I have been observing clean energy since 1999, and since then I’ve watched some pretty amazing advances, and some pretty pathetic progress.  Technology is making advances, but the practice and social aspects of change are not keeping pace.  I live in North America, and here we use more energy per person than anywhere else in the world, something like 5 times as much per person as other industrialized nations. We are wasteful, affluent and often appear to not care about the impact that our “lifestyles” have on others around the globe, and on the environment.  Looking to the future, it seems that this cannot continue forever, and that it would be better for us to change while we have the choice, rather than waiting until we are forced to make a drastic change.

 

coal power plant Flickr Photo Credit: Velaia (ParisPeking)

 

Energy is required to manufacture, to transport, and even to consume what has been manufactured. Currently much of the energy we have is produced by large corporations in a polluting, unsustainable and inequitable fashion that by definition of corporation and free market, has as its primary goal “making corporations money” and as its secondary goal “maintaining the status quo of those making the money”.  Neither of those two goals will necessarily; Protect consumers from unfair profiteering, protect the natural environment, promote innovation, or allow for sustainable development of energy infrastructure.

 

Clean energy from wind power, flickr photo credit: kilobar

 

I propose that we are stuck in this place because of some of our beliefs.  I don’t claim to have a complete picture, but I’d like to suggest that there are a number of myths that support the status quo and thereby hinder us from moving towards cleaner energy.  Lets debunk some myths that are commonly circulated:

Myth: There is a shortage of energy:

Actually every hour, the sun showers the earth with more energy than the world’s entire population consumes in a whole year. (source: Sesci.ca)

Myth: Clean energy will result in a loss of jobs.

Recently I heard a statistic that more Americans are employed by the US wind industry than the US coal industry.  I think we will see a shift in jobs.  New jobs might include designing, producing, selling and delivering parts for; solar cells, geothermal systems and heat exchangers, bio-gas facilities, wind turbines, hydro turbines, power storage and regulating equipment.  Research and development to improve the efficiency and quality of these systems. 

Myth: Clean energy costs too much money

From a consumer perspective, in British Columbia, the residential rate for electricity is 7.2 cents per KWH and 85% of our power comes from hydro dams.  In keeping with Moore’s law, solar cells are becoming about twice as efficient every year (as solar cell manufacturers purchase the technology no longer needed by the likes of Intel and AMD).  A Geothermal system installed at a cost of $10,000 when a house is built can provide heating AND cooling at about 1/4 of the cost of conventional methods.  So if $275 / month is normal, that means $825 in annual savings and a breakeven point of about 12 years.  (Those with better numbers are welcome to comment).  So likely a case by case comparison depending on what options are available and what energy costs are needs to be done.  Certainly some forms of cleaner energy production won’t be available in all locations.  When we start factoring in “health” and “social justice” (no blood for oil etc) it quickly becomes apparent that there are some costs not fairly represented on the balance sheet.

Myth: Clean energy is only for granola eating hippies or tin-hat wearing wackos

Since utilities buy and sell power using the infrastructure of electrical transmission lines, your power could be purchased from anywhere.  Without you knowing, your utility could purchase some power from a coal plant or a wind farm, and that clean energy would seamlessly appear in your house’s electrical system.  As stated earlier, in British Columbia, 85% of electricity used is from renewable (rainwater powered) hydro dams.  So clean energy is something any of us could be using, whether we enjoy granola or not.

Myth: Clean energy is experimental or in its infancy, not ready for serious commercial use

Despite the persistence of solar energy displays and fuel-cell displays at local science fairs, these technology are actually well developed.  Consider early designs of the steam engine which used “wet ropes” to ensure a seal for the piston.  We have much more advantage now.  In Denmark, the last time I checked, 20% of the nation’s electricity was being generated via wind turbines.  Denmark with it’s shallow coastal areas realized that 7km offshore, the wind farms have nothing blocking the breeze and they are essentially silent and invisible as far as humans are concerned. Solar found a boost near its inception with the space race of the 60s if I recall correctly, and so represents a technology that has received barely 50 years of serious development.  Perhaps solar finds itself in an awkward adolescence where we can see the potential, but we aren’t quite ready to turn over the reins.  Solar is a de-facto standard for remote installations like track side railway equipment in the Rockies, marine equipment marking channels, roadside traffic signs and solar calculators.  So it seems the technology is there, the adoption however is wanting.

