by Wendy Gordon

Forty-five can be a sizeable number. Especially when it's the number of gallons of sweet beverages the average American consumes in one year. This jolting news was reported in a new study published in the January 2012 issue of Health Affairs.

How much sugar comes with all that?

About 4,500 teaspoons per person per year just from soda. Consumption of beverages high in calories but poor in nutritional value is the number one source of added sugar and excess calories in the American diet. It's also fueling America's soaring obesity and has pushed diabetes to the top of the charts; it's now No. 7 on the "cause of death" list.

The Obesity Crisis

More than one-third of U.S. adults (over 72 million people) and 17 percent of U.S. children are obese. The crushing health care costs associated with obesity -- estimated to be as high as $147 billion a year -- prompted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to list reducing the intake of sugary drinks as one of its chief obesity prevention strategies in 2009.

As an intervention, several states and cities, including California and New York City, have considered a tax on soda, but have yet to impose one. Maybe now they might.

Taxing Soda vs. Saving $17 Billion

The new study, led by Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and of epidemiology and biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), estimates that a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages would prevent 240,000 cases of diabetes per year. On top of that, the researchers calculate, nearly 100,000 cases of heart disease, 8,000 strokes, and 26,000 deaths would be averted over the next decade, for a cost savings of $17 billion.

A penny-per-ounce tax would add 78 cents to the price of a standard 2-liter bottle of soda. Depending on where you bought it, you could pay 25 to 100 percent more for that economy-sized bottle.

That may seem to tip the scales too much, but as a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture explains, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10 percent to 30 percent of the cost of the food.

And what sort of revenues would the tax generate?

Bibbins-Domingo and her team project $13 billion per year would be raised from a one-cent per ounce tax on soda. Those revenues could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, or perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available, and more affordable, and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.

A recent national poll found that 53 percent of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63 percent switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for healthcare reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."

I'd like to see the U.S. really face the serious consequences of our out-of-control obesity epidemic and consider tough interventions, like a soda tax, or a fat tax as is spreading in Europe.

Exploring the "Fat Tax"

According to a report on allgov.com, Europe is beginning to embrace the concept of a “fat tax” in an effort to reduce obesity and its associated health care costs.

In September of 2011, Hungary, with a 19 percent obesity rate, imposed a tax on packaged products with high sugar, salt or caffeine levels. This includes energy drinks with added sugar and caffeine, soft drinks with added sugar and soup and gravy mixes. The Hungarian government estimates it will collect $100 million a year from the food tax. It will apply the funds to the nation’s health care budget.

Now Denmark has followed with the first-ever tax on foods high in saturated fat. The fat tax, which will be levied on wholesalers, will come to about $6.27 per pound of saturated fat. This will mean an added 40 cents to a hamburger and 12 cents to a bag of chips.

According to the LA Times, Denmark's fat tax isn’t aimed at curbing obesity -- the obesity rate in Denmark was 13.4 percent in 2009, below the European average of 15.5 percent. But Denmark lags in terms of life expectancy, and the country hopes the measure will increase the average lifespan by three years over the next decade.

Imagine that sort of initiative on the part of our U.S. Congress. Ah heck, don't bother.

But maybe in some state house or in a city council, a civic-minded leader is saying right now:

"We've got a real problem here. We've got people who are obese costing our health system $1,429 more per person than normal-weight people. They're less productive at work and absent more. That's hard on our businesses, and it's breaking our treasuries. We know soda is a major contributor to obesity. Let's not take the soda away, but let's price it so less is consumed."

That's what we could do, though it is not how our tax system works now. Today, as Derek Thompson explains on The Atlantic, 40 percent of federal taxes come through the payroll tax, which raises the cost of employment. Another 40 percent comes through individual income taxes, which hurt income. Less than five percent comes from excise taxes and zero percent comes from consumption taxes.

"What's dumber than a tax on cake?" Thompson asks.

It's the system we've got now.

I say, let's make 2012 the year we get smart about taxes, and tax less of those things we want more of -- like jobs and income -- and more of the things we want less of -- like health damaging sugars. You can have your cake, just pay for it.

Photo by poolie/flickr/Creative Commons

Reprinted with permission from CSRwire

by Jim Motavalli

The big electric car launches of 2011 failed to generate the consumer excitement that some had predicted. But as new battery technologies emerge and tougher mileage standards kick in, automakers and analysts still believe that electric vehicles have a bright future.

