CEO Ghosn stresses coolness factor, tries new model to bring down price
Nissan Motor Co. CEO Carlos Ghosn says electric vehicles like the automaker's Leaf, shown here, need to be “affordable, … cool, attractive and fun to drive.”
Killer hunted after Thanksgiving party rampage
Lawyer: Crashers were ‘cleared’ by White House
Teenager lashed for wearing knee-length skirt
Cops: Dad locks kids in trunk, goes shopping
Rush starts as holiday shopping season revs up
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Shaquille O’Neal pays for slain girl’s funeral
Child entrepreneur gives back for holidays
Iran seizes rights lawyer’s Nobel Peace medal
‘Smart’ armor learns more with every bullet
Man says emergence from ‘coma’ like rebirth
The evolution of the electric car
The electric car is poised to become a mainstream transportation option for everyday drivers. Click on the ‘launch’ button above to read about the evolution of the electric car.
By Paul A. Eisenstein
msnbc.com contributor
updated 7:38 a.m. ET, Wed., Nov . 25, 2009
President Barack Obama has set an ambitious goal of putting at least 1 million battery-powered cars on the road by the middle of the coming decade.
Many in the auto industry have charitably called that target ambitious. Others are less polite. But while it may be a difficult goal, Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn is among those who believe the public may get charged up by the switch to electric power.
To get there, however, he stresses that some of the industry’s basic business models may have to be rethought to reflect the new world of electric propulsion.
Ghosn was in Los Angeles recently for the start of Nissan’s “Zero Emissions Tour,” a 22-city road show that will lead up to the launch next year of the first of four battery-electric vehicles, or BEVs, the Japanese maker plans to launch in the next few years.
The Leaf is a 5-seat sedan similar in size to the subcompact Versa, but it replaces the current model’s gasoline engine with an 80 kilowatt electric motor with about 110 horsepower that draws its power from a lithium-ion battery pack.
While Ghosn is quick to proclaim that battery propulsion “will change the industry,” he also acknowledges that to win over buyers, tomorrow’s BEVs will need to be “affordable, … cool, attractive and fun to drive.”
On the positive side, electric motors develop maximum tire-spinning torque the moment they start to turn, and a prototype Leaf launched fast enough to throw a passenger back deep into the seat. The design of Nissan’s first battery car is as distinctive as Toyota’s gas-electric hybrid Prius, though Leaf program manager Hideaki Watanabe said Nissan opted against a “spaceship-style design” to avoid alienating more traditional buyers who might otherwise want an emissions-free car.
Nissan is betting there is a core group of buyers who will opt for a vehicle like the Leaf to assuage their “environmental guilt.”
But to make the technology sustainable as a business will require reaching into the mainstream. That’s not easy. Even conventional hybrids, such as the Prius, Honda’s Insight and the Ford Fusion Hybrid, are struggling to garner more than 2 to 3 percent of the U.S. automotive market.
There is no hard data, but it's estimated that there are only a few thousand BEVs on the road now, not including hybrids, which also have a gasoline engine. Hybrids have had some initial success in part because they don’t have some of the limitations of the pure battery car, such as limited range, long charging times and high costs, mostly for their batteries.
Click for related content
Vote, discuss: Which green technology is best?
Automakers turn to safety to sell cars
Plug-ins rev up; are consumers ready?
Because of pricey lithium-ion, or LIon, technology, General Motors is expected to charge more than $40,000 for its extended-range electric vehicle, the 2011 Chevrolet Volt. A special $7,500 federal tax credit will bring the price down to the mid-$30,000 range, still a sizable chunk for a compact sedan.
Ghosn suggests the Leaf will be priced no more than “2 to 3 percent” more than a comparable gasoline vehicle, which would mean $25,000 or less, depending on final equipment levels.
How can Nissan afford to make such a deal without going deeply in debt on each vehicle? The sticker price will cover just the vehicle itself, and not the battery, which will be leased separately, Ghosn said. The monthly fee will be based on what it would cost to fuel up a comparable, gasoline-powered vehicle to run about 15,000 miles annually which, depending upon your assumptions about future oil prices, could run $200 to $400.
In its initial incarnation, the Leaf is expected to deliver up to 100 miles on a charge. Actual mileage may vary, depending on driving style and driving conditions. That may not sound like much but research shows that up to 70 percent of American drivers drive less each day than the 40-mile battery range of Volt and more than 80 percent never reach 100 miles in a day.
That doesn’t completely resolve so-called “range anxiety,” the fear of needing a little bit more in an emergency. To help address that, Nissan has been forming a variety of partnerships with the likes of Project Better Place, which is setting up a network of quick charging stations in Israel, and even special facilities that can swap a discharged battery for a fresh one in no more time than it normally takes to gas up.
Here in the States, Nissan recently inked a partnership with Texas-based Reliant Energy, which will provide fast 220-volt chargers to Leaf buyers and set up quick-charge facilities that could be used at offices or on the road. Nissan says one system under development would give an 80 percent charge in less than 10 minutes.
Such joint ventures are critical to making battery power a reality, most automakers have recognized. Many energy providers see a similar payoff, since the goal is to promote charging at night, when the power grid is underutilized and steep discounts can be offered. BMW, for one, has even been working with New York City parking garages to set up chargers for residents who might want an urban commuter car — like its Mini-e — but would otherwise have no place to recharge.
These partnerships, said Nissan’s Watanabe, could also provide a place for batteries once they’re no longer fit for use on the road. They likely would still have plenty of life and could be put out to pasture on load farms designed to stabilize the grid during times of peak demand. They also could serve to collect power from renewable sources like wind, solar or wave during peak production and keep the juice flowing at night or when winds die down.
Click for related content
At GM, down looks like up, at least for now
Automakers turn to safety to sell cars
Plug-ins rev up; are consumers ready?
Nissan is not only looking for new business models but also updating old ones. Traditionally, there’s been a big profit in providing bigger engines to those who want better performance. As LIon battery chemistry improves, experts anticipate battery packs will get smaller, lighter and cheaper. But for those who might want more range, Nissan is considering the idea of offering optional, longer-range packs —for a premium, of course.
It may also be possible to offer higher-power batteries and more powerful motors for those who might like the idea of a green muscle car.
There’s little doubt the battery car will change the way the auto industry does business. The companies that can adopt their business case to the new technology could lead the charge.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Top 10 Jobs in Green Technologies
Top 10 Jobs in Green Technologies
By Selena Dehne, JIST Publishing
Advanced Search >> The nation's movement to become a more productive and competitive economic force in the global marketplace is bringing a wealth of hope and job opportunities to recession-weary Americans.
"In order to succeed in the 21st century, we are working to improve education, expand health care, fix the infrastructure, overhaul our manufacturing industries, adopt green technologies and continue our leadership in high-tech innovation," says Laurence Shatkin, Ph.D., one of the nation's leading occupational experts and author of the recently released book "200 Best Jobs for Renewing America."
In his book, Shatkin discusses the six industries at the center of America's shift toward a forward-looking economy: education, infrastructure, health care, information and telecommunication technologies, green technologies and advanced manufacturing.
Of these industries, green technologies, in particular, has gained a great deal of interest among individuals hoping to secure a solid job as the economy continues to reinvent itself and become more competitive in the upcoming decades.
According to Shatkin's research, the following list outlines the best jobs overall in green technologies.
1. Construction managers
Annual earnings: $76,230
Percent growth: 15.7 percent
2. Industrial engineers
Annual earnings: $71,430
Percent growth: 20.3 percent
3. First-line supervisors/managers of construction trades and extraction workers
Annual earnings: $55,950
Percent growth: 9.1 percent
4. Environmental scientists and specialists
Annual earnings: $58,380
Percent growth: 25.1 percent
5. Construction and building inspectors
Annual earnings: $48,330
Percent growth: 18.2 percent
6. Environmental engineers
Annual earnings: $72,350
Percent growth: 25.4 percent
7. Plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters
Annual earnings: $44,090
Percent growth: 10.6 percent
8.Geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers
Annual earnings: $75,800
Percent growth: 21.9 percent
9. Carpenters
Annual earnings: $37,660
Percent growth: 10.3 percent
10. Electricians
Annual earnings: $44,780
Percent growth: 7.4 percent
*Percent growth between 2006 and 2016.
By Selena Dehne, JIST Publishing
Advanced Search >> The nation's movement to become a more productive and competitive economic force in the global marketplace is bringing a wealth of hope and job opportunities to recession-weary Americans.
"In order to succeed in the 21st century, we are working to improve education, expand health care, fix the infrastructure, overhaul our manufacturing industries, adopt green technologies and continue our leadership in high-tech innovation," says Laurence Shatkin, Ph.D., one of the nation's leading occupational experts and author of the recently released book "200 Best Jobs for Renewing America."
In his book, Shatkin discusses the six industries at the center of America's shift toward a forward-looking economy: education, infrastructure, health care, information and telecommunication technologies, green technologies and advanced manufacturing.
Of these industries, green technologies, in particular, has gained a great deal of interest among individuals hoping to secure a solid job as the economy continues to reinvent itself and become more competitive in the upcoming decades.
According to Shatkin's research, the following list outlines the best jobs overall in green technologies.
1. Construction managers
Annual earnings: $76,230
Percent growth: 15.7 percent
2. Industrial engineers
Annual earnings: $71,430
Percent growth: 20.3 percent
3. First-line supervisors/managers of construction trades and extraction workers
Annual earnings: $55,950
Percent growth: 9.1 percent
4. Environmental scientists and specialists
Annual earnings: $58,380
Percent growth: 25.1 percent
5. Construction and building inspectors
Annual earnings: $48,330
Percent growth: 18.2 percent
6. Environmental engineers
Annual earnings: $72,350
Percent growth: 25.4 percent
7. Plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters
Annual earnings: $44,090
Percent growth: 10.6 percent
8.Geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers
Annual earnings: $75,800
Percent growth: 21.9 percent
9. Carpenters
Annual earnings: $37,660
Percent growth: 10.3 percent
10. Electricians
Annual earnings: $44,780
Percent growth: 7.4 percent
*Percent growth between 2006 and 2016.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Toxic Waters
As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways
By CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: November 22, 2009
It was drizzling lightly in late October when the midnight shift started at the Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant, where much of Brooklyn’s sewage is treated.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
A worker maintaining a tank at a Brooklyn wastewater treatment plant. Half the rainstorms in New York overwhelm the system.
When It Rains, It Pollutes
Systems on the Brink
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.
Search data on more than 200,000 facilities around the nation permitted to discharge pollutants.
Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record
The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state, and the response by state regulators.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
William Grandner, superintendent of Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant in Brooklyn, kept an eye on multiple monitors that track the flow of sewage.
Read All Comments (262) »
A few miles away, people were walking home without umbrellas from late dinners. But at Owls Head, a swimming pool’s worth of sewage and wastewater was soon rushing in every second. Warning horns began to blare. A little after 1 a.m., with a harder rain falling, Owls Head reached its capacity and workers started shutting the intake gates.
That caused a rising tide throughout Brooklyn’s sewers, and untreated feces and industrial waste started spilling from emergency relief valves into the Upper New York Bay and Gowanus Canal.
“It happens anytime you get a hard rainfall,” said Bob Connaughton, one the plant’s engineers. “Sometimes all it takes is 20 minutes of rain, and you’ve got overflows across Brooklyn.”
One goal of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to upgrade the nation’s sewer systems, many of them built more than a century ago, to handle growing populations and increasing runoff of rainwater and waste. During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress distributed more than $60 billion to cities to make sure that what goes into toilets, industrial drains and street grates would not endanger human health.
But despite those upgrades, many sewer systems are still frequently overwhelmed, according to a New York Times analysis of environmental data. As a result, sewage is spilling into waterways.
In the last three years alone, more than 9,400 of the nation’s 25,000 sewage systems — including those in major cities — have reported violating the law by dumping untreated or partly treated human waste, chemicals and other hazardous materials into rivers and lakes and elsewhere, according to data from state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But fewer than one in five sewage systems that broke the law were ever fined or otherwise sanctioned by state or federal regulators, the Times analysis shows.
It is not clear whether the sewage systems that have not reported such dumping are doing any better, because data on overflows and spillage are often incomplete.
As cities have grown rapidly across the nation, many have neglected infrastructure projects and paved over green spaces that once absorbed rainwater. That has contributed to sewage backups into more than 400,000 basements and spills into thousands of streets, according to data collected by state and federal officials. Sometimes, waste has overflowed just upstream from drinking water intake points or near public beaches.
There is no national record-keeping of how many illnesses are caused by sewage spills. But academic research suggests that as many as 20 million people each year become ill from drinking water containing bacteria and other pathogens that are often spread by untreated waste.
A 2007 study published in the journal Pediatrics, focusing on one Milwaukee hospital, indicated that the number of children suffering from serious diarrhea rose whenever local sewers overflowed. Another study, published in 2008 in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, estimated that as many as four million people become sick each year in California from swimming in waters containing the kind of pollution often linked to untreated sewage.
Around New York City, samples collected at dozens of beaches or piers have detected the types of bacteria and other pollutants tied to sewage overflows. Though the city’s drinking water comes from upstate reservoirs, environmentalists say untreated excrement and other waste in the city’s waterways pose serious health risks.
A Deluge of Sewage
“After the storm, the sewage flowed down the street faster than we could move out of the way and filled my house with over a foot of muck,” said Laura Serrano, whose Bay Shore, N.Y., home was damaged in 2005 by a sewer overflow.
Ms. Serrano, who says she contracted viral meningitis because of exposure to the sewage, has filed suit against Suffolk County, which operates the sewer system. The county’s lawyer disputes responsibility for the damage and injuries.
“I had to move out, and no one will buy my house because the sewage was absorbed into the walls,” Ms. Serrano said. “I can still smell it sometimes.”
When a sewage system overflows or a treatment plant dumps untreated waste, it is often breaking the law. Today, sewage systems are the nation’s most frequent violators of the Clean Water Act. More than a third of all sewer systems — including those in San Diego, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco — have violated environmental laws since 2006, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data.
Thousands of other sewage systems operated by smaller cities, colleges, mobile home parks and companies have also broken the law. But few of the violators are ever punished.
As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways
Published: November 22, 2009
(Page 2 of 3)
The E.P.A., in a statement, said that officials agreed that overflows posed a “significant environmental and human health problem, and significantly reducing or eliminating such overflows has been a priority for E.P.A. enforcement since the mid-1990s.”
Damon Winter/The New York Times
Rainwater and sewage are treated at Owls Head.
When It Rains, It Pollutes
Toxic Waters
Systems on the Brink
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.
All Articles in the Series »
Find Water Polluters Near You
Select a State
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Search data on more than 200,000 facilities around the nation permitted to discharge pollutants.
Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record
The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state, and the response by state regulators.
In the last year, E.P.A. settlements with sewer systems in Hampton Roads, Va., and the east San Francisco Bay have led to more than $200 million spent on new systems to reduce pollution, the agency said. In October, the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said she was overhauling how the Clean Water Act is enforced.
But widespread problems still remain.
“The E.P.A. would rather look the other way than crack down on cities, since punishing municipalities can cause political problems,” said Craig Michaels of Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group. “But without enforcement and fines, this problem will never end.”
Plant operators and regulators, for their part, say that fines would simply divert money from stretched budgets and that they are doing the best they can with aging systems and overwhelmed pipes.
New York, for example, was one of the first major cities to build a large sewer system, starting construction in 1849. Many of those pipes — constructed of hand-laid brick and ceramic tiles — are still used. Today, the city’s 7,400 miles of sewer pipes operate almost entirely by gravity, unlike in other cities that use large pumps.
New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants, which handle 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day, have been flooded with thousands of pickles (after a factory dumped its stock), vast flows of discarded chicken heads and large pieces of lumber.
When a toilet flushes in the West Village in Manhattan, the waste runs north six miles through gradually descending pipes to a plant at 137th Street, where it is mixed with so-called biological digesters that consume dangerous pathogens. The wastewater is then mixed with chlorine and sent into the Hudson River.
Fragile System
But New York’s system — like those in hundreds of others cities — combines rainwater runoff with sewage. Over the last three decades, as thousands of acres of trees, bushes and other vegetation in New York have been paved over, the land’s ability to absorb rain has declined significantly. When treatment plants are swamped, the excess spills from 490 overflow pipes throughout the city’s five boroughs.
When the sky is clear, Owls Head can handle the sewage from more than 750,000 people. But the balance is so delicate that Mr. Connaughton and his colleagues must be constantly ready for rain.
They choose cable television packages for their homes based on which company offers the best local weather forecasts. They know meteorologists by the sound of their voices. When the leaves begin to fall each autumn, clogging sewer grates and pipes, Mr. Connaughton sometimes has trouble sleeping.
“I went to Hawaii with my wife, and the whole time I was flipping to the Weather Channel, seeing if it was raining in New York,” he said.
New York’s sewage system overflows essentially every other time it rains.
Reducing such overflows is a priority, city officials say. But eradicating the problem would cost billions.
Officials have spent approximately $35 billion over three decades improving the quality of the waters surrounding the city and have improved systems to capture and store rainwater and sewage, bringing down the frequency and volume of overflows, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection wrote in a statement.
“Water quality in New York City has improved dramatically in the last century, and particularly in the last two decades,” officials wrote.
Several years ago, city officials estimated that it would cost at least $58 billion to prevent all overflows. “Even an expenditure of that magnitude would not result in every part of a river or bay surrounding the city achieving water quality that is suitable for swimming,” the department wrote. “It would, however, increase the average N.Y.C. water and sewer bill by 80 percent.”
