Making Clean Energy Work

Another example in this war of information:

"EU's new figurehead believes climate change is a myth"

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/e...)

"The European Union's new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday..."

How can the average Joe be expected to understand the imperative of a Green Revolution when things like this occur regularly?

Dear Mr. Friedman,

I finished reading your latest book within 2 weeks. It is a broad and well written book about the challenges and opportunities the human race is facing. I found many very good ideas and found a new motivation to continue my work in energy policy.

There is only one flaw I can find in your work and that is in regards to your thinking that nuclear should play a part in the green revolution. You stress the importance of energy security and go on about petrodictators. What about uraniumdictators? In 2007 according to the DOE the US imported over 92% on the uranium used in commercial nuclear power plants with over on third coming from Russia. Energy security? I think not.

Also, there is much talked about in the book about the “true cost of burning coal, oil, and gas”. What about the true cost of the nuclear fuel cycle? Clean nuclear is no less of an oxymoron than is clean coal. The worse part of the fuel cycle is the ecological impacts of mining and milling the ore. “First rule of systems is everything is connected to everything else”. http://www.roxstop-action.org/1.html

Also, taking in consideration the fuel cycle nuclear emits 20% to more than 100% of CO2 of a natural gas plant. It doesn’t meet your free fuel forever criteria. http://www.stormsmith.nl/

As you have stated billions of government dollars have been spent on nuclear. If that money had been spent on efficiency, renewables, and the smart grid you wouldn’t have needed to write your book.

The nuclear industry is part of the “Dirty Fuels System” they “distorted the facts, placed misleading ads” “bought out politicians”. See the link for how they are spending millions of dollars on new PR. http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry...

We need action now! Nuclear is too expensive, too slow, too dirty, and takes money away from the real economical and sustainable solutions to the problems we now face. In order to have a democracy we need democratic power which all people can generate themselves in a distributive smart grid.

Thank you for your work!

Mr. Friedman,

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter as I’m sure you are in receipt of numerous notes like this on a daily basis. The members of our organization, Residential Hydrogen Power, are all avid readers of yours as you have obviously become the spokesperson for our green future. I can speak for our entire group that what you put on paper or speak to in various news mediums is exactly the direction we feel the world needs to move, not only in energy needs but every aspect of green consumption.

Mr. Friedman, as you’ve been working as hard as you have over the course of the last few years trying to educate the United States as well as the rest of the world on how The Green Revolution will be the 21st Century’s Industrial Revolution, our team here in Dayton, OH has been working with just as much passion and drive making unprecedented progress in the development of hydrogen production at the point of consumption (residential based). We understand the general public (and most people in the energy industry) seems to feel hydrogen is a generation or more away. We at Residential Hydrogen Power are here to tell you hydrogen production is ready now. Our technology is exactly what you describe in The World is Flat as a Globalization 3.0 product, one that is controlled by the consumer and producing at the consumer level. Our technology, made from truly renewable resources, is producing more pure hydrogen (and oxygen) than what even our wildest expectations were. The coincidence of your educating and our research and development is that we call our new product the ARK and in Hot, Flat and Crowded you named one of your chapters “A Million Noahs, a Million Arks”. Our motto is: “Turning the World Upside Down - One ARK at a Time”

As I stated at the beginning of this letter I am sure you receive countless inquires and requests to check out a product “that will change the world”. I realize there is a good chance this letter will fall into that bin as well. We at Residential Hydrogen Power are not looking for handouts or any other favors. We just thought you would like to learn more about a few individuals doing exactly what you say is necessary and “inventing and creating green technology in a garage somewhere in America”. And we think it has even more of a storybook tale since it is all happening in Dayton, OH, where the Wright Brothers changed the world with their little invention created in a bicycle shop down the street from where we are working. We feel our hydrogen technology can and will bring jobs back to this region, one known as the “rust belt” and we can reeducate and employ those being let go from the Globalization 2.0 industry quickly fading away in this old manufacturing town.

If you would like to come to the Gem City and see the technology you aspire for our future we would love to host you.