Myth: Coal energy is cheap

Not really, you need coal mines, transportation infrastructure, generating plants or furnaces to burn the coal, lots of air land and water to receive the sooty pollution and CO2. There has been the human health cost of mining and breathing that dirty air.  An amazing amount of effort has been invested in coal energy, some of the excavators have buckets as big as a house. Leaving giant scars on the surface of the earth.  Since the mining of coal and burning of coal are centralized activities, this concentrates the energy in the hands of a few (those who own large coal generating plants), now there is the added cost of distribution, such a system puts a wealthy few in a place to set the price of electricity for the people who purchase it. Coal is a non-renewable resource, which means once it is used, there is no more coal to replace it.  Much like the dinosaurs who contributed to the coal, it will soon go extinct.

Myth: All energy needs to be generated using one method (All wind/ All hydro etc)

All or nothing thinking makes it very easy for a person to dismiss clean energy.  However, a diversity of generating methods allow for a lessened impact on the environment and resilience in the event of a shortage of any one kind of energy generation (a shortage of rain one year might reduce the power that can be generated using hydro dams, when the wind stops blowing wind turbines are idle, when there are no waves, wave generation produces no power, when it is nighttime, solar generation isn’t effective.

Myth: Energy production must be entirely clean.

While that is a worthy goal, it isn’t immediately attainable by most of North America.  The myth is an error in thinking, a false dichotomy that says a half way solution, or a marginal improvement is worthless.  This flies in the face of experience that teaches us that most real improvement is incremental and continuous.  In other fields marginal improvements are celebrated and embraced, like the medical discovery that consuming baby aspirin fights the chance of strokes and heart attacks occurring.  If we can even REDUCE our dependence on unsustainable dirty energy generation, we are moving in the right direction.  So lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater, when we see improvement.  Lets embrace any move in the right direction.  One encouraging tidbit I have to share is that according to the Danish Wind Association (sorry if I got the name wrong guys).  A wind turbine cancels out it’s own environmental impact (refining the steel, machining, transportation, installation, access roads etc. in 2 months of full-time operation.  2 months is a fantastic payback for erasing ones own tracks so to speak. 

Myth: Doing the right thing must provide higher profits than taking the lazy way out.  

Somehow many of us have adopted the moronic thinking that somehow doing the right thing should be cheaper.  We hear things like “Gee that wouldn’t pay for itself for 10 years, I’m not interested”, or “Gee that has a $10,000 initial capital cost” (as the guy signs a 30 year mortgage for the $500,000 house…) Sometimes doing the right thing will be as expensive or more expensive than doing the thing that will potentially poison the air. 

Myth: Higher efficiency stoves/ furnaces / etc will allow us to be responsible while still using carbon based energy

While it’s true (and commendable) that efficiency for gas furnaces and other items are improving, this is really little more than damage control. (putting the filter on the cigarette and claiming it’s healthier to smoke).  Carbon based fuels are not renewable, meaning we can’t sustain their consumption.  Carbon based fuels release CO2, CO and other pollutants into the air we breathe, risking our health.  It is telling (and not commonly understood) that many furnaces burning “natural gas” may expel 20-30% of their heat energy up the chimney where it does not benefit the homeowner.  “Higher efficiency” generally means cleaner more complete combustion so you are wasting less energy.  We need to move away from dirty unhealthy unsustainable methods and start seeding the clean sustainable technologies that will outlast carbon.  (Anybody know how much longer the Sun is expected to last?)

Myth: North America is innovative in energy production.

