Archive for the ‘Energy Sources’ Category

Libertarians Are Wrong About Infrastructure, News at 11

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

gas-tax11Libertarianism, in its purest form, could arguably be called an enemy of infrastructure. If the government is disabled and left a shallow, broke, impotent shell, then exactly who will build the roads, bridges, and public works that allow our society, and economy, to function? (If your stock answer is “The private sector! To hell with government!” then we’ve got about a library of stuff for you to read. Start here. Or here.)

The Reason Foundation, ultimate libertarian think tank, recently released a manifesto about U.S.  infrastructure entitled “Restoring Trust in the Highway Trust Fund.” The full text was read and dissected by Willy Staley in a column for Next American City.

No surprise, the report is a dogmatic argument for reorganizing the surface transit bill according to the staunch principles of libertarianism. In other words, there would be not a cent given for public transit, bike paths, “livability” initiatives, or anything else having to do with sustainability.

According to their reasoning, the Highway Trust Fund is in such dire straits because it has been diverted from its original purpose when it was established in 1956  — to pay for the new Interstate system. Beginning in 1970, HTF funds were authorized to pay for transit, and since then it’s been all downhill from there. Nowadays, urban transit, bikeways, scenic trails, and other public programs eat up around one-quarter of all federal highway user tax revenues.

Sound like a somewhat reasonable argument? Well, there’s more. As Staley notes:

The Reason Foundation believes that by going back to the pre-1970 model will free up enough money to keep the Interstate system afloat, and that with minor increases in state fuel taxes, states will be able to maintain their own roads better without costly federal requirements like—no kidding—”mandates for safety belt usage, minimum drinking age and maximum blood-alcohol levels, Davis-Bacon labor requirements, Buy America requirements, various affirmative action mandates and transportation planning requirements.”

So yeah. Seat belt laws? Who needs ‘em? (Answer: We do. Desperately.) And as for the alcohol and BAC arguments, it’s a case of res ipsa loquitur — the wrongness of those points speaks for itself.

Finally, Staley uncovered this doozie: (more…)

How You Think You Save Energy Is Not How You Save Energy, Study Shows

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

energy-savingBring on the behavioral economists! It turns out that the ways we think we’re saving energy are totally different from the ways we can actually save energy. Or so say the results of a new study out of Columbia University, Ohio State University, and Carnegie Mellon.

According to the researchers, basically every trope that we follow about how to save energy is in fact wrong: “Participants estimated that line-drying clothes saves more energy than changing the washer’s settings (the reverse is true) and estimated that a central air-conditioner uses only 1.3 times the energy of a room air-conditioner (in fact, it uses 3.5 times as much).”

In addition, the study pierced one of the biggest energy efficiency myths of all: that simply not using an appliance or device as often will save more energy than replacing the appliance for a more efficient model. Oh, and that turning off the lights has any real impact whatsoever.

The study, which was published in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, goes to the heart of an issue that many of us have been hinting at for a long time: Changing perceptions about energy efficiency (basically eliminating incorrect assumptions and providing people with accurate information) is one of the most powerful tools we have in the efficiency racket. Giving consumers the full picture, so they can make educated decisions about how to use appliances, which appliances to replace, and what behaviors to stress to achieve efficiency, will have a drastic impact on overall usage, not to mention our energy bills. According to the study:

Relative to experts’ recommendations, participants were overly focused on curtailment rather than efficiency, possibly because efficiency improvements almost always involved research, effort and out-of-pocket costs (e.g. buying a new energy-efficient appliance), whereas curtailment may be easier to imagine and incorporate into one’s daily behaviors without any upfront costs.

In other words, the key to achieving greater energy efficiency, and efficiency in general, is the same for consumers as it is for contractors, governments, and everyone else: You need to put in a bit more money at the outset in order to save money in the long run. It’s a principle that we may all need to acclimate ourselves to, fast.

Goodbye Land Transit? Say Hello to the New Flying Suntram [Gallery]

Monday, August 16th, 2010

Officials in Denver have been trying for years to come up with a solution to their bad (and getting worse) traffic problems. Then Colorado architect Richard Morris thought of another alternative: a flying tram that carries cars and passengers high above the roads and bridges, at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour.

Enter the Suntram, a high-speed regional transportation system supported primarily by a catenary cable. Described by one onlooker as an “airplane connected to a ski lift,” the Suntram is run high above the ground on a stationary cable, and uses Morris’s newly-designed suspension system, which limits vertical acceleration. And to keep the carbon footprint low, the Suntram system collects wind and solar energy at each station, and feeds the unused power back into the grid.

