This Evolution Will Be Televised

CHRISTOPHER LAWTON
Wall Street Journal
February 24, 2009

Amid mounting environmental concerns, TV manufacturers are racing to make energy-efficient sets, with some now launching "eco" branded TVs.

Vizio Inc., Funai Electric Co. and Sharp Corp., for instance, recently unveiled TVs that claim power savings that exceed the U.S. government's latest "Energy Star" standards for TVs by as much as 29%. Samsung Electronics Co., Sony Corp. and Panasonic Corp., are also launching energy-efficient TVs.

Some of the TVs, such as one model from Vizio's "EcoHD" models, use fewer or different lamps to illuminate the screen, thereby reducing power use. Funai Electric, which manufactures and distributes Philips-branded flat-panel TVs in the U.S., has two series of eco TVs that save power through a dimming technology that adjusts the brightness of the backlight on the LCD panel based on the ambient light in the room.

Most TVs still consume a small amount of power when they are turned off -- something Sony targeted when it came up with an energy-savings switch on some models that cuts off the TV's power consumption when the set is off without interfering with other devices, such as a DVR. The TV also comes with a motion sensor that turns off the device's backlight if no motion is detected in the room after a certain period of time.

The rush for eco-friendly TVs comes as many consumers are looking for ways to save money on their utility bills. According to the California Energy Commission, TVs rank third in the amount of power used in a home, behind heating-and-cooling systems and refrigerators. When associated devices -- cable boxes or game consoles -- are included, TV set-ups consume roughly 10% of the electricity in a home, the commission says.

TV makers may also be working to pre-empt new energy regulations. While the Energy Star standard is voluntary, the California Energy Commission is considering mandating specific energy standards for TVs sold in California by 2011. Under the proposed rules, a 42-inch TV sold in California must consume 183 watts or less, which translates to 183 watt-hours when it's on for an hour, dropping to 115.5 watts by 2013. Currently, a 40- to 42-inch LCD TV consumes 200 to 250 watts of electricity, according to the LCD TV Association.

Many TV makers aren't waiting for regulations to go into effect. Some 70% of world-wide flat-panel display shipments will have green features by 2012, up from 20% in 2008, predicts research firm DisplaySearch.

The new TVs are finding favor with some consumers. After getting a $186 electric bill in early December, Matt Walters, a Web developer in Richmond, Va., decided to look for ways to reduce his electricity use. He quickly targeted his 50-inch plasma TV, which has a digital video recorder, Blu-ray player and other devices connected to it.

"I started looking for devices that were more guilty than others," says Mr. Walters, 29. "The plasma TV was one of the first things" he identified.

Mr. Walters bought a few power strips to connect the TV and other devices together and got in the habit of turning it off when he wasn't using it. When his electric bill arrived the next month, he says to his surprise he saved $27. He plans to pay more attention to the power use of the electronics he buys, and adds that he would consider an energy-efficient TV for his next purchase.

Continued

Friedman: "Startups, Not Bailouts"

Our best business/tech cheerleader reasons on making clean-tech lemonade out of toxic asset lemons. Points off for a solar-centric references, but you have to love the sentiments.
Thanks to Kevin McGee of TerraNova for his tireless prognosticating.

Start Up the Risk-Takers

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
February 22, 2009

Reading the news that General Motors and Chrysler are now lining up for another $20 billion or so in government aid — on top of the billions they’ve already received or requested — leaves me with the sick feeling that we are subsidizing the losers and for only one reason: because they claim that their funerals would cost more than keeping them on life support. Sorry, friends, but this is not the American way. Bailing out the losers is not how we got rich as a country, and it is not how we’ll get out of this crisis.

G.M. has become a giant wealth- destruction machine — possibly the biggest in history — and it is time that it and Chrysler were put into bankruptcy so they can truly start over under new management with new labor agreements and new visions. When it comes to helping companies, precious public money should focus on start-ups, not bailouts.

You want to spend $20 billion of taxpayer money creating jobs? Fine. Call up the top 20 venture capital firms in America, which are short of cash today because their partners — university endowments and pension funds — are tapped out, and make them this offer: The U.S. Treasury will give you each up to $1 billion to fund the best venture capital ideas that have come your way. If they go bust, we all lose. If any of them turns out to be the next Microsoft or Intel, taxpayers will give you 20 percent of the investors’ upside and keep 80 percent for themselves.