If Green-wash were a clean energy innovation, this would be true.  It would seem that GM killed the (EV1) electric car despite people offering to buy out their leases.  Many subdivisions in attractive neighbourhoods have covenants on the properties preventing people from putting up clothes lines or solar installations on their roofs because they are “unsightly”.  North Americans consume more energy, more products and more packaging than anyone else in the industrialized world.  Most jurisdictions in North America have been very slow to permit/encourage net-metering and other progressive measures which would encourage de-centralized independent power production.  North America keeps proposing “carbon offset credits” and other measures which essentially permit some fancy accounting and transfer of money without fundamentally addressing how the power is created. (Essentially it is purchasing the “right” to pollute by putting money in the pockets of folks who are doing the right thing.)  Did you catch how the goal isn’t to improve, its to “offset”?  North America has incredibly skilled labour, good working conditions, lots of money and…. we are not showing anywhere near the leadership that is required to turn energy production around and get it pointed in the right direction.

Myth: If I can’t buy it at Walmart it isn’t really “available” (yes I heard this one)

Somewhere along the line we lost our spirit of invention, our willingness to risk, research and investigate.  Anyone reading this, has the most powerful research tool (Google?) and the most powerful shopping network. (Ebay?) at their fingertips.  Don’t wait for Walmart to stock the $10 home fusion generators.  Take some initiative and be the first on your block! 🙂 

I hope…

that if we could clear the air by addressing more of these myths, by getting the green-wash out of the room, by recognizing how bad the situation is, by encouraging government that would promote innovation that ordinary citizens could participate in.  That we would see noticable progress.  (Note: this is not the same as us sitting around watching our big TVs, waiting for government to “fix it”.)  Then we could find ourselves in the environment that nurtured the Renaissance of clean energy.  Lets hope!  Actually, join me and lets get out there and start making a difference.  Anyone want to start an “at cost solar system/ geothermal system” mail-order charity?” 🙂

Are there some other myths you’ve been observing?  Add them in the comments.

Greg.

Our local electricity provider has been running “power smart” adds where strangers suddenly appear in your home or office cheering when you turn out the light as you leave the room, or as you turn off the powerbar to your computer.  The message is that you should be encouraged for such conservation.  I have in the past mindlessly accepted the idea behind these ads as valid, since I have for my adult life turned out the lights I’m not using, but recently I’m coming to question some of what I’m hearing.

Sometimes you might leave a light on for a feeling of security, or if you were to turn off the powerbar, your appliances might lose track of the date or time.  So there are valid reasons for leaving these on when you are not using them.

In TV-Land, all the switches and powerbars are easy to reach (although ugly lying on the desk etc).  In my life I don’t have VERY convenient powerbars, and am more likely to have to reach behind your appliances to find the power bars to turn them on and off (shock hazzard from loose plugs you can’t see clearly is so remote I won’t address that at all).  So the activity isn’t as free as it appears in the ads.  It costs me something.  Convenience (when the remote controls can’t make the appliance wake up), time (running around the house turning things off as I leave).  There is a cost to me.  The concept of power leaches or vampires, that suck a tiny amount of energy constantly has been a popular topic in the press in 2008.

Additionally there have been a number of ads about replacing my old inefficient refrigerator with a new energy smart refrigerator.  I’ve realized that I need to do some research on my own.  What is the cost and what is the benefit to me to the utility and to the environment.

Now I am the kind of guy who turns the VCR or TV off when I’m not actively using them. The lights all go out at night (with the exception of the 0.3Watt LED night lights in the halls).  I turn off lights I’m not using, but I installed the lights so they could be used.  They work for me, not the other way around.   So with a heart that wants to conserve and show my thankfulness through not wasting what I’ve been given, I wanted to know where we were wasting energy.  I purchased a $17 (blue planet?) meter from my local hardware store that can show the Amps, Watts and Volts being used by an appliance in real-time.  Additionally it can log the electricity usage, showing you the total Kilo Watt Hours (KWH) consumed by the appliance over a period of many days.  After you enter the cost of electricity ($0.072 / KWH here) into the meter, it can tell you the dollar cost of your appliance for the time it has been plugged in.  I started making discoveries:

computer / adsl modem / router / UPS / printer : $0.25 / day

Old inefficient refrigerator from the last decade: $0.40 / day

TV / VCR / video game / stereo: $0.10 / day

Laptop computer: $0.05 / day

Microwave:  $0.02 / day

So this causes me to think carefully about what I’m hearing and being told.  I’m being told to switch off the power bar for my TV etc, when the use of the devices is only $0.30 / day.  So conceivably I might save 1 or 2 cents there.  Hardly worth the time is it?  Could I pay you a penny to stop doing what you are doing and spend 10 seconds coming over here and flipping this switch?  If you were paid $20/hour, that is 5.5 cents per 10 seconds.  Now its true, if you have nothing else to do it wouldn’t hurt for you to spend your spare time doing this, but the benefit seems really really minute compared to the cost?  Why is your utility spending $100,000s on this advertising?

My understanding of the issue is that it comes down to capacity.  If they need to build another power plant that is exceedingly expensive, but if they can continue to sell power from the existing power plants, that is a much more reasonable proposition for them.  The issue is nothing if we are talking about you saving $0.01 of electricity for flipping off the power bar.  The issue is really only significant thanks to the power of multiplication.  If you can convince 5,000,000 people to save that much electricity, you just saved $50,000 of electricity per day.  So the impact to your utility is huge, but the savings for you as an individual user of electricity is essentially nothing.

Now how about that refrigerator.  $0.40 per day to keep my food from spoiling seems like a good deal to me.  I don’t have to go down into a cellar, I don’t have to drop my food down a well, or deal with bricks of ice, or food poisoning.  I think it is a bargain.  Through my study of the new energy efficient fridges on the market it appears that the new fridges would use half the electricity per day.  Over the course of a year that would save me $73 in electricity.  However a new fridge costs around $800 (depending on what you buy).  So it would take me 10 years for the fridge’s energy savings to pay for the fridge.  I don’t know about you, but with the quality of manufactured goods dropping, I’m not sure I would expect my new fridge to last me 10 years.  This old fridge on the other hand, continues to work and looks after the food just fine.  So the marketting says “buy a new energy smart fridge”.  To do that, somebody needs to manufacture the fridge with all its glass and plastic and metal and compressors and chemicals and foam.  Then they need to ship it across the country or around the world, advertise it, house it in a store, get it here, and dump my old fridge in a landfill or recycling depot (landfill that sells metal).  It seems to me that the most environmentally responsible thing I can do is to make my existing appliances last as long as I can. 

So suffice it to say that the meter has probably paid for itself in debunking “new appliance savings” and in giving me some peace of mind about the little power leaches plugged in at my house.

 I am happy to say that we enjoy the light provided by the current generation of Compact Flourescent light bulbs (CFL)s  Instead of 100W we use 50W of light over our sink.  Instead of 160W we use 44W in our bathroom. The list goes on of the places we have installed these.  The hallway light behind me, the lamp in the corner.  They aren’t the best light for all situations, but we know that the 33W we are using right now beats the 150W we would have had otherwise.  To my mind this is a very smart energy saving, because apart from purchasing the bulbs initially, there is no incremental cost to turning on a CFL over a standard incandescent light.  It just saves me money and saves us all power without inconveniencing me or introducing an additional cost.

We need to take a very strong stand against “GreenWash” in all its forms.  Keep your brain engaged as you are urged to do this or to do that to save the planet.  Among the genuinely good information there is certainly hype that is designed to pad someone elses wallet at the expense of your own.

Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted. The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).

Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees.  …we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder.  …There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. …

Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted.  The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).

Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses.  We have an international border with the United States (which we can’t move to make more room for houses), We have the ocean (which isn’t moving any time soon), we have the Coastal mountains, which are quite steep and difficult places to build houses, and we have something called the Agricultural Land Reserve ALR which is a set of laws designed to protect farmland and stop ‘urban sprawl’ (Otherwise we would have a city 120 KM long and 25 km wide).