With kindest personal regards,

Mario Parisi and Mike Evers
Residential Hydrogen Power

mparisi@greennaturemkt.com

mike_evers24@hotmail.com

Mr. Friedman,

We need to apply long term systematic thinking to the development of wind generation rather than the current piecemeal approach. The two primary incentives to build wind generation are the Production Tax Credit and the various RPS standards around the country, which both reward the generation of the most MWh for the least cost. Unfortunately, the actual MWh generated are often of little direct use to the power grid without substantial inputs from other generation.

The intermittent nature of wind generation is generally known, but the specific issues this creates are often ignored or simply not fully appreciated. There are three primary steps to building and operating large scale wind generation.

1. Build the wind generation plan facilities
2. Transmit the wind generation to the electrical grid
3. Integrate with wind generation into the overall power needs of the electrical grid.

Currently, all the incentives are directed at the first step, which is also the simplest step to accomplish. There is increasing dialogue regarding the second step, which will require substantial new investment in transmission facilities, but the final step is by far the most difficult since this step is often expected to be provided for little or no cost. Significant physical generating plant capacity must be set aside and maintained to meet load needs and offset the variable nature of wind generation, which is uncorrelated to the demand for power.

While Hot, Flat, and Crowded discusses some the integration issues in a general sense that need to be done and the need to deal with all of these issues in a systematic way, the magnitude of the issue is often not understood. Just as the 15 wedges presented in Chapter 9 are larger in magnitude than we might first think, so is the magnitude of what needs to be done to incorporate the variable nature of wind generation. When the smart grid gets going, it will start to absorb some of this variability, but again, the magnitude must be considered. The smart grid will start slow and be built one kW at a time, while wind generation is currently being built hundreds of MW at a time. We will be using substantial amounts of dispatchable generation for some time to deal with the variable nature of wind generation.

We are building a small number of very large wind farms in the United States instead of spreading the generation around as has been done in Europe. This practice leads to substantial variability in generation, which can be seen if you view the web site below which that indicates the wind generation in the Bonneville Power Authority Balancing Authority for the last 7 days.

www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/...

If you view this site from time to time, you will have a feel for the magnitude of the situation in the NW where generation flexibility has traditionally been supplied by the hydro system, and the NW as been pushing the limits of the allowable variations in hydro generation even before the recent construction of large wind generation plants. There may not be much further development of hydro power in the NW due limitations placed on hydropower in renewable portfolio standards. The effects of hydropower on the environment are generally benign, especially when taking into account the quantity of power generated. As with all renewable resources, there are exceptions.

Transmission providers are required to provide certain services to generation located in their system. Historically, these services have required a small amount of generating resources compared to the amount of energy flowing on the transmission system. Wind generation, as it is being built in certain areas of the United States, does not fit this mold. Contributing to the issue is the failure to acknowledge the significant costs of a power plant to stand by ready to generate. There needs to be a mechanism to reimburse these standby costs. If this mechanism fails to develop or is simply not sufficiently recognized, we will not produce the lasting transition in operations needed to continue developing higher penetrations of wind generation as we progress towards the smart grid.

Wind generation development cannot continue at its current pace without recognition by all the stakeholders of the need to use a systematic approach that recognizes the need to do quite a bit more than just build wind generation facilities.

I make two suggestions for Chapter 18

1) Encourage future incentives, tax breaks, and standards for renewable resources to consider all aspects of the systematic development of renewable resources.

2) Urge all who develop renewable resource standards to recognize hydropower as a renewable resource for purposes of compliance.

Dear Rene,

The daily sunlight energy content point is a good one. Virtually all our energy sources originally come from the sun, but are converted and stored in various ways by the earth, so we can think about the problem in terms of the most clean and efficient ways to harness that solar energy.

While I agree that storage is a major problem; I think that conversion and distribution are equally important.

thx
Ed L.

Maybe I missed something, but I was surprised to see you mention nuclear as part of the energy mix we should be promoting. I don't care if its thorium or a next generation plant, it seems to me that anyone that pushes for nuclear is somehow totally ignoring the major issue of the waste in generates. It takes forever to build a sorta safe facility to accommodate all the waste for many thousands of years. Nobody wants such a facility in their back yard. From what I understand, that Yucca Mountain storage site is essentially already filled before it even gets started because of the tremendous amounts of waste that already exists in on site storage at the nuclear plants.
I don't see how any electron coming out of such majorly wasteful and deadly source can be considered "clean". Maybe a reactor that's a few design generations down the road, that would totally reuse it own fuel, would be something worth messing with, but not what we currently have.
I'd also like to see people be very specific when putting down or even just discussing biofuels. I agree that ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans is a bad idea, but I can't see where getting biodiesel from an algae farm out in the the desert is going to starve anyone, and it has a lot of potential return for the energy put into making it. I don't think even algae biodiesel is long term solution, but in the short term it would be a help.

