Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

What is the greenest way to dispose of pet waste? Scoop and flush, or bag and throw in the trash?

Jenifer M.
Vienna

A. Dearest Jenifer,

Flush or toss?The greenest way to dispose of pet waste is to dispose of your pet, I suppose. No pet, no waste! But barring that revolutionary scheme, a few other options present themselves.

You have not said what kind of pet you have, but judging by your reference to scooping, I am going to assume it is a cat. The time-tested advice for felines is to bag and throw away the soiled litter, including poo. If you are on a municipal sewer line, you may be able to flush the feces, but you should check with your town; if you have a septic tank, it's not advised. By the way, when you choose kitty litter, don't buy a brand that contains clay -- you might want to consult our product tester for the best non-clay options.

If you are scooping the waste of a dog or other animal, the same truth applies: bagging is best. It's gross to think about all that pet waste rotting in landfills, but it's a teeny bit less gross than imagining it seeping into our waterways or contaminating our gardens with its pathogens. (Some people compost pet waste, but it must be done very, very carefully -- here are some tips.)

Of course, we hear occasionally about efforts to turn pet poop into power -- I fur-vently hope "they" keep working on this idea, and I'm also very glad that is not my line of work.

Ferretly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I hear a lot about clean coal technology. Is it true that we can use coal in a "clean" way? I don't believe it. Can you please explain this?

Anand
Manhattan

A. Dearest Anand,

You know the expression "go with your gut"? Methinks you should. You don't believe coal can be used in a clean way, and you are right.

It is accurate, however, to say that coal can be used in a cleaner way than it traditionally has. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and others point out that, since coal is abundant, relatively cheap, and unlikely to disappear from our energy mix any time soon, we should find cleaner ways of feeding our addiction. These include turning coal into a gas before burning it, and capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions. Here's a fun and colorful clean-coal overview from the BBC.

Will these "cleaner" methods prevent coal from harming our health and polluting our air and water? Will they stop coal companies from blowing the tops off of mountains? Will they keep miners from being trapped and killed underground? Not likely. There's a reason my fellow Grist writer David Roberts calls coal the "enemy of the human race." It is an outmoded, dangerous source of power. We should all lobby our utilities and our representatives to give us better, safer, healthier options.

I wrote a bit more about the clean-coal conundrum last year; you can find my answer here. I also recommend you swing on over to the Department of Energy to get a sense of their plans, and visit iLoveMountains.org for a real, human understanding of where coal actually comes from.

Sequesterly,
Umbra

Q. Hi Umbra,

I am a college student and I'm really involved in and passionate about making my university more sustainable. One of the issues that I am trying to address is our current disposal of mattresses. Every year, my university "disposes" of 1,200 mattresses by incinerating them for energy (people think this is awesome and sustainable -- I wish I was kidding). So, I have been spending endless nights researching a safer alternative for this herd of mattresses. I can't recycle them because it's too damn expensive (about $20,000/yr). I can't donate them because they are ripped and flat -- who wants a holey pancake mattress? I can't Freecycle them because bedbugs are a huge issue in my area and I don't think I can find 1,200 people who want college student mattresses (think about what you did on your mattress back in the day...). So I am asking, I am BEGGING, you for help!

Mattress Maiden
Boston, Mass.

A. Dearest MM,

What I did on my mattress back in the day ... let's see, I slept on it. I read a lot of Aldo Leopold. I sorted my collection of fallen leaves by size and hue. What do you do on your mattress?

Never mind. The real question is, why is it so hard to dispose of mattresses in this country? I'm afraid, dear MM, you have outlined exactly the problem: Mattresses can rarely be donated, especially as bedbug concerns (real or imagined) increase. They take up too much space in landfills, so much in fact that some municipalities will no longer accept them. And though recycling programs are cropping up, they are few, far between, and can be fiscally frustrating.

Still, I think recycling is the best bet. Interestingly, Massachusetts is home to one of the nation's few mattress recyclers, and another outfit is venturing into New England soon. It's amazing what happens to your mattress: the wood is chipped for energy, the steel springs recycled, the cotton and foam used for insulation or other textile needs. I'm not sure which of the many fine Beantown schools you attend, but I see that Tufts and MIT both recycle mattresses. Those schools are dealing with a much smaller quantity than you mention, but you might contact them to find out how they've sprung over any obstacles. (You might also see if your school is retiring too many mattresses too soon.)

Another possible resource: Some schools rely on the help of the Institutional Recycling Network -- you might contact them as well, if you haven't already.

Above all else, it seems to me that the burning of these mattresses is a misguided plan. For one thing, mattresses are treated with chemicals to make them resistant to fire -- so once they are coaxed to go up in smoke, they likely release all sorts of nasty fumes. That's way more squirm-inducing than thinking about the damages that might have resulted from certain collegiate activities.

Stain removerly,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Prologue to Copenhagen

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

As a boy growing up near the Louisiana Gulf Coast, I remember looking out of the car window at times and seeing gigantic flames over the bayous: gas flares. Around 1970, the flaring of natural gas peaked. Oil prices were so low back then that marketing gas would not have been profitable.