At the Detroit Auto Show early this month, I sat down with some Nissan executives who were celebrating the sale of the 10,000th Leaf battery car in the U.S. (and 20,000th worldwide). Behind them on the company’s stand was the eNV200, a plug-in version of one of Nissan’s minivans and one of three new electric cars Nissan will have on the road by 2015. Brendan Jones, a Nissan marketing and sales strategist, told me, “From a Leaf perspective, 2011 was a great year, and very positive for the company.” He said that Nissan’s EV sales had topped those of any other automaker in history.

By traditional auto standards, 10,000 sales of a much-hyped model in a full calendar year are disappointing. The Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, equally celebrated, did slightly worse, with sales of 7,671 in 2011. By contrast, Nissan sold 114,991 Sentras and 268,981 Altimas last year, and Chevrolet sold 204,808 Malibus.

Since the Obama administration offered subsidies to ease the EVs way forward, the early sales performance became the target of political attacks, particularly after a Volt caught fire following a government crash test. (The car was later exonerated by federal regulators.) The Republican Party’s website headlined an article “Failed Promise: Obama’s Million Electric Cars ‘Overly Optimistic.’” Mitt Romney, the son of an auto company president, described the Volt “an idea whose time has not come,” and Rush Limbaugh said bluntly, “Nobody wants to buy any.”

But much of the reporting on the subject, and the attacks, failed to tell the full story. Neither the Volt nor Leaf were available nationwide in 2011, and both were plagued by supply problems. Leaf customers on the East Coast, who put down early deposits, should be getting their cars in the coming months, and Nissan hopes to double production and delivery in 2012. The EV technology is still a novelty for prospective buyers, but the necessary charging networks, though still embryonic, are growing rapidly.

Yet while the big electric car launches of 2011 failed to find as many buyers as hoped, automakers and analysts still see increasing success for electric vehicles in the U.S. and in global markets, including China, which will soon be the world’s largest. The future, they say, lies in new battery technologies that will lower the cost and increase the range of EVs. And tougher mileage standards for U.S. auto fleets, set to kick in over the next decade, will give the cars a big boost.

Felix Kramer, who founded CalCars.org to promote plug-in hybrids, is optimistic. “In spite of press reports of disappointing sales, we don’t hear about unsold cars stuck on dealer lots or buyers’ remorse. We do hear current and prospective owners talking about the features they want in the next cars that come to market.” He points out that Ford, Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, BMW, and most other carmakers will be rolling out new EV models over the next two years.

“Early adopter” buyers tend to be vocal boosters — a group of loyal Volt owners sent a letter after the fire controversy broke, headlined, “Why are Chevy Volt Owners Keeping Their Keys?” Paul Scott, a director of Plug In America who doubles as a Leaf salesman in the Los Angeles area, says electric cars are doing great. “Instead of a few hundred EV drivers, we now have almost 20,000. A high percentage of these are vocal advocates of the technology... As long as the external costs of dirty energy are not in the price, we’ll be at a disadvantage, but the gap will close eventually, one way or the other, and EVs will dominate in every way.”

But clearly, there were unreasonable expectations for electric car liftoff. “I think we, particularly the government, created too much hype and conversation about both pure EVs and plug-in hybrids,” David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan, told me. “The fact is that the economics are not here yet... The problem was that they invested in commercialization before it was ready for prime time. The fact is that just because you want something to happen doesn’t make it happen.”

The U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium has set a cost goal of $250 per kilowatt-hour stored, but many packs today come in at three times that. A $7,500 federal income tax credit (and some state subsidies) helps take the sting out of high prices, but the cars (which currently start at more than $30,000) are still expensive.

Does this mean that EVs are doomed? Not at all, but it does mean that early numbers are likely to be relatively low. Cole is siding with many in Detroit when he says that plug-in hybrid technology (which, as in the Volt, combines an electric motor and batteries with a gas engine acting as a generator) “will be the long-term winner” because it solves the “range anxiety” issue presented by battery cars that travel 100 miles on a charge. Even with that advantage, however, GM’s sales goal of 45,000 for the Volt in 2012 may be overly optimistic. “I want some of whatever they’re smoking,” said Eric Evarts, associate autos editor at Consumer Reports.

But cars running solely on batteries will get cheaper and offer increased range. Automakers are pouring billions into battery research, and some predict that pack costs will be cut in half within five years. “All of the manufacturers are working very hard on the technology, as they should, so they are prepared when the economics work to launch product in high volume,” Cole said.

