To Build Solar Panel

SolveClimate has a post on the bizarre efforts of the Republican party to kill what will probably be the largest source of new jobs in coming years – Senate Republicans Kill Renewable Energy and Job Creation Bill. Where’s McCain?.

A Republican minority in the Senate today used procedural tricks to kill the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 — a measure that had overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives on May 21 by a vote of 263 to 160.

The law, among things, would have extended tax incentives crucial to existing green energy businesses, and secured 100,000 jobs now at risk. Sierra Club’s Carl Pope called it “kicking the economy while it’s down”.

Ouch. John McCain should take note. Fellow Senate Republicans are undermining the credibility of his campaign speeches promising economic revitalization. Time for him to take a stand with some straight talk to his party’s saboteurs?

Both Germany and Spain have shown the world what a long-term renewable energy policy can do for a national economy, and how to structure incentives. Both have model programs that start with a 20 year commitment to clean energy. The result?

Clean energy made at home, tens of thousands of green jobs, a booming new clean energy sector, international competitiveness.

The accompanying representational map shows the clean energy Marshall plan waiting for America to embrace. It comes from a presentation provided at a Senate briefing by Tom Mancini of Sandia National Laboratories. He’s the Program Manager for Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). Sandia is prime contractor for the Department of Energy, a national security lab that’s been working on CSP since 1975.

Have a look at his entire set of powerpoints slides housed on the website of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, which organized the Senate briefing.

The main message? Renewable energy industries in the US are on the fast track, ready to deploy utility scale solutions. What’s missing is a sustainable, long-term national policy to support the development of clean energy.

Like the ones Spain and Germany, the world leaders in clean energy, have adopted.

I saw a demo of a desktop 3D printer today from 3D Printing Systems which I thought was worthy of a brief post.

The printer produces items up to about 14 cm wide in each dimension, using rolls of ABS plastic as the input material (hopefully one day a suitable bioplastic input will be available in the not too distant future). At around A$3,500 for the printer it seemed relatively affordable (industrial scale equivalents cost around $2.3 million). The printer accepts STL format models, so they can be created in Google Sketchup, Solidworks etc.

The advent of cheap 3D printing is appearing in the mainstream media now, which makes me wonder if it is on the verge of takeoff – thus enabling distributed manufacturing of a range of goods (albeit of pretty low quality at this point).

EarthTechling has a post on a wind turbine design that works well in light winds – Gearless Turbine Gets Power From Light Winds.

Windtronics has developed a new home wind turbine that could be a practical renewable energy option, even for folks living in areas with light or infrequent winds. The new product is called the Honeywell Wind Turbine and its manufacturer says it features technology capable of converting wind speeds as low as two mph into energy.

The Honeywell Wind Turbine weighs in at just under 185 pounds and measures about six feet in diameter. Windtronics claims it can produce up to 1500 kilowatt-hours annually depending on the wind speeds at a given location and the height at which the turbine is mounted.

Perhaps the turbine’s most unique design point is that it is totally gearless. Instead of gears, it uses a system of magnets and stators that line its outer ring to capture power at the blade tips where speed is greatest. According to Windtronics, this design practically eliminates mechanical resistance and drag thereby allowing the turbine to start turning in winds as low as 0.5 mph and generate energy at 2 mph.

The Boston Globe has an interesting photo essay showing the Gulf of Mexico coast just after the BP oil spill and on the first anniversary of the spill – Gulf oil spill one year later. Looks like there is still plenty of oil floating around…

The Guardian reports that Shell has pulled out of the huge London Array offshore windfarm project.

Shell was accused last night of being greedy and irresponsible as it came under ferocious attack from politicians and environmentalists for its decision to drop a commitment to the biggest offshore wind farm in the world.

Although the environment minister Hilary Benn called the decision to withdraw from the London Array scheme off the Kent coast “very disappointing”, the government was also under attack from opponents who saw the move as a body-blow to UK renewable energy policies. They called for more incentives to encourage wind developments.

Caroline Lucas, Green MEP for the south-east of England, said ministers should urgently reform their approach to clean power schemes and add so-called feed-in tariffs to its energy bill to encourage homeowners to join the fight against climate change. Under the tariffs, those generating electricity from renewable sources would be paid generously for any surplus power they feed to the grid. She said Shell was a company motivated “purely by greed”.

“I cannot condemn Shell strongly enough for this shameful retreat from the London Array wind farm project. It appears that as the last key negotiations over equipment contracts took place, the company lost its nerve and decided to shun its responsibilities in the generation of green energy,” Lucas said. “The loss of one of the three investors in the London Array wind farm is a serious setback for the future of renewable energy in this country, at a time when the UK is already struggling to meet its EU targets for renewables. “Mere days after reporting first-quarter profits of £4bn, Shell has shown its true colours in what can only be described as a PR disaster for the company, and further proof that its media-friendly ‘greenspeak’ is both dishonest and irresponsible.”

