Texas is the undisputed wind capital of America, with over 7 gigawatts of turbine power. The only problem is that it's located in the middle of Texas and the electrical grid doesn't have the capacity to get all that extra juice to the big cities. To remove this roadblock, the state is pumping $4.93 billion into new transmission lines. If this plan sounds familiar, it's because it made news last May when it was proposed.

When completed in 2013, the bulked up electrical lines will be able to handle 18,500 megawatts of wind power. Officials say a detailed plan will be completed by August of this year.

Seven deals have already been reached with transmission firms to build the 2,400 miles of new lines, ranging from  $390 million to $1.34 billion. Each company will pay all the up-front costs, which will be made up later through higher rates for customers.

In 2006, Texas overtook California in wind energy capacity and has since built a two-fold lead over the Golden State. In fact, Iowa is now the 2nd place challenger with 2,790 megawatts.

by Adrianne Jeffries

Concrete is a familiar substance. Its durable nature and versatile applications have made its usage ubiquitous throughout our cities. However this primary building material is also extremely energy intensive to make and transport, and produces a significant amount of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Can the omnipresent grey substance ever be reconciled as a green building material?

Concrete’s impact on the environment starts when limestone is blasted in quarries to make cement - the binder, or substance that sets and hardens it into a useful building material. Cement accounts for 7 to 15% of concrete’s total mass by weight and is made by superheating (in coal-fired kilns) a mixture of limestone and clay and then grinding the resulting substance into a powder. When this power mixes with water, it forms strong calcium-silicate-hydrate bonds that can bind other particulates, like sand or gravel, to make concrete. The cement-to-water ratio determines the strength of the concrete.

Once limestone has been blasted and mined it is then transported to a cement plant, where the fuels used by the plant and machinery produce CO2 emissions. Next the limestone, or calcium carbonate, releases CO2 when it is heated to make the cement. Forty percent of CO2 emissions from the cement plant come from the combustion process and Sixty Percent of CO2 emissions come from the calcination process, according to the Cement Sustainability Initiative report produced by members of the concrete industry. The report also says that since calcination is intrinsic to the process, they must focus on reducing energy use associated with the manufacture of concrete.

Concrete producers also say that as concrete ages, it carbonates and reabsorbs all the CO2 released during calcination – but this process takes hundreds of years.The general consensus is that cement manufacturing produces about 5% of global CO2 emissions generated by human activity, and 3% of global emissions of all greenhouse gases. By comparison the transport sector is responsible for about 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so concrete has a pretty hefty share of the pie considering it’s just one material.

The problem stems from volume: According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, concrete is the most widely used substance on Earth apart from water. Approximately 2.35 billion tons of concrete are produced each year. That works out to a cubic meter, or about a 35- by 35- by 35-foot cube of concrete for each person on Earth every year, according to researchers at MIT.

And Demand is on the Rise: Concrete production has nearly quadrupled since 1970. Global cement output may reach 5 billion metric tons by 2030 due mainly to growth in China and India, according to a December report by the global conservation organization WWF. (The same report estimates the concrete industry’s share of global emissions at 8%, and claims the industry is capable of reducing its emissions by 90% with current technology.)

So what does concrete have going for it?

It lasts. This is the stuff the Romans built their empire with. Concrete is highly resistant to heating and thawing. It’s impermeable to air and wind-driven rain. And concrete is inedible, so bugs and vermin can’t gnaw at it. This durability means that a building can preserve its concrete foundation or concrete exterior while replacing less durable parts like windows, insulation and plumbing (you get a point from LEED if you reuse a building).

A building with exterior concrete walls can also be energy-efficient, especially in climates that have daily temperature fluctuations. Even though concrete provides little insulation, it creates thermal mass that can store warmth or cold, reducing indoor temperature fluctuation. White concrete also reflects heat and can mitigate the urban heat island effect. LEED also awards points if you build concrete walls and a concrete ceiling with no coating.

A Locally-Sourced Material: Another reason concrete is so popular is because the raw materials to make it are prevalent in most of the world. For the eco-conscious builder, this means it can be locally-sourced, reducing CO2 emissions from transportation. Of course, “local” is a relative term – advocates in the cement industry claim that “the cement, aggregates, and reinforcing steel used to make concrete and the raw materials used to manufacture cement are usually obtained or extracted from sources within 300 miles of the ready mixed, precast concrete, or masonry plant.”

Concrete can also be be recycled – to a point. The concrete industry web site concretethinker.com says: “Most concrete in urban areas is recycled as fill or road base and not placed in landfills. Concrete pieces from demolished structures can also be reused to protect shorelines, for example in gabion walls or as rip rap.” Used concrete can also be reused as the aggregates in new concrete. Concrete’s recyclability is limited because its chemical properties change over time and with each processing. Other materials can be recycled as aggregates in concrete.

A Locally-Sourced Material: Another reason concrete is so popular is because the raw materials to make it are prevalent in most of the world. For the eco-conscious builder, this means it can be locally-sourced, reducing CO2 emissions from transportation. Of course, “local” is a relative term – advocates in the cement industry claim that “the cement, aggregates, and reinforcing steel used to make concrete and the raw materials used to manufacture cement are usually obtained or extracted from sources within 300 miles of the ready mixed, precast concrete, or masonry plant.”

Concrete can also be be recycled – to a point. The concrete industry web site concretethinker.com says: “Most concrete in urban areas is recycled as fill or road base and not placed in landfills. Concrete pieces from demolished structures can also be reused to protect shorelines, for example in gabion walls or as rip rap.” Used concrete can also be reused as the aggregates in new concrete. Concrete’s recyclability is limited because its chemical properties change over time and with each processing. Other materials can be recycled as aggregates in concrete.

Is It Green?

