The European Union, with its early and near universal acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol, has long been seen as a model for the United States to follow in improving sustainability.

 

But a rapidly developing crisis in the world economy has put new pressures on carbon restriction plans, and today European Union leaders will vote to determine whether stiff carbon cutbacks for utility companies or increased carbon offsetting in third-world countries is the best course of action. 

Today's meeting of the European parliament, while it will not settle finally any decision on carbon markets in the EU, should provide insight into wider opinions across Europe on the topic of emissions cuts. Rather than a simple yes or no vote, the meeting will consist of several sessions, the first of which will decide proper distribution of money the EU has generated and will continue to generate through the sale of carbon emitting permits. 

 

With more than 40 billion dollars on the table between now and 2013, there’s no shortage of ideas on how to allocate the funding. Proposals include improvements in rainforest protection, development of clean power sources in emerging, third-world economies, and subsidies for increased renewable energy production. 

 

In the face of a darkening economic picture, however, many nations may be pressing for increased availability of cheaper carbon offsets. By paying carbon emitters in the developing world not to produce a certain amount emissions, industries in the EU can more prevent the same amount of carbon from being emitted into the atmosphere for far less many. But many fear that offsets in countries with a high degree of corruption, or with unstable governments may not be an accurate record of true environmental mitigation.

 

With European utilities—which have thus far had carbon caps doled out to them for free by EU governments—set to start buying their own permits in 2013, another major decision for the European Parliament is how to treat carbon sequestering technology. An estimated 10 billion dollars is needed to fund the large-scale implementation of sequestering technology, which is widely seen as one of the most appealing ways to cut carbon emissions while retaining current levels of energy production. 

 

While it is tempting to spread carbon cuts to developing nations by allowing cheaper offsets, I think it’s clearly been established that the rich nations of the world bear the burden of cleaning their own house first. Keeping carbon caps in Europe funnels more money into researching and developing newer, cleaner technologies. The economic impacts may at first be negative, however the development of new technologies without the need for environmental mitigation will pay off in the long run, and become a money-making export for the companies that develop them. 

Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Last week ten states, joining together as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) hosted the first U.S. carbon-credit auction. Participating states netted a total of $39 million for investment in renewable energy. Plans are in place for the cap-and-trade auction to be held quarterly.

Maryland walked away with $16 million and Massachusetts $13 million. Other states that took part in the auction include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The regional auction of allowances will enable the participating states to reduce emissions from carbon sources and have funds on hand to invest in renewable energy instead.  The states sell emission allowances at auction and invest the proceeds in consumer benefits -- energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies -- spurring innovation in the clean energy economy and thereby creating green jobs.

Each credit sold for a mere $3 a ton at this first auction. Most experts believe that $40 -$100 a ton is needed in order for us to make the switch to a post-carbon economy. 

The states participating in RGGI had already agreed on an initial regional cap on carbon emissions -- 188 million tons per year -- that will be enforced through 2014. Starting in 2015, the cap will be reduced 2.5 percent each year.

The 233 power plants in the ten states are required to pay for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit, as part of the pollution-reduction legislation already passed among the 10 states that limits the amount of carbon dioxide power plants are allowed to emit.

Alternatively, the power plant can find a way to reduce its pollution. One such option would be utilizing combined cycle heat and power technology, creating twice the energy on a per-ton of carbon basis. CS technology is among the efficiency measures funded under the renewable energy incentives in the federal legislation finally signed into law last week attached to the bailout.

State-based legislative innovation like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has historically led the nation in jumpstarting the green industrial revolution.

California is one example of where this has already happened. Zero-emissions vehicles requirements in CARB legislation in the '90s created a talent pool of engineers that sparked an entire new startup electric car industry in California (with names such as Tesla, Phoenix, ZAP, Miles and AC Propulsion) and provided the initial boost that propelled Ford, Toyota and GM into the electric car industry, by requiring auto companies make at least some zero emissions vehicles, in order to sell in the state.

Large car companies fought that legislation, ultimately succeeding in defeating it.  Yet in different ways the legislation led to the production of zero-emissions vehicles from Big Auto that could revitalize the U.S. auto industry here.

