Beware politicians promising to put millions to work in a new 'green economy.' They can't deliver.
By Rana Foroohar | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 19, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 29, 2010
SPONSORED BY
There is no more fashionable answer to the woes of the global recession than "green jobs." Leaders including American President Barack Obama, Gordon Brown of Britain, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and Hu Jintao of China have all gotten behind what U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called a "green New Deal"— pinning their hopes for future growth and new jobs on creating clean-technology industries, like wind and solar power, or recycling saw grass as fuel. It all sounds like the ultimate win-win deal: beat the worst recession in decades and save the planet from global warming, all in one spending plan. So who cares how much it costs? And since the financial crisis and recession began, governments, environmental nonprofits, and even labor unions have been busy spinning out reports on just how many new jobs might be created from these new industries—estimates that range from the tens of thousands to the millions.
The problem is that history doesn't bear out the optimism. As a new study from McKinsey consulting points out, clean energy is less like old manufacturing industries that required a lot of workers than it is like new manufacturing and service industries that don't. The best parallel is the semiconductor industry, which was expected to create a boom in high-paid high-tech jobs but today employs mainly robots. Clean-technology workers—people who do things like design and make wind turbines or solar panels—now make up only 0.6 percent of the American workforce, despite the matrix of government subsidies, tax incentives, and other supports that already exists. The McKinsey study, which examined how countries should compete in the post-crisis world, figures that clean energy won't command much more of the total job market in the years ahead. "The bottom line is that these 'clean' industries are too small to create the millions of jobs that are needed right away," says James Manyika, a director at the McKinsey Global Institute.
They might not create those jobs—but they could help other industries do just that. Here, too, the story of the computer chip is instructive. Today the big chip makers like Intel employ only 0.4 percent of the total American workforce, down from a peak of 0.6 percent in 2000. But they did create a lot of jobs, indirectly, by making other industries more efficient: throughout the 1990s, American companies saw massive gains in labor productivity and efficiency from new technologies incorporating the semiconductor. Companies in retail, manufacturing, and many other areas got faster and stronger, and millions of new jobs were created.
McKinsey and others say that the same could be true today if governments focus not on building a "green economy," by which they really mean a clean-energy industry, but on greening every part of the economy using cutting-edge green products and services. That's where policies like U.S. efforts to promote corn-based ethanol, and giant German subsidies for the solar industry (which is losing ground to China), fall down. In both cases the state is creating bloated, unproductive sectors, with jobs that are not likely to last. A better start would be encouraging business and consumers to do the basics, such as improve building insulation and replace obsolete heating and cooling equipment. In places like California, 30 percent of the summer energy load comes from air conditioning, which has prompted government to offer low-interest loans to consumers to replace old units with more efficient ones. Consumers pay back the loans through their taxes and pocket the energy savings, which can often cover the cost of the loan within a month or two. The energy efficiency is an indirect job creator, just as IT productivity had been, not only because of the cost savings but also because of the new disposable income that is created. The stimulus effect of not driving is particularly impressive. "If you can get people out of cars, or at least get them to drive less, you can typically save between $1,000 and $8,000 per household per year," says Lisa Margonelli, director of energy-policy initiatives at the New America Foundation.
Indeed, energy and efficiency savings have been behind the major green efforts of the world's biggest corporations, like Walmart, which remains the world's biggest retailer and added 22,000 jobs in the U.S. alone in 2009. In 2008, when oil hit $148 a barrel, Walmart insisted that its top 1,000 suppliers in China retool their factories and their products, cutting back on excess packaging to make shipping cheaper. It's no accident that Walmart, a company that looks for savings wherever it can find them, is one of the only American firms that continued growing robustly throughout the recession.
The policy implications of it all are clear: stop betting government money on particular green technologies that may or may not pan out, and start thinking more broadly. As McKinsey makes clear, countries don't become more competitive by tweaking their "mix" of industries but by outperforming in each individual sector. Green thinking can be a part of that. The U.S. could conceivably export much more to Europe, for example, if America's environmental standards for products were higher. Taking care of the environment at the broadest levels is often portrayed as a political red herring that will undercut competitiveness in the global economy. In fact, the future of growth and job creation may depend on it.
Sponsored by
Member Comments
Reply Report Abuse Posted By: Askme @ 03/28/2010 6:30:41 PM
For now I think it'd be faster to get jobs to families by informing them that at http:federaljobs.net/irsagent.htm they can read about the IRS hiring 17,000 new IRS Agents. It says that IRS Agents make an annual average salary that exceeds $42,000.
These new agents will be in charge of enforcing the new Health Care Law, as I understand it has to do with the fine/penalty that people that don't buy an insurance policy will be required to pay. I would think people could phone the IRS to confirm salary, benefits etc...Sorry, I don't have that phone number.
Reply Report Abuse Posted By: bleeparks @ 03/22/2010 12:18:12 PM
Rana Foroohar suggest our government should "focus not on building a "green economy," by which they really mean a clean-energy industry, but on greening every part of the economy using cutting-edge green products and services."
Read that out loud. Think about it. Talk about it. This author is revealing a truth we don't hear about from government officials, the media, or the unemployment office.
Green career possibilities are unlimited! If you want work in solar panel installation or wind turbine manufacturing, follow cleantech industry hiring trends. But don't stop there if what you really want is to be part of creating a sustainable future through emerging career and work opportunities in the green economy. Because the possibilities in other industries and market sectors are unlimited. . .
Sustainable Agriculture
Green Building
Waste Management
Transportation
Natural Habitat Preservation
Wildlife Conservation
(and that's just a starter list.)
A few of my clients are interested in climbing on roofs to install solar panels. Some are pursuing clean tech engineering, production, marketing, or sales. But more and more, I'm hearing from people who realize that we have more power to grow a strong, green economy with innovative and entrepreneurial ventures that support sustainability.
That's where my attention is drawn. I see the possibilities with "green products and services" to carry us out of this ecological and economic mess we're in. And I'm anxious to trade notes with others who see the light. .
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Air Force tests flight with greener fuel
March 26, 2010 7:48 AM PDT
by Lance Whitney
An Air Force Thunderbolt jet took to the skies Thursday powered with help of a synthetic substitute made with animal fats and plant oil.
The A-10C Thunderbolt II lifted off for its demo flight from the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida with its tanks filled with a blend of synthetic Hydrotreated Renewable Jet fuel, or HRJ, and JP-8, a traditional jet propellant, according to the Air Force Web site. The flight marked the first demo to determine the feasibility of using synthetic fuel in Air Force jets.
An A-10C Thunderbolt II flies along Florida's coast on Thursday during the first test flight of an aircraft powered by a biomass-derived fuel blend.
(Credit: Senior Master Sgt. Joy Josephson/U.S. Air Force)
The test flight marked one of the key initiatives on the part of Air Force to start to go greener and reduce its reliance on foreign oil. The Air Force uses up 2.4 billion gallons of jet fuel each year, making it the largest consumer of traditional fuel in the Department of Defense. The new goal is to ensure that all Air Force planes are qualified to use alternative fuels by 2012.
"The Air Force is committed to reducing our reliance on foreign oil," Terry Yonkers, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics, said in a statement. "Our goal is to reduce demand, increase supply, and change the culture and mindset of our fuel consumption."
Though the Air Force still has to examine the full mission data, the flight was considered "uneventful and predictable" by its pilot.
The fuel that powered the Thunderbolt was made from the camelina plant, said the Air Force, a weed that doesn't need much to grow and isn't used as any kind of food source. The fuel's refining process and its emissions are considered cleaner than that of traditional jet fuel.
The Air Force said it's eyeing a second demo this summer using an F-15 Eagle, followed by two more tests later this year with a C-17 Globemaster III, which typically consumes a lot of fuel, and an F-22 Raptor test, which is a more complicated aircraft to handle.
by Lance Whitney
An Air Force Thunderbolt jet took to the skies Thursday powered with help of a synthetic substitute made with animal fats and plant oil.
The A-10C Thunderbolt II lifted off for its demo flight from the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida with its tanks filled with a blend of synthetic Hydrotreated Renewable Jet fuel, or HRJ, and JP-8, a traditional jet propellant, according to the Air Force Web site. The flight marked the first demo to determine the feasibility of using synthetic fuel in Air Force jets.
An A-10C Thunderbolt II flies along Florida's coast on Thursday during the first test flight of an aircraft powered by a biomass-derived fuel blend.
(Credit: Senior Master Sgt. Joy Josephson/U.S. Air Force)
The test flight marked one of the key initiatives on the part of Air Force to start to go greener and reduce its reliance on foreign oil. The Air Force uses up 2.4 billion gallons of jet fuel each year, making it the largest consumer of traditional fuel in the Department of Defense. The new goal is to ensure that all Air Force planes are qualified to use alternative fuels by 2012.
"The Air Force is committed to reducing our reliance on foreign oil," Terry Yonkers, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics, said in a statement. "Our goal is to reduce demand, increase supply, and change the culture and mindset of our fuel consumption."
Though the Air Force still has to examine the full mission data, the flight was considered "uneventful and predictable" by its pilot.
The fuel that powered the Thunderbolt was made from the camelina plant, said the Air Force, a weed that doesn't need much to grow and isn't used as any kind of food source. The fuel's refining process and its emissions are considered cleaner than that of traditional jet fuel.
The Air Force said it's eyeing a second demo this summer using an F-15 Eagle, followed by two more tests later this year with a C-17 Globemaster III, which typically consumes a lot of fuel, and an F-22 Raptor test, which is a more complicated aircraft to handle.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
In clean energy, U.S. innovates but builds slowly
March 24, 2010 9:01 PM PDT
by Martin LaMonica
If you follow the money, the numbers show that the U.S. is being outpaced by China and other countries in a global race to develop green-technology industries.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, in conjunction with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, is publishing a report on Thursday that characterizes different countries in developing and adopting clean-energy technologies.
(Credit: Pew Charitable Trusts) The U.S. is strong when it comes to technical innovation, with venture capital and private equity outpacing other countries. But China last year took the lead in "asset financing," or investment in renewable-energy projects. It also is poised to pass the U.S. as the country with the most installed capacity of renewable energy this year.
Although technical innovations play a big role in bringing down the cost of solar or biofuels, large-scale installations of clean-energy products is the key lever to bringing down cost compared to fossil fuels.
"We've come a long way, particularly with solar, but the question is which country will get us across the finish line (of cost parity with fossil fuels)? Which country will get us to the promised land?" said Ethan Zindler, the head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, during a conference call on Wednesday. "In the meantime, we need subsidies so we can have scale-up."
Last year, China plowed $34.6 billion into clean-energy financing, compared to $18.6 billion in the U.S., $11.2 billion in the U.K., and $10.8 billion in the rest of the European Union.
The most dramatic change in the past two years has been China's industrial policy to expand into solar, wind, and other energy-related technologies, Zindler said. "The government recognizes the strategic opportunity of exporting clean-energy equipment," he said. "They clearly want to get out ahead of it."
Executives at many U.S.-based clean-energy companies say they will build projects where there is available financing, so the technology may be developed in the U.S. but deployed in other places.
"We're very good at creating companies. But we're not doing as well in the renewable-energy space at creating markets, so the markets tend to be elsewhere," said John Woolard, the CEO of solar company BrightSource Energy, who was on the conference call.
Murky policy
Government policies play a large role in how rapidly these energy products are adopted. In the past, German and Spain had generous subsidies for wind and solar, which helped ramp up manufacturing and bring down the cost of electricity from those sources.
Looking for a clean-energy home run (photos)
View the full gallery
The U.S. policy toward renewable energy, meanwhile, has been inconsistent and tended to swing with each new administration. Business people in the clean-energy field argue that a long-term policy is needed so that financiers will invest in projects, such as wind and solar farms, which yield money over several years.
Specifically, the U.S. should adopt a national renewable-energy standard that mandates that utilities generate a percentage of their power from renewable sources, said Phyllis Cuttino, the global warming campaign director from the Pew Environment Group. She endorsed other policies, including a price on carbon emissions as well as a research and development tax credit for companies.
"The facts show that the U.S. trails in half a dozen categories," she said. "The U.S. is at a critical junction--either it will lead or follow."
Although health care has dominated in Washington over the past several months, members of Congress have also been working on a combined energy and climate bill that can gain enough support from both major parties. Notable is an effort led by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to craft a bill that puts a cap on carbon emissions, expands natural gas and nuclear energy, and has support from polluting industries.
Clean-energy policies typically appeal to all types of voters--those that favor energy security and increased use of domestic energy, those concerned with economic growth and job creation, and those interested in protecting the environment.
Story of solar star BrightSource
Saying that the U.S. lacks a coherent energy policy is a common theme among green-tech start-ups and investors.
At the ARPA-E Summit earlier this month, there were a number of energy technologies on display but speakers often returned to the need for predictable rules for companies to attract financing and commercialize their products.
Woolard of BrightSource Energy echoed that view. Even without a comprehensive energy and climate bill, the renewable-energy industry would benefit greatly by extending the cash grant subsidy for solar and wind projects, which is set to expire at the end of this year, to 2016. Also, the U.S. needs to have a national transmission policy to build new lines to carry solar and wind power across the country, he said.
BrightSource, which builds utility-scale solar thermal power plants, is one of the most successful companies to come out of a wave of green-tech start-ups in the past five years.
The company is perhaps the furthest along than others in plans to build large-scale solar plants in the U.S., but it still faces challenges in getting local permits in the California desert where its first plant is planned.
Even though the company has raised $160 million from venture capitalists and corporate partners, it also secured a $1.37 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy for its Ivanpah project, which would be first utility-scale solar plant built in the U.S. in about 20 years.
Those loans are particularly important for new technologies because banks and project financiers are not willing to fund projects with technology risk, said Woolard. Once initial projects are successfully built, risk-averse bankers are more likely to invest, he said.
Comments
by ferricoxide March 24, 2010 11:54 PM PDT
Except that what China's looking to do is less about meeting their own energy needs via "green" energy than it is about making it so that EVERYONE has to buy the technology from them.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by jfg77 March 25, 2010 2:26 AM PDT
@ferricoxide,
it's incredible for such anti-china-ism. what's wrong with them putting money and labor into green technology, master them and become leaders in the space and then make a buck or two?
toyota or GM's intention of developping hybrid technology is for environment or for profit? what's wrong with that?
Like this 2 people like this comment
by PhilipHa March 25, 2010 5:52 AM PDT
I think the comment 'China has a lot of ground to make up' is a long way from the truth. Although Chinese cities are heavily polluted, the USA's per capita CO2 emmissions are 4 times those of China (2006), and at China's current rate of spending it will soon overtake the rest of the world in terms of installed renewable energy capacity. Last year it spent 50% more than the US on installing new capacity and this rate of investment is continuing to rise rapidly. I think there is misplaced complacency in the US about global warming emmissions particularly in relation to China. As the aryticle points out, it is likely that the US will be buying much of its renewable energy technology from China in the near future if it doesn't resolve many of the issues outlined in the article.
Like this by Renegade Knight March 25, 2010 7:52 AM PDT
@PhilipHa
You missed the point. China has a long ways to go to develop power infrastructure. Meaning that in a lot of cases it's easier to "go gree" to meet growing demand.
C02 emmisions are a side effect of past and present development.
Like this by weegg March 25, 2010 6:14 AM PDT
Although, China is building on average 2 coal plants per week, so they are still spewing CO2.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by martin_c_e March 25, 2010 6:29 AM PDT
We should not compare the USA to Spain or Germany. We are a diverse nation with energy needs which are different throughout the nation. Each state should continue to set its own policies. The Feds should probably subsidize green energy via taxing diesel & gasoline taxes.
Like this Reply to this comment by Renegade Knight March 25, 2010 7:53 AM PDT
Good point. The electricity I need to run my AC, power my Furnace, and my computer is completely different from that European elecricity...
Like this by mike_ekim March 25, 2010 6:50 AM PDT
I don't believe that graph includes nuclear. USA is funding upcoming nuclear, and the potential damage by those plants is less than the garanteed damage caused by China's 2 coal plants per week.
Like this Reply to this comment by mlamonica March 25, 2010 10:31 AM PDT
MIT professor Andrew Kadak gave a talk on nuclear power and China at the MIT Energy conference a few weeks ago where he said that a number of nuclear plants are being built now in China and the industry is expanding rapidly.
You can read some of his comments here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10465392-54.html?tag=mncol
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/60393
Like this by USDecliningDollar March 25, 2010 9:07 AM PDT
The problem is that China has the $$$ to invest in green tech projects. We have to borrow money from China to keep the country afloat. All of the things that you buy, basically come from China, your money flows out of the US and into China, China uses this money to invest in new projects, industry and manufacturing. Since we have stopped practically all manufacturing in this country, we are left to flip each other's burgers and buy crap made in another country. When we flip each other's burgers and buy products made somewhere else, there is a net outflow of $$$.
Like this Reply to this comment by Joe Real March 25, 2010 10:22 AM PDT
It is true that the absolute number of renewable and clean energy investment infrastructure projects in China is the number one in the world, but one has to look at per capita basis. Perhaps on a per capita basis for green energy, the US is number one with China near the bottom of the list, after all, the US has the highest energy consumption per capita in the world. China has really to invest more to feed its population wanting to have higher standard of living and energy consumption as the western worlds, so it has a long long way to go.
I am just hoping that China will stop copying the US technologies and innovations, only to manufacture them first, very cheaply and then sell back to the world, undercutting prices, making the US investments in R&D fruitless.
by Martin LaMonica
If you follow the money, the numbers show that the U.S. is being outpaced by China and other countries in a global race to develop green-technology industries.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, in conjunction with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, is publishing a report on Thursday that characterizes different countries in developing and adopting clean-energy technologies.
(Credit: Pew Charitable Trusts) The U.S. is strong when it comes to technical innovation, with venture capital and private equity outpacing other countries. But China last year took the lead in "asset financing," or investment in renewable-energy projects. It also is poised to pass the U.S. as the country with the most installed capacity of renewable energy this year.
