Natural Capital Institute NCI

29 more...

Youth Leadership towards Sustainable Global Change The Core Model of Permaculture Design

Suggestion Box Daily Tasks List : Data Management

My WiserBlog (Very infrequently updated)

10-11-07: Why Solar Panels & Wind Turbines are like Sonic The Hedgehog
Okay, so this is all going to sound like a stretch.  If you want more substantive blogging, go to the stuff, when I was actually working at NCI and had time on my hands to write quality.  One of the increasingly important concerns of any product is its ecological footprint.  This includes carbon of course, but other particulate emissions, energy use, and impact quantification.  A car's ecological footprint involves not only the petroleum used in its ongoing use, but also the energy and environmental consequences of fabricating steel, molding steering wheels, extracting rubber for tires, etc. that all went into making the car to get it to the sales lot.  Ideally the car gets recycled when it is done being used and its initial eco footprint can be smoothed out over a longer usage cycle of the materials and energy involved.  If its a higher quality car and gets more use, that does the same thing.

The fun thing about solar panels and wind turbines is that they actually return energy into the equation while they are being used.  They are initially energy and eco consumers, when being fabricated.  However, when they are in operation, they return energy back to us and in further abundance than it took to create them.  In my mind, energy is a translatable currency for fighting ecological degradation.  In its simplest form, clean energy replaces dirty energy and prevents the release of Co2, Nox, Sox, etc. and other harmful effects.  However, energy can power dredgers thats clean waterways, it can power the buildings of organizations that support reforestation.  It can power anything.  Given the powers of chemistry and biology and physics, and their ability to be manipulated by those fundamental blocks called electrons, their abundance is an amazing and useful thing, provided we can make them move cleanly.

So, where the hell does Sonic fit in?  Well, on the 2nd level of the entire game, their are two free lives to be gained on the board.  By losing the board, you only lose one life.  Because I was never amazing at sonic, I would replay these board over and over again until I had amassed an ample amount of lives to fool around and learn how to succeed on subsequent boards that I needed extra lives to beat.  Here's an example.

Start with 3 lives:
Start on level 1 and pass it: 3 lives left
Play level 2, gain 2 lives, lose 1 life, start over.  4 lives left
Play level 2, gain 2 lives, lose 1 life, start over. 5 lives left
Play level 2, gain 2 lives, lose 1 life, start over. 6 lives left.

You get the point.  Well solar panels and wind turbines provide the same rules, and perhaps better efficiencies than this board does.  United Solar Ovonic and Evergreen Solar, two large US-based manufacturers of panels tout energy payback times of between 2 and 5 years.  We'll assume 5 years to be conservative.  The nice thing about the panels is that they operate for 25 or more.  So after that fifth year, all energy is free, courtesy of the sun.   But think about it this way:

Energy involved to create the panel: 5 years of energy the panel will produce
Panel's lifetime energy: 25 years - Energy involved in creation = 20 years of free, clean energy.

So, what do you do with 20 years of clean, free energy, well you could power your hairdryer or your TV, but let's say you decided to make more solar panels. On an economy scale energy would be allocated to all of these things.  Think Billions (literally) of panels.

Well now you have 4 panels, which is 20 years of free, clean energy per panel: 80 years of clean energy.  I think you can get the picture of where you can go from here.  Create more panels with clean energy and you are talking about exponential and free energy.  It's not just a 2 for 1, like in Sonic.  It's 5 for 1, and that's only with current technology.

Granted, I have not discussed the price of this clean energy, but when solar panels get to the point of parity on price with standard conventionally produce electricity from coal, hydro, nuclear etc.  well we've got a free ride courtesy of that giant flaming ball of gas 93 million miles away.  This is how renewable energy works, harnessing massive resources, with footprint efficiencies that seem to break the economic rules written by the industrial revolution.  That's definitely a good thing.  Renewable energy devices often don't have an electricity footprint at all! (I'm ignoring materials inputs which are another environmental concern).

