And now the biggie, to which merits a full quotation and multiple articles:
quote: As many as 1 out of 4 workers in the United States will be working in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries by 2030, according to a new jobs report from the American Solar Energy Society (ASES).
The renewable energy and energy efficiency industries today generate nearly $1 trillion in revenue in the U.S., contributing more than $150 billion in tax revenue at the federal, state, and local levels.
"The green collar job boom is here," said Neal Lurie, Director of Marketing of ASES.
By the year 2030, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries could generate up to $4.5 trillion in revenue in the U.S., but only with the appropriate public policy. This would include a renewable portfolio standard, renewable energy incentives, public education, and R&D.
The 40 million jobs that could be created in renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2030 are not just engineering-related, but also include millions of new jobs in manufacturing, construction, accounting, and management. Currently, there are 8.5 million jobs that have spawned from the renewable energy industries.
According to ASES, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries today generate nearly $1 trillion in revenue in the U.S., contributing more than $150 billion in tax revenue at the federal, state, and local levels.
quote: WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 9, 2007 -- The renewable energy and energy efficiency industries stand to add millions of jobs and pump trillions of dollars in revenues during the next twenty years, according to a new research report.
"Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century," from the American Solar Energy Society, said that as many as one in four workers could work in these fields by 2030.
The industries currently generate about 8.5 million green collar jobs and almost $1 trillion in revenue, the report found. That could increase to 40 million jobs and $4.5 trillion in revenues "with the appropriate public policy, including a renewable portfolio standard, renewable energy incentives, public education and research and development," the report said.
"The green collar job boom is here," said ASES's Neal Lurie. "Renewable energy and energy efficiency are economic powerhouses."
The report predicted that solar, wind, ethanol and fuel cells will be future hot areas of growth.
The report comes a week after General Electric Power Generation announced it would invest $39 million and hire 500 workers for a renewable energy division expansion in upstate New York.
Some states, such as California, have mandated that renewables comprise a larger percentage of their energy portfolios.
And yet for some reason, the new Energy Policy Act specifically removes some of the portions necessary to promote growth in this industry. What the hell is wrong with people?
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
New news about the Chevy Volt. Other Chevy news: at the LA Auto Show, Chevy won green car of the year for their full sized SUV the hybrid Tahoe. Their full sized SUV, which sacrifices nothing for power, gets the same city gas mileage as a Toyota Camry 4 cylinder. The Volt will for sure be produced in 2010.
Carbon Offsets get a cetfifiable standard. It's about time this kind of thing came along, but the requirements had better be stringent. Planting trees in the wrong part of the planet can do more harm than good. They need to pay careful attention to who they give certification to.
New technology might make Hydrogen a more realizable fuel source than ethanol in the near future. The gist of the report? Cellulosic ethanol is 10 years away. But a new technology makes the energy conversion process of hydrogen 288% efficient, as opposed to the current 40-50% efficiency we currently get. In other words, making hydrogen used to take twice as much energy as we got back out of it, which meant it was a net energy LOSS, making it less of a power source and more of a power loser or energy storage system at best. This new tech could really change how we look at hydrogen, and could actually turn it into a power source.
Featured Article Bills introduced in Congress to effectively ban incandescent lightbulbs. If it passes, which it might, it would take effect around 2012-2014. It's hard to argue against it. The three major suppliers of bulbs actually support the less stringent measure (as do I), and this isn't at all unprescedented. It was the energy efficiency changes made in the 80's that have allowed our economy and nation to becomes comparatively lean and much more flexible. This could realize huge national energy savings, and spur the growth of the LED market. Kudos to Congress on a really bold move. I'd also add that the more common complaints againt CFLs, that is, that people just don't like the sterile white light they give off, aren't so much valid anymore, as they make CFLs that give off the same yellow or "warm" light that incandescents do.
posted
Have they gotten CFLs to stop giving people headaches? The idea of having to go to the doctor and get a prescription for incandescants is a little silly. Though I'd be ok with the ban once LEDs are available so people don't have to hurt themselves for the environment.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I should have added more to clear up some misconceptions. First off, I said effectively because they don't outright ban incandescent technology, they create energy efficiency standards just like CAFE for MPG on cars or for what products get Energy Star ratings on washers and driers.