Click on the picture below to see a gallery of the Suntram in action, and for a detailed video description click here.

The Amazing New Suntram

Images: Courtesy Suntram.net

If the Grid Didn’t Exist, Would There Still Be a Need to Invent It?

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

power_gridThis is a guest post by Nick Rosen, the author of Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True Independence in Modern America. Rosen is a documentary maker, journalist, and broadcaster who for the past two decades has been a Teaching Assistant at the Georgetown University Philosophy Department. Nick is an off-grid expert, editing the website www.off-grid.net, and since 1994 has been off the grid part-time.

Salem NH June 2010: Kay Phaneu, at home in her oxygen tent, dies when National Grid cuts off her power over a delinquent bill.

National Grid, a British owned Utility providing electricity to homes in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York and Nantucket, says it followed all the correct procedures. But industry lobbying helped set those procedures. I hope my book Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True Independence in Modern America helps open a debate about the American electricity industry, which has sales of $400 Billion per year.

Most of us rely on the electricity grid (along with water and gas) in every aspect of our lives. But if the grid did not exist, would there still be a need to invent it?

I spent last year researching a book about Americans who live off the grid, free of the intersecting pipes and cables that delineate modern life. As a group and as individuals, the “off-gridders” are among America’s most independent, secure, self-reliant…and comfortable. Nobody is likely to cut off their power.

Going off-grid is the wave of the future, not a return to the Stone Age; a marriage of new technology and ancient wisdom. For a lifestyle on the fringe of society, some of its adherents are surprisingly conventional. I met captains of industry seeking privacy, survivalists anticipating the next great disaster, environmentalists pioneering a new way of life, foreclosed urbanites making a fresh start in the boondocks, retirees exchanging suburbia for simplicity, anarchists and various other kinds of “-ists” living out social experiments, and plenty of ordinary middle income families who have lost trust in the system and prefer to rely on their own resources. There are up to 1.75 million Americans already living off the grid, and they are show-casing a potential future for many millions more.

The power grid may seem almost a force of nature today, but its history spans just eighty years. Now the electricity industry is asking for trillions to build the so called Smart Grid, which would allow it to continue the way it always has — with vast inefficient power stations and wholesale leakage of electricity during the long journey to the end user.
As the book shows, the way our communities are arranged today owes much to the practices of the power companies through the 1930s and 1940s. Just as the rise of the automobile drove Exxon’s oil sales, companies like General Electric that made generating equipment, promoted “the electric home,” marketing a range of energy-guzzling devices. The utility companies had no incentive to promote energy efficiency –- quite the opposite.

The same is still true – the more power we consume, the more profits they make. That is one reason for a carbon tax – as long as it is a tax on inefficiency in production and distribution. Meanwhile, technology has moved on. An energy efficient home, or community, generating its own electricity, can survive on a fraction of the power of its conventional equivalent – perhaps as little as 10%. (more…)

Portugal Has Embraced Renewable Energy, So Why Can’t We?

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

portugal-windIn the New York Times, reporter Elisabeth Rosenthal writes of Portugal’s swift and remarkable energy transformation. In just five years, the nation has cut its dependence on fossil fuels dramatically, with nearly 45% of its grid electricity coming from renewable sources this year, up from 17% in 2005. How did it accomplish this? Major government-led initiatives, including privatization of former state energy utilities to create a new, more renewable-friendly grid, as well as cushy, partly-subsidized contracts for private companies. The results included a sevenfold increase in land-based wind power, as well as a massive increase in the use of electric cars.

Portugal’s efforts epitomize what a country can accomplish in an extremely short time if the political and public will is there. Granted, such rapid change isn’t without its costs:

Portuguese households have long paid about twice what Americans pay for electricity, and prices have risen 15 percent in the last five years, probably partly because of the renewable energy program, the International Energy Agency says.

Although a 2009 report by the agency called Portugal’s renewable energy transition a “remarkable success,” it added, “It is not fully clear that their costs, both financial and economic, as well as their impact on final consumer energy prices, are well understood and appreciated.”

Higher energy prices brought exactly the reaction from voters that you’d think they would: sharp derision and intense political pressure to lower those bills. But rather than bury the issue in deliberate obfuscation and/or avoid it for fear of political repurcussions, Portugal’s leaders put it all on the line in favor of effecting change. And paid a price for it — after a landslide victory in 2005, Portugese Prime Minister José Sócrates scraped by with a narrow win in the last election.