Ford's THINK, developed in response to CARB legislation, is about to return to these shores, albeit now under Norwegian ownership. Rising from the ashes of the EV1, GM is now dedicated to getting the Volt to market in time to save itself. Toyota got a tremendous amount of help from its own government with consumer subsidies to meet the CARB deadline that produced the Prius.  Toyota has become something of a de facto U.S. automaker with Prius-dedicated plants popping up in the states. 

Regional clean energy legislation can thus have very far-reaching effects.

So it will be interesting to see how the RGGI states invest in renewable energy. Boston's MIT, home to a wealth of innovative ideas in need of startup funding, will no doubt have an influence on the direction that Massachusetts decides to take. Maryland's ideas include helping low-income families weatherize their houses and providing upfront funding for home solar panels.

"This is the moment we've been waiting for," said Brad Heavner of Environment Maryland, who pushed lawmakers to join RGGI. "Everyone wants more clean energy, and there's a widespread acceptance that it's a good thing to do to put public resources into it. But we've never been able to come up with the money."
 

 

What began as a ripple in a profitable housing market bubble has, in the course of a year in a half, turned into a potentially world-changing credit crisis. While tough times for industry often open the door for clean tech advances, tougher conditions for consumers could be a different story. Because much of the recent interest in the shift to sustainable practices is viewed largely as a luxury, will reduced consumer access to credit result also in reduced purchases of eco-friendly goods?

It’s an alluring argument. After all, it’s hard to imagine a cash-strapped consumer springing for an eco-friendly party kit over a less sustainable plastic one. Similarly, car buyers faced with lower gas prices due to decreased demand will have less incentives to focus on buying efficient cars, leading to increased levels of carbon and smog-forming emissions per mile traveled. This problem is further complicated by the higher cost of most hybrid vehicles, which are often saddled with high-end gizmos to run up the price.

But the thing is, many bearish economists aren’t simply predicting a decrease in consumer spending; they’re predicting a decrease in available consumer credit. While it seems like a petty distinction—there’s no real difference between paying for something with an ATM card now, verses using a credit card and paying for it at the end of the month—less credit could actually have a significant beneficial impact for the environment by hitting the economy in two of its least green-friendly sectors: cars and housing.

Unlike biodegradable party sets, cars and homes are seldom bought all at once. They require consistent repayment of a debt, and thus are harder to come by in times of tight credit. This mean less incentive for people to simply buy new cars when older ones begin to fall apart. Keeping and old car running has long been touted as more eco-friendly than buying a hybrid, and without easy credit for loans, consumers may have no choice but to keep their old jalopies kicking.

While older cars create more (and worse) emissions, the knowledge that they can’t be easily replaced may reduce miles driven, and lower turnover means fewer cars in landfills and less energy expended building new machines. Tight purse strings at lending institutions might also force consumers into smaller, less expensive cars when they do purchase a new vehicle, even if gas prices are depressed by the weak economy.

Similarly, lack of available credit will steer homebuyers away from larger, less efficient homes. While sustainable touches can do wonders for the resale value of a house, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the allure of raw square footage. Tough-to-come-by mortgages might also encourage renting instead of home buying, which generally places multiple households into a single, large building, more efficiently conserving energy spent on heat.

So while it may make conspicuous, sustainable luxury a thing of the past, the impending credit crunch is far from a death knell for the burgeoning sustainability movement.

Photo by Flickr user SqueakyMarmot

(If you're just tuning in, this is part four in a continuing series on greening our farm in Bosque Farms New Mexico. Our water journey started with opening our irrigation valves to welcome the Rio Grande River into our back property. Then we examined the aquifer beneath our property for its offer of precious water. Next, we searched for solutions to make the most of our rain, resulting in installing a big water tank that holds the promise of sustainability.)

During our recent monsoon season we were able to harvest abundant rainwater from numerous storms on our property, but you wouldn't have guessed that if you talked to some of our neighbors. The USDA has just designated our tiny Valencia County (1,068 square miles), New Mexico as a drought disaster area.

While talking with a neighboring farmer, I mentioned our abundant July rains and waited for that “high five” celebratory acknowledgment. Instead, he retorted, “Yes, I saw the storms over your area. We only received about an inch and a quarter in July." “Your area” is, in fact, part of “his” area too; his farm is also in the Village of Bosque Farms, and is a mere 1.5 miles away. But this short distance is enough to make a 2-3 inch difference between the rain he received and our welcomed surplus of precipitation.