GE has recently developed a new High Efficiency Incandescent that gets nearly the same efficiency as a CFL, but it's still an incandescent, and these would not be outlawed under bills passed in California or Canada to regulate efficiency, or in the less stringent US Congressional bill.
As far as headaches go, near as I can tell they've fixed, or nearly fixed the problems. CFLs don't flicker anymore, as the newer ones use electronic ballasts, not magnetic ballasts, so they cycle more. They also don't all have that harsh white light, and are available in a wide variety of colors. I've seen an incandscent next to a CFL and haven't been able to readily tell the difference. But a very small number of people might still have a problem with them, and for those people there ARE alternatives to CFLs that would still meet the requirements, and I think in five or so years, LEDs will begin to creep into the home use mass market, as will GE's HEI bulbs, so people won't be without options.
On Australia -
It's EXTREMELY welcomed news Ratifying Kyoto at this point is more symbolic than effective, as it it's on the verge of expiring. I think the real good news there is Australia's decision to go to the Bali meeting. Hopefully this will put additional pressure on the US to act sooner rather than later. Australia recently was announced the worst CO2 polluter per capita in the world.
But I've said it befoe and I'll say it again, there WILL be a emissions regulation bill passed by the US government before the end of the decade. I think Republicans realize they can't shoot it down all together, but there's a big question on both sides: Democrats can wait until 2009 and hope they win the White House, at which point they will be able to command the issue and pass nearly whatever climate bill they want, and that's what many are doing. But if they lose, Republicans will be in a much better position to stymie the issue and shoot down a Democratic Congress. Republicans have the other problem, in that they generally fear a Democratic victory in 2009, and are thus much more willing right now to get the absolute best deal they can before the election, but many fear giving away too much before knowing if they can stunt the measure.
All in all, I think Pres. Bush, Australia's past administration, and even recent statements from Japan are all good points: Excluding India and China makes everything being done unfair and somewhat useless. If the whole first world changed but China and India ramp up to replace our losses, then all we've done is manage to not pollute WORSE than we already were, and that's not good enough. They must be included, and since both of them are in the 8-10% range for economic growth every year, and have huge trade surpluses, I don't really feel that bad for them. If anything they have it better off. They're currently building infrastructure from the ground up, and it'd be cheaper for them to Green up NOW, rather than do it AFTER the whole thing is in place like we are.
Bali MUST insist that China and India be included in binding changes. I think if they were, Republicans in Congress and the WH would have very little fire to work with in refusing to make the changes. Their other arguments about the economy are already laughable, and individual states are on the verge of removing this argument from the national scene anyway. It's in the best interests of the rest of the world to insist in Bali on the inclusion of those two states.
Kudos to Australia on making a change for the better.
posted
Hooray for standards for lightbulbs. We use an awful lot of those, so it makes sense to start there. As for CO2 standards, I think China and India are a lot more likely to control theirs than we are. We'd need to dismantle the way our cities and suburbs are put together and basically rebuild the country. They can learn from our mistakes and go with a more European infastructure.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not 100% true, but there's something to it. China and India WOULD benefit from taking what we've done and what Europe has done and use only the best models in their own cities, but they suffer from the fact that their countries are huge and their people spread out over vast areas, a problem that European countries do NOT share, in that they are much more like the US.
The US can fix a lot of the problems that they have without tearing everything down and starting over, they just need to remodel a lot and make sure all their new builds fit into a more sustainable development. You're already starting to see that in the building of more roundabouts and less four way intersections, because they save on fuel and cut down on accidents.
But a new Chinese coal plant comes online every week. I'm not as sure about India, they're a bit further behind China at the moment. But I see legislation coming through Congress on carbon limits in the next few years, and I don't see that happening in China. It will take world pressure to get them to cave, and we should take this opportunity to get on the right side for a change.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Looking at solutions to the mounting piles of trash in America: Part I and Part II. Good reports. I'd like to see more on thermopolymerization (I think I got that right), which is basically turning trash into water, oil, and dirt. But I think the test facilities are still having problems. I haven't heard anything on them in awhile.