Bob Lutz, who famously dismissed global warming as “a crock of [expletive]” when he was vice chairman of General Motors, nevertheless earned the title “Father of the Chevrolet Volt” for shepherding the car to production. Lutz told me that, by 2025, 20 to 25 percent of new car sales will be hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or battery electric “merely because of government regulations — by 2025, American auto fleets will have to achieve 54.5 mpg.” And he added that European regulations are similarly demanding. “No one knows how to meet these regulations without massive hybridization and electrification,” he said. In the film Revenge of the Electric Car, Lutz says that “the electrification of the automobile is inevitable.”

Aside from government regulation, other factors likely to boost plug-in cars are the quest for energy independence — since electricity, especially when it’s generated from renewable fuels, is domestic — and state efforts, especially in California, to combat global warming and cut local pollution from tailpipes.

Lutz’ predictions are in line with the industry and the analysts who follow it. According to the Boston Consulting Group in a 2010 report, all forms of electrics will have “a likely overall penetration of 26 percent” in the global market by 2020. And that explains why — despite the slow sales — the stands at the Detroit Auto Show, both foreign and domestic, were crowded with electric cars and plug-in hybrids. “For the next 20 years, the internal-combustion engine will be the leading powertrain, but increasingly the electric cars will dominate,” I was told by Peter Marks, then the CEO of major auto supplier Bosch. “My grandchildren will drive electric cars, I’m convinced of it. It’s inevitable that cars will become electric.”

The pace of EV adoption in Europe and China — which has the potential to develop a market far outstripping that of the U.S.— has also been slow in the early days, despite subsidies that in some cases dwarf those in the U.S. John Gartner, an auto analyst with Pike Research, attributes the sluggish sales pace around the world to “a combination of the automakers making the vehicles available later than intended, the twin natural disasters in Japan, and the sluggish global economy.”

According to a survey from JATO Dynamics, by last September only 5,222 EVs were registered in Europe, with Germany (1,020 cars) in the lead, despite the lowest subsidy ($491) on the continent. Denmark, with very lucrative $26,000 tax credits possible on EVs, registered only 283 of them in the first half of 2011. JATO concluded that perks associated with EVs — such as free city-center parking in Oslo, Norway and access to bus lanes —mattered more than price as a determining factor. In Norway, despite lower subsidies, EV sales were three times those of Denmark.

But price is still a problem for many European buyers, despite the EV’s significantly lower operating costs. Even with a $7,700 government subsidy, the Leaf in Great Britain (where it costs $44,000) is $10,900 more than the very fuel-efficient VW Golf Bluemotion. The Leaf is 10 cents a mile cheaper to run, but it takes a lot of dimes to total $10,900.

Pike Research predicts that China, with the world’s largest auto market, will also have the leading EV market by 2015. China, with 150 automakers, has no less than 55 companies now building electrified vehicles or launching development programs. Some EV builders, such as BYD (with a 10 percent investment by financier Warren Buffett), are also major battery makers. Chinese government subsidies are among the most generous in the world. In five major cities, consumers can tap into $9,474 in rebates (paid to automakers rather than car buyers) for battery electrics and $7,895 for plug-in hybrids. Pike’s Gartner, who calls China’s electric sales so far “disappointing,” also points out that, beginning January 1, all electrified vehicles were exempted from vehicle usage taxes, “which is likely to boost sales there.”

China set a government goal of enabling production of 500,000 electric cars and buses a year by the end of 2011, but its actual rollout is at this point considerably smaller, only a few thousand annually. BYD’s plan to start selling electric cars in the U.S. has stalled. A China Business News count identified only 10 registered electric cars in Shanghai (which has 23 million people) last fall, and 25 in Hangzhou.

But Chinese central planning could dictate that the industry will ramp up quickly. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has called for a new “road map” for green cars, and the EV effort is heavily supported by China’s state-run electric companies. As the New York Times reported, “With China expected to surpass the United States in the number of all vehicles on the road by as early as 2020, the government-run utilities see it as their job to provide an alternative to imported oil as a way to power several hundred million cars, trucks, and buses.”

China is a sleeping giant when it comes to electric cars, and that’s a pretty good analogy for the rest of the global industry, too. If you judge by the cars on the road today, EVs aren’t impressive — but it’s the potential just around the corner that has gotten automakers and governments excited. Consumers aren’t yet on board in large numbers, but if the cars continue to improve and get cheaper, they will be.