Although technical innovations play a big role in bringing down the cost of solar or biofuels, large-scale installations of clean-energy products is the key lever to bringing down cost compared to fossil fuels.
"We've come a long way, particularly with solar, but the question is which country will get us across the finish line (of cost parity with fossil fuels)? Which country will get us to the promised land?" said Ethan Zindler, the head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, during a conference call on Wednesday. "In the meantime, we need subsidies so we can have scale-up."
Last year, China plowed $34.6 billion into clean-energy financing, compared to $18.6 billion in the U.S., $11.2 billion in the U.K., and $10.8 billion in the rest of the European Union.
The most dramatic change in the past two years has been China's industrial policy to expand into solar, wind, and other energy-related technologies, Zindler said. "The government recognizes the strategic opportunity of exporting clean-energy equipment," he said. "They clearly want to get out ahead of it."
Executives at many U.S.-based clean-energy companies say they will build projects where there is available financing, so the technology may be developed in the U.S. but deployed in other places.
"We're very good at creating companies. But we're not doing as well in the renewable-energy space at creating markets, so the markets tend to be elsewhere," said John Woolard, the CEO of solar company BrightSource Energy, who was on the conference call.
Murky policy
Government policies play a large role in how rapidly these energy products are adopted. In the past, German and Spain had generous subsidies for wind and solar, which helped ramp up manufacturing and bring down the cost of electricity from those sources.
Looking for a clean-energy home run (photos)
View the full gallery
The U.S. policy toward renewable energy, meanwhile, has been inconsistent and tended to swing with each new administration. Business people in the clean-energy field argue that a long-term policy is needed so that financiers will invest in projects, such as wind and solar farms, which yield money over several years.
Specifically, the U.S. should adopt a national renewable-energy standard that mandates that utilities generate a percentage of their power from renewable sources, said Phyllis Cuttino, the global warming campaign director from the Pew Environment Group. She endorsed other policies, including a price on carbon emissions as well as a research and development tax credit for companies.
"The facts show that the U.S. trails in half a dozen categories," she said. "The U.S. is at a critical junction--either it will lead or follow."
Although health care has dominated in Washington over the past several months, members of Congress have also been working on a combined energy and climate bill that can gain enough support from both major parties. Notable is an effort led by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to craft a bill that puts a cap on carbon emissions, expands natural gas and nuclear energy, and has support from polluting industries.
Clean-energy policies typically appeal to all types of voters--those that favor energy security and increased use of domestic energy, those concerned with economic growth and job creation, and those interested in protecting the environment.
Story of solar star BrightSource
Saying that the U.S. lacks a coherent energy policy is a common theme among green-tech start-ups and investors.
At the ARPA-E Summit earlier this month, there were a number of energy technologies on display but speakers often returned to the need for predictable rules for companies to attract financing and commercialize their products.
Woolard of BrightSource Energy echoed that view. Even without a comprehensive energy and climate bill, the renewable-energy industry would benefit greatly by extending the cash grant subsidy for solar and wind projects, which is set to expire at the end of this year, to 2016. Also, the U.S. needs to have a national transmission policy to build new lines to carry solar and wind power across the country, he said.
BrightSource, which builds utility-scale solar thermal power plants, is one of the most successful companies to come out of a wave of green-tech start-ups in the past five years.
The company is perhaps the furthest along than others in plans to build large-scale solar plants in the U.S., but it still faces challenges in getting local permits in the California desert where its first plant is planned.
Even though the company has raised $160 million from venture capitalists and corporate partners, it also secured a $1.37 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy for its Ivanpah project, which would be first utility-scale solar plant built in the U.S. in about 20 years.
Those loans are particularly important for new technologies because banks and project financiers are not willing to fund projects with technology risk, said Woolard. Once initial projects are successfully built, risk-averse bankers are more likely to invest, he said.
Comments
by ferricoxide March 24, 2010 11:54 PM PDT
Except that what China's looking to do is less about meeting their own energy needs via "green" energy than it is about making it so that EVERYONE has to buy the technology from them.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by jfg77 March 25, 2010 2:26 AM PDT
@ferricoxide,
it's incredible for such anti-china-ism. what's wrong with them putting money and labor into green technology, master them and become leaders in the space and then make a buck or two?
toyota or GM's intention of developping hybrid technology is for environment or for profit? what's wrong with that?
Like this 2 people like this comment
by PhilipHa March 25, 2010 5:52 AM PDT
I think the comment 'China has a lot of ground to make up' is a long way from the truth. Although Chinese cities are heavily polluted, the USA's per capita CO2 emmissions are 4 times those of China (2006), and at China's current rate of spending it will soon overtake the rest of the world in terms of installed renewable energy capacity. Last year it spent 50% more than the US on installing new capacity and this rate of investment is continuing to rise rapidly. I think there is misplaced complacency in the US about global warming emmissions particularly in relation to China. As the aryticle points out, it is likely that the US will be buying much of its renewable energy technology from China in the near future if it doesn't resolve many of the issues outlined in the article.
Like this by Renegade Knight March 25, 2010 7:52 AM PDT
@PhilipHa
You missed the point. China has a long ways to go to develop power infrastructure. Meaning that in a lot of cases it's easier to "go gree" to meet growing demand.
C02 emmisions are a side effect of past and present development.
Like this by weegg March 25, 2010 6:14 AM PDT
Although, China is building on average 2 coal plants per week, so they are still spewing CO2.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by martin_c_e March 25, 2010 6:29 AM PDT
We should not compare the USA to Spain or Germany. We are a diverse nation with energy needs which are different throughout the nation. Each state should continue to set its own policies. The Feds should probably subsidize green energy via taxing diesel & gasoline taxes.
Like this Reply to this comment by Renegade Knight March 25, 2010 7:53 AM PDT
Good point. The electricity I need to run my AC, power my Furnace, and my computer is completely different from that European elecricity...
Like this by mike_ekim March 25, 2010 6:50 AM PDT
I don't believe that graph includes nuclear. USA is funding upcoming nuclear, and the potential damage by those plants is less than the garanteed damage caused by China's 2 coal plants per week.
Like this Reply to this comment by mlamonica March 25, 2010 10:31 AM PDT
MIT professor Andrew Kadak gave a talk on nuclear power and China at the MIT Energy conference a few weeks ago where he said that a number of nuclear plants are being built now in China and the industry is expanding rapidly.
You can read some of his comments here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10465392-54.html?tag=mncol
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/60393
Like this by USDecliningDollar March 25, 2010 9:07 AM PDT
The problem is that China has the $$$ to invest in green tech projects. We have to borrow money from China to keep the country afloat. All of the things that you buy, basically come from China, your money flows out of the US and into China, China uses this money to invest in new projects, industry and manufacturing. Since we have stopped practically all manufacturing in this country, we are left to flip each other's burgers and buy crap made in another country. When we flip each other's burgers and buy products made somewhere else, there is a net outflow of $$$.
Like this Reply to this comment by Joe Real March 25, 2010 10:22 AM PDT
It is true that the absolute number of renewable and clean energy investment infrastructure projects in China is the number one in the world, but one has to look at per capita basis. Perhaps on a per capita basis for green energy, the US is number one with China near the bottom of the list, after all, the US has the highest energy consumption per capita in the world. China has really to invest more to feed its population wanting to have higher standard of living and energy consumption as the western worlds, so it has a long long way to go.
I am just hoping that China will stop copying the US technologies and innovations, only to manufacture them first, very cheaply and then sell back to the world, undercutting prices, making the US investments in R&D fruitless.
While biofuels sputter, green chemicals attract cash
March 25, 2010 6:25 AM PDT
by Martin LaMonica
After betting big on biofuels with little success, investors appear to be switching gears to focus more on making chemicals from plants.
Chemical company Genomatica on Thursday said that it has raised $15 million in series C financing, which was led by TPG Biotch, a venture capital arm of private equity company Texas Pacific Group. With the money, Genomatica plans to start building a demonstration facility later this year to produce the industrial chemical 1,4-butanediol, or BDO, from sugar and to expand its product line.
Working with bacteria to make chemicals.
(Credit: Genomatica) Genomatica is one of several biotechnology companies using genetically modified organisms to make fuels or chemicals from plants. In biofuels, few companies have been able to produce fuels from non-food feedstocks at large scale because of technical challenges or difficulty raising money from risk-averse bankers.
Chemical companies face similar challenges, but they typically can charge more for their products, said Christophe Schilling, the CEO of Genomatica. "Fuels represent a significantly larger market in terms of volume, but it does have the challenge of delivering at costs at points competitive with fossil fuels," he said. A pound of BDO, for example, costs several times more than a pound of ethanol.
Genomatica has developed a strain of the e.coli bacteria to convert sugar water, either from sugar cane or sugar beets, into BDO. Schilling said the company projects it can undercut the cost of BDO made from oil or natural gas on price alone.
The demonstration facility, which Schilling expects to be completed next year, will be used to test with partners the quality of BDO for making products, such as spandex fibers or plastics used in cars.
Another biotech company, Codexis, plans to produce both liquid fuels and chemicals through its process. It's one of a handful of green start-ups which plan to go public. Two other companies targeting the market for plant-derived chemicals, Segetis and Rennovia, recently raised money from venture capital companies.
by Martin LaMonica
After betting big on biofuels with little success, investors appear to be switching gears to focus more on making chemicals from plants.
Chemical company Genomatica on Thursday said that it has raised $15 million in series C financing, which was led by TPG Biotch, a venture capital arm of private equity company Texas Pacific Group. With the money, Genomatica plans to start building a demonstration facility later this year to produce the industrial chemical 1,4-butanediol, or BDO, from sugar and to expand its product line.
Working with bacteria to make chemicals.
(Credit: Genomatica) Genomatica is one of several biotechnology companies using genetically modified organisms to make fuels or chemicals from plants. In biofuels, few companies have been able to produce fuels from non-food feedstocks at large scale because of technical challenges or difficulty raising money from risk-averse bankers.
Chemical companies face similar challenges, but they typically can charge more for their products, said Christophe Schilling, the CEO of Genomatica. "Fuels represent a significantly larger market in terms of volume, but it does have the challenge of delivering at costs at points competitive with fossil fuels," he said. A pound of BDO, for example, costs several times more than a pound of ethanol.
Genomatica has developed a strain of the e.coli bacteria to convert sugar water, either from sugar cane or sugar beets, into BDO. Schilling said the company projects it can undercut the cost of BDO made from oil or natural gas on price alone.
The demonstration facility, which Schilling expects to be completed next year, will be used to test with partners the quality of BDO for making products, such as spandex fibers or plastics used in cars.
Another biotech company, Codexis, plans to produce both liquid fuels and chemicals through its process. It's one of a handful of green start-ups which plan to go public. Two other companies targeting the market for plant-derived chemicals, Segetis and Rennovia, recently raised money from venture capital companies.
Cisco investing in smart grid start-up
March 25, 2010 9:58 AM PDT
by Candace Lombardi
(Credit: GridNet)
Cisco is continuing its interest in smart-grid infrastructure and management with an equity investment in GridNet, the smart grid start-up announced Thursday.
The sum of Cisco's investment in GridNet was not disclosed, but the start-up now has another feather in its cap in terms of big-name investors. In addition to the Cisco investment, GridNet's investors now also include GE Energy Financial Services and Intel Capital, as well as several other venture capital firms.
GridNet, which has offices in San Francisco and Sydney, has an array of smart-grid products including two software platforms. One is a smart meter integration system for residential home use. The other is a real-time platform for utilities and suppliers that offers automated integration and distribution of power supplies, as well as tools for electricity demand management. The infrastructure is built to meet "regulatory and governmental Smart Grid interoperability and cybersecurity standards," according to GridNet.
That's an interesting assertion to make considering smart-grid technical standards, though urgently needed, are still in the infancy stage of being set. But with Cisco now as an investor, it might be a good bet that GridNet will, in fact, become a standard trendsetter.
Cisco announced in its first quarter 2010 earnings report that it had formed a "Smart Grid Technology advisory board," as well as established an industry organization called Smart Grid Ecosystem to lobby for the adoption of an IP standard for smart-grid communications. The organization includes other major players like Oracle and Siemens among its members.
In October 2009, Cisco partnered with German electricity company Yello Strom to launch a smart-grid pilot project in 70 German homes and businesses. The system can autonomously respond to changes in power supply and demand on the utility side, as well as integrate with homeowner tools for monitoring and regulating use.
At the time, Christian Feisst, industry lead utilities for the Cisco Internet Solutions Business Group, said in a statement that smart grids were an obvious next step for Cisco given its core strengths.
"The control of electric current is very similar to the management of information flow, so smart grids operate on principles similar to those behind the Internet. The exception is that electricity systems have a much greater number of nodes. This is where we are able to apply our expertise, integrating and processing crucial information that helps enable electricity consumption to be optimized," he said.
by Candace Lombardi
(Credit: GridNet)
Cisco is continuing its interest in smart-grid infrastructure and management with an equity investment in GridNet, the smart grid start-up announced Thursday.
The sum of Cisco's investment in GridNet was not disclosed, but the start-up now has another feather in its cap in terms of big-name investors. In addition to the Cisco investment, GridNet's investors now also include GE Energy Financial Services and Intel Capital, as well as several other venture capital firms.
GridNet, which has offices in San Francisco and Sydney, has an array of smart-grid products including two software platforms. One is a smart meter integration system for residential home use. The other is a real-time platform for utilities and suppliers that offers automated integration and distribution of power supplies, as well as tools for electricity demand management. The infrastructure is built to meet "regulatory and governmental Smart Grid interoperability and cybersecurity standards," according to GridNet.
That's an interesting assertion to make considering smart-grid technical standards, though urgently needed, are still in the infancy stage of being set. But with Cisco now as an investor, it might be a good bet that GridNet will, in fact, become a standard trendsetter.
Cisco announced in its first quarter 2010 earnings report that it had formed a "Smart Grid Technology advisory board," as well as established an industry organization called Smart Grid Ecosystem to lobby for the adoption of an IP standard for smart-grid communications. The organization includes other major players like Oracle and Siemens among its members.
In October 2009, Cisco partnered with German electricity company Yello Strom to launch a smart-grid pilot project in 70 German homes and businesses. The system can autonomously respond to changes in power supply and demand on the utility side, as well as integrate with homeowner tools for monitoring and regulating use.
At the time, Christian Feisst, industry lead utilities for the Cisco Internet Solutions Business Group, said in a statement that smart grids were an obvious next step for Cisco given its core strengths.
"The control of electric current is very similar to the management of information flow, so smart grids operate on principles similar to those behind the Internet. The exception is that electricity systems have a much greater number of nodes. This is where we are able to apply our expertise, integrating and processing crucial information that helps enable electricity consumption to be optimized," he said.
GE announces major wind investment in Europe
March 25, 2010 9:13 AM PDT
by Candace Lombardi
A GE offshore wind demonstration farm.
(Credit: GE) GE plans to spend about $450 million over the next 10 years to expand its wind turbine business in Europe, the company said Thursday.
The investment will finance wind turbine engineering, manufacturing, and service facilities in Germany, Norway, and Sweden by 2016, and a new manufacturing facility in the U.K. by 2020. The plans also include new facilities to demonstrate GE's 4-megawatt wind turbine.
Specifically, 75 million euros ($100 million) will go toward a research and development center in Norway, where there are plans under way to test GE's new 4-megawatt offshore wind turbines. GE already has ties to the Scandinavian wind industry. In September, GE acquired ScanWind for about $18.5 million. At the time of the acquisition, the manufacturer was already providing GE with the drive train components for some of its turbines. The drive train's design is unique because it does not use a gear box, something GE has argued provides more reliability and less maintenance. ScanWind already had facilities in Trondheim, Norway, and Karlstad, Sweden.
In Sweden, where GE also has offshore wind facilities, there will be a 50 million euro ($67 million) expansion, as well as a new technology demonstration wind farm in Gothenburg harbor.
GE plants to spend 105 million euros ($140 million) in Germany to expand an existing wind turbine manufacturing plant in Salzenbergen and build a new engineering center in Hamburg. In the U.K., GE says it plans to take advantage of the government's incentives to open a new wind turbine manufacturing plant as well as source suppliers for its turbine components such as blades and towers. The company estimates it will invest 110 million euros ($147 million) by 2020 in that project, and create about 2,000 U.K. jobs, including indirect supply chain jobs.
In a statement, GE pointed to European Wind Energy Association statistics that the EU offshore wind industry is expected to grow as much as 70 percent in 2010 due in large part to the European Union's aggressive energy agenda. The EU has a set a goal to produce 20 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2020. The European Wind Energy Association predicts that if all existing plans for offshore wind farms are completed, at least 10 percent of all EU electricity will ultimately be produced by offshore wind power.
GE's wind interests are not restricted to reaping the recent European enthusiasm for wind energy. In December, GE announced it had signed a $1.4 billion contract to provide wind turbines and 10 years of maintenance services for the 845-megawatt wind farm, Shepherds Flat, near Arlington, Ore.
by Candace Lombardi
A GE offshore wind demonstration farm.
(Credit: GE) GE plans to spend about $450 million over the next 10 years to expand its wind turbine business in Europe, the company said Thursday.
The investment will finance wind turbine engineering, manufacturing, and service facilities in Germany, Norway, and Sweden by 2016, and a new manufacturing facility in the U.K. by 2020. The plans also include new facilities to demonstrate GE's 4-megawatt wind turbine.
Specifically, 75 million euros ($100 million) will go toward a research and development center in Norway, where there are plans under way to test GE's new 4-megawatt offshore wind turbines. GE already has ties to the Scandinavian wind industry. In September, GE acquired ScanWind for about $18.5 million. At the time of the acquisition, the manufacturer was already providing GE with the drive train components for some of its turbines. The drive train's design is unique because it does not use a gear box, something GE has argued provides more reliability and less maintenance. ScanWind already had facilities in Trondheim, Norway, and Karlstad, Sweden.