Europe mulls possible HVDC Supergrid that would crisscross Europe and drastically cut their CO2 emissions. This is what the United States needs to do, and sooner or later we will HAVE to address this issue. With the vast renewable energy opportunities that lie all over this country, but the changing face of where the population lives, we will have no problem with providing energy for everyone in this country via renewables, but the problem will be GETTING IT TO THEM. A new American High Voltage Direct Current system will get that power to everyone quickly with limited transmission loss. It will require a lot of work, and for Americans used to an AC network, it'll probably require a lot of changes and money, but this is one of those difficult but necessary fixes that will make life MUCH easier in the long run. Let's get started now.
Google's Green Gamble. Google is no stranger to the Green game, but now they are diving in head first, with plans to spend millions on investments and millions more on R&D. Their overall goal? To make renewable energy cost less than coal, which they call RE<E.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but how far do people really travel? Most days, I only go 4.3 miles down the road to work and back. It takes 20 to 30 minutes to drive there, and there's no bike lane or shoulder. I only need the infastructure to let me not drive my car around town. The occasional car trip to see the folks isn't going to hurt much.
Other than giving us sidewalks and mixing residential with retail lots, I don't know much about setting it up so we don't have to drive everywhere. I can't even figure out why the buses were so much better in Gainseville than they are here in Tally. I just miss not having to drive everywhere.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's happening in a lot of places, but mostly you're seeing it in California, but also now in New York. Citizen groups are demanding that municipalities rebuild the roads to include mandatory HOV lanes (and now car sharing lanes), and mandatory biking lanes, as well as much stiffer penalties for drivers that injure bike riders, and more rights for riders in general since it's becoming a blood bath out there for a lot of them.
Most people travel less than 15 miles per day in their cars, on average. You're starting to also see hybrid buses work their way into the mainstream too, currently only in test cities, but mixing commercial with residential is still difficult for a few reasons. On one hand some people are iffy in it, because we've so rarely had it outside of cities like New York, and on the other hand, a lot of cities have rules that don't allow for that to happen anyway. Rules need to be changed, and people need to get used to it, and then it will catch on. We have it a lot more often now in Royal Oak where I live, as downtown becomes more and more trendy, old stores are being knocked down (which is kind of sad) and medium rise buildings are coming in.
A lot of this is just going to take time to come into the mainstream. People set in their ways don't like seeing the way things have worked for 50 years changed.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just in time to give Australia a welcomed position at the Bali negotiations. I think Pres. Bush lost a serious ally when Howard got booted. He's more or less all alone in the conference now.
I'll do an update later today.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lryhawn, just so you know, concrete is already recyclable. It's crushed up and used as base material for roadways. Looking over Hycrete's website, it seems that they make an admixture for concrete which makes it waterproof rather than having to add a coating. It's the coating that can make the concrete unrecyclable. It sounds like Hycrete has just made sure that waterproof concrete can also be recycled.
Posts: 4624 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ah, thanks for the clarification. Any idea on how much of a gain that really is?
I don't think much. Most of the concrete construction I'm familiar with isn't waterproofed. Concrete, by it's nature, is water resistant and I think for most applications that's enough.
Still, every bit helps and if it can be mixed directly with the concrete rather than someone having to do it later, it'll save on labor costs.
Posts: 4624 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Accessible geothermal energy in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, has been estimated at 9 x 1016 (90 quadrillion) kilowatt-hours, 3,000 times more than the country's total annual energy consumption.
I didn't know that geothermal had THAT much potential. Recent estimations I've seen elsewhere suggest the potential is much lower, so that's certainly good news.
I can't find it now, but I read an article earlier today on how the Bush Administration pressured the EPA to lower requirements for manufacturers on how much toxic discharge they are required to report. The Administration claims they were just trying to ease regulatory hurdles, while others are crying foul at the continued despoiling of the environment at the hands of the Bush EPA. Given their track record in the past few years, is anyone really surprised? I'll try and find the article for details.
There's some news on the Energy Bill over in the Congressional news thread, but it's nothing huge. If any big developments come up I'll likely post it in both threads in case people don't read both (assuming anyone is reading at all).
