From the grid to generation, the way utilities work has to change.

When one of the US’ largest utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) that serves serving 15 million customers in Northern California and maintaining a market cap of over $15 billion, wastes $46 million on a political campaign to stop competition, does that foretell the end of big power utilities as we know it?

Maybe not. But it certainly highlights one of the less known issues of utilities: if they do something to protect their business, their turf, their bottom line, the ratepayers they serve are powerless.

It was proposed at the PG&E board meeting that the utilities’ senior execs should foot the bill for sponsoring and promoting Prop 16, a bill that if passed would stall local officials from entering into any cost-saving direct purchasing arrangements with electricity generating companies unless the government agency first received the approval of two-thirds of local voters. Luckily the measure lost with most of the “NO” votes coming from PG&E customers.  One estimate is that the Prop 16 effort actually cost between $60 and $75 million based since taxpayers paid for costs at the voting stands and all the non-measured time people took to fight or support it. Wouldn’t it have been easier if PG&E would have checked with its customers first? Talk to your customers? Nah, rotten concept.

In another twisted utility tale, a number of California water utilities who were forced to make conservation measures in 2009 due to the drought — with a governor-mandated reduction of water use by 15 percent or more — are now penalizing those who conserved. Letters to rate payers in places like Clear Lake, California arrived this month saying that rates were going up to cover the lost revenues from conservation.  That’s right. When it comes to water, if you do the right thing and use less, they raise your rates and you pay more!

For those interested in closer, more local control, look no further than your local utility. It’s time to shake up the mentality that bigger is better. As we saw with the break up of Ma Bell in the 70s, the resulting pain was short-lived. The innovation and access expansion for all, however, continues to this day. At minimum, if utilities are to survive:

1) expand distributed power generation that puts source closer to the user, taking out the expense and waste of the middle man
2) improve our grid to be more secure, less wasteful and able to handle the new wasy of generating and saving power (this month’s National Geographic has a great story on the grid)
3) when conservation is met, reward not penalize those that conserve. If you have to raise rates to meet minimum expenses, don’t charge everyone. Only charge those who didn’t cut back.
3) if “public” utilities waste money on protectionist tactics, rate payers and stock holders should have the power to hold executives responsible for those wasted dollars and time
4) finally, we need comprehensive energy legislation that includes water in the mix (as water management remains one of the greatest energy users) and that rewards innovation, conservation and decreases in pollution.
5) redefinition of the actual cost of electricity and other power to include cradle-to-cradle costs including government subsidies, costs of drilling or mining for materials, transportation and long-term storage of waste, such as nuclear

As to utilities, the genie is out of the bottle and people are changing their patterns of purchase and vote. We’ll just have to wait and see, however, whether the rest of the wishes come true.

Dreaming dragons on a northern California Earth Day

Happy Earth Day!
This is the 40^th anniversary of a day dedicated to doing what you’d think would come naturally. One billion of us are celebrating a day dedicated to sustainability and greener lifestyles. But that’s what bugs me. Like Valentine’s Day, why do we need a special day to tell someone we love them? You should do it all the time, right?

In the same spirit, none of us should need one special day a year to cherish our world. We’re lucky to have it and we should treasure it every day for letting us live here!

But like any relationship, sustaining a healthy interaction with our environment needs constant nurturing, attention and a desire to do just that bit more. If you can take a moment, please walk with me through what I have and am personally doing to practice what I preach. I think, like me, you’ll be amazed by the side effects of a richer life lead at home, work and wallet.

Letting up on the gas

I continue to telecommute, push back on “live” meetings and flying as little as possible. The online meeting platforms from Skype to DimDim to Webex have made it cheap if not free to video/voice/present to anyone. The collaboration tools for online editing and planning are incredible. I bought a used bike on Craig’s List. My time management skills need lots of work so I can build in the right time to bike or bulk up trips. It’s not easy but it’s worth trying since studies show that commuting is now the number one stress factor in most American’s lives.

That’s why I allowed my husband to steal my Prius for his commute. The commuter lane stickers are like gold and the difference of 10-30 miles per gallon IS gold in our pockets.