When it comes to doling out rainwater to her thirsty children, Mother Nature can be oddly selective.

Just the other day, our Village sat in the path of an enormous storm of fury (over 50 mph winds) and hailstones (up to a half-inch in diameter). Seeing the storm develop on the Internet prompted me to pitch our emergency garden tent—which Valerie affectionately dubs “the Bedouin tent” (stay tuned for more on the tent in a future article) —to protect our experimental vegetables. As we followed the attack of this torrential storm online, our reality was but a mere trickle outside our windows. Later that evening, we spoke with friends on the north end of the Village (just a half-mile away) who experienced sheets of rain and dramatically flooded streets. While most locals would brush off this experience with indifference, we were flabbergasted. We might as well have a flood on our front area and a drought on the back forty.

Paying the Piper

Now that we've detailed the capricious way that summer rains are doled out here in the Village, I’ll explain how we plan to bring water to our thirsty land, and how much it will cost.

We researched large rain catchment tanks for sale in our area and came up with the following totals (without tax):

Tank Size (Gallons)	Cost with Installation
20,000	$12,500-$14,500
10,000	$10,000-$11,500
5,000	$6,500-$7,000
1,650	$1,900-$2,000
300	$450

If you recall, our first water plan was to irrigate our property using Rio Grande river water and the established acequia system as the foundation of our watering resources. We scrapped that idea after careful consideration of a dwindling resource, fluctuating water quality, and lack of control over allocation (see Plan #1). Unfortunately, using this irrigation plan could also be catastrophic to our sustainability plan as the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District might shut down our water supply or regulate use at any time in response to our practice of water storage. We have yet to receive definitive word on whether we can store acequia water for more controlled use. When we ask the locals, most responses to our guarded inquiries are in the “ask for forgiveness” arena. The problem with asking for forgiveness in this situation, if found in violation of MRGCD rules (policy 1N is of particular concern and why the holding pond located between the two big tanks is added to the diagram), is how to explain the two massive 20,000 gallon tanks required for our agricultural storage. I don’t think we could pass them off as indoor swimming pools.

As you can see in the acequia based design, the storage tanks consist of two 20,000-gallon tanks adjacent to the irrigation canal, two 5,000-gallon tanks to hold rain water near the main house/guesthouse and a combination of rain and well water near the garage, two 1,650-gallon tanks to capture rain water from the future greenhouse and the southwest section of the main house roof, and four 300-gallon tanks to capture water from the 550sq. ft. and roughly 600-sq. ft. roof tops from our home’s east and west porch overhangs, respectively. The estimated price range for these tanks: $43,600-$49,800. Gulp.

Our updated water plan (see Plan #2) has us very excited about the potential of a sustainable farm due to its flexibility. I must confess that we almost dropped the use of irrigation water altogether in a knee-jerk decision grounded in inexperience. Thanks to the wisdom of the “your area" farmer Jesse Daves of Amyo Farms, we reincorporated the irrigation water into our plan. The well/rain water tank design is basically the same as the acequia irrigation plan, but replaces the 20,000-gallon tanks with two 1,650-gallon tank storage capacities in the center north and south sides of the back field. The remaining differences between the designs are the irrigation focus of water supply to the various trees (fruit, nut, and shade trees that will also provide windbreak) and, of course, the cost. The estimated price range for Plan #2 tanks: $22,400-$24,800. This is half the cost of the more rigid irrigation-based system and fits our limited budget more comfortably. We have neither intention nor the funds to implement the plan all at once. We will take a phased approach over the next several months (or even years) to implement our systems. These numbers are goal-setting tools to help us reach our targets most affordably.

As part of the flexibility with Plan #2, we feel confident using the well and rain water as an emergency or permanent supply for the trees if there is a reduction in irrigation water volume or frequency. Based on a general calculation of 20 gallons of water per day for mature trees and 8.5 gallons of water per plant per week (1.5” of water per week) for vegetables, we should be able to supply the entire back field by using the 1,650-gallon tanks as rotational entry and transfer points for the water.

The big problem with this system of smaller tanks is the labor involved in transferring water throughout the property. In our quest for sustainability, we will have to create systems to automate our processes or develop good relationships with neighbors, family, fellow farmers, farming interns, and others who are willing to help. And in this sacrifice for sustainability, we'll have to spend more time.