Ed,

I'm not Tom, but I did study economics, and you raise a good question. It wouldn't really matter who got what cut of the $100/barrel. The idea is to create a price floor.

This is basically a Pigouvian tax. It's used to make up for negative externalities in order to set the quantity of the good demanded at the level it would be at if all of the costs involved in the production and consumption of the good were included in the price (internal vs. external). This is really a market solution to the problem. All the theories about competitive markets are based on the willingness of the purchaser to pay for all of the costs of production and consumption. The price of oil is artificially low because it doesn't include: 1) the cost of maintaining a military/naval presence in the parts of the world we get our oil to keep them secure; 2) The environmental damage caused by the production, transportation, processing, and consumption of oil (including hefty medical costs of treating various cancers and lung ailments); 3) The cost of dealing with the Global Wierding Tom writes about in his book (hurricanes, blizzards, floods, etc.); 4) The cost of combating terrorists that much of the profits fuel.

The intent of the tax is to correct market dysfunction, not to fund the government.

Bleh, this is the same cancer that's growing on the republican party, and apparently it's growing on us as well, just pure abstraction and emotionalism. Friedman is essentially not researching any topic and building an emotional campaign to support his baseless ideas. He basically moves in a simple pattern, without any sort of proof or margin of uncertainty he says something's wrong, then blames and says the solution is "THIS". Anyway, I would argue with "facts" but since he gives none I'll show he can't possibly be right with MATH, yes math. Ok, advanced calculus, Friedman uses abstraction in every argument, via metaphor, accusation or analogy, if you use abstraction you've essentially made all your arguments "fuzzy" or open vectors, in other words you no longer have one argument, you have many and many interpretations which are arbitrary and you can reinterpret the original argument indefinitely. The amount of solutions come from the interpretations, however, you have many solutions coming from multiple interpretations of the original abstraction.
Not necessarily wrong or right solutions, you may throw darts and hit the bullseye, but your chances with a blindfold on (not doing any research) are going to be less than nailing the pretty girl in the face.

I won't go as far as to say he's absolutely wrong which means I think I'm absolutely right, but to say you're absolutely right about ideas which have high degrees of uncertainty paired to them is just idiotic.

I have many ideas about solutions to environmental problems like making clean energy work, but my best idea is how to integrate hundreds and thousands of ideas into a coherent, "whole systems" solution. It combines 1) a design process called a "Pattern Language", and 2) a type of website called a "Wiki", to make what I call the "Ecopatterns Wiki".

1. Pattern Languages and Ecopatterns

"Ecopatterns" are design patterns for ecological and environmental problems: waste management, water conservation and energy for example. Essentially a design pattern is a generic solution to a recurring design problem, a rule-of-thumb that can be applied in a number of specific ways.

These design patterns link to one another in a cascade, from patterns at a global level, to patterns at a regional level, on down through levels at urban, buildings, vehicles, devices and parts scales. This way patterns form a system of solutions that support each other. As each pattern can be referred to by its title this system of design patterns forms a "Pattern Language", in this case an "Ecopatterns Language".

2. Wikis

A wiki is a website where people can work together on user-generated web page articles, such as the online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. The Ecopatterns Wiki will use this technology to enable many many people to create Ecopatterns. In this way hundreds and thousands of ideas can be integrated into "whole systems" solutions to environmental problems - like clean energy.

3. Examples

To illustrate how Ecopatterns hang together as a system of solutions, let's follow a thread down through the cascade, from a global level pattern right down to the level of something small.

An Ecopattern titled "Local Energy Sources" addresses remote (foreign) energy dependence at a global scale, lays out where the world's nine primary sources of energy are (four non-renewable and five renewable), and concludes that it's more efficient, and more secure, to use energy resources indigenous to local regions.

That Ecopattern links to one titled "Small Energy Sources", which says that, because they are difficult to connect to large interconnected distribution systems, small local sources of energy are best suited to small decentralized standalone uses.