Today, far less natural gas is flared off both in terms of volume and, consequentially, as a percentage of our much higher current energy consumption. Oil prices have, of course, risen dramatically over the past 40 years, but environmentalists have also been working hard to get oil and gas companies to reduce gas flaring. Nonetheless, it is estimated that the world still flares off several weeks' worth of natural gas supply each year.

Left with far fewer resources, future generations will be dumbfounded at our wastefulness. Why did we not take action sooner?

Ask anyone today, and the answer would be that we leave matters up to the market. And for a long time, the market's answer was that natural gas was a waste product of oil extraction in many cases. We chose to implement legislation banning gas flaring; here, government intervention trumped the market. Another option would have been to mandate a higher price for gas so that the profit margin for oil and gas would have been more equal. Utilities would have at least been encouraged to use gas turbines to generate electricity where gas is plentiful; the higher prices could then have been spread across all power consumers. The market would still have been free -- companies still could have done whatever they want -- but it simply would have covered more resources.

Here, we see why this option was not pursued: while our resources would have been used more efficiently, electricity rates would have gone up. Rate hikes are politically unpalatable in the Anglo world, even if they help us use resources more efficiently. So we let oil compete with gas, and oil won for decades. And we flared off tremendous amounts of natural gas.

Competing companies: While the proposal I describe above -- leveling the profit margins for energy resources -- was not implemented for fossil fuels, it has been used successfully for renewables. It is called feed-in tariffs (FITs), and it is the driver behind Europe's main success stories.

Its detractors in the English-speaking world used the same logic that was used 40 years ago in the petroleum industry: we need competition, and price fixing is anathema to free markets. Of course, the United States has had price fixing in the electricity sector since the 1930s (that's what is meant when we say that utilities are "regulated") -- but let's focus on what is meant by "competition."

Normally, when we think about competition, companies come to mind: GM versus Toyota, Dell vs. Apple, etc. Of course, there is also competition between products and technologies, such as between VHS and Betamax (or, for my younger readers, between Blu-ray and HD DVD). Notice that Betamax and HD DVD disappeared from the market completely -- which is itself a considerable waste of effort and investment, though having a single format certainly has its advantages.

If we now look at ways of generating electricity, we see that it would be nice to have competition between companies, but what sense does it make to have competition between resources? If we can leave the resource untouched, then it remains available for future generations -- no problem. But if we have to discard one (natural gas) in order to get at another (crude oil), then it makes sense to ensure that the profit margins on the both resources are roughly equal so that it pays to exploit both resources instead of wasting one. The resources need not compete as long as the extraction companies do.

Wind and solar may seem to differ in one respect: we cannot exhaust them. The sun will not be depleted regardless of how many solar panels we have, and no number of wind turbines will measurably reduce the amount of wind on Earth. Nonetheless, the amount of renewable energy we neglect to use can also be considered waste. Each day, we get a certain amount of potential solar and wind power. Were we to use more of it, our consumption of non-renewable resources would be reduced. As a result, the range of our fossil fuels could be extended dramatically.

RPS, cap-and-trade, FIT: If we agree that we would be willing to pay more today in order to use both our renewable and non-renewable resources more efficiently, the question is which policy promotes competition among companies, not resources. Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) are old-school thinking; utilities have to meet a target for "renewables," and if no further specifications are made, then renewables compete with each other. The cheapest wins, and the rest go nowhere.

Emissions trading is a more recent idea, but it is even worse in a way. Here, large energy producers and consumers are required to reduce emissions. The scheme is praised for allowing decision-makers the flexibility to choose the cheapest way to meet their target: technology overhauls ("clean coal"), investments in third-party offsets (tree plantations funding for technological overhauls abroad), the purchase of allowances from other market players, new low-carbon technologies (renewables), or perhaps just paying a fine. Here, renewables not only compete with each other, but also with all of these options.

Neither RPSs nor emissions trading ensures a comparable, reasonable return on investments in both wind and solar. FITs do. Critics of FITs charge that the policy "picks winners," but the charge only applies to the energy sources promoted -- not to any particular companies or technologies. True, those of us who support FITs for solar and wind have picked these two resources as winners -- guilty as charged. But we have not, to take the example of solar, picked any particular company, nor have we even picked a particular technology. Who can say whether crystalline or thin film panels (or perhaps something else) will be more popular in 2020? Indeed, if we provide roughly the same profit margin for concentrated solar power and photovoltaics today, we may find that the one or the other is clearly preferable by 2030 -- but then, we may nonetheless choose to keep the more expensive one as a niche product despite the price difference. After all, it would have been the sensible thing to do with natural gas 40 years ago.

We have a history of taking only the cheapest energy first. Our children will pay the price that we refused to pay, so they may very well view our old-school thinking as myoptic. FITs are the new school.

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

What to make of the new climate poll

You know how sometimes Jon Stewart gets all smarmy and sycophantic when he has on a guest he actually admires? And you know how Al Gore has a reputation for being a bit stiff on occasion? Let’s just say they seemed to bring out those qualities in each other last night—or, as Stephen Colbert “jokingly” put it later, there was “no Al-Gore-rhythm.”