In fact, moving off fossil fuels pays off for all. A report released this week says that fueling our cars with electricity vs. gas will reduce the US federal debt by $336 million, increase cumulative household income by $4.6 trillion, improve our trade balance by $127 billion and add 1.9 million jobs by 2030.

Persimmons each fall and more all year long.

Growing our own

Right now, my finger nails are pretty dirty. Inspired by the amazing rains we’ve had this spring following years of drought, we’re making some changes to the earth we own: our yard. I’ve finally started to dig up water hogging English-garden plants and replacing them with natives in many beds and borders. The color is just as brilliant at a fraction of the water. The critters seem to like it better too.

After some researching, we found it takes about 60 gallons of water per 100 square feet of grass or ivy ground cover irrigation. So, the ivy and some grass (which we’ve adjusted to water much less) are out. In it place, we’re planting enough vegetables to set us up for healthy soups, salads, meals, snacks, and stored delights. And like my parents whose acre-long garden continues to be a point of envy, we will know exactly what’s on this food and who has touched it. And you can’t get more local or fresh than stepping on the deck to snip some herbs or out the front door to pick a tomato or squash.

We’re sharing excess food with neighbors. I’m enlisting 2 friends who live in apartments to do an exchange of fresh produce for their labor to weed once a month. My plan is to take out my stress and pour it into the ground, literally. Fresh air and sun. Good exercise. And my own compost. And there is nothing like a kid picking their own beans and eating them off the vine.

Buying Less

In the past year, by turning off the lights, taking shorter showers, running major appliances early in the morning or after 7:00 p.m. to get cheaper electric rates, drying clothes on the line and more, we’ve shaved about $100 per month from our utility bills. Rates are increasing so we’ll need to do more. This is hard for the teenagers and harder on nagging parents but worth it for all.

I say no to bags at the store and carry single items out in pockets or bag. We only accept plastic if we have to. And we love reusable bags. Our latest favorite is brought to us by Bridgett and her daughter’s school fundraiser. Check out ChicoBag for a green fundraiser.

Buying less is the single thing EVERY human can do to be more environmentally friendly.

Trash or Treasure?

In the past year, I’ve sold everything from toys to a huge wood play structure using Craig’s List and a garage sale. Anything left over that is reusable is given to Good Will or picked up by Hope Services. The high school girl’s softball team benefited from years of electronics we’ve accumulated as part of their recycling fund raiser. As our huge recycling bin is overflowing each week while the trash has progressed down to less than a paper grocery bag of garbage, we’re now making a concerted effort to buy stuff with less packaging. If it has too much plastic or cardboard, we don’t buy it.

That said, we’re desperately looking for some place that sells more in bulk. If you have ideas, point me to them!

A Healthy Lead

Every day, I pick up litter on the way to my son’s school. He in turn has learned it’s cool to pick up his playground, parking lot and suggest others do it too. We’re cleaning up the creek behind our home so he and his friends can better enjoy their wet forays. A bag for trash is now a permanent part of our trunk’s décor so while we’re out on beach or trail, we have a proper place to put what others have left trashed behind. Others watch and comment. I’m hoping it goes viral and we soon have a “pick it up” epidemic on our hands.

If joined our school district’s Green committee and we’re now partnering parents, staff, teachers, kids and other community members to be lean, green and sustainable. We’re a bit behind as a group but plans are to move quickly to cover everything from environmental education to transportation and waste management. If this works, sustainability will be so ingrained in the next generation that it will come as naturally as texting.

Constantly Learning

So this is a sampling of what we’re doing. But there is so much more that I can personally do and want to do. So every day, I try to learn something new. Keeps you young. It does!

If you’re interested in ongoing ways to learn to be more sustainable every day, here is a webcast you may wish to attend: Sustainability in Everyday Life Part 2: Personal Change and Change in Others will be broadcast on Wednesday 28 April 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific. Click here for free registration

Thanks for listening – and for sharing your ideas how to improve our relationship with our planet.  Here’s hoping your day is happier, healthier and full of fresh air, clean water and sustainable pride.

Vogtle nuclear power plant is Georgia is one of the first to recieve part of $54B nuclear loan guarantees.

It’s been a busy time for nuclear power.

Last week, the US government announced it is investing $54 Billion in loans to build new nuclear power facilities. Thus ends nearly three decades of no new nuclear plants built in the US.

