Using the Planet's Heat to Cool the Planet

Of course, why didn't I think of that? Geothermal must be the answer since it's clearly the most beautifully paradoxical solution to global warming. Heat from the planet helps us reduce CO2 emissions and cool the planet.

A study released this past week says that while geothermal is not the least expensive clean technology for electricity production right now (that'd be wind), it's got the steepest R&D curve and should/will be the cheapest with appropriate investment. The fact that so little investment has been poured into it to date is criminal.

The idea of a geothermal system is very elegant: drill down to a geothermal hot spot. Create two routes, one in and one out. Drop water down, steam rises through the vent and turns a turbine. Water falls and steam rises. It's a perpetual motion machine (except it doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics since energy is being put into the system in the form of the earth's heat). OK, so maybe it's a bit more complicated than that (how do you make sure the pipes don't melt?etc), but it's surely one of the answers we need in solving our energy crunch.

The downside has always been that these plants are large and expensive to build, and that they're often located far from the cities which need their electricity. So knowing this, let's get the government involved and create a public works program. The benefits would arguably be greater than building a bunch of bridges. I'm generally against government involvement, except when it comes to issues such as these where an externality needs to be addressed. The environment and global warming are just such an externality.

PS, I've been gone for a while working pretty intensely on a consulting project and have let the blog slip a bit, but believe me this subject has not been forgotten. I hope to have more time in the near future to share my thoughts/analysis on the coming Energy Crunch.

LED Lighting: A Case Study

Our company just completed an installation of 4-foot LED fluorescent-replacement tubes for a customer in Pasadena. These tubes use 11.6 watts as opposed to the 32 watts that the most efficient T8 fluorescent tube would use or the 34-40 watts that an inefficient T12 would use.

If LED lighting could save the customer money while providing the same or better light and reducing carbon emissions, it would be one of the best solutions available for going green. So let's use this installation as a case study to see if LEDs can deliver on their promise.

The Economics
The retail price of one LED tube is $59.95. This is much higher than a $2 or $3 fluorescent tube, but if you do the math on the overall cost of the lighting you see that LEDs are an excellent investment.

The 56 LED tubes in this project cost $2,997 more than the cost of fluorescents (not including the fact that you'd have to buy 5 replacement fluorescents by the time one LED tube burns out). But because they use 20.4 fewer watts and are on 24/7, together they will save 10,007 kWh per year which translates to $1,438 in electricity costs EACH YEAR. So even if you exclude savings on maintenance and disposal fees associated with the mercury in fluorescents, the electricity savings will pay for the LED tubes in 2.1 years.

Add to this the fact that the City of Pasadena has a terrific energy efficiency rebate program and our customer will see a payback on this project in 0.6 years. This is an astonishing return on investment for any capital investment.

Another way to look at it is the net present benefit of the project, since the LEDs will save electricity for their entire 50,000 hour lifetime. Over the life of the tubes (approx. 6 years in a 24/7 usage environment) the net present value of the benefit without the rebate is $5,996.

Verdict: the economics are extremely sound.

The Light Quality/Quantity
One obstacle to the adoption of LED technology is customer concern about the amount of light and the light color. This installation allowed us to test these factors in a real-world environment.

Light Color
The before and after photos only tell part of the story. The camera, like the human eye, adjusts to the light color and amount of light. So the 'before' picture, to the right, looks like it's pretty white. But in the 'after' picture on the left below (really a 'during' picture since the installation was half completed at that point) you can see that the LEDs in the center and left aisles look white whereas the fluorescents on the right aisle look yellow/orange. We measured a color temperature of 4200K under the fluorescent fixtures and 6200K under the LED fixtures. Pure daylight is generally in the 5400-5800K range, so the LEDs are putting out a high quality light.

Light Quantity
We took before and after footcandle readings from three locations: directly under the fixture, 3 feet from the narrow edge of the fixture (to the side), and 5 feet from the broad edge of the fixture (near the wall). As expected, the LED lights were about 7% brighter directly under the light, just as bright off to the side, and 8% dimmer near the wall. So the amount of light is the same, but the distribution is more focused.