That Ecopattern in turn links to (for example) "Passive Solar Heating and Cooling" for buildings, which links to "High Performance Windows".

For more information about Pattern Language, Ecopatterns and the Ecopatterns Wiki, with examples, see:

1. The "home page" about Pattern Languages:
http://www.designmatrix.com/pl/index.html
2. The top-level page about Ecopatterns:
http://www.designmatrix.com/pl/ecopl/index.ht...
3. The page about the Ecopatterns Wiki itself:
http://www.designmatrix.com/pl/ecopl/ecopatte...

Gary Swift, DesignMatriX.com

“We do not have an energy problem; we have got a storage problem”,

(In half an hour, enough sunlight reaches planet Earth to supply the world’s total energy needs for a whole year),

according to Ad van Wijk and re-affirmed by the other experts in the 4th and last episode of Energy in Abundance, VPRO Backlight. (Energy War, Here Comes the Sun, The Race of the Car of the Future). The discussion was moderated by Rob van Hattum with the partcipants; Ad van Wijk (CEO of Econcern), Peter Blom (CEO of Triodos bank), Wubbo Ockels (astronaut and professor at TU Delft) and Willem Vermeend (former minister and entrepreneur).

Underneath, you will find some paragraphs, a short selection of ideas and sometimes shocking facts, presented at the discussion;

Two large 600MW coal-fired power energy plants could be made redundant if the 200 million doorbells in Europe will be altered in such a way that they don’t need to be powered 24/7. How is this possible, why can this not be changed was the rhetorical question posed by Wubbo Ockels. Because there are people who benefit from the current situation! There is a lot of disinformation, the scientist are part of the problem according to Hermann Scheer’s own findings.

Our national policies are not long term, our investors need to be sure where they stand, like in Germany where they know for the coming 20 years what they will be earning. FEED-IN TARIFF

A national plan needs to be developed by private investors in the renewable energy sector and executed locally with the help of the provincial governments. The politicians would have to follow suit.
Especially if you would issue shares for the public and make them stakeholders in those renewable energy sources. Wind and solar belongs to everybody. Make the people owner, there will be a huge shift in (self) interest. A whole new industry will emerge, with lots of jobs.

1 litre of gasoline will cost you 3 times more than the electric equivalent. The public does not know, not informed, misinformed, even politicians say the most foolish things.

The REAL calculations need to be made public via good media and good journalism in such a way that the general public gains trust in the energy policies and developments.

We have got 7 million cars, one car equals 50 KW = 350.000MW on the road. That’s more than 20 times our current energy capacity in the Netherlands. Wubbo Ockels, now the REAL numbers, a car which drives 12.500 miles a year needs a 144 square feet of solar panels.
This needs to be published, accessible to everybody!

According to his own experiences, former-minister Willem Vermeend says, the biggest problems in regards to renewable energy are the CALCULATIONS. Example;
The government says we need a new coal-fired power plant. (life span 40 years) The calculations of the Ministry of Energy are coal power plant is cheapest per KW hour. COMPLETELY wrong because some factors have not been included, i.e. gas, coal and oil price over 40 years, and what about health and pollution impact. CONCLUSION, a coal-fired energy plant is hugely expensive.

US Congress to debate German style feed-in tariff.
http://www.channelweb.co.uk/business-green/ne...

Germany sets shining example in providing a harvest for the world
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jul/2...

“The Race for the Car of the Future”,
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/aflev...

“Here Comes the Sun”,
http://www.youtube.com/vprointernational

The LadderMill is the response to the challenge for exploiting the gigantic energy source contained in the airspace up to high altitudes of 10 km.
www.ockels.nl

President of EUROSOLAR
General Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy (WCRE); President of the International Parliamentary Forum on Renewable Energies; Member of the German Bundestag; Author.
http://www.hermannscheer.de/en/index.php?opti...

About solar energy
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/solar...

World's largest photovoltaic power plants
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php

EUROSOLAR website
http://www.eurosolar.de/en/

How Africa's desert sun can bring Europe power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/de...

DESERTEC (summary)
http://www.desertec.org/downloads/summary_en....