At the same time, Iran announces it is now a nuclear power, North Korea continues to threaten repercussions if sanctions aren’t lifted, and turmoil in Pakistan sends shudders about the fate of their nuclear arsenal. All of these countries started with nuclear energy generation. So the path between power plant and nuclear bomb continues to be tread.

So it is very difficult to separate the seemingly valid fears about developing nations’ choices of nuclear as a “clean energy” source versus bomb potential. And with China investing in nuclear, nuclear proliferation is again well underway

Is nuclear really the right path to consistent power for the US?

Cost comparison of “clean” energy
Part of the new US funding will immediately be used to build two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. Plant construction will not begin till roughly two years from now. From there, the new nuclear power plants will take between 7 and 15 years to build. So the earliest they will be online is in 2019.

Each of the announced nuclear power plants will cost $8 to $10 Billion to build. The total taxpayer $54 Billion loan program will generate power for 1.4 million people.

By comparison, large wind turbines generate enough electricity to power 600 households each. So to service the same 1.4 million people, you would need about 590 wind towers at a cost of less than $1.2 billion. Plus, wind towers only take months to a few years to install.

Both new nuclear power plants and wind farms would require new transmissions systems.

A recent study also shows that wind, at a rate of 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour (kW-h), is actually cheaper than coal and less than half the price of nuclear production, which is 11 to 14 cents per kW-h. However, cost comparisons like these are not apples to apples comparisons as “steady state” sources like nuclear do not have the fluctuations of wind or solar.

“Socialized” energy?

Besides costing 10 times as much to build and four to 10 times as long to actually begin generating power, nuclear power plants have proven to be bad credit risks. They have a 50% track record of defaulting on loans.

In addition to the risky investment, the owners of nuclear power plants and their vendors are major beneficiaries of taxpayer-paid subsidies.

It’s very hard in the US to isolate subsidies for any particular energy source. The money is very spread out. For example, the American oil and gas industries get $15 billion to $35 billion in US taxpayer subsidies EVERY year. The large spread is due to trying to pinpoint all the programs. From very low interest (below market) construction bonds to huge sales and income tax breaks or lowered royalties paid on US-owned properties or subsidized purchases to maintain the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the highly profitable oil & gas industry is made possible through individual tax payers.

For nuclear, a new power plant can have 60 to 90 percent of its construction costs paid by government subsidies.

A quick look at the Department of Energy’s 2010 budget shows that of its $27 billion budget, the DOE is spending $10 billion for nuclear defense and $7-10 billion for radioactive waste management and nuclear energy programs. By contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy is $2.3 billion.

Energy Independence

When solar or wind are combined with a more steady state feed stock, like algae or other biofuels or even existing coal, the cost and time to build out is still a fraction of the roll-out plans for more nuclear.

Contrary to misinformation spread about renewable energy, a steady electrical supply is absolutely possible when a combination of renewable sources is used. The best example of this is China’s investment with First Solar.  Using less than 80 acres located near population cents, a combination solar and bio feedstock facility will constantly generate nearly 12,000 megawatts of energy.

In contrast, more than 60% of the US uranium supply is imported. So we continue to be dependent on other nations for most of the energy produced by nuclear plants. Albeit the sources are places like Canada and Australia versus the volatile Middle East, but the source uranium is still imported. And much of the mining is open pit with resultant demolition and despoiling of the natural environment and ongoing issues with pollutants.

And, like oil, there is a fear of Peak Uranium that “no amount of money” will be able to buy the uranium required over the next 50 years.

Long term costs

In the US, many small communities are requiring wind farm operators to put aside funds and sign formal agreements for disposing of wind towers after they are decommissioned. This is a smart practice. The companies that profit from power generation should also set aside enough “insurance” to clean up in case of accidents, failures or just end-of-life of their facility. This includes cleaning up a coal or uranium mine or decommissioning old nuclear plants.

For example, it took 14 years and over $1billion (roughly $2.2 billion in today’s terms) to clean up one reactor spill at Three Mile Island. Tons of Three Mile Island’s radioactive wreckage is still being monitored and stored by the DOE’s National Engineering Laboratory and will continue to do so for long into our future.

