Re/Action on Climate Protection

How to solve global warming

Stopping "dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate" is the most important problem facing humanity today. Significant action at the local level is one of the major keys.

True cost of transportation

Calculating the true cost of our existing transportation system is the first step to using s-clusters to create the lowest cost, most efficient path to zero carbon transportation.

Powering the world with wind

After reading the article, "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies" by Pacala and Socolow, I was curious about exactly what it would take to "power the world with wind." Is it possible, and what would it take.

Why Energy Efficiency for GHG Reduction?

Efficiency in energy use represents a technological approach to reducing energy use and GHG emissions without "sacrifice". Better technology, less energy use, same effect. Increased cost from new technology offset by savings from lower energy use. What's wrong with this picture?

Energy Efficiency Financing

One of our commenters asked about financing for energy efficiency improvements. There are a whole range of financing options in the State of California. These include both federal programs and state programs.

Climate Change Economics - More on efficiency

Energy efficiency improvements we have been talking about involve swapping existing methods or technology for other methods or technology that provide the same service with less energy. For example, there are many alternatives to the old incandescent "lightbulb".

Basic GHG reduction economics

One often hears the concern that GHG reduction is "too expensive" or will "wreck the economy". Are these claims true? In order to determine whether a measure is cost effective, or makes sense economically, a basic financial analysis must be done.  There are some tools available to help with this analysis. In order to use these tools, basic familiarity with spreadsheet software such as Excel is useful.

There are two types of investments in GHG reduction: 1) in measures that reduce demand for GHG generating energy, such as energy efficiency improvements; 2) in measures that replace GHG generating energy, such as solar photovoltaic panels. These measures avoid the emission of GHGs. Thus the investment in these measures can be expressed in "cost per unit weight of GHGs avoided over the life of the measure". In order to calculate the weight of the GHG avoided, a number called the "emission coefficient" is used. For example, in California, our statewide emission coefficient for electricity is 0.73 pounds of equivalent CO2 per kilowatt-hour. This just means that every kilowatt-hour of electricity that is used results in the emission of the atmospheric equivalent of 0.73 pounds of carbon dioxide from the generating power plants.

For example, suppose you replace a 100 watt incandescent lamp with a 20 watt compact fluorescent (CFL). Assume that the life of either bulb is 10,000 hours. Over the lifetime of the two lamps, the incandescent will use 1,000 kilowatt hours and the compact fluorescent will use 200 kilowatt hours. Using the emission coefficient, using the CFL in place of the incandescent will result in avoiding the emission of 387 pounds of carbon dioxide over the 10,000 hour lifetime. If the difference in cost between the two lamps is $10, the cost of the avoided carbon dioxide is approximately $50/ton. This metric can be used to compare cost-effectiveness of different measures.

In both demand side reduction measures and supply side measures, financial models are used to compare the investment in efficiency or new renewable generating capacity to other types of investments. The simplest financial model is known as "simple payback." This is a calculation of the length of time it takes for the savings from a measure to accumulate to the initial cost of the measure. For example, if a measure costs $100, and saves $10/month, it will "pay for itself" in 10 months. In our incandescent vs. CFL example, the CFL would pay for itself in approximately 1200 hours of operation if the electric rate is $0.10/kWh.

This model does not take into account two important factors: the future value of money and utility rate escalation. These to factors are critical to take into account for an accurate estimation of the financial implications of investment in GHG reduction. We will discuss financial modeling that includes these factors in another post.

Megawatts vs. Negawatts for GHG reduction?

Does added renewable generation capability give you the best bang for the buck for reducing GHG emissions? How does reducing power needs by improving efficiency stack up? Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute coined the term "negawatts" back in the early days of the energy efficiency movement. This concept compares the cost of a watt gained by the system through improved efficiency, vs. the cost of a watt gained by the system through new generation. In GHG terms, one watt not used reduces overall GHG emissions as much as one additional watt generated by a non-fossil fuel powered generator. Here is a worked example that demonstrates this concept:

If you put in a 3kW PV system on your home, that will cost you about $20,000, after rebates. If you finance that at 5% over 30 years, which is the life of the system, that will end up costing you about $39K. That system will generate about 4600 kWh/yr in Sonoma County, CA, which is about 1.6 tons of CO2 avoided. Over the 30 yr period, that is about 48 tons of CO2 avoided. That is about $800/ton of CO2 avoided.

Now take a 20 watt compact fluorescent bulb, replacing a 100 watt incandescent. Let's assume the lifetimes of the two bulbs are equal, 10,000 hours (they're not, but it doesn't really matter in this case). Let's say the compact fluorescent costs $10, and the incandescent costs nothing. Over the lifetime of the two bulbs, the compact fluorescent avoids 800kWh, which is about 560 lbs of CO2, at a cost of $10. This works out to about $35/ton of CO2 avoided.

Here is a good resource for energy efficiency information: www.aceee.org

Energy Efficiency is Key to Reducing Emissions

Reducing energy use by improving energy efficiency is the most cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In California, the state Public Utilities Commission has recognized this and has mandated the collection of a charge on every utility bill of every ratepayer in the state. This charge, known as the Public Goods Charge (PGC), that is intended to fund "public goods research, development and demonstration, and energy efficiency activities, and possibly to support low income assistance programs." This year, the state is funding energy efficiency programs that are developed and administered by the Investor Owned Utilities in the state.

Climate Protection Campaign has partnered with Quantum Consulting, an energy efficiency consulting firm based in Berkeley, CA to develop a PGC funded energy efficiency program. Beginning in 2006, this program will deliver a menu of energy efficiency services to residences, large and small business and governments in Sonoma County. These services include building tuneups, lighting retrofits, efficiency improvements to water and wastewater systems. These are direct install programs, that result in immediate energy savings. This results in greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the communities.

The Sonoma Partnership for Energy Efficiency is groundbreaking because of the focus on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Sonoma County has set six national precedents for setting greenhouse gas reduction targets in the operations of all municipalities in the county, as well as county government and the community. This achievement was recognized as opening the door for energy efficiency improvements in both government operations and the community.

Here is a description of some of the other partnerships: http://www.pge.com/rebates/alliances/

Achieving Zero Net Carbon

At Climate Protection Campaign, we have developed a strategy called "Carbon Removal". We look at each of the GHG emitting sectors: existing buildings, local energy system, transportation, water/wastewater, solid waste, agriculture, new development and forestry in the context of government, residential, commercial and industrial uses.

We then formulate what must be done to remove carbon emissions completely from each sector. Generally, these actions fall into two categories: demand side and supply side. On the demand side, we have found that energy efficiency measures top the list for fast, cost-effective GHG reductions. On the supply side, we are developing ways to transition our local energy supplies to renewable sources.

In my next few posts, I'll give some examples of the types of measures we are working on. I hope that other folks out there will share their experiences with working toward zero net carbon.