Next Monday the Green News Center and Congressional News Center will be going on a break until after the holidays. If anyone would like to volunteer to do a post in that time I'd be more than happy to forward links to sites I generally use to obtain my information, otherwise, barring any major announcements, you can expect regular updates to return after the first of the year.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Loved the article about Germany. I have no idea what the insulation stuff meant - in my apartment heat is largely regulated by the neighbors. Running the AC is way more important than flipping over to heat.
I wonder if a solar AC would work as well as a solar heating thingy? That's the way to sell it in Florida.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Working the Greenland icemelt... "Anyway," Steffen says, stubbing out his cigarette, "it was good to know that I could quit if I really needed to."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I bought my house it had about 2 inches of mineral wool insulation. It didn't have an R rating printed on the moisture barrier, but I'd guess it was probably 5 or less. Since then I've taken down the sheetrock and put up 6" R-19 insulation, which is the thickest I can put up since I have cathedral ceilings with 8" rafters.
But that article makes me sick. I'd like to get up to R-33, but R-50? I might as well tear down my house and build a new one. Maybe someone will invent a better insulating material that can do R-50 in 6 inches. Right...
Posts: 3655 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Not to nitpick with that, but that really isn't Europe... More like North Africa and the Middle East at night, with Europe in the background.
Also, thanks for the gray water links. I've been arguing that point with another forum for a few days, nice to have another link to reference.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well keep in mind it IS for new home construction.
Yeah I know, but I'd like to get as close to superinsulation as I can, but I'm limited by the construction of my house. With regular attic type construction R-33 would be a piece of cake.
Posts: 3655 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Not to nitpick with that, but that really isn't Europe... More like North Africa and the Middle East at night, with Europe in the background.
Also, thanks for the gray water links. I've been arguing that point with another forum for a few days, nice to have another link to reference.
Pfft. Nitpicker
You're welcome for the link. If you're in a fix I'm sure I could find you a fair bit more on it, but the most recent link I did was pretty informative, that should cover most of your bases.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Gore's improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave.
Shinn said Gore's renovations are impressive because his home, which is more than 80 years old, had to meet the same rigorous standards as new construction.
"One of the things that is tremendously powerful about what the Gores have done is demonstrate that you can take a home that was a dog, an absolute energy pig, and do things to correct that," Shinn said.
Rumors are flowing that the US has agreed to some sort of deal at the Bali conference, but there are no specifics as of yet. The deal may hinge on including developing nations in the binding reductions, but even so, Pres. Bush even tenatively agreeing is a good step forward.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth’s climate was “ultimately futile.”
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN’s so-called “solutions.”
quote: “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables,” the scientists wrote.
quote: The scientists’ letter continued: “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”
I do think we could spend more on cleaning the enviornment and fixing things we can fix, and not wasting so much trying to curb one source of pollution. Plus we need to get China and India onboard with improving their enviornment, instead of solely focusing on the USA.
Posts: 1914 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually had heard about this, but I hadn't seen a good article that really had the details, so thanks for posting that, it wasn't on any of the main pages of any of my usual sites, including CNN.
I think that the real argument I'd have against what those guys are saying is the line "the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity." That's sticking with a false conclusion that combating CO2 emissions (necessary or not) would have a detrimental effect on our economy, which is NOT a fact. I submit that it's a possibility, but by no means a foregone conclusion. As of right now, renewable energy and efficiency upgrades are creating wealth in America, not destroying it. I see nothing to indicate that trend turning downwards.
As for the science involve, to be honest I gave up having an opinion on it one way or the other. I lean towards believing climate change is real, but I think whether it's real or not, we should go ahead and do all the things to combat it regardless of it's truthfulness because their benefits far outweigh the climate change question.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's pretty cool. More mass-production like this should help bring down the cost of building solar power plants then, right?
Something else I've been wondering about, Lyrhawn: Do you know any good resources for investing in renewable energy companies? I've seen lots of "green mutual funds" but most of them seemed to be companies of any sort that had made some envirnmental pledges or whatever. I'm more interested in specific companies involved in building geothermal, solar, etc power plants or the related technology for them. It seems like a growth industry.
posted
I usually don't post that kind of financial information because I'm really not qualified to push any particular stock...but later in the week, if you want, I'll look for information specifically about investments (which are green hot right not) in the Green sector and where the money is going. I would wait if I were you until after the first of the year, at the very least, until we see how the new Energy Bill effects things, but I think your best bet is solar and geothermal at the moment, also look at GE and other companies who make the parts for Wind Turbines, which are also hot right now. Wind power is booming worldwide, and is doing very well domestically (especially in Texas).