If we are going to be spending billions of taxpayer dollars, it can’t only be on office-decorating bankers, over-leveraged home speculators and auto executives who year after year spent more energy resisting changes and lobbying Washington than leading change and beating Toyota.

I’ve been traveling all across the country on a book tour, and every evening I return to my hotel with my pockets full of business cards from inventors in clean energy. Our country is still bursting with innovators looking for capital. So, let’s make sure all the losers clamoring for help don’t drown out the potential winners who could lift us out of this. Some of our best companies, such as Intel, were started in recessions, when necessity makes innovators even more inventive and risk-takers even more daring.

Yes, we have to shore up the banking system, which underpins everything; and finding a fair way to prevent hardworking people, who played by the rules, from losing their homes to foreclosure is both right and essential for stability.

But beyond that, let’s think, talk and plan in more aspirational ways. We’re down, but we’re not out. As we invest taxpayer money, let’s do it with an eye to starting a new generation of biotech, info-tech, nanotech and clean-tech companies, with real innovators, real 21st-century jobs and potentially real profits for taxpayers. Our motto should be, “Start-ups, not bailouts: nurture the next Google, don’t nurse the old G.M.’s.”

To be fair, the stimulus package that the Obama team and the Democrats in Congress recently passed — with virtually no Republican help — goes some way toward doing just that. Hat’s off for that. Now let’s do more.

The renewable-energy business — wind, solar and solar thermal (geothermal?!-ed) — was almost dead in this country. Most new projects stopped last fall because they depended for their financing on selling their renewable energy tax credits to Wall Street firms. As those Wall Street firms went bust or suffered steep losses, they had no need for tax credits because they had no profits to offset. The stimulus package created a mechanism for renewable energy innovators to bypass Wall Street and monetize their tax credits directly through the U.S. Treasury, for any project that starts between now and the end of 2010.

The wind and solar industries in America “were dead in the fourth quarter,” said John Woolard, chief executive of BrightSource Energy, which builds and operates cutting-edge solar-thermal plants in the Mojave Desert. Almost five gigawatts of new solar-thermal projects — the equivalent of five big nuclear plants — at various stages of permitting were being held up because of a lack of financing.

“All of these projects will now go ahead,” said Woolard. “You are talking about thousands of jobs ... We really got something right in this legislation.”

These jobs will be in engineering, constructing and operating huge solar systems and wind farms and manufacturing new photovoltaics. Together they will drive innovation in all these areas — and move wind and solar technology down the cost-volume learning curve so they can compete against fossil fuels and become export industries at the “ChinIndia price,” that is the price at which they can scale in China and India.

That is how taxpayer money should be used to stimulate: limited financing, for a limited time, targeted on an industry bristling with new technology start-ups that, with a little push from Uncle Sam, won’t just survive this crisis but help us thrive when it is over. We need, and the world needs, an America that is thriving not just surviving.

Q: Where is GSHP suitable in the US?

A: Pretty much anywhere there's ground and buildings.



















The white area represents "Area Suitable for Geothermal Heat Pumps (entire US)."

Word is that the Joint Explanatory Statement Division - A, which is part of the official legislative history, specifies the full $400M for EERE R&D on geothermal (page 24). This should provide DOE with sufficient funding to pursue aggressive programs in EGS, Unidentified Hydrothermal, Co-Produced & Geo-Pressured, Resource Evaluation, Direct Use, and Ground Source Heat Pumps. There should be a new FOA for geothermal technologies - similar to last year's - hitting the street soon. There should be additional FOA's covering stimulus opportunities to appear within the next two months.

Also, there is an additional $400M specified to create an ARPA-E, as well as up to $350M for Department of Defense related renewables research.

The 30% Solution

The Stimulus Bill to be signed by President Obama today eliminates the $2,000 limit on the 30% tax credit for homeowners who install geothermal heat pump systems in 2009 and later years.

The Stimulus Bill also establishes grants in lieu of tax credits for geothermal heat pumps installed in commercial buildings. H.R. 1424 previously established the new 10% investment tax credit for geothermal systems, extended these credits through 2016 and allowed them to be used to offset the alternative minimum tax (AMT). By including geothermal heat pumps within the definition of “energy property” in the Energy Credit language, geothermal heat pump systems placed in service after October 3, 2008 will now also be subject to a 5-year depreciation period.