Verdict: the light quality/quantity is the same if not better.

The Environment
Why do I mention the environment last? Because while I think it's important, not all customers value it the most. And I believe that to make a meaningful impact on climate change or dependence on foreign oil we have to find solutions have a beneficial impact on the environment, but would make sense for the customer on an economic basis alone. To paraphrase Mary Poppins, saving money is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine of carbon reduction go down.

In this case, the environmental impact is hugely positive. First, LED tubes have no mercury. But perhaps more important are the carbon emissions prevented. As we mentioned above the lights in this project will use 10,007 fewer kWh per year. Using the US Green Building Council's estimate of 1.771 pounds of CO2 per kWh, this translates into a reduction of 17,723 pounds -- almost nine tons -- of CO2 per year.

Verdict: LED lighting is massively beneficial for the environment.

All in all, the project is a success on all fronts. And this is not science fiction. This is happening right now, today, in a parking garage in Pasadena. People are saving money, helping the environment, and reducing the strain on our electric grids all at the same time.

Green Small Business Ideas

I was asked to be a speaker at the Pasadena seminar series, the Art of Business Survival, which is put on by the City of Pasadena, the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, and the Workforce Investment Board. The focus of the seminar was "What it Means to be a Green Business."

The audience was mostly small business owners in Pasadena and surrounding areas. Here's a copy of the presentation:

LED Lighting - Fluorescent Replacements

Sorry for the long delay in my posts, I was on vacation in the green country of Brazil... uhh... researching their sugar ethanol fuel industry. Okay okay, it had more to do with researching their fermented sugarcane, or cachaça, industry.

Today I'm going to do the math on something I've been quite excited about for a while but is now officially here: LED lighting for offices. [Disclaimer: I know it's here because our company, Go Green Solutions, is selling these]



Why am I so excited? Simply put, LEDs are the future. The ones I'm talking about specifically today are fluorescent tube replacements, which will be especially important since these tubes are almost omnipresent in our office buildings. So much so that 500-600 million fluorescent tubes are replaced each year.

OK, first let's look at the qualitative differences:
-LED lighting has no mercury. Fluorescents do, and have to be disposed of as hazardous waste
-The LED tubes we've tested use 1/4 the wattage (more on this later)
-Under LED tubes you get twice the footcandles at 6 feet!
-The LED tubes last ~6 times as long: 50,000 hours vs. 8,000
-No flicker
-No hum or buzz
-More full spectrum light. Honestly, we've set these tubes up side by side with fluorescents and it's just no contest. The LED light looks like real light. The fluorescent looks like the light they'd give you in an insane asylum.

Of course there is a hurdle: price. And it sure seems like a sizable hurdle right now. Our LED tubes are retailing for $59.95 which seems steep when compared to a cool white fluorescent that may cost $4 or $5. But let's factor in the energy costs. Our LED tube uses 10 watts. The cool white fluorescent T8 four foot tube uses 40 watts. At 10 hours a day, 260 days a year (standard office usage, assuming they turn the lights off at night) that's a difference of about 75 kWh per year, or $11 in energy costs per tube per year!

As you can see from the chart below, the bulbs will break even after four years, and over the course of their lifetime end up saving you over $360. And that's not even including the cost of labor for replacing the ~5 extra fluorescents that burned out in between, or the costs of disposing of them as hazardous waste.



That's pretty significant, and pretty much a no-brainer already. But what about locations such as supermarkets and manufacturing facilities that are running 20-24 hours per day? I did another calculation at 22 hours per day, 365 days per year. The LED tubes break even in 1.5 years.



And of course, financial considerations aren't the only ones. Each tube you replace will save 2,625 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over its lifetime. Just imagine if instead of those 500-600 million fluorescent tubes that are bought each year, we were installing these LED tubes. That'd remove close to 14 million tons of CO2 from the air per year.