DESERTEC website
http://www.desertec.org/index.html

I would like to ask Mr. Friedman a philosophical question: Would an unlimited source of clean energy be a good thing if it meant that we could then make all the plastic we want, all the chemicals, all the fertilizers and pesticides, all the cement, and all the disposable products we want and supply these things to everyone in the world? Perhaps the unforeseen consequences of unlimited, clean energy on natural resource depletion, on waste, and on biodiversity should be included in the discussion of how to make clean energy work for the benefit of humankind.

Dear Mr Friedman,

I have some time ago developed a much superior Hydro-electric system that can increase the stability of our power grid while eliminating the need for for any other type of power plant such as coal burning and Nuclear while also reaping the benefits of reclaiming much more land with pressurized irrigation that can be run hundreds of miles inland. It can also keep waterways open and it is very efficient at flood control along moving waterways....and can be implemented with current technology and materials.
My problem has been when I have contacted 98 of our representatives in D.C. who expressed interest in finding answers to our energy problems or greenhouse emissions, or both, I have not gotten one single response. Not even one asking how it works..I contacted the Australian Government once...And Keving Rudd's office immediately brought me together with Senator the Honorable Penny Wong and Mr. Gareth Evans to do a fast track study on what it would take to implement.
You say our country should be the leader in renewable green energy and that the world should license from us..Ok....FINE!
I am more than willing to work with my own Government. How do you propose I should get them to work with me?
I shall await your answer...
Gary Lee Connor
605 N 2nd St.
Yakima WA 98901
1-509-577-1555
sirflying@yahoo.com

We should attack our conversion to sustainable energy in the same way we have made accessible higher education, through combinations of federal funding and affordable government guaranteed loan programs. Student loans work because degrees lead to increased earnings and those with a degree have higher incomes than those that do not. Similarly, with loans for small scale wind and solar all funds will have economic benefits by offset preexisting costs or creating earnings.

Low interest governmentally guaranteed sustainable energy loan programs for small scale and home based renewable energy production could be made by existing financial institutions. Loans would need to be put toward the purchase of equipment to both offset energy costs and to be sold/credited back to the grid. Unlike a student loan these will have the safety net of funding tangible equipment that can be removed if defaults occur. Because there is a monetary gain to be made from performance, owners will have tremendous incentive toward maintenance. In addition the impacts of massive defaults are effectively mitigated due to the fact that the loans are widely diversified and are directed toward offsetting costs and/or generating revenue.

Although the primary benefit of this is to create access to clean, affordable and sustainable energy production a number of important secondary benefits will follow.
We would effectively be creating an industry comparable to the computer revolution of the 90’s. Different from this, and locally advantagious, would be the potential for strengthening and developing our small local business sector. Building wind generators and solar panels is not rocket science. Due to its relative simplicity it lends itself well to small fabrication and installation businesses. This would increase further with tax incentives that will ultimately be offset by revenue gains of a strengthened economic sector and increased jobs. Our farm families can benefit the most from wind development due to the ability to gain revenue from the wind while continuing to harvest the land below. In addition, an ethic of energy conservation will be increased by the fact that we will become more conscious of its very direct benefits. Concurrently, because of enhanced market demand, a strengthened and burgeoning business and industrial sector in conservation technologies will also occure. This will exist in everything from light bulbs to buildings. Our home building sector can be revived by new design and construction technologies that are oriented to significantly lowering lifetime energy costs. These may include passive solar, earthen and super insulated homes and additions.

More broadly this can only benefit national security. As we have seen, if a power plant goes down in upstate New York it can cause blackouts across the Northeast in the cold of winter and the heat of summer this can be devastating. If nothing else we all now recognize our dependence on foreign oil goes squarely against our national security. If energy production is localized it diversifies energy production and our security more firmly in our own hands.

This notion of government guaranteed low interest loans for local energy production is not altogether new. It is the perfect intersection of economic development, national security and environmental responsibility. With an economy based on small business and a slumped building industry workforce such an initiative may be just what we need. Along with this we need to up date our building codes to allow for wind energy and create building standards for better conservation practices.

As a solution local wind and solar energy is far from standing alone. There is also wood, hydro, tidal and geothermal along with our traditional sources. However the more localized and sustainable our energy sources are, the better we will all be for it. It is something with vision and initiative we can do at moderate cost and we can all stand behind.

