:

So, how does solar distilation cut greenhouse gas?  Well, the main cost of producing and distributing drinking water is energy.  It may take as much as 7% of world energy to produce and deliver fresh water to the world.  It takes from 5kWh to 25kWh to desalinate 1000 litre of water.  In theory a system like this could be driven by gravity and use no energy, except that needed to build the facilities.  Anywhere there is unusable desert or semi desert land, there is both space for solar distillation and likely a need for the resulting fresh water.