The legislation also dramatically expands support for the Department of Energy’s geothermal research, development, demonstration and deployment efforts. The Bush Administration had sought to close down these efforts, but Congress authorized a broad, new advanced geothermal research program in 2007 as part of the energy bill and has now provided the funds to carry it out. The stimulus bill sets aside $400 million for geothermal technology research, development and deployment efforts at DOE.

“The DOE geothermal research program has been starved for years,” commented Karl Galwell of the Geothermal Energy Association. “The 2007 Advanced Geothermal Research and Development Act provides a framework for an exciting new DOE program, and the stimulus bill gives them resources needed to implement this initiative,” Gawell added.

While most of the research funds will be targeted towards "Big G" Geothermal R&D, there will be money for GSHP as well.

Renewable Heat Incentive & GSHP in UK

UK Government Unveils Plan To Slash Household CO2 By 2050

| Sourced From Carbon Offset Daily & EasyBourse |

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- The U.K. government Thursday unveiled plans to reduce household emissions of carbon dioxide to almost zero by 2050 through energy efficiency measures and the use of renewable and low-carbon heating and power sources.

The plans, which are being put out to consultation for 12 weeks, include providing cavity wall and loft insulation for all suitable properties by 2015, extending the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target scheme to 2012 and rolling out low-cost home energy audits.

The government wants to reduce carbon emissions from the household and domestic sector, which accounts for 27% of the total, to achieve its targeted 80% cut in overall emissions by 2050. The U.K. also has a binding European Union target to boost renewable energy use to 15% by 2020 from around 2% now.

“Energy efficiency and low-carbon energy are the fairest routes to curbing emissions, saving money for families, improving our energy security and insulating us from volatile fossil fuel prices,” Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband told a news conference.

Householders would be encouraged to install energy efficiency measures and low-carbon heat and power sources such as solar panels, combined heat and power boilers and ground source heat pumps through the feed-in-tariff and the renewable heat incentive.

The feed-in-tariff for small scale electricity generation is due to start in April 2010 and the renewable heat incentive, which is to be partly funded by utilities, is due to begin in 2011, Miliband said.
The CERT scheme already has funding of an additional GBP350 million from utility companies and the government is looking to extend the scheme to 2012 and increase the current energy efficiency scheme by 20%.

It is hoped that communities will also get involved in projects such as district heating which could use more efficient CHP technology and renewable energy sources such as biomass, Miliband said.
The Renewable Energy Association welcomed the government’s heat and energy efficiency strategy but said the RHI and feed-in-tariff needed to be introduced together by 2010 at the latest.
“Heat is the biggest use of energy in the U.K. and renewable heat technologies are often cheap, allowing households to protect themselves from dramatic fluctuations in gas bills. In addition the renewable heat industry offers huge potential for immediate job creation,” the REA said.

The U.K.’s leading business organization, the Confederation of British Industry, said the plan for households needed to be extended across other sectors of the economy.

“Business has the potential to deliver massive savings as a provider of energy efficient solutions but we need to see clearer measures to kick-start the move towards a low-carbon recovery,” said Neil Bentley, CBI’s director of business environment.

Energy Efficiency Needs a Better Lobby

Rob Day is a pretty darn amazing guy. He's read the more coherent parts of my mind and organized it into a how-to guide for government action. Rob's Cleantech Investing blog is one of the only sites that matter. Here's his latest, published in its entirety, entitled:

Energy Efficiency Needs a Better Lobby!

There are two critical roles for energy efficiency in upcoming 2009 federal legislation. But you almost never hear about them.

First of all, energy efficiency is shovel-ready. In other words, if you’re looking to have an immediate impact on both green-collar jobs creation and cost-effective carbon emissions reductions, you absolutely have to include energy efficiency retrofits into the equation. For example, look at commercial building energy efficiency retrofits: The technology is available already; The nature of the work is service-oriented and building controls and HVAC and lighting are readily “trainable” for new recruits; and the economics often make perfect sense, if only regulatory support would help address the upfront capital cost hurdle.

And yet what I hear from folks battling inside the Beltway right now is that energy efficiency support has been one of the items on the chopping block in all the Stimulus Package horsetrading. Apparently the CBO came out with a report saying that much of the energy efficiency incentives put into the bill wouldn’t have an effect until 5 years out? I haven’t had a chance to review the specifics, but I would find that hard to swallow if true.