There may be no such thing as a free lunch, but there is definitely free power from an environmental standpoint.


5-8-07: Global Warming Game Theory, Let's play hard-ball
This is a simplistic model that I put together and I think it is good for empathizing and understanding the decision making processes of the major actors: US, China, EU. I think game theory is fascinating and although matrices like these have many assumptions and qualifications that restrict the model, that's economics right? Still useful.

Here are the possible decisions by our 3 global actors:

USA Decisions
Decision 1: No broad government action (Bush)
Decision 2: Enact Soft to Moderate GHG limits (Bingaman bill)
Decision 3: Enact Ambitious 80% reductions by 2050 (Waxman bill, Sanders bill)
*Lieberman's bill supported by McCain, Obama, and Clinton would be between 2 and 3 in my view. Kerry's bill would also fit there.

EU Decisions
Decision 1: Status quo- soft to moderate targets.
Decision 2: Enact ambitious (EU has said it will do so if matched by other nations, particularly the US)

China Decisions
Decision 1: Status quo
Decision 2: Enact soft GHG reductions
*China is unlikely to enact ambitious GHG caps as it has stated frequently its economic ambitions and wishes to increase per-capita income. It also has stressed (rightfully, but maybe shortsightedly so) that the US, EU and other nations bear the majority of responsibility for current CO2 levels.

Model assumptions:
-All matrix scenarios favor GHG non-actors to varying degrees. In my opinion this is a bogus and very conservative economic viewpoint, because in the long-run the GHG actors will be well-placed to dominate new technology markets and stay at the forefront of economic growth trends. Regardless, we'll humor the doubters.

The matrices and their assumptions:
-Payoff(pie) totals are arbitarily chosen but meant to relatively reflect economic scenarios and relationships among actors as a result.
-Pie totals are scored: (USA,China,EU)
- See wikipedia's explanations of pareto optimality and nash equilibria.

Matrix A: Global warming will have substantial effects on the productivity of actors in the future and thus collective or even unilateral GHG reductions will expand the productivity possibilities for all three actors in the future. Moderate view for GHG reducers, in which proactive countries on GHGs will not experience large losses in economic growth opportunities to other countries without GHG limits.
Matrix B: Global warming will have substantial effects on the productivity of actors in the future and thus collective or even unilateral GHG reductions will expand the productivity possibilities for all three actors in the future. Pessimist view for GHG reducers, in which proactive countries on GHGs will experience large losses in economic growth opportunities to other countries without GHG limits. Pies are bigger, heavily favors non-actors.
Matrix C: Global warming will not have substantial effects on the productivity of actors in the future. Moderate view for GHG reducers, in which proactive countries on GHGs will not experience large losses in economic growth opportunities to other countries without GHG limits. Pies are smaller, favors non-actors.
Matrix D: Global warming will not have substantial effects on the productivity of actors in the future. Pessimist view for GHG reducers, in which proactive countries on GHGs will experience large losses in economic growth opportunities to other countries without GHG limits. Pies are smaller, heavily favors non-actors.




Analysis
One of the things that we have to think about when viewing the game operation is that not all players are acting alone or in any particular order. Treaties and cooperative agreements are key because they can help players internalize the best-responses of other players and compromise in order to reach Pareto optimalities, which in the case of this model are better for all. Global warming is a situation, which creates glaring opportunities for pareto improvement, in other words, the ability for nations to increase their potential payoffs by acting against GHGs, particularly through cooperative means. The model shows how self-interested policies, particularly with certain matrix viewpoints can serve to prevent any impetus for unilateral action. The current U.S. administration believes in the D matrix, in which global warming is a far-off, overstated threat, and actions taken against it will be economically debilitating. As the evidence for global warming mounts, the administration may begin to contemplate a B matrix in which economic costs are still high but global warming's damaging effects may change payoffs. When this becomes the case, acting unilaterally and strongly begins to become a more attractive scenario.