The reality is that even if new technology truly achieves a carbon-negative manufacturing process, greener cements (like ones requiring complex facilities to shoot emissions through seawater) won’t be as affordable or accessible in the developing parts of the world that are consuming concrete most voraciously. Significant CO2 reductions won’t be possible without heavily subsidizing the industry in poor countries.

The importance of durability should not be trivialized, but today’s concrete is not green. A combination of new technology and efforts to decrease energy used in manufacturing is needed so that perhaps tomorrow’s concrete can be.

See more photos in the original article on Inhabitat.

New York, Alaska, and Connecticut, can teach Kentucky, Mississippi, and Alabama a few things about how to use energy.

According to a new study by the Rocky Mountain Institute, some states can produce goods at a rate three times higher relative to energy use than others.

The report, which compares the states' gross domestic product and energy consumption per capita, says that if all states were to be as efficient as the top states, the country could save up to 1.2 million gigawatt hours of electricity.

Adopting the most efficient practices and available technologies could close the gap between the states within 10 years, according to RMI. "Assessing Electric Productivity and the U.S. Efficiency Gap" adjusts or factors including population density, types of industries in the states and weather, according to Natalie Mims, an RMI consultant and co-author of the report.

The large gap in efficiency is primarily because of three factors, Mims says: state incentives to encourage utilities to be energy efficient, building codes, and the presence of third-party organizations to pressure utilities to be more efficient. The top five states, which also include Delaware and California, are progressive that have programs that encourage customer energy efficiency through weatherization and other conservation efforts.

Alaska is unique on the list because of its heavy reliance on hat is locally available natural gas instead of electricity. Because natural gas is used to transmit energy instead of electricity, the state rates well, according to Mims.

The most inefficient states include Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Idaho, which also happen to be among the poorest in the nation. But Mims says its wrong to make a connection between wealth and efficiency. "In the Southeast it is only the utilities, and not the states or third-parties that are pushing for energy efficiency mandates," according to Mims. Also, the cost of electricity in a region has only a limited impact on per capita consumption, she says.

The study did not evaluate the energy efficiency of the utilities themselves in producing power. Utilities in states where revenue is tied to selling more kilowatt hours of electricity (including those in the lower South) have little incentive to encourage customers to be energy efficient; states with decoupled rates (such as in California) tend to be more efficient, Mims says.

In a future report RMI will seek to quantify the physical factors relating to energy efficiency, including "CFLs, weatherization, installation of more efficient appliances, and updating heating and air conditioning systems."

Wal-Mart's work in greening its fleet of cars and trucks netted savings of more than $50 million during the last year, and a first in its class diesel hybrid tractor trailer could provide even more savings.

Truck company Arvin Meritor has developed a diesel electric truck for Wal-Mart that can run on electric power only at speeds up to 48 miles per hour. The truck uses regenerative braking to recharge the batteries, and the diesel engine will recharge the batteries when they run low, says Wal-Mart's Chris Sultemeier.

The truck's lithium ion batteries and electric motor can power all of the electrical system, including keeping the cab heated or cooled as necessary. This can dramatically reduce the need for idling and cuts down on emissions. The truck can drive for up to 20 minutes on battery power alone, and will be tested around the Detroit area.

Wal-Mart is also testing five parallel hybrid diesel trucks manufactured by Peterbilt. Rather than providing all of the power to the truck at any time, the electric motors supplement the diesel engine when going up hills or during acceleration, and also can power the electrical system.

Sultemeier says Wal-Mart will explore both types of hybrid trucks and may at some point determine which avenue, if any, is the best path to proceed down.

Wal-Mart surpassed its internal goal of making its transportation 25 percent more efficient by 2008 (relative to 2005), and the company wants to double fleet efficiency by 2015. Much of the efficiency gain thus far has come from smarter logistics by filling the trucks at closer to their capacity and optimizing delivery routes, Sultemeier says. During the last 12 months the company moved 150 million more cases of products but drove 90 million fewer miles. "If you can take miles off the road, that's huge," he says.

Other efforts to green their fleet include a trial in Arizona that will use a combination of waste grease produced by the company with diesel, and a test of trucks in California that will burn liquefied natural gas.

The hybrid trials will be a good test of the capabilities of lithium ion batteries and the power management unit since braking a big rig produces a high density of energy.

One thing the company hasn't explored to date -- I suggested that those batteries, when they no longer become useful in vehicles, could be used to store solar energy. Wal-Mart has a goal of switching to 100 percent renewable energy across the entire company, and solar will be a considerable contributor, so it could be a natural fit.

If copied by its suppliers, Wal-Mart's advances in transportation efficiency could have a significant impact on emissions in the U.S.

It is official: California faces the third driest year on record and water utilities across the state are scrambling to prepare for another drought. Some communities plan to enact an alert system for rationing water, similar to the warning system announced across intercoms at airports. Others have set reduction goals based on the number of occupants in a residence or the type of industry. Still others are proposing creating water supplies through desalination.

The City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District are currently operating a desalination pilot plant to provide secondary water supplies to the city during drought years. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Santa Clara Valley Water District have joined forces to build and operate the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project, which is also in the pilot testing stage. The Regional project not only provides additional water during a drought, it would also supply emergency supplies, for example, in the event of an earthquake.

Most recently, the California American Water Company with oversight from the California Public Utilities Commission, has released a draft environmental impact report, which proposes a desalination plant for the Monterey area to supply the region with an ongoing water supply and preventing further pumping from the sensitive Carmel River. A long list of other desalination plants in operation currently considered or to be considered by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) indicates that desalination is a real possibility for California’s failing water supplies.

While providing much needed water, desalination as a water strategy could use some major improvement. The energy required to pump water from the ocean, conduct a reverse osmosis process, and then pump water out to the public is intense and the cost of that energy is highly variable.