As I said, the future is here, and it's... [resists urge to say "bright"]... promising.

LEED AP Certified

Good news: today I passed the LEED for Existing Buildings exam with a score of 190 out of 200. So I'm a LEED Accredited Professional.

The exam was tough, but it's a good one. It does a good job of covering useful information and strategies regarding outdoor sustainability (landscaping, heat islands, etc), water efficiency, energy efficiency, reduction/reuse/recycling, and indoor environmental quality. In fact, even if you're not taking the exam the Reference Guide is a really useful resource if you're interested in sustainability.

Obviously the test also has questions that focus on the bureaucratic processes related to dealing with the USGBC during LEED certification, which are less interesting, but useful if you want to get into the green building field as a consultant/designer/architect etc.

Global Sustainability: The Asian Perspective

Here at the offices of Go Green Solutions we've been doing some research into the Asian perspective on global sustainability. Since this issue is going to take a global effort it's vital to know the perspective from the other side of the Pacific. Here's a summary of our thoughts:

Overview:

• China is awakening to the importance of a sustainable economy. But it seems spurred on mostly by local pollution and the goal of energy independence. Global warming is a newer concern, but a major one given its growth and coal reserves. China seems to be waiting for America to take the lead.
• India’s priority is ensuring high economic growth and raising living standards. And while it understands that global warming is a vital issue, it’s projected CO2 emissions in 2030 still won’t approach those of Europe, the U.S., or China (see image below from the Economist). It therefore feels the wealthier countries must take the lead.
• Japan has been a leader in the sustainability movement for a while. Their solar industry is 3rd in the world. They are looking to export their ideas and technology to other countries, such as China.

China

China may be the biggest enigma in the environmental issue right now, and the most important. Three facts jump out at you:

1. During the past four years both China's GDP and its energy consumption have grown at an average of 11% a year
2. China has just passed the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. By 2030 it is projected to emit almost as much as the United States and Europe combined. (Economist, June 5th 2008)
3. China is now bringing 2 full-scale coal plants online every week

Reasons for China to Act Sustainably

China has massive incentives to act. Local pollution caused by acid rain, sulphur dioxide and wastewater is a large and dangerous problem. “Acid rain affects a third of China's land and hundreds of thousands of people die from pollution-related cancer every year” (Economist, June 5th, 2008)

China also needs to protect itself against supply shocks. It doesn’t have the necessary military power to protect shipping lanes that bring the oil needed for its transportation industry, so energy independence is a key factor.

Both local pollution and energy security can be solved by renewable energy, which coincidentally addresses the larger issue of global warming. It is unclear whether China’s commitment to fighting global warming is because of a long-term view or because of these two more immediate issues. The Economist discussed China’s push into renewables: “China is making considerable efforts to boost the amount of energy produced by non-fossil fuels. By 2020 the aim is to generate 15% of energy from renewable sources, up from around 7% in 2005. This is a big step up from the previous goal of 10% by 2020. China's investment in renewable energy last year, about $10 billion, was second only to Germany's.”

The Mood From the People and the Government

According to the Economist article mentioned above, “China is looking to America for its cue. If America commits itself to carbon cuts, China will feel obliged to make some kind of promise too.”

Another article on Chinadialogue.net discusses the fact that China’s former vice-premier, Jiang Chunyun wrote two books on the environment: China’s Ecology: Evolution and Management (2005), and Paying Back Environmental Debts – Explorations in Man-Nature Harmony (2008). The fact that such an influential government official is addressing the issue head-on demonstrates its increasing importance. The article states that “environmental awareness in China – by the government and the people alike -- has moved from an awakening to vigorous growth."