Still, Gore spoke clearly about the energy and technology solutions that exist, what it will take to actually implement them, and why it ain’t happenin’. The Daily Show published a two-part extended interview on its site—here’s part one:

... and here’s part two:

Related Links:

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford

The last thing renewable energy needs right now are new transmission lines.

This statement is heresy in the green community, but there's a danger that the increasing focus of green energy advocates on a new nationwide transmission superhighway may undermine the pursuit of near-term renewable energy goals.

People are excited by renewable energy.  It's clean.  It's limitless.  It's local.  It's the one kind of energy source that anyone can harness.  Public polls show substantial majorities of Americans in every state favoring more renewable energy.

And states have an abundance of renewable energy assets.  A new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance -- Energy Self-Reliant States -- shows that every state has the potential to meet its renewable energy goal or mandate and that 3 in 5 states could get all of their electricity from in-state renewable resources.  Almost every state could get at least 20 percent of its electricity from rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) alone.

These renewable assets can be tapped for significant local benefits.  A single wind turbine, for example, creates $1 million in economic activity, according to the American Wind Energy Association.  And that's just a generic, utility size turbine.  Locally owned wind projects can create twice the jobs and 3 to 4 times the economic impact of absentee owned projects.  

The benefits from locally harnessed renewable energy create a feedback loop, building even greater public support for clean energy.

People are not so excited about new high-voltage transmission lines. 

Transmission legislation moving through Congress would preempt longstanding state regulatory authority over transmission line approval and siting.  The goal is to speed the construction of a $100 to 200 billion interstate transmission superhighway, bringing solar power from the Southwest and wind from the Great Plains to the coasts. 

Why is this problematic?  Let's ignore for a moment that most people wouldn't care to live by a 150 foot tower running through a 200 foot swath of denuded landscape.  Or to have their land seized for this purpose by eminent domain. 

Many states oppose the new transmission superhighway for two reasons.  One, it's expensive.  Two, it undermines efforts to reap the economic rewards of renewable energy self-reliance.

In a New York Times Op Ed, the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Ian Bowles, wrote:

Lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission system that would carry electricity from remote areas like Texas, the Great Plains, and Eastern Canada to places with high energy demands like Boston, Chicago, and New York ... Renewable energy resources are found all across the country; they don't need to be harnessed from just one place.

In May 2009, the governors of 10 East Coast states wrote to senior members of Congress to protest.  Requiring their residents and businesses to pay billions of dollars for new transmission lines that would import electricity from the upper Midwest and Southwest into their region "could jeopardize our states' efforts to develop wind resources ... "  They added, "it is well accepted that local generation is more responsive and effective in solving reliability issues than long distance energy inputs."

Nine of the 10 Eastern states whose governors signed the May 2009 letter could get over 80 percent of their electricity from in-state renewable resources, according to Energy Self-Reliant States.  And local energy also means fewer legal battles over the siting of unsightly transmission towers, a fact that politicians in that region are unlikely to have overlooked.

It's not just state energy self-reliance and economic benefits hanging in the balance.  A recent study released by Duke University's Climate Change Policy Partnership throws cold water on the renewable energy transmission passion.  It found that the proposed interstate transmission links from regions with low-cost electricity (e.g. the Great Plains) to regions with high-cost electricity (e.g. the East Coast) could enable coal power as easily as renewables, with poor results for carbon emission reductions and other environmental goals.

The evidence undermines the conventional wisdom about high-voltage, long-distance transmission and should raise red flags among advocates.  To the people in affected states, a new transmission superhighway is costly, anathema to local energy generation, and a potential enabler of coal-fired power.  It creates winners (in the sunny Southwest) and losers (in the "import states" on the East Coast). 

A victory for interstate transmission may be at the expense of broader public support for renewable energy. 

Renewable energy does not have to be harnessed in a few, select areas and shipped across country.  And public support for clean energy may hinge on the opposite.

The ubiquity of renewable energy means that the transition to a clean energy economy can also be a transition to a new, local energy future, where the economic and environmental benefits of powering the economy are everywhere the sun shines. 

Related Links:

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Since the new center-right coalition won the elections a few weeks ago in Germany, onlookers from the U.S. have been expecting the country to drastically cut its support for solar. Proponents of U.S.-style policies, such as tax credits and Renewable Portfolio Standards, have also been hinting that Germany will be yet another example of how the solely production-based "feed-in rates" can overheat a system. (Germany will install close to two gigawatts of solar this year. When Spain installed 2.5 gigawatts last year, the Spanish considered the market overheated and imposed a ceiling of 500 megawatts per year.)

But finally, word is trickling out in English that the new governing coalition does not in fact plan to slash solar. An unnamed source told Reuters that rates might be cut by "around 15 percent," but not 30 percent in line with the fall in module prices. (The rates would already automatically drop by between 9 and 12 percent, so 15 percent is not much of a jump.)