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

by Brittany Gibson

The New Year is upon us, and President Obama has delivered his State of the Union address, which offered high-level insight on the energy sector in the US but was reminiscent of messages we’ve already heard. Now it’s time to turn our attention to another really important event of the year: the 2012 Super Bowl. As always, this year’s game will be a staggering display of athleticism and energy consumption (rather than verbiage and applause). These two things, generally not discussed in the same conversation, offer a more nuanced look at the energy sector here in America.

Every year the stats at the Super Bowl pile up like Tom Brady’s passing yards, including the kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed. The 2011 Super Bowl in Dallas, Texas set a record, becoming the most highly viewed television program in American history. Almost 16 million people tuned in, consuming roughly 11.3 million kWh through television sets alone, according to a report by General Electric. That’s enough electricity to power all the homes in three NFL cities – Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Dallas – for 10 hours.

While many fans are focused on the number of touchdowns or turnovers, they’re generally unaware of the statistics they post in their own homes, through their electricity consumption. On a wider scale, this lack of awareness plagues the energy efficient home market, the consequence of forces on both the supply and demand side. Traditionally, consumers’ utility bills have not provided actionable information, making it difficult to interpret their consumption and how to reduce it. Simultaneously, home builders and renovators haven’t been able to articulate a sensible value proposition for energy-efficiency measures.

Appliance designs have made considerable gains in energy efficiency, but these gains are eclipsed by the proliferation of consumer electronics, like LCD televisions and digital video recorders (DVRs). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, more than 50 million U.S. homes have more than three TVs, and more than 45 million (40 percent) homes have a DVR. The power consumed by appliances and electronics grew from 17 percent of average home energy use in 1978 to 31 percent in 2005, according the EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Advances in energy efficiency have historically mattered less to the American consumer than the newest entertainment device.

There is a chance the American consumer has started to pay attention, however. Major organizations like the NFL have started highlighting residential energy efficiency – like investing in 800 free home energy audits in the Indianapolis area. And according to a recent Yahoo Real Estate poll the American homebuyer’s dream home might be more energy efficient and constructed of sustainable materials.

Currently, there’s little incentive for consumers to tune in to their energy consumption. Engaging the American public through the most popular entertainment forums (e.g. the Super Bowl) and by using devices and outlets they already love (e.g. televisions and social media) may be the ticket to unlocking the energy efficiency potential in the residential sector.

Brittany Gibson, a research associate at Pike Research, concentrates on cleantech public policy and regulatory issues.

Years of lax oversight, corruption, and political rivalry have allowed industrial fishing fleets from Asia, Europe, and Latin America to decimate fish stocks across the southern Pacific, a “free-for-all” that has pushed one critical species to the brink, according to a new report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

With governments ignoring the threat of overfishing and heavily subsidizing the fishing industry, fleets have plundered the waters off Chile and Peru and have fished heavily right up to protected Antarctic waters. Stocks of jack mackerel — an oily fish that is a staple in Africa and a vital component in fishmeal for aquaculture — have declined by more than 90 percent, from an estimated 30 million metric tons to less than 3 million metric tons, in just two decades.

According to Daniel Pauly, an oceanographer at the University of British Columbia, the jack mackerel decline could portend a collapse in fisheries worldwide. “When they’re gone, everything will be gone,” he told the ICIJ. “This is the closing of the frontier.” While a coalition of nations formed the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization in 2006 to address the threat of overfishing, member countries have wrangled over interim steps for several years, and only six of 14 member nations have ratified an agreement.

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

A combination of factors are coming together in India to make solar cheaper than diesel for the first time. And that's without subsidies.

India is using auctions to drive down the price of solar. Combined with rising diesel prices and cheap Chinese solar panels, solar costs are down 28 percent since December 2010.

The average price of solar panels dropped 51 percent last year as the world's largest manufacturers doubled production capacity, reports Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

"Solar is going mainstream in India, helped by Chinese pricing," says Ardeshir Contractor, founder of Kiran Energy Solar Power, a local developer told Bloomberg.

Because India has so many black-outs, many factories and homes use emergency diesel generators as back-ups. That back-up power would be more cheaply supplied by or supplemented with solar.

Demand for electricity is about 14 percent higher than the country can supply during peak hours, and 400 million people have no access to power, according to the United Nations.

In its December auction, where utilities and developers compete on price, winners agreed to supply solar energy for an average rate of $0.17 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) by early 2013.

In contrast, even though the country subsidizes diesel, it costs double that, an energy analyst at HSBC Holdings told Bloomberg. Coal still provides the least expensive energy at about $0.09 per kWh, but users have to be connected to the grid to access it.

