Carbon Policies

The main reason people are trying to replace or limit the use of fossil fuels is the environmental issue caused by CO₂ emission. Many countries have enacted regulations or policies as a force to reduce their carbon footprint.

A Carbon Tax is the most common and simplest way to do so. Based on the amount of carbon involved in the “production” process, the company or individual has to pay different levels of tax as compensation to its’ negative impact on the environment. The question is whether or not this is the way to save the environment? It doesn’t make any sense if the tax is used to build another gasoline power plant for example. It does seems reasonable however, as long as the tax collected will be used in ecosystem protection activities or renewable energies production. However, a tax is not the only way to achieve the target of CO₂ emissions control but, It needs other helpers as well. Even though in my opinion, I don’t think a carbon tax is a truly effective way to curb polluters unless, the tax is set at a level greater than the profits generated through non-emissions controls, which would certainly force a company to give up. Unfortunately though, this is impossible and therefore big energy companies won’t care about the tax while after making large amounts profit.

Another way of course is through “cap and trade.” Cap-and-trade is an environmental policy that is mandatory for companies controlling their environmental-polluted items emission, such as CO₂, NO_x, etc. Programs include the Acid Rain Program and NO_x Budget Trading Program. Some doubt these program’s efficiencies and see it as a dangerous distraction rather than a real solution. Cap and trade is a strategy created by economists, this means it is a dollar-based strategy, and instead of “punishing” the polluters with a tax, the polluters would earn money to stay below the “cap” – say 80% CO₂ emission reduction by 2050. There are also potential dangers in this flattering strategy as well. Who’s to say that an ethically challenged company wouldn’t be encouraged to create more pollution since by law, the more they have, the more they can trade. And secondly, suppose a company took the money used to treat the trade, and then findings show that the polluter uses the money but never reduced the required amount of CO₂ or maybe never reduced anything at all. In he world we live, money should not be used as an encourager to reduce one’s carbon footprint.

Peng Cao

Magic Piezoelectric Energy

Have you ever enjoyed the wild shaking on the dancing pad? Have you ever been excited when walking on a floor, a colorful pattern shows along with your footprints? Have you even been asked by your kids that why their shoes give out light? Yes, you know that there must some special device there working in some way. You got it! It’s called piezoelectricity. The phenomenon appears on some certain crystals or ceramics which can generate electricity when a pressure applying on them while a strain happens when they are put in an electric field.

Actually, the piezoelectric technology was developed dated back to the First World War. As other “boring” technologies which are not used in people’s daily life, piezoelectric was applied in military and medical use, such as depth detection and medical imaging. However, this technology will be not that far any more if you or your kids are crazy about dancing pad game. Also, with people bringing in the idea about waste energy recovery, such technology might be transplanted into your cell phone to collect extract energy from the vibration of your voice or waste heat. So your cell phone then might not need a charger, a really “mobile phone”, and you have to shout at your phone if you want a quick charging. Likewise, the future piezo-shoes might be much more than entertainment. You could wear them, walk around and charge all your portable devices at the same time.

Sure, you are not caring about inventing or designing. Perhaps you would have more interest in make your room colorful or do some magic to amuse your kids. What about a bed changing color when you turn over? What about funny chair making farting sound when people sit on it? You name it wherever pressure exists. Magic there!

34 groups to Lisa Jackson: EPA should request extension and field hearings on tar sands pipeline supplemental review

Ruptured Enbridge Pipeline from Kalamazoo Spill, credit: NTSB

Today, NRDC and over 30 other organizations sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson regarding the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, asking EPA to hold strong on their concerns about the pipeline, and to request field hearings along the right of way. The letter also thanks EPA and Administrator Jackson for their engagement on Keystone XL thus far and outlines concerns with the supplemental review, and how it does not address many of the concerns expressed by EPA about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

The letter comes on the heels of a hearing yesterday on draft legislation that would speed up the process for making a decision on Keystone XL even further than the State Department’s planned needlessly fast-paced timeline. At the hearing, pipeline proponents outnumbered opponents, yet opponents’ messages about the economic and environmental riskiness of this pipeline came through strong, thanks to Congressmen Waxman and Rush, and to NWF’s Jeremy Symons, who testified.