The E.P.A., concerned about the risks of overflowing sewers, issued a national framework in 1994 to control overflows, including making sure that pipes are designed so they do not easily become plugged by debris and warning the public when overflows occur. In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to crack down on overflows.
(Page 3 of 3)
But in hundreds of places, sewer systems remain out of compliance with that framework or the Clean Water Act, which regulates most pollution discharges to waterways. And the burdens on sewer systems are growing as cities become larger and, in some areas, rainstorms become more frequent and fierce.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
The Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, is the largest of New York City’s 14 treatment plants.
When It Rains, It Pollutes
Toxic Waters
Systems on the Brink
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.
Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record
The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state, and the response by state regulators.
New York’s system, for instance, was designed to accommodate a so-called five-year storm — a rainfall so extreme that it is expected to occur, on average, only twice a decade. But in 2007 alone, the city experienced three 25-year storms, according to city officials — storms so strong they would be expected only four times each century.
“When you get five inches of rain in 30 minutes, it’s like Thanksgiving Day traffic on a two-lane bridge in the sewer pipes,” said James Roberts, deputy commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection.
Government’s Response
To combat these shifts, some cities are encouraging sewer-friendly development. New York, for instance, has instituted zoning laws requiring new parking lots to include landscaped areas to absorb rainwater, established a tax credit for roofs with absorbent vegetation and begun to use millions of dollars for environmentally friendly infrastructure projects.
Philadelphia has announced it will spend $1.6 billion over 20 years to build rain gardens and sidewalks of porous pavement and to plant thousands of trees.
But unless cities require private developers to build in ways that minimize runoff, the volume of rain flowing into sewers is likely to grow, environmentalists say.
The only real solution, say many lawmakers and water advocates, is extensive new spending on sewer systems largely ignored for decades. As much as $400 billion in extra spending is needed over the next decade to fix the nation’s sewer infrastructure, according to estimates by the E.P.A. and the Government Accountability Office.
Legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill contains millions in water infrastructure grants, and the stimulus bill passed this year set aside $6 billion to improve sewers and other water systems.
But that money is only a small fraction of what is needed, officials say. And over the last two decades, federal money for such programs has fallen by 70 percent, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which estimates that a quarter of the state’s sewage and wastewater treatment plants are “using outmoded, inadequate technology.”
“The public has no clue how important these sewage plants are,” said Mr. Connaughton of the Brooklyn site. “Waterborne disease was the scourge of mankind for centuries. These plants stopped that. We’re doing everything we can to clean as much sewage as possible, but sometimes, that isn’t enough.”
Comment
I am sure we have similar problems here in Miami. New or repaired sewers are needed, as well as wastewater plants to process the wastewater and return it to the Earth.
By CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: November 22, 2009
It was drizzling lightly in late October when the midnight shift started at the Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant, where much of Brooklyn’s sewage is treated.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
A worker maintaining a tank at a Brooklyn wastewater treatment plant. Half the rainstorms in New York overwhelm the system.
When It Rains, It Pollutes
Systems on the Brink
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.
Search data on more than 200,000 facilities around the nation permitted to discharge pollutants.
Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record
The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state, and the response by state regulators.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
William Grandner, superintendent of Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant in Brooklyn, kept an eye on multiple monitors that track the flow of sewage.
Read All Comments (262) »
A few miles away, people were walking home without umbrellas from late dinners. But at Owls Head, a swimming pool’s worth of sewage and wastewater was soon rushing in every second. Warning horns began to blare. A little after 1 a.m., with a harder rain falling, Owls Head reached its capacity and workers started shutting the intake gates.
That caused a rising tide throughout Brooklyn’s sewers, and untreated feces and industrial waste started spilling from emergency relief valves into the Upper New York Bay and Gowanus Canal.
“It happens anytime you get a hard rainfall,” said Bob Connaughton, one the plant’s engineers. “Sometimes all it takes is 20 minutes of rain, and you’ve got overflows across Brooklyn.”
One goal of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to upgrade the nation’s sewer systems, many of them built more than a century ago, to handle growing populations and increasing runoff of rainwater and waste. During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress distributed more than $60 billion to cities to make sure that what goes into toilets, industrial drains and street grates would not endanger human health.
But despite those upgrades, many sewer systems are still frequently overwhelmed, according to a New York Times analysis of environmental data. As a result, sewage is spilling into waterways.
In the last three years alone, more than 9,400 of the nation’s 25,000 sewage systems — including those in major cities — have reported violating the law by dumping untreated or partly treated human waste, chemicals and other hazardous materials into rivers and lakes and elsewhere, according to data from state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But fewer than one in five sewage systems that broke the law were ever fined or otherwise sanctioned by state or federal regulators, the Times analysis shows.
It is not clear whether the sewage systems that have not reported such dumping are doing any better, because data on overflows and spillage are often incomplete.
As cities have grown rapidly across the nation, many have neglected infrastructure projects and paved over green spaces that once absorbed rainwater. That has contributed to sewage backups into more than 400,000 basements and spills into thousands of streets, according to data collected by state and federal officials. Sometimes, waste has overflowed just upstream from drinking water intake points or near public beaches.
There is no national record-keeping of how many illnesses are caused by sewage spills. But academic research suggests that as many as 20 million people each year become ill from drinking water containing bacteria and other pathogens that are often spread by untreated waste.
A 2007 study published in the journal Pediatrics, focusing on one Milwaukee hospital, indicated that the number of children suffering from serious diarrhea rose whenever local sewers overflowed. Another study, published in 2008 in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, estimated that as many as four million people become sick each year in California from swimming in waters containing the kind of pollution often linked to untreated sewage.
Around New York City, samples collected at dozens of beaches or piers have detected the types of bacteria and other pollutants tied to sewage overflows. Though the city’s drinking water comes from upstate reservoirs, environmentalists say untreated excrement and other waste in the city’s waterways pose serious health risks.
A Deluge of Sewage
“After the storm, the sewage flowed down the street faster than we could move out of the way and filled my house with over a foot of muck,” said Laura Serrano, whose Bay Shore, N.Y., home was damaged in 2005 by a sewer overflow.
Ms. Serrano, who says she contracted viral meningitis because of exposure to the sewage, has filed suit against Suffolk County, which operates the sewer system. The county’s lawyer disputes responsibility for the damage and injuries.
“I had to move out, and no one will buy my house because the sewage was absorbed into the walls,” Ms. Serrano said. “I can still smell it sometimes.”
When a sewage system overflows or a treatment plant dumps untreated waste, it is often breaking the law. Today, sewage systems are the nation’s most frequent violators of the Clean Water Act. More than a third of all sewer systems — including those in San Diego, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco — have violated environmental laws since 2006, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data.
Thousands of other sewage systems operated by smaller cities, colleges, mobile home parks and companies have also broken the law. But few of the violators are ever punished.
As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways
Published: November 22, 2009
(Page 2 of 3)
The E.P.A., in a statement, said that officials agreed that overflows posed a “significant environmental and human health problem, and significantly reducing or eliminating such overflows has been a priority for E.P.A. enforcement since the mid-1990s.”
Damon Winter/The New York Times
Rainwater and sewage are treated at Owls Head.
When It Rains, It Pollutes
Toxic Waters
Systems on the Brink
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.
All Articles in the Series »
Find Water Polluters Near You
Select a State
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Search data on more than 200,000 facilities around the nation permitted to discharge pollutants.
Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record
The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state, and the response by state regulators.
In the last year, E.P.A. settlements with sewer systems in Hampton Roads, Va., and the east San Francisco Bay have led to more than $200 million spent on new systems to reduce pollution, the agency said. In October, the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said she was overhauling how the Clean Water Act is enforced.
But widespread problems still remain.
“The E.P.A. would rather look the other way than crack down on cities, since punishing municipalities can cause political problems,” said Craig Michaels of Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group. “But without enforcement and fines, this problem will never end.”
Plant operators and regulators, for their part, say that fines would simply divert money from stretched budgets and that they are doing the best they can with aging systems and overwhelmed pipes.
New York, for example, was one of the first major cities to build a large sewer system, starting construction in 1849. Many of those pipes — constructed of hand-laid brick and ceramic tiles — are still used. Today, the city’s 7,400 miles of sewer pipes operate almost entirely by gravity, unlike in other cities that use large pumps.
New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants, which handle 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day, have been flooded with thousands of pickles (after a factory dumped its stock), vast flows of discarded chicken heads and large pieces of lumber.
When a toilet flushes in the West Village in Manhattan, the waste runs north six miles through gradually descending pipes to a plant at 137th Street, where it is mixed with so-called biological digesters that consume dangerous pathogens. The wastewater is then mixed with chlorine and sent into the Hudson River.
Fragile System
But New York’s system — like those in hundreds of others cities — combines rainwater runoff with sewage. Over the last three decades, as thousands of acres of trees, bushes and other vegetation in New York have been paved over, the land’s ability to absorb rain has declined significantly. When treatment plants are swamped, the excess spills from 490 overflow pipes throughout the city’s five boroughs.
When the sky is clear, Owls Head can handle the sewage from more than 750,000 people. But the balance is so delicate that Mr. Connaughton and his colleagues must be constantly ready for rain.
They choose cable television packages for their homes based on which company offers the best local weather forecasts. They know meteorologists by the sound of their voices. When the leaves begin to fall each autumn, clogging sewer grates and pipes, Mr. Connaughton sometimes has trouble sleeping.
“I went to Hawaii with my wife, and the whole time I was flipping to the Weather Channel, seeing if it was raining in New York,” he said.
New York’s sewage system overflows essentially every other time it rains.
Reducing such overflows is a priority, city officials say. But eradicating the problem would cost billions.
Officials have spent approximately $35 billion over three decades improving the quality of the waters surrounding the city and have improved systems to capture and store rainwater and sewage, bringing down the frequency and volume of overflows, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection wrote in a statement.
“Water quality in New York City has improved dramatically in the last century, and particularly in the last two decades,” officials wrote.
Several years ago, city officials estimated that it would cost at least $58 billion to prevent all overflows. “Even an expenditure of that magnitude would not result in every part of a river or bay surrounding the city achieving water quality that is suitable for swimming,” the department wrote. “It would, however, increase the average N.Y.C. water and sewer bill by 80 percent.”
The E.P.A., concerned about the risks of overflowing sewers, issued a national framework in 1994 to control overflows, including making sure that pipes are designed so they do not easily become plugged by debris and warning the public when overflows occur. In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to crack down on overflows.
(Page 3 of 3)
But in hundreds of places, sewer systems remain out of compliance with that framework or the Clean Water Act, which regulates most pollution discharges to waterways. And the burdens on sewer systems are growing as cities become larger and, in some areas, rainstorms become more frequent and fierce.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
The Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, is the largest of New York City’s 14 treatment plants.
When It Rains, It Pollutes
Toxic Waters
Systems on the Brink
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.
Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record
The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state, and the response by state regulators.
New York’s system, for instance, was designed to accommodate a so-called five-year storm — a rainfall so extreme that it is expected to occur, on average, only twice a decade. But in 2007 alone, the city experienced three 25-year storms, according to city officials — storms so strong they would be expected only four times each century.
“When you get five inches of rain in 30 minutes, it’s like Thanksgiving Day traffic on a two-lane bridge in the sewer pipes,” said James Roberts, deputy commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection.
Government’s Response
To combat these shifts, some cities are encouraging sewer-friendly development. New York, for instance, has instituted zoning laws requiring new parking lots to include landscaped areas to absorb rainwater, established a tax credit for roofs with absorbent vegetation and begun to use millions of dollars for environmentally friendly infrastructure projects.
Philadelphia has announced it will spend $1.6 billion over 20 years to build rain gardens and sidewalks of porous pavement and to plant thousands of trees.
But unless cities require private developers to build in ways that minimize runoff, the volume of rain flowing into sewers is likely to grow, environmentalists say.
The only real solution, say many lawmakers and water advocates, is extensive new spending on sewer systems largely ignored for decades. As much as $400 billion in extra spending is needed over the next decade to fix the nation’s sewer infrastructure, according to estimates by the E.P.A. and the Government Accountability Office.
Legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill contains millions in water infrastructure grants, and the stimulus bill passed this year set aside $6 billion to improve sewers and other water systems.
But that money is only a small fraction of what is needed, officials say. And over the last two decades, federal money for such programs has fallen by 70 percent, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which estimates that a quarter of the state’s sewage and wastewater treatment plants are “using outmoded, inadequate technology.”
“The public has no clue how important these sewage plants are,” said Mr. Connaughton of the Brooklyn site. “Waterborne disease was the scourge of mankind for centuries. These plants stopped that. We’re doing everything we can to clean as much sewage as possible, but sometimes, that isn’t enough.”
Comment
I am sure we have similar problems here in Miami. New or repaired sewers are needed, as well as wastewater plants to process the wastewater and return it to the Earth.
South District Wastewater Treatment Plant
The raw wastewater that comes into the South District Wastewater Treatment Plant first goes through conventional treatment, which consists of the following steps:
Heavy solids are separated from the wastewater stream.
Biological matter is progressively converted into a solid mass by using indigenous, water-borne micro-organisms.
Finally, the biological solids are neutralized and either disposed of or reused. The treated water may be disinfected chemically or physically.
In the case of Miami-Dade County's project, the water will go from secondary treatment through the High-Level Disinfection plant that is under construction.
How water reclamation works:
The first step is microfiltration or ultra-filtration -- a filtration process that removes contaminants from a fluid (liquid and gas) by passage through a micro-porous membrane. A typical microfiltration membrane pore size range is 0.1 to 10 micrometres (µm). (A micrometer is one millionth of a meter. For comparison, a strand of human hair is about 100 µm wide.)
Next, the water goes through reverse osmosis -- basically, a filtration process. It works by using pressure to force a solution through a membrane, retaining the solute on one side and allowing the pure solvent to pass to the other side. This is the reverse of the normal osmosis process, which is the natural movement of solvent from an area of low solute concentration, through a membrane, to an area of high solute concentration when no external pressure is applied.
Hydrogen peroxide is now added. It is commonly used to remove pollutants from wastewater and from air. It contests bacterial growth through oxygen addition. It can also be used to treat pollutants that can be easily oxidized such as iron and sulphides and pollutants that are difficult to oxidize such as dissolved solids, gasoline and pesticides.
Ultraviolet disinfection, a common treatment of drinking water that uses ultraviolet radiations to inactivate microorganisms, is then added. Ultraviolet disinfection of water consists of a purely physical, chemical-free process. The radiation initiates a photochemical reaction that destroys the genetic information contained in the DNA. The bacteria lose their reproductive capability and are destroyed. Even parasites such as Cryptosporidia or Giardia, which are extremely resistant to chemical disinfectants, are efficiently reduced. UV can also be used to remove chlorine and chloramines. This process, called photolysis, requires a higher dose than normal disinfection. The sterilized microorganisms are not removed from the water. UV disinfection does not remove dissolved organics, inorganic compounds or particles in the water. However, UV-oxidation processes can be used to simultaneously destroy trace chemical contaminants and provide high-level disinfection. It is currently in use at the reuse plant in Orange County.
When the full-scale reclaimed water plant is complete and operational it will pump 21 million gallons a day of this purified, highly treated water to the moat at Miami Metrozoo, where it will recharge our groundwater. The result will be very pure water whose quality will be near that of distilled water.
Comment
That is 21 million gallons per day that can be saved for drinking water. Apparently there is only a pilot plant open at this time.
Typically, 50% of the water used residentially is used outdoors. If residents install a submeter they will not be charged for that use, whether its for washing the car, the dog, watering the grass, or refilling the pool. A 50% reduction would be significant for most people and the savings could pay for the cost of installing the submeter. Visit www.miamidade.gov/wasd/save_wup.asp or www.miamidade.gov/wasd/save_submeter.asp for more information.
Heavy solids are separated from the wastewater stream.
Biological matter is progressively converted into a solid mass by using indigenous, water-borne micro-organisms.
Finally, the biological solids are neutralized and either disposed of or reused. The treated water may be disinfected chemically or physically.
In the case of Miami-Dade County's project, the water will go from secondary treatment through the High-Level Disinfection plant that is under construction.
How water reclamation works:
The first step is microfiltration or ultra-filtration -- a filtration process that removes contaminants from a fluid (liquid and gas) by passage through a micro-porous membrane. A typical microfiltration membrane pore size range is 0.1 to 10 micrometres (µm). (A micrometer is one millionth of a meter. For comparison, a strand of human hair is about 100 µm wide.)
Next, the water goes through reverse osmosis -- basically, a filtration process. It works by using pressure to force a solution through a membrane, retaining the solute on one side and allowing the pure solvent to pass to the other side. This is the reverse of the normal osmosis process, which is the natural movement of solvent from an area of low solute concentration, through a membrane, to an area of high solute concentration when no external pressure is applied.
Hydrogen peroxide is now added. It is commonly used to remove pollutants from wastewater and from air. It contests bacterial growth through oxygen addition. It can also be used to treat pollutants that can be easily oxidized such as iron and sulphides and pollutants that are difficult to oxidize such as dissolved solids, gasoline and pesticides.