India's largest mobile phone company, BHARTI, is switching to solar for rural cell towers that aren't connected to the grid, and the world's biggest mango-puree producer, Jaine Irrigation, is completing a 8.5 MW solar plant. Jaine expects the pay-back period to be just five years.

Diesel accounts for 4 percent of the energy that powers India's 300,000 cell towers. This month, India's Telecom Regulatory Authority recommended a minimum of 75 percent of rural mobile towers and 33 percent of urban towers run on a combination of solar, wind and diesel by 2020, reports Bloomberg.

India's National Solar Mission has set a target of producing 10 percent of its energy - 20,000 MW - using solar by 2022, equivalent to 18 nuclear reactors.

The country gives the solar industry tax breaks, has a feed-in law (FiT) and guarantees its output will be bought by the government.

Reprinted with permission from SustainableBusiness.com

by Ziggy

There are many great and pleasantly simple ways to conserve water usage at home. Want to save an extra 50-plus gallons of water each and every day? Here’s one way you may not have considered before: take a navy shower! No, you don’t need to shout “yes, drill sergeant” or drop and do fifty push-ups at any point in this process. It’s actually one of the better ideas to come out of the military…

A navy shower is a method of showering that originated on ships at sea, where freshwater supplies were frequently in short supply. The idea is quite simple: Turn on the water and rinse, turn off the water and scrub down with soap, and then turn on the water once again to clean off the soap. Really, that’s it.

Simple Home Water Conservation

Instead of having the water run for the entire duration of the shower (which is ultimately very wasteful – you’ll be no cleaner for it, believe it or not!), the shower is on for a mere two to three minutes.

Need more convincing? Amazingly, the average 10 minute shower requires 60 gallons of water. That’s 240 gallons of water for a family of four, just to shower once each day! A navy shower, however, can use as little as 3 gallons! To make the argument even more convincing, this resourceful individual did the math to calculate how much money that simple change would save you.

Combined with a low flow showerhead, you’ll be on your way towards greater water conservation at home!

Reprinted with permission from Sustainablog

by Dave Levitan

With the industry’s support, new U.S. lighting efficiency standards went into effect this month. This move, along with similar actions in Europe and China, is helping spur new technologies that will change the way homes and businesses are illuminated.

Despite an outcry from U.S. conservatives that new lighting efficiency standards infringe on personal freedom, legislation mandating greater efficiency became law on January 1. Those new standards, along with major progress in lighting research and development, are helping usher in a technological revolution: Lighting companies — both large and small, in the U.S. and abroad — are rapidly building a better light bulb.

The incandescent bulbs that have lit the world since their invention by Thomas Edison are on their way out, to be replaced by newer technologies offering dramatic improvements in efficiency, energy use, and other environmental impacts.

Indeed, the way Americans think about a light bulb will have to change: Instead of a throw-away item worth merely a few cents, buying a light bulb will more closely resemble the purchase of a long-lived appliance. LED and CFL bulbs, along with other technologies, can offer one or two decades of use, rather than the paltry year of most traditional incandescent lights.

Lighting companies in the U.S. support the new standards, which, beginning this year, will gradually phase out traditional bulbs like the 100-watt in favor of new technologies that use at least 28 percent less power. These changes bring the U.S. in line with many other countries, including those of the European Union, which began a phase-out of inefficient bulbs three years ago. China’s ban on 100-watt bulbs takes effect this year, followed by efficiency improvements for lower wattages through 2016.

The U.S. changes are long overdue. Efficiency standards for other technologies, such as refrigerators and washing machines, have been around since the Reagan Administration. With lighting accounting for around 15 percent of residential electricity use (and 35 percent in commercial buildings), phasing out the inefficient old bulbs represents a huge economic and environmental opportunity.

“There are about four billion screw-in sockets out there [in the U.S.], and today only a quarter of them have an energy-saving bulb in them,” said Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “When the standards are in full effect, we’ll cut our nation’s electric bill by about $12.5 billion a year and eliminate the need for 30 large power plants and all the pollution that comes from them. It’s a big deal.”

The new U.S. lighting standards are part of the Energy Independence Act of 2007, signed into law by President Bush with broad bipartisan support. The lighting provisions remained uncontroversial until last year, when they became a Tea Party rallying cry. “The American people want less government intrusion into their lives, not more, and that includes staying out of their personal light bulb choices,” said U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Some members of Congress falsely claimed that the legislation would ban all incandescent bulbs and require the purchase of compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). In fact, the legislation does not ban any class of bulbs, but rather requires that a 100-watt bulb now use a maximum 72 watts to give off the same 1,600 lumens. In December, Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives managed to defund enforcement of the new legislation until October of this year, but despite that, the lighting industry is moving ahead with the new standards.

