The United Nations Foundation and the Center for American Progress have presented an analysis of the core elements needed to combat climate change, and while their recommendations span many countries and industries, it turns out it will actually save money in the long run: $14 Billion dollars.

This report once again demonstrates that attending to climate change is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. Concerted and cooperative international action to get us on a pathway to a global 20 percent renewable electricity standard and halving deforestation by 2020 is the most cost-effective way to achieve our midterm emissions reductions goals. Just as important, improvements in energy efficiency across the board will pay for it all and generate new revenue to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to the impacts of climate change they are already experiencing.” said Center for American Progress President John Podesta.

Realistic gains in energy efficiency, increased use of renewable energy, forest conservation and sustainable land use worldwide could achieve up to 75% of the required global carbon emissions reductions by the year 2020, at a net savings of $14 billion dollars, according to the report.

The recommendations include the following:

• Increasing the rate of global energy efficiency improvement to 2.0 percent by 2015 (from current rate of 1.25 percent) would reduce emissions by 12 percent below business as usual in 2020, or 5.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or GtCO2e, and would yield a net savings in 2020 of $98 billion.
• Deriving 20 percent of the world’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 would reduce emissions in 2020 by 10 percent below business as usual, or 1.3 GtCO2e, at a net cost in 2020 of $34 billion.
• Reducing the annual rate of tropical deforestation 50 percent by 2020 and increasing the amount of land under sustainable management though habitat restoration and sustainable forestry, agriculture, and livestock practices would reduce emissions in 2020 by over 50 percent from business as usual, or 6.5 GtCO2e, at a net cost in 2020 of $51 billion.

These actions, along with immediate investments of $$1-$2 billion towards programs to assist the least developed and most vulnerable countries would make a major contribution to solving the climate problem. This initial effort could pave the way for increased global cooperation on other major issues as well.

A new international agreement is urgently needed to address climate change,” said U.N. Foundation President Timothy Wirth. “It must include emission reduction targets by developed countries, nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries, financial assistance to developing countries, and technology cooperation. Core elements of a new agreement include areas where all countries, both developed and developing, can take immediate action to reduce emissions—action that also supports sustainable development, economic growth, energy security, and public health.”

Worldchanging via Climate Progress

Consultants from the economics group PricewaterhouseCoopers have released a 40 year plan to reduce the threat of climate change, using a mix of energy efficiency, greater use of renewables and carbon capture technologies. The cost of this plan is surprisingly small, roughly equal to 1 year’s economic growth over the 40 year span, or a mere 2.5% annual growth reduction.

The goal of the plan is to stabilize CO2 levels at 450 parts per million, a concentration deemed acceptable by climate scientists. If such a plan isn’t enacted very quickly, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could more than double by 2050, resulting in drastic climate changes. Climate change skeptics aside, so far the major opposition to any serious large-scale reduction in carbon emissions has been the perceived notion that it will be too expensive for the economy to bear. The PricewaterhouseCoopers plan shows that this isn’t the case, and in fact while ‘going green’ may reduce the GDP very slightly, this may be irrelevant as actual wealth will be improved due to other related factors.
By reducing carbon emissions to the atmosphere, other emissions associated with the same processes will also be reduced. This will reduce respiratory health problems, and as the climate reverts to a more stable state heat waves and extreme temperature swings should be reduced, further reducing associated health costs. Another factor that’s often overlooked is the role of natural systems in environmental processes. A recent report by a Montreal-based economist estimates the Canadian boreal forests do roughly $93 Billion dollars worth of environmental cleanup each year in the form of purifying air and water. This must be taken into account when making decisions about forestry and other activities that may impact this vital asset. Not only is the loss of any of this natural capital harmful to the surrounding ecosystems, any loss of environmental cleanup being accomplished would be added to the cost payable by humans – and trees can do the jobs much cheaper than we could. We have many other substitutes for trees for uses such as paper, cardboard and housing, but we have very few other options for cleaning the air and water.
People often ask what an individual can do to make a difference with regards to climate change, and there are many answers to that. Usually altruism isn’t enough of a motivating factor, but appealing to people’s wallets often is. A quick search on Amazon reveals many books about saving money by saving energy; one example is The Home Energy Diet by Paul Scheckel. I’ve spoken about Ecology vs. Economy before, and have stated how much money can be saved by increasing energy efficiency. Per person, this is less than what the PwC plan is calling for, so if enough people undertook energy conservation measures we could achieve the goals of the carbon reduction strategy while keeping more money in our pockets at the same time.

The question is no longer can we afford to fix the planet, instead it’s how can we afford not to?
Cost of saving the planet: 1 year’s growth – Guardian Unlimited, via Hugg

Entrepreneur Martin Schreibman is raising thousands of tilapia in tanks residing in a Brooklyn warehouse, in an attempt to create a sustainable fish farming business. Raising fish in the inner city may seem a bit out of place, but urban aquaculture addresses many health, environmental and economic issues associated with conventional commercial fishing.

Currently over 1 billion people rely on fish as their primary source of protein, because of this many areas are being overfished causing species depletion and environmental damage. If a region is damaged too much, the fish simply won’t come back and the area won’t be productive anymore. This is one of the reasons that fish farms were created, but these have their own issues as well.

Conventional aquaculture setups use floating pens in natural water systems, and so the fish are exposed to whatever may be in the water such as mercury and PCBs. Due to the dense populations of the fish farms, the fish are given antibiotics to keep them healthy. These antibiotics escape the nets and impact other aquatic life, as well as becoming part of the fish tissue to be consumed by humans.

Urban aquaculture is done in a controlled environment and thus requires little if any antibiotics, contains no mercury or PCBs, and the temperature and nutrient supplies can be closely monitored and controlled. Another often overlooked benefit to urban aquaculture is transportation to market; the closer the fish are raised to the people that will consume them, the less energy is required for transportation.

Urban aquaculture alongside urban farming could be a very sustainable solution to the problem of feeding hungry cities, especially in areas where farmland is scarce or coastal waters are too polluted for conventional fishing.

via Seed Magazine

In a previous article, I wrote about the environmental costs of solar and wind power, in this article I’m going to look at a few of the issues surrounding another ‘green’ energy source: biofuels. Many people are aware of green fuels like biodiesel and ethanol, but just how ‘green’ are they?
Biofuel is any fuel that is derived from biomass – recently living organisms or their metabolic byproducts, such as sewage or manure. Like coal and petroleum, biomass is a form of stored solar energy. The energy of the sun is “captured” through the process of photosynthesis in growing plants. It’s a renewable energy resource, and under optimal conditions is very close to being carbon-neutral. When biomass decomposes aerobically, carbon dioxide is produced. Because this carbon dioxide was absorbed by the organism during it’s life cycle, it results in no net gain of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is true for the combustion of biofuels as well, which is why they’re being looked at as a possible replacement for petroleum fuels.

There are 3 main examples of biofuel that are being looked at as energy sources: biodiesel, ethanol, and biomass.

Biodiesel

Biodiesel is a fuel that is equivalent to petroleum diesel, and can be burned in unmodified diesel engines. Biodiesel is produced with a chemical process called transesterification of oils from plants or animal fats. Biodiesel is fully biodegradable and completely non-toxic, in fact tests show it is less toxic than common table salt. Biodiesel can be blended with petroleum diesel, although so far biodiesel has proven to be more expensive than petroleum diesel. Biodiesel can also be distributed using existing infrastructure, which is a big advantage over fuel sources such as hydrogen. Soy-based biodiesel produces approximately 93 percent more energy than is expended in its creation, partly because soybeans require significantly less fertilizer and pesticides than other crops used for biodiesel. Biodiesel also produces 41 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum diesel, 20 percent fewer particulates, but also produces 10-25 percent more NOx than petroleum diesel.

If biodiesel is to be used in large quantities, feedstocks will need to be produced for the sole purpose of creating the fuel. The main crops that are currently used for biodiesel production are soy and canola (rapeseed), but these crops are both relatively inefficient; producing between 50-150 gallons per acre per year. The problem is there simply isn’t enough farmland available to produce all the biodiesel required. To put this in perspective, if every one of the 434 million acres of American farmland was used just for soy cultivation for biodiesel, it would only meet 12 percent of their current demand! For biodiesel to be a viable option as a replacement for petroleum diesel, a far more efficient means of production must be developed. Research conducted with certain types of algae that have up to 50 percent oil content has concluded that sufficient biodiesel could be produced in a combined area of 28,000 square kilometers, roughly 0.3 percent of the land mass of the USA. Because algae production doesn’t require soil, this process could be carried out in non-fertile areas such as desert areas, provided sufficient water was available. Other research is being conducted at MIT on technology developed by Massachusetts-based Green Fuel Technologies, which uses a bioreactor to grow algae fed with flue gas emissions from power plant smoke stacks. The process produces 40% less carbon dioxide and 86% less nitrous oxide than the original stack emissions, and the algae is harvested and processed into biodiesel. As an added benefit, the dried remainder can be reprocessed to create ethanol. There is a concern that this will encourage the continued use of coal, this technology is better suited to being a short term solution while fossil fuel systems are phased out. For more information on biodiesel, Canadian author Bill Kemp has written an excellent book called Biodiesel Basics and Beyond.

Ethanol

Ethanol is an alcohol fuel produced via fermentation and distillation of plant matter that contains carbohydrates (sugar). Ethanol is less toxic than methanol, but is still not suitable for human consumption or careless handling; a difference from biodiesel. Ethanol can be burned in a slightly modified gasoline engine, or used as a gasoline additive. The most common blends available are E10 and E85, which contain a 10 percent and 85 percent ethanol to gasoline mixture respectively. Some modifications may need to be made to vehicles if they are not ‘flex-fuel’ vehicles. From a consumer’s point of view, ethanol is distributed with the existing infrastructure, ie. from a gas station pump, but there’s another issue that’s preventing this from being an easy transition from gasoline. Ethanol in high concentrations is corrosive, and would weaken metal pipes and tanks. Due to this problem, an alternative method might be required to get the ethanol to the fuel stations. In an article by Ethanol News, one possible option was to use PVC pipes to transport the ethanol. This would be an environmental disaster due to the toxicity of PVC.

Because ethanol is produced from plant matter, it’s considered a renewable fuel source, and also has the potential to be carbon-neutral. However, corn-grain based ethanol isn’t as green as biodiesel due to the greater fertilizer and pesticide requirements for the corn crop. Corn-grain ethanol produces 25 percent more energy than is consumed in its creation, and produces only 12 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.

As with biodiesel, there isn’t enough crop land available to produce enough ethanol from conventional sources. If all of the United State’s crops were put into ethanol production, it would meet only 10 percent of the current demands. Brazil makes extensive use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, using sugarcane as a feedstock. This is a much more efficient feedstock than corn, having an average cost of production (including farming, transportation and distribution) of $0.63 per US gallon. The downside to this practice is the cost of food has gone up, as more and more farmland is devoted to growing sugarcane. The fibrous residue of this process, bagasse, can be reprocessed into biodegradable bioplastic objects such as disposable plates and cutlery. Sugarcane isn’t a viable option for colder climates, so other options need to be looked at. Recent advancements in cellulosic ethanol show much promise in converting non-food crops such as grass and agricultural waste into fuel. This has the benefit of using more widely available feedstocks, and not consuming food crops for fuel. For ethanol to be a suitable replacement for gasoline, sufficient feedstock crops must be grown without negatively impacting our food production.

“Montana farms produce 10 million tons of wheat and barley straw that are typically left in the field. An additional five million tons of hay are produced annually,” said Dave Wichman, superintendent of the Central Ag Research Center. “The advantage of using annual farm crops for ethanol production is that farmers can produce biomass with conventional crops and equipment, and can alternate crop production for energy, food or feed,” he added. In areas with irrigation and enough heat, a double-cropping system with winter cereals and warm season grasses like winter triticale and sweet sorghum, can be adopted.” The biomass production increases by as much as 50 percent using this system compared to a single-cropping system,” – Link

The overall process must also have a sufficiently high energy surplus; currently corn-based ethanol does not, however cellulosic ethanol may change this. There are other issues surrounding this practice as well, such as the energy expended tending the crops and transporting the feedstock to a processing facility, which all reduce the efficiency of ethanol as an energy source.

Biomass

Biomass refers to any plant matter that can be used as fuel, although in this article I’m focusing on dry biomass that can be burned as an energy source. This is the oldest and best known form of biomass fuel; humans have been burning wood and other dry plant matter since prehistoric times. I’ve written previously on Giant Miscanthus as a biomass source, other grasses and plants can be burned as well including bamboo, kenaf and hemp. In areas where the plant is creating a problem, invasive species like kudzu could also be harvested and burned. An excellent way to utilize these resources is to pelletize the biomass and burn it in a coal power generating station, with stack scrubbers and particulate filters in place. This could work well with the algae stack systems from Green Fuel Technologies to help close the carbon loop. Biomass of this type can also be fed into a digester, to produce a methane mixture called ‘biogas’, which can be burned directly or in a turbine to generate electricity.

Other advances in biomass energy generation have also been made in the area of microbial fuel cells, a technology that uses microorganisms to digest sugars from agricultural and municipal waste that produces electrons directly. Fed with corn waste, a prototype system built by researchers at Penn State University in the USA produced an average of 1 watt per square meter of surface area, at 0.5 volts. In test runs, 93 percent of the biochemical oxygen demand was eliminated, indicating that almost all of the biomass was converted to electricity. The remaining biomass could be composted or otherwise disposed of. Depending on the unit costs, microbial fuel cells could be placed on farms to make use of the biomass produced on the fields, reducing the costs of transporting the biomass to a central processing facility. This would require only an electrical connection to the power grid, something that most farms already have. Other tests are being done with using microbial fuel cells to process municipal wastewater, and have shown success with both producing electricity and treating sewage.

Other comments

Another option that could be applied to any of these biofuels is using industrial ‘brownfields’ to grow biofuel crops. These areas are often contaminated with heavy metals and other harmful pollutants, depending on the situation plants could be used to clean up the site; a process known as phytoremediation. It could be possible to use plants to extract the pollutants, and then use the plants as biomass to generate energy. This would need to be done carefully, to avoid releasing the pollutants into the air. Lead in the soil is bad; lead in the air is worse. Another problem associated with biomass production in general is nutrient depletion. When a plant grows in soil, it extracts nutrients to use. Over time, this depletes those nutrients from the soil. If plants were continually being harvested and burned or processed into liquid fuel, the soil would soon become barren or would require fertilizers and minerals to be added again. This is possible, but may negate the energy benefits provided by producing the biofuel crops.

Efficiency and economics

It’s known that photosynthesis has an efficiency of around 16 percent. Even if the entire mass of the plant was converted to usable energy, this is already less efficient than using the sunlight directly via photovoltaic panels or concentrated solar power systems, and that’s not even factoring in energy losses during processing and distribution, or thermal and mechanical losses in a vehicle. Once those are accounted for, biofuels as vehicle fuel aren’t efficient or economical. To further compound this, ethanol contains roughly 34 percent less energy than the same amount of gasoline, resulting in a 34 percent drop in fuel economy which would also require refueling 34 percent more frequently. Currently biofuel gasoline blends provide a slight reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle exhaust, and can help a percentage of the population to reduce their oil consumption. It’s possible that algae biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol processes will become efficient enough to be viable, but until then the main focus for biofuels, a replacement for gasoline and diesel, isn’t nearly as ‘green’ (or as realistic) as many people believe.

Recently I wrote about the abundance of solar energy available to us, and the small fraction of it we would need to capture to meet all of our energy needs. I received a comment questioning the value of renewable energy and disagreeing with the statement that renewable power had no impact on the environment. However, I didn’t say it had no impact, because everything we do has some impact on the environment. What I did say was that the environmental impact of renewable energy is far more benign than that of coal or nuclear energy.

The comment said “…I’m willing to believe that the environmental impact of these technologies is less than that of nuclear energy or fossil fuels, but I am not willing to believe that there would be no environmental impact whatsoever. So my question is then this: what are the environmental costs associated with these technologies? What effect will large-scale wind power have on global or local weather patterns, for example? Will large solar power – photovoltaic or otherwise – installations have an effect on global or local temperature?”

I’ll start out by addressing solar energy, since that was the topic that sparked this question. Any global temperature effects caused by solar power would be absolutely insignificant compared to global warming influenced by burning fossil fuels. By capturing the heat with a CSP facility, it is being diverted from soaking into the ground, this is true. If you cover a large enough area with this type of energy facility, it will have a measurable effect on both ground temperature and local air temperatures as the energy is no longer warming the ground and therefore the air above it. This may affect the weather in some small degree, but for this to happen the facility would have to be far larger than I’m advocating for. The best solution for this is to have a distributed network of generating facilities, each small enough to create only a minimal environmental impact.

The photo at the top of this page is of a solar heating system mounted on the roof of a commercial building; it achieves the same basic effect as the CSP equipment, but lacks the focusing mirrors and doesn’t produce steam. In this case, solar energy that would have previously been absorbed by the roof is instead used to produce hot water. Before this system was put in place, the solar energy would have heated up the building; requiring increased air conditioning to bring it back down to desirable levels. By capturing this energy, a twofold purpose is achieved.

• Free hot water
• Reduced cooling load

A centralized solar power plant would be useful as a short to medium term solution, as it would be easy to construct, inexpensive compared to a nuclear facility, much cleaner than the cleanest of the coal plants, and would make use of readily available technology and the existing infrastructure. In the future, however, the ideal solar solution is to have solar cells integrated into building roofs, to let buildings supply much of their own electrical power. As technology progresses, residential solar cells will look like normal shingles or tiles, and less like something you’d expect to find on a moon base.

Wind energy is another issue, it’s a little harder to realistically advocate wind turbines on residential houses. Even land-based windfarms have their share of problems, such as blocking scenic views from some people’s houses, the possibility of interfering with bird migration paths, low-frequency sound waves from older turbines causing problems, and limitations of land use. For this reason, I believe that offshore wind is the best solution as it can address all of the issues listed above.

Again with the wind power, distributed is best. Rather than having a massive wind farm in one location, a series of smaller locations would result in a reduced environmental and visual impact. I personally think a whole line of wind turbines is an attractive scene, but I can appreciate that others do not agree with that. Therefore the best solution is to put the turbines out in the water where they’re out of sight, but also are the most efficient; a win-win situation.

Despite all of the concerns about the impacts of renewable energy, they are insignificant towards the impact created by coal power and nuclear power stations. Critics often comment that birds are killed by the spinning blades of wind turbines, yet how many are killed by air pollution in areas around coal power plants? Has anyone ever become sick or worried about fallout from a solar power facility? Green power options do have an environmental cost associated with them, but they are still a far better option than non-renewable sources. If properly implemented, they are also more cost effective and can further reduce costs by turning an unwanted effect (heat) into a resource. Overall, no single renewable system can be pointed at and said “There, that is the best solution for everything.” as the sun doesn’t shine all the time, the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and sometimes you have neither. Just like with investing, a diversified portfolio of renewable energy will provide the best security and energy supply. Some wind, some solar, some geothermal, some hydroelectric; all operating together to supply the power we need. Not one big solar facility, not one big wind farm, but thousands of smaller ones each powering a specific area but tied to the national power grid. There would be a smaller environmental impact, it would cost less, and it would be a more secure option than having just a few large stations that could be vulnurable to natural disasters, mechanical failures or even terrorist attacks.

In later articles, I’ll cover the environmental costs associated with other green energy topics including biofuels and hydrogen.

BILL: Steve, thanks for being with us.

STEVE: Glad to be here. Thanks for having me.

BILL: I read your article about saving money through conservation, and you offered an excellent example of switching light bulbs. For my Readers, could you explain how it is really possible to save so much money just by switching light bulbs?

STEVE: In order to answer this question, let’s look at how light bulbs work. A typical incandescent light bulb works by heating a tungsten filament to the point of incandescence, which means it’s so hot it’s giving off light. However, only about 10% of the energy gets converted to light; the rest is converted to heat. This not only means you’re wasting 90% of your money for your lighting; you’re also creating possibly unwanted heat. If your house has 15 light bulbs, each one 100 watts at 10% efficiency, that is approximately 1,350 watts of heat. This is roughly the same as an electric space heater. If you have your lights on during the summer, or if you live in a warm climate, you have an extra heating load which. If you have air conditioning, it needs to work that much harder to make your home comfortable. In the winter this might not seem like such a bad thing since you need to heat the building anyways, but it’s still a rather expensive heating method. There are alternatives that save energy, money, and don’t turn your home into a giant Easy-Bake oven. The most common new type of light bulb is the compact fluorescent light (CFL). Advances in recent years have eliminated the harsh white light, and the annoying flicker. CFL’s cost a bit more than incandescent lights, but they have many advantages. Their lifespan is considerably longer, up to 7 years. They also don’t produce heat, which reduces your cooling load. What about the light though? Lighting is measured in Lumens, the wattage rating is the amount of electrical energy required to produce the desired lumens. A typical 75 watt incandescent light bulb will produce approximately 1,200 lumens; however a compact fluorescent light can provide the same light output for only 16 watts. This also equates to 1/4 of the electrical cost. At roughly $4 per bulb, each light would pay for itself within a year and would be putting money in your pocket for the next 6 years after that. If you spent the money to replace all the commonly used lights in your home or office with CFL’s, the savings will be in the hundreds of dollars. That savings goes directly to your bottom line, and is a very sound investment.

BILL: Why is environmentalism important to personal finance? Are they related?

STEVE: Ecology and economics are closely related, both words stem from the Greek word “oikos”, which means house. Economics is derived from the Greek word oikonomos and is made of the words oikos (house) and nemein (to manage) which translates as “One who manages a household”. Ecology, likewise, is also derived from the word oikos, along with the word “logie”, which translates as “study of”. Therefore, economics is the management of the house, and ecology is the study of the house. The environment, in every respect, is very literally our “house”; these words are an apt description for the system we find ourselves in. Our economy is based on the natural world, but our ecology tells us that the very same economy is destroying the natural world. We all need to realize that we’re living an unsustainable lifestyle… We’re using resources far faster than the planet can replenish them and expelling waste far faster than the planet can absorb. The Earth is everything to us. It represents all we have, and all we’ve ever had. In financial terms, the resources available to us are our capital. We have metals, trees, water, animals, oil, and a myriad of other things we can use. In a capitalist system the resources, a.k.a. capital, are used to generate profits. If the capital is used up improperly, its ability to generate profit is reduced. In a successful model, the capital remains the same or even increases, which allows for a continued and increasing profit to be made. With our natural capital, however, it’s being squandered with very little being reinvested. Forestry is just fine if it’s done properly, but clear cutting a natural forest not only destroys the forest, it also prevents it from growing any more trees. The capital is being liquidated at an alarming rate, and being called profit! Some major shifts need to be made in our mindsets, in order to reverse this trend. We don’t need to give up our comfortable way of life to do so, but we’ll need to make a few changes in order to accomplish it.

BILL: Are there other cost-effective things that real estate and property owners can do to their existing properties to save on energy cost?

STEVE: Absolutely, I’ve already mentioned the savings potential from switching to CF lights, but there are several other things you can do. A very cost-effective action is to have a Home Energy Audit. This is an audit of your property to determine energy use and wastage. Based on the audit’s findings, you may be eligible for rebates towards improving your energy efficiency. The audit will indicate where your property is losing heat, and where electricity and natural gas are being wasted. The auditor may use tools such as a thermal imaging camera, which takes a heat picture of your property to see where heat is being lost. This is effective in the summer as well, for detecting any losses of cold air from inside an air conditioned house. The audit report will make recommendations for specific energy saving actions to be taken, and will include things like replacing light bulbs, showerheads and duct filters, adding insulation to basement/crawlspace walls and in an attic space, as well as applying caulking or weather stripping around doors and windows. A programmable thermostat is something that can also be added easily and will not only save energy costs by reducing waste, it also has the potential to increase property value. Finally, other actions such as closing blinds or curtains during the brightest parts of the day and opening windows at night will all reduce the need for air conditioner cooling, without costing much money. A long term action would also be to plant shade trees in front of south-facing windows. Once the trees mature, during the summer this will prevent excessive solar gain into the house but will allow for wanted solar gain and sunlight during winter months.

BILL: What energy-saving features should they look for in future properties before buying?

STEVE: If any appliances come with the property, they should be Energy Star rated. Basement and attic surfaces should be insulated. A programmable thermostat is a bonus, but can be easily installed at any time for less than $100. In terms of heating and cooling, a high efficiency natural gas or electric furnace will save money as will a high efficiency air conditioner. However, a ground source heat pump can provide both benefits at very high efficiencies, with no cost other than the electricity required to run the pumps. Regardless of the heating or cooling system, a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) is a very desirable item to look for. The building’s ventilation system removes moisture and stale air and replaces it with fresh air, but it also removes any heat you’ve added and vents it outside. In warmer months, this also means that you’re air conditioning the outside as well. A HRV transfers heat between the outgoing and the incoming air streams. A HRV will help maintain temperature inside the building, which provides tremendous cost savings due to a reduced heating and/or cooling load.

BILL: What exactly is meant by “geek”, and what qualifies you as a GREEN Geek?

STEVE: Well, being a vegetarian I definitely don’t meet the qualifications for the original meaning of the word! But seriously, all my life I’ve been focused on intellectual matters. I was reading Hardy Boys novels by age 5, and when my parents bought a computer in the early 1980s I was absolutely fascinated by it. I soon had my own computer, and haven’t looked back. I love to read, and I’m absolutely addicted to the internet, I love having information at my fingertips, and the ability to share that information with other people around the world. I’m also an avid reader of almost anything I can get my hands on, although I prefer science fiction and non-fiction, especially personal development books and any technology books relating to my career path. As far as the “green” aspect, that’s something I’ve been asked many times before. During my final 2 years of school I worked as a computer service technician for the school’s IT department. I studied environmental engineering, there was one person there who was studying mechanical engineering (who also took programming as his major was focused on robotics), but everyone else was in the computer engineering program. There was one coworker who I didn’t initially get along with, but we grew to become friends over the time we worked together. He was quite the interesting character; he was the only student technician to ever lose a whole computer, he decided to take up smoking as a hobby, and he’s also the only Muslim I know whose favorite food is a bacon and sausage sandwich! One of the things he loved to say to me whenever I pointed out that his Coke can is recyclable and he shouldn’t throw it in the garbage can (right beside the recycling box) was “I saw a tree outside this morning, why don’t you go hug it?” He’d also repeatedly ask me why I was working to repair computers, since environmentalists hate technology. I know there are some hardcore environmentalists who are anti-technology, but I happen to love technology…provided it’s used the right way. I don’t want a future where we all live in little huts and have no technology; I want a future with majestic energy efficient buildings, with automated transit systems that take us where we want to go with speed and privacy. I want cities that have beautiful parks and structures that are built to enhance nature, not destroy it. I want computers that can talk to us, I want robots to be a part of our society, I want advanced medical technology to keep us healthy until the end of our lives, I want a society that truly produces no waste, and operates as efficiently as possible. I also want clean air, clean water, and healthy natural food to eat. And I want my children to be able to enjoy the same things, and their children as well. If that doesn’t qualify me as a green geek, then I’m not sure what will.

BILL: I’m an avid reader as well. in regards to books, what types of science fiction do you read? Do you have any favorite authors? Also, what are some of the geeky/environmental books you’ve read?

STEVE: Well, my favorite genre is science fiction, although within that I’m most fascinated by the cyberpunk genre and anything relating to transhumanism. One of my favorite books in that area is Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan. I also really enjoyed Eon and Moving Mars, by Greg Bear. These books all include the concept of transhumanism, with neural implants and ubiquitous nanotechnology. Many of these books look at nature as being something to be conquered, something to be improved upon. I look at it in a slightly different way, I believe that we can have spaceships, and little robots that swim in our blood to repair cellular damage, and computers in our head that do all sorts of wonderful things.. and still have nature. We don’t need to give up the natural world to enjoy the benefits of technology, provided we focus on the right technologies. Science fiction gives us a glimpse of what might be possible, maybe even a goal to strive for as many engineers and scientists did after growing up with Star Trek. Think that science fiction doesn’t influence reality? Look at how many people have cell phones, PDAs, and devices that can be written on like paper. These all existed in the realm of science fiction before they became reality. I have a cell phone, a PDA and I’m using a tablet PC right now. Science fiction can show us what’s possible, and some of the more dystopian ones can also show us the dangers of what can happen if we don’t consider the consequences of our actions. As far as non-fiction, the book that really started me on my current path is “From Eco-Cities to Living Machines“. From here I branched out into other books that made me think outside the box. Other really fantastic ones were Cradle to Cradle, Biomimicry, The Natural Step, Natural Capitalism and The Ecology of Commerce, The Secret Life of Plants, and The China Study. Each of these books taught me something and helped shape my view of the environment and our place in it. I also enjoy reading Ray Kurzweil’s books, including his recent Fantastic Voyage which touts the benefits of organic food and avoiding environmental pollutants as a way to promote our health, until technology has progressed to the point where we can repair our bodies and even upgrade them, with the use of nanotechnology and cybernetics.

BILL: With the obvious need for renewable energy sources, what do you make of the involvement of government? Not any particular government, but governments in general.

STEVE: It’s quite evident that so far the average person isn’t interested in energy conservation as an altruistic gesture, and people tend to have an aversion to change especially if they believe they will be deprived of something. Before even looking at alternative energy sources, actual demand must be looked at, and that means energy conservation. Government (USA and Canada) programs like Energy Star provide efficiency ratings for consumer appliances to make it easy for people to purchase energy efficient items. This standard covers everything from refrigerators to washing machines to computers, and is designed to show the energy (and therefore financial) savings with these products. The concept of renewable resources is just as relevant to financial matters as it is to environmental situations. In financial terms, non-renewable resources like oil and coal are like spending your savings, whereas renewable resources such as biomass, wind, solar and tidal energy, are akin to spending profit; the capital is still there. Government programs to promote renewable energy are vital, because they have the money to back up the necessary research into new technology, but also because they have the authority to change laws to make the programs succeed. 20 years ago governments got together to address the problem of the growing ozone hole, and agreed to fix it. Today CFCs have largely been banned, and the ozone hole will slowly repair itself. If today’s governments applied the same enthusiasm to phasing out non-renewable fuel sources, the world could be powered entirely by renewable resources within a matter of decades. In order for this to happen, grants must continue to be given to alternative energy research, wind farms and other facilities must be built, and a carbon tax must be levied on the heaviest polluters and oil consumers, This will result in a shift to renewable energy far faster than even the biggest Greenpeace rally, or the catchiest bumper sticker.

BILL: The majority of readers here are interested in learning more about aspects of financial freedom and how to become independently wealthy. In your opinion, how does what you’re doing at Green Geek fit in to that objective?

STEVE: My philosophy towards technology and social sustainability inherently revolves around efficiency; cost savings is a side effect of this. With many of the actions for property owners, such as replacing light bulbs with CFL’s or replacing entire appliances, the up front cost seems high but the energy savings outweighs this cost in the long run. Conservation is a very important philosophy in financial freedom, as it equates directly to reduced expenses. The benefit of these technologies is energy and cost savings, with absolutely no loss of comfort or function. After all, the less money you’re spending, the more money you’re able to keep. Benjamin Franklin said it best, “a penny saved is a penny earned.”

BILL: In your opinion, what changes need to be made both in the short and long term?

STEVE: In the short term, it will benefit us all to reduce our energy consumption by doing things like replacing light bulbs, draft proofing, and applying common sense such as shutting off the lights and the TV if you’re going out for the night. Buy organic food where available, locally produced if possible. If you’re buying a new appliance, look for an Energy Star rated one. Put your computer into auto-hibernation mode so it shuts itself off after a period of disuse, without you even thinking about it. Drive a hybrid car, carpool, ride a bike. In upcoming elections, vote consciously. Learn the issues, and vote for what’s best for the planet. In the long term, we need to completely get rid of fossil fuels. Our dwindling supplies should take care of that, but it should be a conscious choice to progress beyond it rather than a move forced by necessity. The Building code needs to be changed to adopt LEED standards, and home appliances and devices need to be built to be as energy efficient as possible, as well as completely recyclable. We need to eliminate personal self-propelled vehicles as our primary mode of transportation, and instead focus on creating new sustainable eco-villages that are walkable and connected via a high speed rail system into a beautiful majestic sprawling region that is full of natural green spaces, parks, agricultural areas, all powered by passive and eco-friendly means such as integrated solar, offshore wind farms and geothermal systems.

BILL: In your life, who have been the major influences in shaping your philosophies and views?

STEVE: There have been many people who have inspired me, but one that really stands out is Nikola Tesla. His work wasn’t specifically related to environmental topics; rather he was focused on finding better ways to do things. Another influential person I encountered in my life was one of my professors in my first year of school. I started school studying electrical engineering, inspired by Nikola Tesla. I decided to minor in biotechnology, and at the time I was acting with the belief that anyone who was opposed to genetic engineering and biotechnology must be a closed-minded religious fundamentalist. Luckily for me, I happened to get a fantastic professor for a bioethics class, and rather than just teaching us from the textbook she also showed us other perspectives of the issues. It was during this class that I discovered organic agriculture and the dangers of chemical pesticides, both the promises and the tremendous risks involved with gene splicing to create “better” organisms, and the potential for natural systems. The professor loaned me a book, which I read in 1 night and then promptly purchased my own copy the day after. That book was John Todd’s book From Eco-Cities to Living Machines. I decided to switch majors to environmental engineering the following year, and was very successful with my new studies, graduating near the top of my class with an honours diploma. Recently, I’ve been very inspired by the writings of Steve Pavlina. His perspective on the field of personal development has really made an impression on me, because he’s done such incredible things using a unique blend of technology (blogging, podcasting, and programming) and spirituality. Finally, it’s somewhat cliché, but my family has also greatly influenced my philosophies and views. My personality is a blend of my father’s strong intellect, logical thinking and a desire for lifelong learning, and my mother’s creativity, spirituality and compassion for other people and for the planet. I’m driven by the belief that the planet must be saved for us and for future generations, but at the same time I’m tempered by the question of how it can be done.

BILL: I would be very interested in working with you in coauthoring some informative articles relating to health, eco-awareness and the financial advantages stemming from that. Would you give me that honor?

STEVE: Absolutely, it would be my pleasure to introduce more of these concepts with your readers!

BILL: I’m quite taken with the notion that adopting a healthy lifestyle can equate to massive long-term financial savings in regards to reduced cost of health care. Perhaps that can be our first joint writing project.

STEVE: I am excited about the possibility to reach your readers and develop some material that will hopefully make a positive difference.

BILL: Thank you for being with us for this short while, Steve. And good luck with the Green Geek Blog.

STEVE: Thank you as well, Bill. Best of luck to you with your website also.

“Nanosolar, a startup in Palo Alto, CA, announced plans to build a production facility with the capacity to make enough solar cells annually to generate 430 megawatts. This output would represent a substantial portion of the worldwide production of solar energy. According to Nanosolar’s CEO Martin Roscheisen, the company will be able to produce solar cells much less expensively than is done with existing photovoltaics because its new method allows for the mass-production of the devices. In fact, maintains Roscheisen, the company’s technology will eventually make solar power cost-competitive with electricity on the power grid.”

via Technology Review

Corn plastic (NatureWork^® PLA) is manufactured from corn, an abundant and annually renewable resource. Since corn is domestically grown, it is readily available for manufacturing, supports US farmers, the US economy, and reduces dependency on foreign petroleum supplies. CornCards™ are virtually identical in look and feel to traditional credit cards, and provide all the same convenience and functionality.

CornCard USA – Arthur Blank Co.

Timestrips are single-use, disposable, smart-labels, which automatically monitor lapsed time, ranging from under 1 day to 6 months.
The technology behind the revolutionary Timestrip works by capillary action, allowing a tinted liquid to migrate through a micro-porous material at a consistent rate.
Currently the Timestrips are available as single use peel & stick labels, but they will soon be available integrated into product packaging.

Spoiled food is a large component of our household waste, but even if it is composted to recover some nutrients the energy expended to produce the food is still wasted. Timestrips integrated into product packaging could reduce food waste, serving as a reminder to eat food that is still good, and as an indicator to toss out food that has expired.

Products like this would be an excellent application for Plantic, as the plastic clamshell packaging isn’t easily recyclable or biodegradable.

Some basic changes have occurred in the PC market that have prompted AMD and now Intel to rethink their strategy regarding microprocessor design. The most significant change in recent years is the proliferation of mobile devices. Users don’t want a device that quickly drains it’s battery or gets too hot, so processor efficiency is important. Intel’s new Core 2 Duo technology, to be released July 2006, will reduce energy consumption for computer devices, both in mobile and desktop systems, extending battery life and reducing cost. Combined with other efficiency technologies such as MIT’s carbon nanotube battery and OLED or epaper displays, it might be possible to one day produce a mobile device that is so efficient that it can be recharged with integrated solar cells, or from ambient RF energy.

“Three aspects of multicore chips make them more efficient. First, when a chip has more than one core, the speed at which each core computes can be slowed down without impeding the speed of the entire chip. By slowing down the clock speed, explains Martin, engineers can decrease the computational rate of a single core by a factor of five, from one gigahertz to 200 megahertz, and the core consumes only one-30th of the power. Then, he says, even if five of those cores are assembled onto a single chip, only one-sixth of the power is consumed, yet the total computational rate of one gigahertz is maintained.”

via Technology Review