The US 2 decision seems likely to become a growing Congressional issue during 2007 and 2008. A US 3 decision, which sets ambitious 80% reduction goals by 2050 is currently unlikely to pass Congress and would have an even tougher time making it into law because of a possible presidential veto. My hope is that a US 3 decision can take place early in the next president's term and be a strong, comprehensive bill.

If any, I subscribe to the A matrix. Global warming is real, and the extra pie garnered from action, particularly collective action, is huge. While, I can certainly foresee some economic slowdown from carbon caps and limits, the extra growth fueled by innovation will more than offset any downturn. This will be particularly true in the long-term, and in technology markets where actors that have taken early steps will reap huge benefits, eg. solar in Germany/Japan, wind in Denmark.

My somewhat informed views on the future economy's energy producers and my current assessment of the most promising players (a blog precursor?):
I'm a huge Arnold Schwarzenegger fan. Though his politics are by no means flawless, I've got a lot of respect for him as an exceptional human being. Have you seen Kindergarten Cop? Well Arnold has been telling our President not to forecast/pick winning technologies. Essentially, current expertise is less prescient than the free markets in action. Bush has stressed various ethanol measures, corn ethanol being the notable non-starter. Technologies need to survive on their own merits to some extent. Corn ethanol gives back only 30 percent more than is put into it, hardly a crisis solver when combined with its shaky supply issues and other uses. I prefer kettle corn. Cellulosic ethanol is a promising technology in its infancy and I am also particularly high on the potential for algae to be an energy source and consumer. Algae love eating CO2 almost as much as we like emitting it, so if economized and perfected they would be an incredible solution. You can think of algae as super-efficient sun harvesters. Not to mention, they can grow in inhospitable environments that currently lack productivity, like deserts. This algae technology is far on the horizon, but as a sustainability and business argument in theory, it's a winner. Other biofuel inputs like switchgrass have been touted, and of course sugar is Brazil's go-to ethanol source. Sugar ethanol, also a non-starter for the U.S., and in other countries, it is only defensible if orchestrated in a manner that saves more useful rainforest. Rainforests are worth more otherwise, and developed countries should be subsidizing Ecuador, Brazil, and other countries for keeping them intact. So, I've gotten all geo-political and such, but back to the issue at hand.

Clean coal is another favorite of mine mainly because our use of large amounts of coal is inevitable for the foreseeable future, so it might as well be clean.  It will complement more sustainable technologies that can't be the whole portfolio like wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. It's not perfect, because we still have to mine the coal, but it's preferable and predictable, and the U.S. has coal to last lifetimes. I also like it because it is electricity-integrated. That leads me to my next point, which is that electricity is the hands down best energy medium.  If we can create efficient mass energy storage solutions like batteries or fuel-cells that can increase the max theoretical portfolio amounts of fickle renewables like solar and wind, then the game changes completely. We already know how to use the electricity infrastructure, and its now a matter of making it clean and applicable for more uses, particularly automobiles. Battery technology and fuel-cell technology, which coupled with small tanks of conventional fuels (biodiesel, ethanols, hell even gas), provide extended mileage and use, are extremely promising. Batteries are much more proven than fuel-cells and if further scientific frontiers can be reached, batteries will own the car landscape, especially in the cities. Too bad GM bailed on the EV1 (I'm a loyal Detroiter). The Chevy Volt concept, which I saw at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit is a promising series-hybrid, even if the technology is a few years away. That brings me to my next point about Toyota Prius's and other hybrid concepts like the Volt.