According to a 2004 analysis conducted by the CCC, “for each one-cent difference in the price per kilowatt-hour of electricity causes about a fifty-dollar difference in the cost to produce an acre-foot of desalinated water” (Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act, March 2004). In a previous study by the CCC, they estimate that it takes anywhere between 2,500 to 29,500 kilowatt hours to produce an acre-foot of desalinated water. While every plant is different, assuming the average or median kilowatt hours needed to produce one acre-foot is 16,000 (kwh), and that the average U.S. household uses about 8,000 kWh and about half an acre-foot of water each year, a desalination plant is operating using twice as much energy as water in the cleaning process . 

Unless desalination plants are powered by solar and wind or natural gas supplies, thousands of greenhouse gases and air pollutants are being spewed into the atmosphere to create a new water supply for Californians. Desalination goes against California policies like AB 32, which requires reducing greenhouse gases emissions, not increasing them, and national policies like the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which seeks to increase energy efficiency, not ignore it.

It is vital that California has a portfolio of water supplies in times of drought and with a potential security or seismic threat hovering daily. There is also an argument to be made, and one that is presented in each of the environmental impact analyses of these desalination pilot programs: creating more water creates population growth.

Unless a smart growth plan is fully executed, more greenhouse gas emissions, more air pollution, more demand for water, and more energy is needed to support that growth. So regions need to reduce their emissions, expand only using low impact and smart growth designs, and create a new water supply.

One silver lining does exist:  when renewable energy supplies power to these plants, California is bringing renewable power infrastructure to communities across the state . Only under these conditions should desalination be considered a viable option. The need for water in California is immediate. So to is the need to cut emissions. Some serious policy development by key decision makers is absolutely necessary to balance California’s need for water, and reduce climate change contributions.
 

The Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA), a sub association of the Alliance to Save Energy and other renewable energy supporters, is hosting a competition to promote community energy programs throughout Southeastern states. The competition is a formal proposal process where cities and counties within Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia compete for $500,000 to be applied to the winner’s or series of winners’ community alliance for energy efficiency.

SEEA has launched this effort to promote energy efficiency in the Southeast, to “mobil[ize] the City’s citizens and leaders of its institutions and businesses,” and to encourage collaboration between state decision markers and city and county staff to deliver energy efficiency to customers, according to SEEA's Request for Proposal.

To qualify for consideration, a city or county must show that they have local stakeholder and community support for launching energy efficiency programs, establish achievable milestones, be in tune with the locale’s energy needs and opportunities, a funding commitment from local or city-owned utility companies, identify program implementation partners, establish or designate a non-profit oversight organization, and most of all, draft an official letter of intent signed off by stakeholders, utility companies, and all other interested parties that the community is committed to carrying out the energy efficiency program and alliance established through the proposal process.

The proposal accomplishes two much-needed, empowering goals: to require community and customer support, and to help communities dream-up energy efficiency strategies. It is vital that customers are eager for energy efficiency programs as they stand to save money during a recession as well as support a transfer to cleaner energy supplies. Without community support during the proposal phase, implementation can be stunted by a lack of interest in the programs.

Additionally, SEEA’s competition goes hand-in-hand or, watt-for-watt, with the national stimulus and bailout packages where money will be available for communities to offer tax incentives for energy efficiency design and retrofitting in homes and buildings. Before that money is available to states and cities, SEEA is driving communities to have a well-developed plan on how to best apply government money setting Southeastern communities on a successful energy efficiency implementation track. Awarding money to plan energy efficiency programs means that the government money available for these programs is used for just that, not for bureaucratic tendencies, a perfect example of simlutaneously achieving energy and money efficiency.
 

Creating 280,000 new jobs sounds pretty good right about now. And some large organizations believe it could happen if the United States invests in a somewhat controversial smart grid infrastructure.

The Obama administration is on board and hopes to put $4.5 billion into the economic stimulus package to develop a smart grid. The House of Representatives recommended that amount for the Smart Grid Investment Program, and organizations such as the GridWise Alliance believe that jobs will be created very quickly once the funding is released.

However, that is only a quarter of the funding GridWise suggests is needed to create such large job opportunities. In a report (PDF)  published by KEMA and the GridWise Alliance, they anticipate that a potential disbursement of $16 billion in smart grid incentives would act as a catalyst in driving associated smart grid projects worth $64 billion. This would create 280,000 new positions across various categories, of which more than 150,000 will be created by the end of this year. Additional jobs that would be created from smart grid growth include renewable energy source suppliers, distributed generation suppliers of products and services and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles.

The theory goes that if everyone in America had intelligent meters installed in their house that connect to a smart grid, the meters could provide information telling them the best and cheapest times to run a dishwasher or laundry machine. This allows utilities to more effectively manage power plants, which lowers their costs and allows them to use the most energy efficient generating facilities.

They could also return extra energy to the grid when the homeowners getting energy from solar or wind generated more than they needed. Homeowners could recharge electric vehicles during off-peak hours and reduce energy use and greenhouse gases.

That all sounds wonderful. And, of course, no one is against those aspects of the grid. But some believe $4.5 billion is too much to spend on technology that has yet to be fully understood. We’re not sure exactly what can hook up to a smart grid. So should the money be focused on some model projects with a full array of smart gadgets or put into the installation of smart meters in every home in the country? Still, others believe that the more you connect to a network, such as Internet protocol lines, the more valuable it becomes.

One thing is for sure. If we’re going to promote and accommodate renewable energy, the smart grid seems like the most effective and rewarding plan. And whether we approve or disapprove of the way government approaches it (or throws money at it), it looks like experimentation is going to begin. That’s a good thing.

To find out more about smart grids, check out the Department of Energy’s Web site.

