August 1, 2013

The Davis Enterprise: Snippets of energy news

media mention
By John Mott-Smith
From page A3 | August 01, 2013 | Leave Comment
Back in the old days, when you went to the movies, theaters often would show a double feature, and these two movies would be preceded by a cartoon and a newsreel. The double feature is long gone, as is the cartoon, and the newsreel has been replaced with about 20 minutes of previews of coming attractions and, if you get there early enough, a bunch of advertisements.
Sensing a collective feeling of loss from the absence of the newsreel, I’ve taken it upon myself to gather bits and pieces of news about climate change and, on occasion, pass these on. Here we go.
Who wants a fuel-efficient car? According to a survey by the Consumer Federation of America, almost nine out of 10 Americans list fuel efficiency as “an important factor” in choosing what car to buy, and nearly six in 10 rate it as a “very important factor.” This increase in consumer demand probably has more to do with the cost of gasoline than with concern over greenhouse gas emissions but it’s encouraging that fuel efficiency has taken its place next to a car’s “power, safety, roominess and special features.”
Are you listening, Congress? According to a snippet in Scientific American, there’s bipartisan support for CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fleet Economy) standards; specifically the recently enacted requirement that carmaker’s fleets have to average at least 35 miles per gallon by 2017 and just under 55 mpg by 2025. The magazine indicates that these standards are supported by 77 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of independents and 92 percent of Democrats.
A slightly different way of looking at the term “offsets.” A recent Carnegie-Mellon study looked at the impact that solar and wind energy projects have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and suggests that one key variable is where the projects are located. It’s sort of common sense, but I had never thought of it quite this way.
The study indicates that building solar facilities in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania and the Virginias — states heavily dependent on electricity produced from coal — is more than twice as effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a facility built in the sunny Arizona desert (assuming that the renewable energy is either replacing current power produced from coal, or avoiding producing new power from coal).
Similarly, a wind power facility built in those Eastern states generates more than six times the bang for the buck of facilities built in Arizona or California where electricity is more dependent on burning natural gas than coal.
Fuel efficiency can be a taxing problem. America has built countless miles of freeways and roads since automobiles became residents of the ubiquitous two-car garage. In the main, these roads were built and are now maintained through a user fee; a tax on gasoline. The gas tax helps fix potholes and keep bridges from falling down.
One of the consequences of increased fuel efficiency is that gas tax revenues are declining. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that in 2010 all the states combined took in nearly $3 billion less than in 2004. Drivers of fuel-efficient cars are paying less gas tax per mile than those driving less efficient cars.
What about folks who are driving electric cars? They don’t buy gas at all so don’t pay any gas tax.
Some states say this isn’t fair, that anyone who uses the roads should have to help pay for their construction and upkeep. Virginia, for example, is considering an annual fee of $64 for electric vehicles. Lots of other states are considering similar actions, including Washington, North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona and New Jersey. And Oregon apparently is looking at a proposal to charge a fee for any car that gets over 55 miles per gallon. The driver could pay a flat annual fee of about $550, or a “usage fee” of $1.55 per mile.
Do you like a good challenge? I recently discovered a government program that seeks to encourage innovation through a system of awarding cash prizes for solving particular problems. Some of the prizes are relatively small ($10,000 if you can show how technology can make future arms control inspections rigorous enough that the second half of former President Reagan’s famous line “Trust, but verify” can be efficiently achieved) or large ($10 million for anyone who can get the cost of rooftop solar down to $1 per watt).
This is sort of amazing: the private sector has experience with “innovation through competition” (e.g., the X Prize contest to develop commercial space flight) and now the U.S. government is on the field. There is even a staff position of “White House Assistant Director for Grand Challenges” and more than $40 million has been awarded. The Phillips Corp., for example, received $10 million for developing an LED light bulb that lasts 27 years.
There are currently 56 open contests or challenges in the “Energy & Environment” category. It’s important to note that there is not just one prize awarded for each challenge. Instead, each challenge can award several prizes. Examples include a “Campus RainWorks” challenge to “college students to design an innovative stormwater management” system for their campus (prizes $46,000), an “Apps for Energy” challenge for the best apps that help utility customers manage their electricity data (prizes $100,000) and the “Battle of the Buildings,” an EPA-sponsored contest involving “teams from 245 commercial buildings in a head-to-head competition to see who can reduce their energy use the most” (as far as I can see, no prizes, just bragging rights).
In terms of local interest, teachers may want to know there are many “contests” aimed at students of all grade levels to produce videos or posters on a particular energy or environmental issue.
Check this out at www.challenge.gov.
— John Mott-Smith is a resident of Davis; his column is published on the first and third Thursdays of each month. Send comments to [email protected]

(Original Post)

By John Mott-Smith

From page A3 | August 01, 2013 | Leave Comment

Back in the old days, when you went to the movies, theaters often would show a double feature, and these two movies would be preceded by a cartoon and a newsreel. The double feature is long gone, as is the cartoon, and the newsreel has been replaced with about 20 minutes of previews of coming attractions and, if you get there early enough, a bunch of advertisements.

