Queen Elizabeth, Great Britian’s royal icon, has directed her managers to purchase one of the world’s largest offshore wind turbines from a California energy company, Clipper Windpower. The turbine will be placed offshore in Scottish waters on Crown property.
The 7.5-megawatt MBE turbine will start in 2010 and the electricity it generates will be sold to the nation’s grid. The Queen’s property company estimates that the turbine will generate the comparable amount of electricity from one million barrels of oil during its 30-year life span.
Evidently, the Crown Estate owns the waters 12 nautical miles around the United Kingdom. It has already invested in wind power and has leased areas to companies that specialize in offshore wind turbines.
The Crown’s support is part of a larger effort by the European Union to increase its renewable energy sources by 2020. Couched under the goal to reduce carbon emissions, the EU set a goal to cut overall emissions 20 percent by 2020, of which the UK should reduce its share by 16 percent. For the UK, that translates into generating 33,000 megawatts of power by 2020. Currently, the country produces roughly 500 – 600 megawatts of power.
That’s quite a tall order. Still, by 2020, according to Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life, the UK will need approximately 148 gigawatts of electricity. So by then, the nation’s wind farms will likely supply roughly 22 percent of the UK’s total electricity needs.
Twenty-two percent is not shabby. The Crown stands to benefit from substantial revenue and the country gains a significant wind resource.
May 26, 2008
Starting on July 1, 2008 San Francisco area businesses will pay a 4.4¢ tax for every metric ton of CO2 they emit. The region’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, responsible for air quality oversight in nine counties, voted 15-1 to impose the carbon emissions fee. Citing that impacts from climate change are raising surface temperatures, air quality, in turn, is negatively impacted.
The District expects that over 2,500 businesses – including gas stations and grocery stores – will be subject to the fee though the majority of businesses will pay less than a dollar. However, approximately seven power plants and oil refineries exist in the area and may pay $50,000 or more each year.
The District hopes that the fee will send a message and inspire businesses to reduce their carbon emissions even further (after all, the less C02 each business emits the less it will have to pay). The District will earmark the money to fund its efforts to collect and track data on greenhouse gases.
Of course as the news reports, not everyone appreciates the Board’s decision. Critics note that the state’s California Air Resources Board is also assessing policies to curb carbon dioxide emissions as directed by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Pundits fear that a regional mandate will confuse efforts and ultimately lead to a hodgepodge of policy. Cynics also warn that the region’s cars and trucks fall outside the agency’s purview, yet account for over 50 percent of the area’s carbon dioxide. Too bad the Bay Area Air Quality Management District cannot instead use the fee it collects to provide incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles!
May 22, 2008
Baseball fans have probably already heard that Fenway Park, home to the Boston Red Sox, is going solar. Great fanfare occurred as officials showed off the 28 new solar thermal panels on the roof to heat water. In addition to the roof top panels, the Sox have distributed solar-powered trash compactor bins throughout the stadium for fans to deposit their non-recyclable waste.
According to the Red Sox’s press release the 28 solar hot water panels will reduce the amount of natural gas the stadium currently uses to heat water by 37 percent. The Bonneville Environmental Foundation, which worked with the Red Sox to plan the system, calculates that the solar panels will offset 18 tons of CO2 emissions each year, the equivalent of “planting 4.86 acres of trees, not driving a car for 43,611 miles, or off-setting the CO2 produced through natural gas use from approximately 4 average U.S. homes annually.”
May 21, 2008
Hillary Clinton has a reputation for thoroughly researching issues. True to form, it’s not hard to find a detailed description of Clinton’s proposed policy for solar energy on her website. In a 14-page fact sheet entitled Powering America’s Future: Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address the Energy and Climate Crisis, she proposes set a goal that by 2025, 25%of our country’s electricity is produced from solar, wind, biomass and other renewable sources.
In her fact sheet, Clinton pledges to create a permanent 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour federal tax credit for producing electricity from renewable sources such as solar (currently a federal tax credit for 30% of the cost of a system, up to $2,000 is set to sunset on December 31, 2008). Clinton also hopes to provide tax incentives to families and businesses to install small-scale renewable energy systems, and establish national net-metering standards so that those who install solar photovoltaic and other similar types of equipment can sell power back to their utilities “on fair terms.”