As solar lab researchers one-up each other with sub-percent increases in PV efficiency, Act Solar is focusing on array management. They say their PowerString technology can output 40-80% more total power over the lifetime of a PV system.

According to the company's website, the output of the average solar array drops by half in year 20, even though each module is still capable of producing 90% of its day-one energy. The reason is that PV installations are finicky beasts that easily fall out of balance, resulting in sub-par performance.

The PowerString technology actively manages the system by zapping small amounts of electricity around to provide balance. Recent tests find that this technique produces an average of 6-11% more power. It's kind of like a solar smart grid.

Act Solar says a 1 megawatt PV plant contains 5,000 solar modules, 12,000 connectors and 10 miles of wiring, so it's no wonder that it's difficult to keep things humming along. And modding your rooftop raycatcher is much cheaper than increasing capacity by adding another module.

PV is a crowded, competitive marketplace. I think Act Solar's approach, making an existing technology better, is a winner. Look for them to shine in the near future.
 

By Elena Foshay and Keith Schneider

The Senate this week took up consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which passed the House last week. As introduced on Monday, the Senate version called for nearly $900 billion in stimulus, of which $825 billion was in spending programs.

The analysis by the Apollo Alliance shows that as introduced this week, the Senate proposed $148.3 billion in clean energy and green-collar job investment. In addition the Senate included $31.7 billion in brownfield cleanup and land and water conservation, much of which could lead to thousands more green-collar jobs.

The clean energy, good jobs provisions of the Senate and House versions of the stimulus bill borrow significantly from the one-year, $50 billion Apollo Economic Recovery Act, introduced late last year by the Apollo Alliance, and 10-year, $500 billion New Apollo Program, which was made public in September.

Though the Senate version as introduced proposed a 25 percent increase in clean energy investment when compared to the House measure, the Apollo Alliance is concerned about the Senate’s proposed investment in green-collar job training. The House version included $500 million in support for the Green Jobs Act, a $125 million training program developed by the Apollo Alliance and its partners and approved in the 2007 Energy Bill. The program was never funded, however. The Senate is proposing to invest $250 million in the Green Jobs Act. On Tuesday, Apollo Chairman Phil Angelides sent an email alert to our supporters nationwide, informing them of the difference between the House and Senate version, and asking them to contact Senate members to urge passage of the House version of the Green Jobs Act investment, and other measures.

Though the Senate version as introduced proposed a 25 percent increase in clean energy investment when compared to the House measure, the Apollo Alliance is concerned about the Senate’s proposed investment in green-collar job training. The House version included $500 million in support for the Green Jobs Act, a $125 million training program developed by the Apollo Alliance and its partners and approved in the 2007 Energy Bill. The program was never funded, however. The Senate is proposing to invest $250 million in the Green Jobs Act. On Tuesday, Apollo Chairman Phil Angelides sent an email alert to our supporters nationwide, informing them of the difference between the House and Senate version, and asking them to contact Senate members to urge passage of the House version of the Green Jobs Act investment, and other measures.

Our comparative analysis of the clean energy, green-collar job provisions of the Senate stimulus bill (as introduced), the House version, and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act follows