And while I’m also a big supporter of renewables, it’s hard to make a case that regulatory support for solar panel manufacturing (for example) would be something that would have a 2009 jobs impact, and in fact much of that market will eventually go overseas. I’m not arguing against support for solar panel manufacturing, we have technology leadership reasons for wanting to pursue that as well, and good green manufacturing jobs should be encouraged in any case. But if your metric is jobs creation in 2009, it’s tough to make the argument that renewables should be prioritized over energy efficiency. And yet, apparently, that’s what the pencil-pushers are doing.

Secondly, energy efficiency could play a critical role in any climate change regulation that comes out.

To begin with, from a “wedges” perspective we cannot afford to ignore the role energy efficiency must play in any comprehensive climate change effort. It’s not sufficient, but it sure is necessary.

Also, from a timing perspective, once again energy efficiency shines versus alternatives like sequestration and renewables. It’s reductions we can do immediately, not after further waited-for innovations.

Finally, and most tactically, energy efficiency based carbon offsets may be very powerful in bringing key Senators “onsides” with carbon cap-and-trade regulation. As we all watch how critical it is to reach 60 votes in the Senate, it’s important to recognize that major regions of the country consider themselves to be at a severe disadvantage in a cap-and-trade scheme, because (rightly or wrongly) they feel they lack the renewable generation potential (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) of other regions. Specifically, the US southeast feels disadvantaged versus the west or northeast. It would be very easy for regional blocks to stand in the way of effective cap-and-trade regulation.

But of course, one potential “resource” that the US southeast has is lots and lots of inefficient air conditioners. It’s an easily mined source of offsets to help them meet their requirements — if energy efficiency-based offsets are included as a key source.

Energy efficiency does face some technical challenges (for example, establishing accurate baselines and proving “additionality”) if it’s to be included effectively in any scheme. It gets complex quickly. We’ll talk another time about these complexities and possible ways to deal with them.

But it’s worth wrestling with these details, because otherwise it’s tough to see how we get to 60. And without that, the political efforts of a lot of people who are currently ignoring energy efficiency may be wasted anyway.

Now the Story Can Begin to be Told...

From Joseph Romm in Grist:

On Friday January 16, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program actually released four major Synthesis and Assessment reports. You may remember the last report the CCSP released -- U.S. Geological Survey stunner: Sea-level rise in 2100 will likely "substantially exceed" IPCC projections, SW faces "permanent drying" by 2050. I was told by scientists knowledgeable about the CCSP process that all of the major impact reports were slowed down in the review process to make sure they came out after the election.

So what are the reports the Bushies have tried to bury? From the CCSP website:

Final Report of Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1 (Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region) is posted online. See also press release from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and EPA web-page. (posted 16 Jan 2009)

Final Report of Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2 (Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems) is posted. See also press release from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (posted 16 Jan 2009)

Final Report of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3 (Aerosol properties and their impacts on climate) is posted online. See also press release from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (posted 16 Jan 2009)

Final Report of Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2 (Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes) is posted. See also press release from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (posted 16 Jan 2009)

These are all substantive and comprehensive studies, almost on a par with the IPCC's Fourth Assessment.

Northeast Greenhouse Gas Allowance Auction

The second auction of allowances for greenhouse gas emissions held by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was a robust auction that yielded $106.5 million for use by the 10 RGGI states, according to Potomac Economics, an independent market monitor. The auction was held on December 17, and while some feared that the economic situation would depress the prices for the emission allowances, in reality the prices went up, selling at a clearing price of $3.38 per allowance. That's about 10% higher than the clearing price of $3.07 per allowance that was reached in the first auction, which was held in late September 2008. RGGI (pronounced "Reggie") is the first market-based, mandatory cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Ten northeastern and mid-Atlantic states are participating in the program, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. See the RGGI press release (PDF 146 KB) and Web site. Download Adobe Reader.