“The legislation is in effect, it has not been repealed, it has not been changed,” said Terry McGowan, the director of engineering for an industry group, the American Lighting Association. “We made all the decisions for this back in 2007. Once you start investing money and changing production lines, that’s very hard to turn off, and also very expensive.”

The new U.S. standards come as lighting companies — ranging from leaders like GE and Philips to smaller companies such as Venture Lighting, GrafTech, and Vu1 Corporation — are developing a host of new technologies. These include a new generation of incandescent bulbs, called halogen incandescents: 72-watt bulbs are available now, for only a few dollars and with light output close to standard 100-watt incandescents, and can screw into existing sockets.

“It’s a bulb that costs only marginally more,” said Brian Howard, co-author of a book on new lighting technologies, Green Lighting. “You get the same color, temperature, light that we’re used to. So really the only disadvantage is that they don’t last quite as long as fluorescents.” The lifetime of halogen incandescents is about two to three years, compared to six years and more for CFLs.

“I don’t think we would have these new improved incandescents on the market if it wasn’t for the standard,” Horowitz said. “The industry has known how to do this for a long time.”

In the new lighting revolution, the controversial compact fluorescent bulb will almost certainly lose ground to newer technologies. The unfamiliarly shaped CFL bulbs gained infamy due to shortcomings in light color and quality, along with warm-up delays and an irritating hum. But prices have come down and many of the technical problems have been addressed. The efficiency improvement is undeniable: A 100-watt-equivalent bulb that produces 1,600 lumens uses only 23 watts and lasts up to 10 years.

One issue seized on by opponents is the small amounts of mercury inside CFLs. But Horowitz said that CFLs still release far less mercury into the environment than incandescent bulbs. “While incandescents don’t have mercury in them, they cause three times more [mercury] emissions at the power plant than the CFL does,” Horowitz said. “And CFLs are down to two to three milligrams of mercury, which is the size of a pen point, and it stays inside the bulb.” When a CFL burns out, consumers do need to recycle them properly, but Home Depot, Lowes, and others offer such services for free.

Howard and industry experts say that CFLs are likely to be replaced in the coming decade by LEDs, or light-emitting diodes. A solid-state technology, LEDs feature electroluminescence from semi-conductors, rather than thermal radiation coming off an electrical filament as with an incandescent bulb. LEDs provide light nearly equivalent in quality and color to incandescents, while offering both efficiency and lifetime improvements over CFLs. They also are completely programmable and will allow for smarter management of a home’s lighting. Their drawback, for the moment, is sticker shock: Instead of a quarter for an incandescent bulb, a typical LED still costs more than $20.

That is changing fast. Sylvie Casanova, a spokesperson for Philips Lighting, said her company’s standard LED bulb (equivalent in brightness to a 75-watt incandescent bulb, though requiring only 17 watts) was released about a year ago at almost $40, and is already down to $24.99. GE, Sylvania, and others have similar prices for their 75-watt-equivalent LED products. With rebates now available in some states, that can come down to $15.

“Fifteen dollars for a bulb that is going to save you $142 over the life of the bulb, which is 20 to 25 years, and your break-even point is at three years,” Casanova said. “But the consumer doesn’t consider what it is going to cost them to run that light bulb. They just look at the upfront cost.”

Those upfront costs will most likely keep consumers away from some other technologies for the moment, but these may end up playing a role in the market in various ways. Electron-stimulated luminescence bulbs, or ESLs, for example, are efficient bulbs made by the Vu1 Corporation with a quality of light similar to incandescents. They make use of accelerated electrons that stimulate phosphor on the surface of the bulb, which emits light. The company says this results in 70 percent efficiency improvements over incandescents. So far, only a 65-watt-equivalent floodlight bulb is commercially available, but other versions are in the works.

Howard said that plasma lighting is also useful, especially for large commercial or industrial spaces. One company, Stray Light Optical Technologies, produces plasma bulbs with a stunning 23,000-lumen output and a 50,000-hour lifetime. They work by converting electrical power to radio frequency power, which turns a gas inside a tiny bulb to a plasma state that generates light.

Among the technologies that may enhance or reduce the cost of LEDs are organic LEDs, or OLEDs, and quantum dots. The former, already used in television screens and other displays, provides the electroluminescence from a layer of organic compounds that responds to a current flowing through it. Quantum dots, meanwhile, are tiny bits of semi-conducting material that allow for precise tuning of the light’s wavelength. Effectively, that means that a LED bulb could approach even closer the light quality and color of a traditional incandescent bulb.