Tracking the Clean Energy, Good Jobs Provisions of the Stimulus

	American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan - Senate Version	American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan - House Version	Apollo Economic Recovery Act
Total	– Total Investment: $825 billion over two years – Clean Energy/Green-Collar Jobs Investment: $148.3 billion The Senate bill proposes an additional $62.3 billion for a number of stimulus measures that have the potential to promote clean energy and create green jobs, including: $7.7 billion for brownfield remediation. $24 billion for land and water conservation. $11 billion for construction projects that could include green building and energy efficiency standards. $1.7 billion for research that could lead to development of new clean technologies. $13.9 billion for Pell grants that could support students in the sciences and engineering. $4 billion in job training funds that could be directed towards green-collar jobs.	– Total Investment: $550 billion over two years – Clean Energy/Green-Collar Jobs Investment: $114.5 billion -- Will save or create 3.7 million jobs (The House bill proposes an additional $145.3 billion for other stimulus measures that have the potential to promote clean energy and create green jobs, including: - At least $13 billion in loan guarantees, which will leverage $85 billion in loans. - $2.2 billion for brownfield remediation. - $21.7 billion for land and water conservation. - $12 billion for construction projects that could include green building and energy efficiency standards. - $3.9 billion for research that could lead to development of new clean technologies. - $17.6 billion for Pell grants that could support students in the sciences and engineering. - $4.6 billion in job training funds that could be directed towards green-collar jobs.)	– Total Investment: $50 billion for one year – Clean Energy/Green-Collar Jobs Investment: $50 billion – Will create or retain almost 2 million jobs
Rebuild America Clean and Green
Energy Efficiency Weatherization	$19.5 billion for school construction, renovation and modernization, including energy efficiency improvements. $3.2 billion to the Department of Defense for facility construction and maintenance, some of which is to be used to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. $3.6 billion for VA hospital and medical facility construction and improvements. This funding includes $329 million in energy-related construction. $2.25 Billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program block grant. $357 million for renovation of NIST facilities and new laboratories using green technologies $4.2 billion is provided for energy efficiency and conservation grants. $1.6 billion is provided to DOE for grants to make schools and hospitals, significant users of energy, more energy efficient. $500 million for state energy programs. $6 billion for repair of federal buildings to increase energy efficiency using green technology. $613 million for energy efficiency upgrades and construction of alternative energy projects, including wind and solar power and photovoltaic roof systems, at Department of Defense facilities. $50 million for loans and grants to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy development for agricultural producers and rural small businesses. $3 billion for energy efficiency upgrades to Department of Defense facilities. $250 million for energy efficiency upgrades to Department of Defense health facilities. $20 million for energy efficiency upgrades at Bureau of Reclamation facilities. $4 million to create a federal Office of Federal High-Performance Green Building. $20 million for energy efficiency upgrades to BLM visitor centers. $100 million for energy efficiency improvements to US Fish and Wildlife facilities. $40 million for energy efficiency retrofits to National Park Service facilities. $20 million to BIA for housing energy efficiency improvements. $5 billion to HUD for construction and maintenance projects that will improve energy efficiency in public housing. $3.5 billion to owners of Section 8 housing to perform energy efficiency improvements. $400 million for FBI construction projects. $1 billion for construction, modernization, and repair of prison facilities. $800 million for construction of Customs and Border Protection facilities. $310 million to the National Park Service for construction of facilities. $135 million to USGS for maintenance and construction projects. $372 million to BIA for construction and maintenance projects. $410 million for the construction of Indian health facilities. $1.5 billion for construction and renovation of CDC and DHHS. $500 million for construction and renovation of NIH facilities. $75 million to the Department of State for construction of a training facility. $510 million in Native American Housing Block Grants. Total:$59.9 billion	$6.0 billion for increasing energy efficiency and conservation in federal buildings. $3.5 billion in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants to help state and local governments make investments that make them more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions. $3.4 billion for State Energy Programs, to support residential, commercial, and governmental retrofits. $500 million in loan guarantees to help institutions implement sustainable energy infrastructure projects. It is estimated that this will support $5 billion in loans. $2.5 billion for a new program to upgrade HUD sponsored low-income housing to increase energy efficiency, including new insulation, windows, and furnaces. $1.5 billion for energy sustainability and efficiency grants and loans to help school districts, institutes of higher education, local governments, and municipal utilities implement projects that will make them more energy efficient. $5 billion to HUD for public housing building repair and modernization, including critical safety repairs. $1.5 billion to the HOME Program to help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies. $500 million to rehabilitate and improve energy efficiency at some of the over 42,000 housing units maintained by Native American housing programs. $10 million for rural, high-need areas to undertake projects using sustainable and energy-efficient building and rehabilitation practices. $20 billion for 21st Century Green High-Performance school construction, renovation, and modernization including energy efficiency improvements. $4.5 billion for renovation and energy efficiency improvements in Department of Defense facilities. $1.5 billion for renovation of NIH university-based research centers, with priority for upgrades that improve energy efficiency. $950 million for renovation of Veterans Affairs facilities including energy efficiency upgrades. Total: $51.36 billion	$6 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program; $1 billion should be set aside to leverage private investment in programs focused on large-scale, multi-building retrofit projects that provide job opportunities in urban areas.
	$2.9 billion is available for the Weatherization Assistance Program.	$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program to help low-income families reduce their energy costs by weatherizing their homes and make our country more energy efficient. $1 billion for LIHEAP to help low-income families pay for home heating and cooling at a time of rising energy costs. $300 million to provide consumers with rebates for buying energy efficient Energy Star products to replace old appliances. Total: $7.5 billion	$900 million to fully fund the Weatherization Assistance Program.
Renewable Energy	Extends the Production Tax Credit, allows renewable electricity producers to elect the investment tax credit in lieu of the production tax credit. Makes it available to any electricity production facility. Allows tax credits to offset taxes paid over the previous six years. $2.648 billion to DOE for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment activities. $10 billion is provided for new loan guarantees aimed at standard renewable projects such as wind or solar projects and for electricity transmission projects. $200 million for loans and grants to assist in the development of new and emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels. $200 million to the Department of Defense for testing and deployment of renewable energy technologies. Total: $13 billion	$8 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy power generation and transmission projects. Expected to leverage $80 billion in funding. $2 billion to DOE for research, development, demonstration, and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, including R&D for advanced batteries. Authorizes an additional $1.6 billion in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS.) Extends the Production Tax Credit. Expands the tax credit for residential renewable energy projects. Total: $10 billion	Fix the Production and Investment Tax Credits for the renewable energy industry by making them refundable through 2009 or by allowing credits to offset taxes paid over the previous ten years.
Grid Upgrades	$10.9 billion for smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid, enhance security and reliability, perform energy storage research, development, demonstration and deployment, and provide worker training	$10.9 billion for research and development, pilot projects, and federal matching funds for the Smart Grid Investment Program to modernize the electricity grid.	Invest $10 billion in upgrading the transmission grid to better connect consumers to renewable energy resources, improve reliability and efficiency, enhance emergency response and reduce the system’s vulnerability to natural disaster and attack. Invest $1 billion in “smart grid” and “smart metering” demonstration projects.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration	$4.6 billion for Fossil Energy research and development, including $2 billion to construct a power plant using Carbon Capture and Sequestration, $1 billion for DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative and $1.6 billion for a competitive solicitation for projects that demonstrate carbon capture from industrial sources. Provides additional $10 tax credit per metric ton of carbon sequestered and stored.	$2.4 billion for carbon capture and sequestration technology demonstration projects.	Invest $1 billion in carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.
Public Transit	$8.2 billion in grants to states for investments in public transportation. $2 billion for grants for investments in high speed rail corridors. $250 million for grants to states for investments in intercity passenger rail. $850 million for capital grants to Amtrak. $60 million for grants to states for the construction of ferry transportation systems. Increases the tax exemption allowed for employer-provided public transit benefits. Increases the speed requirement on high-speed rail system bonds to exceed speeds of 150 mph. Total: $11.3 billion	$1 billion for Capital Investment Grants for new commuter rail or other light rail systems. $2 billion to modernize existing transit systems, including renovations to stations, security systems, computers, equipment, structures, signals, and communications. $1.1 billion to improve the speed and capacity of intercity passenger rail service. Nadler amendment adds $3 billion for public transit Total: $7.1 billion	Invest $6 billion in ready-to-go public transit projects across the country.
Transportation Infrastructure	$240 million to the Coast Guard for repair of bridges deemed hazardous. $500 million to secure high risk critical infrastructure such as dams, tunnels, and bridges. $27 billion is included for highway investments, particularly repair and maintenance projects. The vast majority of this funding will be distributed as grants using a formula set in current highway authorization law. $5.5 billion for competitive grants to state and local governments for transportation infrastructure investments. $40 million for grants to small shipyards. $800 million for repair and restoration of roads on park, forest, tribal and other public lands ($160 million to BLM, $60 million to US Fish and Wildlife Service, $180 million to the National Park Service, $280 million to NFS, $120 million to BIA). Total: $39.54 billion	$150 million for ready-to-go investments to repair or remove bridges deemed hazardous. $15 billion for highway and bridge repair and resurfacing projects. $250 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for road, dam, and other infrastructure construction and maintenance projects. Total: $15.4 billion	Invest $8 billion to fix the bridges and roads that are crumbling across America.