Sensing a collective feeling of loss from the absence of the newsreel, I’ve taken it upon myself to gather bits and pieces of news about climate change and, on occasion, pass these on. Here we go.

Who wants a fuel-efficient car? According to a survey by the Consumer Federation of America, almost nine out of 10 Americans list fuel efficiency as “an important factor” in choosing what car to buy, and nearly six in 10 rate it as a “very important factor.” This increase in consumer demand probably has more to do with the cost of gasoline than with concern over greenhouse gas emissions but it’s encouraging that fuel efficiency has taken its place next to a car’s “power, safety, roominess and special features.”

Are you listening, Congress? According to a snippet in Scientific American, there’s bipartisan support for CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fleet Economy) standards; specifically the recently enacted requirement that carmaker’s fleets have to average at least 35 miles per gallon by 2017 and just under 55 mpg by 2025. The magazine indicates that these standards are supported by 77 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of independents and 92 percent of Democrats.

A slightly different way of looking at the term “offsets.” A recent Carnegie-Mellon study looked at the impact that solar and wind energy projects have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and suggests that one key variable is where the projects are located. It’s sort of common sense, but I had never thought of it quite this way.

The study indicates that building solar facilities in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania and the Virginias — states heavily dependent on electricity produced from coal — is more than twice as effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a facility built in the sunny Arizona desert (assuming that the renewable energy is either replacing current power produced from coal, or avoiding producing new power from coal).

Similarly, a wind power facility built in those Eastern states generates more than six times the bang for the buck of facilities built in Arizona or California where electricity is more dependent on burning natural gas than coal.

Fuel efficiency can be a taxing problem. America has built countless miles of freeways and roads since automobiles became residents of the ubiquitous two-car garage. In the main, these roads were built and are now maintained through a user fee; a tax on gasoline. The gas tax helps fix potholes and keep bridges from falling down.

One of the consequences of increased fuel efficiency is that gas tax revenues are declining. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that in 2010 all the states combined took in nearly $3 billion less than in 2004. Drivers of fuel-efficient cars are paying less gas tax per mile than those driving less efficient cars.

What about folks who are driving electric cars? They don’t buy gas at all so don’t pay any gas tax.

Some states say this isn’t fair, that anyone who uses the roads should have to help pay for their construction and upkeep. Virginia, for example, is considering an annual fee of $64 for electric vehicles. Lots of other states are considering similar actions, including Washington, North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona and New Jersey. And Oregon apparently is looking at a proposal to charge a fee for any car that gets over 55 miles per gallon. The driver could pay a flat annual fee of about $550, or a “usage fee” of $1.55 per mile.

Do you like a good challenge? I recently discovered a government program that seeks to encourage innovation through a system of awarding cash prizes for solving particular problems. Some of the prizes are relatively small ($10,000 if you can show how technology can make future arms control inspections rigorous enough that the second half of former President Reagan’s famous line “Trust, but verify” can be efficiently achieved) or large ($10 million for anyone who can get the cost of rooftop solar down to $1 per watt).

This is sort of amazing: the private sector has experience with “innovation through competition” (e.g., the X Prize contest to develop commercial space flight) and now the U.S. government is on the field. There is even a staff position of “White House Assistant Director for Grand Challenges” and more than $40 million has been awarded. The Phillips Corp., for example, received $10 million for developing an LED light bulb that lasts 27 years.

There are currently 56 open contests or challenges in the “Energy & Environment” category. It’s important to note that there is not just one prize awarded for each challenge. Instead, each challenge can award several prizes. Examples include a “Campus RainWorks” challenge to “college students to design an innovative stormwater management” system for their campus (prizes $46,000), an “Apps for Energy” challenge for the best apps that help utility customers manage their electricity data (prizes $100,000) and the “Battle of the Buildings,” an EPA-sponsored contest involving “teams from 245 commercial buildings in a head-to-head competition to see who can reduce their energy use the most” (as far as I can see, no prizes, just bragging rights).

In terms of local interest, teachers may want to know there are many “contests” aimed at students of all grade levels to produce videos or posters on a particular energy or environmental issue.

Check this out at www.challenge.gov.

— John Mott-Smith is a resident of Davis; his column is published on the first and third Thursdays of each month. Send comments to [email protected]

 


Share