At a Going Green forum that I attended at that same auto show, Toyota's top sustainability executive himself admitted that the carbon fiber process of cars like the Prius and others can effectively negate many of its high mileage advantages. I forget his name, but he mentioned Amory Lovins, a huge proponent of the hypercar (ultralight) concept, and he said he keeps telling Amory that viewed in lifecycle terms, carbon fiber makes less sense than MPG stickers indicate. I know little about this process, but when a Toyota exec is talking about his product, the Prius, so candidly and introspectively, that gives heart. However, the rest of the world only sees MPG, and that worries me. Life Cycle! Toyota's exec was thinking, while the GM, Ford, and Chrylser execs who spoke were marketing. Credit to Toyota. Still, hybrids have promise, especially as plug-ins. The great thing about plug-ins and electricity is that we've got solar and wind and geothermal, etc. that can make those vehicles a very clean proposition. I'm not even going to make promises about fuel-cells because the technology and cost frontiers are so far down the road. Basically, if all these companies and countries are putting money into the field, there is promise, but I think they might be a bit of an overhyped tech darling at this point.

You all know how solar works, but I want to say a few things, because I am just beginning to wrap my head around the potential for this industry. Basically, when solar costs start coming to parity with more conventional sources, the industry will explode. The reason behind this has to do with several factors. First, solar's highest output is during the times of day when the grid needs the most electricity to accomodate industry and extra needs. During this time utilities fire up their more inefficient small-coal operations, which they have to charge more $ for. Solar is thereby conveniently positioned to thrive. Second, the US has one of the most impressive solar regimes (how much sun exposure we get) of any country currently capable of deploying solar operations en masse. Third, solar makes more sense on small scales than any other competitive technology, and it is well positioned to thrive in the developing world as a stand alone off-grid application. Al Gore talked about the "electranet", in which homes, small businesses, and larger ones too begin to decentralize the electricity economy. When solar can become even close to price parity, it will be a profit argument for companies and home-owners. Having an efficient solar system will be like having a phenomenal investment portfolio: money in the bank, every month, 1 shot installation and routine maintenance. Roof-space might even become a statistic like bedrooms or bathrooms in real estate, because it will quantify the house's ability to employ itself as an active asset. You can tell I am psyched about this technology, but do not chalk it up completely to the fact that I'm going to be working for a promising solar firm. Solar will be for real, especially in the US, regardless of what our company does. When price parity exists, solar arrays will be ubiquitous.

Hello Earth...I'm a transplanted Michigander now in the West. I am contributing to WiserEarth's Energy portal and others as well. I'm also doing research for WiserBusiness on Batteries, Fuel Cells, and Waste-to-Energy Generation.

Why I was at NCI:
I worked at the Natural Capital Institute and on WiserEarth/Biz primarily because of my concern and love for the environment. I love it for the panoply of ways in which it supplies and gives to all of us. Poverty and the many issues covered by civil society organizations concern me too. However, the creation of a sustainable relationship between humankind and the environment, with all its economic implications, is paramount. So, I choose to focus primarily on the environment/economy knowing that improvements in civil society causes and poverty relief are often byproducts of that effort.
Environmentalism has always informed my viewpoints, but never so much as now, and never so urgently. In the coming years I hope to be involved with transformational technologies, policies, and projects that enable environmental restoration while growing standards of living. None of us know to what degree this will be a winning or a losing campaign. I am looking forward to it.

I currently work at Stion, a solar photovoltaics company this is developing high-efficiency thin-film modules. If you are interested in renewables, green tech, natural capitalism, land and habitat conservation, venture SRI, or a myriad of other sustainability topics... feel free to message me.

If you bicycle, backpack, frisbee, or enjoy quaffing flavorful beer we'd get along great.

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." Edmund Burke.

"A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers but borrowed from his children." Audubon

My Network

adam | Camilla | danielbell | elizabeth | kelly | kaukatsang | Honore | jonny | paxlizzie | melinda | michael | MichaelK | molly | peggy | paul | Ritodhi | sdlamm | hapatrees | seth | boostani | oguz | lpatzek | brownwa2 | Jeremiah | kwynns | erica | betsy | manoslav | roebuckj | chrisnharris | anaorf | adamsro9 |