Granted, Portugal has a few things that make it uniquely suited for the transition to renewables — not the least of which are its large untapped resources of wind and river power. As such, according to government officials, the energy transformation required no increase in taxes or public debt, since the wind and hydro-power replaced natural gas, coal, and oil — most of which were imported.

So where does the U.S. stand in comparison when it comes to likelihood of an energy metamorphosis? Well, for starters, we’ve got our grid — an antiquated mess that’s starting to resemble a ticking time bomb — as well as an embedded tradition of reliance on cheap fossil fuels and massive oil and coal industries that wield considerable political clout. All serious obstacles for any lawmaker, to be sure — but not hopeless. Plus there’s the possibility of the costs equaling out — as the price of renewable energy continues to drop, the costs of a shift to renewables now could mean a huge savings in the future. Though as with all “pay more now for savings later” policies presented, American voters rarely see the forest through the trees.

Is Our Power Grid Prepared to Handle Global Warming?

Monday, August 9th, 2010

summer-heatIf you live on the East Coast, I don’t need to tell you it’s been hot this summer. Seriously hot. And climate models are not predicting that temperatures will be trending cooler anytime soon.

Semi-needless to say, our energy infrastructure is not exactly brimming with readiness for this expected continuation of super-hot summers over the next 40 years — when this summer’s brutal heat is expected to be normal. Over at the Daily Beast, climatologist Heidi Cullen explains the situation as follows:

With the high temperatures of this past July leading to brownouts throughout the northeast, it should come as no surprise that our aging power grid is currently ill-equipped to deal with demands like those that are likely to be placed on it by 2050—when the Census Bureau projects the United States will have roughly 130 million more people. Historically, for each 1.8°F of warming, cooling demand increases between 5 percent and 20 percent due to more people turning on air conditioners, refrigerators and then air conditioners having to work harder, higher resistance losses in transmission wires, and other factors. The end result of increasing heat and population growth is greater demand for electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates electricity demand by 2050 could be 50 percent higher than it is today.

So we’re going to see much higher demand on an already-stressed grid, spelling a high likelihood for disaster if alternative energy and efficiency efforts aren’t stepped up considerably in the next few years. Granted, there’s the possibility technological irrelevance — by 2050, there’s a chance we will have solved this problem and created another one (think of the horse-manure-removal debacle — a problem that was solved by, you guessed it, cars). And given that searing, unrelenting heat is usually the best way to drive home the realities of climate change and the necessity of alternative energy, perhaps this summer — and the fiery ones to come — could be a kick start in the innovation direction.

A Republican Senator Thinks the Gas Tax Should Be Raised, and You Should Too

Monday, August 9th, 2010

gas-taxSen. George Voinovich of Ohio is retiring. And in his last days, he’s letting it all out. Including his strong view that the federal gas tax needs to be raised (just a reminder: it hasn’t been raised in nearly two decades). In a letter to members of President Obama’s debt commission, Voinovich laid out his argument:

Fuel taxes today fund the vast majority of the federal government’s investment in infrastructure projects… Due to dwindling fuel tax receipts, Congress has had to transfer billions of dollars from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund to maintain our current level of federal involvement….

The lack of investment in our crumbling bridge, highway, and transit systems is a missed opportunity for the creation of thousands of well paying jobs and long term economic growth for our Nation.

At an Ohio conference last month, Voinovich said, “I believe Americans are willing to pay a higher gas tax to create jobs, improve our infrastructure and better our climate. And many of my conservative colleagues do not consider that gas tax as a tax, but as a user fee.”

So if Democrats are supposedly in favor of raising the tax, and many Republicans aren’t opposed to it, then what’s the holdup? (Don’t answer that question.)

RELATED:
Is the Low Gas Tax Costing You More Money on Car Repairs?
Should We Scrap the Gas Tax and Simply Have More Tolls?
Finding Alternatives to the Gas Tax: The Pundits Discuss

Is It Possible to Go Truly ‘Off the Grid’? A Guest Post

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

off-the-gridScott Huler is the author of “On the Grid: A Plot of Land, an Average Neighborhood, and the Systems That Make Our World Work.”

First, let me explain how I roughed up the Amish.

When I discuss On the Grid, my book tracing and marveling at our infrastructure, at least one person always complains that I don’t spend enough time talking about going off the grid. My usual rejoinder is that outside of sub-Saharan Africa and the Australian outback, I don’t think you can go off the grid in any meaningful way. All your consumer goods, your roads, your culture, the books and websites you consult to tell you how to get off the grid, are brought to you by the grid.