I can tell you that First Solar had the best performing stock of 2007. Thanks to the high price of oil, their stock went up 738% over the course of the year, from $29.84 on January 1st to $250.00 more recently.
I'd say you might get lucky if you put money into ethanol places, but be extremely wary of that. Money is flowing into ethanol like crazy right now, especially after the more recent Energy Bill, and ethanol companies are going to do very well this year, but LONG TERM those companies are on shakey ground, and I don't see it lasting.
And yes, more mass production like that will bring down the cost of solar power plants. Keep in mind that the materials they are making are not for (I think) PVC or Photovoltaic cells, they are for thermal solar, which is mirrors heating a giant tank of water and powering a steam turbine. Since we won't have to import this stuff (domestic deveolpment and production is really picking up speed) the price per kwh of solar should start to slowly sink over time. It's going to be more expensive than coal for awhile, but companies like Google are making it their mission to bring solar to kwh cost parity with coal in the next decade or two.
Take a look at the companies that Google is buying recently, or investing in. I'd expect their stock prices to rise as major investments grow. If you take a look back over the last few pages of the thread you might see where investments are going, and then I would just suggest you research the company, their technology, and see where things are going.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
A look at US Wind power. Of all the electrical generation added to the US grid in 2006, 19% was wind power. At the end of 2006 it was widely considered cost competitive with fossil fuel fired plants, and sometimes even the cheapest option. Prices for wind have trended upwards recently, but largely because of a lack of domestic manufacturing capacity. Spain, Denmark, and Germany on the other hand, with larger national support for wind, are wind powerhouses, creating jobs, wealth and energy domestically by exporting their materials.
On the whole, a lot of cool announcements today! Enigmatic, it's articles like the one about NanoSolar that I'd pay attention to if you're looking for info on who to invest in. Up and coming renewable energy companies with special or unique techniques/technologies that produce in demand products for a good price are going to be the ones that gets the most dollars, and whose stocks are likely to do the best. NanoSolar has been getting a lot of attention, and if they can really produce a cell that gives people a watt for $2, then they have a serious winner that I don't see going anywhere, especially if they license the technology to others. BrightSource, Asura, those wave power guys, some geothermal startups, those are the ones I'd be looking at.
You need to be wary of the end of 2008 though. Renewable tax credits are set to expire, and if Congress doesn't extend them, I'd heavily consider getting out. It won't collapse, like a lot of them did in the 70's/80's when government subsidies dried up, since technology has come a long way and some of them really don't even need the help, but it'll hurt.
Posts: 20636 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last update of 2007 before the Green Energy News Center breaks for the holidays. I'll try and make this super big entry by going back a few days, which I don't normally do. Enjoy!
quote:"Clearly the White House said, 'We're going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we're done, the deal is done,'" said one staffer.
If you read the link at the end of this paragraph, you'll see the official White House line was that the EPA made an independent decision and that Bush had nothing to do with it. The story is still being investigated, and Arnold has vowed to sue the EPA (and he sounds pissed at the White House too)
posted
You might find Real Climate's opinion on the paper by Douglass, Pearson, and Singer (which appears to have inspired the "100 Scientists Letter") of interest...
Posts: 3825 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050. A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours. Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well. A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country. But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
Having read it, I won't go into detail, but it's a quick read so I suggest everyone read the full article. It's a good, detailed plan on how to use Solar as a main source of energy for the US. It talks about feasibility, technology and implementation, all reasonably. What I like is that it's really scaleable. The article talks about powering most of the US with solar alone, but not about a dozen other renewables and efficiency upgrades, which means we probably wouldn't have to go nearly as far as this plan goes in order to really power the US on renewables, but I find that even more heartening.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
E-mail this page
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Ratifying Kyoto at this point is more symbolic than effective, as it it's on the verge of expiring. I think the real good news there is Australia's decision to go to the Bali meeting. Hopefully this will put additional pressure on the US to act sooner rather than later. Australia recently was announced the worst CO2 polluter per capita in the world. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