This news comes as no surprise to those of us who have been following events in German. You might expect Germany's Energy Consumer Association, a watchdog organization that regularly takes utilities to court for raising prices (and often wins), to oppose FITs because they also raise electricity rates. It doesn't. In fact, the organization even explains why the rates for solar should not chase after module prices in the following press release (my translation):

October 8, 2009. The Association of German Energy Consumers opposes a drastic cut in compensation for PV arrays. A dramatic reduction in the feed-in rate would be fatal for the PV sector and destroy the momentum of previous years overnight.

The billions paid by consumers to set up the PV sector would have lead nowhere, and the future of the industry would be uncertain.

Over the past few months, prices for PV arrays have fallen faster than manufacturers have been able to reduce production costs. These firms are therefore in financial trouble, and there have already been a number of bankruptcies. In China, two-thirds of PV firms disappeared altogether. Politicians need to deal with this situation responsibly.

The Association of German Energy Consumers calls for the feed-in system to be maintained as it has proven to be successful.

Can you imagine any such watchdog group in the U.S. supporting the most expensive form of renewable electricity? Welcome to Germany.

The reason why Germany has been so successful with renewables is because there is such widespread consent. For instance, if you are expecting the newly elected Christian Democrats to oppose solar, then you obviously missed this statement made in an interview by the CDU politician "tipped to become federal environment minister":

Any sudden change would be wrong. It is true that solar arrays have become much cheaper because the market collapsed. So we do have some leeway to reduce rates. But we have to be prudent about it -- it has to be based on a market analysis. We cannot chase after the market by ramping rates up and down every six months. The solar market still needs proper incentives for people to want to install the systems.

Of course, there are two parties to the coalition, so you certainly would expect the libertarian FDP to oppose not only generous support for solar, but all kinds of government intervention. You would be wrong. A member of an E.U. organization sent me a PDF of the FDP's documents it is using in negotiations with the CDU for the new coalition. From page two of the FDP's political platform on environmental, agricultural, and consumer protection issues:

"We will continue to promote the expansion of renewables in accordance with current targets, retain the Renewable Energy Act and the unlimited feed-in priority, and make these subsidies more efficient."

The "unlimited feed-in priority" means that renewable energy has to be accepted on the grid; if necessary, coal, nuclear, and natural gas plants simply have to be ramped down. (The part about making feed-in rates "more efficient" is a bunch of blah blah blah.)  Most importantly, this paper clearly states that the FDP will retain the Renewable Energy Act.

I could not find the word "solar" or "photovoltaics" in the document at all. Otherwise, the FDP only emphasizes that Germany has made too many mistakes in the field of biomass/biofuels, so support will be increased (again, via feed-in rates), and too little has been done in the heat sector. If you were expecting an attack on solar, the document is disappointing.

Now imagine one of our two parties in the U.S. ousting the other party in the elections but nonetheless maintaining the previous party's successful policy for renewables. I can imagine them doing so only to protect U.S. jobs -- and indeed, North American renewables policies are increasingly protectionist, with support given only to systems made locally. You now might expect Germany to follow suit, but the German Solar Association (DGS) has come out against the idea that some protectionist measures should be introduced in the country's Renewable Energy Act to protect German companies from unfair competition from abroad, especially Asia. As the DGS put it, "German manufacturers have to compete with quality, longer warranties, and better service."

Now imagine solar proponents and environmental organizations in the U.S. saying that U.S. solar companies are simply going to have to learn to compete.

So there you have it -- the German solar market is apparently not going to collapse like Spain's did. There simply is no real opposition to renewables over here any longer. Don't believe me? Then check out this weather report from a few days ago, in which the weatherman starts off by showing a map of Germany and some superimposed wind turbines. He then explains that the overall output was going to increase drastically over the next 24 hours, producing some 11 gigawatts at times.

How much is that? "As much as 11 nuclear power plants," the weatherman said. (Germany only has 17 left, and one of them doesn't work.)

Now imagine a U.S. weatherman subtly fighting for wind and against nuclear -- and no one bats an eye.

Welcome to Germany.

Related Links:

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

New Energy Finance: Solar power 50% cheaper by year end

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

This interview is part of a series on people who are making their communities smarter, greener places to live. Got a nomination? Leave it in the comments section or send it along to us.

All signs point to solar for Schoolman and her neighbors.For a while, things were looking gloomy. The founders of Washington, D.C.‘s Mount Pleasant Solar Cooperative had their hearts in the right place; they even had their paperwork in the right place. But they hit snag after snag as they tried to fulfill the dream of converting their neighborhood to solar power: Contractors who didn’t want to sell solar panels in bulk. Confusion over the role of the regional utility. And the inevitable red tape of local politics.

Eventually the group’s persistence paid off, and this month they’re celebrating their fiftieth neighborhood solar installation. We caught up with co-founder and president Anya Schoolman to find out how it all happened, what’s next, and what advice she’d give to other communities who want to follow the sun.

