Part 1 reported that Obama and the Dems are planning a huge stimulus package with a big cleantech component and asked for ideas. Brian Castelli, Executive Vice President of the D.C.-based Alliance to Save Energy sent me their recommendations.
Brian has been a cleantech leader for over three decades. I got to know him at the DOE where he served as Chief of Staff to the assistant Secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, during which time we perfected our "bad cop-worse cop" routine. He has an MBA, served as a state energy director and has lots of other creds the world might know about if the link on ASE's website to his bio wasn't broken.
Here are the Alliance's proposals:
Energy efficiency in state and local facilities
Appropriate $4 billion to DOE for grants for energy efficiency projects in state and local facilities including schools. The funding would pass through the State Energy Program using the existing distribution formula. Studies indicate that the potential for energy efficiency investments in the public sector is between $35 and $70 billion, and that less than 25 percent of all state buildings have had comprehensive energy-efficiency retrofits, which suggests that the potential for job creation and energy savings is quite large. Half should be distributed to states within 3 months of enactment based on the usual distribution formula; the remaining funds shall be available for 2 years after enactment and their allocation may consider evaluation of the initial funds The Program may retain 4 percent of the funds for administrative costs.
Outcomes:
1. 24,000 job years (based on commercial building energy efficiency labor intensity estimate of 5.9 jobs per $1 million invested) on same timetable.
2. Energy savings will help strapped state and local governments, and result in air quality and other benefits. Energy savings could reach 36 trillion Btus (based on estimate of 9 billion Btu savings per $1 million invested).
Green jobs workforce training
Appropriate $250 million over two years to the Department of Labor for workforce training programs under the Green Jobs Act that was in EISA. The programs could be used to train displaced and unemployed workers (especially in the construction industry) to retrofit homes. These workers might be used to retrofit foreclosed homes owned by the federal government. Appropriate an additional $250 million over two years to DOE and EPA for programs that include training for industrial and building energy audits and building efficiency.
$100,000,000 would go to the Energy Star program at the Environmental Protection Agency to remain available for 2 years after enactment, including for training for the Home Performance with Energy Star and Energy Star New Homes programs. $100,000,000 to the Building Energy Codes program at the Department of Energy to remain available for 2 years after enactment. $50,000,000 for the Industrial Assessment Center program at the Department of Energy to remain available for 2 years after enactment.
Weatherization of low-income homes
Appropriate $1.4 billion over two years to expand the national Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). The funding will be used to expand infrastructure that is already in place to lower energy costs and thereby increase the purchasing power of low income consumers.
Outcomes:
1. 11,500 job years (based on residential building energy efficiency labor intensity estimate of 8.1 jobs per $1 million invested) on same timetable.
2. Energy savings will directly benefit low-income homeowners, and will help them keep their homes.
Energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings
Appropriate $1.2 billion to DOE to fund audits, metering and energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings. The Department of Energy would retain 2 percent of the funds as a tariff to improve staffing and fund the administration of the program. The funds should be available to agencies on a first-come, first-served basis, and should be available for 24 months after the effective date of the stimulus bill.
Outcomes:
1. 7,000 job years (based on commercial building energy efficiency labor intensity estimate of 5.9 jobs per $1 million invested) on same timetable.
2. Energy savings will help federal agencies and result in air quality and other benefits. Energy savings could reach 11 trillion Btus (based on estimate of 9 billion Btu savings per $1 million invested).
National consumer efficiency education campaign
Appropriate $90 million for the Public Information Initiative authorized in EPAct 05 for a two-year education campaign to help consumers to lower their energy bills. The campaign, which would be administered by the Department of Energy, would target the general American public, from students to seniors. It would encourage energy efficiency and conservation actions that can deliver work to home contractors, retailers, and manufacturers of efficient appliances and vehicles.
No-Cost (or Very Low Cost) Recommendations
Clear backlog of federal facility retrofit projects
The new Administration should take immediate administrative steps to direct DOE to clear the energy efficiency upgrade project "backlog" of $1.3 billion in major energy efficiency projects in federal facilities. In addition, Congress should consider providing a 25 percent match in Treasury funds if projects are implemented within 24 months of the effective date of the stimulus bill. In 2006, FEMP implemented more than $400 million in projects in a concerted six-to-nine-month "blitz," so there is a precedent for concerted action to clear the pipeline, and a history of positive results.
Outcomes:
1. 7,500 job years (based on commercial building energy efficiency labor intensity estimate of 5.9 jobs per $1 million invested) on same timetable.