Although there are discussions that new nuclear technologies make the amount of waste smaller and that reprocessing is also an option (problem is that requires separation of uranium and plutonium, which is used for bombs). In all cases, there will continue to be a need for an underground repository with monitoring and security costs running well beyond any foreseeable future.

In other words, it is the taxpayer and not the nuclear power company that continues to pay for all waste that is stored as well as the majority of cleanup or decommissioning in terms of a disaster.

Total CO₂= World population x Services x Energy of each service x CO₂ per unit of energy

Bill Gates just announced that over the next 40 years, we can solve energy and emissions problems by repurposing old nuclear fuel. He backs his equation on saving the planet with his personal investment in Terrapower Traveling Wave nuclear technology.

There are many pundits who say the next Great War will be fought not over oil but over water. This precious resource, water, is a major requirement of nuclear plants. An Australian study found that nuclear is a water hog:

The investment in nuclear is that it is a no-to-low emissions electricity source. Again, that depends on your view of emissions.

Water vapor actually comprises 36-70 percent of green house gases. By comparison, carbon dioxide or CO2 is 9-26 percent. The entire premise of keeping a nuclear power plant working is steam and boiling water.  Heat issues from the steam contribute to green house gas pressure as well as heating up local water sources, like freshwater rivers and lakes.

Granted there are new technologies coming available for nuclear. However, if we combine what we know today in wind, wave, solar, biofuels like algae in waste water, we can deliver the same power in less time at a fraction of the cost of even smaller nuclear power plants.

At minimum, more public input and research is needed to truly compare the long- and short-term costs of the energy government is subsidizing. It is a bit frightening how little public comment is being factored into these decisions.

Hundreds protest trade deficits, unsure energy supplies, costly coal ash cleanup, rising health costs due to air pollution and global warming

As we approach the end of an eventful year for clean energy — where even in the heart of the Great Recession G-20 stimulus investments in cleantech and sustainable energy totaled more than $3 Trillion (US) – the world continues to battle the move from old to new. And albeit the COP15 initiative didn’t quite deliver the formal results many had hoped, it just highlighted a number of areas where substantive progress can be made.

For example, scientists are finally fighting back with words we can all understand when it comes to climate change opponents. Rather than quote just figures or try to refute a few emails out of millions passed amongst global research bodies, people are actually putting the impact of air sewage in terms that we can all understand. Countering George Will, rather than think about a warming planet, think about:

1)      The US spent $414 billion importing fossil fuels in 2008. If we generated our own power, cutting that amount alone would have cut our trade deficit in half EVERY YEAR!

2)      Right now, the US has trade deficits with countries our government had labeled “insecure” or threats for the past decade, including $20 billion deficit with Iraq, $42 billion with Saudi Arabia and $39 billion with Venezuela. We continue to fund through our energy dependence hot beds of terrorism and insecurity.

3)      That amount does not include what we spend on military protection of pipelines. The US defense budget for 2010 is a whopping $680 billion. Anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of that goes to “protecting global energy interests.”

4)      There is no such thing as clean coal. Coal and oil subsidies now top $2 Trillion a year! What could we do in conservation, smart grid and wind, solar, wave, hydro and biofuels with any part of that. We’re paying heavily for fossil fuels directly and indirectly. Just watch what happens as cost again go up this next year.

Coal companies are determining what our world will look like in the future.

5)      Burning coal results in coal ash trash. In just one instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) says it will cost $1 billion to put in safety improvements and coal-ash storage for 10 sites. Coal ash is nasty. It spills into rivers and streams are common and disastrous. There are 600 coal plants in the US. If all 600 had similar upgrades,

6)      Coal mining literally levels mountain tops, fills streams and destroys forests. The Department of Natural Resources says “buried acidic material” means that reclaimed land is not suitable for much of anything. Other than forests, which would have already been there without the coal mine…

7)      Air pollution takes a health toll. One analysis found that hospital admissions for respiratory problems were, on average, 19% higher in the 37 areas with the highest air pollution compared with the 37 areas with the least amount of pollution. Similarly, outpatient care was 18% higher and hospital admissions were 10% higher. Cut emissions and air sewage, and you have one of the best ways to control medical costs immediately.