Pump Out the Volume

At this point we have only provided the chassis of our water system—we have yet to cover the working parts of this system. First and foremost, we need pumps to move the water from tank to tank and into the fields. We are considering a variety of energy sources for the pumps: traditional electricity from the grid, solar (we enjoy an average of 300 sunny days per year) and wind (the spring winds in the area have sufficient potential to light up Manhattan).

To get a better understanding of the different sources available to us, I visited Chris Karsa at Direct Power and Water Corporation to discuss our plans and get an estimate on solar pumps. For our pumping needs, a Grundfos submersible pump (SQF-2) powered by two 80-watt solar panels along with necessary parts became our baseline system. Chris quoted approximately $3,000 (depending stationary or moveable capabilities) for a hybrid system.

Our thought is to mobilize the pump and panels on some type of cart system in order to use one pump for all water transfer and application needs. If it isn’t possible to use one pump (which will average between 2,500-3,500 gallons of moved water per day depending on the model and weather) to fulfill our farm needs, then we will add a standing solar system for specific use on our well water source. With a static system, we would add a solar tracking device like a Wattsun Tracker to maximize the power output from the sun. All of this wishful thinking makes the cost estimate about as stable as nitroglycerin.

To narrow our supply side plan, we add five 100’ - 150’ sections of industrial hose to move water from the various water tanks as storage to feed the flora. My most surprising revelation while researching costs came after reviewing industrial hoses online. I have come to two conclusions about such hoses: 1) there are way too many of them, and 2) hose manufacturers/distributors guard their prices tighter than biotechnology companies guard their research. I think I was supposed to submit blood in order to get a quote, and have yet to receive a price on the industrial hoses.

The last part of the supply plan is to install 400 feet of rain catchment gutters with flexible spouts to fill the tanks. At roughly $3 - $5 per foot, these gutters add another $1,200 - $2,000 to our plan if we install them ourselves. We could inquire with companies like ABC Seamless in Albuquerque for professional installation, but would always look to save the money and gain experience. We believe we can complete this task, with any luck avoiding a Tower of Pisa schedule and outcome.

On the delivery side, we would like nothing better than to stop spending money and just turn the hoses on the field. But then, why would we go through all this trouble to strive for sustainability and then waste water to evaporation?

Enter drip irrigation. Luckily, farmer Jesse and an online tutorial have helped educate us enough to form a plan. We calculated a need for more than 4,000 feet of T-Tape water supply (our hard water will necessitate repurchasing T-Tape after a few seasons, depending on the water source and dilution), approximately 600 feet of main line, and the added pieces such as grip sleeve ends, Tap Loc barbs, and constant pressure regulators—oh, my! Estimated cost of this equipment: $500 - $1,000.

In total, the preliminary cost of our sustainable water system:

Item	Total Cost
5,000-gallon tank (x2)	$14,000
1,650-gallon tank (x4)	$8,000
300-gallon tank (x4)	$1,800
solar pump	$3,000
gutters (self-installed)	$2,000
drip emitters and parts	$1,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED UP-FRONT COSTS:	$29,800

There are a few important "wants" that I would like to add to the list: an on-site weather station for site specific accuracy with weather tracking a recording, a lightning strike alert or new Nokia telephone (both a detector and an attractant?) gadgets to protect us while we work in the field during the summer storms, and some soil moisture sensors and a hand-held device for instant read-outs and data storage to make sure we are diligent in our water use.

How do we feel after sorting through the various aspects of irrigation, the most critical component of building a sustainable farm? Overwhelmed is an understatement. Are we still excited and ready to get started? No doubt. The power of focus should never be underestimated, and we now have a detailed irrigation plan. While it may take some time, we will be thrilled to introduce our 1,650 gallon tank to its new relatives over time.

A new development since we researched and mapped out our plans above: we just experienced a tornado warning from a violent storm cell just five miles from our property. The storm tore through two cities just the south of us, but thankfully no one was hurt.

Until next time, keep your eye on the sky!

Related articles:
Hipsters Turn to Harvesting
Flooding the Farm
Reining in the Rain

Jonathan and Valerie would like to receive reader comments and suggestions. Feel free to email them to greenhornfarmer@yahoo.com.