2. Energy savings will help federal agencies and result in air quality and other benefits. Paybacks likely to average around 15 years, but no direct cost to the federal government as these projects would be funded through Energy Savings Performance Contracts.
Make energy tax credits refundable
Make the appliances energy efficiency tax credit refundable for twelve months; this will require a minor legislative change and will drive investment, employment and manufacture of appliances at the highest efficiency levels by providing cash-strapped manufacturers with funds to invest in improved efficiency. The score should be minimal as it mostly enables this year tax credits that were already scored when extended (most of the credit is capped for each manufacturer).
Outcomes:
1. Thousands of jobs would be saved and created (based on manufacturer plans).
2. Would benefit consumers by increasing production and decreasing cost of very high efficiency refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes washers.
Serious, practical stuff.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Ask Umbra on climate-skeptic teachers, low-flow toilets, and more
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 12:01 pm
06 Dec 2008
One that I haven't seen discussed is simply to order many more Amtrak cars and possibly locomotives. Even with most long-distance trains being sold out, Amtrak cannot add more service simply because it doesn't have enough cars (one conductor told me that extra cars for the Chicago-NYC line were moldering in New Orleans, having been secured by FEMA in case they needed emergency evacuation). That would be a quick and easy way to add infrastructure, and I don't think it takes that long to build those cars.
Another easy one is to reverse Bush, and bring back an 80%-federal-funding of local transit projects -- Bush reduced it to 50%, effectively killing many projects.
Another idea is to coordinate the major cities that use subways, come up with a funding/purchasing schedule that is regular and guaranteed, fund it, and use that regularity to encourage the creation of an American subway company, which currently does not exist.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 1:37 pm
06 Dec 2008
Leah Fried, an organizer with the United Electrical Workers, said the Chicago-based vinyl window manufacturer failed to give 60 days' notice required by law before shutting down
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:36 pm
06 Dec 2008
There's a trickle of truck stop electrification happening in my state, but we need lots and lots more.
Until we do what T. Boone wants and move trucks to natural gas, the least we could do is keep them from idling for hours on end.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:58 pm
06 Dec 2008
The 21st Century will be an age of individualism. It's been a long time coming. Business and marketing and manufacturing have been constantly refining the ability of the system to deliver more tailored and more targeted goods.
Henry Ford's quip that the customer could have any color Model T -- as long as it was black -- would not fly today. The customer could then choose from 100 other competitors, or take his Model T to Xzibit to be "tricked out" with two-tone fuchsia and aquamarine.
How sad it is, that Government, still thinks that funding the old large scale projects, the command and control organizations, are still the best way to rejuvenate the economy. Mass transit, mass production...mass anything is on the way out. Globalism is being challenged.
The best way to use 50 billion is to fund local individuals...individuals with ideas, projects and dreams. America must think of "bailout" money as venture capital for its people.
We should let people write a simple one-page essay or plan of what they would do with business "grants" of $50,000 and then let them do it. If they want to create urban gardens, they can. If they want to buy a new truck to carry film equipment around, they can. If they want to sit and work at their computer for a year, and research and write...they can. The only requirement is that they spend the money within the year.
We should use the money not to continue the Enslavement of the 20th century large scale economy, but to develop talent and knowledge and freedom in the individual. $50 billion dollars is one million people spending $50,000 for one year.
One million people, working on their own, with simple but personal ideas for bringing Change.
This is what money is for.
Texeme.Construct.Questioner
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:38 pm
06 Dec 2008
Electric Cars
Deep Geothermal Power
Solar Thermal Power with Heat Storage
Anti-Deforestation in Tropical Regions
-David Ahlport
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 1:32 am
07 Dec 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 am
07 Dec 2008
But if I had 50 billion (that's about what Gates is still worth?), I would buy GM, that would cost around 3 billion. Then replace the executives and board. Then I would buy Fiber Forge and make it the body/frame manudacturing equipment supplier.
And spin off part of GM to build plugin hybrid drivetrains of the EV-1/Volt design. But with around 1/3 the hp of the Volt, around 50 hp.
Then supply Ford and Chrysler with Fiber Forge body/frame manufacturing equipment and plugin hybrid drivetrains they need to compete.
Eventually the value of these companies would soar to 500 billion, providing a pretty fair return on the 50 billion invested. Over maybe 10 to 20 years?
Why doesn't the US just do that instead of giving bail out "loans"? Because it would nationalize these corporations. Evidently that's the catch.
Why don't Gates and Buffet do this?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:05 am
07 Dec 2008
The question there is, would it be possible to make it so that the materials are sourced almost entirely from US companies.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
ssn139 Posted 4:25 am
07 Dec 2008
First, you're getting two very different things if you buy the company instead of loaning the company money. If someone decided they wanted to buy GM, they would currently need to spend about 2.5 billion to buy up the company stock. The money would go to current stock holders - not the company itself.