In Sweden, where GE also has offshore wind facilities, there will be a 50 million euro ($67 million) expansion, as well as a new technology demonstration wind farm in Gothenburg harbor.
GE plants to spend 105 million euros ($140 million) in Germany to expand an existing wind turbine manufacturing plant in Salzenbergen and build a new engineering center in Hamburg. In the U.K., GE says it plans to take advantage of the government's incentives to open a new wind turbine manufacturing plant as well as source suppliers for its turbine components such as blades and towers. The company estimates it will invest 110 million euros ($147 million) by 2020 in that project, and create about 2,000 U.K. jobs, including indirect supply chain jobs.
In a statement, GE pointed to European Wind Energy Association statistics that the EU offshore wind industry is expected to grow as much as 70 percent in 2010 due in large part to the European Union's aggressive energy agenda. The EU has a set a goal to produce 20 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2020. The European Wind Energy Association predicts that if all existing plans for offshore wind farms are completed, at least 10 percent of all EU electricity will ultimately be produced by offshore wind power.
GE's wind interests are not restricted to reaping the recent European enthusiasm for wind energy. In December, GE announced it had signed a $1.4 billion contract to provide wind turbines and 10 years of maintenance services for the 845-megawatt wind farm, Shepherds Flat, near Arlington, Ore.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Chevron sets up test site for seven solar technologies
March 22, 2010 1:39 PM PDT
by Reuters
Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, said on Monday it has installed some 7,700 solar panels at a California site to test various technologies that help turn sunlight into electricity.
Project Brightfield, located in Bakersfield, Calif., will evaluate seven technologies: six panels that use thin-film, and one that uses crystalline-silicon photovoltaic technology, the company said.
The race is on in the solar industry to find the most efficient and lowest-cost way to harness the sun's energy.
Traditional silicon-based materials are the standard right now, though research firm iSuppli expects the market for thin-film solar panels to more than double by 2013.
Makers of thin-film, which boasts low costs, currently have some 20 percent of the market. Manufacturers of silicon-based panels claim to have higher efficiencies.
The Chevron project, which sits where a company refinery used to, is expected to generate roughly 740 kilowatts of electricity, which will feed the local utility grid as well as Chevron's oil operations at the Kern River Field.
California utilities are working to meet state mandates to derive 20 percent of their power from renewable resources by the end of this year.
The companies demonstrating thin-film technologies are Abound Solar, MiaSole, Schuco, Solar Frontier, Sharp, and Solibro, while Innovalight is providing the crystalline-silicon PV technology, Chevron said.
The company said it would use test results to help determine the uses of renewable power at its other facilities
by Reuters
Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, said on Monday it has installed some 7,700 solar panels at a California site to test various technologies that help turn sunlight into electricity.
Project Brightfield, located in Bakersfield, Calif., will evaluate seven technologies: six panels that use thin-film, and one that uses crystalline-silicon photovoltaic technology, the company said.
The race is on in the solar industry to find the most efficient and lowest-cost way to harness the sun's energy.
Traditional silicon-based materials are the standard right now, though research firm iSuppli expects the market for thin-film solar panels to more than double by 2013.
Makers of thin-film, which boasts low costs, currently have some 20 percent of the market. Manufacturers of silicon-based panels claim to have higher efficiencies.
The Chevron project, which sits where a company refinery used to, is expected to generate roughly 740 kilowatts of electricity, which will feed the local utility grid as well as Chevron's oil operations at the Kern River Field.
California utilities are working to meet state mandates to derive 20 percent of their power from renewable resources by the end of this year.
The companies demonstrating thin-film technologies are Abound Solar, MiaSole, Schuco, Solar Frontier, Sharp, and Solibro, while Innovalight is providing the crystalline-silicon PV technology, Chevron said.
The company said it would use test results to help determine the uses of renewable power at its other facilities
L.A. ranks first for Energy Star buildings
March 24, 2010 10:06 AM PDT
by Candace Lombardi
View of Los Angeles from the 6th Street Bridge.
(Credit: City of Los Angeles/Bureau of Street Lighting)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Tuesday that Los Angeles has the more Energy Star-rated buildings than any other city in the U.S.
The news came as part of the EPA's release of a report ranking the top 25 U.S. cities by the number of Energy Star-labeled buildings within its borders. (PDF)
Los Angeles, notorious for its smog problem, remains in first place since last year with 293 Energy Star-labeled buildings, followed by Washington, D.C. (204), San Francisco (173), Denver (136), Chicago (134), Houston (133), Lakeland, Fla. (120), Dallas-Fort Worth (113), Atlanta (102), and New York (90).
The Energy Star label, a consumer guide to efficiency in electronics, appliances, and most recently enterprise servers, has been awarded to buildings since 1999, according to the EPA.
The EPA estimates that 17 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from commercial buildings alone.
Just as Energy Star label requirements differ by appliance, and so, too, do the requirements for Energy Star-labeled buildings. There are 13 different categories for commercial buildings that include: hospitals, retail stores, supermarkets, office buildings, and schools.
Using a tool on the EPA's Web site consumers can research and map Energy Star-labeled commercial buildings by state, Zip code, and type of building. While not included in the ranking, the EPA also rates industrial facilities by categories that include auto assembly plants and pharmaceutical plants. Those, too, can be found using the online tool.
Between 1999 and the end of 2009, more than 9,000 U.S. commercial buildings earned Energy Star labels. Over 3,900 of those were granted in 2009
by Candace Lombardi
View of Los Angeles from the 6th Street Bridge.
(Credit: City of Los Angeles/Bureau of Street Lighting)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Tuesday that Los Angeles has the more Energy Star-rated buildings than any other city in the U.S.
The news came as part of the EPA's release of a report ranking the top 25 U.S. cities by the number of Energy Star-labeled buildings within its borders. (PDF)
Los Angeles, notorious for its smog problem, remains in first place since last year with 293 Energy Star-labeled buildings, followed by Washington, D.C. (204), San Francisco (173), Denver (136), Chicago (134), Houston (133), Lakeland, Fla. (120), Dallas-Fort Worth (113), Atlanta (102), and New York (90).
The Energy Star label, a consumer guide to efficiency in electronics, appliances, and most recently enterprise servers, has been awarded to buildings since 1999, according to the EPA.
The EPA estimates that 17 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from commercial buildings alone.
Just as Energy Star label requirements differ by appliance, and so, too, do the requirements for Energy Star-labeled buildings. There are 13 different categories for commercial buildings that include: hospitals, retail stores, supermarkets, office buildings, and schools.
Using a tool on the EPA's Web site consumers can research and map Energy Star-labeled commercial buildings by state, Zip code, and type of building. While not included in the ranking, the EPA also rates industrial facilities by categories that include auto assembly plants and pharmaceutical plants. Those, too, can be found using the online tool.
Between 1999 and the end of 2009, more than 9,000 U.S. commercial buildings earned Energy Star labels. Over 3,900 of those were granted in 2009
Friday, March 19, 2010
Bright spot for one California college: A solar farm
March 18, 2010 11:09 AM PDT
by Candace Lombardi
Installation in progress of the SolFocus solar farm at Victor Valley College.
(Credit: SolFocus) Amid all the budget cuts at California's university and community college systems that administrators and students are facing, good news on a California campus is hard to come by these days.
Here is one bright spot.
Victor Valley College, a community college in Victorville, Calif., is partnering with SolFocus to add solar energy as a campus energy source and a part of its curriculum. It plans to install a 1-megawatt high-concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) solar farm on 6 acres of its campus.
The installation once completed will save the campus about a third in annual energy use and raise up to $4 million over five years through performance-based incentives from the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program.
SolFocus is known for its honeycomb CPV panels.
(Credit: SolFocus) CPVs are a unique type of solar panel in which solar rays are concentrated by either lenses or mirrors onto solar cells to maximize electricity output. SolFocus, a start-up that grew out of Xerox's Palo Alto Research Park, is particularly known for its honeycomb array design in which a dish of reflective optics magnifies solar rays 650 times and focuses that sunlight onto high-efficiency solar cells.
As with all CPVs, the high-concentrator solar panel should in theory give the college the same bang for its buck while taking up less space than the usual flat-panel solar system would require.
When complete the farm will produce 2.5 million kilowatt-hours per year, which is roughly 30 percent of the university's annual electricity use, according to Victor Valley College.
The 6-acre plant will also double as a teaching facility with SolFocus partnering with Victor Valley College to develop a solar-energy technology curriculum and training program.
by Candace Lombardi
Installation in progress of the SolFocus solar farm at Victor Valley College.
(Credit: SolFocus) Amid all the budget cuts at California's university and community college systems that administrators and students are facing, good news on a California campus is hard to come by these days.
Here is one bright spot.
Victor Valley College, a community college in Victorville, Calif., is partnering with SolFocus to add solar energy as a campus energy source and a part of its curriculum. It plans to install a 1-megawatt high-concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) solar farm on 6 acres of its campus.
The installation once completed will save the campus about a third in annual energy use and raise up to $4 million over five years through performance-based incentives from the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program.
SolFocus is known for its honeycomb CPV panels.
(Credit: SolFocus) CPVs are a unique type of solar panel in which solar rays are concentrated by either lenses or mirrors onto solar cells to maximize electricity output. SolFocus, a start-up that grew out of Xerox's Palo Alto Research Park, is particularly known for its honeycomb array design in which a dish of reflective optics magnifies solar rays 650 times and focuses that sunlight onto high-efficiency solar cells.
As with all CPVs, the high-concentrator solar panel should in theory give the college the same bang for its buck while taking up less space than the usual flat-panel solar system would require.
When complete the farm will produce 2.5 million kilowatt-hours per year, which is roughly 30 percent of the university's annual electricity use, according to Victor Valley College.
The 6-acre plant will also double as a teaching facility with SolFocus partnering with Victor Valley College to develop a solar-energy technology curriculum and training program.
Toshiba says good-bye to incandescent era
March 18, 2010 1:58 PM PDT
by Candace Lombardi 23 comments Share
Toshiba chart shows incandescent lightbulb interest has been dimming since the company's production peak of 78 million bulbs in the 1973.
(Credit: Toshiba)
Toshiba announced Wednesday it has produced its last major run of incandescent lightbulbs.
The Japanese electronics manufacturer said the phaseout is part of a strategy to ultimately concentrate on LED (light-emitting diode) lighting products, though it will continue to produce certain specialty incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent lighting has been dwindling in use over the last five years in large part to citizen and government phase-out campaigns that include laws for an eventual ban on the sale of the electricity-guzzling light source. Many countries have already passed laws with deadlines looming.
Australia was the first country to ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs, which took effect in 2010. In December 2007, the U.S. passed a law phasing out the sale of the 100-watt incandescent bulb beginning in 2012 with a ban to take effect by 2014, as well as several regulations regarding bulb efficiency rates.
Many companies have responded to the changes by reducing production in favor of new lighting technology like LEDs and CFLs (compact fluorescent bulbs). Even newer technologies like electron stimulated luminescence (ESL) lights and incandescent bulbs with ultra-fast short-pulse lasers are also on the horizon.
"Toshiba estimates that switching 60 percent of the world's incandescent lights with LED lights would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 125.5 million tons in 2025, compared to 2000," the company said in a statement.
It marks the end of a technology era. Since 1890, Toshiba--that is the company that eventually became part of Toshiba--has been manufacturing incandescent lighting.
Hakunetsu-sha & Company was Japan's first electric incandescent lighting factory and produced its first bulbs in 1890 at a rate of 10 bulbs per day. The company was renamed the Tokyo Electric Company in 1899, and in 1939 merged with Shibaura Engineering Works to become what is today known as Toshiba.
Comments
by ColeSlaw82 March 18, 2010 2:26 PM PDT
Few modern technologies have lasted so long. I'm glad the incandescant bulb was here, but I'm not sad to see it go.
Like this Reply to this comment by ikramerica--2008 March 18, 2010 2:33 PM PDT
I'm sad to see it replaced with CFLs. They are horrible. Most can't be dimmed, they take time to warm up (making them useless in storage rooms and stairways unless always left on), don't work in cold weather (making them useless in outdoor applications in cold climates), etc. And they are heavily polluting when discarded.
Hopefully LEDs will quickly replace CFLs, and all will be right with the world again.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by mrwater March 18, 2010 3:16 PM PDT
@ikramerica--2008
CFLs are said to contain less mercury than the extra amount of mercury emitted by a coal-fired power plant to power an incandescent bulb. Whatever mercury they contain would be kept contained by proper disposal.
Like this by solitare_pax March 18, 2010 5:30 PM PDT
Agreed - most hardware stores I go to will take CFLs and smoke detectors (which usually have small amounts of radioactive materials in them). And don't forget, until recently, most batteries had mercury in them as well.
Like this by taphilo March 18, 2010 2:40 PM PDT
20 years from now, someone in their basement lab will make one, plug it into a lamp, the smart meter will report it back to the government and in the middle of the night they will storm into the house, charge you with carbon theft - and throw you in jail and fine you thousands of carbon credits for mis-using a public resource . . . it could happen . . .a modern varient on "Farenheift 451" . . .
Like this Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by rapier1 March 18, 2010 3:33 PM PDT
Tomorrow Jesus is going to come and walk amoung us and hand out $100 bills and free cocaine. It could happen!
Like this 2 people like this comment
by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:21 AM PDT
I don't think you'll have to worry about that...
http://www.gas-turbines.com/nt6/index.html
Like this by sslPro March 18, 2010 2:41 PM PDT
Incandescent lights - 100 plus years of inefficiencies - Leds only at my place - Its the 21st century. My question to toshiba engineers - why would you utilize Direct current Leds which require a driver - would you put a chevy transmission in a Rolls Royce. Some of the led lights avaliable are well designed and will function for 100,000 hours - Like the ones in my house, other brands are substandard - Advice from someone in the SSL industry - Become educated before buying Leds or else deal with the consequences.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by mrwater March 18, 2010 3:22 PM PDT
It may be helpful for buyers to consider that, at 9 hours a day, a lifetime of 100,000 hours would be more than 30 years.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by Applerocks1963_ March 18, 2010 9:28 PM PDT
@sslPro. If you're going to go around telling others to get educated, you should at least try to write it with a proper sentence. Questions usually end with question marks and dashes are not the correct way to separate sentences. Comma's, periods, and the correct use of capitol letters are things kids usually learn in grade school.
It doesn't matter how intelligent or profound you may really be, your writing is what people see. An occasional typo is one thing but If you purposly write like your dumb and illiterate then thats all people will remember.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by brewster_13 March 19, 2010 6:05 AM PDT
@Applerocks1963_
So true, when you write like an idiot, most people believe you are one, no matter what you write.
BTW, "write like your dumb and illiterate", that should be the contraction "you're" as in "write like you are dumb" not the possessive "your", as in "that is your bad grammar"...
Like this 2 people like this comment
by dmrouns March 19, 2010 8:07 AM PDT
BTW you do know that Rolls Royce did for a time use a THM400 (Chevy) transmission...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Hydramatic
Like this by ddesy March 18, 2010 2:55 PM PDT
As long as LED lights don't have noisy power sources that cause interference like many CCFLs, there isn't much problem.
Like this Reply to this comment by professionaladventurer March 18, 2010 3:53 PM PDT
I use only CFL and LED lights, LED's are way behind brightness/cost wise.
Like this Reply to this comment by jscott418 March 18, 2010 7:26 PM PDT
I have had several issues with CFL, so I am hoping LED's will be better. Longevity and quality of light is the most disappointing of the CFL's.
Like this Reply to this comment by monkeyfun14 March 18, 2010 7:51 PM PDT
The only problem with LED's and CFL's is the light is not a warm light. Its a cold bluish light which can be a bit depressing at times.
Like this Reply to this comment by cvaldes1831 March 18, 2010 9:08 PM PDT
The color temperature issue was a big problem five years ago, especially for CFLs. It's not anymore.
Trust me, I have a sh_tty bluish 100W-equivalent CFL banished to my patio; it's the rejected survivor of one of my CFL experiments several years ago.
You were right 3-5 years ago. Today, there are plenty of consumer-grade CFL products that don't totally suck.
Like this by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:29 AM PDT
cvaldes1831@ Completely correct. I think the worst problem for the CFL companies is the poor results from the first and second generation bulbs put off a lot of customers. I bought one or two a year until the industry finally figured it out, then I installed about 14 throughout the house. I still have incandescent bulbs in locations like the coat closet, which on on for very short duration. For those, I installed door switches, so if the door is closed, the light is off. You also still need incandescent in harsh environments such as appliance bulbs.
Overall, the quality of light from the latest generation of CFL is very good. Warm white where you want it, up to cool white and daylight where you want that. I will agree that they still do not dim very well.
Like this by RideMan March 18, 2010 9:13 PM PDT
I've actually had to remove most of the CFLs from my house and replace them with incandescents because of the problems I've had...they don't work with electronic switches, they don't work with dimmers, they take too long to produce adequate light, they don't come in the brightnesses I need, etc etc etc. I've got places where I'd love to use LEDs, and there are LEDs out there that look gorgeous...but why is it that the Christmas light LEDs seem to be further advanced than the ones intended for household use? I have Christmas LEDs that are a perfect color and a useful brightness, but I can't find a simple nightlight replacement lamp that actually works to use in my living room sconces...
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:35 AM PDT
I have CFLs lamps all through my house, but I cannot tolerate the LED Christmas tree lights. The flicker from those drives me up the wall. I was at a party this past Holiday and I could not stay in the living room with the tree for more than three or four minutes at a stretch. It was really inconvenient. I was looking to replace my light strings this year and I am really glad that I didn't.
High quality LED lamps don't have any visible flicker at all.
Like this by gsmiller88 March 18, 2010 9:43 PM PDT
I have replaced pretty much all bulbs in my home with CFL's as I was told A) they're more "green" and B) will save on my monthly electric bill. Well I can't comment on the more green part but my electric bill is exactly the same...Even more considering how expensive CFL's are compared to incandescent bulbs.
Like this Reply to this comment by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:47 AM PDT
It will only make a difference in you bill if your lighting is a significant part of your bill. If you have an electric oven, electric hot water, and an electric dryer, your lighting costs are in the noise.