Steve Webb, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, believed Shell’s decision “blows a huge hole” in the government’s rhetoric about renewable energy.

Britain was already near the bottom of the European league table on green energy, and now a major investor had decided that other countries offered a better environment for wind power, he said. “If we are to meet our internationally agreed goals on renewable energy, the government needs a radical rethink … Only yesterday the Brown government faced its biggest ever rebellion over its refusal to back new incentives for small-scale renewable generators. Now a flagship wind farm has been undermined by the withdrawal of a major international investor.”

Jerome a Paris has a post at TOD on a wind farm in the Caribbean that he helped finance – Aruba’s New Windfarm.

As Copenhagen ended, unsurprisingly, in confusion, I have the opportunity to give you a more positive tale, and show you it is possible for people – including even bankers amongst them – to work towards a more sustainable future without necessarily endangering our way of life.

In this case, it involves the construction of a windfarm in a place where it will directly replace fuel-oil-burning power plants. As you’ll be able to see below, this wind farm is quite remarkable in a number of ways which means that this experience will not be replicable as easily everywhere, but it shows that there are many places and energy systems which it is possible to materially improve under almost all criterai using renewable energy.

Amongst notable features, one can find:

* at around 60%, it has one of the highest capacity factors in the world, with 50% more power output per turbine than European offshore windfarms…; located on the Eastern coast of the island, it is exposed directly to the trade winds, which are highly regular and almost always in the same direction (allowing to put the turbines very close to one another); their almost constant strength also mean that tear and wear is actually likely to be less than usual, as there are very few brutal changes in regime and torque;

* it is now providing 20% of the island’s overall electricity needs, replacing dirty and expensive fuel-oil in the process. At night, it will produce up to 60% of the demand. And thanks to the highly regular wind regime, this is very stable and predictable production; (even though they pushed for this project to happen, the local power company had quite a shock to see ‘for real’ how big a portion of their system the windfarm has suddenly become – as is still frequent, utilities have trouble taking wind seriously, but it this case the reality was quite compelling);

* the utility will save money on fuel imports and, more importantly, will actually end up with cheaper power: it buys the electricity from the wind farm at a fixed price over 15 years which is roughly equivalent to what it costs to produce electricity from their traditional oil-fired generators with oil prices at $45/bbl. Who wants to bet on oil being consistently under $45 for the next 15 years? In fact, the prime minister of the island, who was present at the inauguration, used the opportunity of that ceremony to announce lower power prices for the poorest households on the island…

Did the fuel briefly achieve recriticality ? Its from Fox, so its hard to take it seriously, but its not aligned with their usual spin so who knows…

Green Building of the week from Inhabitat is this energy-positive house in Sweden – Energy Positive House to Supply Power to Grid in Sweden.

Karin Adalberth, a doctor of building physics, partnered with local green utility company E. ON when she designed the plans for Villa Akarp, which is being built outside the Swedish city of Malmo. Together, the two worked out a plan where the residence would purchase energy from the utility during Sweden’s dark winter months and sell electricity back to the grid during sunny summer months. If calculations are correct, the house will sell back about 4,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually while only purchasing 2,600 kilowatt-hours, creating a positive net energy ratio.

To achieve such lofty green goals, designers plan to implement a ton of energy efficient technologies into Villa Akarp. For one, wool fiber insulation 5.5 decimeters thick will line the home’s walls–compared to a home with insulation one decimeter thick, the extra lining would save the average family about 75 percent in energy costs. Foam insulation will line the building’s foundation, and triple-glazed windows will prevent air from escaping while also letting in lots of natural light. In terms of heat and hot water, the home will use a combination of Passiv Haus heating concepts (using energy already being generated by appliances and other household items to warm the interior), a solar thermal system, and traditional radiators. During the sunny months, 32 square meters of solar panels will produce power.

Inhabitat has an interview with Cradle To Cradle author William McDonough – INHABITAT INTERVIEW: Green Architect & Cradle to Cradle Founder William McDonough.

INHABITAT: What inspired you to write ‘Cradle to Cradle‘ (the book) and launch the Cradle to Cradle system?

William McDonough: From an early age, I was fascinated by differing attitudes towards resources. Growing up in Japan and Hong Kong, I was given my first look at complete material cycles, where waste becomes food, and resources like water are limited and precious. This contrasted greatly with the wastefulness I witnessed when my family moved to the United States, and that difference in attitude left a great impression on me. As a young architect, my thinking continued to evolve. I incorporated elements like solar energy into my designs and began to look closely at the sourcing of materials, but Cradle to Cradle really came to fruition when I met Dr. Michael Braungart. Together we developed the Cradle to Cradle philosophy, which we articulated in Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, which came out in 2002.

INHABITAT: Can you explain how the Cradle to Cradle rating system works – both from the perspective of manufacturers and consumers?