Congratulations, you own GM! Now what do you do? The company is still the company, and it is incredibly in debt and in need of loans. GM currently has $170 billion dollars in liabilities. Even if you liquidated the rest of the company, you'd still be in the whole by about $60 billion according to the company's balance sheet. Would you want to spend $2.5 billion dollars for the pleasure of paying someone else $60 billion more?
To get the company out of the whole, you still need more capital (such as government loans) to invest in new car technology, or whatever you think will do the trick. Buying the company doesn't provide the capital to do this.
The Finite World. A resources and energy blog.
Permalink
eutopianow Posted 4:47 am
07 Dec 2008
Permalink
bigTom Posted 5:34 am
07 Dec 2008
A few anecdotal observations should illustrate some of the potential in this sector. Yesterday morning I made my weekly grocery trip. It was cloudy, and the parkinglot street lights were on, despite the fact that the ambient light was great enough that the lighting caused no detectable difference in groundlevel illumination. A little help adjusting the photodetectors that control the lights would save tens of kilowatt-hours every day, at this single establishment. Go inside, and the freezer are working overtime keeping food in open racks cold. This practice is so common, that I suppose some marketing study must tell store managers that forcing customers to open a cabinet may cause them to avoid a purchase. On a societal level, of course this is clearly a zerosum game. A little bit of regulation and the playing field could be leveled so that all stores use energy efficient cabinets for there cold foods.
Then a stop in a clothing store. The ceiling is covered with rows and rows of spotlights. The energy cost of this must be enormous. I'll bet the interior designers who specify this stuff are completely clueless.
Then we have thousands of small shops in hot climates, spending significantly on air conditioning. A few dollars of white (or light colored) paint on their building roof would cut this need substantially. But nearly every manager of such enterprises are clueless about the cost savings potential. Clearly the investment in auditing/consulting services would be well spent. A good way to spend stimulus money, would be to offer such services for free.
Thinking about the most urgent nearterm energy problem, oil. Note that diesel demand was driving the oil price spike last summer. Diesel prices were higher than gasoline for the first time ever. The US was importing surplus gasoline from Europe. It was surplus, because of the need to refine enough crude to maintain the diesel fuel supply in Europe and elsewhere. So cutting demand for diesel should take priority over cutting demand for gasoline. A few thoughts on some ways to do this follow:
(1) Truck aerodynamics: At highway speeds, aerodynamic resistance accounts for roughly 65% of the drag on trucks. IIRC a Dutch study showed something like a 15% reduction by adding skirts to trucks. Much greater reductions are possible if "boattail" like extensions could be added to the rear ends of trucks. In addition to cutting our demand for oil, such changes should improve the economics of the industry.
(2) Partial electrification of short haul trucking, and city buses. The fuel savings per dollar spent on hybrid/plugin/electric vehicle technology per dollar should be much larger here, than for consumer hybrids/plugins. So in addition to reducing the demand for the more critical oil based fuel, the programmatic efficiency (barrels of oil saved per dollar spent) should be higher here, than for tax rebates for hybrids, and plugins.
(3) Increase the rate of electrification of the railway system.
btw: I like greenmoms suggestion about truckstops. Assuming drivers would plugin, rather than run their engines all night this could be a cheap way to save diesel, and enhance health.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:31 pm
07 Dec 2008
I would want a long term government contract to supply plugin hybrids as part of the deal, specifying that oil industry subsidies (18 billion per year) be diverted for the contract. Plus the concessions from all the different parties involved, just as the deal they are talking about now specifies.
Why buy it? So management could be replaced and the company redirected. Also, ownership would allow one to recover the capital invested, at a nice rate of return.
Those liabilities will be cut down by the compromises to maybe 1/3? I heard 2 bucks of pain to unions and suppliers for every bail out buck invested.
I would not ask for a bail out loan though, I would want it structured as a contract to supply the plugin hybrids.
Sure it's a risky investment, but that's how capitalism works. Big risk, big potential reward.
And remember, around 40 billion would be left over after buying the companies and spinning off the GM division to manufacture the plugin hybrid drivetrains.
Come on go for it Buffet!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:13 am
08 Dec 2008
Yeah, Rupert the pirate..rumor is that he is turning progressive in his senior years, much like Goldwater did.
Who else? What about a CEO? I would think that a senior engineer that supervised the EV-1 and Volt projects would be the right choice.
Wagoner seems to be done as CEO, stick a fork in him. If you want the bail out money GM.