My house is all gas for the appliances, other than refrigeration of course, and the switch to CFLs was significant. In particular, I focused on lamps that had long run times, particularly during the winter months. Living room, den, kitchen, bath rooms, and one hall light. The rest remain as incandescent. I just went through and counted. Twenty two bulbs in total. I replaced around 1300 Watts of lighting with around 350 watts of lighting. In the winter, twelve of those twenty two are on about seven or eight hours every day. That is a reduction of about 28KWh per week.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by dragonsky1 March 18, 2010 11:35 PM PDT
Well, I have nearly all CFLs. There have been plenty on the market for years now that are able to produce accurate lighting and coloring, and they last much longer than incandescent. I put four in my ceiling fan 6 years ago, and three are still lit, with one going out just this week. Not to mention they have saved me some money on my electric bill, though it was never that high to begin with.
Though when LEDs become affordable, I would definitely give them a try
by Candace Lombardi 23 comments Share
Toshiba chart shows incandescent lightbulb interest has been dimming since the company's production peak of 78 million bulbs in the 1973.
(Credit: Toshiba)
Toshiba announced Wednesday it has produced its last major run of incandescent lightbulbs.
The Japanese electronics manufacturer said the phaseout is part of a strategy to ultimately concentrate on LED (light-emitting diode) lighting products, though it will continue to produce certain specialty incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent lighting has been dwindling in use over the last five years in large part to citizen and government phase-out campaigns that include laws for an eventual ban on the sale of the electricity-guzzling light source. Many countries have already passed laws with deadlines looming.
Australia was the first country to ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs, which took effect in 2010. In December 2007, the U.S. passed a law phasing out the sale of the 100-watt incandescent bulb beginning in 2012 with a ban to take effect by 2014, as well as several regulations regarding bulb efficiency rates.
Many companies have responded to the changes by reducing production in favor of new lighting technology like LEDs and CFLs (compact fluorescent bulbs). Even newer technologies like electron stimulated luminescence (ESL) lights and incandescent bulbs with ultra-fast short-pulse lasers are also on the horizon.
"Toshiba estimates that switching 60 percent of the world's incandescent lights with LED lights would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 125.5 million tons in 2025, compared to 2000," the company said in a statement.
It marks the end of a technology era. Since 1890, Toshiba--that is the company that eventually became part of Toshiba--has been manufacturing incandescent lighting.
Hakunetsu-sha & Company was Japan's first electric incandescent lighting factory and produced its first bulbs in 1890 at a rate of 10 bulbs per day. The company was renamed the Tokyo Electric Company in 1899, and in 1939 merged with Shibaura Engineering Works to become what is today known as Toshiba.
Comments
by ColeSlaw82 March 18, 2010 2:26 PM PDT
Few modern technologies have lasted so long. I'm glad the incandescant bulb was here, but I'm not sad to see it go.
Like this Reply to this comment by ikramerica--2008 March 18, 2010 2:33 PM PDT
I'm sad to see it replaced with CFLs. They are horrible. Most can't be dimmed, they take time to warm up (making them useless in storage rooms and stairways unless always left on), don't work in cold weather (making them useless in outdoor applications in cold climates), etc. And they are heavily polluting when discarded.
Hopefully LEDs will quickly replace CFLs, and all will be right with the world again.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by mrwater March 18, 2010 3:16 PM PDT
@ikramerica--2008
CFLs are said to contain less mercury than the extra amount of mercury emitted by a coal-fired power plant to power an incandescent bulb. Whatever mercury they contain would be kept contained by proper disposal.
Like this by solitare_pax March 18, 2010 5:30 PM PDT
Agreed - most hardware stores I go to will take CFLs and smoke detectors (which usually have small amounts of radioactive materials in them). And don't forget, until recently, most batteries had mercury in them as well.
Like this by taphilo March 18, 2010 2:40 PM PDT
20 years from now, someone in their basement lab will make one, plug it into a lamp, the smart meter will report it back to the government and in the middle of the night they will storm into the house, charge you with carbon theft - and throw you in jail and fine you thousands of carbon credits for mis-using a public resource . . . it could happen . . .a modern varient on "Farenheift 451"
Like this Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by rapier1 March 18, 2010 3:33 PM PDT
Tomorrow Jesus is going to come and walk amoung us and hand out $100 bills and free cocaine. It could happen!
Like this 2 people like this comment
by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:21 AM PDT
I don't think you'll have to worry about that...
http://www.gas-turbines.com/nt6/index.html
Like this by sslPro March 18, 2010 2:41 PM PDT
Incandescent lights - 100 plus years of inefficiencies - Leds only at my place - Its the 21st century. My question to toshiba engineers - why would you utilize Direct current Leds which require a driver - would you put a chevy transmission in a Rolls Royce. Some of the led lights avaliable are well designed and will function for 100,000 hours - Like the ones in my house, other brands are substandard - Advice from someone in the SSL industry - Become educated before buying Leds or else deal with the consequences.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by mrwater March 18, 2010 3:22 PM PDT
It may be helpful for buyers to consider that, at 9 hours a day, a lifetime of 100,000 hours would be more than 30 years.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by Applerocks1963_ March 18, 2010 9:28 PM PDT
@sslPro. If you're going to go around telling others to get educated, you should at least try to write it with a proper sentence. Questions usually end with question marks and dashes are not the correct way to separate sentences. Comma's, periods, and the correct use of capitol letters are things kids usually learn in grade school.
It doesn't matter how intelligent or profound you may really be, your writing is what people see. An occasional typo is one thing but If you purposly write like your dumb and illiterate then thats all people will remember.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by brewster_13 March 19, 2010 6:05 AM PDT
@Applerocks1963_
So true, when you write like an idiot, most people believe you are one, no matter what you write.
BTW, "write like your dumb and illiterate", that should be the contraction "you're" as in "write like you are dumb" not the possessive "your", as in "that is your bad grammar"...
Like this 2 people like this comment
by dmrouns March 19, 2010 8:07 AM PDT
BTW you do know that Rolls Royce did for a time use a THM400 (Chevy) transmission...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Hydramatic
Like this by ddesy March 18, 2010 2:55 PM PDT
As long as LED lights don't have noisy power sources that cause interference like many CCFLs, there isn't much problem.
Like this Reply to this comment by professionaladventurer March 18, 2010 3:53 PM PDT
I use only CFL and LED lights, LED's are way behind brightness/cost wise.
Like this Reply to this comment by jscott418 March 18, 2010 7:26 PM PDT
I have had several issues with CFL, so I am hoping LED's will be better. Longevity and quality of light is the most disappointing of the CFL's.
Like this Reply to this comment by monkeyfun14 March 18, 2010 7:51 PM PDT
The only problem with LED's and CFL's is the light is not a warm light. Its a cold bluish light which can be a bit depressing at times.
Like this Reply to this comment by cvaldes1831 March 18, 2010 9:08 PM PDT
The color temperature issue was a big problem five years ago, especially for CFLs. It's not anymore.
Trust me, I have a sh_tty bluish 100W-equivalent CFL banished to my patio; it's the rejected survivor of one of my CFL experiments several years ago.
You were right 3-5 years ago. Today, there are plenty of consumer-grade CFL products that don't totally suck.
Like this by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:29 AM PDT
cvaldes1831@ Completely correct. I think the worst problem for the CFL companies is the poor results from the first and second generation bulbs put off a lot of customers. I bought one or two a year until the industry finally figured it out, then I installed about 14 throughout the house. I still have incandescent bulbs in locations like the coat closet, which on on for very short duration. For those, I installed door switches, so if the door is closed, the light is off. You also still need incandescent in harsh environments such as appliance bulbs.
Overall, the quality of light from the latest generation of CFL is very good. Warm white where you want it, up to cool white and daylight where you want that. I will agree that they still do not dim very well.
Like this by RideMan March 18, 2010 9:13 PM PDT
I've actually had to remove most of the CFLs from my house and replace them with incandescents because of the problems I've had...they don't work with electronic switches, they don't work with dimmers, they take too long to produce adequate light, they don't come in the brightnesses I need, etc etc etc. I've got places where I'd love to use LEDs, and there are LEDs out there that look gorgeous...but why is it that the Christmas light LEDs seem to be further advanced than the ones intended for household use? I have Christmas LEDs that are a perfect color and a useful brightness, but I can't find a simple nightlight replacement lamp that actually works to use in my living room sconces...
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:35 AM PDT
I have CFLs lamps all through my house, but I cannot tolerate the LED Christmas tree lights. The flicker from those drives me up the wall. I was at a party this past Holiday and I could not stay in the living room with the tree for more than three or four minutes at a stretch. It was really inconvenient. I was looking to replace my light strings this year and I am really glad that I didn't.
High quality LED lamps don't have any visible flicker at all.
Like this by gsmiller88 March 18, 2010 9:43 PM PDT
I have replaced pretty much all bulbs in my home with CFL's as I was told A) they're more "green" and B) will save on my monthly electric bill. Well I can't comment on the more green part but my electric bill is exactly the same...Even more considering how expensive CFL's are compared to incandescent bulbs.
Like this Reply to this comment by zyxxy March 19, 2010 5:47 AM PDT
It will only make a difference in you bill if your lighting is a significant part of your bill. If you have an electric oven, electric hot water, and an electric dryer, your lighting costs are in the noise.
My house is all gas for the appliances, other than refrigeration of course, and the switch to CFLs was significant. In particular, I focused on lamps that had long run times, particularly during the winter months. Living room, den, kitchen, bath rooms, and one hall light. The rest remain as incandescent. I just went through and counted. Twenty two bulbs in total. I replaced around 1300 Watts of lighting with around 350 watts of lighting. In the winter, twelve of those twenty two are on about seven or eight hours every day. That is a reduction of about 28KWh per week.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by dragonsky1 March 18, 2010 11:35 PM PDT
Well, I have nearly all CFLs. There have been plenty on the market for years now that are able to produce accurate lighting and coloring, and they last much longer than incandescent. I put four in my ceiling fan 6 years ago, and three are still lit, with one going out just this week. Not to mention they have saved me some money on my electric bill, though it was never that high to begin with.
Though when LEDs become affordable, I would definitely give them a try
Survey: Consumers intrigued by electric cars
March 19, 2010 8:53 AM PDT
by Martin LaMonica
Despite few options, about one quarter of U.S. consumers surveyed said they are likely to consider a plug-in vehicle on their next auto purchase, according to the Consumer Reports National Survey Center.
Consumer Reports on Thursday published the results of the survey that asked 1,752 adults about their views regarding plug-in electric vehicles. In random phone interviews, 26 percent of people said they are likely to consider a plug-in car when shopping, with 7 percent saying they are very likely to do so.
Electric cars and concepts at the 2010 Detroit auto show (photos)
View the full gallery
The survey indicated that consumers were not willing to give up much on performance or convenience to use the new technology, according to consumer reports.
Driving range is perhaps the biggest barrier to adoption of all-electric vehicles, such as the Nissan Leaf, which is expected to go on sale in the U.S. later this year. In tests in the U.S., the driving range of the electric Mini-E is between 75 miles and 100 miles, which varies with weather and driving habits, according to BMW.
But there was a range of sentiment on the question of driving range. The median range that consumers said they wanted from an electric car was 89 miles. But, 45 percent said that they would be satisfied with a driving range of under 75 miles and 29 percent said that under 49 miles would be fine.
On the question of price, there's a range as well. The median extra amount consumers said they would pay for electric was $2,068, but 20 percent said they are not willing to pay anything more, and another 20 percent saying they would pay at least $5,000 extra.
One could interpret the top-line result in a different way: a majority of respondents--nearly three quarters--said they don't expect to consider a plug-in electric car for their next purchase.
However, there have been other studies that indicate that consumers are interested in electric vehicles in their different forms because they have the potential to save drivers money on fuel and pollute less than gas-only vehicles.
Because of differences in driving range needs and availability of public charging stations, the roll out of plug-in cars is likely to happen in certain regional clusters, say experts
by Martin LaMonica
Despite few options, about one quarter of U.S. consumers surveyed said they are likely to consider a plug-in vehicle on their next auto purchase, according to the Consumer Reports National Survey Center.
Consumer Reports on Thursday published the results of the survey that asked 1,752 adults about their views regarding plug-in electric vehicles. In random phone interviews, 26 percent of people said they are likely to consider a plug-in car when shopping, with 7 percent saying they are very likely to do so.
Electric cars and concepts at the 2010 Detroit auto show (photos)
View the full gallery
The survey indicated that consumers were not willing to give up much on performance or convenience to use the new technology, according to consumer reports.
Driving range is perhaps the biggest barrier to adoption of all-electric vehicles, such as the Nissan Leaf, which is expected to go on sale in the U.S. later this year. In tests in the U.S., the driving range of the electric Mini-E is between 75 miles and 100 miles, which varies with weather and driving habits, according to BMW.
But there was a range of sentiment on the question of driving range. The median range that consumers said they wanted from an electric car was 89 miles. But, 45 percent said that they would be satisfied with a driving range of under 75 miles and 29 percent said that under 49 miles would be fine.
On the question of price, there's a range as well. The median extra amount consumers said they would pay for electric was $2,068, but 20 percent said they are not willing to pay anything more, and another 20 percent saying they would pay at least $5,000 extra.
One could interpret the top-line result in a different way: a majority of respondents--nearly three quarters--said they don't expect to consider a plug-in electric car for their next purchase.
However, there have been other studies that indicate that consumers are interested in electric vehicles in their different forms because they have the potential to save drivers money on fuel and pollute less than gas-only vehicles.
Because of differences in driving range needs and availability of public charging stations, the roll out of plug-in cars is likely to happen in certain regional clusters, say experts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
PlanetSolar thinks big with solar boat
February 25, 2010 2:34 PM PST
by Dong Ngo
World's largest solar-powered yacht at its last build stage.
(Credit: PlanetSolar)
A skipper's dream of sailing across the ocean using solar power is about to come true. More impressively, he'll be sailing on arguably the world's largest pollution-free yacht, the PlanetSolar, which was unveiled Thursday at the HDW Shipyard in Germany.
Raphael Domjan, the skipper and CEO of the PlanetSolar project, regards this event as a confirmation that "the solar-powered boat is now a reality." Since the '80s, Domjan has been dreaming of touring the world using the minimum amount of energy. He envisioned a solar-powered boat in 2004 and the PlanetSolar project has been in full swing since early 2008. Now he looks forward to the solar-powered around-the-world trip.
Designed by a team of international engineers, PlanetSolar is a multihull white catamaran topped by about 5,300 square feet of black photovoltaic solar panels consisting of some 38,000 of SunPower's next-generation cells. Each of the cells offers an efficiency of at least 22 percent--the highest-efficiency solar cells commercially available. The boat is expected to be both silent and clean.
The boat is slated to be ready for testing in late March and will be ready for its world tour in early 2011. According to SolarPlanet, the cost of the project is around $24 million.
Measuring 100 feet long by 50 feet wide, the yacht is designed to reach a top speed of around 15 knots (about 17 miles per hour) and has enough space for 50 passengers. It's expected to be the fastest solar boat to cross the Atlantic Ocean and the first to cross both the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
During this trip of some 25,000 miles, the boat will stop at major cities, including Hamburg, London, and Paris in Europe, New York and San Francisco in the U.S., and Singapore and Abu Dhabi. The solar boat will be available for public display during each of its stops.
Comments
by phuongnwade February 25, 2010 5:26 PM PST
Pollution free yachts have been around for centuries - they're called sail boats.
by Dong Ngo
World's largest solar-powered yacht at its last build stage.
(Credit: PlanetSolar)
A skipper's dream of sailing across the ocean using solar power is about to come true. More impressively, he'll be sailing on arguably the world's largest pollution-free yacht, the PlanetSolar, which was unveiled Thursday at the HDW Shipyard in Germany.
Raphael Domjan, the skipper and CEO of the PlanetSolar project, regards this event as a confirmation that "the solar-powered boat is now a reality." Since the '80s, Domjan has been dreaming of touring the world using the minimum amount of energy. He envisioned a solar-powered boat in 2004 and the PlanetSolar project has been in full swing since early 2008. Now he looks forward to the solar-powered around-the-world trip.
Designed by a team of international engineers, PlanetSolar is a multihull white catamaran topped by about 5,300 square feet of black photovoltaic solar panels consisting of some 38,000 of SunPower's next-generation cells. Each of the cells offers an efficiency of at least 22 percent--the highest-efficiency solar cells commercially available. The boat is expected to be both silent and clean.
The boat is slated to be ready for testing in late March and will be ready for its world tour in early 2011. According to SolarPlanet, the cost of the project is around $24 million.
Measuring 100 feet long by 50 feet wide, the yacht is designed to reach a top speed of around 15 knots (about 17 miles per hour) and has enough space for 50 passengers. It's expected to be the fastest solar boat to cross the Atlantic Ocean and the first to cross both the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
During this trip of some 25,000 miles, the boat will stop at major cities, including Hamburg, London, and Paris in Europe, New York and San Francisco in the U.S., and Singapore and Abu Dhabi. The solar boat will be available for public display during each of its stops.
Comments
by phuongnwade February 25, 2010 5:26 PM PST
Pollution free yachts have been around for centuries - they're called sail boats.
DOE grants $1 million for ocean energy research
Green Tech
March 17, 2010 11:01 AM PDT
by Candace Lombardi
A Lockheed Martin map with DOE data shows areas with the greatest difference between surface temperature and the temperature at 1,000 meters deep. Areas in purple designate coastlines that may be most feasible as energy sources.
(Credit: Lockheed Martin/US Department of Energy)
The U.S. Department of Energy has given two grants totaling $1 million to Lockheed Martin to determine the feasibility of tapping into the ocean's hot and cold spots to save energy.
Instead of looking at how to harness wave and tidal power, as the Seadog and Oyster projects have been doing, the grants require Lockheed Martin's scientists and engineers to determine if they could take advantage of the ocean's varying temperatures.