Rushing the decision making process for Keystone XL does not make sense, given the gravity of the decision and the large number of people it would affect. In our letter, we ask EPA to “request the State Department to hold field hearings in every state through which the pipeline would pass, in order to publicly present the information contained in the review and give the public a forum to voice their concern for this major project” and note that “The timeframe for public comments should be adjusted as necessary to allow these field hearings to take place with sufficient notice.”

The Keystone XL pipeline would threaten communities from Alberta to Texas. It would put communities at risk in Alberta, where the tar sands are extracted and where communities downstream are already experiencing high rates of cancers. Along the pipeline route, the extra corrosive diluted bitumen it would carry could cause a rupture into the vital Ogallala Aquifer, which could be even more devastating and difficult to clean up than last year’s Enbridge tar sands pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River. And in Texas communities such as Port Arthur, already named by EPA as an environmental justice showcase community, additional refinery pollution from the tar sands that would be refined would exacerbate already serious health and social justice issues.

Yet the State Department has failed to analyze many of these critical environmental issues, both in the Draft EIS published in April 2010, and now in the SDEIS published in April 2011. Despite the significant shortcomings of the supplemental analysis that environmental groups, government officials and landowners alike need time to analyze, the State Department has only allowed 45 days for the public comment period, which will close on June 6, and are not holding field hearings along the right of way. This decision by the State Department to rush the environmental analysis in order to meet a self-imposed timeline does not allow for sufficient public participation and is not in line with the Obama Administration’s commitment to environmental justice issues and to open government. We hope that EPA shares these concerns, will express them to the State Department, and will again rate the SDEIS inadequate and ask them to answer the questions that they posed in July of last year.

In the mean time, here’s what you can do: go to www.nrdc.org/noKXL and ask the State Department yourself for a proper environmental review, a 120 day public comment period and field hearings along the right of way.

Elizabeth Shope’s Blog

Some Conjecture for the Future Automobile Market

Transportation is the second biggest energy consumption item right after household heat and electricity. But it is much more sensitive to the new technologies due to its diversity and flexibility. No matter how you classify a transportation system, either by public and private, airborne, on-road and marine, or by weight or engine displacement, there is always one type suitable for coming new technologies. That’s why more and more companies come out after the pure electric vehicle technology turns hot.

The future “auto cake” might be shared with three major models: traditional gasoline, diesel vehicles with higher efficiency engines, and hybrid vehicles or pure electric vehicles and vehicles using biomass such as biofuel, biodiesel, and ethanol as the fuel. As a result, in addition to the old competition mode, that is, in engine efficiency and emission reduction, a new contention among vehicles within totally different power patterns start. In a deeper level, it is an epitome of the competition between new energy and traditional energy, and thus the market of pure EVs and biomass vehicles have an optimistic future.

A communication undergoing between competitors is always that of trying to lighten their own by emphasizing the others’ disadvantages. For example, the lab working on increasing gasoline engine efficiencies would say that an electric vehicle’s system would not be as sophisticated as the mature traditional engine, while the EV company would gripe on environmental issues by gasoline engines. There soon needs to be an answer to the question of investing in which technology makes more sense. And the trend in the energy markets might provide some tips.

As government starts to support renewable energy projects including green power system infrastructures and green transportation, it’s not bad to consider investments on EVs. For example, a future system might be more possible for local small-scale flexible power systems integrated in renewable resources such as solar and wind, and EV charging output rather than a large-scale power supply system or even a system consisting of the production of biofuels from waste all the way to a biofuel station for the corresponding vehicles.

This conjecture encourages more flexible and low-risk investments. In addition, an accessory service might also be a wise choice, such as EV maintenance stations and battery swap stations.

What’s your take on where we go from here?