Dear Mr. Friedman,
Several months ago I happen to see part of an fuel/energy program in which you where the moderator/narrator it was shown on Sundance TV channel (of Time/Warner in New York). I would like to know its name and if it is available on DVD.
The part I saw was most informative. I would like to show it to my children to explain the importance of conservation.

Thank you,

Tom

Thanks for your inspiring, new read.

I am a legislator in the South African parliament. A couple of us, from a variety of political parties, have become frustrated with the lack of incentives to promote a massive uptake of renewable energy in South Africa.

We have proposed a new piece of legislation introducing feed-in-tariffs which we hope to get passed in the weeks ahead.

If you or any of your readers are interested in signing the petition in support of the bill. please go to:
http://www.petitiononline.com/FITSA/petition....

Kind Regards
GARETH MORGAN MP

Many of the comments focus on specific technologies or major overhauls of the current system. The best solution is for the federal government to set general performance standards and let the private sector and states determine the best ways to meet the targets. All President Obama and the Democratic Congress need to do is:

1. Pass federal cap-and-trade legislation under the Clean Air Act to reduce CO2 emissions by 80%, including clear authority for the EPA to regulate GHG as pollutants.

2. Pass a federal Renewable Electricity Standard of 20% renewable generation by 2020.

3. Direct federal regulatory agencies to develop new standards for appliances, fuels, vehicles, and other energy consumers to reduce energy demand as much as possible.

This will have a major impact while still allowing the market flexibility to develop new technologies that meet the same goals at a much better price. It will also provide clear climate leadership to the global community and help developing countries avoid our environmental mistakes.

I have greatly enjoyed your book and the response it is creating. I am an engineer at a nuclear power plant and have been "going green" for many years. On top of everything else I recently installed a dual-flush toilet, which I think should become a mandatory design. However, my wife is becoming less and less enthused with my "energy savings dementia!
Anyway, I believe we need to look at the energy policy debate from a slightly higher level. Big picture impact - we have to convert from fossil fuel personal transportation to electrically-powered. This works for the environment AND our foreign oil dependence. Typical daily consumer transportation needs can be met even with the current electric power vehicle designs. These are improving almost daily in terms of range and performance. We will also need to build a significant number of new nuclear power plants. [You are already thinking I'm pushing an agenda based on my occupation, but you would be WRONG!) I want as much wind and solar power as we can get but I also understand the ratio of acreage vs generating capacity. I'm not sure I want to see hundreds of square miles of wind turbines or solar panels everywhere I go.
We need billions of KW hr/day generation just to make a dent in current coal-based capacity and billions more when we start shifting to electric cars. Wind, solar et al just will not get there. Clean coal technology is still in what I OBJECTIVELY consider the development phase. Nuclear is fully ready - the new generation designs currently being presented to the NRC have solid track records in other countries. They will actually be simpler to build and cheaper to operate & maintain than present vintage.
We need finance incentives, tax breaks, risk caps, etc brought to bear on this transportation and electricity generation shift. We also need more and more conversations that look at realistic energy policy directions.

I have invented two things that will fight climate change. One is a way to make small cars safer in collisions. Small cars use less fuel and generate less CO2.

The other is a new way to move water. It can be used fight wildfires and to move water to villages that are losing their water supplies.

I need help getting these ideas evaluated.

Please see my website www.safersmallcars.com

Canada change leaders... FAIL. Frustrating!

Maybe you folks will have better luck in November than we did tonight.

No matter who wins, HFC has taught us that we must hold the leaders accountable; dig into every last assumption they so glibly use to dismiss the facts. Don't let them tell half-truths. It's worse than lying, because it wastes precious time.

Dear Mr. Friedman:

As the financial crisis deepens, I fear that the alarm you sound in Hot, Flat and Crowded will be muted by what seems to be a contradictory and more immediate alarm about the nation's solvency and ability to do anything out of the ordinary. While there are many opportunities for investment in green infrastructure projects, as outlined in your book, they will require massive amounts of capital. What are your thoughts on how we can continue to progress in an environment where investment, in the form of loans or equity, appears to be unavailable even for worthy projects? We cannot afford to lose the time it will take for the world economic order to be restored and to wait the even longer time it will take for the confidence required to create new investment to reach the levels that will be required, but I don't see how this can get done. My only thought is for a gigantic government-supported infrastructure reconstruction effort like the one we had in the 30s, which could produce jobs at the same time as it dramatically upgrades our infrastructure to prepare us for a green future. I don't see the political will anywhere to take the leap of faith that such a program would require.