FELDA, the Malaysian land development authority, has announced plans to collaborate with the Brazilian Environment Minister, Carlos Minc, in the creation of a plan that would establish massive plantations of palm oil trees in Brazil and allow local farmers to count the non-native vegetation toward their quota of “legal forest reserve.” While many environmental groups object, the plan has massive potential to further Brazil’s status as a world leader in biofuel production.

One of the world’s great ecological ironies is that the soil that supports such tremendous biodiversity in the rainforest is incredibly nutrient-poor.  A repercussion of this fact in the rainforest-rich nation of Brazil is that biofuels crops common to the region, such as sugar cane and soybeans, have provided relatively little monetary incentive for added deforestation.

But the combined effort between Brazil and Malaysia, dubbed “Floresta Zero,” could make use of some 2.3 million square kilometers of land, roughly 18% more than could be used for sugar cane cultivation, and nearly seven times the area suitable for soy. In addition to the massively increased capacity, palm oil plantations could also slash unemployment in the South American nation, as they require around one farmhand for every tenth of a square kilometer.  

However, these massive economic gains could be coming at some dire environmental expense.  Allowing farmers to plant non-native species in depleted rainforest lands, while still counting them as renewed rainforest could have a domino effect, as palm oil trees force out the native species, pushing depleted lands further into the rainforest. 

On a more global scale, this destruction of rainforest habitat, combined with the energy required to grow, maintain, harvest and process the palm oil plants may make the payback time on any biofuels created from these plantations prohibitively long. Greenpeace, for example, has been particularly adamant in expressing this position. Diminished or non-existent carbon savings would dramatically reduce the value of palm oil biofuels in a potentially carbon-capped global market, reversing many of the economic gains that Floresta Zero offers.

While Minc insists that the economic benefits are well worth the environmental impacts, the best solution might be to study a smaller-scale implementation of palm oil plants first, before giving the go-ahead to a larger project.  Rather than the initial 100,000 hectare plot already approved, a tiny trial plantation would provide real-world data to allow a fair and quantitative comparison of the costs and benefits of this project, without making an irrevocable impact on the slowly recovering ecology of the nearby rainforest. 

Related articles:

The World-Warming Effects of Deforestation
Biodiesel Grows Below Equator
Did Environmentalists Cause the Food Crisis?

Photo by Flickr user Nicky Fernandes

Though the United States Army might fill the popular imagination as a slow-moving, bureaucratic entity, when the situation demands it, that same behemoth is capable of moving with incredible purpose and agility. Faced with the challenge of increasing energy costs and a warming planet, the Army’s comprehensive response should serve as a model for energy conservation and carbon reduction for organizations worldwide.

Historically, the Army has a positive record on the environment. Teddy Roosevelt, widely known for advancing environmental protection and reigning in the excesses of big business, secured his place in the national consciousness during his Army service in the Spanish American war. The Army Corps of Engineers, meanwhile, has been managing and protecting America’s waterways since the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

But even with that history of environmental stewardship, a sea change swept over the Army on January 24th, 2007, when President Bush issued Executive Order 13423.  According to an Environmental Management System Support Contractor who declined to be identified, “The order is what most of the military runs on, and everyone on the base is aware of it.  It directs that we reduce energy, use post-consumer content and look for alternative fuels.”  

Just over a year and a half since its inception, the impact of the Executive Order can be seen everywhere at Fort Eustis. From the labeling of post-consumer products in the PX, to the CFL and LED lighting systems throughout the base offices, to low-flow showerheads and toilets in base housing, the concerted effort to reduce and reuse has left no stone unturned. Families living on the base are even given a consumption threshold; beyond that point energy and water use must be covered out-of-pocket.

As the home of the Army Transportation Corps, the Executive Order has made Fort Eustis home to a variety of cleaner-running vehicles. Hybrids, flex-fuel, E85 ethanol vehicles can all be found on the base.  New electric vehicles from GEM are being considered as well, as the base speed limit of 25 mph eliminates the shortcomings of the GEM's low top speed.  A study is even underway at Fort Eustis to evaluate the efficiency gains of nitrogen-filled tires, which are estimated to leak more slowly than those filled with unprocessed air.