People are also beginning to realize and publicize that there has been a well-orchestrated and heavily funded anti-climate change campaign underway for years. This is only the tip of the iceberg since the anti-campaign funding bodies have very deep and oily or coal-smeared pockets.

So, the hope is in 2010 that we will take the full scope and costs of what we’re doing to our climate and wise up. We’re for cleaner air and quitting funding of foreign powers by our energy consumption.

PS: For a bit of levity, we’re looking for jokes to post about clean energy and climate change. Here is one – send us yours:

Question: What are the chances that world leaders can agree on meaningful climate change policy?

Answer: About the same as a snowman’s chance of surviving in the Arctic or Hades. Take your pick.

As some of the world's smartest people gather to try to agree to climate change policy, we suggest 5 Fool-proof (eg. understandable by the average human) programs to gain measurable results now.

Smart people often do dumb things. So confirms the new book What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. And as we approach COP15, the global climate change conference being held in Copenhagen Denmark December 7-18, we will potentially watch many of the world’s smartest science, business and political leaders slam their collective craniums against a wall.

Why? It all comes down to science vs individuals. Statistical brain vs recessionary brawn. Backroom think tanks vs mainstream media. Goals vs implementation. In a word, dysrationalia.

Dysrationalia, says What Intelligence Tests Miss writer Dr. Keith Stanovich, is a content problem. What we don’t know – about statistics, the principles of probability and rules of scientific thinking – can hinder our ability to come to rational decisions. In other words, the average human can’t (or won’t) wrap their brain cells around all these percentages or vast volumes of research that equate our daily actions directly to global climate change.

These equations also don’t factor in the deep-seated and growing belief in the US and elsewhere that governments simply can’t be trusted to execute voluntary promises.

That’s why I propose that we no longer talk about non-enforceable emissions reduction targets for each nation. Instead, we propose an option list that each nation picks from, implementing the ones that will get the greatest results fastest based on their own national profile. Then, like a solid business, all nations meet quarterly to report on and compare results.  Suggested options include:

1) All Economic Aid Packages include renewable energy technologies
The advantages of this are many and broad. It will spur innovation as monies are directly put to developing technologies. It creates jobs as these technologies are  manufactured and implemented/constructed. It provides long-term solutions vs a one time act of charity. If we are helping to rebuild after a natural disaster, that building is all done with the latest green building materials and techniques. For developing nations, their infrastructures will be renewable, ensuring they don’t have to rely on imported fuels to power their emerging economies. Locally, subsidized housing for low income families are built with their own wind, solar and waste-to-energy production systems so utility bills aren’t a problem. Plus, each is built with a garden of fruit trees and window boxes with food seeds, which would supplant Food Stamps subsidies in the US. And on and on.

2)      Petroleum Pipeline Protection Surcharges – Military Cost of Fuel
For the US alone, the defense budget for 2010 is a whopping $680 billion. For every dime the US or any other country spends on securing fuel pipelines or imports from other countries, there will be a surcharge. This includes all military spending for long-term veteran healthcare, family support, research, volunteer enlistment programs as well as the actual military cost. The surcharge funds or military offsets will go directly back into financing renewable energy innovations and implementations locally or abroad. Doing this will make a huge difference to the average voter as they better understand the costs of going sustainable vs military operations based on keeping the fuel pipelines flowing.

3)      Energy Sin Taxes or ESTs
If a fuel is imported, then the calculated emissions charge of that import will be added at the pump or monthly energy bill. The farther things travel, the more energy and emissions wasted and, thus, the higher the EST. No one will ever understand the impact of their energy use till they see the whole package. And EST can happen now while emissions trading schemes and policies are laboriously hashed out and implemented.

4)      Population Control & Reduction Rewards
At least 25% of the world’s population – 1.6 billion people – does not have electricity today. Population is booming. Bringing the fast-growing global population to energy rich status is a disastrous scenario. Controlling and reducing our population is required. This program would be a carrot vs stick approach. The more a country can reduce its population, the more relief it can call on in other areas.