Second, you mention a lot of wonderful, thoughtful people in your book who have important insights into the dangerous situation in which the world finds itself. If the next President and Congress would actually agree to create the kind of effort you suggest, whom would you recommend that the next president name as Chief Energy Officer? If you prefer not to name an individual, can you discuss the qualities and experience the person should have: industry experience, science/technology background, political experience?

Dear Tom:

I am one of five intitiators of a group we call Citizens Energy Plan (CEP). Yesterday afternoon we held our initial public meeting to solicit interest in our plan to devlop a comprehensive national energy policy and deliver it to Congress by September 20, 2009. (Please don't laugh.)

Just today I finished reading your book. It is inspirational. You have provided the facts, figures, people, places and experiences that flesh out the ideas our plan embraces. We have a Powerpoint presentation on our website (www.citizensenergyplan.com)that outlines our plan. It is remarkably close to the premise laid out in your book, but not developed as fully as yours.

The bottom line is, we are a group of the grassroots people you are talking about. I was inspired by your idea to gather on the Mall as a million people to present our plan and demand action.

We are planning an Energy Summit in Willmar, MN early in 2009. We would like to have you, T. Boone Pickens and Newt Gingrich as featured speakers. We plan to finalize our draft plan by March 15th, 2009 and spend until August 1st tweaking and finalizing it through a consensus process. Then we want to complete the final text and present it to Congress.

We believe that if we create a big enough parade going in one direction, our political leaders will jump out in front to lead it.

We would like your help. We need your help to connect us to like thinkers. The time is now!

Make The Energy Conservation A Market Pull Than A Policy Push:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make sure any strategy is implemented or any guideline incorporated, we need to get back to the good old rule of economics. Make the strategy, a market pull than push them from the other side. As we are aware, subsides and other sort of incentives that the governments provides have been in vogue on for a long time, without much effect. One can try changing the mentality for going Green by incorporating a two phased strategy.

Phase One:
Form a neutral organization in the lines of ISO, which would regularize the amount of conservation of energy and certify the organizations based on their Green mindset. The rating should not only be based merely on the methodology in use, it should incorporate the calculation based on how the company views the future and how the company plans to go Green in years to come. Additionally, it should also incorporate scoring system based on the results of a random survey the employees of the organization have to go through. Basically, the idea is, just don't go by counting the actions taken by the company, for that year. Instead rate a company based on their goals and how they have aligned the Green goals with the overall Growth Goals of the organization. By doing this we can make sure that there is a presence of mindset to Go Green.

Phase Two:
Provide tax rebates for the companies, who buy goods from the companies which have a higher Green rating. Meaning, for example: if a company A is planning to buy a refrigerator from two potential vendors B and C. With the rating in a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the Greenest). If the company B is rated 4 and company C is rated 2. Then the company A could claim a Green rebate of say 5% of the cost of company, as they chose B.
This is to make sure the company A, feels the impact of going Green in its Bottom-Line and transfers the intent of going Green to the buyer than the seller. Thus resulting in a pull for Green mentality.

To Summarize to implement the same in two phases:
:: Form an organization in the lines of ISO to certify Green companies.
:: Provide incentives to the companies for buying the products from the Green companies, than providing incentives to the companies for turning themselves Green.

Great book. I'm not even finished reading it yet, but I want to lend my support. I was inspired by the innovative and practical ideas that Noah Horowitz, at the NRDC, has put into action, such as pushing to upgrade all the vending machines in America, which could displace a significant number of power plants.

In fact, the possibilities are endless for such innovations that ordinary people can initiate.

One idea that comes to mind (similar to the future ECE society vision in HF&C) is for inspired municipal leaders to start passing local bylaws that require any new condo complexes, and industrial parks to allocate an area equivalent to a percentage (5% ?) of their total area to be provided for renewable energy sources. Condos and business parks usually have common or public areas anyways. Why not leverage this foothold for sharing costs?