I think Obama should "draft" the new board members, not officially of course, but appeal to their patriotism to serve, for a limited number of years maybe. Just as draftees serve a 2 year term in the military.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:30 am
08 Dec 2008
New generation of photo electric cells, new battery technology and even the new low energy LED lighting should be made here. It seems we have surrendered most of most of our manufacturing base, looks like the automotive industry is next. We will have an opportunity to revamp the manufacturing sector and return it to a healthy one third of the economy if we get the corporate lobby out of government.
All the tax incentives for taking manufacturing or production overseas should be repealed. Stipulations on the recovery money should include that all the tax payers money should be spent in country for all manufacturing related spin off jobs.
Rebuilding the infra-structure especially the electrical grid to accomodate new sources of alternative energy will create home grown construction and tech jobs. It makes no sence to be as dependent on our solar cells and other devices as we are on foreign oil.
The fuel from green algae looks promising even though the end product will be carbon based. The CO2 problem for coal could be addressed here. Since green algae thrives on CO2 sequestering co2 emmisions from the coal powered power plants may be a viable option now. I don't like coal in any form but realistically they are going to burn it. Why not clean it up with green algae and produce extra fuel in the process. The jobs created from this process would be all home grown.
Who knows if it pans out we might even be able to export the technology to China.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 2:03 am
08 Dec 2008
Dumping health care and retirement plans on the federal government now when the federal government is broke and running large deficits will run the national debt through the stratosphere. You will get a backlash from taxpayers with no health care or retirement subsidizing the Auto Workers pensions. Of course you know this is what this is all about. The chapter 11 restructuring of a major airline several years ago that dumped their health care and retirement obligations will be the model be it a car Czar or Congressional oversight committee. Get ready for a rash of retirement and health care dumping that will bleed over to even states and local government.
Do you really think the politicians who took lobby paid for junkets on those corporate planes and have their campaigns funded by the big three lobby did not help write this script. It's a choreographed production made for public consumption to justify what all corporations have been wanting for years. Hell its icing on the outsourcing cake, now you will be able to dumb your obligations to your retired employees also. Just come up with some innocuous term to rephrase and hide the hidden meaning of what your are doing and create a doom and gloom atmosphere to help sell it.
Legacy cost to me is the cost to replace the silverware the Paulson's Wall Street hole in the wall gang and the George Bush corporate crowd stole on their way out of power. They railed against socialist capitalism for decades but in a last minute money grab and a plot to cripple anybody else's plan to fix the mess they left us in they created the economic recovery and bailout plan.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
georgia Posted 6:08 am
08 Dec 2008
The cost of the new capital visitor's center is a great example. Proposed cost $61M. Final cost - over $600M. This would not happen if "name your company" was adding infrastructure.
We need to let loose the imagination and creative power of the American entrepreneur. Lower taxes on capital investment and lower barriers to the market place put there by government.
There are lots of small companies and inventors already working on energy ideas, but the government in its infinite wisdom does counterproductive things like fund ethanol and
wind.
I bet Chris Dodd wouldn't put $1 of his own money in GM, but he's eagerly willing to put $15 billion of ours into a losing proposition.
Also, you can require car makers to produce lots more hybrids, but what if too few people want them? You either have to lower the price significantly on the cars to move them or punish people for buying vehicles they prefer. Either way, the consumber gets hosed! Better to let technology and inovation create choices that consumers will enthusiastically respond to.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 8:52 am
08 Dec 2008
In essence, we need cities, counties and/or states to send out giant RFPs, just like they do for Industrial Power Production, seeking bids on large-scale point of use PV (local panels plus installation). SCE pays $3 - $4/watt because they contract for substantial orders, using economy of scale. this is at least a 50% discount from the "retail" rate of $8 we have to pay for rooftop solar.
Once they get a good price, lets say LADWP gets a contract for 100,000 homes at 5 kW apiece, at $4/watt, they pass the net costs onto the property owner through the AB 811 (CA) property tax assessment, and the property owner repays the loan over time, in a tax-deductible manner, and the LADWP gets 100% guaranteed repayment because of its first position lien.
We then implement feed in tariffs (you know, like Albania already has, but CA doesn't?) at roughly 30 cents/kwH for the premium "peaker" power being produced. There's a margin there for the utility, a profit/repayment scheme for the homeowner, rates and taxes DO NOT GO UP, our wilderness is spared obliteration by Big Solar and Big Wind, thousands of local jobs in manufacturing and installation are created, GHGs are reduced, property values increase, and no wasteful, unneeded remote infrastructure is built, and no families are forced from their homes for the powerlines/power plants.