The first part of the grant is to develop software and tools for determining which thermal areas of the ocean have the greatest potential for being tapped as renewable-energy sources. Specifically, it will look at Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) technology, exploiting the large temperature difference between the ocean's solar-warmed layer and a cold sink to generate electricity.
But that first grant is not restricted to OTEC for the purpose of generating electricity. The tool will also be tuned to find oceanic cold sinks near coastlines that could be tapped as a source for air conditioner coolant.
The method, which is already being testing in Honolulu, Hawaii, is called SWAC (seawater air conditioning), district cooling, or DSW (deep seawater) cooling. Cold, deep seawater is pumped to a cooling station on shore and used as air conditioning coolant. The water is then redistributed into the ocean after circulating through the system.
The second grant seems to be going to the number crunchers.
It's for Lockheed Martin to determine (based on the information they gather about the ocean's hot and cold spots) the scalability, cost, performance, and ultimate potential for large-scale use and commercialization of SWAC and OTEC technology.
Comments
by solitare_pax March 17, 2010 11:50 AM PDT
The second grant is more wasted dollars - anyone who has followed energy research knows that the last civilian nuclear power plant built in the U.S. in New Hampshire uses ocean water to cool the reactor using 1970's technology. It ought to be a simple matter to adopt that off the shelf technology to keep buildings cool. Putting a canopy of solar cells above any roof ought to help keep their building cooler and generate power in a place like Hawaii too.
Like this Reply to this comment
by DosEquisXX March 17, 2010 12:22 PM PDT
SWAC is currently being used at the Intercontinental Resort in Bora Bora (French Polynesia). It's a pretty cool system. It doesn't use any electricity to pump the water from the ocean floor. It uses the surface tension properties of water to naturally have the water flow up the pipe and then back out to see. They said it lowered their energy bills by 90% plus the added benefit of being environmentally friendly.
Microsoft: Blu-ray costs holding PS3 back
March 17, 2010 11:01 AM PDT
by Candace Lombardi
A Lockheed Martin map with DOE data shows areas with the greatest difference between surface temperature and the temperature at 1,000 meters deep. Areas in purple designate coastlines that may be most feasible as energy sources.
(Credit: Lockheed Martin/US Department of Energy)
The U.S. Department of Energy has given two grants totaling $1 million to Lockheed Martin to determine the feasibility of tapping into the ocean's hot and cold spots to save energy.
Instead of looking at how to harness wave and tidal power, as the Seadog and Oyster projects have been doing, the grants require Lockheed Martin's scientists and engineers to determine if they could take advantage of the ocean's varying temperatures.
The first part of the grant is to develop software and tools for determining which thermal areas of the ocean have the greatest potential for being tapped as renewable-energy sources. Specifically, it will look at Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) technology, exploiting the large temperature difference between the ocean's solar-warmed layer and a cold sink to generate electricity.
But that first grant is not restricted to OTEC for the purpose of generating electricity. The tool will also be tuned to find oceanic cold sinks near coastlines that could be tapped as a source for air conditioner coolant.
The method, which is already being testing in Honolulu, Hawaii, is called SWAC (seawater air conditioning), district cooling, or DSW (deep seawater) cooling. Cold, deep seawater is pumped to a cooling station on shore and used as air conditioning coolant. The water is then redistributed into the ocean after circulating through the system.
The second grant seems to be going to the number crunchers.
It's for Lockheed Martin to determine (based on the information they gather about the ocean's hot and cold spots) the scalability, cost, performance, and ultimate potential for large-scale use and commercialization of SWAC and OTEC technology.
Comments
by solitare_pax March 17, 2010 11:50 AM PDT
The second grant is more wasted dollars - anyone who has followed energy research knows that the last civilian nuclear power plant built in the U.S. in New Hampshire uses ocean water to cool the reactor using 1970's technology. It ought to be a simple matter to adopt that off the shelf technology to keep buildings cool. Putting a canopy of solar cells above any roof ought to help keep their building cooler and generate power in a place like Hawaii too.
Like this Reply to this comment
by DosEquisXX March 17, 2010 12:22 PM PDT
SWAC is currently being used at the Intercontinental Resort in Bora Bora (French Polynesia). It's a pretty cool system. It doesn't use any electricity to pump the water from the ocean floor. It uses the surface tension properties of water to naturally have the water flow up the pipe and then back out to see. They said it lowered their energy bills by 90% plus the added benefit of being environmentally friendly.
Microsoft: Blu-ray costs holding PS3 back
GE places solar bets on thin-film cells
March 18, 2010 9:34 AM PDT
by Martin LaMonica
General Electric, which has long made solar panels using traditional silicon, is converting to thin-film cells, using the same material as industry cost leader First Solar.
The company's research organization on Thursday detailed its activities with cadmium telluride solar cells, which the company has determined offers the most potential to lower solar power costs.
As first reported by CNET, GE's next-generation solar panels are based on technology from PrimeStar Solar, a Denver, Colo.-based company where GE is the majority owner. GE executives are bullish that by lowering costs, solar can grow rapidly, as its wind business has done.
GE thin-film solar cells are made from a combination of cadmium telluride, the same material used by industry cost leader First Solar.
(Credit: GE)
GE has not yet begun manufacturing solar panels using the thin-film technology but it plans to do so some time in 2011, according to a company representative.
There are several companies developing thin-film solar cell technology, which promise to lower the cost of manufacturing and use less material. But thin-film solar cells are less efficient at producing electricity than crystalline silicon cells.
GE chose to go with cadmium telluride because it offers the most potential for overall cost savings, said Danielle Merfeld, the solar-technology platform leader at GE's Research facility in Niskayuna, N.Y.
"We think cad tel fundamentally has better cost structure than other thin-film technologies," she said. "The combination of efficiency that we think we can get to, the yield of the manufacturing line, the cost of manufacturing, and the cost of raw materials--the combination gives us the best outcome for making electricity."
Over the past three years, a number of companies have invested in making thin-film solar cells from a combination of copper, indium, gallium, and selenide (CIGS). But CIGS is a tricky material to work with because manufacturers need to control four materials, noted Merfeld. Cadmium and tellurium are byproducts of existing mining processes, such as copper mining.
In terms of efficiency, Merfeld said GE projects it can come to market with a solar panel that is more efficient than what First Solar already offers, which is about 11 percent.
GE expects to target the utility market with its panels, but there is potential for commercial and residential customers as well. Because thin-film panels are less efficient, they are typically used in places where space is not a major constraint.
GE no longer produces panels made from crystalline silicon and plans to enter solar with high-volume manufacturing. "We decided not to step into manufacturing in 2009 as many other companies did because we wanted to make sure to have a competitive advantage from the technology," Merfeld said.
Asked about the toxicity of cadmium, Merfeld said that the material is stable once it is bound with tellurium. But GE does plan to have a recycling program for its panels, as other solar manufacturers do, she said
by Martin LaMonica
General Electric, which has long made solar panels using traditional silicon, is converting to thin-film cells, using the same material as industry cost leader First Solar.
The company's research organization on Thursday detailed its activities with cadmium telluride solar cells, which the company has determined offers the most potential to lower solar power costs.
As first reported by CNET, GE's next-generation solar panels are based on technology from PrimeStar Solar, a Denver, Colo.-based company where GE is the majority owner. GE executives are bullish that by lowering costs, solar can grow rapidly, as its wind business has done.
GE thin-film solar cells are made from a combination of cadmium telluride, the same material used by industry cost leader First Solar.
(Credit: GE)
GE has not yet begun manufacturing solar panels using the thin-film technology but it plans to do so some time in 2011, according to a company representative.
There are several companies developing thin-film solar cell technology, which promise to lower the cost of manufacturing and use less material. But thin-film solar cells are less efficient at producing electricity than crystalline silicon cells.
GE chose to go with cadmium telluride because it offers the most potential for overall cost savings, said Danielle Merfeld, the solar-technology platform leader at GE's Research facility in Niskayuna, N.Y.
"We think cad tel fundamentally has better cost structure than other thin-film technologies," she said. "The combination of efficiency that we think we can get to, the yield of the manufacturing line, the cost of manufacturing, and the cost of raw materials--the combination gives us the best outcome for making electricity."
Over the past three years, a number of companies have invested in making thin-film solar cells from a combination of copper, indium, gallium, and selenide (CIGS). But CIGS is a tricky material to work with because manufacturers need to control four materials, noted Merfeld. Cadmium and tellurium are byproducts of existing mining processes, such as copper mining.
In terms of efficiency, Merfeld said GE projects it can come to market with a solar panel that is more efficient than what First Solar already offers, which is about 11 percent.
GE expects to target the utility market with its panels, but there is potential for commercial and residential customers as well. Because thin-film panels are less efficient, they are typically used in places where space is not a major constraint.
GE no longer produces panels made from crystalline silicon and plans to enter solar with high-volume manufacturing. "We decided not to step into manufacturing in 2009 as many other companies did because we wanted to make sure to have a competitive advantage from the technology," Merfeld said.
Asked about the toxicity of cadmium, Merfeld said that the material is stable once it is bound with tellurium. But GE does plan to have a recycling program for its panels, as other solar manufacturers do, she said
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Lithium or hydrogen bike? Choose your steed
March 11, 2010 2:22 PM PST
by Tim Hornyak
More and more electric bicycles are being developed in Japan to give riders a little help when commuting or going grocery shopping. They're a common sight on the hilly streets of Tokyo, where "mamachari" bikes with baskets and kid seats over the wheels are the norm.
Sanyo recently unveiled a new series of two-wheel drive eneloop electric hybrid bicycles whose lithium ion batteries can recharge while the bike is being pedaled on level terrain. Previous models relied on braking or downhill energy to re-power.
The Eco Charge Mode featured on the SPL series gives you more recharging opportunities while the bike is in use. It reads foot pressure on the pedals, as well as pedal torque and the revolution speed of the dynamotor on the front wheel, and charges the battery along flat roads, on downhills, and during braking. When the rider comes to an uphill gradient, the motor assist function kicks in automatically.
The Eco Charge Mode increases driving distance per charge by 53 percent compared with just biking in a high power-assist mode; Sanyo says the new SPL bikes can travel about 34 miles per charge.
By traveling 1 kilometer (1,093 yards) on flat ground in Eco Charge Mode, you can generate enough electricity to go about 300 meters (328 yards) in Power Mode, which provides lots of power assist. A power reserve function stores an extra bit of juice for those times when the battery runs out before you arrive at your destination.
To be released in Japan in April, the 26-inch CY-SPL226 and the 24-inch CY-SPL224 will have a price tag of about $1,700.
Meanwhile, industrial products maker Iwatani recently showed off a hydrogen-powered electric bicycle at FC Tokyo, a gathering of companies in the fuel cell business.
Developed last year, the motorized hydrogen bicycle has a 60W polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC) stack, a 26V lithium ion battery, and a hydrogen cartridge that's located in a cargo carrier over the back wheel.
(Credit: Iwatani) Battery power drives the bike's motor to help with pedaling. When the battery power runs low, the cartridge automatically supplies hydrogen to the fuel cell to recharge the battery, but the system can still provide pedaling assistance during the recharge. It eliminates the need to take out and recharge the battery--much more convenient than charging an e-bike for five hours.
The bicycle weighs about 68 pounds and can provide power-assist travel for about 28 miles, depending on road conditions, or a continuous power supply for three hours.
Iwatani has been showing the bike off at Kansai International Airport and various events like FC Tokyo. It's a great concept, but Iwatani won't be commercializing the bike anytime soon because the PEFC's output is too weak.
"Depending on driving conditions, it sometimes cannot supply the bicycle with enough electricity," the company told Nikkei Monozukuri magazine, adding that it plans to make the PEFC system more powerful.
by Tim Hornyak
More and more electric bicycles are being developed in Japan to give riders a little help when commuting or going grocery shopping. They're a common sight on the hilly streets of Tokyo, where "mamachari" bikes with baskets and kid seats over the wheels are the norm.
Sanyo recently unveiled a new series of two-wheel drive eneloop electric hybrid bicycles whose lithium ion batteries can recharge while the bike is being pedaled on level terrain. Previous models relied on braking or downhill energy to re-power.
The Eco Charge Mode featured on the SPL series gives you more recharging opportunities while the bike is in use. It reads foot pressure on the pedals, as well as pedal torque and the revolution speed of the dynamotor on the front wheel, and charges the battery along flat roads, on downhills, and during braking. When the rider comes to an uphill gradient, the motor assist function kicks in automatically.
The Eco Charge Mode increases driving distance per charge by 53 percent compared with just biking in a high power-assist mode; Sanyo says the new SPL bikes can travel about 34 miles per charge.
By traveling 1 kilometer (1,093 yards) on flat ground in Eco Charge Mode, you can generate enough electricity to go about 300 meters (328 yards) in Power Mode, which provides lots of power assist. A power reserve function stores an extra bit of juice for those times when the battery runs out before you arrive at your destination.
To be released in Japan in April, the 26-inch CY-SPL226 and the 24-inch CY-SPL224 will have a price tag of about $1,700.
Meanwhile, industrial products maker Iwatani recently showed off a hydrogen-powered electric bicycle at FC Tokyo, a gathering of companies in the fuel cell business.
Developed last year, the motorized hydrogen bicycle has a 60W polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC) stack, a 26V lithium ion battery, and a hydrogen cartridge that's located in a cargo carrier over the back wheel.
(Credit: Iwatani) Battery power drives the bike's motor to help with pedaling. When the battery power runs low, the cartridge automatically supplies hydrogen to the fuel cell to recharge the battery, but the system can still provide pedaling assistance during the recharge. It eliminates the need to take out and recharge the battery--much more convenient than charging an e-bike for five hours.
The bicycle weighs about 68 pounds and can provide power-assist travel for about 28 miles, depending on road conditions, or a continuous power supply for three hours.
Iwatani has been showing the bike off at Kansai International Airport and various events like FC Tokyo. It's a great concept, but Iwatani won't be commercializing the bike anytime soon because the PEFC's output is too weak.
"Depending on driving conditions, it sometimes cannot supply the bicycle with enough electricity," the company told Nikkei Monozukuri magazine, adding that it plans to make the PEFC system more powerful.
Sanyo solar panel parking lots open for business
March 16, 2010 10:49 AM PDT
by Tim Hornyak
Soon after announcing a new series of eneloop electric bicycles, Sanyo has completed work on two solar-powered parking lots for 100 eneloop bikes in Tokyo.
The zero-emissions system involves high-efficiency 7.56kW HIT solar panels capturing energy that's used to recharge the lithium ion eneloop bike batteries and power LED lights illuminating the lots at night. No commercial power sources will be used, regardless of the available sunlight.
The solar parking lots are located along the Keio and Tokyu Den-en Toshi rail lines in the ward of Setagaya, a well-to-do community west of downtown Tokyo.
The eneloop bikes parked there will be available as community bicycles for local residents and visitors. It's unclear if there will be a fee or deposit to use them. A video on the Japanese press release shows the lots protected by turnstiles and fences.
The power-assist eneloop bikes take about 3.5 hours to recharge, according to the Sankei Shimbun newspaper. The battery recharging cabinets will also house standard outlets to power electrical equipment in an emergency.
Sanyo says the lots are part of its Smart Energy System, a major company initiative aimed at reducing CO2 by generating and storing renewable energy. Sanyo is promoting it as a solution for housing, transport, manufacturing, and other public facilities
by Tim Hornyak
Soon after announcing a new series of eneloop electric bicycles, Sanyo has completed work on two solar-powered parking lots for 100 eneloop bikes in Tokyo.
The zero-emissions system involves high-efficiency 7.56kW HIT solar panels capturing energy that's used to recharge the lithium ion eneloop bike batteries and power LED lights illuminating the lots at night. No commercial power sources will be used, regardless of the available sunlight.
The solar parking lots are located along the Keio and Tokyu Den-en Toshi rail lines in the ward of Setagaya, a well-to-do community west of downtown Tokyo.
The eneloop bikes parked there will be available as community bicycles for local residents and visitors. It's unclear if there will be a fee or deposit to use them. A video on the Japanese press release shows the lots protected by turnstiles and fences.
The power-assist eneloop bikes take about 3.5 hours to recharge, according to the Sankei Shimbun newspaper. The battery recharging cabinets will also house standard outlets to power electrical equipment in an emergency.
Sanyo says the lots are part of its Smart Energy System, a major company initiative aimed at reducing CO2 by generating and storing renewable energy. Sanyo is promoting it as a solution for housing, transport, manufacturing, and other public facilities
Monday, March 15, 2010
Toyota, Nissan to standardize electric car rechargers
March 15, 2010 6:56 AM PDT
by Reuters
Top Japanese carmakers Toyota and Nissan helped set up a group to standardize fast-charge stations for electric cars on Monday in a bid to promote the spread of the zero-emission vehicles.
The group, led by Japan's biggest utility, Tokyo Electric Power, Toyota Motor, Nissan Motor, Mitsubishi Motors, and Fuji Heavy Industries, will set a standard for Japan and later aim for an international standard.
Some 158 companies and government bodies are expected to join, including 20 non-Japanese firms such as PG&E, Enel, Endesa, and PSA Peugeot Citroen.
A plug for plug-in power.
(Credit: Toyota Motor)
Electric vehicles are seen as one solution to meeting stricter environmental regulations because they have no tailpipe emissions. But they face hurdles such as costly batteries and a limited driving distance compared with conventional cars, as well as the lack of infrastructure to recharge when away from home.
Forming a common "language" for fast-charging electric cars across various brands would save development costs for carmakers and ancillary industries, said the group, called Chademo. (Editors' note: According to Toyota's press release, "'CHAdeMO' is an abbreviation of 'CHArge de MOve', equivalent to 'charge for moving', and is a pun for 'O cha demo ikaga desuka' in Japanese, meaning 'Let's have a tea while charging' in English.")
"We will compete when it comes to vehicle performance, but we should cooperate on areas such as infrastructure," said Nissan Chief Operating Officer Toshiyuki Shiga. Japan's No. 3 automaker will begin selling its first electric car later this year.