Q. Can you explain what the Mount Pleasant Solar Cooperative is, and how and when it formed?

A. The Mt. Pleasant Solar cooperative emerged from dinner table conversation I had with my son Walter, then 12, and his friend Diego. They had seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and they wanted to know, if the Earth was going to overheat in their lifetime, “Is, um, anybody, you know ... going to do anything about it?” The next question was, “Why don’t we get solar power in our neighborhood.” So we decided we would try to do something.

Our neighborhood consists mostly of rowhouses with flat roofs. We thought if we got enough neighbors together who wanted to adopt solar arrays, some solar contractor would offer us big discounts. We got the neighbors together and quickly learned it was going to be a lot more complicated than we originally thought. So we set out to to educate ourselves about all aspects of solar and to share that knowledge with as many people as possible. That’s where the “cooperative” concept really proved valuable.

Q. Tell us a little more about your own background—what’s your “day job,” and how did it prepare you (or not) for leading this group?

A. I have been working in the environmental movement since the mid 1980s. I have worked for non-profits in both Latin America and the U.S. I spent nearly 10 years in senior level policy jobs for the federal government, and worked for foundations in grant making, program strategy, advocacy, civic engagement, energy, watershed management, and many other areas. I now work as a consultant on environmental strategy and program design for both foundations and non-profits.

Frankly, before we started the co-op I was burned out on the environmental movement. I felt as though I had done almost every kind of job, from education and grassroots organizing to senior-level policy and multilateral negotiations. I felt as though most folks in the movement spend 90 percent of their time on internal process and talking to other environmentalists rather than making real change happen in the real world. A huge segment of our movement confuses talking about change and making real change happen. One of the most fun things about the Mt. Pleasant Solar Cooperative is that 100 percent of our effort is focused on creating a path for D.C. to go solar. We are not a 501c3 and we have no budget. We do not spend any time in fundraising, meetings with management, reporting to funders, or catering to our board.  We do only what we think is important to move the ball forward. Because we do not collect or spend money, we can also lobby as much as we want, as we have no IRS restrictions or tax returns to fill out. It is a strange, rare, and wonderful kind of freedom, even if it isn’t sustainable over the long term.

Q. The cooperative is marking a pretty significant achievement this month: solar installations on 50 homes. What did it take to get to this point, and how will you celebrate?

A. We have been working hard for the last three years to get here. We had to sign up, recruit, and educate more than 200 households.  We did energy conservation work such as energy audits and CF lightbulbs in the early years when were still figuring out a pathway to go solar for our city. We completed roof inspections on more than 86 homes. We helped pass major legislation here in D.C. We worked with two top-quality pro bono law firms to “engage” our local government, our utility, our Public Service Commission, and others.  Our lawyers and co-op members also helped us with economic, tax, and legal analysis and helped us negotiate contracts for our members.

On September 19, we will have our first large public event.  We will have a solar house tour to visit the homes that have gone solar and a green living fair at our local elementary school to share information and expand our membership. Like everything we do, we are focusing on real, practical steps that an extremely busy middle-income family can take. All the information is on our website.

Q. Looking forward, what are your hopes for the cooperative over the next year? Five years? Ten?

Up on a roof: Schoolman with co-founder Jeff Morley and their sons Walter Lynn and Diego Arene-Morley, the inspiration for it all.A. The agenda for the next few years is pretty big. First of all, we hope to help support other co-ops to form all over D.C. At a minimum, we want a co-op in each of the eight wards of the city, so that each co-op will be able to engage and influence one member of our City Council. We figure that will be a great basis for moving other legislation in the future.

We would also really like to develop a financing mechanism for residential solar so that it will be available to a much more economically diverse group of people. Right now, with the combination of the D.C. grant program, the Federal Tax Credit, and the sale of our SRECs (solar renewable energy credits), solar is affordable in D.C. There is a four- to eight-year payback on solar electric panels that will last 25 years. However, affordable is only theoretical for those families who do not have the cash or credit to pay for the upfront costs of installation.

In the next few years, we will need to be vigilant to make sure the regulatory system in the city supports increased solar development and renewable energy generally. There are a lot of details to attend to. What we find is that our perspective on legislation is very different than traditional environmental groups. I know from my years in policy work that great-sounding, lofty policies often don’t produce the intended results. Instead of looking for broad policy goals—say, for example, the renewable portfolio standard of 20 percent renewables by 2020—we look to fix the impediments to implementing solar ...

We are really focusing on the territory between the broad policy goals set by the environmental community and the arcane regulatory world dominated by business interests and set by local governments. We are finding ourselves quite alone in this territory. Over the next few years, D.C. will set up a Sustainable Energy Utility and roll out new smart meters for residences. We want to be there, to make sure these new programs are rolled out in a way that promotes residential solar.

Q. What are the pros of this cooperative model? What have proven to be unexpected challenges?

A. We have found the cooperative model to really work in terms of advocacy. The politicians have all heard from the local environmental groups and they don’t pay too much attention. However, when they get a petition or emails from homeowners in their district, they take notice. The fact that we are organized, focused on practical outcomes, and pay taxes in their district makes a difference.  We have also found the cooperative to be a great model to share information, skills, and expertise among neighbors. The people of D.C. are an amazing resource. People would much rather get information about solar from a neighbor than from a salesmen or contractor. Even though the solar installers are very knowledgeable, they obviously are pushing a particular product or approach.