Since we’ve talked about McCain’s and Obama’s views on nuclear power, we’ve looked at what Hillary Clinton thinks as well. Clinton calls herself “agnostic” towards nuclear energy and opposes new subsidies for nuclear power. She proposes to improve safety and security at current nuclear power plants and explore alternatives for the safe disposal of nuclear wastes.
Those who appreciate details will approve of Clinton’s comprehensive road map for environmental policy. Her 14-page fact sheet touches on all the “hot button” environmental issues our country faces today. Like Obama, she too acknowledges that climate change must drive public policy and her website emphasizes her proposal to create a cap and trade system for carbon emissions. (Obama supports a similar plan.)
In the end, it’s hard to distinguish Hillary Clinton’s proposed environmental policy plan from Barak Obama’s. Both presidential candidates consider climate change a fundamental issue and support “cap and trade” solutions. Both candidates explicitly include solar energy in their mix of renewable energy solutions and both pledge to bolster the renewable energy industry through supportive policies and strong leadership.
If you are interested in a comprehensive analysis of what a “green organization” thinks of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and the other candidates’ environmental proposals, check out Grist, www.grist.org. Grist staff writer David Roberts devotes considerable time to comparing and contrasting each candidate’s views on the environment.
February 16, 2008
Curious to know your own carbon footprint? We checked out two different online calculators over the weekend. The EPA has published its own carbon calculator tool: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html. Another useful carbon footprint tool can be found on www.carboncounter.org.
Be ready to collect some data about yourself. Each tool requests that you compile annual data from your electricity and gas bills. The EPA tool asks for actual costs while the Carbon Counter tool prefers the same data in terms of kilowatt hours of electricity or therms of natural gas. Both tools also ask you to enter information about how many miles you drive each year and the fuel efficiency of your vehicle.
The tools also differ. The EPA tool asks about your recycling habits; while the Carbon Counter is more interested in your annualized miles via air travel.
In the end, both tools calculate your carbon dioxide emissions and provide national averages so you can see how you fare. The EPA calculates emissions in terms of pounds of carbon dioxide per year, whereas the Carbon Counter tracks total carbon dioxide emissions as metric tons. So if you’d like to compare, remember that 1 metric ton = 2204.62262 pounds.
Each tool suggests ways that you can reduce your carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA tool allows you to readily see how much you might save once you’ve answered a series of questions. The Carbon Counter offers ideas on how much money you could contribute to a carbon offset organization to neutralize your activities. Either way, it’s good to note where each of us stand in terms of carbon dioxide. As we all learned in kindergarten – there’s always room for improvement. We could all help reduce carbon emissions.
February 4, 2008
Most scientists agree our climate is changing – they may not agree on the causes for that change – but most concur that global warming is real. Essentially, too much heat remains in the earth’s atmosphere.
The main culprit for that heat retention is carbon dioxide, a byproduct of combustion. The coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, and wood we burn emit carbon dioxide. Of course, we have used these materials and have emitted carbon dioxide for millennium. What makes our actions different now is the magnitude of our emissions and their cumulative effect on our atmosphere.
Trees and other vegetation have always helped (and will continue to help) process carbon dioxide and release oxygen, however, our continuous use of fuels, demand for wood to make paper, furniture, and houses, and clearing of land to make way for agriculture exceed our planet’s “natural” pace to consume carbon dioxide.
Carbon neutral is the term coined to rebalance our consumption. You can calculate the carbon you use, and then purchase credits from companies that invest in clean energy projects. These “carbon neutral” companies pool resources to invest in large-scale development of projects such as wind power, solar power, or land preservation to help our planet heal.
Mind you a quid-pro-quo attitude is not enough to “fix” our addiction to combustion-production. That’s where actions such as installing solar panels come in. The more all of us choose less energy producing products and activities (like Energy Star appliances, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and high gas-mileage cars, to name just a few) the more hopeful we can all be that our lifestyles we so enjoy will not wreak total havoc on our environment.
January 30, 2008