5)      Obesity Carbon Tax

This is literally putting the money where the mouth is. One study estimates that 10% of all energy used in the US goes to food production. So, again, we need to equate consumption control directly to the problem. Eating more local foods, cutting down on processing of food and focusing on better water management in agriculture will absolutely and directly cut emissions in a meaningful way.

So that’s a start. There are other ideas. But to succeed, each must be practical and understandable and something an everyday human can feel, touch and understand.

In today’s economic morass, what average human being makes rational decisions when the sentence starts with “It will cost you more money and we don’t know how well it will work but…”?

About the Author

Carol Schmitt is a long-term advocate of sustainable living and an ongoing researcher into the policies being put together to address global Climate Change. Carol is the CEO and Founder of AcclimateUS, a company focused on advancing the causes of Cleantech and renewable energy enterprises. Carol’s business and home are in Los Gatos, CA USA.

American Consumer Confidence is edging up and so is a belief that buying less is better.

In the US, its consumer confidence that is king, equaling 70% of the gross domestic product (GDP). So if consumers like you and me aren’t buying (or consuming), our economy suffers.

And yet, when we buy less, it’s better for our planet. In fact, when Americans buy less, we lower emissions in China. Nearly a third of China’s emissions come from manufacturing goods for export to the US and elsewhere. If you included transportation, that percentage as a global whole would increase dramatically.

The US, China and India all agreed this week to limit emissions. Which is good. But even better would be to continue down the path of consuming less. Seriously, ask anyone you know who has decided to cut back spending this year and you’ll find that they are much happier buying less stuff.  In fact, multiple studies show that greater income DOES NOT correlate with greater happiness.

Besides luxury dealers emphasizing the value of only buying a few, high quality “things”, other businesses are popping up to help us move away from consumption and back to sustainability.

So, although cash has been king, people are turning more and more to barter and services that support it in their communities. One of these is Kashless.org, a new online service in beta that rewards you for giving and getting free stuff. You’ll find everything from wood flooring to furniture, appliances and even autos. You can also recycle old electronics for cash.

More people worried about food this year than since World War II.

This year, more than others, your local food bank also needs donations (cash or food). Second Harvest Food Bank, which serves over 207,000 people in Northern California, says that two thirds of its clients right now have never before needed food assistance. If you’re not familiar with the food bank near you, check out this US nationwide directory.

Goodwill Industries, Hope Rehabilitation Services and many local schools and places of worship take extra stuff off your hands that you can’t barter or don’t want to store anymore.

So be thankful that you have enough to give. And give thanks that we’re all a bit wiser that having more stuff is no way to sustain happiness.

PS. If you’re looking for a different way to donate your time to help others, check out Grid Alternatives, a non-profit that uses volunteers and donations to install solar onto low income housing.

A vote for Oscar is a vote for talking trash and skipping the political wrangling around climate change legislation.

We’re now in the 40^th year of Sesame Street. If there was ever a great example that learning can be FUN as well as educational, Sesame Street’s cadre of colorful Muppets, thousands of episodes (each marked on the opening street sign) and songs-for-everything, this is it.

So, I’d like to take this opportunity to formally nominate most-famous garbage-can-living Muppet Oscar the Grouch as the new spokes person for government initiatives around sustainability.

Sign the petition now!

Why do we need Oscar? Simply put, we need grouches young and old to support green-house gas emissions measurement, pricing and control policies.  And Oscar is a guy anybody can understand. He gets messages across quickly, succinctly and tolerantly. He’s loves trash, sings about how hard it is to be green, and gripes about everything even while he gets things done. In other words, he’s a lot like us. And if he needs help, he taps the talents of Muppet buds like Fur Jam to sing about better use of resources, conservation and change.

Oscar shines because he doesn’t use chart after boring chart or mountains of facts and figures that desensitize the discussion with grandiose terms. He just states the obvious and we get the connection. As documented in the book “Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything”, when human’s buying decisions are separated from their environmental impact by literally thousands of miles, dozens of companies and/or government policies, it’s nearly impossible to believe each of our purchases makes a difference.

So Oscar helps make things more immediate. Simpler. And friendlier. I mean, who needs more books like “Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living”? Yes, this book is filled with great information about our (and our pets’) carbon footprints and what to do about it. But the message is served up dryly and, well, so negatively that it becomes more fodder for naysayers who call emissions control “elitist”, “expensive” and “out of touch with today.”