Ultraviolet disinfection, a common treatment of drinking water that uses ultraviolet radiations to inactivate microorganisms, is then added. Ultraviolet disinfection of water consists of a purely physical, chemical-free process. The radiation initiates a photochemical reaction that destroys the genetic information contained in the DNA. The bacteria lose their reproductive capability and are destroyed. Even parasites such as Cryptosporidia or Giardia, which are extremely resistant to chemical disinfectants, are efficiently reduced. UV can also be used to remove chlorine and chloramines. This process, called photolysis, requires a higher dose than normal disinfection. The sterilized microorganisms are not removed from the water. UV disinfection does not remove dissolved organics, inorganic compounds or particles in the water. However, UV-oxidation processes can be used to simultaneously destroy trace chemical contaminants and provide high-level disinfection. It is currently in use at the reuse plant in Orange County.
When the full-scale reclaimed water plant is complete and operational it will pump 21 million gallons a day of this purified, highly treated water to the moat at Miami Metrozoo, where it will recharge our groundwater. The result will be very pure water whose quality will be near that of distilled water.
Comment
That is 21 million gallons per day that can be saved for drinking water. Apparently there is only a pilot plant open at this time.
Typically, 50% of the water used residentially is used outdoors. If residents install a submeter they will not be charged for that use, whether its for washing the car, the dog, watering the grass, or refilling the pool. A 50% reduction would be significant for most people and the savings could pay for the cost of installing the submeter. Visit www.miamidade.gov/wasd/save_wup.asp or www.miamidade.gov/wasd/save_submeter.asp for more information.
Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed Water
As Miami-Dade County’s population continues to increase, so does our demand for drinking water. Like all natural resources, the Biscayne Aquifer, Miami-Dade County’s current source of drinking water, is not limitless. The use of reclaimed water in Miami-Dade County helps preserve the Biscayne Aquifer.
Reclaimed water is highly treated, filtered and disinfected wastewater that is beneficially reused. Reclaimed water can replace or supplement groundwater supplies. Common uses for reclaimed water include irrigation, wetlands restoration, aquifer recharge, vehicle washing, air conditioning cooling towers, and other industrial uses. The use of reclaimed water is often referred to as wastewater reuse.
Miami-Dade County is currently expanding its water reclamation program and is currently evaluating several water reclamation projects, including the ambitious High-Level Disinfection project and the South Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant. For more information, read the Reuse Feasbility Study Update Report.
To assess large scale use of reclaimed water, the Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department is designing two pilot projects. The Aquifer Recharge Pilot Project will evaluate the treatment techniques necessary for recharging the Biscayne Aquifer through the rapid infiltration of highly treated wastewater.The Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Project will investigate the applicability of using highly treated wastewater effluent to replace the historic freshwater flows that once were discharged into the coastal wetlands of Biscayne Bay.
By using reclaimed water, the Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department is working to provide a sustainable water resource for our environment and our future.
As Miami-Dade County’s population continues to increase, so does our demand for drinking water. Like all natural resources, the Biscayne Aquifer, Miami-Dade County’s current source of drinking water, is not limitless. The use of reclaimed water in Miami-Dade County helps preserve the Biscayne Aquifer.
Reclaimed water is highly treated, filtered and disinfected wastewater that is beneficially reused. Reclaimed water can replace or supplement groundwater supplies. Common uses for reclaimed water include irrigation, wetlands restoration, aquifer recharge, vehicle washing, air conditioning cooling towers, and other industrial uses. The use of reclaimed water is often referred to as wastewater reuse.
Miami-Dade County is currently expanding its water reclamation program and is currently evaluating several water reclamation projects, including the ambitious High-Level Disinfection project and the South Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant. For more information, read the Reuse Feasbility Study Update Report.
To assess large scale use of reclaimed water, the Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department is designing two pilot projects. The Aquifer Recharge Pilot Project will evaluate the treatment techniques necessary for recharging the Biscayne Aquifer through the rapid infiltration of highly treated wastewater.The Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Project will investigate the applicability of using highly treated wastewater effluent to replace the historic freshwater flows that once were discharged into the coastal wetlands of Biscayne Bay.
By using reclaimed water, the Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department is working to provide a sustainable water resource for our environment and our future.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Starbucks: Multinational, multimillion dollar green corporation?
Starbucks: Multinational, multimillion dollar green corporation?
posted by: Jasmine Greene 16 hours ago
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
19 comments
2009 marked a significant change for Starbucks. It's not just because of their net profit loss this year or the fact that they closed hundreds of stores. Starbucks has taken the initiative to build greener and more individualistic chains.
Environmental Controversies
While Starbucks has not been the center of many environmental debates, there are two notable cases where environmental advocates voiced their discontent. The first case was in regards to their cups. The hot cups are made out of 10% post-consumer waste, the plastic lining around the cup actually makes them non-recyclable. Where do all these cups go then? Into the landfill. In fact 2 billion Starbucks cups land in trash [Source: GreenDaily]. Even the plastic cups, which were modified in 2008, are not practical. Sure, they are made of polypropylene (PP), which uses 15 percent less plastic than the average PET cups and emit 45 percent less greenhouse gasses during their production. These PP cups are labeled with a No. 5 symbol at the bottom (recyclable) [Source: Starbucks], but many Starbucks don't even offer recycling.
The second major environmental issue includes the enormous amount of water that Starbucks uses. While the regular appliances like dishwashers and sinks use a large amount of water, the biggest waster is the use of the dipper well method. The method uses a continuous stream of fresh running water to rinse away food residue, to keep utensils clean and prevent bacterial growth [Source: Starbucks], however this method wastes about 6 million gallons of water a day [Source: ABC News].
Starbucks' Initiative
Earlier in 2009, Starbucks responded to these concerns. Partnered with EarthWatch, Starbucks is looking to make all of their cups completely recyclable and actually offer recycling in store [Source: Starbucks]. While it won't be until 2015 that all Starbucks offer these cups, many are taking the initiative to reduce the amount of paper and plastic waste. In fact, in Manhattan, seven stores took part in a cup recycling pilot program offered by the Green Global USA’s Coalition for Resource Recovery (CoRR). The paper cups will be collected and and combined with old corrugated cardboard for recycling [Source: Earth911]. For those planning to stay at Starbucks, the company plans on reintroducing "for here" ceramic cups in stores by 2010, and they also offer $0.10 to people who bring in their own mugs [Source: GreenBiz].
Starbucks has also addressed their water usage and in 2009 they plan to have a complete water footrpint audit to see how much water they are actually using. At the moment, while many stores are still using the dipper well method, many have converted to high pressure dishwashers that use a fraction of the water (less than one gallon per cycle) and train their employees to to keep the refrigeration coils on ice machines clean. This reduces the amount of latent heat that would make ice melt faster [Source: Starbucks]. The company has actually reduced their water usage from 26 gallons/SF in 2006 to 24 in 2008 [Source: Environmental Leader].
But Starbucks is going above and beyond the call of duty and has an entire environmental initiative to make their stores even more environmentally friendly. Earlier this year, three flagship stores, two in Seattle and one in Paris, set the standard for the store. Rather than demolishing and throwing out materials from the previous tenants, Starbucks is actually reusing these items to create chains that have individuality and reflect their respective neighborhoods. But it's not just about reclaiming the materials, Starbucks is seeking LEED certification for all new company-owned stores beginning next year and, in conjunction with 3Degrees, also buys wind renewable energy certificates for more than 211 million kilowatt hours. This actually makes Starbucks one of the largest purchasers of green energy in the US [Source: Environmental Leader]. But they don't stop there. In November of 2009 Starbucks announced that they would switch over standard bulbs to LEDs in over 8,000 locations, allowing them to consume 10% less electricity. This is part of a larger goal to cut energy consumption by 25% by the end of 2010 [Source: Treehugger].
While many consumers and environmentalists have denounced Starbucks in the past, it appears that they have answered almost all of their customers' concerns. It remains to be seen if all of they meet all of these goals, but Starbucks has definitely moved beyond their greenwashing methods of the past.
Read more: starbucks, environment & wildlife, starbucks green initiative, starbucks eco-friendly
Otto V. says
Nov 22, 2009 9:04 AM
If the service would improve, coffee sales would improve especially in the South Bay areas of California.
Natasha S. says
Nov 22, 2009 8:30 AM
Every little bit helps in restoring health to the planet. I especially like the $.10 discount for bringing one's own cup - for many that will be a savings of $.50/week - $2.00 per month - $24.00 per year - or more and 300 paper cups saved. "Pas mal", as the french say. So, I guess I can be thankful for the little things.
Could Starbucks do more? Sure. Will they? That would be very nice. At least they are taking steps in the right direction. Now, if they would pay their baristas more and accept lower corporate profits, that would be even better.
It's the old battle of finding a balance between money and humanity. Which one do we value more? And I say we, because where each of us spend our money determines which side of the balance carries more weight/importance/influence.
Freya The Wanderer says
Nov 22, 2009 8:20 AM
We need to thank Starbucks with our bucks. As long as they continue to go green, we should buy lattes, or at least cups of tea, there.
Wowsux S. says
Nov 22, 2009 7:25 AM
This is the same Starbucks that refused to donate coffee to our troops?
No, after having to read their political sayings on the sides of the cups, I have purchased my last Starbucks anything. They should have stuck to selling coffee and kept their politics off the product.
There are other places to get a cup of coffee, my kitchen for instance.
Jo Fuller says
Nov 22, 2009 7:19 AM
At least this is a start!! More companies should take heed.
PL T. says
Nov 22, 2009 7:07 AM
It's a good start, and I applaud their current and future efforts, especially the Fair Trade coffees. But until Starbucks expedites and actually manifests their green mission, my family and I will choose an independent coffee shop 8x/10.
I say this because we are not all that enamored with their service. It's too variable! Some baristas (and I use the term loosely, since they really don't pull the shots any more) are refreshingly cordial, while others are sullen and condescending - definitely not the OTC personality that belongs in the service industry. Generation X'er's may not care, but we Boomer's prefer a pleasant and polite affect with our expensive coffee.
And while we're on the topic of service - ENOUGH WITH THE UP$ELL! It's a transparent ploy to $ell $omething el$e, and it's obvious that we are not being informed about anything special, only being leaned on to buy more,more,more. So unless the customer is blind, the pastries, etc, are right there in plain view - if we wanted something other than what we ordered, we're capable of saying so.
I realize this annoying practice is not limited to Starbucks, but ditching the 'upsell' sure would be a great improvement there, because good service that backs up a good 'green' product will influence the decision as to where I buy my coffee - and anything else, for that matter.
Marthe B. says
Nov 22, 2009 5:44 AM
starbucks is my favorite place for having a fresh delicious coffee,workers there are nice and friendly and i really would participate more if they'd ask people to bring their own mug,tissues are now made from recycable paper,i wish more details on the coffee packs about fair trade,all their coffee should be from fair trade,i hope they'll do more and more,for peace too:)in palestine and israel
Chad M. says
Nov 22, 2009 5:36 AM
This a start, I guess. But why didn't they start this sooner? Yet another corporate company that is only concerned about profits and nothing else. Yes, profits are needed to stay in business but there are other concerns, as well. The environment is everything and companies like Starbucks need to pay more attention to this. Like most big companies, they'll just enough to shut people up. Sorry, Starbucks, but you haven't done enough to pull me away from my locally owned, much smaller, and much, much greener, coffee shop.
Vladimir Kotenev says
Nov 22, 2009 5:35 AM
Starbuch green strategies claims are fake since I know Starbucks corporate people. It is fishy!
Christoph Wuth says
Nov 22, 2009 5:23 AM
$tarbucks should offer an attractive discount to patrons who pour their coffee in their own cup, and clean up afterwards.
Comment
My local starbucks does allow me to have their old coffee grounds to put in my garden and on my lawn from time to time, but there is a LOT more they could be doing. All of their drink cups could, and should, be recycled. I have spoken to them and they say they really cant do any recycling until corporate okays it. Thats hard to understand because other Starbucks stores 5 miles away recycle regularly. The folks at Starbucks seem to be willing, as they say they have a lot of cardboard and plastic milk cartons that could be recycled, but arent.
posted by: Jasmine Greene 16 hours ago
Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
19 comments
2009 marked a significant change for Starbucks. It's not just because of their net profit loss this year or the fact that they closed hundreds of stores. Starbucks has taken the initiative to build greener and more individualistic chains.
Environmental Controversies
While Starbucks has not been the center of many environmental debates, there are two notable cases where environmental advocates voiced their discontent. The first case was in regards to their cups. The hot cups are made out of 10% post-consumer waste, the plastic lining around the cup actually makes them non-recyclable. Where do all these cups go then? Into the landfill. In fact 2 billion Starbucks cups land in trash [Source: GreenDaily]. Even the plastic cups, which were modified in 2008, are not practical. Sure, they are made of polypropylene (PP), which uses 15 percent less plastic than the average PET cups and emit 45 percent less greenhouse gasses during their production. These PP cups are labeled with a No. 5 symbol at the bottom (recyclable) [Source: Starbucks], but many Starbucks don't even offer recycling.
The second major environmental issue includes the enormous amount of water that Starbucks uses. While the regular appliances like dishwashers and sinks use a large amount of water, the biggest waster is the use of the dipper well method. The method uses a continuous stream of fresh running water to rinse away food residue, to keep utensils clean and prevent bacterial growth [Source: Starbucks], however this method wastes about 6 million gallons of water a day [Source: ABC News].
Starbucks' Initiative
Earlier in 2009, Starbucks responded to these concerns. Partnered with EarthWatch, Starbucks is looking to make all of their cups completely recyclable and actually offer recycling in store [Source: Starbucks]. While it won't be until 2015 that all Starbucks offer these cups, many are taking the initiative to reduce the amount of paper and plastic waste. In fact, in Manhattan, seven stores took part in a cup recycling pilot program offered by the Green Global USA’s Coalition for Resource Recovery (CoRR). The paper cups will be collected and and combined with old corrugated cardboard for recycling [Source: Earth911]. For those planning to stay at Starbucks, the company plans on reintroducing "for here" ceramic cups in stores by 2010, and they also offer $0.10 to people who bring in their own mugs [Source: GreenBiz].
Starbucks has also addressed their water usage and in 2009 they plan to have a complete water footrpint audit to see how much water they are actually using. At the moment, while many stores are still using the dipper well method, many have converted to high pressure dishwashers that use a fraction of the water (less than one gallon per cycle) and train their employees to to keep the refrigeration coils on ice machines clean. This reduces the amount of latent heat that would make ice melt faster [Source: Starbucks]. The company has actually reduced their water usage from 26 gallons/SF in 2006 to 24 in 2008 [Source: Environmental Leader].
But Starbucks is going above and beyond the call of duty and has an entire environmental initiative to make their stores even more environmentally friendly. Earlier this year, three flagship stores, two in Seattle and one in Paris, set the standard for the store. Rather than demolishing and throwing out materials from the previous tenants, Starbucks is actually reusing these items to create chains that have individuality and reflect their respective neighborhoods. But it's not just about reclaiming the materials, Starbucks is seeking LEED certification for all new company-owned stores beginning next year and, in conjunction with 3Degrees, also buys wind renewable energy certificates for more than 211 million kilowatt hours. This actually makes Starbucks one of the largest purchasers of green energy in the US [Source: Environmental Leader]. But they don't stop there. In November of 2009 Starbucks announced that they would switch over standard bulbs to LEDs in over 8,000 locations, allowing them to consume 10% less electricity. This is part of a larger goal to cut energy consumption by 25% by the end of 2010 [Source: Treehugger].
While many consumers and environmentalists have denounced Starbucks in the past, it appears that they have answered almost all of their customers' concerns. It remains to be seen if all of they meet all of these goals, but Starbucks has definitely moved beyond their greenwashing methods of the past.
Read more: starbucks, environment & wildlife, starbucks green initiative, starbucks eco-friendly
Otto V. says
Nov 22, 2009 9:04 AM
If the service would improve, coffee sales would improve especially in the South Bay areas of California.
Natasha S. says
Nov 22, 2009 8:30 AM
Every little bit helps in restoring health to the planet. I especially like the $.10 discount for bringing one's own cup - for many that will be a savings of $.50/week - $2.00 per month - $24.00 per year - or more and 300 paper cups saved. "Pas mal", as the french say. So, I guess I can be thankful for the little things.
Could Starbucks do more? Sure. Will they? That would be very nice. At least they are taking steps in the right direction. Now, if they would pay their baristas more and accept lower corporate profits, that would be even better.
It's the old battle of finding a balance between money and humanity. Which one do we value more? And I say we, because where each of us spend our money determines which side of the balance carries more weight/importance/influence.
Freya The Wanderer says
Nov 22, 2009 8:20 AM
We need to thank Starbucks with our bucks. As long as they continue to go green, we should buy lattes, or at least cups of tea, there.
Wowsux S. says
Nov 22, 2009 7:25 AM
This is the same Starbucks that refused to donate coffee to our troops?
No, after having to read their political sayings on the sides of the cups, I have purchased my last Starbucks anything. They should have stuck to selling coffee and kept their politics off the product.
There are other places to get a cup of coffee, my kitchen for instance.
Jo Fuller says
Nov 22, 2009 7:19 AM
At least this is a start!! More companies should take heed.
PL T. says
Nov 22, 2009 7:07 AM
It's a good start, and I applaud their current and future efforts, especially the Fair Trade coffees. But until Starbucks expedites and actually manifests their green mission, my family and I will choose an independent coffee shop 8x/10.
I say this because we are not all that enamored with their service. It's too variable! Some baristas (and I use the term loosely, since they really don't pull the shots any more) are refreshingly cordial, while others are sullen and condescending - definitely not the OTC personality that belongs in the service industry. Generation X'er's may not care, but we Boomer's prefer a pleasant and polite affect with our expensive coffee.