RGGI helps reduce the region's greenhouse gas emissions in two ways: first, the steady reduction of the emissions cap will eventually force electric generators to find ways to cut their emissions, primarily through energy efficiency or renewable energy. As the cap decreases, the rising cost of the allowances will effectively add an increasing carbon price to traditional fossil-energy combustion, improving the cost competitiveness of cleaner alternatives. But the auction also yields a new source of revenue for the participating states. Massachusetts, for instance, gained $14.8 million from the latest auction, the bulk of which was directed toward utility energy efficiency programs, heating system upgrades for the homes of families earning low incomes, and a new "green communities" effort. The funds are also supporting a new $5 million training program for energy auditors, insulation installers, and other energy efficiency technicians, creating skilled labor needed for the "green collar" opportunities that are generated by the concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See the press release from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

The RGGI states certainly seem to think the process works, as they have already embarked on a new effort to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle fuels. Governor Patrick announced on January 5 that the 10 RGGI states are teaming up with Pennsylvania to create a regional Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which will be a market-based, technologically neutral policy to address the carbon content of fuels. The standard will require reductions in the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of useful energy, and it should promote a gradual shift to advanced biofuels and to cars powered with electricity. See the governor's press release.

After the Ball is Over...

An auld song from the grandparents has been kickin' round my head today:

After the ball is over
After the break of morn
After the dancers' leaving
After the stars are gone
Many a heart is aching
If you could read them all
Many the hopes that have vanished
After the ball

Well, I guess you had to hear it in 3/4 time...

So now let's get to work. The draft American Recovery and Reinvestment Act details. Here are areas that may touch on GSHP in one way or another:

Local Government Energy Efficiency Block Grants: $6.9 billion to help state and local governments make investments that make them more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions.
Energy Efficiency Housing Retrofits: $2.5 billion for a new program to upgrade HUD sponsored low-income housing to increase energy efficiency, including new insulation, windows, and furnaces.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research: $2 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities to foster energy independence, reduce carbon emissions, and cut utility bills.
Advanced Battery Loans and Grants: $2 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee and Grants Program, to support U.S. manufacturers of advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems.
Energy Efficiency Grants and Loans for Institutions: $1.5 billion for energy sustainability and efficiency grants and loans to help school districts, institutes of higher education, local governments, and municipal utilities implement projects that will make them more energy efficient.
Home Weatherization: $6.2 billion to help low-income families reduce their energy costs by weatherizing their homes and make our country more energy efficient.
Department of Defense Research: $350 million for research into using renewable energy to power weapons systems and military bases.
Alternative Buses and Trucks: $400 million to help state and local governments purchase efficient alternative fuel vehicles to reduce fuel costs and carbon emissions.
Industrial Energy Efficiency: $500 million for energy efficient manufacturing demonstration projects.
Diesel Emissions Reduction: $300 million for grants and loans to state and local governments for projects that reduce diesel emissions, benefiting public health and reducing global warming.
Department of Energy: $400 million for the Advanced Research Project Agency – Energy to support high-risk, high- payoff research into energy sources and energy efficiency.

New York Times Editorial

A bit too much of the ol' "on the one hand..." caveat searching for dangers of a "drilling free-for-all," but otherwise right on the money. -Ed.

"The next administration should commit to developing this extraordinary resource."

January 14, 2009

Editorial

Geothermal Future

To most people the word “geothermal” means hot springs and geysers — like parts of Iceland or Yellowstone National Park where water is heated by the presence of magma near the surface of the earth. But the earth’s heat lies below everywhere, and it offers a virtually untapped energy reserve of enormous potential with a very short list of drawbacks.

In 2006, a panel led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology surveyed the prospects for electricity production from enhanced geothermal systems. Its conclusions were conservative but very optimistic. The panel suggested that with modest federal support, geothermal power could play a critical role in America’s energy future, adding substantially to the nation’s store of renewable energy and more than making up for coal-burning power plants that would have to be retired.

Following up on the M.I.T. study and a separate survey of its own, the Bureau of Land Management issued a decision last month that would open up as many as 190 million acres to leases for geothermal exploration and development. These lands are mostly in the West, where hot rock lies closer to the surface than it generally does in the East.

There is a lot of research yet to be done about geothermal sources, new techniques for deep drilling and energy generation at the surface. But the basics are clear enough. Water is injected deep into the earth where it absorbs heat from the surrounding rock. As the fluid returns to the surface, that heat is used to generate electricity. The fluid is then re-injected. The system forms a closed loop. It creates almost no emissions and is entirely renewable. It also occupies a smaller surface area than either solar or wind power.

Read More