Somewhere along the line, policy makers and advocates lost sight that winning public support is NOT about big graphs, lofty figures and the world’s smartest scientists talking at least 40000 miles above our heads. People are simply numb from all the facts and figures. And it all seems so far away.

So it’s time to go back to basics. This is a war for public opinion. In the 70’s, America addressed is burgeoning environmentalism by using mascots like Woodsy Owl. Hokey, yes, but the yellow-eyed owl in a park ranger’s uniform sure got a simple message across effectively – “Give a Hoot. Don’t pollute!”

But Oscar is cooler than Woodsy. He does rap. He’s negative and proud of it. And Oscar can be both eloquent, local and painfully to the point. Oscar – he speaks for the grouchy environmentalist in all of us.

Vote for Oscar now!

PS: if you’re interested, Sesame Street has published nearly 150 environmentally-focused spots that kids of all ages can appreciate.

Energy Vampires lurk in our homes

Southern California Edison (SCE), is one of the largest electric utilities in the US serving more than 13 million people. Earlier this week, SCE released a warning for its customers about the scary “energy vampires” that lurk throughout their homes and businesses. Instead of sucking blood, these vamps are our household electronics that draw electricity even when they are off. In fact, SCE estimates that you could save up to five percent of your bill if you simply unplugged or turned off items like DVD players, computers, stereos, TVs and computers.

Military robot eats biomass – and bodies?

It seems that FoxNews originally ran a story that a long-range, long-endurance military robot designed by Robotic Technology Inc foraged and powered itself with organic “biofuels.” Biofuels like fruits, veggies, cooking oils … oh, and bodies. Animal and human remains left on the battle field. But according to Dr. Bob Finkelstein, then-president of RTI, that simply wasn’t and isn’t true. Instead, his company’s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot or EATR is only sustained by plant-based biofuels, solar and traditional fossil fuels (oil, gas, kerosene, propane and coal). It turns out that EATR is programmed to recognize specific fuel sources and avoid others. As Dr. Finkelstein puts it, “If it’s not on the menu, it’s not going to eat it.”

Harnessing ghost energy

There was a lot of discussion around the Smart Grid this week following a $3.4 Billion infrastructure investment announcement that would fund 100 projects in 49 US States. IBM, one of the key vendors in the quest for Smart Grid supremacy, is promoting its offerings for home and business. During a 6 month pilot of 100 homes serviced by Fayetteville Public Works Commission in North Carolina, the use of Smart Grid technologies cut residential energy expenses by up to 40 percent.  IBM’s goal with the pilot project was to highlight the energy used by “ghost” devices: air conditioners, water heaters, and other devices that are using electricity even when no one is around.

Who knew we had so many ghosts and vampires living daily in our homes. Energy saving is good. But did you hear about bad energy ghosts, which have nothing to do with the grid but do seem to be something to keep in mind when building or ungreen?

Pumpkins power up cell stations

Ericsson, self-proclaimed world’s leading telecommunications supplier, began experimenting a few years back with biofuels-powered cellular networks. Its “green” macro base station was targeted at rural areas in developing countries that didn’t have access to a main electrical grid. The project, launched in Nigeria, used locally grown pumpkin seeds as well as groundnuts, jatropha and palm oil. There are few other details from Ericsson. Pumpkin seeds do have very high oil content and are purportedly very tasty and good for you. However, like other food stocks, they simply require more energy and aren’t truly viable as biofuels feedstocks to drive engines. They do however make great compost!

If interested, the EPA also has a listing of power pulls from all your tools and appliances. So if you’re considering using power tools to carve your pumpkin, you might want to see what you’ll get for the energy expended. Literally…

As lumber companies and mills fold, the quest to reduce and contain carbon emissions grows. And the changes are spurring some rather unlikely partnerships.

For example, one of the largest retailers of paper products Staples Inc. has just teamed with the nonprofit Dogwood Alliance to form a pilot called Carbon Canopy. The project is focused on the world’s most prolific paper-producing region, the southern U.S.  By following the standards developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Carbon Canopy offers a new revenue stream to landowners in the form of forestry carbon offsets.