And while we're on the topic of service - ENOUGH WITH THE UP$ELL! It's a transparent ploy to $ell $omething el$e, and it's obvious that we are not being informed about anything special, only being leaned on to buy more,more,more. So unless the customer is blind, the pastries, etc, are right there in plain view - if we wanted something other than what we ordered, we're capable of saying so.
I realize this annoying practice is not limited to Starbucks, but ditching the 'upsell' sure would be a great improvement there, because good service that backs up a good 'green' product will influence the decision as to where I buy my coffee - and anything else, for that matter.
Marthe B. says
Nov 22, 2009 5:44 AM
starbucks is my favorite place for having a fresh delicious coffee,workers there are nice and friendly and i really would participate more if they'd ask people to bring their own mug,tissues are now made from recycable paper,i wish more details on the coffee packs about fair trade,all their coffee should be from fair trade,i hope they'll do more and more,for peace too:)in palestine and israel
Chad M. says
Nov 22, 2009 5:36 AM
This a start, I guess. But why didn't they start this sooner? Yet another corporate company that is only concerned about profits and nothing else. Yes, profits are needed to stay in business but there are other concerns, as well. The environment is everything and companies like Starbucks need to pay more attention to this. Like most big companies, they'll just enough to shut people up. Sorry, Starbucks, but you haven't done enough to pull me away from my locally owned, much smaller, and much, much greener, coffee shop.
Vladimir Kotenev says
Nov 22, 2009 5:35 AM
Starbuch green strategies claims are fake since I know Starbucks corporate people. It is fishy!
Christoph Wuth says
Nov 22, 2009 5:23 AM
$tarbucks should offer an attractive discount to patrons who pour their coffee in their own cup, and clean up afterwards.
Comment
My local starbucks does allow me to have their old coffee grounds to put in my garden and on my lawn from time to time, but there is a LOT more they could be doing. All of their drink cups could, and should, be recycled. I have spoken to them and they say they really cant do any recycling until corporate okays it. Thats hard to understand because other Starbucks stores 5 miles away recycle regularly. The folks at Starbucks seem to be willing, as they say they have a lot of cardboard and plastic milk cartons that could be recycled, but arent.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Daimler Brings Car-Sharing to the Lone Star State
Daimler Brings Car-Sharing to the Lone Star State
By Tony Borroz November 18, 2009 | 3:20 pm | Categories: Infrastructure, Mass Transit
Swing by Austin, Texas next year, and you’ll see people driving Smart cars they don’t even own. Daimler’s finalized a deal to bring car-sharing to the Texas capital, something we told you was in the works back in March.
Austin will be the American showcase for car2go and an experiment to see how car sharing plays out here in the states. Yes, we know about Zipcar, but car2go is aimed more at a business-to-business model. Or more accurately it’s a business-to-government model, since car2go will be in a partnership with the City of Austin aimed at providing personal, on-demand mobility for more than 13,000 city employees.
This first phase starts with 200 smart fortwo vehicles and a defined group of users, namely, city employees. Car2go aims to increase the number of vehicles at some point in 2010 and make them accessible to everyone. The goal is to make city driving as easy as using a mobile phone, planning for the system to be easy, flexible, reasonably priced and work as a progressive solution to growing challenges of urban mobility.
The car sharing system is fairly uncomplicated. The fortwos are available 24/7 to all members. Members can grab any available vehicle on the street, or, if you’re one of those plan ahead sorts, you can reserve a car online ahead of time.
Being able to use a “car on demand” is a significant difference from traditional car-sharing programs like Zipcar, and another big difference is that car2go allows you to use the vehicle for as long as you like without committing to a specific return time. Also, car2go allows users to make one way trips. Charges are not based on distance, but on time, with rates starting by the minute.
“Car2go is an innovative answer to current and future mobility needs in urban areas. We are pleased with the success we achieved in Ulm, Germany – the first car2go city - and we are ready for the next logical step on our way to an international rollout,” says Daimler board member Dr. Thomas Weber.
Let’s see if Austin can do as well as Ulm, when car2go Smarts are rented as many as 500 to 1,000 times a day and used by 15,000 customers — the equivalent of more than 15 percent of city residents with a drivers license.
By Tony Borroz November 18, 2009 | 3:20 pm | Categories: Infrastructure, Mass Transit
Swing by Austin, Texas next year, and you’ll see people driving Smart cars they don’t even own. Daimler’s finalized a deal to bring car-sharing to the Texas capital, something we told you was in the works back in March.
Austin will be the American showcase for car2go and an experiment to see how car sharing plays out here in the states. Yes, we know about Zipcar, but car2go is aimed more at a business-to-business model. Or more accurately it’s a business-to-government model, since car2go will be in a partnership with the City of Austin aimed at providing personal, on-demand mobility for more than 13,000 city employees.
This first phase starts with 200 smart fortwo vehicles and a defined group of users, namely, city employees. Car2go aims to increase the number of vehicles at some point in 2010 and make them accessible to everyone. The goal is to make city driving as easy as using a mobile phone, planning for the system to be easy, flexible, reasonably priced and work as a progressive solution to growing challenges of urban mobility.
The car sharing system is fairly uncomplicated. The fortwos are available 24/7 to all members. Members can grab any available vehicle on the street, or, if you’re one of those plan ahead sorts, you can reserve a car online ahead of time.
Being able to use a “car on demand” is a significant difference from traditional car-sharing programs like Zipcar, and another big difference is that car2go allows you to use the vehicle for as long as you like without committing to a specific return time. Also, car2go allows users to make one way trips. Charges are not based on distance, but on time, with rates starting by the minute.
“Car2go is an innovative answer to current and future mobility needs in urban areas. We are pleased with the success we achieved in Ulm, Germany – the first car2go city - and we are ready for the next logical step on our way to an international rollout,” says Daimler board member Dr. Thomas Weber.
Let’s see if Austin can do as well as Ulm, when car2go Smarts are rented as many as 500 to 1,000 times a day and used by 15,000 customers — the equivalent of more than 15 percent of city residents with a drivers license.
Electric Smart Rolling Down the Line
Electric Smart Rolling Down the Line
By Tony Borroz November 19, 2009 | 3:15 pm | Categories: EVs and Hybrids
Drum roll please! The electric Smart ForTwo is officially underway at Daimler’s factory in Hambach, France.
From an urban mobility standpoint, there’s been a lot to love about the Smart from the get go. Although small, it’s built like a tank, it offers the comfort and convenience you’d expect and and it gets great mileage. But if you’re of a green bent and you want to get even better “mileage,” so to speak, the car for you arrives soon.
We’ve been following the Smart for awhile, from the new car-sharing program in Austin, Texas, to those crazy Dutch treating them like cows and taking Daimler to task for not offering the diesel Smart or hybrid version on this side of the Atlantic. Yeah, you can say we’re fans.
Like a lot of you, we’ve wanted to see the EV version of the fortwo as well. It makes total sense – because, let’s face it, the fortwo isn’t exactly a road trip kind of car. Around the city though, it makes total sense. So here comes the EV version — Tesla Motors helped with the drivetrain — off the assembly lines.
The first 1,000 customers to receive their Smart EVs, or Smart electric drive as they are officially called, will be participants in a variety of mobility projects in major cities in both Europe and the United States. Daimler is taking a page from BMW, which is doing the same thing with the Mini E. After Daimler gets feedback on electric driving under everyday conditions for the fortwo electric drive, it will be available to the general public in 2012.
“With the start of the series production of the smart fortwo electric drive, the Hambach plant enters a new era – at the same time, the smart fortwo emphasizes its pioneering role on the way to individual mobility with local zero-emissions in cities and urban areas,” said Marc Langenbrinck, managing director of Smart. “Its innovative battery-electric drive makes the smart fortwo electric drive the ideal vehicle for the city: it combines responsibility to the environment with driving fun and joie de vivre in a virtually perfect manner.”
This is the second-gen fortwo EV, but the first that isn’t strictly an R&D project. By the time 2012 rolls around and Daimler’s gotten feedback on how the little car performs in the real world, the Smart EV will be offered alongside other models in showrooms. Getting a practical, sorted city EV will be as hard as checking an option box on a sales form
By Tony Borroz November 19, 2009 | 3:15 pm | Categories: EVs and Hybrids
Drum roll please! The electric Smart ForTwo is officially underway at Daimler’s factory in Hambach, France.
From an urban mobility standpoint, there’s been a lot to love about the Smart from the get go. Although small, it’s built like a tank, it offers the comfort and convenience you’d expect and and it gets great mileage. But if you’re of a green bent and you want to get even better “mileage,” so to speak, the car for you arrives soon.
We’ve been following the Smart for awhile, from the new car-sharing program in Austin, Texas, to those crazy Dutch treating them like cows and taking Daimler to task for not offering the diesel Smart or hybrid version on this side of the Atlantic. Yeah, you can say we’re fans.
Like a lot of you, we’ve wanted to see the EV version of the fortwo as well. It makes total sense – because, let’s face it, the fortwo isn’t exactly a road trip kind of car. Around the city though, it makes total sense. So here comes the EV version — Tesla Motors helped with the drivetrain — off the assembly lines.
The first 1,000 customers to receive their Smart EVs, or Smart electric drive as they are officially called, will be participants in a variety of mobility projects in major cities in both Europe and the United States. Daimler is taking a page from BMW, which is doing the same thing with the Mini E. After Daimler gets feedback on electric driving under everyday conditions for the fortwo electric drive, it will be available to the general public in 2012.
“With the start of the series production of the smart fortwo electric drive, the Hambach plant enters a new era – at the same time, the smart fortwo emphasizes its pioneering role on the way to individual mobility with local zero-emissions in cities and urban areas,” said Marc Langenbrinck, managing director of Smart. “Its innovative battery-electric drive makes the smart fortwo electric drive the ideal vehicle for the city: it combines responsibility to the environment with driving fun and joie de vivre in a virtually perfect manner.”
This is the second-gen fortwo EV, but the first that isn’t strictly an R&D project. By the time 2012 rolls around and Daimler’s gotten feedback on how the little car performs in the real world, the Smart EV will be offered alongside other models in showrooms. Getting a practical, sorted city EV will be as hard as checking an option box on a sales form
Sugar Cane-Fueled Airliner On the Way
Sugar Cane-Fueled Airliner On the Way
By Jason Paur November 19, 2009 | 5:09 pm | Categories: Air Travel, Alt Fuel
Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer and General Electric are working with renewable fuel company Amyris to develop sugar cane-based jet fuel for airliners. They say a test flight by Brazilian airline Azul Linhas Aereas could come in early 2012.
It’s no surprise such an experiment would come in Brazil, which leads the world in the use of ethanol. The country’s sugar cane crop has led to widespread use of ethanol-powered vehicles, and Embraer produces an ethanol-powered crop duster. Sugar-based ethanol provides a better energy return than the much-debated corn ethanol common in the United States. This is the first effort to produce a sugar cane-based jet fuel for widespread use by the airlines.
Air New Zealand, Virgin, Continental and Japan Airlines have tested biofuels in Boeing aircraft. Airbus and JetBlue also are working together on alt fuels, and the Air Force wants alt-fuel too. Most biofuels have faced stiff criticism as the environmental costs of growing and producing the crops have been shown to offset some of the gains. But with airlines struggling with rising fuel costs and increased pressure on emissions, many are eager to find alternatives to petroleum.
Amyris’ synthetically derived biofuel doesn’t avoid the land use issues facing many biofuels, but it claims its technique of bioengineering microorganisms like yeast allows it to transform Brazil’s sugar cane into several renewable fuels including diesel and jet fuels.
By Jason Paur November 19, 2009 | 5:09 pm | Categories: Air Travel, Alt Fuel
Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer and General Electric are working with renewable fuel company Amyris to develop sugar cane-based jet fuel for airliners. They say a test flight by Brazilian airline Azul Linhas Aereas could come in early 2012.
It’s no surprise such an experiment would come in Brazil, which leads the world in the use of ethanol. The country’s sugar cane crop has led to widespread use of ethanol-powered vehicles, and Embraer produces an ethanol-powered crop duster. Sugar-based ethanol provides a better energy return than the much-debated corn ethanol common in the United States. This is the first effort to produce a sugar cane-based jet fuel for widespread use by the airlines.
Air New Zealand, Virgin, Continental and Japan Airlines have tested biofuels in Boeing aircraft. Airbus and JetBlue also are working together on alt fuels, and the Air Force wants alt-fuel too. Most biofuels have faced stiff criticism as the environmental costs of growing and producing the crops have been shown to offset some of the gains. But with airlines struggling with rising fuel costs and increased pressure on emissions, many are eager to find alternatives to petroleum.
Amyris’ synthetically derived biofuel doesn’t avoid the land use issues facing many biofuels, but it claims its technique of bioengineering microorganisms like yeast allows it to transform Brazil’s sugar cane into several renewable fuels including diesel and jet fuels.
Welcome to Iowa. Please Plug In Your Car.
Welcome to Iowa. Please Plug In Your Car.
By Chuck Squatriglia November 20, 2009 | 1:44 pm | Categories: EVs and Hybrids, Infrastructure
California is the birthplace of the coming EV invasion, but a tiny town in Iowa wants to be the birthplace of a “Pony Express” of charging stations that will keep those cars going.
Businessman Mike Howard has erected four charging stations in Elk Horn, a town of 650people about an hour east of Omaha. He has plans to install four more soon. No, that’s not many at all, and they’re in the middle of nowhere. But Howard says you’ve got to start somewhere, especially if you envision a network of charging stations stretching from Denver to Chicago along Interstate 80. He likens his network to the Pony Express.
“They had to have stations to continue on to deliver the mail,” Howard told the Associated Press. “This is a modern-day Pony Express.”
Many automakers are developing electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, and cars like the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf are expected by the end of next year. The big question has been where people are supposed to plug them in when they aren’t home. We’ve seen campaigns to create “charging corridors” spring up in California and Arizona, and of course Better Place has an ambitious plan for a charging infrastructure people would subscribe to. The Obama Administration is providing $3.4 billion in grants this year to spur development of EVs and bolster the grid.
But Howard wants to bring chargers to the heartland, even though there are, according to the AP, just 96 electric cars in Iowa and only one in Elk Horn.
“He’s definitely being progressive, but you know, somebody’s got to be first,” Pat Davis, program manager for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Vehicle Technologies, told the Associated Press.
Amen
By Chuck Squatriglia November 20, 2009 | 1:44 pm | Categories: EVs and Hybrids, Infrastructure
California is the birthplace of the coming EV invasion, but a tiny town in Iowa wants to be the birthplace of a “Pony Express” of charging stations that will keep those cars going.
Businessman Mike Howard has erected four charging stations in Elk Horn, a town of 650people about an hour east of Omaha. He has plans to install four more soon. No, that’s not many at all, and they’re in the middle of nowhere. But Howard says you’ve got to start somewhere, especially if you envision a network of charging stations stretching from Denver to Chicago along Interstate 80. He likens his network to the Pony Express.
“They had to have stations to continue on to deliver the mail,” Howard told the Associated Press. “This is a modern-day Pony Express.”
Many automakers are developing electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, and cars like the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf are expected by the end of next year. The big question has been where people are supposed to plug them in when they aren’t home. We’ve seen campaigns to create “charging corridors” spring up in California and Arizona, and of course Better Place has an ambitious plan for a charging infrastructure people would subscribe to. The Obama Administration is providing $3.4 billion in grants this year to spur development of EVs and bolster the grid.
But Howard wants to bring chargers to the heartland, even though there are, according to the AP, just 96 electric cars in Iowa and only one in Elk Horn.
“He’s definitely being progressive, but you know, somebody’s got to be first,” Pat Davis, program manager for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Vehicle Technologies, told the Associated Press.
Amen
Thursday, November 19, 2009
UK Government Soliciting Bids for £30M for Charging Points
UK Government Soliciting Bids for £30M for Charging Points; New Office for Low Emission Vehicles
19 November 2009
The UK Government is soliciting bids for £30 million (US$50 million) in funding to support the installation of plug-in vehicle charging points on streets, car parks and in commercial, retail and leisure facilities. This initiative—called Plugged-In Places—will support the development of between three and six electric car cities and regions across the UK which will act as trailblazers for electric car technology. The experiences of these locations will inform the future development of a national charging infrastructure.
Funding will be made available to consortia in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland made up of local authorities, businesses, electricity distributors and suppliers and other organizations like the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). The funds will be made available in two phases.
Winning consortia will need to show how their plans fit in with other Government objectives, like improving local air quality, and create local incentives to further encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.
Up to £10 million (US$16.6 million) of the funding is provided from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), through the Strategic Investment Fund, as announced in the Low Carbon Industrial Strategy in July 2009.
Overall, the Government is investing around £400 million ($665 million) to encourage the development, manufacture and use of next-generation ultra-low carbon vehicles. Delivered by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, this support is being targeted to create new jobs in a low carbon automotive sector and to cut carbon from UK road transport.
The UK can be a world leader in electric and low carbon cars which is why the Government has already committed around £400 million of support to encourage development and uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles. Our aim is for electric and low carbon cars to be an everyday feature of life on UK’s roads in less than five years. There is still a lot of work to be done, however Plugged-In Places is one very significant step putting us firmly on the path to a low carbon future.
—Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis
The total number and location of charging infrastructure supported by this initiative will depend on local plans and requirements. The intention is that successful applicants will match the Government’s investment.