Then a caller to a radio show asked me about the Amish. I made some lame rejoinder about the Amish taking the train – our oldest industrial grid – from their farms to Philadelphia’s Reading Terminal Market to sell their wares, or driving their horses and buggies on nice roads paved by asphalt or concrete. That’s true enough, but let me back off: the Amish get a bye. If they want to say they’re off the grid, I yield.

Otherwise, if you tell me you’re off the grid, I’m going to laugh at you. On the Grid was included recently in a newspaper book review roundup under the headline “Going Off the Grid,” which is funny because I overtly claim that nowadays you just can’t do that.

And the grid means more than electric wires; if I learned nothing else in tracing all those systems, I learned they’re inseparable. Try treating water without electricity; try generating power without water; try doing either without digital communications. And try managing digital communications without air conditioning and the power to run it. It’s all part of the same enormous web. And we’re all part of it.

I found myself on a radio show one day with someone who wrote a book about going off the grid, and before even going on the air he told our host he didn’t wish to be identified as speaking from the United Kingdom. He was in London, the host was in Massachusetts, and I was in Raleigh. We spoke to one another as though we were in the same room – and he was arguing against the grid. I’ll leave you to determine whether there’s irony there, though I’ll point out that data centers, filled with the computers and air conditioners that run the communications grid, are enormous industrial users of grid power.

I’m not against sustainability – I’m for anything that saves resources, improves systems, and may save our planet before we fry it in its own petroleum-based oils. But driving your grid-produced pickup to get your grid-produced lumber at a big box store, driving on grid-paved highways to your mountain acres whose streams are protected by multiple layers of grid-powered government, and then using your grid-supplied plans to build a windmill to power your grid-produced computer as it gathers its information from grid-produced satellites? (more…)

Just How Bad Is the Summer Air Quality in Your City?

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

air-quality-graph

CLICK TO ENLARGE

So far, this year is the hottest year on record, and last month broke records for the warmest June. All of which makes it the perfect time to take a look at the state of our air quality — which takes a nosedive in the hotter months.

This graph, by Martha Kang McGill, depicts the fluctuating air quality in major U.S. cities throughout the year. For those readers in L.A., well, caveat emptor.

Power to the Consumers! New Gadgets Let You Watch Daily Energy/Water Use

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

water-conservationThe readers have spoken: Efficiency and alternative energy don’t have to be mutually exclusive (which is certainly true in theory, though the economic and social realities tend to push toward the “either/or” argument). One of the key points that experts make about efficiency is that achieving it relies a good deal on technology that enables consumers to make good choices.

A major turn in this direction that’s already gaining traction is smart water meters, which record water consumption in real time. They  not only cut water consumption by individuals, but also save time and money for utility companies — workers may have to drive to the meter locations, but they can read signals electronically from their vehicles, rather than needing to walk from meter to meter.

While California is ahead of the game in terms of installing these smart meters (a move that’s been fueled in part by its water crisis) New York is starting to catch up. The New York Times reports that New York City is rolling out smart meters that let residents monitor their water use on their laptops. It will be available by next week in the Bronx, and by mid-September will be an option for the 834,000 customers that have a wireless meter already installed. (The rest of the city’s users are supposed to have wireless meters by early 2012.) Mayor Bloomberg has suggested that the new meters may even lead to a tiered rate structure for the city, in which the heaviest users pay more per unit of water. While the suggestion likely won’t be popular among many New Yorkers, it’s already being used in cities including Seattle, Tampa, and Durham, N.C.

Meanwhile, on the electricity side, GE is launching a new product called the Nucleus that lets users monitor exactly how much power they’re using in their homes from their laptops or smart phones. You can plug it in somewhere in your house, and track your electricity use, as well as get tips for conserving and saving money (how to use at non-peak times, etc.). It also offers alerts, like when to change the refrigerator’s water filter or when the dryer cycle ends, and software upgrades will eventually let you  monitor water, natural gas, and renewable energy sources, as well as plug-in electric vehicles. At a cost of around $150, it certainly seems worth it — particularly if everyone who uses our utilities gets on board.

Should We Scrap Alt-Energy in Favor of Energy Efficiency?