Q. What do you say to those who think solar is unaffordable or unreliable?

A. I am not sure anyone says solar is unreliable, because if you are on a grid-tied system such as we are, there are no risks in terms of reliability. On days when you produce more energy than you use, you put your energy on to the grid and generate a credit on your electric bill. On days when you use more than you produce, you draw from the grid just like you did before solar. Most of our homes are aiming to provide 1/3 to 1/2 of their electricity from solar.

Solar is still expensive. There is no doubt about it. Especially residential solar where you need to find a custom solution for almost every roof, and each home needs its own meters and inverter. But citizens really want solar—and from my experience, this includes people of all economic and cultural backgrounds. It isn’t something that only well to do environmentalists want. People of all backgrounds are concerned about climate change. People want the self reliance—it is like getting a fixed mortgage on your house. It may cost more, but it is a type of security and you know it won’t go up. People want the jobs from renewable energy to be local jobs here in the city, not on some ridgetop in a faraway state. Producing energy closest to where it is used and needed is more efficient and just makes intuitively makes sense to people—and the idea of using energy from the Middle East, cutting off whole mountaintops in West Virginia, or despoiling the American West for a few drops of natural gas just seems absurd in comparison. Furthermore, people want the benefit of the renewable energy to go to themselves, not some monopolistic utility that continues to rip them off and give them no choice and no options. People want solar on their own roofs, and if they don’t own a house or don’t have a good space, they want solar nearby at a community facility where they can buy a panel and have its energy reduce what they pay to the electric company each month!

For now, residential solar needs subsidies, and people can organize to get them.  It is getting easier each day, and the number of creative models and solutions emerging around the country is staggering. Suddenly, the federal tax credit is very, very attractive. It has gone from 30 percent capped at $2,000 to 30 percent with no cap! Our D.C. rebate is currently funded at $2 million a year. That is enough to fund nearly 200 houses a year at an average of around $7,000 a house. The sale of our renewable energy credits will generate close to $1,000 a year for most of our members. In addition to that we save about $500 a year on our electric bills (at today’s prices). So right now, for us, it adds up to making solar not only affordable but a very good investment. But each community needs to figure out the right mix of supports, and regulatory approaches to clear the path for solar. Right now, most of our systems are mostly rigged against it. It is complicated and confusing.

Q. Do you think yours is a replicable model? What advice would you give people interested in starting a solar cooperative of their own?

A. I do think our model is replicable. We are interested in joining with sister co-ops anywhere in the country and creating a network. We are working actively to support new co-ops here in the D.C. area. I think I could spend a whole day giving advice to people who want to start their own co-op, and I am available to provide workshops for any group that wants to get started. A few ideas are: Get a strong core group to start, and include some kids in the core group. Buy an email management system. Be clear on what your goals are. Don’t be afraid to get political and get down deep in arcane rules, regulations, and technical details. If you get stuck, ask for help—you will be surprised how many others want you to succeed. Don’t take a path that won’t work for others. For example, if given a choice, as we were, of getting a one-time grant to support your installations or creating a long-term program that will serve others who follow, always go for the long-term path. Ignore everyone who tells you it is too hard, too expensive, or any other excuse. Americans spend $1 billion a year on anti-wrinkle cream and no one tries to tell them they are wasting their time and money.

Q. Anything I’ve overlooked that you’d like people to know about your work?

A. Taking your neighborhood solar is a three-part challenge. The first part is community organizing: getting lots of different people to commit to a course of action for the common good. The second part is entrepreneurship: taking risks, in terms of time and money, in order to reap rewards. The third part is salesmanship: convincing your friends and neighbors to invest a nice chunk of change in the future of the planet.

I would like to call for a moratorium on environmental groups giving advice. Here is the difference. Instead of saying, “Switch to CF lightbulbs,” think about it. Why don’t people switch? They might think the light looks different, it is very confusing, they don’t know what brand to buy, they don’t think it will matter, the bulbs are too expensive. Figure out what the impediment is and then do something about it. So the solution isn’t sending out a flier that says buy CF bulbs, the solution is testing the bulbs, choosing the best ones, buying them at bulk prices, selling them to your neighbors for cheap, demonstrating the light quality, and making it easy, and showing them that when everyone does it together it adds up to making a big difference. Chip away at what is blocking the path!
At the end of the day, ever person who wants to go solar is going to have to write a check or sign for a loan. You need to start with that final step in mind. What is keeping them from making that step, and what can you do to remove the obstacles in the way?

Related Links:

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

New Energy Finance: Solar power 50% cheaper by year end

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

Jacobson the power-ful.stanford.eduI was disappointed when I discovered that the list of experts at last week's Clean Energy Summit would not include Stanford University's Mark Jacobson. Of course, no individual is indispensable at such a summit. But as the day went by I felt his absence more and more keenly.