These plans build on existing measures to support alternative fuels. The UK Government also announced the seven schemes that will benefit from £500,000 (US$831,000) of funding through the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Grant Program. These schemes will see the provision of 72 electric charging points and four gas refuelling stations in areas across England.
=
The Office for Low Emission Vehicles. The Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV), which will deliver the Plugged-In Places Infrastructure Framework, is a new cross- Government team, bringing together existing policy and funding streams to drive policy delivery. Located within the Department for Transport, it incorporates policies, people and funding from DfT, BIS and DECC.
OLEV’s priorities will be accelerating the uptake and delivering ultra low carbon vehicles into the UK transport mix, with a focus on the opportunities that this will have for UK business
Comment
UK seems to be taking the lead in providing the infrastructure for plug-in vehicles.
19 November 2009
The UK Government is soliciting bids for £30 million (US$50 million) in funding to support the installation of plug-in vehicle charging points on streets, car parks and in commercial, retail and leisure facilities. This initiative—called Plugged-In Places—will support the development of between three and six electric car cities and regions across the UK which will act as trailblazers for electric car technology. The experiences of these locations will inform the future development of a national charging infrastructure.
Funding will be made available to consortia in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland made up of local authorities, businesses, electricity distributors and suppliers and other organizations like the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). The funds will be made available in two phases.
Winning consortia will need to show how their plans fit in with other Government objectives, like improving local air quality, and create local incentives to further encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.
Up to £10 million (US$16.6 million) of the funding is provided from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), through the Strategic Investment Fund, as announced in the Low Carbon Industrial Strategy in July 2009.
Overall, the Government is investing around £400 million ($665 million) to encourage the development, manufacture and use of next-generation ultra-low carbon vehicles. Delivered by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, this support is being targeted to create new jobs in a low carbon automotive sector and to cut carbon from UK road transport.
The UK can be a world leader in electric and low carbon cars which is why the Government has already committed around £400 million of support to encourage development and uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles. Our aim is for electric and low carbon cars to be an everyday feature of life on UK’s roads in less than five years. There is still a lot of work to be done, however Plugged-In Places is one very significant step putting us firmly on the path to a low carbon future.
—Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis
The total number and location of charging infrastructure supported by this initiative will depend on local plans and requirements. The intention is that successful applicants will match the Government’s investment.
These plans build on existing measures to support alternative fuels. The UK Government also announced the seven schemes that will benefit from £500,000 (US$831,000) of funding through the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Grant Program. These schemes will see the provision of 72 electric charging points and four gas refuelling stations in areas across England.
=
The Office for Low Emission Vehicles. The Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV), which will deliver the Plugged-In Places Infrastructure Framework, is a new cross- Government team, bringing together existing policy and funding streams to drive policy delivery. Located within the Department for Transport, it incorporates policies, people and funding from DfT, BIS and DECC.
OLEV’s priorities will be accelerating the uptake and delivering ultra low carbon vehicles into the UK transport mix, with a focus on the opportunities that this will have for UK business
Comment
UK seems to be taking the lead in providing the infrastructure for plug-in vehicles.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Calif. to require greener TVs
Reality show: Calif. to require greener TVs
Goal to reduce energy use is opposed by retailers, some manufacturers
High-definition debate
Nov. 16: NBC's Lee Cowan reports on the debate in California ahead of the decision to require greener HDTVs.
Spare Sarah Palin the self-righteousness
Police: Girl, 15, dug grave anticipating killing
$40,000 left at holy site — for safekeeping
CBO: Senate health plan to cost $849 billion
Reality show: Calif. to require greener TVs
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Fabled Foreign Legion finds a new war to fight
Health reform's human stories
Slain N.C. girl’s aunt says mom was neglectful
Bankers' whining about pay hits a nerve
Tiny insect brains can solve big problems
Most viewed on msnbc.com
$40,000 left at holy site — for safekeeping
Police: Girl, 15, dug grave anticipating killing
Kellogg warns: Brace for an Eggo shortage
IBM computer simulates cat’s cerebral cortex
Calif. budget deficit could reach $21 billion
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 3:29 p.m. ET, Wed., Nov . 18, 2009
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Most power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators adopted a first-in-the nation mandate to lower electricity demand. Given how large the California market is, the regulation could end up as a de facto national standard.
On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission on Wednesday required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, and only a quarter of all TVs on the market currently meet that standard.
The California Energy Commission estimates that TVs account for about 10 percent of a home's electricity use. The concern is that the energy draw will rise by as much as 8 percent a year as consumers buy larger televisions, add more to their homes and watch them more often.
Commissioners say energy efficiency standards are the cheapest and easiest way to save electricity.
"We have every confidence this industry will be able to meet the rule and then some," Energy Commissioner Julia Levin said. "It will save consumers money, it will help protect public health, and it will spark innovation."
Utilities and environmental groups say the TV standards, which mirror the federal standards for TVs awarded the Energy Star label, should head off steep increases in home electricity use and rising electric bills.
TV maker OK with rule
Nov. 16: Kenneth Lowe, co-founder of TV maker Vizio, says his company can meet the rule.
"This is a really big deal, because once standards are in effect it will cut California's power bill by $1 billion a year and avoid the need to build a large, 500megawatt power plant," said Noah Horowitz, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We hope in the long term, every TV sold in America will be just as efficient as those sold in California."
Televisions account for about 2 percent of California's overall electricity use. Requiring them to be more energy efficient would save enough electricity to power 864,000 single-family homes a year in California by 2023. That's enough for Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale and Palo Alto combined.
An energy-efficient TV would save a household roughly $30 a year per set in lowered electricity costs. If all 35 million TVs watched in the state were replaced with more efficient sets, Californians would save $8.1 billion over 10 years, according to the Energy Commission report.
The electricity savings could also help California meet the goals of its 2006 global warming law, which calls for the state to cut greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020.
State retailers feel threatened
Some manufacturers say implementing a power standard will cripple innovation, limit consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could simply buy TVs out of state or order them online.
The standards would apply to all TVs up to 58 inches, allowing increasing power use for larger TVs.
For example, all new 42-inch television sets must use less than 183 watts by 2011 and less than 116 watts by 2013. That's considerably more efficient than flat-screen TVs placed on the market in recent years.
Retailer against
Nov. 16: Steve Caldero, a TV retail store executive, weighs in on the debate.
Nightly News
A 42-inch Hitachi plasma TV sold in 2007 uses 313 watts while a 42-inch Sharp Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TV draws 232 watts, according to Energy Commission research.
LCDs now account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California annually.
Some televisions already meet the early standards imposed under the rule approved Wednesday. About three-quarters of the TVs — more than 1,050 models — sold today comply with the 2011 California standards, and more than 300 comply with the 2013 standard, according to the Energy Commission.
Industry representatives have said the standards would force manufacturers to make televisions that have poorer picture quality and fewer features than those sold elsewhere in the U.S.
TVs larger than 58 inches would not be covered under the rule, a concession to independent retailers that sell high-end home-theater TVs. Those sets account for no more than 3 percent of the market.
Commissioners are expected to regulate them in the future.
California has previously led the nation in setting efficiency requirements for dishwashers, washing machines and other household appliances as a way to address the state's growing electricity demand.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the commission’s action as another signal of California’s leadership on environmental matters. He noted that the state’s per-capita electricity consumption has remained flat over the last three decades while energy consumption nationwide has increased.
“I applaud the commission for its hard work to enact these and other cost-effective energy efficiency standards that are not only great for the environment, but also good for consumers,” the governor said in a statement.
Goal to reduce energy use is opposed by retailers, some manufacturers
High-definition debate
Nov. 16: NBC's Lee Cowan reports on the debate in California ahead of the decision to require greener HDTVs.
Spare Sarah Palin the self-righteousness
Police: Girl, 15, dug grave anticipating killing
$40,000 left at holy site — for safekeeping
CBO: Senate health plan to cost $849 billion
Reality show: Calif. to require greener TVs
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Fabled Foreign Legion finds a new war to fight
Health reform's human stories
Slain N.C. girl’s aunt says mom was neglectful
Bankers' whining about pay hits a nerve
Tiny insect brains can solve big problems
Most viewed on msnbc.com
$40,000 left at holy site — for safekeeping
Police: Girl, 15, dug grave anticipating killing
Kellogg warns: Brace for an Eggo shortage
IBM computer simulates cat’s cerebral cortex
Calif. budget deficit could reach $21 billion
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 3:29 p.m. ET, Wed., Nov . 18, 2009
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Most power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators adopted a first-in-the nation mandate to lower electricity demand. Given how large the California market is, the regulation could end up as a de facto national standard.
On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission on Wednesday required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, and only a quarter of all TVs on the market currently meet that standard.
The California Energy Commission estimates that TVs account for about 10 percent of a home's electricity use. The concern is that the energy draw will rise by as much as 8 percent a year as consumers buy larger televisions, add more to their homes and watch them more often.
Commissioners say energy efficiency standards are the cheapest and easiest way to save electricity.
"We have every confidence this industry will be able to meet the rule and then some," Energy Commissioner Julia Levin said. "It will save consumers money, it will help protect public health, and it will spark innovation."
Utilities and environmental groups say the TV standards, which mirror the federal standards for TVs awarded the Energy Star label, should head off steep increases in home electricity use and rising electric bills.
TV maker OK with rule
Nov. 16: Kenneth Lowe, co-founder of TV maker Vizio, says his company can meet the rule.
"This is a really big deal, because once standards are in effect it will cut California's power bill by $1 billion a year and avoid the need to build a large, 500megawatt power plant," said Noah Horowitz, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We hope in the long term, every TV sold in America will be just as efficient as those sold in California."
Televisions account for about 2 percent of California's overall electricity use. Requiring them to be more energy efficient would save enough electricity to power 864,000 single-family homes a year in California by 2023. That's enough for Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale and Palo Alto combined.
An energy-efficient TV would save a household roughly $30 a year per set in lowered electricity costs. If all 35 million TVs watched in the state were replaced with more efficient sets, Californians would save $8.1 billion over 10 years, according to the Energy Commission report.
The electricity savings could also help California meet the goals of its 2006 global warming law, which calls for the state to cut greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020.
State retailers feel threatened
Some manufacturers say implementing a power standard will cripple innovation, limit consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could simply buy TVs out of state or order them online.
The standards would apply to all TVs up to 58 inches, allowing increasing power use for larger TVs.
For example, all new 42-inch television sets must use less than 183 watts by 2011 and less than 116 watts by 2013. That's considerably more efficient than flat-screen TVs placed on the market in recent years.
Retailer against
Nov. 16: Steve Caldero, a TV retail store executive, weighs in on the debate.
Nightly News
A 42-inch Hitachi plasma TV sold in 2007 uses 313 watts while a 42-inch Sharp Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TV draws 232 watts, according to Energy Commission research.
LCDs now account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California annually.
Some televisions already meet the early standards imposed under the rule approved Wednesday. About three-quarters of the TVs — more than 1,050 models — sold today comply with the 2011 California standards, and more than 300 comply with the 2013 standard, according to the Energy Commission.
Industry representatives have said the standards would force manufacturers to make televisions that have poorer picture quality and fewer features than those sold elsewhere in the U.S.
TVs larger than 58 inches would not be covered under the rule, a concession to independent retailers that sell high-end home-theater TVs. Those sets account for no more than 3 percent of the market.
Commissioners are expected to regulate them in the future.
California has previously led the nation in setting efficiency requirements for dishwashers, washing machines and other household appliances as a way to address the state's growing electricity demand.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the commission’s action as another signal of California’s leadership on environmental matters. He noted that the state’s per-capita electricity consumption has remained flat over the last three decades while energy consumption nationwide has increased.
“I applaud the commission for its hard work to enact these and other cost-effective energy efficiency standards that are not only great for the environment, but also good for consumers,” the governor said in a statement.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
GREEN Scam
allamericanpatriots.com :: Business
SEC Charges "Green" Investment Promoters With Operating Ponzi Scheme
Energy Environment Labor Obama Education ARRA By state more...
Posted on November 17th, 2009
Tagged: Business • Colorado • Crime • Denver • Finance • Fraud • Investing • Ponzi scheme • SEC
Washington, D.C., Nov. 16, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged four individuals and two companies involved in perpetrating a $30 million Ponzi scheme in which they persuaded more than 300 investors nationwide to participate in purported environmentally-friendly investment opportunities.
The SEC alleges that Wayde and Donna McKelvy, who were previously married and living in the Denver area, particularly targeted elderly investors or those approaching retirement age to finance such "green" initiatives of Pennsylvania-based Mantria Corporation as a supposed "carbon negative" housing community in rural Tennessee and a "biochar" charcoal substitute made from organic waste.
The McKelvys promoted Mantria investment opportunities through their Denver-based company Speed of Wealth LLC. With the help of two other promoters who are Mantria executives — Troy Wragg and Amanda Knorr of Philadelphia — they convinced investors attending seminars or participating in Internet "webinars" to liquidate their traditional investments such as retirement plans and home equity to instead invest in Mantria.
The SEC alleges that the "green" representations were laced with bogus claims, and investors were falsely promised enormous returns on their investments ranging from 17 percent to "hundreds of percent" annually. In fact, Mantria's environmental initiatives have not generated any significant cash, and any returns paid to investors have been funded almost exclusively from other investors' contributions.
"These promoters fraudulently exaggerated Mantria's green initiatives and used high-pressure tactics to convince investors to chase the promise of lucrative returns," said Don Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office. "In reality, the only green these promoters seemed interested in was investors' money."
The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Denver, charges Mantria and Speed of Wealth as well as the McKelvys, Wragg and Knorr, and seeks an emergency court order to freeze their assets. The SEC alleges that they overstated the scope and success of Mantria's operations in several ways to solicit investors. For instance, they claimed that Mantria was the world's leading manufacturer and distributor of biochar and had multiple facilities producing it at a rate of 25 tons per day. In fact, Mantria has never sold any biochar and has just one facility engaged in testing biochar for possible future commercial production. Furthermore, Mantria's only source of revenue has been from its resale of vacant lots for its purported residential communities in rural Tennessee, but those did not generate cash with which to pay investor returns because Mantria provided 100 percent financing for almost all of its vacant lot sales to buyers using other investors' funds.
According to the SEC's complaint, Speed of Wealth has frequently advertised its events through television, radio and print advertising as well as Internet marketing. At seminars and webinars sponsored by Speed of Wealth, Wayde McKelvy along with Wragg or Knorr generally conduct a two-part presentation in which they urge investors to liquidate all of their traditional investments, including individual retirement accounts, employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, mutual funds, stocks, bonds, and savings accounts. McKelvy also encourages investors to borrow as much as possible against home equity, parents' home equity, and business lines of credit. He then recommends that investors use all of their funds to invest in what he describes as the "consistent and safe" high-yield securities offered by Speed of Wealth and Mantria.
The SEC's complaint alleges that after Wragg or Knorr describe Mantria's purported operations and corresponding securities being offered, they market Speed of Wealth and Mantria securities with high-pressure tactics. They frequently offer short-term incentives and bonuses in various programs to induce investors to "pledge" their investments, or to induce those who have pledged to send in their money immediately. In seminars, webinars, and conference calls, Wayde McKelvy often calls upon past investors to provide "testimonials" about their receipt of high returns from past programs. McKelvy and Wragg also tout the safety and security of Mantria's securities based on collateral consisting of deeds of trust given to investors on Mantria's Tennessee rural land holdings. Wragg even tells potential investors that because of the valuable collateral, investors may make more money on their investments if Mantria defaults than if Mantria makes the promised payments. The promoters frequently allude to Mantria's imminent closing of sales worth hundreds of millions of dollars, initial public offerings of securities that are "sure to come" and "sure to be a very huge Wall Street hit", or upcoming investments by "Wall Street."
The SEC alleges that Mantria and Speed of Wealth used investor funds to pay returns to other investors in typical Ponzi scheme fashion. Mantria and Speed of Wealth also did not tell investors that they kept a significant amount of their funds to generously pay commissions of 12.5 percent to the McKelvys.
The SEC's complaint charges each of the defendants with violating the antifraud and offering registration provisions of the securities laws. The SEC also charged all of the defendants except for Mantria with violating broker-dealer registration requirements. The SEC seeks injunctions, disgorgement, and financial penalties from the defendants.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Securities, with which the Commission has coordinated its investigation. The SEC's investigation is continuing.
Source: SEC
Comment
Scammers come in all colors, I guess.
SEC Charges "Green" Investment Promoters With Operating Ponzi Scheme
Energy Environment Labor Obama Education ARRA By state more...
Posted on November 17th, 2009
Tagged: Business • Colorado • Crime • Denver • Finance • Fraud • Investing • Ponzi scheme • SEC
Washington, D.C., Nov. 16, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged four individuals and two companies involved in perpetrating a $30 million Ponzi scheme in which they persuaded more than 300 investors nationwide to participate in purported environmentally-friendly investment opportunities.
The SEC alleges that Wayde and Donna McKelvy, who were previously married and living in the Denver area, particularly targeted elderly investors or those approaching retirement age to finance such "green" initiatives of Pennsylvania-based Mantria Corporation as a supposed "carbon negative" housing community in rural Tennessee and a "biochar" charcoal substitute made from organic waste.
The McKelvys promoted Mantria investment opportunities through their Denver-based company Speed of Wealth LLC. With the help of two other promoters who are Mantria executives — Troy Wragg and Amanda Knorr of Philadelphia — they convinced investors attending seminars or participating in Internet "webinars" to liquidate their traditional investments such as retirement plans and home equity to instead invest in Mantria.