A week or so ago, another amazing partnership has lead to the US’s single largest pre-compliance forest carbon transaction to date involving over 60,000 acres of woodlands. California’s largest private landowner, Sierra Pacific Industries, and Equator, LLC, a natural resources asset management firm, have entered an agreement that consists of a series of projects focused on developing compliance-ready carbon offsets. The transaction will sequester an additional 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide over the next five years.

The Sierra Pacific/Equator deal will help save over 20,000 giant sequoias to boot. Even if you don’t live or visit Northern California, you’ll have seen these amazing trees featured in Star Wars – Return of the Jedi or one of the Jurassic Park movies. You can also get a great feel for the trees, which are featured in the October 2009 issue of National Geographic.

The current energy legislation being debated in the US provides healthy support for these and other forestry conservation efforts. Forestry preservation and expansion provides carbon sequestration, the biological, chemical or physical process that captures and stores harmful emissions caused by burning fossil fuels, like coal or oil. And trees turn out to be great big carbon storage devices ripe for carbon offsets.

The reality is that by 2020, the cost per household in the US to fund all of the discussed GHG emissions management would be less than a postage stamp per day — or roughly $175 a year. That is much less than what it costs to buy, plant & grow your own trees.

In the meantime, our GHG emissions control investments would also create 1.7 million jobs. Some of those jobs will directly be in the area of forestry preservation, management, monitoring and conservation. Tall order. Tall trees. Seems like a natural to me!

Other Opportunities:

WFI International has launched is Fellowship Program learn about sustainable forestry from the Pacific Northwest forestry sector. Over 75 Fellows from 24 countries have participated and applications are accepted year-round. For details, go to http://wfi.worldforestry.org/index/international-fellowship.html

Teams line up to win a global competition for sustainable (and attractive) living.

Space may be the final frontier but for college students, terra firma is the place to be for the next generation of sustainable innovation funding.  While you wait to see photos of the LCROSS rocket smash into the moon, check out two major events for college students that are happening this week in the US.

The first launched today as the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) 4th biennial Solar Decathlo opened on the appropriately sunny Mall at the US Capital in Washington, DC.  College and university students from 20 schools, including last year’s winner Team Germany and four other international universities, are competing in the  two week event. The students goal is to “design, build, and operate the most attractive and energy-efficient solar-powered house.”

Germany won the 2007 competition with it's innovative use of solar thermal, luvre lighting and materials.

The German team won in 2007 (pictured here). The DOE funds the projects, rates them and awards the winner. The final houses aren’t just demolished at the end. Most go on to lead ongoing roles in the university’s community. Rice University, for example, took their 2007 entry and it stands as an arts/cultural center in Houston’s beleaguered Third Ward district.

“Our home’s greatest strength is getting away from the design of a box with obtrusive solar panels, and instead embracing a central courtyard as a fourth room,” said Preet Anand, a senior at Santa Clara University and member of Team California. Team California is the only group of this year’s competitors made solely of undergraduates. “Our home also features integrated engineering and architecture, a great example of this would be our solar panels that look like a natural component of our roof rather than sticking out from it.” Watch video of the team on the National Mall »

Students from around the US celebrate winning EPA P3 grants for their ideas to sustainably address the world's problems.

The second award announced this week is the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) People, Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) grants for 2009-2010. The EPA awarded 43 P3 grants to teams of college and university students across the country. The awards, which start with $10,000(US) grants in Phase I and can go up to $75,000 in Phase II, are awarded based on designs of creative technologies that meet sustainability challenges in the developed and developing world.

There are some truly amazing ideas in this first round of awards. From using a Fresnel lens (what you’d see in a lighthouse) to make safe drinking water out of sea water to Appalachians applying alcohol-making still technology to producing biodiesel fuel to a team that is using chicken feathers to potentially develop components for better solar panels or the batteries of tomorrow, the projects run the gamut from energy efficiency to more sustainable textiles manufacture. Besides great ideas and great science, it looks like they had some fun too.

Both the Solar Decathlon and the P3 Grants highlight innovation, creativity and drive. And when it comes to sustainable innovation, it’s heartening to see these students boldly go where no one (or at least very few) have gone before.

May these kinds of awards and competitions truly “Live long and prosper…”