Mitsubishi Motors and Fuji Heavy, the maker of Subaru-brand cars, are the world's only mass-volume automakers now producing battery-run electric cars, with sales so far limited to corporate and government fleets in Japan.
"There are 1,000 electric cars and 150 fast-charge stations in Japan already," Tokyo Electric Power Executive Vice President Hiroyuki Ino told a news conference in Tokyo. "Our aim is to form a standard in Japan and make use of that in the world."
He said the group would lobby international bodies such as the Society of Automotive Engineers and the International Transport Forum to promote its technology.
by Reuters
Top Japanese carmakers Toyota and Nissan helped set up a group to standardize fast-charge stations for electric cars on Monday in a bid to promote the spread of the zero-emission vehicles.
The group, led by Japan's biggest utility, Tokyo Electric Power, Toyota Motor, Nissan Motor, Mitsubishi Motors, and Fuji Heavy Industries, will set a standard for Japan and later aim for an international standard.
Some 158 companies and government bodies are expected to join, including 20 non-Japanese firms such as PG&E, Enel, Endesa, and PSA Peugeot Citroen.
A plug for plug-in power.
(Credit: Toyota Motor)
Electric vehicles are seen as one solution to meeting stricter environmental regulations because they have no tailpipe emissions. But they face hurdles such as costly batteries and a limited driving distance compared with conventional cars, as well as the lack of infrastructure to recharge when away from home.
Forming a common "language" for fast-charging electric cars across various brands would save development costs for carmakers and ancillary industries, said the group, called Chademo. (Editors' note: According to Toyota's press release, "'CHAdeMO' is an abbreviation of 'CHArge de MOve', equivalent to 'charge for moving', and is a pun for 'O cha demo ikaga desuka' in Japanese, meaning 'Let's have a tea while charging' in English.")
"We will compete when it comes to vehicle performance, but we should cooperate on areas such as infrastructure," said Nissan Chief Operating Officer Toshiyuki Shiga. Japan's No. 3 automaker will begin selling its first electric car later this year.
Mitsubishi Motors and Fuji Heavy, the maker of Subaru-brand cars, are the world's only mass-volume automakers now producing battery-run electric cars, with sales so far limited to corporate and government fleets in Japan.
"There are 1,000 electric cars and 150 fast-charge stations in Japan already," Tokyo Electric Power Executive Vice President Hiroyuki Ino told a news conference in Tokyo. "Our aim is to form a standard in Japan and make use of that in the world."
He said the group would lobby international bodies such as the Society of Automotive Engineers and the International Transport Forum to promote its technology.
The New York Times - Toxic Water
Saving U.S. Water and Sewer Systems Would Be Costly
By CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: March 14, 2010
WASHINGTON — One recent morning, George S. Hawkins, a long-haired environmentalist who now leads one of the largest and most prominent water and sewer systems, trudged to a street corner here where water was gushing into the air.
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
As head of Washington's water department, George Hawkins, left, is on the scene every time a major sewer or water line breaks.
Toxic Waters
The Breaking Point
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in America’s waters and regulators’ responses.
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
Mr. Hawkins's goal is to replace, within the next century, the pipes that were installed in Washington a hundred years ago.
A cold snap had ruptured a major pipe that was installed the same year the light bulb was invented. Homes near the fashionable Dupont Circle neighborhood were quickly going dry, and Mr. Hawkins, who had recently taken over the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority despite having no experience running a major utility, was responsible for fixing the problem.
As city employees searched for underground valves, a growing crowd started asking angry questions. Pipes were breaking across town, and fire hydrants weren’t working, they complained. Why couldn’t the city deliver water, one man yelled at Mr. Hawkins.
Such questions are becoming common across the nation as water and sewer systems break down. Today, a significant water line bursts on average every two minutes somewhere in the country, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data.
In Washington alone there is a pipe break every day, on average, and this weekend’s intense rains overwhelmed the city’s system, causing untreated sewage to flow into the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.
State and federal studies indicate that thousands of water and sewer systems may be too old to function properly.
For decades, these systems — some built around the time of the Civil War — have been ignored by politicians and residents accustomed to paying almost nothing for water delivery and sewage removal. And so each year, hundreds of thousands of ruptures damage streets and homes and cause dangerous pollutants to seep into drinking water supplies.
Mr. Hawkins’s answer to such problems will not please a lot of citizens. Like many of his counterparts in cities like Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta and elsewhere, his job is partly to persuade the public to accept higher water rates, so that the utility can replace more antiquated pipes.
“People pay more for their cellphones and cable television than for water,” said Mr. Hawkins, who before taking over Washington’s water system ran environmental groups and attended Princeton and Harvard, where he never thought he would end up running a sewer system.
“You can go a day without a phone or TV,” he added. “You can’t go a day without water.”
But in many cities, residents have protested loudly when asked to pay more for water and sewer services. In Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Sacramento — and before Mr. Hawkins arrived, Washington — proposed rate increases have been scaled back or canceled after virulent ratepayer dissent.
So when Mr. Hawkins confronted the upset crowd near Dupont Circle, he sensed an opportunity to explain why things needed to change. It was a snowy day, and while water from the broken pipe mixed with slush, he began cheerily explaining that the rupture was a symptom of a nationwide disease, according to people present.
Mr. Hawkins — who at 49 has the bubbling energy of a toddler and the physique of an aging professor — told the crowd that the average age of the city’s water pipes was 76, nearly four times that of the oldest city bus. With a smile, he described how old pipes have spilled untreated sewage into rivers near homes.
“I don’t care why these pipes aren’t working!” one of the residents yelled. “I pay $60 a month for water! I just want my toilet to flush! Why do I need to know how it works?”
Mr. Hawkins smiled, quit the lecture, and retreated back to watching his crew.
On Capitol Hill, the plight of Mr. Hawkins and other utility managers has become a hot topic. In the last year, federal lawmakers have allocated more than $10 billion for water infrastructure programs, one of the largest such commitments in history.
But Mr. Hawkins and others say that even those outlays are almost insignificant compared with the problems they are supposed to fix. An E.P.A. study last year estimated that $335 billion would be needed simply to maintain the nation’s tap water systems in coming decades. In states like New York, officials estimate that $36 billion is needed in the next 20 years just for municipal wastewater systems.
As these discussions unfold, particular attention is being paid to Mr. Hawkins. Washington’s water and sewer system serves the White House, many members of Congress, and two million other residents, and so it surprised some when Mr. Hawkins was hired to head the agency last September, since he did not have an engineering background or the résumé of a utility chief.
In fact, after he had graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987, he spent a few years helping companies apply for permits to pollute rivers and lakes. (At night — without his firm’s knowledge — he had a second career as a professional break dancer. He met his wife, a nurse, when he fell off a platform at a dance club and landed on his head.)
But he quickly became disenchanted with corporate law. He moved to the E.P.A., where he fought polluters, and then the White House, and eventually relocated his family to a farm in New Jersey where they shoveled the manure of 35 sheep and kept watch over 175 chickens, and Mr. Hawkins began running a series of environmental groups.
The mayor of Washington, Adrian M. Fenty, asked Mr. Hawkins to move to the city in 2007 to lead the Department of the Environment. He quickly became a prominent figure, admired for his ability to communicate with residents and lawmakers. When the Water and Sewer Authority needed a new leader, board members wanted someone familiar with public relations campaigns. Mr. Hawkins’s mandate was to persuade residents to pay for updating the city’s antiquated pipes.
At a meeting with board members last month, Mr. Hawkins pitched his radical solution. Clad in an agency uniform — his name on the breast and creases indicating it had been recently unfolded for the first time — Mr. Hawkins suggested raising water rates for the average resident by almost 17 percent, to about $60 a month per household. Over the coming six years, that rate would rise above $100.
With that additional money, Mr. Hawkins argued, the city could replace all of its pipes in 100 years. The previous budget would have replaced them in three centuries.
The board questioned him for hours. Others have attacked him for playing on false fears.
“This rate hike is outrageous,” said Jim Graham, a member of the city council. “Subway systems need repairs, and so do roads, but you don’t see fares or tolls skyrocketing. Providing inexpensive, reliable water is a fundamental obligation of government. If they can’t do that, they need to reform themselves, instead of just charging more.”
Similar battles have occurred around the nation. In Philadelphia, officials are set to start collecting $1.6 billion for programs to prevent rain water from overwhelming the sewer system, amid loud complaints. Communities surrounding Cleveland threatened to sue when the regional utility proposed charging homeowners for the water pollution running off their property. In central Florida, a $1.8 billion proposal to build a network of drinking water pipes has drawn organized protests.
“We’re relying on water systems built by our great-grandparents, and no one wants to pay for the decades we’ve spent ignoring them,” said Jeffrey K. Griffiths, a professor at Tufts University and a member of the E.P.A.’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
“There’s a lot of evidence that people are getting sick,” he added. “But because everything is out of sight, no one really understands how bad things have become.”
To bring those lapses into the light, Mr. Hawkins has become a cheerleader for rate increases. He has begun a media assault highlighting the city’s water woes. He has created a blog and a Facebook page that explain why pipes break. He regularly appears on newscasts and radio shows, and has filled a personal Web site with video clips of his appearances.
It’s an all-consuming job. Mr. Hawkins tries to show up at every major pipe break, no matter the hour. He often works late into the night, and for three years he has not lived with his wife and two teenage children, who remained in New Jersey.
“The kids really miss their father,” said his wife, Tamara. “When we take him to the train station after a visit, my daughter in particular will sometimes cry. He’s missing out on his kids’ childhoods.”
And even if Mr. Hawkins succeeds, the public might not realize it, or particularly care. Last month, the utility’s board approved Mr. Hawkins’s budget and started the process for raising rates. But even if the bigger budget reduces the frequency of water pipe breaks by half — a major accomplishment — many residents probably won’t notice. People tend to pay attention to water and sewer systems only when things go wrong.
“But this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” Mr. Hawkins said recently, in between a meeting with local environmentalists and rushing home to do paperwork in his small, spartan apartment, near a place where he was once mugged at gunpoint.
“This is the fight of our lifetimes,” he added. “Water is tied into everything we should care about. Someday, people are going to talk about our sewers with a real sense of pride.”
Comment
I predict thast wars will be fought in the future over water. We cant live without it. Investing in those companies that make the repairs or put in new sewers would seem to be a good investment too.
NYT comments
landlessBrooklynMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
I work as a librarian. Daily, I am shocked by how the public expects the underfunded library and inadequate staff to give them what they want. This nation spends money on video games, bottled water, and Christmas decorations, but doesn't want to invest in infra-structure and human capital. That's how empires fall.
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers 2.ErikFloridaMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
If there ever was a "shovel ready" project to utilize TARP money this is it.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 3.CarolinaMexicoMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
Tax the rich.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 4.solasNY, NYMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
Plenty of money for pipes in Iraq and Afghanistan though.
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers 5.AnnSMIMarch 15th, 20107:51 am
As city employees searched for underground valves, a growing crowd started asking angry questions. Pipes were breaking across town, and fire hydrants weren’t working, they complained. Why couldn’t the city deliver water, one man yelled at Mr. Hawkins.
Easy answer
Necause those who use the services do NOT want to pay the real cost.
Because those who use the services want everything at a bargain basement rate without thought for tomorrow.
Because those who use the services bought into the 'cut taxes' and 'government is evil' mantra of the right-wing who are only converned with preserving the wealth of the upper 1/10th of 1% and creating an aristocracy of inherited wealth.
Because between the "I want something for nothing' attitude of the masses and the 'We won't pay because we are the rich and aren't going to carry our fair share' of the upper 1%, there is no money.
Cut the military spending in 1/2 and there is exactly enough money to pay $335,000,000,000 to repair all the water systems.
Oh right....forgot. I forgot that it is more important to start wars of choice to bolster the testosterone driven egos of the armchair hawks than to maintain and create a 21st century infrastructure...... I forgot that it is more important that the upper 1% keep the 80% of all wealth and assets in the US in their vaults and that the upper 1% - and in particular the upper 1/100th of 1% - pay less taxes as a percentage of their income than the clerk at the grocery store does.
Recommend Recommended by 20 Readers 6.SylvanusNew YorkMarch 15th, 20107:52 amAt times I fear for our country, in the belief constantly promoted (especially by those who are often called conservatives but are actually radicals, often being funded by large and very powerful international corporations) that we don't have to pay taxes (which essentially is what is being asked in this case) to have what we need. California is a perfect example of what happens when this becomes an operating principle of governance, when it takes two-thirds of the legislature to raise a tax. (I read that this is a principle being advocated by the Tea Party Movement, which is also advocating the privatization of governmental services.) Undoubtedly there will be those who will use this as an opportunity to promote privatizing the delivery of water, and then we will be up-the-creek. In anticipation of that argument, I recommend the documentary BlueGold, which is on DVD and can be got through Netflix. It is an essential source of information on topic of our water supplies.
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers 7.Darel SteinAtlantaMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
This looks like we have some perfect projects for the stimulus. Isn't the idea to provide jobs & get needed work done?
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers 8.RoscoeRochester MNMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
Irresponsible journalism -- again.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 9.reblaneSeattleMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
Perhaps all those billions spent killing Iraqis might be better spent at home...
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers 10.Patricia WilsonSan Jose, CAMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
Would we rather do without fresh water or sewer systems??? How about having the sewers all open in July when the temperature outdoors is in the 90's?? In San Jose we are sensible enough to have just completed new sewer pipes and fresh water systems in most of the city for 1 million people or more. Not many!! But then some people would prefer typhoid to a few dollars more a year for fresh water and sewer pipes. The contractors doing it must be watched over like anyone else must be so the money is used right. But to me it's a "no brainer". FIX or REPLACE the pipes--all of them!! If these others keep procrastinating, Haiti will be in better shape 10 years from now than some places here. LOVELY!!
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 11.saulbrooklynMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
This is just one example of how we do things in this nation of ours.
We go for the short term over the long term.
We think in terms of how will this affect me and not how my children or their children will be affected.
We benefited from prior generations which had the wisdom to plan for the future and not just for themselves.
They built the railway system, and when that became obsolete they built the highway system.
What did we build.
We built the internet.
A perfect example of something that was primarily designed for right now.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 12.KenLong IslandMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
Another plot by the Democrats to make America a socialist country. Everyone knows we can't afford good water. Mediocre water is good enough, if you don't believe me ask Stossel. If you don't like the public water you can always buy bottled water.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 13.OchsuckerTimes SquareMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
As a nuanced thinking progressive New Yorker, it's clear to me that assessing such fees citywide would unfairly burden the most vulnerable among us. Each day, citizens would arrive home and open their mail only to find that their rate have skyrocketed. One equitable solution would be to levy a rent and monthly fee surcharge of 15% on Manhattan residential property.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 14.ChuckMichiganMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
This is a huge problem all around the country. Instead of ignoring it, we should be doing something to address the problem rather than passing yet another burden onto our children. It seems like a great opportunity to create jobs and utilities are definitely more critical to everyday life than cable TV. Sheesh!
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 15.JonathanBuffaloMarch 15th, 20107:54 am
Typical. The guys complaining about paying $60 dollars a month ($2/day) for household water probably had $2 bottles of water with them as they spoke.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 16.ImagoOlympia WAMarch 15th, 20107:54 am
Populaation biologists has long understood that the populations of plants and animals (including humans) are limited by factors like available food, sunlight, water, habitat, nutrients (nitrogen, phosporus, etc.) and habitat. Now it appears that one of the key limits to human populations in this country will be to the community cooperation, imagination and willingness to maintain the infrastucture that allows megalopolis densities.
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers 17.Sandy LewisLewis Family Farm, Essex, New YorkMarch 15th, 20107:55 am
Would be costly is one way to put it. That the past subjunctive case is used to express the despair of Mr. Duhigg and our New York Times in encouraging. It shows the most laudable concern.
The past subjunctive might be used in a whole slew of areas.
I do not recall a New York Times article that spells out just who owns vast segments of our water supply and distribution plant. NB: it may be investors from Germany.
Nor do I recall reading the number of different ways the most professional investor can invest in fresh water across the planet. NB: it's venture investing, based here.
Nor have I read the projections that detail what water will cost in a few short years.
And I do not believe we have been educated to understand what China will do to supply it's fresh water needs, among others - others, as in needs and water, take your pick.
Consult CIA stuff that's never printed - but well understood within the VC community.
That The United States of America is in deep trouble on every front is clear. Fresh water and sewage are but two among the critical areas.
The low cost bidders and the union labor obliged in public works in so-called competitive bidding have delivered the most poorly built roads, bridges, hospitals, railways, tunnels, homes, buildings, power systems, and infrastructure, and the list is growing as the stimulus money is sprinkled most everywhere, without a hint of common sense.
Charles Duhigg's reporting on water is fabulous and lasting.
Would it not be fantastic if the financial end of The Times reporting would - or could - manage something of similar quality.
When a dear friend said - about 22 years ago - he could no longer read The Times - he said he found it too painful, I did not fully understand. He was approaching 90. That was Peter Blos PhD., the great analyst.
He was not kidding.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 18.Armando VegaChicago, ILMarch 15th, 20107:55 am
Why are American voters so stupid!
You have to pay for services! Start being a more active participant in your community's policies!
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers 19.SpiritNaperville, ILMarch 15th, 20107:55 am
Seems like a great project to provide some jobs. I wonder which cities have been doing a good job and making needed improvements all along. I can understand people are upset paying for repairs and not wanting rate increases but I wonder if somehow magically the repairs could be done at no additional charge, would they still be against doing the repairs. Someone has to pay for the work. It may as well be the current users. We certainly can't charge people who are either dead or gone. The fact that the systems have lasted so long is a tribute to the good work of the engineers and tradesmen who designed and installed them.
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 20.csrkemsanta fe new mexicoMarch 15th, 20107:56 am
Dear NY Times I worked in water and wastewater resources in New Mexico for over 10 years. In that time I saw EPA always pushing the idea that there was a big gap in funding for new and renovated water and wastewater systems without ever talking about the real gap which is what people are willing to pay for these services. EPA did not do their job in putting more pressure on people either through the clean water act or the safe drinking water act to pay for their own up keep and maintenance of the systems upgraded or bought for them with state and federal funds. In New Mexico it is especially difficult since the state legislature puts out "pork" grants that are just enough to keep a water and or wastewater system afloat and out of the red. People in New Mexico are not especially rich in these rural areas but when we start paying more for cable than our utility systems then we are in trouble. The utility rate gap is what we have to address instead of the funding gap which just keeps EPA in business and continues an agency which has never really addressed the basic problem of maintaining what we have. Keith Melton
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 21.JBoston, MAMarch 15th, 20108:11 am
It's sad that our nation has come to the point where a mild hike in rates is too much to ask to keep raw sewage from flowing into the ground. It's a toxic combination of lack of interest in the common good and a strange belief that the government needs no money to provide the many essential services it provides. But I guess we, as a society, have finally succumbed to the "taxes bad, government corrupt" myth that moneyed interests posing as "good old folks" have bashed us over the head with since Reagan. Until we can get it into our thick heads that you can't run a society without a well-funded government, we're going to be stuck in a downward spiral of public degradation.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 22.Armando VegaChicago, ILMarch 15th, 20108:12 am
And Mr. Hawkins is an American hero!
Let's celebrate more of the George Hawkins' in our country and less Britney Spears' and Lil' Waynes'!
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 23.LVTfanStamford, CTMarch 15th, 20108:12 am
Charging the users of water in proportion to their usage is not the only or best way to finance the maintenance of vital infrastucture.
One of the reasons that city land is valuable and country land is less so is that the former has access to extensive infrastructure. Were that infrastructure to degrade and become unreliable, as some parts of the infrastructure in Iraq have become unreliable or subpar, urban land value would drop.
But there is a largely untapped resource which we ought to be using far more of: the rental value of urban land. The land under, say, Midtown Manhattan would become far less valuable if there were not a reliable water supply. Yet most of the economic rent on that land resides in the pockets of the landholders, rather than being collected by the city for public purposes. Yes, this is traditional. It is also dumb.
Leona Helmsley told the truth when she told us that "WE don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes." We ought to be taxing our urban land value more heavily to finance all the kinds of services which make that urban land so valuable.
We rely on taxes on sales and on wages and on buildings at the expense of having a healthy economy, and, as a byproduct, we get concentrated income and concentrated wealth.
To learn more in the context of another city, you might search on "Ricardo's Law" and "tax clawback scam" for a short film on the subject.
We ought to be tapping the economic rent on urban land to maintain our urban infrastructure.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 24.ezra abramsnrMarch 15th, 20108:12 am
how did a white guy from harvard with no experience get named director of water in DC, a city that is almost all black ?
Gotta assume some sort of old boy network here, which is exactly why we have
*affirmative* action
why is this not part of the story ?
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 25.kunosouraOklahomaMarch 15th, 20108:13 am
And how many $Trillions of dollars did Bush spend on illegal wars. How much does Obama spend every day on his esclation of the wars; on the hundreds of military bases around the world. And over 62% of the so-called national "economy" is military spending. A empire without a manufacturing base, bankrupt, that must borrow $Millions every day just to function- a failed education system, & all fair pay jobs gone forever. The grandchildren of current citizens will still be paying the national debt. No empire, much less democracy, ever survived militarism. Pres. Eisenhower warned of the industrial-military complex and that's all that is left of america.
jimmyhonoluluMarch 15th, 20108:13 am
i was working for the mass water resources authority,when we had to raise fees we did and know boston mass has a state of the art water and sewer system ,know i work for the city and county of honolulu ,i feel like i am back in 1986 out here crumbling streets ,crumbling sewer system ,train is coming to honolulu,know please look at me on hawaii news station khon 2 for the story on wastewater 3-10-10,thanks i would appreciate all comments ,thanks jimmy .by the way the judge garrity , was the man that ordered the mass water to fix deer island in the mid eighties,and he also was known for the crisis called forced busing,mahalo
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 27.Armando VegaChicago, ILMarch 15th, 20108:14 am
Ok, sorry for the third post, but just wanted to apologize if my first comment wasn't very constructive...
*goes back to class reading..*
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 28.Andy HainCarmel, CAMarch 15th, 20108:14 am
Well, no surprise there - it's been all about me, me, me! The costly version of setting the kiddies in front of a TV to keep 'em quiet. Now grown up, they can't balance a check-book.
From what happened with the housing/financial bubble, melt-down and crash, it's all too clear that far too many of us became completely spendthrift regarding our personal wants and desires, but cheaper than cheap - and reckless - towards critical needs. Let someone else worry about the infrastructure, and don't bother me while I'm downloading or texting....
The result? Million of kids with phone plans, but families losing homes by the millions - leading to the slow crumbling of communities all across our nation. Sorry, but I find it hard to be very sympathetic.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 29.marik7wailiku, hiMarch 15th, 20108:39 am
Let's see. People protest rate increases to fix the infrastructure in their communities.
Do they then eagerly drink the polluted water, or just go buy some bottled stuff? Are they among those who complain about the deteriorating public services provided in this nation.
Is the water in their Jacuzzis polluted?
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 30.MIKE in NYCNYMarch 15th, 20108:39 am
Like there's a choice!
We're all in this together. It's got to be done. It's no one's fault.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 31.Dave HaloSo CalMarch 15th, 20108:39 am
"Providing inexpensive, reliable water is a fundamental obligation of government."
Yes, Mr Graham, I agree with the last part. Tell me how the construction, operations, maintenance and repair/replacement can be done cheaply? If it's not the people receiving the water paying for it, who else should?
because you are a politician spokeshole, you only make statements that will help get you re-elected instead of solving problems.
Infrastructure problems in this country will require massive infusions of cash. otherwise, we will crumble even faster from within.
People pay $2, $3, $4 or more dollars for a bottle of water (maybe a quart) but complain if their $60/month bill for 1000's of gallons is raised.
Pull your head out of the sand Mr Graham.
Keep up the good fight Mr Hawkins
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers 32.s franklinAtlanta,GAMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
Thank goodness Mr. Hawkins is pushing for investment in the water system in the nation's capital. For decades Atlantans ignored the need for investment. After the city was sued in federal court, the city's leaders decided to invest in sewer system upgrades. The city's Clean Water Program includes water and sewer upgrades and replacement valued at over $3.7 billion by 2014. Twice the voters have voted to approve a one cent sales tax to support the investment and the City City Council has adopted water/sewer rate increases that make Atlanta's rates among the highest in the country. This investment will pay benfits in new jobs and economic development in Atlanta for years to come. No city can expect to grow, to be healthy or to support a growing economy without clean water in ample supply.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 33.Gary PackwoodHouston, Texas USAMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
Seems strange that we know in our business organization how long a building will last or how long until the roof will need replacing.
And all that preventative maintenance information is tracked on special software and has been for decades.
Why are we not doing the same with city infrastructure?
Just tell the truth.
::
GP
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 34.RussFt. Lauderdale, FlMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
Such an important topic. It's startling to find out just how old the water systems actually are; it's almost a miracle that they still work at all! Here's the root of the problem - America has neglected its infrastructure on many fronts for generations, the water and sewerage systems being only part of the problem. We have neglected these fundamentals in favor of spending money on other fronts, perhaps more visible but maybe less important, such as wars.
Now comes the time to face an unpalatable truth and that is that unless we are willing to pay for it the infrastructure will continue to crumble (think bridges collapsing and other unpleasant scenarios). We are a country that has one of the lowest tax rates in the world. Kudos to this guy for saying it like it is - it's about time we concentrate on fixing our own country.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 35.Big BillOlympia, WAMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
This is like everything else in America: when it was cheaper to fix it, we ignored it so we could get bigger houses, bigger cars, and bigger bellies.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 36.citizen janeDC suburbsMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
When appearance trumps competence, this is what you get. Better come up with some money and humility to pay very well the *competent* engineers who can actually get the job done, make the top management engineers too, and give them the freedom to do it right without political nonsense. If you keep hiring for appearances, it'll cost you five times and it won't get done right. Remember the Big Dig in Boston. Falling tiles in a new tunnel killed a woman driving through. We don't have the money to fool around any more. Make it rewarding for someone to put aside the distractions and actually study in college. Recognize that if you have someone who knows the water system due to years of experience, *that's* who you put in charge. Quit with the public relations already. Fire people who don't work. Make sure everyone that you're paying, is actually getting the work done.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 37.engchinaseattleMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
Stories like this one continually amaze me.
Reading this article, I sense once again that attempts to improve delivery of the nation's water supply is being thwarted by the anti-tax lobby and the waive of protest against anything government tries to do to improve the quality life for the average citizen, especially if it means increasing the average water bill to pay for modern H2O pipes and sewage treatment plants.
I am sure most americans like the idea of clean water, but it appears from reading this article that they just don't want to pay for it.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 38.bigrussMpls MnMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
What do people think? It should be free. Maybe a little Typhoid fever to start with may change there thinking. Yes
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 39.C.L.DetroitMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
I find it bewildering where our priorities lie. Of all the things in this world that could be neglected, water is perhaps the most essential to our well-being. How unfortunate it is that keeping water clean, safe and well-circulated can be so inconvenient. Not only in this particular issue - defect of water delivery systems - but any issue with water at the core. Now I don't think that bursting pipes is the most dire scenario with regards to water. I do feel, however, it is ignorant to demand the luxury of running water while protesting the cost of it.
On another note, a massive restoration project of the nation's water delivery systems could be a good way to generate jobs while doing something productive.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 40.RichHuntington Beach, CAMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
If President Obama and the Democrat Leadership had any brains, which they appear to be lacking, they would invest in this very important infrastructure, thus creaing American JOBS!!!!!!!!
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 41.JoySR, CaliforniaMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
As usual - people only want to pay for something if it helps them - well we all need water - so pay up and shut up....let the reconstruction begin....
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 42.ElvisPortland, OrMarch 15th, 20108:45 am
Americans need to grow up. Providing water and sewage are just another opportunity for big government to gain control over our lives. Of course we have crumbling infrastructure, liberals have been in power! What we need is to back to our roots and gather water and dispose of waste individually, with no government interference!
By CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: March 14, 2010
WASHINGTON — One recent morning, George S. Hawkins, a long-haired environmentalist who now leads one of the largest and most prominent water and sewer systems, trudged to a street corner here where water was gushing into the air.
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
As head of Washington's water department, George Hawkins, left, is on the scene every time a major sewer or water line breaks.
Toxic Waters
The Breaking Point
Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in America’s waters and regulators’ responses.
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
Mr. Hawkins's goal is to replace, within the next century, the pipes that were installed in Washington a hundred years ago.
A cold snap had ruptured a major pipe that was installed the same year the light bulb was invented. Homes near the fashionable Dupont Circle neighborhood were quickly going dry, and Mr. Hawkins, who had recently taken over the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority despite having no experience running a major utility, was responsible for fixing the problem.
As city employees searched for underground valves, a growing crowd started asking angry questions. Pipes were breaking across town, and fire hydrants weren’t working, they complained. Why couldn’t the city deliver water, one man yelled at Mr. Hawkins.
Such questions are becoming common across the nation as water and sewer systems break down. Today, a significant water line bursts on average every two minutes somewhere in the country, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data.
In Washington alone there is a pipe break every day, on average, and this weekend’s intense rains overwhelmed the city’s system, causing untreated sewage to flow into the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.
State and federal studies indicate that thousands of water and sewer systems may be too old to function properly.
For decades, these systems — some built around the time of the Civil War — have been ignored by politicians and residents accustomed to paying almost nothing for water delivery and sewage removal. And so each year, hundreds of thousands of ruptures damage streets and homes and cause dangerous pollutants to seep into drinking water supplies.
Mr. Hawkins’s answer to such problems will not please a lot of citizens. Like many of his counterparts in cities like Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta and elsewhere, his job is partly to persuade the public to accept higher water rates, so that the utility can replace more antiquated pipes.
“People pay more for their cellphones and cable television than for water,” said Mr. Hawkins, who before taking over Washington’s water system ran environmental groups and attended Princeton and Harvard, where he never thought he would end up running a sewer system.
“You can go a day without a phone or TV,” he added. “You can’t go a day without water.”
But in many cities, residents have protested loudly when asked to pay more for water and sewer services. In Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Sacramento — and before Mr. Hawkins arrived, Washington — proposed rate increases have been scaled back or canceled after virulent ratepayer dissent.
So when Mr. Hawkins confronted the upset crowd near Dupont Circle, he sensed an opportunity to explain why things needed to change. It was a snowy day, and while water from the broken pipe mixed with slush, he began cheerily explaining that the rupture was a symptom of a nationwide disease, according to people present.
Mr. Hawkins — who at 49 has the bubbling energy of a toddler and the physique of an aging professor — told the crowd that the average age of the city’s water pipes was 76, nearly four times that of the oldest city bus. With a smile, he described how old pipes have spilled untreated sewage into rivers near homes.
“I don’t care why these pipes aren’t working!” one of the residents yelled. “I pay $60 a month for water! I just want my toilet to flush! Why do I need to know how it works?”
Mr. Hawkins smiled, quit the lecture, and retreated back to watching his crew.
On Capitol Hill, the plight of Mr. Hawkins and other utility managers has become a hot topic. In the last year, federal lawmakers have allocated more than $10 billion for water infrastructure programs, one of the largest such commitments in history.
But Mr. Hawkins and others say that even those outlays are almost insignificant compared with the problems they are supposed to fix. An E.P.A. study last year estimated that $335 billion would be needed simply to maintain the nation’s tap water systems in coming decades. In states like New York, officials estimate that $36 billion is needed in the next 20 years just for municipal wastewater systems.
As these discussions unfold, particular attention is being paid to Mr. Hawkins. Washington’s water and sewer system serves the White House, many members of Congress, and two million other residents, and so it surprised some when Mr. Hawkins was hired to head the agency last September, since he did not have an engineering background or the résumé of a utility chief.
In fact, after he had graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987, he spent a few years helping companies apply for permits to pollute rivers and lakes. (At night — without his firm’s knowledge — he had a second career as a professional break dancer. He met his wife, a nurse, when he fell off a platform at a dance club and landed on his head.)
But he quickly became disenchanted with corporate law. He moved to the E.P.A., where he fought polluters, and then the White House, and eventually relocated his family to a farm in New Jersey where they shoveled the manure of 35 sheep and kept watch over 175 chickens, and Mr. Hawkins began running a series of environmental groups.
The mayor of Washington, Adrian M. Fenty, asked Mr. Hawkins to move to the city in 2007 to lead the Department of the Environment. He quickly became a prominent figure, admired for his ability to communicate with residents and lawmakers. When the Water and Sewer Authority needed a new leader, board members wanted someone familiar with public relations campaigns. Mr. Hawkins’s mandate was to persuade residents to pay for updating the city’s antiquated pipes.
At a meeting with board members last month, Mr. Hawkins pitched his radical solution. Clad in an agency uniform — his name on the breast and creases indicating it had been recently unfolded for the first time — Mr. Hawkins suggested raising water rates for the average resident by almost 17 percent, to about $60 a month per household. Over the coming six years, that rate would rise above $100.
With that additional money, Mr. Hawkins argued, the city could replace all of its pipes in 100 years. The previous budget would have replaced them in three centuries.
The board questioned him for hours. Others have attacked him for playing on false fears.
“This rate hike is outrageous,” said Jim Graham, a member of the city council. “Subway systems need repairs, and so do roads, but you don’t see fares or tolls skyrocketing. Providing inexpensive, reliable water is a fundamental obligation of government. If they can’t do that, they need to reform themselves, instead of just charging more.”
Similar battles have occurred around the nation. In Philadelphia, officials are set to start collecting $1.6 billion for programs to prevent rain water from overwhelming the sewer system, amid loud complaints. Communities surrounding Cleveland threatened to sue when the regional utility proposed charging homeowners for the water pollution running off their property. In central Florida, a $1.8 billion proposal to build a network of drinking water pipes has drawn organized protests.
“We’re relying on water systems built by our great-grandparents, and no one wants to pay for the decades we’ve spent ignoring them,” said Jeffrey K. Griffiths, a professor at Tufts University and a member of the E.P.A.’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
“There’s a lot of evidence that people are getting sick,” he added. “But because everything is out of sight, no one really understands how bad things have become.”
To bring those lapses into the light, Mr. Hawkins has become a cheerleader for rate increases. He has begun a media assault highlighting the city’s water woes. He has created a blog and a Facebook page that explain why pipes break. He regularly appears on newscasts and radio shows, and has filled a personal Web site with video clips of his appearances.
It’s an all-consuming job. Mr. Hawkins tries to show up at every major pipe break, no matter the hour. He often works late into the night, and for three years he has not lived with his wife and two teenage children, who remained in New Jersey.
“The kids really miss their father,” said his wife, Tamara. “When we take him to the train station after a visit, my daughter in particular will sometimes cry. He’s missing out on his kids’ childhoods.”
And even if Mr. Hawkins succeeds, the public might not realize it, or particularly care. Last month, the utility’s board approved Mr. Hawkins’s budget and started the process for raising rates. But even if the bigger budget reduces the frequency of water pipe breaks by half — a major accomplishment — many residents probably won’t notice. People tend to pay attention to water and sewer systems only when things go wrong.
“But this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” Mr. Hawkins said recently, in between a meeting with local environmentalists and rushing home to do paperwork in his small, spartan apartment, near a place where he was once mugged at gunpoint.
“This is the fight of our lifetimes,” he added. “Water is tied into everything we should care about. Someday, people are going to talk about our sewers with a real sense of pride.”
Comment
I predict thast wars will be fought in the future over water. We cant live without it. Investing in those companies that make the repairs or put in new sewers would seem to be a good investment too.
NYT comments
landlessBrooklynMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
I work as a librarian. Daily, I am shocked by how the public expects the underfunded library and inadequate staff to give them what they want. This nation spends money on video games, bottled water, and Christmas decorations, but doesn't want to invest in infra-structure and human capital. That's how empires fall.
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers 2.ErikFloridaMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
If there ever was a "shovel ready" project to utilize TARP money this is it.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 3.CarolinaMexicoMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
Tax the rich.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers 4.solasNY, NYMarch 15th, 20107:50 am
Plenty of money for pipes in Iraq and Afghanistan though.
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers 5.AnnSMIMarch 15th, 20107:51 am
As city employees searched for underground valves, a growing crowd started asking angry questions. Pipes were breaking across town, and fire hydrants weren’t working, they complained. Why couldn’t the city deliver water, one man yelled at Mr. Hawkins.
Easy answer
Necause those who use the services do NOT want to pay the real cost.
Because those who use the services want everything at a bargain basement rate without thought for tomorrow.
Because those who use the services bought into the 'cut taxes' and 'government is evil' mantra of the right-wing who are only converned with preserving the wealth of the upper 1/10th of 1% and creating an aristocracy of inherited wealth.
Because between the "I want something for nothing' attitude of the masses and the 'We won't pay because we are the rich and aren't going to carry our fair share' of the upper 1%, there is no money.
Cut the military spending in 1/2 and there is exactly enough money to pay $335,000,000,000 to repair all the water systems.
Oh right....forgot. I forgot that it is more important to start wars of choice to bolster the testosterone driven egos of the armchair hawks than to maintain and create a 21st century infrastructure...... I forgot that it is more important that the upper 1% keep the 80% of all wealth and assets in the US in their vaults and that the upper 1% - and in particular the upper 1/100th of 1% - pay less taxes as a percentage of their income than the clerk at the grocery store does.
Recommend Recommended by 20 Readers 6.SylvanusNew YorkMarch 15th, 20107:52 amAt times I fear for our country, in the belief constantly promoted (especially by those who are often called conservatives but are actually radicals, often being funded by large and very powerful international corporations) that we don't have to pay taxes (which essentially is what is being asked in this case) to have what we need. California is a perfect example of what happens when this becomes an operating principle of governance, when it takes two-thirds of the legislature to raise a tax. (I read that this is a principle being advocated by the Tea Party Movement, which is also advocating the privatization of governmental services.) Undoubtedly there will be those who will use this as an opportunity to promote privatizing the delivery of water, and then we will be up-the-creek. In anticipation of that argument, I recommend the documentary BlueGold, which is on DVD and can be got through Netflix. It is an essential source of information on topic of our water supplies.
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers 7.Darel SteinAtlantaMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
This looks like we have some perfect projects for the stimulus. Isn't the idea to provide jobs & get needed work done?
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers 8.RoscoeRochester MNMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
Irresponsible journalism -- again.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 9.reblaneSeattleMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
Perhaps all those billions spent killing Iraqis might be better spent at home...
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers 10.Patricia WilsonSan Jose, CAMarch 15th, 20107:52 am
Would we rather do without fresh water or sewer systems??? How about having the sewers all open in July when the temperature outdoors is in the 90's?? In San Jose we are sensible enough to have just completed new sewer pipes and fresh water systems in most of the city for 1 million people or more. Not many!! But then some people would prefer typhoid to a few dollars more a year for fresh water and sewer pipes. The contractors doing it must be watched over like anyone else must be so the money is used right. But to me it's a "no brainer". FIX or REPLACE the pipes--all of them!! If these others keep procrastinating, Haiti will be in better shape 10 years from now than some places here. LOVELY!!
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 11.saulbrooklynMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
This is just one example of how we do things in this nation of ours.
We go for the short term over the long term.
We think in terms of how will this affect me and not how my children or their children will be affected.
We benefited from prior generations which had the wisdom to plan for the future and not just for themselves.
They built the railway system, and when that became obsolete they built the highway system.
What did we build.
We built the internet.
A perfect example of something that was primarily designed for right now.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 12.KenLong IslandMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
Another plot by the Democrats to make America a socialist country. Everyone knows we can't afford good water. Mediocre water is good enough, if you don't believe me ask Stossel. If you don't like the public water you can always buy bottled water.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 13.OchsuckerTimes SquareMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
As a nuanced thinking progressive New Yorker, it's clear to me that assessing such fees citywide would unfairly burden the most vulnerable among us. Each day, citizens would arrive home and open their mail only to find that their rate have skyrocketed. One equitable solution would be to levy a rent and monthly fee surcharge of 15% on Manhattan residential property.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 14.ChuckMichiganMarch 15th, 20107:53 am
This is a huge problem all around the country. Instead of ignoring it, we should be doing something to address the problem rather than passing yet another burden onto our children. It seems like a great opportunity to create jobs and utilities are definitely more critical to everyday life than cable TV. Sheesh!
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 15.JonathanBuffaloMarch 15th, 20107:54 am
Typical. The guys complaining about paying $60 dollars a month ($2/day) for household water probably had $2 bottles of water with them as they spoke.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 16.ImagoOlympia WAMarch 15th, 20107:54 am
Populaation biologists has long understood that the populations of plants and animals (including humans) are limited by factors like available food, sunlight, water, habitat, nutrients (nitrogen, phosporus, etc.) and habitat. Now it appears that one of the key limits to human populations in this country will be to the community cooperation, imagination and willingness to maintain the infrastucture that allows megalopolis densities.
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers 17.Sandy LewisLewis Family Farm, Essex, New YorkMarch 15th, 20107:55 am
Would be costly is one way to put it. That the past subjunctive case is used to express the despair of Mr. Duhigg and our New York Times in encouraging. It shows the most laudable concern.
The past subjunctive might be used in a whole slew of areas.
I do not recall a New York Times article that spells out just who owns vast segments of our water supply and distribution plant. NB: it may be investors from Germany.
Nor do I recall reading the number of different ways the most professional investor can invest in fresh water across the planet. NB: it's venture investing, based here.
Nor have I read the projections that detail what water will cost in a few short years.
And I do not believe we have been educated to understand what China will do to supply it's fresh water needs, among others - others, as in needs and water, take your pick.
Consult CIA stuff that's never printed - but well understood within the VC community.
That The United States of America is in deep trouble on every front is clear. Fresh water and sewage are but two among the critical areas.
The low cost bidders and the union labor obliged in public works in so-called competitive bidding have delivered the most poorly built roads, bridges, hospitals, railways, tunnels, homes, buildings, power systems, and infrastructure, and the list is growing as the stimulus money is sprinkled most everywhere, without a hint of common sense.
Charles Duhigg's reporting on water is fabulous and lasting.
Would it not be fantastic if the financial end of The Times reporting would - or could - manage something of similar quality.
When a dear friend said - about 22 years ago - he could no longer read The Times - he said he found it too painful, I did not fully understand. He was approaching 90. That was Peter Blos PhD., the great analyst.
He was not kidding.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 18.Armando VegaChicago, ILMarch 15th, 20107:55 am
Why are American voters so stupid!
You have to pay for services! Start being a more active participant in your community's policies!
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers 19.SpiritNaperville, ILMarch 15th, 20107:55 am
Seems like a great project to provide some jobs. I wonder which cities have been doing a good job and making needed improvements all along. I can understand people are upset paying for repairs and not wanting rate increases but I wonder if somehow magically the repairs could be done at no additional charge, would they still be against doing the repairs. Someone has to pay for the work. It may as well be the current users. We certainly can't charge people who are either dead or gone. The fact that the systems have lasted so long is a tribute to the good work of the engineers and tradesmen who designed and installed them.
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 20.csrkemsanta fe new mexicoMarch 15th, 20107:56 am
Dear NY Times I worked in water and wastewater resources in New Mexico for over 10 years. In that time I saw EPA always pushing the idea that there was a big gap in funding for new and renovated water and wastewater systems without ever talking about the real gap which is what people are willing to pay for these services. EPA did not do their job in putting more pressure on people either through the clean water act or the safe drinking water act to pay for their own up keep and maintenance of the systems upgraded or bought for them with state and federal funds. In New Mexico it is especially difficult since the state legislature puts out "pork" grants that are just enough to keep a water and or wastewater system afloat and out of the red. People in New Mexico are not especially rich in these rural areas but when we start paying more for cable than our utility systems then we are in trouble. The utility rate gap is what we have to address instead of the funding gap which just keeps EPA in business and continues an agency which has never really addressed the basic problem of maintaining what we have. Keith Melton
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 21.JBoston, MAMarch 15th, 20108:11 am
It's sad that our nation has come to the point where a mild hike in rates is too much to ask to keep raw sewage from flowing into the ground. It's a toxic combination of lack of interest in the common good and a strange belief that the government needs no money to provide the many essential services it provides. But I guess we, as a society, have finally succumbed to the "taxes bad, government corrupt" myth that moneyed interests posing as "good old folks" have bashed us over the head with since Reagan. Until we can get it into our thick heads that you can't run a society without a well-funded government, we're going to be stuck in a downward spiral of public degradation.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 22.Armando VegaChicago, ILMarch 15th, 20108:12 am
And Mr. Hawkins is an American hero!
Let's celebrate more of the George Hawkins' in our country and less Britney Spears' and Lil' Waynes'!
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 23.LVTfanStamford, CTMarch 15th, 20108:12 am
Charging the users of water in proportion to their usage is not the only or best way to finance the maintenance of vital infrastucture.
One of the reasons that city land is valuable and country land is less so is that the former has access to extensive infrastructure. Were that infrastructure to degrade and become unreliable, as some parts of the infrastructure in Iraq have become unreliable or subpar, urban land value would drop.
But there is a largely untapped resource which we ought to be using far more of: the rental value of urban land. The land under, say, Midtown Manhattan would become far less valuable if there were not a reliable water supply. Yet most of the economic rent on that land resides in the pockets of the landholders, rather than being collected by the city for public purposes. Yes, this is traditional. It is also dumb.
Leona Helmsley told the truth when she told us that "WE don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes." We ought to be taxing our urban land value more heavily to finance all the kinds of services which make that urban land so valuable.
We rely on taxes on sales and on wages and on buildings at the expense of having a healthy economy, and, as a byproduct, we get concentrated income and concentrated wealth.
To learn more in the context of another city, you might search on "Ricardo's Law" and "tax clawback scam" for a short film on the subject.
We ought to be tapping the economic rent on urban land to maintain our urban infrastructure.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 24.ezra abramsnrMarch 15th, 20108:12 am
how did a white guy from harvard with no experience get named director of water in DC, a city that is almost all black ?
Gotta assume some sort of old boy network here, which is exactly why we have
*affirmative* action
why is this not part of the story ?
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 25.kunosouraOklahomaMarch 15th, 20108:13 am
And how many $Trillions of dollars did Bush spend on illegal wars. How much does Obama spend every day on his esclation of the wars; on the hundreds of military bases around the world. And over 62% of the so-called national "economy" is military spending. A empire without a manufacturing base, bankrupt, that must borrow $Millions every day just to function- a failed education system, & all fair pay jobs gone forever. The grandchildren of current citizens will still be paying the national debt. No empire, much less democracy, ever survived militarism. Pres. Eisenhower warned of the industrial-military complex and that's all that is left of america.
jimmyhonoluluMarch 15th, 20108:13 am
i was working for the mass water resources authority,when we had to raise fees we did and know boston mass has a state of the art water and sewer system ,know i work for the city and county of honolulu ,i feel like i am back in 1986 out here crumbling streets ,crumbling sewer system ,train is coming to honolulu,know please look at me on hawaii news station khon 2 for the story on wastewater 3-10-10,thanks i would appreciate all comments ,thanks jimmy .by the way the judge garrity , was the man that ordered the mass water to fix deer island in the mid eighties,and he also was known for the crisis called forced busing,mahalo
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 27.Armando VegaChicago, ILMarch 15th, 20108:14 am
Ok, sorry for the third post, but just wanted to apologize if my first comment wasn't very constructive...
*goes back to class reading..*
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 28.Andy HainCarmel, CAMarch 15th, 20108:14 am
Well, no surprise there - it's been all about me, me, me! The costly version of setting the kiddies in front of a TV to keep 'em quiet. Now grown up, they can't balance a check-book.
From what happened with the housing/financial bubble, melt-down and crash, it's all too clear that far too many of us became completely spendthrift regarding our personal wants and desires, but cheaper than cheap - and reckless - towards critical needs. Let someone else worry about the infrastructure, and don't bother me while I'm downloading or texting....
The result? Million of kids with phone plans, but families losing homes by the millions - leading to the slow crumbling of communities all across our nation. Sorry, but I find it hard to be very sympathetic.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 29.marik7wailiku, hiMarch 15th, 20108:39 am
Let's see. People protest rate increases to fix the infrastructure in their communities.
Do they then eagerly drink the polluted water, or just go buy some bottled stuff? Are they among those who complain about the deteriorating public services provided in this nation.
Is the water in their Jacuzzis polluted?
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 30.MIKE in NYCNYMarch 15th, 20108:39 am
Like there's a choice!
We're all in this together. It's got to be done. It's no one's fault.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 31.Dave HaloSo CalMarch 15th, 20108:39 am
"Providing inexpensive, reliable water is a fundamental obligation of government."
Yes, Mr Graham, I agree with the last part. Tell me how the construction, operations, maintenance and repair/replacement can be done cheaply? If it's not the people receiving the water paying for it, who else should?
because you are a politician spokeshole, you only make statements that will help get you re-elected instead of solving problems.
Infrastructure problems in this country will require massive infusions of cash. otherwise, we will crumble even faster from within.
People pay $2, $3, $4 or more dollars for a bottle of water (maybe a quart) but complain if their $60/month bill for 1000's of gallons is raised.
Pull your head out of the sand Mr Graham.
Keep up the good fight Mr Hawkins
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers 32.s franklinAtlanta,GAMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
Thank goodness Mr. Hawkins is pushing for investment in the water system in the nation's capital. For decades Atlantans ignored the need for investment. After the city was sued in federal court, the city's leaders decided to invest in sewer system upgrades. The city's Clean Water Program includes water and sewer upgrades and replacement valued at over $3.7 billion by 2014. Twice the voters have voted to approve a one cent sales tax to support the investment and the City City Council has adopted water/sewer rate increases that make Atlanta's rates among the highest in the country. This investment will pay benfits in new jobs and economic development in Atlanta for years to come. No city can expect to grow, to be healthy or to support a growing economy without clean water in ample supply.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 33.Gary PackwoodHouston, Texas USAMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
Seems strange that we know in our business organization how long a building will last or how long until the roof will need replacing.
And all that preventative maintenance information is tracked on special software and has been for decades.
Why are we not doing the same with city infrastructure?
Just tell the truth.
::
GP
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 34.RussFt. Lauderdale, FlMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
Such an important topic. It's startling to find out just how old the water systems actually are; it's almost a miracle that they still work at all! Here's the root of the problem - America has neglected its infrastructure on many fronts for generations, the water and sewerage systems being only part of the problem. We have neglected these fundamentals in favor of spending money on other fronts, perhaps more visible but maybe less important, such as wars.
Now comes the time to face an unpalatable truth and that is that unless we are willing to pay for it the infrastructure will continue to crumble (think bridges collapsing and other unpleasant scenarios). We are a country that has one of the lowest tax rates in the world. Kudos to this guy for saying it like it is - it's about time we concentrate on fixing our own country.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 35.Big BillOlympia, WAMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
This is like everything else in America: when it was cheaper to fix it, we ignored it so we could get bigger houses, bigger cars, and bigger bellies.
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers 36.citizen janeDC suburbsMarch 15th, 20108:40 am
When appearance trumps competence, this is what you get. Better come up with some money and humility to pay very well the *competent* engineers who can actually get the job done, make the top management engineers too, and give them the freedom to do it right without political nonsense. If you keep hiring for appearances, it'll cost you five times and it won't get done right. Remember the Big Dig in Boston. Falling tiles in a new tunnel killed a woman driving through. We don't have the money to fool around any more. Make it rewarding for someone to put aside the distractions and actually study in college. Recognize that if you have someone who knows the water system due to years of experience, *that's* who you put in charge. Quit with the public relations already. Fire people who don't work. Make sure everyone that you're paying, is actually getting the work done.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 37.engchinaseattleMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
Stories like this one continually amaze me.
Reading this article, I sense once again that attempts to improve delivery of the nation's water supply is being thwarted by the anti-tax lobby and the waive of protest against anything government tries to do to improve the quality life for the average citizen, especially if it means increasing the average water bill to pay for modern H2O pipes and sewage treatment plants.
I am sure most americans like the idea of clean water, but it appears from reading this article that they just don't want to pay for it.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 38.bigrussMpls MnMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
What do people think? It should be free. Maybe a little Typhoid fever to start with may change there thinking. Yes
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 39.C.L.DetroitMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
I find it bewildering where our priorities lie. Of all the things in this world that could be neglected, water is perhaps the most essential to our well-being. How unfortunate it is that keeping water clean, safe and well-circulated can be so inconvenient. Not only in this particular issue - defect of water delivery systems - but any issue with water at the core. Now I don't think that bursting pipes is the most dire scenario with regards to water. I do feel, however, it is ignorant to demand the luxury of running water while protesting the cost of it.
On another note, a massive restoration project of the nation's water delivery systems could be a good way to generate jobs while doing something productive.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers 40.RichHuntington Beach, CAMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
If President Obama and the Democrat Leadership had any brains, which they appear to be lacking, they would invest in this very important infrastructure, thus creaing American JOBS!!!!!!!!
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 41.JoySR, CaliforniaMarch 15th, 20108:41 am
As usual - people only want to pay for something if it helps them - well we all need water - so pay up and shut up....let the reconstruction begin....
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 42.ElvisPortland, OrMarch 15th, 20108:45 am
Americans need to grow up. Providing water and sewage are just another opportunity for big government to gain control over our lives. Of course we have crumbling infrastructure, liberals have been in power! What we need is to back to our roots and gather water and dispose of waste individually, with no government interference!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)