The SEC alleges that the "green" representations were laced with bogus claims, and investors were falsely promised enormous returns on their investments ranging from 17 percent to "hundreds of percent" annually. In fact, Mantria's environmental initiatives have not generated any significant cash, and any returns paid to investors have been funded almost exclusively from other investors' contributions.
"These promoters fraudulently exaggerated Mantria's green initiatives and used high-pressure tactics to convince investors to chase the promise of lucrative returns," said Don Hoerl, Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office. "In reality, the only green these promoters seemed interested in was investors' money."
The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Denver, charges Mantria and Speed of Wealth as well as the McKelvys, Wragg and Knorr, and seeks an emergency court order to freeze their assets. The SEC alleges that they overstated the scope and success of Mantria's operations in several ways to solicit investors. For instance, they claimed that Mantria was the world's leading manufacturer and distributor of biochar and had multiple facilities producing it at a rate of 25 tons per day. In fact, Mantria has never sold any biochar and has just one facility engaged in testing biochar for possible future commercial production. Furthermore, Mantria's only source of revenue has been from its resale of vacant lots for its purported residential communities in rural Tennessee, but those did not generate cash with which to pay investor returns because Mantria provided 100 percent financing for almost all of its vacant lot sales to buyers using other investors' funds.
According to the SEC's complaint, Speed of Wealth has frequently advertised its events through television, radio and print advertising as well as Internet marketing. At seminars and webinars sponsored by Speed of Wealth, Wayde McKelvy along with Wragg or Knorr generally conduct a two-part presentation in which they urge investors to liquidate all of their traditional investments, including individual retirement accounts, employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, mutual funds, stocks, bonds, and savings accounts. McKelvy also encourages investors to borrow as much as possible against home equity, parents' home equity, and business lines of credit. He then recommends that investors use all of their funds to invest in what he describes as the "consistent and safe" high-yield securities offered by Speed of Wealth and Mantria.
The SEC's complaint alleges that after Wragg or Knorr describe Mantria's purported operations and corresponding securities being offered, they market Speed of Wealth and Mantria securities with high-pressure tactics. They frequently offer short-term incentives and bonuses in various programs to induce investors to "pledge" their investments, or to induce those who have pledged to send in their money immediately. In seminars, webinars, and conference calls, Wayde McKelvy often calls upon past investors to provide "testimonials" about their receipt of high returns from past programs. McKelvy and Wragg also tout the safety and security of Mantria's securities based on collateral consisting of deeds of trust given to investors on Mantria's Tennessee rural land holdings. Wragg even tells potential investors that because of the valuable collateral, investors may make more money on their investments if Mantria defaults than if Mantria makes the promised payments. The promoters frequently allude to Mantria's imminent closing of sales worth hundreds of millions of dollars, initial public offerings of securities that are "sure to come" and "sure to be a very huge Wall Street hit", or upcoming investments by "Wall Street."
The SEC alleges that Mantria and Speed of Wealth used investor funds to pay returns to other investors in typical Ponzi scheme fashion. Mantria and Speed of Wealth also did not tell investors that they kept a significant amount of their funds to generously pay commissions of 12.5 percent to the McKelvys.
The SEC's complaint charges each of the defendants with violating the antifraud and offering registration provisions of the securities laws. The SEC also charged all of the defendants except for Mantria with violating broker-dealer registration requirements. The SEC seeks injunctions, disgorgement, and financial penalties from the defendants.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Securities, with which the Commission has coordinated its investigation. The SEC's investigation is continuing.
Source: SEC
Comment
Scammers come in all colors, I guess.
GE and China Ministry of Railways Sign Strategic Agreement
GE and China Ministry of Railways Sign Strategic MOU to Advance High-Speed Rail Opportunities in the US
17 November 2009
GE and China’s Ministry of Railways signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to jointly advance high-speed rail (HSR) opportunities in the United States. This collaboration will allow GE Transportation to be the first US locomotive manufacturer to more effectively compete for high-speed rail projects against global competitors.
While GE currently is the world leader in locomotive diesel-electric and electronic control systems technology, China currently is a leader in high-speed rail technology for speeds of 220 miles per hour. Working together, both parties could develop the best solutions faster to serve America’s high-speed rail needs for many years to come.
—Tim Schweikert, President of GE Transportation China
More than $13 billion will be spent over the next five years to support higher- and high-speed rail infrastructure development in the United States. Over the next three years, China will invest about $300 billion into its railways infrastructure, expanding its network by more than 20,000 kilometers (12,427 miles), including 13,000kilometers (8,077 miles) of track designed for high-speed trains capable of traveling up to 220 miles per hour.
GE currently is working with China’s largest diesel locomotive manufacturing company, CSR Qishuyan Locomotive Co., Ltd., to provide China’s Ministry of Railways with the most technologically advanced, fuel-efficient and low-emissions diesel-electric, heavy-haul locomotive available to date. More than 100 of these locomotives already have been placed in revenue service by the MOR.
17 November 2009
GE and China’s Ministry of Railways signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to jointly advance high-speed rail (HSR) opportunities in the United States. This collaboration will allow GE Transportation to be the first US locomotive manufacturer to more effectively compete for high-speed rail projects against global competitors.
While GE currently is the world leader in locomotive diesel-electric and electronic control systems technology, China currently is a leader in high-speed rail technology for speeds of 220 miles per hour. Working together, both parties could develop the best solutions faster to serve America’s high-speed rail needs for many years to come.
—Tim Schweikert, President of GE Transportation China
More than $13 billion will be spent over the next five years to support higher- and high-speed rail infrastructure development in the United States. Over the next three years, China will invest about $300 billion into its railways infrastructure, expanding its network by more than 20,000 kilometers (12,427 miles), including 13,000kilometers (8,077 miles) of track designed for high-speed trains capable of traveling up to 220 miles per hour.
GE currently is working with China’s largest diesel locomotive manufacturing company, CSR Qishuyan Locomotive Co., Ltd., to provide China’s Ministry of Railways with the most technologically advanced, fuel-efficient and low-emissions diesel-electric, heavy-haul locomotive available to date. More than 100 of these locomotives already have been placed in revenue service by the MOR.
Environmental Economics
Think a tree is just a tree? Think again. A new United Nations study puts dollar signs on the services nature provides.
PHOTOS
Eco Catastrophes
The worst man-made environmental disasters
By Daniel Stone | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 13, 2009
Sum Total: Being Green Isn't New
Behind every statistic, there's a good story: facts and figures can add up to something greater than themselves.
With its legs buried underwater, the mangrove is a case study in evolutionary biology. Found mostly in coastal areas in the tropics, mangroves are essentially low-growing trees that blanket shallow waters with their roots. To small animals, the structures provide a haven and a food source. To the coastlines, they reduce the impact of raucous waves that could wash away beaches. Calculating what they do for humans, however, is a more dubious pursuit. They're nice to look at and cushion the impact of tsunamis, but if they disappeared, would there be a net loss?
From an economic standpoint, what mangroves or other local fauna contribute has long been considered about equal to what they take away: roughly, nothing. Rarely is there a calculus of wider ecosystem services, like water purification or, on a larger scale, carbon emissions that affect agriculture, medicinal research, and global fisheries. But a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme identifies the economic contribution of ecosystems and biodiversity as significant—and lucrative. Mangroves in Vietnam, it turns out, save annual expenditures on dike maintenance of more than $7 million. And in another example: it would cost $200 million to replicate the services provided by natural springs in New Zealand.
Commissioned by the G8 collection of environmental ministers, researchers on the project—labeled the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)—set out to attach dollar values to the planet's omnipresent structures and systems, which had long been considered an impossibility due to the number of variables involved. But measuring ecological contributions is becoming more feasible. By examining past data from industries that rely, directly or indirectly, on natural resources or systems, the analysts estimated the monetary equivalent of those resources or systems being wiped away. In one example, the plight of island communities dependent on fish protein and ecotourism can be measured. How? Researchers found that every hectare of coral reef—a modest area of land equal to just under two and a half acres—is worth more than $1 million annually.
Focus was set primarily on regional systems, in which a healthy ecology can affect everything from food and air quality to tourist revenue. It's not a perfect science, of course. "The answer may not be precise, but we know that the answer is not zero," says Pavan Sukhdev, who led the TEEB research. But by looking more closely at regional scenarios, researchers can make more precise estimates of how a community would be affected if a resource it relies on for food or protection would be wiped out. Developing countries are the most affected by the disruption of ecosystems because their lower financial resources cause them to rely more on the limited natural ones their land provides.
One solution would be to rope off threatened areas and species to let them recover from the effects of human meddling, though critics of such an idea would likely argue that restricting use of degraded areas would result in even more economic loss. But what struck Sukhdev and fellow researchers were the high ratios of return when conservation projects were undertaken. With agriculture alone, addressing problems with soil consistency or water contamination would pay substantial dividends, they found—an average global rate of return of $60 for every $1 invested. "There's certainly a range in some of the larger estimates, but the net return from conservation is higher when you protect these resources than when you exploit them economically," says Jeff Wise, director the Alliance for Global Conservation, a consortium of U.S. conservation groups.
The report is aimed at global policymakers, many of whom have begun to address new questions about the natural world and how to steer clear of tipping points that would result in ecological and economic devastation. The first step domestically, says Wise, is for the U.S. government to lay out a comprehensive conservation strategy that includes an accounting of economic values and risks. That may be easier said than done, but highlighting the financial green windfall of going green can only help.
PHOTOS
Eco Catastrophes
The worst man-made environmental disasters
By Daniel Stone | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 13, 2009
Sum Total: Being Green Isn't New
Behind every statistic, there's a good story: facts and figures can add up to something greater than themselves.
With its legs buried underwater, the mangrove is a case study in evolutionary biology. Found mostly in coastal areas in the tropics, mangroves are essentially low-growing trees that blanket shallow waters with their roots. To small animals, the structures provide a haven and a food source. To the coastlines, they reduce the impact of raucous waves that could wash away beaches. Calculating what they do for humans, however, is a more dubious pursuit. They're nice to look at and cushion the impact of tsunamis, but if they disappeared, would there be a net loss?
From an economic standpoint, what mangroves or other local fauna contribute has long been considered about equal to what they take away: roughly, nothing. Rarely is there a calculus of wider ecosystem services, like water purification or, on a larger scale, carbon emissions that affect agriculture, medicinal research, and global fisheries. But a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme identifies the economic contribution of ecosystems and biodiversity as significant—and lucrative. Mangroves in Vietnam, it turns out, save annual expenditures on dike maintenance of more than $7 million. And in another example: it would cost $200 million to replicate the services provided by natural springs in New Zealand.
Commissioned by the G8 collection of environmental ministers, researchers on the project—labeled the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)—set out to attach dollar values to the planet's omnipresent structures and systems, which had long been considered an impossibility due to the number of variables involved. But measuring ecological contributions is becoming more feasible. By examining past data from industries that rely, directly or indirectly, on natural resources or systems, the analysts estimated the monetary equivalent of those resources or systems being wiped away. In one example, the plight of island communities dependent on fish protein and ecotourism can be measured. How? Researchers found that every hectare of coral reef—a modest area of land equal to just under two and a half acres—is worth more than $1 million annually.
Focus was set primarily on regional systems, in which a healthy ecology can affect everything from food and air quality to tourist revenue. It's not a perfect science, of course. "The answer may not be precise, but we know that the answer is not zero," says Pavan Sukhdev, who led the TEEB research. But by looking more closely at regional scenarios, researchers can make more precise estimates of how a community would be affected if a resource it relies on for food or protection would be wiped out. Developing countries are the most affected by the disruption of ecosystems because their lower financial resources cause them to rely more on the limited natural ones their land provides.
One solution would be to rope off threatened areas and species to let them recover from the effects of human meddling, though critics of such an idea would likely argue that restricting use of degraded areas would result in even more economic loss. But what struck Sukhdev and fellow researchers were the high ratios of return when conservation projects were undertaken. With agriculture alone, addressing problems with soil consistency or water contamination would pay substantial dividends, they found—an average global rate of return of $60 for every $1 invested. "There's certainly a range in some of the larger estimates, but the net return from conservation is higher when you protect these resources than when you exploit them economically," says Jeff Wise, director the Alliance for Global Conservation, a consortium of U.S. conservation groups.
The report is aimed at global policymakers, many of whom have begun to address new questions about the natural world and how to steer clear of tipping points that would result in ecological and economic devastation. The first step domestically, says Wise, is for the U.S. government to lay out a comprehensive conservation strategy that includes an accounting of economic values and risks. That may be easier said than done, but highlighting the financial green windfall of going green can only help.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Networked 'smart plug' gets energy info flowing
November 9, 2009 4:35 AM PST
by Martin LaMonica 4 comments
What if you could better control home appliance energy use by making your wall socket more clever?
That's the idea behind TalkingPlug from Toronto-based Zerofootprint, a company that makes software for measuring and monitoring corporate carbon emissions.
TalkingPlug is a plug that fits on top of existing electrical outlets. But it's equipped with componentry to make it a controllable node on a network, including an RFID chip, microprocessor, and wireless networking. The company plans to introduce the product next week.
Zerofooprint's wireless plug, coupled with hosted software, is designed to let people view energy use and program appliances.
(Credit: Zerofootprint)
The "smart plugs" will be able to give detailed information on how much electricity individual appliances are using. Because it's programmable, people can also control appliances. For example, a person could have a TV set-top box turn off at midnight and turn on again at 7 in the morning.
A set of plugs create a mesh network and can send information via a home or office building router to Zerofootprint. The company's software processes and analyzes the data, showing people how the energy use compares to others.
"It will completely transform our world when plugs talk to each other and interact with each other," said Ron Dembo, the CEO of Zerofootprint.
For residential customers, it makes most sense to use plugs for areas that draw a lot of power, such entertainment centers and home computers, Dembo said. He estimated the cost is about $50 now but he expects that price would drop significantly if made at larger scale.
The company has built early versions of the product and is seeking companies willing to test it out, such as utilities or appliance makers looking for a way to get information on products.
There are many companies developing energy-management software and devices aimed at helping people reduce wasted electricity use. One of the main technical challenges is getting information from appliances.
For example, IBM and utility Consert are running a trial smart-grid program where large appliances, such as HVAC systems and hot water heaters, are equipped with controllers that can feed data to a meter with two-way communications. Data is collected using a home's Internet connection, and the consumer can view energy data and control appliances from a Web page.
Google's energy-monitoring application PowerMeter can get detailed data using either a smart meter or a home energy display, typically installed by an electrician. Zerofootprint's Dembo said that the TalkingPlug approach, where monitoring and control is placed at the point of use, can be cheaper than existing methods once products are made at large scale.
Comment
Having multiple outlets talk to each other and a central server about the energy usage would allow the residents to monitor and adjust the enrgy used to minimize the costs involved.
by Martin LaMonica 4 comments
What if you could better control home appliance energy use by making your wall socket more clever?
That's the idea behind TalkingPlug from Toronto-based Zerofootprint, a company that makes software for measuring and monitoring corporate carbon emissions.
TalkingPlug is a plug that fits on top of existing electrical outlets. But it's equipped with componentry to make it a controllable node on a network, including an RFID chip, microprocessor, and wireless networking. The company plans to introduce the product next week.
Zerofooprint's wireless plug, coupled with hosted software, is designed to let people view energy use and program appliances.
(Credit: Zerofootprint)
The "smart plugs" will be able to give detailed information on how much electricity individual appliances are using. Because it's programmable, people can also control appliances. For example, a person could have a TV set-top box turn off at midnight and turn on again at 7 in the morning.
A set of plugs create a mesh network and can send information via a home or office building router to Zerofootprint. The company's software processes and analyzes the data, showing people how the energy use compares to others.
"It will completely transform our world when plugs talk to each other and interact with each other," said Ron Dembo, the CEO of Zerofootprint.
For residential customers, it makes most sense to use plugs for areas that draw a lot of power, such entertainment centers and home computers, Dembo said. He estimated the cost is about $50 now but he expects that price would drop significantly if made at larger scale.
The company has built early versions of the product and is seeking companies willing to test it out, such as utilities or appliance makers looking for a way to get information on products.
There are many companies developing energy-management software and devices aimed at helping people reduce wasted electricity use. One of the main technical challenges is getting information from appliances.
For example, IBM and utility Consert are running a trial smart-grid program where large appliances, such as HVAC systems and hot water heaters, are equipped with controllers that can feed data to a meter with two-way communications. Data is collected using a home's Internet connection, and the consumer can view energy data and control appliances from a Web page.
Google's energy-monitoring application PowerMeter can get detailed data using either a smart meter or a home energy display, typically installed by an electrician. Zerofootprint's Dembo said that the TalkingPlug approach, where monitoring and control is placed at the point of use, can be cheaper than existing methods once products are made at large scale.
Comment
Having multiple outlets talk to each other and a central server about the energy usage would allow the residents to monitor and adjust the enrgy used to minimize the costs involved.
iControl adds home energy services to broadband
November 10, 2009 12:13 PM PST
by Martin LaMonica 3 comments
Would you be willing to pay for home security services if they could also help cut your electricity bills?
In a nutshell, that's what start-up iControl is pitching to consumers with its energy management software and home automation gear. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company is also working with utilities to get its energy management system installed as part of smart-grid trials.
On Tuesday, it said that its home automation equipment can now use the Zigbee wireless protocol to communicate with two-way smart meters.
Will home energy management enter through home automation networks?