Forest land is almost guaranteed to not be a part of the ALR, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees.  For the developer it is a way to quickly regain some of the money he has spent on the land by selling the logs.  It also clears the land so there are few restrictions on where the house can stand.  Since today’s developers seem intent on subdividing land as greedily as possible (to fit as many dwellings as possible on the smallest possible piece of land, they don’t want to leave 20ft here for a row of trees, since they could squeeze another property in that space.  It would seem that the developers can’t be self-policing since they are guided by greed in squeezing the most profit out of a piece of land.  So it would fall to the cities and municipalities to ensure that the land being developed is “livable” and protected.  Despite the fact that taxes revenues rarely exceed development and maintenance costs within a city, many beureaucrats are still drawn by the allure of tax dollars.  Trees don’t pay tax dollars, but the small dwelling squeezed onto a property does pay taxes, so the trees are at a significant disadvantage.  For example Surrey British Columbia calls itself the “City of parks”, I think it should be called the “City of clearcuts”

On my way to work over the last few months, there was some land developed offering 8 lots, 3 of which were treed.  I noticed that  the treed lots sold first, I also noticed that the builders who then built houses on the treed lots, sold their houses first, it would appear that there was a higher demand for those lots which were treed, and according to common economic theory we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder.  If the value of the land was higher we would also expect that the City could realize higher taxes for the treed properties.  So we would expect that with a financial incentive to have a treed lot, that developers and cities would be pushing for more treed lots, but they aren’t.  If financial incentive isn’t enough to convince builders and developers to be self-regulating, then the incentive to preserve trees must lie in legislation and regulation that will force developers and builders to do what they would otherwise neglect.  The case for such regulation is compelling albeit mostly non-financial.

There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. Here are some:
1. Beauty.  The first reason is beauty.  Instead of seeing the neighbour’s oversized shed, or that freeway onramp, you see a beautiful tree that glows with the light of the sun, changes colours in the fall, fills with blossoms in the spring and displays icicles and horfrost in the winter.  Green leaves waving in the breeze help make your property a peaceful sanctuary from the rush of everyday life, while effectively hiding eyesores on ajoining properties.
2.Soil retention.  The roots of trees grip the soil and in hilly terrain can make the difference between a useable backyard, and having your house slide down the hill into your neighbour’s backyard.  Considering the cost of retaining walls, labour and proper drainage, retaining trees is a bargain.
3. Summer cooling.  A canopy of leaves can provide the indoor and outdoor space on your property with protection from the sun.  This translates to a roof that lasts longer (less thermal abuse), a yard and deck that are more enjoyable in summer, and reduced cooling costs in your house.  Conveniently enough,for deciduous trees, in the winter, those leaves disappear allowing in more sun during the darker dreary days of winter, which helps with heating your home.
4. Air quality.  Trees do a fantastic job of absorbing CO2 from the air and replacing it with Oxygen, which makes for cleaner more healthy air.  They even act as natural deodorizers making the air smell fresher, all of which is important in urban areas where there is a disproportionately high amount of CO2 and pollution.
5. Wildlife Habitat.  With very little use of space on the ground, trees provide a significant amount of habitat for birds and other small wildlife.   At our house (where we are privileged to back on a small forested park) we are constantly serenaded by pretty songbirds, something which happened much less in houses that were developed in areas without such concentrations of trees.

So this is my pitch to encourage you to buy a property with trees, to plant trees if you don’t already have them on your property.  To prefer buying a treed property if you are a builder, to not clearcut a development if you are a developer, and to not allow clearcut development in your city or municipality if you are in such a  position of civic oversight.  Thanks for reading, I welcome your comments.

Over at FastCompany.com Charles Fishman wrote an insightful article about Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs and their growing acceptance. 

“For years, compact fluorescent bulbs have promised dramatic energy savings–yet they remain a mere curiosity. That’s about to change… For two decades, CFLs lacked precisely what we expect from lightbulbs: strong, unwavering light; quiet; not to mention shapes that actually fit in the places we use bulbs. Now every one of those problems has been conquered. The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent; and the old U-shaped tubes–they looked like bulbs from a World War II submarine–have mostly been replaced by the swirl. Since 1985, CFLs have changed as much as cell phones and portable music players.”