Monday, July 12th, 2010

electricgridResources — and time –  for energy innovation are growing scarce. And while alternatives like solar and “cleaner” coal are gradually making more of a dent in our reliance on oil and coal, the need for a centralized push towards a solution is dire. So what should the policy be going forward? Should we be devoting more time, money, and energy to making current buildings more energy efficient? Or throwing all our resources towards coming up with more and better alternative sources of energy?

In Australia at least, it looks like the answer, at least in the short-term, is “the former.” A new report from the Energy Efficiency Council of Australia indicates that in the next 10 years, energy efficiency will deliver twice the results of renewable energy, a switch to nuclear power, and “clean coal” efforts combined. Treehugger reports:

“The International Energy Agency estimates that energy efficiency will deliver 65 per cent of worldwide carbon cuts in the energy sector by 2020, and 54 per cent by 2030. This means that in 2020 energy efficiency could have almost twice the impact of renewable energy, nuclear power and clean coal combined.”

Such were findings of the Energy Efficiency Council (EEC) of Australia, who late last month released report entitled Energy Efficiency: Australia’s Low Carbon Opportunity, with the subhead of Boost Profits, Cut Emissions, Create Jobs. The EEC believe that increasing the uptake of energy efficiency could save more greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 than taking every Australian car off the road.

As in many industrialized nations, energy use in Australia is highly concentrated — according to the report, “just 220 companies, mainly in manufacturing, mining, and construction, use more than 40 per cent of the energy consumed” in the country. In the U.S., the numbers are slightly more even, with industries eating up around a third of the nation’s energy, while transportation (which includes a major part of industry — the transportation of goods) accounts for 28% of our total use. The commercial sector — office buildings, malls, warehouses — comes in fourth (behind residential use) at 19%.

In other words, a concerted efficiency effort in any one of these categories could have a radical impact on the nation’s energy usage as a whole. And while money has been flowing — including from Google — into green investment in the global market, given the state of the world’s economy, we may not be able to rely on long-term funding big enough to bring wind, solar, biofuels, etc. to the level of oil/coal replacements. As such, should we shift the bulk of our efforts toward a large-scale push for efficiency?

The Morning Dig: Making South Korea Smarter and Greener

Monday, July 12th, 2010

• ABC News went to South Korea to look at how one part of Seoul is using technology to make their city smarter and greener. You can watch it above.

• Residents are becoming amateur spies to clean up crime and trash in one London neighborhood. (AP)

• Disputes over land are impeding Haiti’s recovery after its devastating earthquake. (AP)

• With the BP oil spill in the news, one writer looks at the belief that technology can never fail. (AP)

• China is spending a lot of money on the smart electrical grid. (WSJ)

• After many setbacks, China’s plans for an eco-city are now indefinitely delayed and nothing has been built. (NYT)

• A reporter examines how electric cars may be available to be rent in Paris. (NYT)

More From ‘The Future of the City’: Smart Grid’s Early Mistakes

Friday, June 25th, 2010

smart-gridThe panel “The Future of the Smart Grid: Early Lessons Learned from the Rollout of Smart Grid Technologies” at the Atlantic’s “Future of the City” conference couldn’t have come at a more pressing time: Earlier this week, the Maryland Public Service Commission shocked many by rejecting a major smart grid plan proposed by Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. To make matters worse, some are theorizing that Maryland’s decision could spark a trend, putting a serious dent in the planned deployment of smart grid technology.

As such, the panelists, including Mark Brownstein, Deputy Director of the Energy Program at the Environmental Defense Fund, and Paul Camuti, President and CEO of Siemens Corporate Research, were put in a bit of a tricky position — how do you discuss the future of smart grids when the  concept was just dealt a potentially massive blow?

But discuss it they did, emphasizing that the Maryland decision was just that — one decision, that didn’t necessarily mean anything drastic or spell instant doom for smart grid technology. They also stressed that there’s plenty to be done on the public opinion side, such as increased outreach efforts to build public support for smart grid technology on a larger scale.

Panelist F. Michael Valocchi, Vice President and Global Energy and Utilities Leader at IBM’s Global Business Services division, spoke to us after the event, and expressed regret that the Maryland news had dominated so much of the discussion: “The Maryland decision is very important, but there are other things happening. The one thing we didn’t get deep enough into is the consumer angle — how the consumer can and should be thinking about things differently.”

His point is well-timed — in an era of huge expansions in consumer choice, driven by technology, why are we still so deliberately naive when it comes to choices about how our utilities are delivered? We have the technology for consumers to see their energy bills itemized, similar to cell phone bills — so why isn’t there mass demand for this information? (more…)

Could the BP Disaster Be a Good(ish) Thing for the Gulf’s Infrastructure?