Casanova, of Philips, as well as the ALA’s McGowan, acknowledged that the industry generally views LED dominance as inevitable. But not everyone thinks that is a foregone conclusion. Horowitz said that each of the main technologies — CFLs, LEDs, and new incandescents — has its advantages, and which one comes out on top is far from guaranteed.

One thing is certain, experts say: Consumer savings will start to pile up quickly. “Many people have 20 to 40 sockets in their home, so it really adds up,” Horowitz said. “The average consumer... once they switch out their bulbs could save 100 to 200 dollars per year.”

Even small steps have big ripples in this field: According to the U.S. Energy Star efficiency program, if every home replaced just one bulb with a more efficient version, the country would save $600 million a year.

Photo by John Loo/flickr/Creative Commons

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

Verdant Power has been awarded a 10-year license for a tidal wave energy plant in New York City's East River.

Verdant, which has been pushing the project forward since 2002, has tested six turbines there, which is actually a tidal strait between the New York Harbor and the Long Island Sound. The power produced by that demonstration project powered a Gristedes supermarket and a parking garage on Roosevelt Island.

This is the first time FERC has awarded a tidal wave license. This "pilot" license will allow Verdant to demonstrate commercial viability, while also determining potential environmental impacts.

When FERC gives a pilot license, the project must be able to be removed and be built in locations that aren't environmentally sensitive.

The 1,050-kilowatt Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project would supply electricity to 9,500 homes on Roosevelt Island, which sits in the East River between the boroughs of Manhattan and Queens.

Verdant places turbines on the river's floor to tap its tidal flow. It plans to have five turbines in place by late 2013 and 50 by 2015. During this pilot period, the company will study the impact on fish and the river's sediment as well as demonstrating commercial viability.

If all goes well, Verdant will apply for a commercial license.

In 2010, Verdant received an award from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) for a pilot demonstration of three, more advanced turbines and an improved channel-mounting system in the East River.

In 2010, the company signed the first memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China for marine renewable energy. The MOU says Verdant will develop projects with China's state-owned renewable energy developer - the China Energy Conservation Environment Protection Group.

US Marine Energy Potential

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently the most rigorous assessments of the potential for marine renewable energy in the US.

The reports conclude that marine energy has the potential to provide 15 percent of US electricity by 2030.

The Pacific Ocean off the West Coast (Washington, Oregon and California) and Alaska have the most wave energy resources, and there are numerous "hot spots" for tidal energy across the US, mostly along the east and west coasts.

DOE concludes the US has the marine resources to create new industries, jobs, an American leadership in an emerging global market.

Mapping and Assessment of the United States Ocean Wave Energy Resource report

Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the United States: includes a geographic information systems (GIS) tool available for public use.

Website: www.verdantpower.com

Reprinted with permission from SustainableBusiness.com

by Pete Danko

Earlier this month Bloomberg New Energy Finance said global clean energy investment in 2011 shot up to a record $260 billion – a 5 percent increase over 2010 and almost five times the total of $53.6 billion in 2004. Now the news and analysis service has pegged the firms and individuals who were the biggest players in making that happen. And it’s a whole different cast than the one that led the way in 2010.

“This is the seventh year we have prepared annual league tables showing the most active deal-makers in the sector,” Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said in a statement. “What is striking is the amount of change among the leading players, reflecting the turbulent year we have just been through in the clean energy sector.”

The leaders (see them all in this PDF) were a diverse lot, as well. Among them, Blomberg said, was the U.S. Federal Financing Bank in arranging asset finance, U.K.-based Terra Firma Capital Partners in venture capital and private equity investment, and China-based Global Law Office in the public markets.

The U.S. Federal Financing Bank was especially dominant in asset finance, providing $10.14 billion in credit in 13 deals, adding up to just shy of a 20 percent share of the market. Which might reasonably prompt this question among many readers: What or who is the U.S. Federal Financing Bank?

Well, to Fox News it’s a “Secret Government Bank That’s Financing More Solyndras.” Hmm. While it’s not widely known, “secret” seems not to be quite the right word for an institution that puts out monthly reports detailing its doings.

As the bank explains on its website, it is a government corporation that, among other activities, “borrows from Treasury and lends to Federal agencies and private borrowers that have federal guarantees.” For years, that meant being involved heavily in rural utility financing – and it still does, with around half of the bank’s $58.4 billion holdings in that category, as of Oct. 31, 2011. The post office is in for $13.1 billion, as well.