Because energy generating and conservation mechanisms could be put on top of buildings and incorporated into the architecture of the complexes from the beginning, it would not have to be "dedicated" or "lost" space. These "energy hubs" would then be able to supplement power to the local community, which would already be built to use it sparingly.

Tax breaks and other economic incentives could be given to offset higher initial costs. In the end, if the architecture is done with the mindset of the Texas Instruments example in the book, both building and long term costs could be less for these communities than with conventional building techniques.

Immediate success with this kind of approach could show how small scale initiatives could be replicated multiple times in each urban area. The impact could add up over time, could it not? It just takes a few inspired municipal leaders; or even inspired architects (who could show how the economics work to everyone's advantage - even when bidding on tenders that don't mandate an eco-friendly approach). Sounds like win-win-win, doesn't it?

I can't wait to finish listening to the audio-book!

Thanks, Thomas, for this very timely and important book.

Scott Wright
http://www.securityviews.com

Tom,

The book is great, of course! I wanted to also draw your attention and your readers attention to the potential of bio-gas recovery in both slowing global warming and contributing to our need for renewable energy. Firms such as AE Resources Group, Inc. http://www.aerginc.com/index.html have already built large scale recovery systems for some of the largest food producers in the US - i'm sure we can expand that to other industries!

Loved your new book - I tell all my colleagues to read it.

My only disappointment is that you almost completely left out discussion of biomass conversion technologies (CTs) - the single biggest source of renewable power in the U.S. today (even more than hydroelectric).

Wind and solar are carbon neutral. Plants are carbon negative and their biomass can be converted to directly replace fossil liquids for fuels and fossil solids for baseload power.

Wind and solar will not revive the decentralized rural economies of the world the way that bioenergy will (reference 25x'25 and ACORE's Biomass Coordinating Council).

I have so much to say about CTs that I spent three years writing four blogs to help organize information, news, and commentary on the subject. (see biostock.blogspot.com to start) It has been time well spent. I now work in communications with a biomass sourcing company that already provides 14 million tons of woodchips to the major paper & pulp mills of the U.S. (and Australia). It will do the same for emerging CTs - like Vinod Khosla's Range Fuels project. As a result I have a front row seat (literally) at all the bioenergy conferences in North America.

I have come to the opinion that the key to sustainably sourcing biomass for CTs is finding waste streams and disaster debris that has a social cost attached to it (and very often a tipping fee or government incentive to remove it). This biowaste needs to be cleaned up before it decays into methane, CO2, and other GHGs. I include in these waste streams (1) wildfire salvage wood in CA, (2) hurricane debris and forest knockdown in the Gulf states, (3) mountain pine beetle infested wood in British Columbia and Colorado, and (4) unrecycled MSW at all the major cities. These problem accumulations of biomass are massive and will get much worse with "global weirding."

California's AB32 - the Global Warming Solutions Act - has entrusted its Air Resources Board to devise and execute solutions to reduce GHG emissions in California. CARB has fashioned a "Scoping Plan" and sought comments from Californians at large. I have written an article with links to the three comments I made based on my research and travels and invite you to check them out. http://bioconversion.blogspot.com/2008/07/com... .

One comment advocates reducing significant amounts of GHG by thinning forests to preempt unprecedented "megafires", salvage carbon laden tree remains for conversion, and replant forests to sequester CO2 anew. You should interview Sen. Feinstein about the pitifully low amount of forest management work that has been accomplished since the passage of her Healthy Forest Initiative Act of 2003. Only 77,000 acres have been treated out of 20 million acres funded. This institutional lethargy is largely because there is no forest products industry left in those forests to buy the wood which would fund the programs. (BIOstock Blog)

Another comment focuses on diverting unrecyclable wastes (40 million tons/year in CA alone) from landfills by instead using CTs to produce biopower and biofuels at the Municipal Sorting Facilities (as L.A. is planning to do with its RENEW L.A. plan). (BIOwaste Blog)

My third comment is titled "Challenge the Status Quo" which aligns with your BANANA lament. Too much current policymaking and regulations handicap initiative for action. For instance, thermochemical CTs are hogtied with the same EIA and LCA impediments as landfills (which means that it takes 5 to 10 years to permit them). As a consequence, the status quo wins.

I'm a big fan of yours. If you need backup material on these issues they are accessible and fairly well linked on the blogs.