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

pelicanIt’s bad in the Gulf. Really, really bad. Despite the valiant efforts of wildlife conservationists, 80% of the oiled animals are dying. Then there are the long-term economic consequences: This very well may be the death toll for the area’s entire fishing industry. And that’s just scratching the surface — then there are all the psychological aftereffects on the residents of the Gulf, which will likely be just as dire as they were in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez spill.

Digging through all this environmental and economic and sociological misery, it’s tough to find anything resembling a silver lining. But there may be one positive result of the disaster:  the improvement of the Gulf region’s much-ailing infrastructure.

Ever since the devastation of Katrina, the Gulf Coast’s infrastructure has been in very rough shape. Improving it was one of Obama’s key policy objectives during the 2008 election. And the virtual elimination of fishing and other industries has left a displaced labor force that could be put to work on some of the much-needed infrastructure improvements — a program for which BP could foot the bill. According to the Huffington Post:

Although he offers a gloomy prognosis for Gulf residents and their long-term employment options, Dr. [Elmore] Rigamer [medical director for Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans] offers a comprehensive short-term solution that harks back to New Deal ideology. It is well-documented that the infrastructure of the Gulf wetlands is in need of a massive overhaul, yet there have been no efforts to do so in the last 40 years. Rigamer suggests that BP, in an act of good faith, set aside funds for the rehabilitation of the wetlands and hire displaced workers and the unemployed to carry out the task.

Granted, simply having a sudden pool of available manpower does not necessarily translate into getting major projects underway (plus BP has not exactly proven itself an expert in building levees). Then there’s the issue of parity: Is it unfair to assume that career fishermen will agree to be re-purposed into large-scale construction jobs, and to go to work for the company that’s responsible for ruining their homes and businesses?

Still, when the alternative is potentially long-term unemployment, other questions tend to take a backseat, as we’ve found with the ARRA. Also Rigamer stresses that giving financially-ruined Gulf residents some way to regain their autonomy is crucial:

“The most demeaning thing you can do to the Gulf residents is force them to wait in line for their chance to make a claim against BP and have them depend on monthly checks to from them to survive…. The worst thing you could do to them is force them to become dependent on the very company that put them in this mess to begin with. The Gulf victims cannot afford to lose their autonomy.”

The Morning Dig: Jon Stewart Takes on the U.S. Addiction to Oil

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
An Energy-Independent Future
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Daily Show has a very funny look at how U.S. presidents over more than four decades have vowed to make this country energy independent — and have failed. The video is above.

• Detroit is razing some depressed neighborhoods to try to counteract the city’s long, downward slide. (NYT)

• The New York Times has a long investigation into why the Deepwater Horizon’s Blowout Preventer failed to work. (NYT)

Slate is running an online urban transportation project soliciting ideas from its readers. (Slate)

• New York City placed 60 pianos in public places today to encourage people to express their musical talents. (AP)

• More cutbacks have been proposed to New York’s subways and buses. (NYT)

• In the wake of the Gulf oil spill, Congressman Earl Blumenauer says we have to address transportation in a serious way. (Streetsblog)

Battling Our Oil Dependence Once and For All: A Blueprint

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

oil-drillingThis is a guest post by Peter Lehner, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The unfolding Gulf tragedy underscores the dire consequences of scraping the bottom of the barrel for energy. As the President noted in his speech this week, the unavoidable fact is that we have a paltry 2% of the world’s oil reserves but account for 20% of global consumption. Slaking this enormous thirst, the President noted, drives companies to drill in deep ocean waters since “we’re running out of places to drill on and in shallow water.”

We need a new direction that moves America beyond oil and other dirty fuels. This is admittedly a huge challenge: The U.S. consumes the equivalent of the 19,000 or so barrels of sludge released daily by the BP geyser in less than two minutes. Yet this eye-popping consumption level also affords opportunities to address our energy needs by focusing on saving oil rather than scouring the ends of the earth for more.

The good news is that we’ve already made progress thanks to the Obama Administration, which took a big step forward with the new national vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards adopted last year. For the first time in decades, the fuel economy performance bar for the national fleet of cars and trucks is rising, which is projected to save about two million barrels of oil a day by 2030, or about 10% of current consumption. New standards for renewable fuels and heavy trucks are being developed as I type this, and they will drive our oil dependence down too.