Next month’s Olympic games in Beijing claim to be the first carbon-neutral summer games (or the first at least since oil-skinned ancient Greeks flung discuses and javelins in Mt. Olympus shadow with nary an automobile or coal plant in sight). They will “involve solar power aplenty, tree-planting, banning many cars from the streets and ‘reducing emissions from enterprises’ (temporarily shutting many of them down, presumably). The games, say officials, will produce 1.18m tonnes of CO2 and the countermeasures will save 1.03-1.30m tones” (Economist)

India

India just released their country’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) on June 30th, 2008. The plan addresses eight priority National Missions:
1. Solar Energy
2. Enhanced Energy Efficiency
3. Sustainable Habitat
4. Conserving Water
5. Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem
6. A “Green India”
7. Sustainable Agriculture
8. Strategic Knowledge Platform for Climate Change

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said of the plan: “[it] identifies measures that promote our development objectives while also yielding co-benefits for addressing climate change effectively.”

In a revealing line the report says these national measures would be more successful with assistance from developed countries and pledges that India’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions “will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives.” This has been viewed as a savvy way of reminding the world’s richer countries that they can only control India’s carbon emissions by first reducing their own.

And according to the Economist article: “a senior official in the foreign ministry characterizes America's line as: ‘Guys with gross obesity telling guys just emerging from emaciation to go on a major diet.’”

India does not view itself as a main culprit in global warming, and it’s right to a large extent. It takes the issue seriously and wants to improve sustainability, but its main focus is on economic growth and living standards, and it too is waiting for the U.S. and other wealthy nations to take the lead.

Japan

Japan has long been a leader in the environmental movement:

• With companies such as Sanyo Electric and Sharp leading the way, Japan joins Germany and Spain as the largest solar markets in the world, larger than the U.S.
• The automobile industry has led the way with innovations in hybrid technology, and as a result the Toyota Prius is the top-selling hybrid in the world
• Its Renewable Portfolio Standard law from April 2003 requires electric power companies to use new energy sources, including wind power and solar
• Japan's energy efficiency is the highest in the world, according to a speech by its Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda

Japan’s efforts on sustainability have been prescient and it now sees an opportunity in marketing its green technologies and developments worldwide.

In a speech in January, Japan’s Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda discussed his ambition to lead the world in efforts to cut greenhouse gas emission using Japan's advanced technology on clean energy and energy efficiency. He proposed a "low-carbon society" as a model for the world and said his government plans to establish a "financial mechanism" to encourage developing countries to adopt measures against global warming.

In May this year Japan and China issued a joint statement on protecting the Asian economy that included, among other things, an agreement on the need for all major economies to address climate change. One step they’ve already taken toward that goal is the Sino-Japan Friendship Center for Environmental Protection in Beijing, an 11-story building partially funded by the Japanese government. It monitors pollution and conducts research on new environmental technologies.

Ocean Iron Fertilization - Doing the Math

I wanted to revisit the Ocean Iron Fertilization idea I mentioned in my last blog post, to run the numbers and see if it's worth the controversy. I found out some interesting things.

I compared three approaches for reducing CO2: (1) OIF, (2) replacing 100 million incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent or LED bulbs, and (3) replacing 1 million gas-guzzling cars with electric vehicles. The results are surprising. 1,000 tons of iron seeded into oceans beats both other options combined. And that's a small amount considering scientists are thinking about seeding 200,000 tons of iron into the oceans.

How do these compare to the size of the problem at hand. Consider that in 2030 the U.S. will emit 3.3 billion tons of CO2 into the air. So 40 million tons is barely over 1%. Now think that it would take 159,000 tons of iron to sequester 100% of the U.S.'s 2030 CO2 levels, and ocean iron fertilization begins to sound very intriguing, maybe even worth the risks.

Here are the rough calculations I did:

First off, 1,000 tons of iron seeded into algae blooms could sequester roughly 21 million tons of CO2.



Replacing 100 million light bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescent or LED bulbs could save 15 million tons of CO2.



A shocking finding for me was how little CO2 would be prevented by putting a million EVs on the road. Granted, part of this is because right now a big chunk of electricity comes from burning coal. If we moved more of our electricity generation to renewables, this number might increase. But right now a million EVs would remove less than 4 million tons of CO2, the same as 200 tons of iron fertilization.



On this rough evidence, OIF is definitely worth further investigation.