But what’s raised the ire of some conservatives is that the bank, during the Obama administration, became the lender for the companies getting money through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing direct loan program ($5.1 billion as of Oct. 31), and also did some of the lending for the Section 1705 guaranteed loan program ($2.2 billion) for clean energy development.

Bloomberg cited the loan guarantees for the BrightSource Ivanpah concentrating solar plant and the Agua Caliente solar PV plant (which Warren Buffett recently bought into) as boosting the Federal Financing Bank to a leadership position in clean energy finance in 2011.

There was a caveat to the list of the top 20 asset financing arrangers, however: “Chinese (and other) state owned banks have also been active in this period and may have featured more prominently than shown in this table, but transparency on these deals is often limited.”

Also notable in the Bloomberg tallies was NRG Energy, the Princeton-based utility, taking the top spot in grabbing ownership stakes in projects, with $6.46 billion poured into five investments. All were in the solar sector.

The 2011 Clean Energy and EST League Tables are based on the largest database of financial transactions in these sectors, Bloomberg said. It’s white pair with the full listing of leaders is available online as a 26-page PDF.

Reprinted with permission from EarthTechling

by Marc Stoiber

The internal combustion engine is one of the few remaining things most carmakers actually make. In many cases, the powertrain is the only real ‘fingerprint’ that sets one manufacturer apart from the other. 

Bye bye, fingerprint.

With the incipient rise of the electric vehicle, carmakers are scrambling to partner with manufacturers in other sectors to stay competitive under the hood.

Volvo and Daimler are among the companies reaching out to companies like Bosch and Siemens, according to Peter Hockenos in the Herald Tribune. And it’s forcing them to question their individuality at every step.

According to Hockenos, the carmakers are struggling to put a positive spin on the new alliances, characterizing the ventures as ‘exploiting synergies’ rather than subjugating their mojos.

Incorporating electric powerplants is clearly a necessary innovation for carmakers. The dominance Toyota achieved by pioneering hybrids was a clarion call that even GM heard.

But is partnership with electric motor manufacturers going to threaten the individuality of existing car brands? Hardly.

Following Apple’s Function Units

Most companies rely on business units to manufacture and innovate. These units are charged with taking a specific product and perfecting it to stay relevant, dominant and profitable.

Contrast that with Apple, a company organized around function units. Instead of organizing teams to perfect the iPod or iPad, they focus on perfecting the experience of listening to music, or reading.

Logically, a business unit charged with perfecting an internal combustion engine would be loath to jettison it in favor of an electric motor. But a function unit charged with more effective mobility would have no such qualms – they’d be much more technology agnostic.

Indeed, if you look at the original iPod, there was hardly any ‘fingerprint’ technology in it. It was simply an amalgamation of existing tech repurposed to create the ultimate listening experience.

The Apple vision and belief system – to challenge the status quo at every step – was the unique secret sauce. And the iPod only reinforced that uniqueness.

Fingerprint Vision, Not Technology

My business is brands.

I’m often called in to work with technology companies who have reached a dead end believing their technology is what sets them apart.

Brand and vision are the only unique elements any company can create today. And that comes down to building a belief system that resonates with the beliefs of your fans.

Of course, that belief system, that brand, helps chart the course of your innovation.

A wonderful example is BMW’s iProject. With ‘i’, the carmaker staked its claim in future mobility. That means electric cars, certainly – but it also means venture partnerships with companies that help us simply get around in the most exciting way possible. Guidance systems, mapmakers, public transport companies…the list of potential partners and innovation opportunities are endless.

Innovation Lessons That Will Give You Traction

If you’re an innovator, sooner or later you’re going to find yourself in the same position as our hand-wringing car manufacturers. Here are some thoughts that should help you see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It’s about function, not technology – don’t get protective of a technology. In today’s world of instant copies, technology has a brief ‘best-before’ life. Instead, focus on an imperfect consumer experience, and how you can bring technologies together to make that experience better.

Partnership = progress – hybridization brings new thinking, evolution, great leaps forward. Sure, it also brings friction and culture clash. But no friction, no fire.

Become the platform, not the solution – cars are an imperfect platform. So was the Internet.

The trick is finding innovators who can build greatness on your platform. That could be electric motor manufacturers, or eBay.

Photo by Steve Jurvetson/flickr/Creative Commons

Reprinted with permission from CSRwire