BONUS? FITs have proven to be the most effective way to increase conservation! So people are rewarded for producing more power than they consume. RPS, rate hikes, nagging, net metering, up-front subsidies - none of those hold a candle in speed and efficacy in reducing consumption and increasing renewable energy production to FITs. slam dunk.
Since this money is a LOAN, not a LOSS, it can become self-perpetuating for a reasonable period until every structure is retrofitted with conservation and generation facilities to it's maximum. Some properties will be net exporters, while others will be net consumers. This can cover 100% of daylight power. While this is happening, in order to sort out other hours of use, R & D will shift it's focus from Big Energy Monopolist solutions to Point of Use storage, generation, smart metering, conservation, efficiency and other demand-side processes.
Democracy wins, responsibility wins, properties win, the local economy wins, ratepayers and taxpayers win, grid reliability is increased, open spaces and areas threatened by Big Solar and Big Wind are protected, our groundwater is left intact, and even the utilities are better off. If any of these things lose, then we have failed in our mission.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:20 am
08 Dec 2008
So it's basically a city "buyers club" plus FIT -- that's the simplest way to think of it, then you have R&D for storage (any thoughts on sulfur sodium batteries for residential use?).
As for Big Wind, as you call it, we had some discussion a while back about the environmental impact of wind farms. It seems like the problem was not the turbines, except if access is done irresponsibly, as much as the HVDC lines themselves.
Notice that when natural gas prices tank, Big Wind such as T. Boone Pickens vanish. So I think a national baseload wind network would require some sort of governmental direction in any case (and why can't it provide baseload?).
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:33 pm
08 Dec 2008
That is a problem, hardly anyone wants to buy any vehicle with rampant layoffs. Take on payments with no guarantee you will have a job next month?
That's why government needs to establish contracts for a million plugin hybrids per year. It will get mass production going before the public is ready to buy cars again.
Gas prices are low now so plugin hybrids would seem like a rash investment of they cost $40k like the Volt. The price needs to be around $18k for an economy car, and $25k for a larger vehicle like the carbon fiber SUV Hypercar.
When employment stabilizes and consumers feel confident again in making large purchases with multi-year payments like cars and homes, and loans become available again, gas prices will shoot up again. It will make sense to buy a plugin hybrid because of the money saved on gas. As well as the more idealistic goal of producing less GHG.
I think in the transition, over the next few years, regular car and truck models should be outfitted with lower power engines to double mileage. Vehicles stored in parking lots that won't sell, there are huge numbers from every auto maker now, could even be retrofitted with lower power engines.
Around 2010 plugin hybrids could make their mass production debut, government contracts could start to be filled.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:45 am
09 Dec 2008
The GM model to make big fuel guzzlers and use the lobby money and advertising to support the model instead of trying to build a car that is dependable and can operate in a $4.00 a gallon gas world is the overridding factor here.
Let them go through chapter 11 and see what comes out on the other side. I do not want to see the company the congress directs or the car they build. They can't even run their own business, "government" without wrecking the economy and running huge budget deficits.
They never learned anything from 73-74 oil embargo. Chrysler never learned anything from its loan years ago. Chrysler financial is flush with cash, they just don't feel comfortable giving it to the production side of the corporation. Private corporation that needs to go under instead of squandering billions in tax payer dollars and then going under. GM CEO needs to go and most top management. Ford has made an effort just got caught in the credit crunch and bad economy.
Mandate that Toyota, Nissan and Honda build more of the cars they sell here in the U.S. I know they already have plants here but mandate the market share they pick up from the big three is built here.
I guess we will have to do as China let all corporations and companies contribute a small percentage of profits for retirement and nationalize the retirement and health care. This will get the big three on a level playing field and the rest of our corporations that have to compete against socialist capitalism.
It will have to be one way or the other. Pure capitalism with the pain that goes with it from time to time or socialist capitalism which seems to be the working model as of late.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:24 am
09 Dec 2008
I bet you still see the WW2 models driving around your area, I do.
The government contract based on exact specifications started the jeep. After the war the public wanted them, they are still manufacrured to this day. And would keep being manufactured if they went to carbon fiber body/frame and plugin hybrid drivetrain.
No need for comgress to direct the company, but government ought to specify the characteristics of the plugin hybrid drivetains they want in millions of carbon fiber plugin hybrids. That's the way to get the economy going, bail out auto makers, and start the big conversion to renewable energy.
The jeep weighed 1300 pounds, that's about the right weight for these new plugin hybrid economy cars. Weight, streamlining, battery range,average mileage on backup generator power, cost per unit, it could all be specified in the contract.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink