Author: Stephen Hodgdon

LEED gets real

The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standard was a much needed imprimatur for unifying all the players in the green building industry. It has spawned more than 14,000 green building projects worldwide since its unveiling in 2000.

But critics have long argued that the LEED system is broken and doesn’t really live up to its eco-friendly mantle. They cite meager energy saving improvements and an easy-to-game point system that rewards individual features rather than a building’s total sustainability as just a few of its flaws. More significantly, LEED accreditation is awarded based on hypothetical estimates of energy modeling that was done at the design phase rather than the building’s actual energy performance when it’s in use.

Last week, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) took a step toward addressing its critics by injecting performance measurement and accountability into the latest version of the LEED standard. With LEED v3, building owners will have to regularly report on how much energy and water their buildings truly consume as a precondition to ongoing LEED certification. The new requirement aims to close the “performance gap” between imaginary and actual conservation.

The USGBC says the new rules will deliver two key benefits. First, the insight gleaned from the building performance data will help improve future versions of the standard by identifying which LEED specs work and which don’t. Secondly, they theorize that forcing certified building owners to report energy use on an ongoing basis will cause them to knuckle down and reduce the amount they use.

Justin Moresco at GigaOM’s Earth2Tech blog added that the new rule could also boost demand for products from companies that develop energy-related technologies for buildings. And I see great potential for integrating Smart Grid capabilities into the LEED process. That’s because one way to meet the new requirement is to let the USGBC monitor a building’s performance directly using the local utility as its information gateway. Smart meters, sensors and Smart Energy management systems will be essential to making this happen.

While the new rules are a small step towards improving a flawed LEED system, establishing accountability is one of the proven ways to turn around an under-achiever.

Cleantech links for 5-6-2009

  • Thinking of going solar? First start with an energy self audit. Here’s how (Scientific American)
  • Ford is spending $550 million to retool one of its plants into a green car factory (CNET Planetary Gear)
  • Is the EPA finally standing up to the corn ethanol lobby? The industry is having a conniption over new biofuel emission rules. (Earth2Tech)
  • What do think of Volkswagen’s new eco-friendly (or not?) print ad? Greenwash Index wants to know.
  • The first LEED Platinum, true Zero Net Energy home in Vermont. (Jetson Green)
  • We know the clean energy industry is engineering bacteria to produce better biofuels. But bacteria for better solar panels too?

Idea for solving an eco-calamity: garbage in, electricity out

The word’s largest garbage dump is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a toxic swarm of plastic trash twice the size of Texas that’s wreaking havoc on sea birds and marine life. It’s an obscene environmental problem for which we’re all responsible, but no one has a solution nor wants to deal with it. So yesterday, a group of scientists and conservationists set out to map the calamity and try to figure out a plan.

The US has nearly 90 waste-to-energy plants that turn garbage into electricity and hot water. They burn nearly as clean as natural gas plants, displace 7.8 million tons of coal-produced energy, and every ton of garbage consumed by the plants eliminates one ton LESS of CO2 emissions due to landfills and fossil fuel generation.

I’m just saying….

Maple syrup: a lesson in unintentional cleantech innovation

Maple sugaring season is finally underway here, with smoke and steam from boiled sap comingling above thousands of New England sugarhouses.

What most people don’t realize is that those sugarhouses are emitting a lot less steam and smoke these days. But not due to a decline in production…maple syrup yields were some of best on record last year, up 30% nationwide.

Instead, a clever-and-perhaps-lazy sugarbush farmer had an epiphany back in the ‘70s to experiment with a reverse osmosis machine in an attempt to cut down on the time, fuel and sweat he put into boiling his sap down to syrup.

Reverse osmosis is a technology originally invented to purify water, such as for desalinating sea water to get fresh water. By applying the same technology to maple syrup production, producers discovered they can remove 75-80% of the water from the sugary sap, dramatically reducing the boiling effort.

The lesson to cleantech companies is that innovation doesn’t always have to be invented from scratch; sometimes you can achieve breakthroughs by repurposing existing innovations from other industries.

That’s not to suggest that solar, biofuel or wind energy companies should detour from their current R&D quests for the most energy efficient materials, enzymes or geometries.

And to keep things in perspective, the environmental gains of using reverse osmosis in maple syrup production is scant at best, since the sugaring operations are small scale and the season lasts just a couple months.

Yet consider this: my maple syrup-producing neighbor in Vermont used to burn through 40 cords dirty slag wood each year. He now burns just 6 cords since he started using reverse osmosis – which translates into a staggering 85% reduction in energy consumption.

What if some undiscovered, unintentional use of an existing technology could achieve comparable levels of performance in, say, the processing of biofuel feedstocks or the combustionable efficiency of other fuels? I’m just saying that if some farmer can revolutionize an industry by asking “what if I was to hook up that contraption to my syrup tank…?”  why shouldn’t cleantech companies ask the same kind of questions of not-so-obvious existing technologies?

Biofuel needs a new message

Biofuel startups have a messaging problem. Everyone from scientists and environmentalists to economists and ethicists are hammering the industry in a near-daily barrage of bad press and damning research studies.

I won’t spill the entire rap sheet against biofuels – you can read about them here or here for starters – but to summarize the key points affecting public perception:

  • “sustainable biofuel” is an oxymoron: it takes far more fuel and energy to produce than it delivers
  •  production actually causes more greenhouse gas emissions than it eliminates
  •  it takes farmland away from food crops, increasing prices and world hunger, and
  •  it contributes to rainforest deforestation, to name just a few offenses.

These problems are primarily the domain of first-generation biofuels produced from food stock like corn, soybeans or palm oil. Whether its indictments are fair or not, the perception taints the entire industry, including more promising second-generation alternatives such as cellulosic ethanol (which relies on non-food biomass like agricultural waste products and wood chips) and algae-based biofuels.

Yet the industry’s only response is the same old message it’s been touting since day one: Biofuel helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Important as energy independence may be, the message is ineffective. It’s a macroeconomic abstraction at a time when people are struggling with tougher problems closer to home… like having a job, healthcare and a place to live. It doesn’t give me a good reason to care. Besides, don’t solar, wind and other more clean energy industries have a more attractive hold on that same message? And for transportation fuels, electric and hybrid plug-in vehicles rule the day.

Weak messaging combined with the steady drumbeat of detractors has caused the biofuel industry to lose control of the debate…at their own peril. I don’t have the answer to biofuel’s messaging problem. But if asked, I’d steer the discussion this way:

Doing nothing is not an option – First, re-assert biofuel’s essential role in renewable energy diversity. The messaging needs to convey that while it may not be a perfect fuel; it’s certainly a better fuel. Detractors may fling their arrows, but what’s the alternative? Our oil addition may ebb as new green technologies catch hold, but it won’t go away in our generation. Do we just keep pumping and mainlining dirtier fossil fuels into our cars, homes and industries indefinitely? The messaging needs to communicate that doing nothing is not an option. No single renewable energy option can solve all our problems. Biofuel is a necessary part of our clean energy stew.

Make it personal, keep it local – The biofuel industry needs to get beyond its national energy independence message and explain how a well structured biofuel ecosystem can benefit local economies and, ultimately, people’s lives by:

  • creating jobs in feed stock, production and distribution, and
  • reducing the negative impact on local environments.

In our state of New Hampshire, for instance, the North Country’s economy is reeling from the collapse of the pulp and paper industry. Biomass production from waste wood would not only bring jobs and spur new ancillary businesses, it would lead to better forest management, which boosts tourism. Companies like Pacific Biodiesel and organizations like the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance promote small scale, community-based biofuel production based on local feedstocks, local production and local distribution of sustainable fuel. In other words, “grow it here, produce it here, use it here.” The messaging needs to communicate how biofuel can positively impact me and everyone else at a personal level.

Rebrand – Lastly, biofuel startups need to directly address the early missteps and knocks against the industry openly and honestly. Acknowledge the problems and show what you’re doing to fix them. Continued support for current first-generation corn-based ethanol production is a non-starter. It’s an unsustainable industry propped up by bad public policy and pols beholding to the agri-biz lobby and Iowa caucus goers. It’s a battle that can’t be won in the long term.

This requires re-branding. Second-generation biofuel companies need to set themselves apart from their first-generation legacy with branding that communicates how they are different…how they are better. The branding should communicate the industry’s future vision. Today, biofuel startups attempt to differentiate based on their intellectual property and production methods. But who really cares which bacteria or enzymes are best for digesting cellulosic biomass, or which algae strains yield the most oil? Most of us don’t. We have faith you’ll figure out the science. Just show us the way forward.

The growing attacks on biofuel could have the negative effect of stymieing national and global biofuel policies at a time when breakthroughs in sustainable biofuel production are nearing commercial reality. The biofuel industry needs to reclaim the megaphone and deliver a clear, crisp message that communicates its benefits in a personal way.

Grid computing makes the world a better place

In 1999, the Seti@Home project was launched to take advantage of the world’s idle PCs in the search for extraterrestrial life. It was one of the earliest examples of volunteer grid computing: tapping the collective processing power of many widely scattered computers that are not normally centrally controlled.

Today, the World Community Grid is applying that same model for research projects that benefit humanity. Its mission is to create the world’s largest public computing grid for discovering new clean energy technologies  and other worthy scientific breakthroughs. WCG is making the technology available to public and not-for-profit organizations that might otherwise not do the research due to the high cost of a high-performance computing infrastructure.

It costs you nothing and couldn’t be easier to participate — a simple, one-click download is all that’s required to make your PC part of the grid. When you’re away from your PC, it will crunch data for a specific WCG project and send the results back to a central server. Each computation that your computer performs provides scientists with critical information that accelerates the pace of research. Check it out and get involved here.

Nation’s first greenhouse gas cap-and-trade auction launches

In case you missed it (most people did), yesterday saw the launch of the nation’s first mandatory cap-and-trade auction for carbon emission credits … with little fanfare.

Ten northeastern states, including our little Granite, will let polluters bid on a limited amount CO2 allowances – 188 million tons of carbon emissions annually, to be exact. The State Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI (pronounced ‘Reggie’), will cap emissions for 233 power plants, with a goal of reducing the cap an additional 10% by 2018.

But already the system has its critics. After a tepid first day of trading, the Wall Street Journal took a skeptical view of the program’s long-term viability. The New York Times pointed out how emissions cap will have little impact at first because it’s based on overestimates of CO2 output. And others cry that it’s no more than a tax in green clothing that will raise electric rates (which it probably will, at first, but lower over the long term).

But the critics are shortsighted. What’s more more important is that a real, free market-based cap-and-trade system for global warming reduction is now in place. There’s a platform and regulatory mandate for cutting greenhouse gasses that didn’t exist before. It’s a build-it-and-they-will-come opportunity. It’s a good first step.

Call me a green romantic. I know RGGI won’t save the world right away, but at least we’re finally giving power companies financial incentives to modernize plants, reduce emissions and explore alternative energy approaches. The program freezes greenhouse gases from power plants at current levels, and promises significant reductions long term.

Greening the grid: Big Brother or big savings?

Homeowners tend to cast a cold eye on their electric utilities, particularly when it’s time to pay the bill or when the power fails. So it’s no wonder that a new clean technology initiative from the utility industry called Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) has consumer advocates suspicious with some calling it a Big Brother-like intrusion into folks’ homes.

In a nutshell, AMI aims to help conserve energy by enabling two-way communications between the home and the utility through a wireless network of smart meters and smart devices in the home. Picture a smart air conditioner that the utility can turn down remotely when an over-extended power grid starts straining.

AMI will let consumers and utilities work together to conserve energy consumption in the home during peak energy demand periods. It will also let homeowners see when, how and why they’re sucking down kilowatts so that they can make smarter, greener lifestyle decisions. Consumers benefit by saving energy and getting discount rates for playing ball with the utilities. Utilities benefit by avoiding brown-outs and black-outs during demand response periods.

Despite the obvious merits, it’s a potentially huge PR challenge that the utility industry has yet to take seriously, which is unfortunate because the critics are on the wrong side of the debate this time, IMO.

What’s not to like? Opponents claim it’s a waste of ratepayer money that hasn’t proven it will reduce electricity usage. They say that fluctuating time-of-day pricing will give utilities the opportunity to raise, not lower, prices. And they don’t like the idea of giving the power company the power to reach in and have their way with your home. Ratepayer advocates such as TURN, The Utility Reform Network, have already launched aggressive legal and political campaigns against the initiative in California and elsewhere.

As a skeptic who never likes to pass up an opportunity to stick it to The Man, I should be wary too. But homes and buildings are worse polluters and energy guzzlers than cars. And ever-growing energy demand, wars for oil and climate change are just a few good reasons for taking risks on new technologies that stand to conserve energy in homes. It will be interesting to see how well the utility industry can counter the ratepayer backlash and rally support for its new initiative.

{Disclosure: Beaupre client, Ember, makes wireless chips that enable AMI applications}
—

UPDATE: Celeste LeCompte at GigaOM covers the issue from the home appliance perspective.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal also weighs in.