But we can go much, much further. As I have said and written before, the first order of business is a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. In his speech this week, the President mentioned the House bill championed by Congressmen Markey and Waxman, a bill that would squeeze oil imports further via investments in electrification of our vehicle fleet, new transportation infrastructure such as commuter rail, and firm limits on heat-trapping pollution that would encourage enhanced oil recovery by making the injection of carbon dioxide into dry wells — a tried-and-true technique — more economically feasible.

What few realize is that Congress has another set of powerful tools available in other pending legislation: The transportation law is one of the nation’s biggest investment policies ($70 billion per year, or more than one-fifth of the nation’s total investment in transportation). This law expired last September, and Congress has moved slowly to renew it. This is bad news since current law promotes our addiction to oil. It is a massive highway-centered regime that includes a confusing tangle of 108 programs often separated into separate fiefdoms with thousands of earmarked pork-barrel projects further complicating the picture.

To its credit, the House Transportation Committee unveiled a re-authorization proposal last summer that diverges from the status quo by eliminating or consolidating wasteful programs, focusing more on energy and climate issues, and devoting more resources to fuel-efficient transportation infrastructure. But even that proposal doesn’t go far enough. What we need is an entirely new direction in transportation, as advocated by Transportation for America, the largest, most diverse transportation group in the United States made up of such groups as AARP, the American Heart Association, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, and our organization, NRDC.

Transportation for America groups believe it’s time to build a modern transportation system, one that runs efficiently, is funded wisely, and provides all of us with more options that ensure we all can get where we need to go regardless of age, ability, or income. (more…)

Inside the World of Offshore Drilling (Gallery)

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

There’s plenty of uproar surrounding the (still not resolved) Gulf oil spill, from reports of a possible second spill to demands for new regulations on offshore drilling.

But how much do we really know about the process used to extract oil from beneath the oceans? The fact is that the now-destroyed Deepwater Horizon was just one of about 700 mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) currently cutting new wells into oil-rich regions of the sea floor. Transocean, Noble Corporation, Diamond Offshore, ENSCO, and a number of other companies own and operate a variety of platforms to drill seafloor wells in different water depths. And 243 of those drilling platforms are currently stationed in the Gulf of Mexico. (The North Sea, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia also have over 100 platforms stationed nearby.)

Before drilling, ships survey the ocean floor to identify rock formations similar to those around other successful wells. After drilling — which can take weeks or months and reach 5 miles down — successful wells are sealed until a permanent platform is anchored over the new well. The drilling rig moves to a new site to start another well.

Click the photo below to view our gallery of the rig styles used for varying water depths, and the technology needed to drill miles into the earth’s crust. All text and images are by Tim Sheehan.

The Infrastructure of Offshore Drilling

Are LEED Buildings Filled With Toxic Air (Any More Than Regular Buildings)?

Monday, June 7th, 2010

gas-maskAmidst all the debate over whether they bring any benefit — not to mention how much they cost — one point may be getting lost: Are LEED buildings in fact safe to live/work in? A new report from the nonprofit group Environment & Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) argues that the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating system, which is of course intended to promote energy efficiency, is in fact resulting in buildings filled with “unhealthy” air.

The reason, the study claims, is that the LEED system favors said energy efficiency over indoor air quality. Many corporations and businesses have adopted LEED standards quickly and painlessly, without necessarily understanding that the tactics used for energy conservation have a side effect: They often reduce the exchange of indoor and outdoor air within a building, which can cause synthetic chemicals to become concentrated inside. According to an EHHI press release:

EHHI is especially concerned that the LEED programme is now providing the false impression that the buildings it certifies protect human health. LEED’s highest rating, Platinum, is attainable without earning any credits for indoor air quality protection.

And as John Wargo, lead author of the study, and Professor of Risk Analysis and Environmental Policy at Yale, points out: “Although LEED has effectively encouraged energy efficiency in buildings, tighter buildings often concentrate chemicals released from building materials, cleaning supplies, fuel combustion, pesticides and other hazardous substances.” These chemicals are no joke — there’s the ever-controversial phthalates used in walls and floors, the perfluorinated chemicals found in most office carpeting, and the short-chain chlorinated paraffins found in flame retardants.

Granted, there’s an underlying point to be made here: Non-LEED buildings are being constructed and filled with the exact same chemicals (and chances are, if you’re reading this from your office, you’re surrounded by them right now). The difference being highlighted here is that, in LEED buildings, there’s less air circulation, so the concentration of these chemicals is somewhat higher. And while every one of the above-named chemicals is listed as “of concern” to the EPA, toxicology studies are still unclear as to what, if any, level of exposure is harmful to humans.