(Credit: iControl Networks)
It's part of the company's plan to enter the field of home energy efficiency, where there are dozens of companies already vying for business. The path it's taking is either through security service companies, utilities, or broadband suppliers, such as cable companies or phone companies, said CEO Paul Dawes.
iControl's technology is software for managing home area networks for home security. It also makes reference designs for Internet gateways and networked thermostats manufactured by third parties. The system allows a person to set up a network of security cameras which can be controlled by a touch-screen device.
With some additional equipment, the system can also be used to monitor energy usage and help homeowners cut energy usage, said Dawes. He expects these services will be offered for free as part of monthly security services, which cost about $30 to $35 per month. Security company ADT said that it plans to use iControl's software system to include services beyond home security, he added.
iControl's energy management system will also work with smart meters installed by utilities. Using a Zigbee-based gateway box and a networked thermostat, the system can get data via the smart meter which can help cut consumers' electricity bill, Dawes said.
For example, the meter can signal when cheaper rates are in effect or when there is a demand-response program in effect. In those cases, appliances on the iControl network can be scheduled to take advantage of those lower rates.
By buying some additional equipment, a consumer could program lighting and heating and cooling using the system, but the company is mainly working through utilities at this point.
"We don't see consumers willing to pay a recurring fee for energy management. They're willing to spend $50 for some energy management solution. What's going to change is when utilities go to time-of-use metering (where there are different prices at different times). Then, the economic incentive is much higher," Dawes said.
iControl is expecting that telecommunications and cable providers will start offering Internet-based home security services and then home energy management. But at this point, it's not clear how those companies will make money in energy management, Dawes said.
by Martin LaMonica 3 comments
Would you be willing to pay for home security services if they could also help cut your electricity bills?
In a nutshell, that's what start-up iControl is pitching to consumers with its energy management software and home automation gear. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company is also working with utilities to get its energy management system installed as part of smart-grid trials.
On Tuesday, it said that its home automation equipment can now use the Zigbee wireless protocol to communicate with two-way smart meters.
Will home energy management enter through home automation networks?
(Credit: iControl Networks)
It's part of the company's plan to enter the field of home energy efficiency, where there are dozens of companies already vying for business. The path it's taking is either through security service companies, utilities, or broadband suppliers, such as cable companies or phone companies, said CEO Paul Dawes.
iControl's technology is software for managing home area networks for home security. It also makes reference designs for Internet gateways and networked thermostats manufactured by third parties. The system allows a person to set up a network of security cameras which can be controlled by a touch-screen device.
With some additional equipment, the system can also be used to monitor energy usage and help homeowners cut energy usage, said Dawes. He expects these services will be offered for free as part of monthly security services, which cost about $30 to $35 per month. Security company ADT said that it plans to use iControl's software system to include services beyond home security, he added.
iControl's energy management system will also work with smart meters installed by utilities. Using a Zigbee-based gateway box and a networked thermostat, the system can get data via the smart meter which can help cut consumers' electricity bill, Dawes said.
For example, the meter can signal when cheaper rates are in effect or when there is a demand-response program in effect. In those cases, appliances on the iControl network can be scheduled to take advantage of those lower rates.
By buying some additional equipment, a consumer could program lighting and heating and cooling using the system, but the company is mainly working through utilities at this point.
"We don't see consumers willing to pay a recurring fee for energy management. They're willing to spend $50 for some energy management solution. What's going to change is when utilities go to time-of-use metering (where there are different prices at different times). Then, the economic incentive is much higher," Dawes said.
iControl is expecting that telecommunications and cable providers will start offering Internet-based home security services and then home energy management. But at this point, it's not clear how those companies will make money in energy management, Dawes said.
CEOs endorse 'foothold strategy' for electric cars
November 16, 2009 9:42 AM PST
CEOs endorse 'foothold strategy' for electric cars
by Martin LaMonica
A group of CEOs on Monday came out favor of a regional roll-out of electric vehicles in up to eight cities to demonstrate the viability of the technology and incubate the fledgling industry.
The Electricifcation Coalition held a press conference in Washington, D.C. and released an Electrification Roadmap, which prescribes the business and policy steps required to ramp up electric vehicle adoption.
There are 13 members of the coalition, including the CEOs of Nissan Motor, FedEx, Pacific Gas & Electric, and battery maker A123 Systems. The coalition was spun out of Securing America's Future Energy, a lobbying group focused on reducing U.S. imports of oil.
Photos: Plug-in vehicles in Motor City
The Electrification Coalition argues that light-duty electric vehicles are the only technology that can cut oil imports and reduce carbon emissions in the near term. Its report (click for link) focuses on what's required to make electric cars available at large scale.
"I think we have the conditions for the mass market. But it's going to take more time," said Carlos Ghosn, the president and CEO of Nissan. "The investments to be made are huge. To make 50,000 batteries is a $250 million investment."
Of all the major automakers, Nissan is the most bullish on electrification. It is releasing an all-electric family sedan called the Leaf in the U.S. and Japan next year. It projects that 10 percent of new cars sales in 2020 will be electric, which is higher than most analysts' projections.
The shift presents challenges to auto makers that are unsure of consumer acceptance. Utilities and municipalities need to prepare in order to make these vehicles more consumer-friendly but they, too, are unsure what the volume of sales will be.
To take some uncertainly out of the picture, the Electrification Coalition advocates a "foothold strategy." Six to eight cities would create a number of incentives for electric vehicles, such as preferential parking and public charging stations. They would apply for government incentives and then test out the system to help bring electric cars to "critical mass," explained David Crane, the president and CEO of power generator NRG Energy.
In the first phase, the plan calls for getting 50,000 to 100,000 light-duty plug-in vehicles on the road per year in certain areas starting next year and then expand to 25 cities. Its report sets a target of having 25 percent of new vehicle sales be plug-ins by 2020, which is 5 million vehicles. A jump to 90 percent of new vehicle sales being plug-ins by 2030 would represent roughly 17 million units, according to data from consulting company PRTM Analysis.
For consumers, batteries should be owned and financed separately from the car itself, Crane said. Because batteries are an expensive component that makes it more expensive than a comparably-sized gasoline car, auto makers, including Nissan, are looking at ways to keep monthly car payments roughly the same by leasing batteries.
Governments around the world have established financial incentives for electric vehicles because it improves national security and addresses environmental problems, Nissan's Ghosn said. He noted that France, the U.S., and Japan each have established a tax credit of about $7,500 to consumers who buy an electric car.
In addition to federal tax credits, the coalition endorses incentives for municipalities dedicated to bringing in electric vehicles. Also required is technology to allow consumers to charge at off-peak times.
Speakers at the coalition launch also underscored the economic reasons for which governments are pushing electrification. Reducing oil imports would mean that billions of dollars of U.S. wealth would stop being exported, said Crane.
Government programs to drive investing in electric vehicle manufacturing also help the U.S. auto industry adapt to emerging technologies.
"We can do this. This is something we have the ingenuity for--we have enough innovation. What we need to do is capture that and use that to our advantage to build factories," said David Vieau, the CEO of A123 Systems.
(Credit: Electrification Coalition) Updated at 11:40 a.m. PT with corrected figure for sales projections.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Topics: Policy, TransportationTags: Plug-in electric vehicles,PHEVs,Electrification CoalitionShare: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Yahoo! BuzzFacebook
Recent posts from Green Tech
Solar-power start-up Ausra looks to sell itself
CEOs endorse 'foothold strategy' for electric cars
Nissan says all-electric Leaf will compete on price
Wary green-tech venture investors shift gears
Start-up compresses air in tanks for energy storage
DOE technologist handicaps impact of carbon price
Start-ups partner on universal wireless charger
U.S. Army orders bridges made of recycled plastic Related
Barriers loom on road to plug-in cars
Plug-in electric cars: New technology, familiar feel
Clusters of plug-in cars will tax local power grids
Utilities vow to prep infrastructure for plug-in cars
Nissan says all-electric Leaf will compete on price
Plug-in maker Fisker to buy idled GM plant
GM connects Chevy Volt to OnStar EV Lab
Study boasts the uses of aluminum over steel Add a Comment (Log in or register) (13 Comments) prev 1 next by sartor1 November 16, 2009 10:12 AM PST
"(Nissan) . It projects that 10 percent of new cars sales in 2020 will be electric, which is higher than most analysts' projections."
Only 10 percent? I was hoping to see 50 pct by then, as well as the demise of OPEC!
Like this Reply to this comment by Hernys November 16, 2009 7:04 PM PST
I don't get it either. Most battery designers predict at least doubled battery capacity and halve the per KWh cost for batteries in ten years. At that price and range, electrics would be price and range competitive with cars for well over 25% of the fleet. Add to that the fuel savings, the ecological impact, the higher reliability and better performance of electric cars (especially those that will be available at the time), it makes no sense that only 10% of their sales will be electric.
I'm betting 10% of OVERALL car sales by then will be electric, and that's including markets and formats that do not work well with electrics (such as freighters). By 2015, over 50% of sales should be electric. Unless every single battery development front stagnates for ten years, it makes no sense at all that their estimates are so low.
Like this by aka_mythos November 16, 2009 10:43 AM PST
Corporate ownership and your leasing or financing your cars' battery has advantages but most of them are enjoyed by the corporation. First it will cost you more and you'll likely see an interest payment tied to it. Allowing them to apply what becomes an open ended cash flow from the consumer. With batteries being as expensive any deal involving them would likely tie the vehicle purchaser down with many of the same sorts of limitations placed on individual leasing entire vehicles, ie max milleage or recharges per week. If consumers don't outright own it they're will be limitations. If you thought having to get an IPOD's battery replaced this will be worse.
Like this Reply to this comment by Mergatroid Mania November 16, 2009 11:25 AM PST
What you say makes sense. If I was interested in purchasing an electric vehicle at the moment, and found that I would have to lease the battery, and that even after the vehicle is paid off I would still have to make payments to the battery company, well lets just say this would be a deal breaker.
I'm not interested in leasing my batteries or paying a contract ala cell phone companies. I'm a big booster of electric vehicle tech but this would be a good way to get me off side.
A better way would be to make the batteries swappable, and every time you swap a battery for a fully charged one, then they could charge me a fee. Since my out-of-town trips are few and far between, I could see going many years before I would need a battery swap.
For people who do a lot of long distance driving, perhaps a hybrid would be a better choice unless they can get service stations along highways to tool up for the battery swaps.
Like this by dbargen November 16, 2009 11:09 AM PST
*It's the product, stupid.*
The "foothold" strategy is a tired method in my area- tried and failed, that is. I've got a feeling any such trials with electric cars are going to run into similar, if not worse, problems around here.
'Smart' cars have been selling out of a dealership not 3 blocks from where I sit for the last couple of years. In this timeframe, the only cars of this type you see driving anywhere within 100 miles of our metro area are merely mobile advertisements for local businesses. I can think of seeing less than 10 of these models being driven that didn't have decals plastered up one side and down the other.
The cars are advertised, they have their 'foothold' in the area, but why hasn't there been any real growth? They lack the features that customers want in a vehicle. Their passenger and cargo capacity is too small, they sit *very* low on the road, and their little tires make them next-to-useless during snow or rain. Despite their excellent construction techniques, people are leery of driving them on the highway. Not to mention, for as little as you get, the price seems quite high.
Electric cars, as the ones pictured above, would face some of the same problems. They're smaller, can't range as far, and face the additional hurtles of no on-the-road infrastructure for recharging, and being prohibitively expensive for people who want a smaller car.
As far as I can tell, electric recharging stations have made their way into a few heavily-populated parts of europe. Small size isn't an impediment there as well as gas being far more expensive, people don't travel as much, and you know that if there was any place on earth that would use gov't subsidies for a product like this, it'd be there, but there's been no growth their either. Sales are actually down last year over the year previous (so don't go blaming our global recession). Europe has their foothold, and it's grinding down to the last toenail.
I put all of this out there to say just because you have a foothold, especially an artificial one, doesn't guarantee success. For these reasons, I'd call that 10% wildly optimistic.
Like this Reply to this comment by Mergatroid Mania November 16, 2009 11:34 AM PST
I think they're counting on fleet sales to begin with. Delivery trucks and cars, company vehicles, taxis, commissionaires, and other such vehicles.
I see a lot of hybrid vehicles in my home town right now. All those I mentioned plus consumers. This would be just a start to get all the infrastructure built. After that's done I'm sure we will see consumer sales pick up.
Some of the hurdles you mention can be overcome.
The range will be extended, and most people don't need that much range on a daily basis. The infrastructure will be built to accommodate the fleet vehicles so it will be there by the time consumers start purchasing. The cost could be addressed by government subsidies or a levy on gas hog vehicles to subsidize electrics.
It will all work out eventually.
Like this by Mr_fleabite November 16, 2009 12:28 PM PST
I think the Nissan Leaf is supposed to go 100 miles on a charge 100% electric. (if that's hwy, city, or a combination I don't know).
As far as charging stations go, its a bit of the cart before the horse. Why would someone build a facility that would see little use currently (no pun intended), as more EV's hit the road the recharging stations will come (whatever form that may be).
Like this by Hernys November 16, 2009 7:10 PM PST
You are generalizing based on A SINGLE PICTURE???
Electric cars don't have to be small. Or ugly. Most new designs are for either mid size, pleasantly looking cars or high end sports cars.
The reason most electric cars already in the market are small are because they were using NiMh batteries which had low capacity, and because the same people that would prioritize the environment enough to pay more for an electric car are those that see larger cars as a waste of space and energy. But as the cars become mainstream that will no longer be the case.
See it this way: if someone offers you a car that uses no gas, costs about 20% to run as your current car, has better performance, better driveability, similar range, better reliability and generates zero pollution, all at the same price as an equivalent gas powered car, why would you chose the later? And the point here is that what I say is going to happen in the next ten years. The "foothold" strategy is just a tool to accelerate adoption, but it is not required for availability.
Like this by J5Chicago November 16, 2009 11:12 AM PST
I wonder if car companies are thinking in terms of Moore's Law when they are designing the future of electric vehicles? I guess what I'm saying is, base the car of tomorrow on the technology of tomorrow, not the technology of today. Batteries get smaller, lighter, less expensive... just look at laptops from the past 10 years or cell phones. Smaller batteries. Better batteries.
Like this Reply to this comment by Renegade Knight November 16, 2009 11:14 AM PST
The tried and true strategy is to sell cars that people want. The Prius sells well. You can also turn it into a plug in hybrid with an aftermarket kit.
Automakers have the ability to make these a lot more affordable but I've not seen one propose even once the simple solution that would do it. Sell the batteries that folks need as an optional upgrade. Got a 2 block commute? You don't need much battery and can get the "small" battery upgrade. Got 20 mile commute, you may want the high capacity upgrade.
They do this for laptops, they could do this for cars.
Like this Reply to this comment by tjrieves November 16, 2009 4:18 PM PST
Anyone remember back in the 90's when GM introduced the electric car in California, and then the oil companies sued GM for some asinine reason pertaining to the fact that the car didn't need gas? Then in court the oil companies got an unlimited amount of time to speak, but GM (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) was only given about 4 minutes to speak. Maybe it was the people protesting the destruction of the cars.
Like this Reply to this comment by cjburl November 16, 2009 6:42 PM PST
GM was on the side of the oil companies. Somehow their electric car program got away from them and produced a viable product even though they thought it would fail. Once things got close to being successful they scuttled it with help form the oil lobby. It was the environmentalists that got the short end at the hearing in California. In the end we had a viable electric car model moving forward a decade ago before legislation requiring increased fuel economy standards was dropped in favor of hydrogen. In the next few years Tesla will have a sedan to match its roadster which will be more accessible to the masses. I say that GM and the lot has brought this onto themselves and no more taxpayer money needs to be spent to seed for profit businesses who continue to spend millions on developing new combustion engine models. Get with the program big 6 or someone will provide a solution and obsolete all of you. One more thing to note, the government provided funds to the US automakers to produce hybrids in lieu of raising emissions standards and they did squat with it. It did however scare Honda and Toyota enough that we now have the Prius, Civic and Insight Hybrids while they have nothing to compete.
Like this Reply to this comment by flathead50 November 16, 2009 7:43 PM PST
The cost of ownership will need to be comparable to the cost of current gasoline vehicles. There are many other expenses of maintaining your gashog: regular oil changes, transmission service/fluids, antifreeze/coolant, sparkplugs, etc., that will be unnecessary for an all-electric drivetrain. Plus, add the cost of the gas at the pump. Battery expense will need to be somewhere in the ballpark of these additional expenses. I believe that will be doable if they price the batteries correctly. As to needing "charging stations" around the area you drive: consider that the only infrastructure needed is an electrical outlet capable of accepting a charge cable. It would most likely resemble a RV hookup. Owners could have a plug installed near their home parking spot. Remote stations could easily have coin or credit card operated outlets scattered in parking lots/garages. I believe Walmart already has hookups fro RVs in their parking lots. Malls, employers, roadhouses, Burger King, Borders Books, etc. could have special parking spots next to the handicapped stalls. It CAN happen. It is not rocket science!
CEOs endorse 'foothold strategy' for electric cars
by Martin LaMonica
A group of CEOs on Monday came out favor of a regional roll-out of electric vehicles in up to eight cities to demonstrate the viability of the technology and incubate the fledgling industry.
The Electricifcation Coalition held a press conference in Washington, D.C. and released an Electrification Roadmap, which prescribes the business and policy steps required to ramp up electric vehicle adoption.