Peng Cao

Introduction of Ocean Energy

Boston (May 22, 2011) – Right now renewable energy such as solar energy and wind energy are hot. However, a considerable amount of energy is stored in the ocean as well. Two reasons: 1) three-quarters of the earth’s surface is covered by sea water and water of unit volume is much heavier than air meaning water carries much more kinetic energy. Ocean energy is somehow relative with solar and wind because they are all caused by the temperature difference between the sun and the earth which leads the air to move, and then generate waves in the oceans. 2) Another useful energy is tidal energy which is caused by the gravitation variance between the moon, the sun and the earth.

Generally, there are three movements of the sea water that could be used to generate the electricity: wave, tide and marine current.

Wave energy is the most reliable of the three types. Wave is the name of oscillation movement pattern of the sea water. It’s continuous all the day under same climatic condition. Many wave energy collecting devices are designed and installed, such as the vertical buoy device, horizontal buoy device, fluid-directed device and air-directed device. The most famous commercial wave energy collection equipment is built in Portugal, the big red snake floating off shore. Some other companies are also developing high efficiency technologies to change the wave energy into electricity, such as Energytech from Australia which develops a model of changing the wave oscillation into air movement, then the rotation of the turbine which is connected to the generator. Basically, the idea of extracting the wave energy is to get a consistent movement of air or a suitable fluid from the wave, then turning the generator which is the same mechanism of steam or gas turbines.

Different from wave’s kinetic energy, tidal also contains highly useful potential energy which could be harnessed to generate electricity. However, tidal energy is only available twice per day, some places might have more than one tide rising and ebbing each day. Usually a barrage or a dam is built across the sea to collect tidal power which is similar to the hydro power. France has made a good model of tidal power; the La Rance tidal station has a capability of 240 MW of power generation.

Finally, under the surface of the sea, giant currents are moving along with the climate and temperature changes. Except for several regular and well-known currents, most of them are unstable and hard to master. In addition, huge systems and equipment must be built in the deep water if this kind of energy is to be deployed. However, marine currents won’t be used until wave and tidal technologies are mature.

In spite of the ocean’s high energy storage, it’s not the time for those coastal cities to unload the burden of fossil fuels, because there are several hurdles to be overcome before attaining a reasonable ocean energy system; the first hurdle being the cost of offshore devices installation. No matter what kind of ocean energy is exploited, the majority of a system installed is under the sea on the seabed, which requires a more difficult work and more durable materials having to be resistant to tsunami’s and quakes. Thus the initial costs are high. Secondly being on the environmental issue; it is well known that following the exclaiming after The Three Gorges was finished in southern China; a lot of complaints about environmental destruction were raised. Similarly, any project built in the ocean will change the sea environment which might lead to a blockage of fish migration, food chain and even the negative impactions on coastal cities’ circumstances. Finally, even the energy collection from the ocean could be controlled, but nature cannot. A city totally supported by ocean energy system would face the danger of electricity paralysis caused by unexpected tsunamis and earthquakes.

Peng Cao; REepedia, Staffer

Whose Country Is It?

Image Courtesy: 25 Magazine

The Green Movement is certainly growing, albeit just barely quicker than a snails pace. The politics involved with getting anything done is ludicrous and yet hardly funny at all. And the money supporting our politicians is not only  wrong and scary but, it practically borders on evil.

In Florida when polled, 77-percent of Floridians said they would be willing to have an increase in their utility bills to pay for renewable energy in the state ($1.00 – $2.60/month), but when the time came during this past legislative session to vote on a plan to accommodate the wishes of its residents, the republican Governor Scott said that he sees that as a tax-hike and therefore, he would not allow such a plan. Yet this is what residents want. We’ve all been led to believe that our political leaders are in place to do the work of the people. Not the other way around. I guess Florida’s Governors’ pockets are stuffed with Big Oil cash. So Florida is still left behind in the renewable energy race… Welcome to The Sunshine State! … Continue Reading

Who has the real controlling power?