We’re not suggesting that it’s necessarily a good idea to breathe in any or all of these substances every day. But it’s worth asking, do the environmental benefits of a LEED building counterbalance, if not outweigh, the possible health threats of a group of chemicals the effects of which remain largely unknown?

Is the Low Gas Tax Costing You More Money on Car Repairs?

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

gas-taxWe keep gas taxes low in this country - heck, the federal gas tax hasn’t been raised a cent since 1993 (which, when you consider inflation, means that it’s worth practically nothing — which is why the federal Highway Trust Fund is insolvent). But despite the fact that raising the tax is, well, akin to political suicide, are states’ efforts to keep the tax low actually costing drivers more in the long run?

Karl Sieg, vice president of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Pittsburgh section, certainly thinks so, and he’s basing this view on the following data: According to multiple estimates, the cost of damage to vehicles from rough roads is around $300 to $400 per year, with some measures going as high as $750. (Remember all those hidden costs of driving? Here they are.)

Meanwhile, Sieg points out, a 25-cent-per-gallon increase in Pennsylvania’s gas tax — which was raised in 1997 to its current 32.3 cents, and is eaten away by the fact that construction costs have risen 55% since then — would result in more than $1.5 billion of revenue. And “for a driver who goes 15,000 miles a year at 25 miles per gallon, the annual cost [of the tax increase] would be $150.”

So yeah, that math is pretty convincing. Now let’s try getting the message across to voters. Starting now.

RELATED: What Does $600 Million Get You? In PA, a D- Roads and Transit System

What Caused the BP Rig to Explode? The Engineers Explain

Monday, May 24th, 2010

oil-spill-gas-flareA month after the initial incident, we are still trying to understand, not to mention stop, the environmental disaster that resulted from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, the submersible drilling rig that may lead to the utter devastation of the entire Gulf of Mexico region. ut the precise cause of the disaster has been enshrouded in excuses, corporate obfuscation, and political blustering. To clear up the issue, the folks at Oil Drum have consulted with a number of drilling and completion engineers and put together a plausible timeline of precisely what went down in Deepwater Horizon’s final hours. While it is a fact-based interpretation rather than a statement of absolutes, the chronology provides a heavily detailed picture, complete with charts and graphs. It begins with the following:

1. The well had reached a depth of 13,293 ft below the sea floor. The final string of production casing from the wellhead at the sea floor to total depth had been put in the hole, and cemented in place on April 19, 2010. 2. Only 51 barrels of cement were used according to the well plan. This was not sufficient to ensure a seal between the 7-inch production casing and the previously cemented 9 7/8-inch protection casing. 3. Mud had been lost to the reservoir while drilling the bottom portion of the well (this is called “lost circulation”). It usually indicates good reservoir quality, an interval of lower pressure or both, and can result in an enlarged wellbore or “washout”. The significance of this is that it might have been difficult to create a good cement seal between the casing and the formation…. 4. The cement contained a nitrogen additive to make it lighter so that it would flow more easily and better fill the area between the casing and the lost circulation-washout zone. This also may have decreased its sealing effectiveness. Gas from the reservoir may have further diluted the viscosity of the cement. 5. While waiting approximately 20 hours for the cement to dry on April 20, the crew began displacing the drilling fluid (“mud”) in the wellbore and riser with sea water before setting a cement plug and moving off location. This mud was pumped into tanks at the surface, and then onto a platform supply vessel alongside the rig.

Meanwhile at the New Yorker, environmental reporter Elizabeth Kolbert offers a more succinct explanation

:

In an immediate sense, the causes of the catastrophe are technical. Apparently, the Deepwater Horizon well was inadequately sealed, and natural gas built up inside it. When workers on the rig tried to activate the well’s blowout preventer, it failed. An attempt to activate the blowout preventer after the fact, using undersea robots, also proved unsuccessful. Another effort to cap the leak, by using what amounted to a hundred-ton steel funnel, flopped as well. Last week, BP finally succeeded in inserting a mile-long tube into the riser leading from the well. The company said that it was capturing a thousand barrels of oil a day, which is what it originally claimed that the well was leaking; nevertheless, crude continued to pour into the Gulf.

Granted, as Kolbert notes, the larger issue is that we are going to greater and greater lengths (and taking greater risks) to extract oil from the earth. The solution to which is another discussion entirely.