Energy conservation isn’t the only consideration of the Executive Order. Environmental stewardship remains a primary focus, as evidenced by efforts to stem the advance of the invasive Phragmites australis in the area around the base. The Environmental Management System also provides training support, collecting lead rounds from the firing range before they can leech into the local water supply.

Perhaps the total effect of Executive Order 13423 is most clearly displayed when local utility companies anticipate higher demand, and enact substantial cost increases. Base-wide notifications go out ahead of these so-called “peak days”, resulting in all-out efforts at conservation. During 8 such days in 2007, Fort Eustis was able to cut its power consumption by a staggering 40%.  

All told, Executive Order 13423 aims to effect greenhouse gas emission reductions of 30% over 2003 levels by 2015—an impressive goal for a Presidency demonized for not falling in line with global emissions caps.

When carried over into combat zones, the rigors of conservation can end up saving more than just carbon.  In combat zones from Iraq to Afghanistan, supply and fuel convoys have proven popular targets for insurgent forces.  By reducing the demand for energy, the Army has been able to reduce the number of convoys it uses, thus reducing the number of troops it puts in harm’s way.  

A similar trip reduction theory has spurred the development of the Army’s TIGER project, which looks to process waste products into fuel to power an electric generator. “When you're over in a combat area and people are shooting at you, you still have to deal with your trash,” quips Army Rapid Engineering Force project officer John Spiller "How would you feel if somebody was shooting at you every other time you pushed [trash] down the curb?" Along with cutting dangerous disposal trips, the TIGER and other waste reduction projects have helped combat the health threat posed by large garbage dumps in populated areas.

When asked if people ever complain about the energy-saving measures underway at Fort Eustis, the Environmental Management System Support Contractor replied, “Oh, definitely. People want what’s convenient for them. But if it can be done on a military base, it can be done anywhere. Low-flow toilets and low-flow showerheads are things that any large business can do. Or any small business or home, for that matter.” 

Considering the ambitious conservation goals the Army is currently on track to meet, and the massive savings that will no doubt result, I’d say it sounds like a pretty good idea.

Related articles:

The Army Isn't AWOL on Carbon Reduction
U.S. Military Tests Trash-to-Fuel Technology

 

Photo: Contractors install the Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery, or TGER, at Camp Victory, Iraq. By Jerry Warner, Defense Life Sciences

Every decade or so, roads need to be dug up and replaced. Next time, tuck a power station inside.

There's something very appealing about solving our energy needs by utilizing raw materials we already have in abundance, and we do have plenty of freeways and parking lots. Why not make them sources of energy? The Dutch are designing roads that can literally clean up pollution and we are about to put up solar power arrays along the sides of freeways in Oregon.

Now, let's put all that solar-heated asphalt to work as well, to heat water. Hot water flowing from an asphalt energy system could be used “as is” for heating buildings or in industrial processes, or could be passed through a thermoelectric generator to produce electricity.

A research team at Worcester Polytechnic Institute is developing a solar collector that could turn roads and parking lots into ubiquitous—and inexpensive–sources of electricity and hot water. The research, undertaken at the request of Novotech which holds a patent on the concept of using the heat absorbed by pavements is being directed by Rajib Mallick, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, who says there are many advantages to using the solar energy in roads.

"For one, blacktop stays hot and could continue to generate energy after the sun goes down, unlike traditional solar-electric cells. In addition, there is already a massive acreage of installed roads and parking lots that could be retrofitted for energy generation, so there's no need to find additional land for solar farms."

Now, you may be saying, but who wants to dig up all those roads?

Apparently, we already do. "Roads and lots are typically resurfaced every 10 to 12 years and the retrofit could be built into that cycle." says Mallick. "Extracting heat from asphalt could cool it, reducing the urban heat island effect. Finally, unlike roof-top solar arrays, which some find unattractive, the solar collectors in roads and parking lots would be invisible."

The tests were conducted on slabs of asphalt in which were embedded thermocouples, to measure heat penetration, and copper pipes, to gauge how well that heat could be transferred to flowing water. The highest temperatures are found a few centimeters below the surface. This is where a heat exchanger would be located to extract the maximum amount of energy. Experimenting with various asphalt compositions, they found that the addition of highly conductive aggregates, like quartzite, can significantly increase heat absorption, as can the application of a special paint that reduces reflection.