Is the talk of more and more of a smart grid making people more and more stupid? In spite of the many merits brought by a smart grid, one big problem exists not only for theses smart grids, but for what it stands for— all advanced technologies, that is, expect for the minority of professionals most people can only response to those high techs but have weak power to control them. Will this lead to a disaster?

Everything in existence is reasonable. Why don’t people buy the renewable energy? When a sales man, Jeff spends one hour on introducing their advanced smart-grid combined solar energy system to Martin, no matter how much Jeff knows about the new tech, there is one simple question to which he cannot give a good response; if Martin says, “Why should I care about that? My current electricity can satisfy all that I need.” Thus the sale is over. Who should get blame? Jeff’s passion for renewable energy or the fair reason brought by Martin, it seems that both are reasonable.

There has got to be something accounting for the slow response of the market to those advanced technologies. Let’s ask another question: Who is smart? Is it the one who refuses advanced technologies and lives a simple life or is it one who spends high amounts of money on the newest products day by day but never opens a manual? I would say the latter would be fashioned but the former is smart, since a smart person can understand everything well in his life and has power to control them.

However, people are always trying to build a better life by their own hands. For example, after the emergence of solar energy and two-way meters, some try to build their own energy systems instead of only buying electricity from the national grid. Nonetheless, in a capitalistic world, such individual behaviors are not encouraged. It is an obvious fact when government keeps appropriating funds on smart-grid projects but is sluggish to give tax credits for an individual project.

So who is it that has the real controlling power, people, technologies or government? You call it.

What Can Be Done About Solar Expense: Comment, Create and Wait

If I were a business man, I wouldn’t waste the wide open land filled with sunshine only for free parking. It hasn’t been too short a time since the solar technology first arose. The most seductive nature of solar energy is that it is free! In the common sense, a free cost product will bring nothing but more and more profit, so we should have seen solar collectors everywhere today. However, the exact truth is the opposite. People are led to believe it is due to the high cost of the silicon-based materials used for photovoltaic panels and installation. This is true in today’s current market. But this is not the main reason of weakness to the solar market, because everyone knows that these high costs would be drawn down through large-scale mass production.

In fact, the main reason of weakness has no relationship with the cost of raw materials or technologies but, with the high door threshold lying before the market, that is, lack of government support, the blockage of traditional oil & gas companies, the inertia of the energy market, the doubtful attitude of the potential customers, and with the status quo of technologies, albeit the least influential.  

It is not unexpected to rank the technology factor as the least influential since its impacting power is fading along with the emphasis on innovations until the market starts showing the interest, the time point being when the economic and political power take charge of the technology and decide whether the corresponding product is living or dying. Solar technology is in this phase now.

If you asked a person “what do you think about solar energy”, the most possible response would be: “It is an environmentally friendly green resource and will have a good future”. However, if you asked the same person; “have you ever thought about installing a solar system for your house”, the more possible answer might be; “have a nice day!” People won’t substantially accept solar energy until the market itself accepts it, and the market won’t accept it until the government gives an implication by economic means.

Potential customers and the market are very easy to lead whenever the government thinks the time of solar energy is ripe and the oil & gas magnates could either bear some share of the energy market by solar energy or even grasp profits from it. By that time, the cost of solar would naturally fall down to a rational level. The government is doing this but, in a very moderate pace. For example, one goal of President Obama’s green strategies is 80% clean energy by 2035. Nobody can firmly believe in this number, however, it’s much better than a strategy of “creating a free market for clean energy”. At least the number 80% is an implication from government of supporting clean energy and makes people optimistic for a prosperous solar market.

In all, the cost of raw materials of solar energy is a trivial part of the expense of solar energy. Its real expense is caused by toughly competing with oil and gas companies, negotiating with the government, persuading the finite customers to buy it and trying to enlarge the number of this potential crowd.

All we can do now is post some random comments all around the internet, and design a solution, such as a clean portfolio including solar energy which could reduce the cost or increase the efficiency, and wait for new legislative bills.

By:  Peng Cao