That's because Jacobson is one of the few scientists looking at energy's Big Picture. How big?

In an article published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science earlier this year, Jacobson reported the first quantitative, scientific study evaluating the top energy sources based on:

By using each of these factors to assess ten major energy sources, Jacobson produced a list that should be the starting point in any discussion about our energy future. Here's what he found:

The top electrical generating energy sources are (from best to worst):

Nuclear and coal actually tied for last place.

For powering vehicles, Jacobson produced a second list. Again going from best to worst:

Jacobson's findings are a surprising blow to backers of ethanol-based biofuels. He also had harsh words for politicians who are pouring money into this area. "Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels," Jacobson told a reporter. "We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all."

Jacobson highlights the need to fund wind energy in particular. He says that the entire U.S. fleet of vehicles could be powered by as many as 144,000 five-MW wind turbines. That's a large number. But the country has met higher production goals in the past. In WWII, Jacobson says, America built 300,000 airplanes -- a far larger and more difficult job than building wind turbines.

Such a program would be a positive way to stimulate and grow our economy as well, he adds.

"There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession," Jacobson says. "Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage, and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

The entire article is available here.

[This post was originally published in a slightly different form at The Phoenix Sun.]

Related Links:

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Where is all the damn climate data?

Gainesville’s feed-in tariff program is limited to 4 megawatts of solar PV each year. The program is already fully subscribed through 2015 — a 24-megawatt commitment.Photo courtesy U.S. NRELClean energy advocates in Europe have long considered the feed-in tariff as an antidote to the industrial world's fossil fuel dependency. Now, the United States and Canada are starting to catch on as well.

Feed-in tariffs (FITs) guarantee that anyone who generates electricity from a renewable energy source -- whether they are a homeowner, small business, or large electric utility -- is able to sell that electricity into the grid and receive long-term payments for each kilowatt-hour produced. Payments are set at pre-established rates, often higher than what the market would ordinarily pay, to ensure that developers earn profitable returns.

The FIT is credited for the rapid deployment of wind and solar power among world renewable energy leaders Denmark, Germany, and Spain this past decade. Similar policies have since been adopted by many other countries, leading the FIT to become the most prevalent tool for promoting renewables.

In North America, its adoption has been relatively slow. As public support for renewable energy increases, however, more governments are adopting FIT policies -- often as a complement to the widely used Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require utilities to purchase minimum amounts of renewable electricity.

Several U.S. states and Canadian provinces began serious consideration of the FIT last year. More than a dozen states, one province, and numerous municipalities have since implemented some form of FIT.

"We've reached a tipping point where a feed-in tariff is no longer such an odd idea for America," said Paul Gipe, the author of several books on wind energy and a FIT advocate. "In fact, it's the best idea for rapid development of the massive amount of renewable energy that's needed now."

Renewable energy projects have often struggled to gain the confidence of investors, a problem the FIT policy addresses by ensuring that anyone with a sun-drenched roof or windy backyard may receive funding for a set period of time, normally 15-20 years.

"A lot of the charm of the feed-in tariff is solid, take-it-to-the-bank security and confidence for the investing community," said U.S. Representative Jay Inslee, a sponsor of legislation that would establish a nationwide FIT, at a Washington, D.C. briefing earlier this month. "You get access to what is very difficult to get right now: financing."

Not all FIT policies are created equal. The North American programs enacted to date often limit the level of economic incentive, the project size, and the renewable energy source, compared to large-scale programs enacted in Europe. Small-scale renewable energy advocates are praising FIT programs approved this year in Gainesville, Florida; Vermont; and Ontario as examples that North America should follow.

Gainesville, Florida

Florida, the Sunshine State, is blessed with bountiful solar resources to support renewable electricity. In the northern city of Gainesville, the municipal utility has helped ratepayers purchase their own solar panels since 1997. The program has partially financed some 40,000 watts of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, but until recently there was no incentive for homeowners to install the panels properly.

"We weren't getting energy bang for the buck," said John Crider, an engineer with Gainesville Regional Utilities' strategic planning department. "People could get the rebate check and put their solar panel in the shade."

Last year, Assistant General Manager Ed Regan visited Germany, the world's leader in grid-connected solar PV, on a trip coordinated with the Solar Electric Power Association. Impressed by Germany's FIT policy, Regan convinced the Gainesville City Commission to approve the first FIT for solar PV in the United States. The utility promised that solar providers who signed up for the program before 2011 would earn $0.32 per kilowatt hour for 20 years, an estimated 4-6 percent return on investment.

"We assume, as time goes on, it will be cheaper to buy and install solar equipment," Crider said. "The rate we pay goes down as well, to keep the return ideally constant."

The utility, which is otherwise reliant on coal and natural gas for its power generation, wanted to be sure that electricity costs would not increase more than 1 percent due to the FIT, Crider said. The decision led the utility to limit the program to 4 megawatts total of solar PV each year. The program is already fully subscribed through 2015 -- a 24-megawatt commitment. Before the Gainesville program, the entire state of Florida had installed 2.5 megawatts of solar electricity capacity.