This is an edited version of a story posted by Apollo Alliance, go here for the full story.

by Bridgette Steffen

Monterey Bay Shores is a stunning new development set to break ground this month that will convert a desolate disused sand mine into a thriving environmental preserve and eco-resort. Replete with living walls and a five acre green roof, the development boasts an impressive list of green design elements and is working towards LEED Platinum certification. Now, saying that you’re the “Greenest Eco Resort” is quite a claim, but if the Resort builds out all that they have promised, it really will be the most environmentally friendly resort in the US, and possibly in the world.

Most of the time when we hear about eco resorts they are located in some far off tropical place that would require us to fly for at least 8 hours to get to. We’d love to go abroad, but as the wallet is a bit tighter and overseas flights really aren’t all that green, we were excited to hear about a new eco resort being built in the US this February in Monterey, California. The resort will house a wellness spa, restaurants, meeting rooms, condos, pools, and trails to the beach.

The site for the Monterey Bay Shores eco-resort is situated on a defunct sand mine, which had been operating for over 60 years. The sand mine considerably damaged the natural ecosystem, stripping away important topsoil layers and allowing invasive species to infiltrate the area. As part of the resort development, MBS will also restore 85% of the 29 acre site to native flora and fauna. Over 6.7 acres will be dedicated as an endangered species habitat and restored coastline. Additionally, 5 acres will be built as a living roof, leaving only 4% of the site as impervious surface, which is great. All parking is below ground, and even the fire lanes will be constructed from a grass paver, rather than asphalt.

The resort will provide 30% of its own power from wind and solar resources augmented by geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling. The green roofs include photovoltaic and evacuated tube solar hot water systems, while horizontal wind turbines will be strategically located behind restored sand dunes for optimum wind velocity. The buildings themselves will be highly energy efficient and reduce energy use by over 50%. Windows and rooms are designed to optimize daylight to reduce lighting needs.

With a fresh coastal breeze constantly available, cooling needs are easily addressed through natural ventilation techniques. Living walls will provide a natural biofiltration system that will improve indoor air quality and reduce dependence on artificially cooled air. Buildings will be constructed from a hybrid system of prefabricated panels and on-site construction using sustainable and recyclable materials. Water-wise technologies will also be employed, reducing the need for potable water by 50%. All irrigation water will come from on-site recycled stormwater or from the rainwater catchment system.

On site amenities include natural and saltwater pools, botanical and herbal gardens, beach and dune trails, as well as organized classes and outings that teach about the native flora and fauna. A sustainability center will be available to residents and guest to educate them on the resort and their surroundings. As an world class hotel and resort, the MBS will also have fine dining restaurants, which will serve organic, sustainable and locally raised food.

We often speak about new green developments, and of course the greenest development is the one that doesn’t happen. But developers are developers and resorts like this or worse will be built, so we have to be hopeful that this resort will serve as another great example for developers world wide.

To see more images, read the original article on Inhabitat.

Rising oil costs, energy independence from other countries and pollution are all major factors in the search for alternative sources of fuel. So it’s no surprise that U.S. government organizations are busily testing and searching for a viable non-petroleum-based jet fuel.

NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center in California is testing two synthetic jet fuels drived from coal and natural gas. That move is in stark contrast to the Air Force, which just shelved a planned coal-to-liquids plant in Montana that would have used ore to create jet fuel.

RenTech, Inc. has conversely developed RenJet fuels from a variety of biomass and fossil fuesl via the Fischer-Tropsch process, which is a chemical reaction in which a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is converted into liquid hydrocarbons, resulting in synthetic petroleum.

The scientists are testing the emissions compared to that of standard jet fuel. Although they’re not sure what exactly comes out of the tailpipe, they speculate that synthetic fuels create fewer particles and other harmful emissions than standard jet fuel. An article in Fly Green! Magazine touts that Fischer-Tropsch fuel burns cleaner than traditional jet fuel, spitting out up to 90 percent less of the particulate pollution that muddies the air and causes health problems. If true, it could drastically improve air quality around airports, and perhaps decrease emissions created from flying.

"We’re still very much in the early research stage," said AAFEX project manager Dan Bulzan of NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. "[But] we know in the future these fuels are going to become important to aviation. Petroleum is dwindling and you're going to need to make fuel out of coal, natural gas and biomass."

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), part of the Department of Defense, is also testing an alternative to petroleum – algae. DARPA gave $35 million to San Diego-based companies SAIC and General Atomics to pursue the creation of algae-based jet fuel that would meet the goal of costing about $3 a gallon. Algae can produce as much as 100 times more energy per acre than crop-based biofuels.