Personally we have put CFLs in our house in all the places where they make sense, and it feels good to be getting decent light for less money.  It even makes us feel better about leaving the lights on for safety or comfort without feeling like we’re being (as) wasteful.  So head on over and read about Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs .

The government of Canada initiated the One Tonne challenge as an exercise to get Canadian’s thinking about how they would reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide by one tonne (1000 KG) per year.

My response: No more gas, Less wasted water, Less drafts

The government of Canada initiated the One Tonne challenge as an exercise to get Canadian’s thinking about how they would reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide by one tonne (1000 KG) per year.

No more gas

I moved into a house that is lit and heated with electricity rather than natural gas. We have our gas meter locked off. We plan to light and heat the house entirely with electricity. We have 85% of our electricity produced through green means here in British Columbia. Huge hydro electric dams capture our abundant rainfall yielding a huge benefit from that investment in this infrastructure that was made years ago. We need to keep thinking like this. Principles before profits. My friends warn me that electricity is more expensive, so I’m trying to soften the blow by making my house more energy efficient.

Less wasted water

When water is wasted there is less clean water for other uses. When hot water is wasted it contributes directly to global warming through the C02 released to heat the water. We have replaced faucets, and replaced faucet cartridges for 6 taps. We believe that this represents 22,000 litres of water saved per year. As you know it is usually the hot water taps that leak the worst. We’ve installed aerators (little metal screens) over the faucets to limit the peak water flow. 1.5 gpm (gallons per minute) for the bathroom sink 2.2 gpm for the kitchen 2.2 gpm for our low-flow shower head, 2.2 gpm for the ensuite bathroom. We have committed to only watering the lawn 1 time per week if it needs it since frequent watering encourages shallow root systems and the quick death of your lawn anyways. We have turned down our hot water tank to 50 degrees Celsius from 60 degrees Celsius. We have read that this is hot enough to discourage bacterial growth, and the reduction in temperature means that there is a lessened chance of our children being scalded with host water. I am also continuing my practice of always washing my hands with cold water, requiring no hot water heating and no water wasted by waiting for the tap to “warm up”.

Less drafts

We have installed a door sweep under our front door with brushes to keep bugs and drafts out. We have tightened the weather stripping on our 3 exterior doors so that no light is visible around the door frame when it is shut and locked. (yes we keep them locked). We have injected expanding latex foam under our door sills (lots of space for bugs there) into spaces around anything that penetrates our house’s ‘envelope’ (entry points for vents and wires). We have put drapes up over our largest windows which we close at night to reduce the transfer of heat through those windows.

Irony or tragedy?

In an ironic twist I read this on the “one tonne challenge” website:

The Government of Canada Climate Change site is currently unavailable.

We appreciate your interest in the important issue of climate change and suggest that you visit the following sites for more information:

• Visit Environment Canada’s Green LaneTM for weather and environmental information. The Green Lane helps connect Canadians, exchange information and share knowledge for environmental decision-making.
• Visit the Natural Resources Canada site to learn about the role this department is playing in helping shape the contributions of the natural resources sector to the Canadian economy, society and environment.

Now I know Canada has been getting a black eye for its “very slow movement” on the Kyoto accord and the obligations it made, but perhaps this black eye is deserved? <<Addendum>> Perhaps these comments are in appropriate. Canada has done much in the area of natural resources given its vast land area, while having to overcome the challenges of distances unknown to all other countries except perhaps Russia. We have to communicate and transport further to move resources from source to “market” we have to move resources further to move them from market to market. We have some challenges that no European country has. However, it would appear that Canadians are waiting for something. Waiting for the government to make the first move, waiting for the pollution free car to suddenly be produced by the car manufacturing corporations, waiting for the garbage they put in landfills to magically dissolve. Some Canadians deserve credit for taking initiative and reducing their negative impact on the natural environment, but others are waiting for it to magically become more convenient and less expensive to do the right thing. In this respect it would appear that our brothers and sisters in Europe have us beat as they consciously try to do the right thing at higher cost and higher inconvenience.