There are 13 members of the coalition, including the CEOs of Nissan Motor, FedEx, Pacific Gas & Electric, and battery maker A123 Systems. The coalition was spun out of Securing America's Future Energy, a lobbying group focused on reducing U.S. imports of oil.
Photos: Plug-in vehicles in Motor City
The Electrification Coalition argues that light-duty electric vehicles are the only technology that can cut oil imports and reduce carbon emissions in the near term. Its report (click for link) focuses on what's required to make electric cars available at large scale.
"I think we have the conditions for the mass market. But it's going to take more time," said Carlos Ghosn, the president and CEO of Nissan. "The investments to be made are huge. To make 50,000 batteries is a $250 million investment."
Of all the major automakers, Nissan is the most bullish on electrification. It is releasing an all-electric family sedan called the Leaf in the U.S. and Japan next year. It projects that 10 percent of new cars sales in 2020 will be electric, which is higher than most analysts' projections.
The shift presents challenges to auto makers that are unsure of consumer acceptance. Utilities and municipalities need to prepare in order to make these vehicles more consumer-friendly but they, too, are unsure what the volume of sales will be.
To take some uncertainly out of the picture, the Electrification Coalition advocates a "foothold strategy." Six to eight cities would create a number of incentives for electric vehicles, such as preferential parking and public charging stations. They would apply for government incentives and then test out the system to help bring electric cars to "critical mass," explained David Crane, the president and CEO of power generator NRG Energy.
In the first phase, the plan calls for getting 50,000 to 100,000 light-duty plug-in vehicles on the road per year in certain areas starting next year and then expand to 25 cities. Its report sets a target of having 25 percent of new vehicle sales be plug-ins by 2020, which is 5 million vehicles. A jump to 90 percent of new vehicle sales being plug-ins by 2030 would represent roughly 17 million units, according to data from consulting company PRTM Analysis.
For consumers, batteries should be owned and financed separately from the car itself, Crane said. Because batteries are an expensive component that makes it more expensive than a comparably-sized gasoline car, auto makers, including Nissan, are looking at ways to keep monthly car payments roughly the same by leasing batteries.
Governments around the world have established financial incentives for electric vehicles because it improves national security and addresses environmental problems, Nissan's Ghosn said. He noted that France, the U.S., and Japan each have established a tax credit of about $7,500 to consumers who buy an electric car.
In addition to federal tax credits, the coalition endorses incentives for municipalities dedicated to bringing in electric vehicles. Also required is technology to allow consumers to charge at off-peak times.
Speakers at the coalition launch also underscored the economic reasons for which governments are pushing electrification. Reducing oil imports would mean that billions of dollars of U.S. wealth would stop being exported, said Crane.
Government programs to drive investing in electric vehicle manufacturing also help the U.S. auto industry adapt to emerging technologies.
"We can do this. This is something we have the ingenuity for--we have enough innovation. What we need to do is capture that and use that to our advantage to build factories," said David Vieau, the CEO of A123 Systems.
(Credit: Electrification Coalition) Updated at 11:40 a.m. PT with corrected figure for sales projections.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Topics: Policy, TransportationTags: Plug-in electric vehicles,PHEVs,Electrification CoalitionShare: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Yahoo! BuzzFacebook
Recent posts from Green Tech
Solar-power start-up Ausra looks to sell itself
CEOs endorse 'foothold strategy' for electric cars
Nissan says all-electric Leaf will compete on price
Wary green-tech venture investors shift gears
Start-up compresses air in tanks for energy storage
DOE technologist handicaps impact of carbon price
Start-ups partner on universal wireless charger
U.S. Army orders bridges made of recycled plastic Related
Barriers loom on road to plug-in cars
Plug-in electric cars: New technology, familiar feel
Clusters of plug-in cars will tax local power grids
Utilities vow to prep infrastructure for plug-in cars
Nissan says all-electric Leaf will compete on price
Plug-in maker Fisker to buy idled GM plant
GM connects Chevy Volt to OnStar EV Lab
Study boasts the uses of aluminum over steel Add a Comment (Log in or register) (13 Comments) prev 1 next by sartor1 November 16, 2009 10:12 AM PST
"(Nissan) . It projects that 10 percent of new cars sales in 2020 will be electric, which is higher than most analysts' projections."
Only 10 percent? I was hoping to see 50 pct by then, as well as the demise of OPEC!
Like this Reply to this comment by Hernys November 16, 2009 7:04 PM PST
I don't get it either. Most battery designers predict at least doubled battery capacity and halve the per KWh cost for batteries in ten years. At that price and range, electrics would be price and range competitive with cars for well over 25% of the fleet. Add to that the fuel savings, the ecological impact, the higher reliability and better performance of electric cars (especially those that will be available at the time), it makes no sense that only 10% of their sales will be electric.
I'm betting 10% of OVERALL car sales by then will be electric, and that's including markets and formats that do not work well with electrics (such as freighters). By 2015, over 50% of sales should be electric. Unless every single battery development front stagnates for ten years, it makes no sense at all that their estimates are so low.
Like this by aka_mythos November 16, 2009 10:43 AM PST
Corporate ownership and your leasing or financing your cars' battery has advantages but most of them are enjoyed by the corporation. First it will cost you more and you'll likely see an interest payment tied to it. Allowing them to apply what becomes an open ended cash flow from the consumer. With batteries being as expensive any deal involving them would likely tie the vehicle purchaser down with many of the same sorts of limitations placed on individual leasing entire vehicles, ie max milleage or recharges per week. If consumers don't outright own it they're will be limitations. If you thought having to get an IPOD's battery replaced this will be worse.
Like this Reply to this comment by Mergatroid Mania November 16, 2009 11:25 AM PST
What you say makes sense. If I was interested in purchasing an electric vehicle at the moment, and found that I would have to lease the battery, and that even after the vehicle is paid off I would still have to make payments to the battery company, well lets just say this would be a deal breaker.
I'm not interested in leasing my batteries or paying a contract ala cell phone companies. I'm a big booster of electric vehicle tech but this would be a good way to get me off side.
A better way would be to make the batteries swappable, and every time you swap a battery for a fully charged one, then they could charge me a fee. Since my out-of-town trips are few and far between, I could see going many years before I would need a battery swap.
For people who do a lot of long distance driving, perhaps a hybrid would be a better choice unless they can get service stations along highways to tool up for the battery swaps.
Like this by dbargen November 16, 2009 11:09 AM PST
*It's the product, stupid.*
The "foothold" strategy is a tired method in my area- tried and failed, that is. I've got a feeling any such trials with electric cars are going to run into similar, if not worse, problems around here.
'Smart' cars have been selling out of a dealership not 3 blocks from where I sit for the last couple of years. In this timeframe, the only cars of this type you see driving anywhere within 100 miles of our metro area are merely mobile advertisements for local businesses. I can think of seeing less than 10 of these models being driven that didn't have decals plastered up one side and down the other.
The cars are advertised, they have their 'foothold' in the area, but why hasn't there been any real growth? They lack the features that customers want in a vehicle. Their passenger and cargo capacity is too small, they sit *very* low on the road, and their little tires make them next-to-useless during snow or rain. Despite their excellent construction techniques, people are leery of driving them on the highway. Not to mention, for as little as you get, the price seems quite high.
Electric cars, as the ones pictured above, would face some of the same problems. They're smaller, can't range as far, and face the additional hurtles of no on-the-road infrastructure for recharging, and being prohibitively expensive for people who want a smaller car.
As far as I can tell, electric recharging stations have made their way into a few heavily-populated parts of europe. Small size isn't an impediment there as well as gas being far more expensive, people don't travel as much, and you know that if there was any place on earth that would use gov't subsidies for a product like this, it'd be there, but there's been no growth their either. Sales are actually down last year over the year previous (so don't go blaming our global recession). Europe has their foothold, and it's grinding down to the last toenail.
I put all of this out there to say just because you have a foothold, especially an artificial one, doesn't guarantee success. For these reasons, I'd call that 10% wildly optimistic.
Like this Reply to this comment by Mergatroid Mania November 16, 2009 11:34 AM PST
I think they're counting on fleet sales to begin with. Delivery trucks and cars, company vehicles, taxis, commissionaires, and other such vehicles.
I see a lot of hybrid vehicles in my home town right now. All those I mentioned plus consumers. This would be just a start to get all the infrastructure built. After that's done I'm sure we will see consumer sales pick up.
Some of the hurdles you mention can be overcome.
The range will be extended, and most people don't need that much range on a daily basis. The infrastructure will be built to accommodate the fleet vehicles so it will be there by the time consumers start purchasing. The cost could be addressed by government subsidies or a levy on gas hog vehicles to subsidize electrics.
It will all work out eventually.
Like this by Mr_fleabite November 16, 2009 12:28 PM PST
I think the Nissan Leaf is supposed to go 100 miles on a charge 100% electric. (if that's hwy, city, or a combination I don't know).
As far as charging stations go, its a bit of the cart before the horse. Why would someone build a facility that would see little use currently (no pun intended), as more EV's hit the road the recharging stations will come (whatever form that may be).
Like this by Hernys November 16, 2009 7:10 PM PST
You are generalizing based on A SINGLE PICTURE???
Electric cars don't have to be small. Or ugly. Most new designs are for either mid size, pleasantly looking cars or high end sports cars.
The reason most electric cars already in the market are small are because they were using NiMh batteries which had low capacity, and because the same people that would prioritize the environment enough to pay more for an electric car are those that see larger cars as a waste of space and energy. But as the cars become mainstream that will no longer be the case.
See it this way: if someone offers you a car that uses no gas, costs about 20% to run as your current car, has better performance, better driveability, similar range, better reliability and generates zero pollution, all at the same price as an equivalent gas powered car, why would you chose the later? And the point here is that what I say is going to happen in the next ten years. The "foothold" strategy is just a tool to accelerate adoption, but it is not required for availability.
Like this by J5Chicago November 16, 2009 11:12 AM PST
I wonder if car companies are thinking in terms of Moore's Law when they are designing the future of electric vehicles? I guess what I'm saying is, base the car of tomorrow on the technology of tomorrow, not the technology of today. Batteries get smaller, lighter, less expensive... just look at laptops from the past 10 years or cell phones. Smaller batteries. Better batteries.
Like this Reply to this comment by Renegade Knight November 16, 2009 11:14 AM PST
The tried and true strategy is to sell cars that people want. The Prius sells well. You can also turn it into a plug in hybrid with an aftermarket kit.
Automakers have the ability to make these a lot more affordable but I've not seen one propose even once the simple solution that would do it. Sell the batteries that folks need as an optional upgrade. Got a 2 block commute? You don't need much battery and can get the "small" battery upgrade. Got 20 mile commute, you may want the high capacity upgrade.
They do this for laptops, they could do this for cars.
Like this Reply to this comment by tjrieves November 16, 2009 4:18 PM PST
Anyone remember back in the 90's when GM introduced the electric car in California, and then the oil companies sued GM for some asinine reason pertaining to the fact that the car didn't need gas? Then in court the oil companies got an unlimited amount of time to speak, but GM (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) was only given about 4 minutes to speak. Maybe it was the people protesting the destruction of the cars.
Like this Reply to this comment by cjburl November 16, 2009 6:42 PM PST
GM was on the side of the oil companies. Somehow their electric car program got away from them and produced a viable product even though they thought it would fail. Once things got close to being successful they scuttled it with help form the oil lobby. It was the environmentalists that got the short end at the hearing in California. In the end we had a viable electric car model moving forward a decade ago before legislation requiring increased fuel economy standards was dropped in favor of hydrogen. In the next few years Tesla will have a sedan to match its roadster which will be more accessible to the masses. I say that GM and the lot has brought this onto themselves and no more taxpayer money needs to be spent to seed for profit businesses who continue to spend millions on developing new combustion engine models. Get with the program big 6 or someone will provide a solution and obsolete all of you. One more thing to note, the government provided funds to the US automakers to produce hybrids in lieu of raising emissions standards and they did squat with it. It did however scare Honda and Toyota enough that we now have the Prius, Civic and Insight Hybrids while they have nothing to compete.
Like this Reply to this comment by flathead50 November 16, 2009 7:43 PM PST
The cost of ownership will need to be comparable to the cost of current gasoline vehicles. There are many other expenses of maintaining your gashog: regular oil changes, transmission service/fluids, antifreeze/coolant, sparkplugs, etc., that will be unnecessary for an all-electric drivetrain. Plus, add the cost of the gas at the pump. Battery expense will need to be somewhere in the ballpark of these additional expenses. I believe that will be doable if they price the batteries correctly. As to needing "charging stations" around the area you drive: consider that the only infrastructure needed is an electrical outlet capable of accepting a charge cable. It would most likely resemble a RV hookup. Owners could have a plug installed near their home parking spot. Remote stations could easily have coin or credit card operated outlets scattered in parking lots/garages. I believe Walmart already has hookups fro RVs in their parking lots. Malls, employers, roadhouses, Burger King, Borders Books, etc. could have special parking spots next to the handicapped stalls. It CAN happen. It is not rocket science!
The Greenest, Coolest Stadium: Toyo Ito On His Sun-Powered Stunner
The Greenest, Coolest Stadium: Toyo Ito On His Sun-Powered Stunner
by Alex Pasternack, New York, NY on 07. 6.09
The Photovoltaic Roof
Above all, the stadium's major victory is its use -- no, integration -- of solar panels. While photovoltaic panels can often be seen tacked on to building designs (a legacy of bad eco-architecture from the 1970s) the ones used on the Kaohsiung stadium are anything but an add-on.
Other stadiums have used solar energy, most notably the Stade de Suisse in Bern, with 2,808 solar panels. But Kaohsiung's is notable not only for its scale -- 8,844 -- but for the elegant way the panels have been cooked right into the design.
When he received the commission, Ito says using solar was the only requirement from the government client.
"Since solar panels were required for this project, I thought to use them to cover almost the entire stadium seating roof. The climate in Kaohsiung is subtropical. Therefore, in addition to functioning as an energy source, the solar panels are also used as a shading device to block direct sunlight.
"Ventilation for the spectators’ seats has also been considered. This stadium has obtained the utmost utilization of natural energy."
The struggle against one-time-use white elephant status is complete: the stadium's roof alone justifies its existence to the surrounding community.
For the Solar Roof, Challenges -- and Opportunities -- Abound
Building an elegant, mellifluous roof out of solar panels was not easy, said Ito. "The construction of the roof was very difficult because each solar panel had to be fitted to the varying shape of the spiraling structure." And connecting the panels -- built by local manufacturer Lucky Power Technology -- to the stadium's electrical system and the local grid was also a serious challenge.
And the flowing design of the roof, as Lloyd noted, also means that is not always optimal for catching the sun's rays.
Still, the payoff could be rather immense: when the stadium is not in use, its more than 8,000 panels are said to be enough to power up to 80% of the surrounding neighborhood.
It's unclear how long it will be before the savings and eventually revenue from all that solar, however inefficiently positioned, will offset the cost of building the stadium -- an estimated $150 million.
But there are other, less tangible but significant benefits too: the beauty of the self-powered, open design has put Kaohsiung on the map, and put architects of all kinds of buildings, green or otherwise, on notice.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/worlds-greenest-most-elegant-stadium-taiwan-toyo-ito.php?page=2
The link provides some pictures of this structure so you can see how beautiful this stadium actually is, not to mention energy efficient.
by Alex Pasternack, New York, NY on 07. 6.09
The Photovoltaic Roof
Above all, the stadium's major victory is its use -- no, integration -- of solar panels. While photovoltaic panels can often be seen tacked on to building designs (a legacy of bad eco-architecture from the 1970s) the ones used on the Kaohsiung stadium are anything but an add-on.
Other stadiums have used solar energy, most notably the Stade de Suisse in Bern, with 2,808 solar panels. But Kaohsiung's is notable not only for its scale -- 8,844 -- but for the elegant way the panels have been cooked right into the design.
When he received the commission, Ito says using solar was the only requirement from the government client.
"Since solar panels were required for this project, I thought to use them to cover almost the entire stadium seating roof. The climate in Kaohsiung is subtropical. Therefore, in addition to functioning as an energy source, the solar panels are also used as a shading device to block direct sunlight.
"Ventilation for the spectators’ seats has also been considered. This stadium has obtained the utmost utilization of natural energy."
The struggle against one-time-use white elephant status is complete: the stadium's roof alone justifies its existence to the surrounding community.
For the Solar Roof, Challenges -- and Opportunities -- Abound
Building an elegant, mellifluous roof out of solar panels was not easy, said Ito. "The construction of the roof was very difficult because each solar panel had to be fitted to the varying shape of the spiraling structure." And connecting the panels -- built by local manufacturer Lucky Power Technology -- to the stadium's electrical system and the local grid was also a serious challenge.
And the flowing design of the roof, as Lloyd noted, also means that is not always optimal for catching the sun's rays.
Still, the payoff could be rather immense: when the stadium is not in use, its more than 8,000 panels are said to be enough to power up to 80% of the surrounding neighborhood.
It's unclear how long it will be before the savings and eventually revenue from all that solar, however inefficiently positioned, will offset the cost of building the stadium -- an estimated $150 million.
But there are other, less tangible but significant benefits too: the beauty of the self-powered, open design has put Kaohsiung on the map, and put architects of all kinds of buildings, green or otherwise, on notice.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/worlds-greenest-most-elegant-stadium-taiwan-toyo-ito.php?page=2
The link provides some pictures of this structure so you can see how beautiful this stadium actually is, not to mention energy efficient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)