William McDonough: Cradle to Cradle products Certification goes beyond the definition of a rating system or a binary pass/fail seal of approval. Cradle to Cradle is a process for managing the total quality of a product and an engine for business innovation, taking into consideration not only environmental impact but also safety, health and social responsibility. The certification is a continuous and rigorous process, and participating companies hope to move their Basic products toward the achievement of Gold, Silver or Platinum. No single company product has yet achieved Platinum.

Certification takes into account five dimensions: materials as nutrients for safe continuous cycling; development of systems to safely close the loop on our biological and technical nutrients; power all operations with 100% renewable energy; regard water as a precious resource; and finally respect for all people and natural systems.

INHABITAT: I was just talking with Paul Murray at Herman Miller about your contribution to their products and it was really extraordinary how closely related their company’s success is with your input. Was this the first company that you’ve worked with on such an intimate level? What helped shift the ethos of the company’s design culture?

William McDonough: We began to work with them when they stopped producing the Eames chairs out of rosewood – an endangered species. Ultimately, you really don’t want to mess with the icon of a company, but Herman Miller had a person working there who was so passionate about these issues that the company as a whole went ahead and changed the specs to walnut and stopped using endangered wood. It was a really nice thing for them to do.

But really what we’re dealing with here is product quality, and as a result a lot of these attributes you see highlighted by companies are various components that are focused on issues such as carbon reduction, and the like – single attributes. You also see a lot of claims to efficiency, which follows the train of thought “we’re less bad because we’ve reduced our badness by 20 percent.” We don’t want to be selling what we’re not. See, if I look at this sign with the word NO you realize that you’re selling what you’re not.

INHABITAT: In your book Cradle to Cradle, you make the point that when we recycled paper – we are giving up the original quality of the paper – we are losing something. Is most recycling just ‘downcycling’? Do we lose quality with every cycle of recycle?

William McDonough: Right, what we want again is product quality, and so with a company like Herman Miller there is an issue of quality. It’s similar to what we are seeing with Construction Specialties here at GreenBuild – it’s about quality products in a fine system. From the market’s perspective you have to start to say things like this because they highlight that there are things to worry about, and that there are people who are genuinely interested and concerned about these things.

In Cradle to Cradle we addressed something that people may not understand when we proposed a form of producer responsibility over their product. The things we don’t talk about is a “life cycle”, so we don’t think that this material is alive. It’s not. We don’t see it as a consumer product because they can’t consume it. I can’t consume a TV, so we would call that a nutrient. We don’t talk about life cycle, we talk about use periods. We don’t talk about take back, we talk about reverse logistics or intelligent materials pooling. If something was removed from a building right, under our protocols, this is a safe thing to remove. That’s stainless steel, and that’s this, and that’s that, and they are defined. So then you go back into a materials pool.

It’s like a Herman Miller chair that ends up in Mexico City fifteen years from now, if somebody throws it out the back and into the dumpster. Well, the scavengers will just come and grab it. It’s worth something. The reason it’s worth something is that’s steel, and that’s aluminum, and that’s polycarbonates, and that polyethylenes. It’s no longer a chair, it’s part of the materials intelligent pool. So the design is that aluminum can come off and go back to aluminum, the steel goes back to steel. They’re not monstrous hybrids that can’t be separated.

The February ASPO Newsletter is now out. The overall peak is still estimated for 2007.

The item included below discusses their predicted scenario for the current financial system, which is definitely at the gloomy end of the spectrum.

I’m still trying to work out if the collapse of an interest based / fractional reserve banking system is inevitable – is it still possible to have some form of economic “growth” (no doubt accompanied by a lot of inflation), or at least stagflation, which would prevent the system from abruptly collapsing ?

Sure, living standards and real incomes get eroded (with the poor and newly unemployed members of the middle class getting hit the hardest), but if it happens slowly enough then this would seem to be feasible (albeit with a lot of fighting over resources accompanying the decline).

And maybe an economic frenzy accompanying a rush towards alternative, hopefully renewable, energy sources (along with ugly alternatives like increased coal and nuclear use) is also possible for a time.

George Monbiot tends to believe not though – see “Living In the Age of Entropy” and “No Longer Obeying Orders“.

The Dawn of the Second Half of the Age of Oil.

This is not welcome news, and those with mindsets conditioned on past experience find it very difficult to accept, some becoming vituperative in their reaction. In terms of pragmatic politics, it is virtually impossible for Governments to plan and prepare with logical strategies to face the new world that opens. Accordingly, the transition will likely be a time of international tension and resource wars of which the first salvoes have already been fired. But some of the more philosophically inclined wonder if in fact the post-oil world might not turn out to be a more harmonious one for the survivors. There are indeed hopes, Deus volens, that they may number somewhat more than the Planet was able to support prior to what by then will be seen to have been the brief Age of Oil, during which the World consumed its inheritance of fossil sunshine.

One more quibble is that as far as I can tell, coal is still the dominant source of electricity (not oil, gas and nuclear) – certainly in Australia its overwhelmingly number 1. Shame about the greenhouse emissions.