Hot water accounts for 17 percent of the energy used by U.S. homes and buildings, making it one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Starting with water already warmed by the sun can make a huge difference in saving energy costs.

Many countries are encouraging increased use of solar hot water technology. Worldwide installations grew 14 percent in 2005, led by China with almost 80 percent of today’s worldwide market. On a per-person basis, Israel leads the way with 90 percent of all homes taking advantage of the technology. Worldwide, solar hot water capacity reached 88 gigawatts-thermal (GWth) in 2005, with 46 million houses equipped with systems.

The United States currently has 1.6 GWth of solar hot water capacity installed, or 1.8 percent of global capacity. Hawaii, with a strong rebate program, installed almost half of the 9,000 new systems in the U.S. in 2006. California, Florida, and Arizona each installed about a thousand systems in the same year.

Passive solar water heating like this is not a new idea. The first solar water heater was invented in 1891. In the nineteenth century, no easy way existed to heat water. People generally used a cook stove for this purpose. Wood had to be chopped or heavy loads of coal lifted, then the fuel had to be kindled and the fire periodically stocked. In cities, the wealthier heated their water with gas manufactured from coal. Still, the fuel didn't burn clean and the heater had to be lit each time someone wanted to heat water. If someone forgot to extinguish the flame, the tank would blow up. To add to the problem of heating water, in many areas, wood or coal or coal-gas cost a lot and many times could not be easily obtained.

To circumvent these problems, many handy farmers or prospectors or other outdoors men devised a much safer, easier, and cheaper way to heat water - placing into the sun  a metal water tank painted black to absorb as much solar energy as possible. These were the first solar water heaters on record.

Of course, back then we didn't realize that in a century or so, we would be blessed with an abundance of blacktop, into which we could insert solar water heaters.

Related articles:
Hawaii's Water May Soon Be 100% Solar Heated
How Geothermal Heat Pumps Work
Geothermal Energy Delivers Clean Power, Warm Homes

Photo by Robert Corbin

Building off of John McCain’s plans for a $300 million prize for the first car battery 30% more efficient than existing technologies—a cost of roughly $1 per American—Kenyan Journalist Sam Aola Ooko has proposed a staggering $800 million dollar prize—just under $1 per African—for a sustainable energy solution for the continent, which includes some of the world's most impoverished regions.

Aola Ooko’s idea takes additional inspiration from the fact that even a minute portion of the sunlight that bathes the Sahara desert could meet the energy needs for all of developed Europe. Imagine the mileage such a power supply could have feeding the lightly-consuming economies in developing nations across the African continent. 

Africa’s lack of development actually lowers many of the hurdles that can block energy adaptation on more modernized continents. There’s little or no existing infrastructure that has to be accommodated, and very little of the existing economy relies on established energy technologies. Indeed, the United Nations Environment Programme recently described sub-Saharan Africa as “arguably the region that has the most to gain from renewable energy” in the entire world. 

While the humanitarian gains from clean, reliable and local energy would be immense, they might in time pale in comparison to the economic benefits. After centuries of colonialism and continued exploitation by European countries and corporations, political instability has dogged the African continent. In a world where energy is becoming ever more valuable as a commodity, self-generated, self-managed energy production could give African nations an economic backbone to provide services to their citizens and rein in the corruption that continues to hamstring economic development and cause political unrest across much of the continent. 

But the lack of development that makes clean energy such a powerful solution also comes with some challenges. A dearth of high-tech manufacturing facilities makes higher tech solutions such as composite-bladed wind turbines or cutting edge photovoltaics difficult to come by, and large-scale importation may only further the economic problems facing the continent. Likelier solutions may come from concentrated solar power, with relies on simple mirrored surfaces and pressurized water to deliver electricity.

Regardless of how the problem is eventually solved, it’s clear the African continent offers an immense opportunity to prove the benefits clean energy can provide humanity. A hefty prize to whoever can deliver this solution reliably and cost-effectively will only hasten the arrival of such a development, and should be considered a priority for the UN, African Union, and all other world organizations seeking a more stable planet, powered by more sustainable energy.

Related articles:

Geothermal Gains Steam in East Africa
Developed Nations Must Strive to Export Environmentalism
Biodiesel Grows Below Equator
Bright Ideas Can Win $20 Million

 

 Photo by Flickr user Lollie-Pop