Coal and natural gas are far from perfect answers, considering that they are not renewable sources of energy. Similarly, biomass has proven controversial because of the large amount of land and water needed, and associated environmental concerns, such as water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and soil erosion from runoff. A recently published paper shows converting many crops into energy requires more energy for the process than the crop actually produces as fuel.

So what is the best feedstock for jet fuel? Whatever the answer (perhaps algae?), there will most likely be some compromises, but it’s important that we don’t ignite a food and water crisis in the search for emitting less particles and pollution. There’s no point in replacing one huge problem with another.

Yellowstone National Park is gaining increasing attention for its geothermal activity, but not for the purposes of tourists. Recent studies show that the park may be a prime location for producing geothermal energy.

In 2006 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studied the prospects of producing electricity from enhanced geothermal systems, and although its conclusions were conservative, they were also very promising. The Bureau of Land Management followed up on the study and last month announced that it would open up nearly 190 million acres of federal lands (not parks or wilderness areas) across the west to leases for geothermal exploration and development.

A few weeks later the Obama administration began a review of BLM leases on federal lands and has started to rescind some of them in Utah and Wyoming.

Geothermal energy shows the potential to significantly add to the nation’s store of renewable energy and would more than make up for the coal-burning power plants that need to be retired.

It is because of this potential that companies like Google have invested millions of dollars into enhanced geothermal systems. Google recently gave more than $10.25 million to three companies to develop ways to cull heat from deeply buried dry rock – similar to the sources of heat that fuel Yellowstone’s geysers. The process entails injecting water deep into the earth where it absorbs heat from the surrounding rock. When the water returns to the surface, the heat is used to generate electricity before the water is re-injected. It creates no emissions, is entirely renewable and occupies less surface area than solar or wind power.

More research must be done in order to find the best techniques for deep drilling, which must also be strictly regulated, and all efforts must be made to ensure that wildlife is minimally impacted. Given all that, we are probably at least a decade away from successfully harnessing this very clean and efficient source of energy.
 

Texas does everything bigger – it does big hats, big oil and now big solar. At least 18 bills have already been filed to support the deployment of solar technologies by legislators from the left and right.

The state is already the leading market for wind power in the United States. Its current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) has brought thousands of megawatts of wind to Texas, but almost no other renewables, including solar.

But times are changing. Vote Solar, a group that is working state by state to implement the necessary policies to build robust solar markets, is pushing legislators to provide incentives to energy customers for harnessing solar power. The group wants local government to create rebates for rooftop solar panels and implement constructive tax policies, such as sales tax exemptions on solar equipment and property tax abatements for utility-scale solar projects. Texas also must change its existing metering laws so solar owners get fair credit for the electricity they deliver to the grid.

"We're energy experts in Texas.  We have led the nation in fossil fuel based energy, we have led the nation in the development of wind energy, and we can lead with the development of solar as well.  I am excited to see so much support for this prospect in the legislature," said State Senator Kirk Watson.

The state sees jobs and profits in the installation of solar projects statewide. According to a new report by Vote Solar, Environment Texas and Public Citizen, that could lead to installations on as many as 500,000 roofs in Texas by 2020 at a cost of only 98 cents per month per Texan. This investment would create an estimated 22,000 jobs and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide emissions by 29 million tons, the equivalent of taking 4.3 million cars off the road for a year.

"As the unemployment rate rises here and across the nation, investing in solar energy is a smart way to put Texans back to work--it is estimated that for every new solar megawatt, at least 4 jobs are born in Texas, jobs that stay here." said Sen. Van de Putte, author of solar bills SB 598 (solar schools), SB 599 (sales tax exemption) and SB 600 (solar incentive program).

Governmental incentives have worked in many other states to promote renewable energy projects, and are could be key to making solar power spread from Hill Country to the Gulf of Mexico.
 

To offset the consequences of the U.S.-led global recession, the European Union is considering €3.5 billion in new energy spending. These investments will focus on bulking up and greening domestic European energy sources.

Specifically, the package will include €1.25B for carbon capture and storage (CCS), €500 million for offshore wind, and €1.75B for inter-country gas and electricity interconnection. The offshore wind projects will account for nearly 3.5 gigawatts of electricy while CCS will be integrated into 12 gigawatts worth of (presumably existing) coal plants.

The program is part of a larger €5 billion proposal by the European Commission intended to boost the Euroconomy while building up infrastructure, what the Commission President José Manuel Barroso calls,  "short-term stimulus targeted on long-term goals."

Other measures in the proposal will expand rural broadband access (€1B) and update EU agricultural policies (€5B).
 
Not long ago, I blogged some recent activity in the U.S. carbon capture and storage arena. It's pretty clear that CCS still has a long way to go before it becomes a suitable carbon vacuum, but the EU sure seems to think it's the cat's pajamas. I'm not sure it's the wisest place to put Euros, but with a $900 billion juggernaut with God knows what in it working its way through the U.S. Congress, I'm not sure we on this side of the pond have room to criticize.

By Nick Hodge

Imagine if, every time you started your car, $5 was deducted from your checking account.

Two things would likely happen: 1) You'd be angry. 2) You'd drive less.

That's exactly how utilities that burn fossil fuels feel right now.

Because soon they'll be getting charged every time they fire up a coal or natural gas power plant, thanks to Mr. Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions.

And, just as you'd find alternatives to driving, utilities are about to trim as much coal fat as they can. In it's place, they'll be seeking out as many renewable generation assets as they can afford.

Whether you agree with it or not, coal used for electricity production is about to bear the burden of heavy taxation and regulation from Washington.

You may even see your utility bill rise. But there will be a forced transition to renewables that you can make an absolute killing on in the process.

Here's the skinny.

Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Credits, and You

As a matter of fact, cap-and-trade already fully exists in the U.S. today.

A trifecta of such systems have been implemented in major geographic areas around the country:

• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) (Northeast)

• Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord

• Wester Regional Climate Action Initiative.

What's more, RGGI has already held two carbon auctions, selling more than 44 million carbon credits and generating more than $145 million in revenue.

Those three schemes are set-up as closed-loop organizations with many members—some generating carbon credits and some buying them.

Take, for example, an owner of wind farms and an owner of coal-fired power plants. Both can be members of the cap-and-trade system, but the former is producing carbon credits via offset projects while the latter is buying those credits as market price.

Utilities' new burden is cleantech's new blessing.

The entire process has absolutely nothing to do with you... until you get your electric bill.

You see, with a cap-and-trade system, carbon emissions become a costly liability. Utilities dependent on coal still need to buy the raw material and will incur other typical fixed and variable costs. Now, buying millions of dollars of carbon credits will be added to their list of costs.

Eventually, some of those increased costs are going to be passed on to customers.

But play it right, and you can more than offset rising utility costs by investing in the companies that will benefit from cap-and-trade legislation.

Here's how.

Profiting from Cap-and-Trade

Even though carbon trading exists to some extent right now, it's largely on a volunteer basis, so the broad market impact is not that great.

When a national system is established, however, it will alter the entire energy market, and create the wealth-building opportunity of a lifetime.

Now that we've elected a democratic president as well as a democratic-led Congress, a national cap-and-trade system is inevitable.

Henry Waxman, the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has promised such legislation by Memorial Day.

Right now, carbon credits go for about $2.05 on the Chicago Climate Exchange. A nationwide cap-and-trade system would send those prices closer to $20.

That means carbon offset generators, which are mainly cleantech companies, are in for a windfall. And you can be too.

With all major utilities about to head to carbon exchanges to buy their mandated allowances, carbon credits will be in extremely high demand. And a good portion of the revenue generated from their sale will be pumped into new cleantech projects to generate more credits.

Solar parks, wind farms, landfill gas capture... anything that prevents greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere is on the menu.

In effect, a cap-and-trade mandate implies a massive surge in renewable energy and efficiency.

Not to mention the growth in business for carbon regulators, brokers, and exchanges.

It's a brand new, untapped market. And you can get in on the ground floor.

The intrinsic value added to cleantech companies because of cap-and-trade will be unprecedented. So will investor profits.

Utilities are already preparing, having spent millions on carbon credits the past few months in a test-run of the real thing. They know the major impact carbon liability will have on their bottom line.

Make sure you turn their misfortune into your personal gain.

Stay up-to-date on relevant policy news, and start loading up on cleantech stocks.

Reprinted with permission from Energy and Capital.

Ener1 has signed a deal with Japanese energy conglomerate ITOCHU to market the company's lithium ion batteries in Japan.

It is interesting and surprising that an Asian company should come to the U.S. for batteries when most contracts are in the opposite direction.

Ener1, through its EnerDel subsidiary, will offer battery products for the automotive industry, but the announcement did not specify whether they would be for all electric vehicles or hybrids. ITOCHU, which saw its profits tank recently, could also provide a line of credit to Ener1 as part of the deal.

What could be an even bigger revenue generator for Ener1 is that ITOCHU, which has acquired several solar power companies, could also distribute the batteries as storage devices for solar energy. Solar storage, which allows power generated by day to be used at night or sold back to the grid during peak power demand, could be headed for substantial growth in Japan due to a government directive to expand solar power.

Asia has plenty of capable battery companies including Panasonic/Sanyo, Matsushita and South Korea's LG Chem, which will provide the batteries to the upcoming Chevy Volt, so this deal is a real coup for Ener1.

The company is also looking for help from the U.S. federal government, having recently solicited $480 million in DOE funds, while also being hopeful that the stimulus package taking shape in congress includes a generous helping for the battery industry.

By Bridgette Steffen

Zira Island is a 1,000,000 sq meter island In the Caspian Sea that will soon be developed into an incredible eco-community and sustainably built resort. Master-planned by Denmark-based BIG Architects, the carbon-neutral eco-island is based on the seven peaks of Azerbaijan and its mountainous ecosystems. Located in the bay of the capital city Baku, Zira Island is a ferry ride away from a growing metropolis and will stand as an example to a region so dependent on oil, that it is possible to live off the wind and sun.

BIG Architects‘ Zira Island will feature seven major structures modeled after the peaks of Azerbaijan that are connected by trails, greenbelts and the coastline. The Seven Peaks will each house a residential development and public space, and there will also be 300 private villas near a golf course in the central valley. Zira’s new skyline of organic buildings will resemble a mountain range that merges with the natural topography of the island.

Many carbon neutral communities are currently being developed around the world, like Masdar, Rioja, and Dongtan. All promise a new way of life completely independent of carbon-based fuels. Zira Island is less of a city and more or a resort, but it still holds the same promises of sustainability and will use the sun, wind and water to heat and power the island.

Heat pumps, which plunge into the surrounding Caspian Sea, will heat and cool the buildings on the island, and Solar Hot Water Collectors are integrated into the architecture to provide hot water. Photovoltaics on strategically angled facades and roof tops will generate electricity, and an off-shore wind farm will be constructed in the Caspian Sea, utilizing the existing oil platforms and foundations for the new and more sustainable power supply.

Potable water will be provided via a desalination plant, while waste and stormwater will be collected in a wastewater treatment plant and recycled for irrigation. The solid waste will be composted and reused as fertilizer for the island. Many trees and lots of lush vegetation will be planted to create a tropical environment, although no information is provided for how the island will deal with their trash or whether or not they will grow any of their own food.

For more pictures, read the original story on Next »