The FIT gained the city's support mostly to boost the local economy. More than 220 companies in Florida produce, sell, or install solar PV products, according to the Apollo Alliance, a San Francisco-based organization that champions "green jobs" nationwide.

"Our primary motive is not to get the cheapest energy and keep profits high for investors, because we don't have investors," Crider said. "For the municipality, we have a larger vision.... Create a local, thriving marketplace for local solar providers."

Vermont

With two-thirds of Vermont's electricity contracts set to expire in 2012, the state was in a position this year to change its energy portfolio. Meanwhile, Vermont was far from its 2025 goal of 25-percent renewable energy -- renewables were supplying less than 10 percent.

The state offered a "net-metering" program that allowed residents to feed renewably generated electricity into the grid, offsetting some or all of their electric bills. Hundreds of small-scale systems resulted, but these combined to meet a mere 0.02 percent of the state's electricity load.

"We were trying to alter the entire energy paradigm, but we were on a very slow trajectory," said Andrew Perchlik, executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont.

The net-metering program did not allow participants to turn a profit, a problem given that small-scale power generation projects required the same costly permits as commercial power plants. Too few Vermonters had reason to participate.

Legislators had considered adopting a FIT, but the policy lacked grassroots support until a new coalition of business leaders, environmentalists, and utility executives formed a renewable energy consensus. The group met before the state's politicians convened in January and settled on the framework of what would become Vermont's first FIT, which they call a "standard offer."

"Increasingly, utilities are realizing that customers are asking for renewable energy. In the long run, it will be less expensive than the alternative," said Robert Dostis, a former state House of Representatives energy chairman who now directs external affairs for Green Mountain Power. "By being at the table, we were able to contain the enthusiasm of some of the renewable energy advocates and have them understand the rate impact of some of their ideas."

The legislature settled on a 50-megawatt program that limited individual projects to 2.2 megawatts each. Starting in January 2010, 20-year contracts will be available for developers of large- and small-scale wind, solar, and biogas power projects.

Opponents said the public would reject the idea of paying more for renewable energy projects -- the highest rate, $0.30 per kilowatt-hour of solar energy, far exceeded the $0.04 many ratepayers were being charged at the time. "That was not the case at all," Perchlik said. "Some 80 percent wanted renewable energy, and they were willing to pay 5 percent more."

The energy bill cleared the Democrat-controlled legislature easily. In May, Republican governor Jim Douglas allowed the bill to become law despite his concerns about it. He said the FIT "fails to recognize the current viability of renewable energy in a competitive setting and will needlessly increase costs to Vermont consumers so as to subsidize this one favored business sector."

Although program specifics have yet to be finalized, Vermonters are expressing growing interest. Dostis predicts that the program will fulfill its 50-megawatt limit by 2012. "I think this is really going to propel development," he said.

Ontario

During the 2007 provincial campaign, Ontario's Liberal party promised it would close every coal-fired power plant across the province by 2014. Premier Dalton McGuinty said the plant closures would benefit human health and meet half of the party's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Following the election, the Liberal party secured 71 of the Legislative Assembly's 107 seats. Despite clear political support, shuttering 18 percent of the province's power source is no easy feat. The Liberals had already pledged to close the coal plants during their previous term, only to push back their own deadline.

Since 2006, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) began offering a FIT system that provided 20-year payments of 11 Canadian cents (US$0.09) per kilowatt-hour for small-scale hydro, wind, and biomass power projects, and 42 Canadian cents (US$0.34) for solar projects. More than 1,000 megawatts of projects were installed during the first year, but renewable energy advocates criticized the payments, particularly for solar energy, as too small.

In March, the province announced that its proposed Green Energy and Green Economy Act would establish a revised FIT modeled after Germany's. The bill set payments for on-shore, off-shore, and community-based wind power; rooftop PV and ground-mounted PV power; small hydropower; and various biomass power options. Payments would depend on the project size for each technology.

The proposal was instantly applauded by renewable energy supporters. "The Green Energy Act is the most progressive renewable energy policy in North America in three decades," said Gipe, who advised the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association. "There was a decision to pay what it costs to develop renewable energy. It's clear to the public, transparent to everyone."

An OPA-conducted survey found 150 developers who were interested in the new FIT and were willing to construct 15,000 megawatts of electric capacity -- enough to produce the equivalent of 20 percent of Ontario's electricity consumption.

Gipe also solicited support from Ontario's farmers, whom he advised would be eligible to receive payments for wind turbines on their property.

"I went to every farm group I could," Gipe said. "This is an opportunity to revitalize the Ontario economy ... not just to revitalize the rural economy, but the entire industrial economy of Ontario."

The proposal was approved in May. It now stands as the most generous FIT policy in North America.

This article is a product of Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute's online news service. For permission to reprint Eye on Earth content, please contact Juli Diamond at jdiamond@worldwatch.org.

Related Links:

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

New Energy Finance: Solar power 50% cheaper by year end