Archive for the ‘Electric Vehicles (EVs)’ Category

EVs vs ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) in the 21st Century

It’s affirming when another reviewer understands that unless the electricity consumed by the electric car is completely clean(er) and green(er), all this hype is overstated, misplaced and simply cannot be afford on such a large scale if sustainability is the ultimate aim.

To me, all this hype around pushing EVs (electric vehicles) as a climate change solution is just not pragmatic or sustainable, at allwell, it’s possible if the aim is smaller vehicles in highly densely populated areas. Robust baseload power is needed. And until there is a MASSIVE deployment of renewables, I just can’t see this happening.

I have also wondered as more electric cars are deployed, where will the taxes come from to pay for maintenance of roads/highways and address congestion issues. I can, however, agree hybrid drive trains, like that of the Toyota Prius, are the stepping stone way to go.

But to me, the present, lowest hanging fruit in this sector in transition is behavior change. If vehicular traffic flow is smoothed out, the efficiency of a simple internal combustion engine (ICE) is attractive and won’t require additional costly elements such as hybridization. Traffic engineers just need to revisit and tune their linear algebra algorithms for stoplights at intersections–an easy, low-hanging behavior change opportunity.

PREPARE. RESPOND. ADAPT.

Siemens eHighway for Hybrid EV Trucks + Ethane—This could be a winning combo!

Many in the energy industry know and there is a great deal chatter now these days that a replacement transportation fuel is needed, until the electrical vehicle infrastructure can become more fully realized. I think those in charge are solicitous about adopting an unconventional fuel stock, because so many green fashionistas have undermined the science in the biofuels sector for so many years, too. Unfortunately, there is going to be A LOT of pain, soon. The price of gasoline is low for a reason–we have reached the end of growth. If consumers cannot afford to buy goods and services, there will be little demand, so prices have to be kept low. This is the antithesis of the ‘models’ predictions of economists from years gone by.

This past Friday, the DoE rejected my and my co-collaborator’s Concept paper for their Dual Fuel Fleet Demonstration Project, altho they agreed to recognize, consider ethane as a transportation fuel stock now. EV (Electric Vehicle) was featured prominently in the categorical exclusion criteria scope and their scoring. No surprises. Big auto companies who are trying to get more hybrid-EV drivetrains for trucks, and SUVs into the market are trying to squeeze out any competition, so the (mostly) energy illiterate, entitled masses who lifestyles predicated on hyper-consumerism can continue. This hyper-consumerism lifestyle is NOT sustainable.

This is a DAMN pity. Such hubris. Such stupidity and short-sightedness. Any sensible engineer knows, until batteries and electric motors weigh the same/less, a dense, energy-rich, liquid fuel makes the most sense.  At worst, an intermediate, transitional fuel solution, like ethane is needed–that is if the citizenry is hell-bent on maintaining this quality of life to which they have become accustomed. 

I mean, what, we here in the USA are INSTANTLY going to get an EV infrastructure built?! What emulate Europe’s train/locomotive system, because we were short-sighted back in the day to mostly abandon this for the automobile, which is now going to bite us more in the ass? Sure. How long will this take? At least a decade+, at best. So what about the interim?

I bet the handlers of the engineers who have performed calculations how much space carrying today’s batteries on a semi-truck will take up have been excoriated or ignored. What ~½+ the payload?

Siemens is proposing an EV highway, the eHighway in SoCal for semi-trucks/18-wheelers; results to be reported next summer. However, the question that requires answering is how much power these hybrid-EV trucks will need to overcome to compete with 1,500 lb of diesel in a typical semi-/18-wheeler fuel tank. 

Siemen’s EV Truck

I attempted to locate information on Siemen’s web site with road freight challenges metrics that have to be overcome; there was this:

The main obstacle to electrified road freight has been the size and weight required for on-board storage of electrical energy. For example, a road truck weighing 40 tons traveling 1,000 kilometers would need approximately 20 tons of batteries. This problem can be solved by providing power to the truck as it is driving.

So at least my initial W.A.G. (wild ass guess) about batteries taking up ~½ load was correct. NOT even cost effective today. Let alone all the interstate weight restrictions that would be violated hauling around massive battery packs. It’s not as if the roadway infrastructure isn’t already under maintained, tenuous.  And if there’s no gas tax, then where’s the money going to come from to keep this infrastructure viable, working?!! Is anyone talking about this?! No. Ugh.

I mean, at least delivery companies like UPS get that to get to a point where an EV infrastructure makes sense is to have a hybrid solution, first. Crimey, a fully electrical drivetrain, with a simple gearbox, smaller battery, regenerative braking, and an electrical generator optimized for certain speeds and driving behavior, er like a delivery truck driver in a major metro area. Ethane could be the complementary, supplementary fuel stock for these hybrid-EV trucks, in the interim and perhaps well into the future. I’m just sayin’…

PREPARE. RESPOND. ADAPT.

ETHANE | Not just a hypothetical, or hyperbole—when the end of oil FINALLY arrives

Right. We want an EV (electric vehicle) infrastructure in the USA. I want it, too, eventually and in geographically predisposed locations that make the most sense. However, it can’t happen in ‘an instant.’

Sobering sanity check aside: I have a friend/colleague who was working on  electric vehicle prototyping back in the 1980s. Only this past year did this person feel affirmed by work performed on this schema started ~30 years ago was FINALLY starting to mature.

I think (wo)man is being rather short-sighted if we think we’re going to be able to maintain the quality of life to which we have become accustomed is going to be anything but smooth transition, once the end of easily extractable oil comes to an end—a readily available fuel stock is NOT going to be coming to a fuel pumping station to you in the ‘near future’, en masse, if there is not a replacement soon.

THE BIG PICTURE: EVERYTHING in industrialized society is predicated on oil. Think about it, even renewable energy systems technologies [RESTs]. Those huge wind turbine blades don’t make it to the wind farm on their own from the factory.

And once the EV infrastructure becomes fully realized, where is the money going to come from to pay for the infrastructure, er roadway maintenance if there is no longer a gas tax? I’m just sayin’…

We have a transitional fuel opportunity in ‘the low hanging fruit’ of ethane in the USA of Shale Gas that needs to get snatched up. No, I’m not keen on hydraulic fracturing,  but it’s an engineer’s job to make choices on merits, choose a solution that matches the requirements at a reasonable cost. S/He doesn’t look for the perfect solution. S/He looks at available trade-offs and chooses the one best suited to balance the cost to benefit. And right now, capture cleaner, greener ‘waste’ ethane from the natural gas stream is pretty darn cost-effective and attainable for utilizing in an ICE (internal combustion engine) to increase driving range, like this Ford F150 Pickup Truck because:

  • 1st tests: 9%-17% incr. in miles/GGE vs Gasoline
  • Torque increased
  • Performance close to gasoline
  • Potentially reduce emissions after combustion in the engine up to 30%!!
1st Ethane Truck in the World
1st Ethane Truck in the World

I’d rather see compressed ethane used, because it’s residence time is (time it lives in the atmosphere, the troposphere) ~78 days, compared to methane (~10 years) and CO2 (hundreds of years). Otherwise, this wasted resource is going offshore for the manufacturing of more plastics. And somebody’s lord knows, we certainly do not need more plastics on our space ship.

Not to mention, at this juncture in time, using ethane in a ICE is just as effective at reducing GHG emissions than any energy efficiency program, wind farm or solar farm, but those making policy don’t seem to be all that keen to embrace this concept. Yeah, well you know…

Do peep this action. Ethane Low carbon, Low cost, High-performance Transportation Fuel

As always, better…

PREPARE. RESPOND. ADAPT. because leadership is failing us, HARD…

Seriously, what is sustainable development?

Today I was knobbing around with performing some back of the envelope calculations on what would happen if all the cars in the USA were instantly converted to electric vehicles [EVs]. I also wondered if this happened, how much more electricity would be needed and how this would affect CO2 emissions. But then, after completing this calculation [summary of my conclusions are at the end of this post], I took a step back again, wondering if this infrastructure were fully realized and developed, how truly sustainable this would be…

It seems today, hardly anyone ever mentions the first step in managing the flow of electrons; energy reduction, conservation or elimination–in two words, behavioral change. It’s all about convenience. And as I brought up in a previous post, when did convenience become a human right?

  • Does one really need more light bulbs or more day lighting?
  • Does one really need the latest clothes dryer or a new piece of rope?

I would hope that those that aspire to go off the grid, first find ways to reduce dependence on electrical items, which can greatly reduce electrical needs, thus making going off grid that much easier. Once one minimizes one’s needs and usage, then a cost-effective system can be designed. Alas, so much of the marketing these days decouples conservation from energy efficiency, making perceptions that energy efficiency is a panacea–it is NOT! Ja, miff’d!

I think part of the problem is, a lot of people from a currency background keep delving into engineering and touting energy independence. Problem is, they don’t understand one of the biggest challenges with deploying an off-grid scenario is seasonal and dependent on geographical predisposition. This is especially HUGE in areas that experience winter, especially in the USA. And so, I would encourage all to look at this idea of electric vehicles, going off grid offerings from a bigger picture perspective, before getting overly excited. The problem we have is green fashionistas who don’t understand the thermodynamics make overly optimistic statements like this about green(er) energy solutions. At best, greener solutions can help ups avoid limits for a little while longer. Not to mention, these green fashionista fail to look at all externalities and the fact that a great deal of renewable energy systems technologies have been and still are predicated on oil–seriously, how do these massive wind turbine generators reach their intended locations? Think about it.

Then there is the matter of what is truly sustainable. Greener solutions are just pushing us from CONG (coal, oil, nuclear, natural gas) to other resources that are also likely to be problems in the longer term. In the matter of all this hype around electric vehicle [EV] batteries, depletion of high quality ores, metals, minerals like lithium, will only leave us with lower quality ores, metals, minerals later on in the future. Batteries that use these rare minerals are likely not very scalable, due to quantity limits and low recycling rates.

Aside: I think using batteries in tandem with renewable energy systems technologies is ‘sacrilegious’. I mean they are toxic, not recyclable, difficult to repurpose. What gives?

And so I say, this is all just a bunch of nuanced, well-intended sustainable development scenarios. When batteries exist that don’t get hammered with time and depth of discharge (DOD), when inverters can simultaneously juggle local production, the grid and a lot more batteries in EVs or other storage devices, then perhaps, real demand relief for the grid can start to happening. It’s going to be a long while for all this, folks, and I’m not expecting it to happen MASSIVELY in my lifetime. Better to PREPARE. to RESPOND. to ADAPT. to what’s coming down the pipe, be it financial or due to the ‘indifference’ of Mother Nature. Fleh.

Oh yeah, about my conclusions…

After looking at the USA energy consumption of gasoline, electricity consumption in 2012-2014, battery longevity, and the cost of switching to all EVs, EVs are not a good way to reduce CO2 emissions give today’s power mix. As a matter of fact, presently, this is pretty darn expensive. But hell, we can invest now or invest HELLA more later, ja?

And so, what I have been saying for over a year now is helping the ‘smoke stack’ industry reduce it’s CO2 emissions is just as good as any wind farm, solar farm or energy efficiency policy/directive. The only way that a massive EV roll-out makes sense is if it is accompanied by a MASSIVE roll-out of renewable energy systems technologies. And based on today’s generation markets, I’d say it’s going to take decades. And so, to me, this all remains to be seen if indeed, this intent to empower citizenry with energy independence by going off the grid will eventually stand as being sustainably developed. And so…

…this all just reaffirms my enquiry on a previous post, A thought about ethanol… if 6% less CO2 will be emitted from EVs, why not just make today’s current auto fleet more fuel efficient to reduce CO2 emissions in the interim future?

PREPARE. RESPOND. ADAPT.

Flex Your Power

It’s no wonder the CONG (coal oil nuclear and [natural] gas) conglomerates do a good job appealing to the masses. I don’t often watch TV, but I recently caught this:

http://energytomorrow.org/resource-center/advertisements/

Overall and unfortunately, I do not think the if the renewable energy (RE) industry invests this kind of time, money and effort in this regard to educate and enlighten the general audience–nor, I’m pretty sure, can it afford to.

As an industry, not only does the RE industry need to continue to demonstrate the viability, implement and install REs, but I think we need to (somehow) do a better job educating the general public and telling the story about solar, wind, hydrokinetic, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass/biofuel, energy efficiency and conservation.

A few years ago, Flex Your Power posted up these energy efficiency adverts in California–we could use more adverts like this. I especially like how these spots leave the viewer with a final, attainable, empowering solution offering, especially spots 3 & 4:

Repost :: State of the Union by Green Explored

This deserves a re-post. My colleague, Lindsay Leveen, dished this spit out recently–State of the Union. And it’s sobering, REAL spit with solid measures on what each and everyone of us should be practicing; even the prez…

Lindsay’s version of the State of the Union speech follows…

NB: I took the liberty to make some minor copy corrections.

[snip]

For scores of years we have been eating, driving, cooling, heating and buying too much. My fellow citizens I am trading in my 747 Air Force One for a small Lear Jet and will cut down my jet fuel use by 75%. As half of the White House is already in the dark, I will keep it unlighted and unheated. I will cut my gas and electric consumption by 50%. Instead of flying around the country to campaign in 2012 I will simply Skype my campaign promises from the Oval Office. I will demonstrate to you business will go on and that nothing will change politically when I halve my carbon footprint, I expect you all to do likewise. If all of you ride a bike to the store, carpool to work with friends, limit your diets to 2,000 kilocalories, and heat and cool your home less, we can finally stop having to kiss up to OPEC, Exxon and ADM.

I have asked President Mubarak to listen to the will of his people and ride into the sunset toward Benghazi. I too will listen to the will of the people and cut all funds for all projects that pretend to be green that in fact are gangrene. I control the on off switch of pork barrel funding and it is simply time to turn many of our switches to off and not believe in fairy tale science that we can live like gluttons. You may have heard me talk about hope and ‘yes we can’, but I have now seen the light and have to tell you hope will not save a fluid ounce of oil. I still think we can save our country but first we have to save it from ourselves and our wasteful way of life. May Mother Nature Bless America even if we have not respected Her.

Amen, brudda mon.

Is this it?! U.S. gov’t awards $2.4 billion for high-speed rail

I caught this read today. U.S. gov’t awards $2.4 billion for high-speed rail

[snip]

California, known for its heavy traffic congestion, received $901 million, of which $715 million will be spent on a new high-speed railroad across its Central Valley. The state’s ultimate goal is to have a high-speed passenger service reaching speeds of 220 mph at some points between San Francisco and Los Angeles that would run 2 hours 40 minutes compared with 6 hours by car, according to FRA statistics.

Shown is a map of high-speed railroads currently under construction in the U.S., as well as corridors under development, and proposed lines under study. (Credit: Federal Railroad Administration)

Indeed, these ‘obligatory’ awards are just a start in the right direction. But I wonder how many of you are you aware that to implement the high-speed rail line between LA->SF alone will cost $8-$9bn? [See Roads to Nowhere, The Economist, Dec 11th 2008 | Los Angeles]

I think it would be prudent in articles like these, and from other industry journalists to point matters like these out, so the lay audience can have an honest perspective on what level of financing  is TRULY required to scale-up massive projects like these.

To put this in perspective, last year, S.Korea’s gov’t earmarked $84bn to improve energy efficiency–just energy efficiency. Yet last year, the/your USA gov’t ONLY forked-over $66bn for all RE technologies–I think, however, to the best of my recollection, some of that funding was even shaved.

South Korea to spend billions on energy efficiency

What is wrong with this picture?! Do the math…

MORE “Green Gone Wrong” :: Nissan LEAF EV

NB: This is a partial cross post to comments I made under my ‘Green Gone Wrong’ :: Consumption == the bane of human existence? by bla bla blat a few days ago. Since I started this thread, I’ve had not only the opportunity to engage colleagues in the LinkedIn matrix on the GReEN Group, but Nissan motors, as well. Here’s more…

On the comment section to my post above, I go on to say…

An ancillary note: It appears as if the US EPA isn’t completely being taken-in by auto manufacturers zero emissions claims. I just hope they don’t lose their ability to regulate carbon/GHG emissions in the USA.

Electric Vehicles Losing Their ‘Zero Emissions’ Claim in U.S.

[snip]
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained:

“Electric vehicles are frequently advertised as zero emissions, but we all know that that’s not entirely true, because when you plug in, there’s some emissions from the source.” Currently in the U.S., that source is often burning coal, and that means greenhouse gas emissions.”

Yet, there are troubling concessions being made that are utterly misleading…


“Each manufacturer can count its first 200,000 EVs, fuel cell vehicles and the electric portion of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles produced in model years 2012-2016 as “zero emissions.”

“Several of the major automakers had urged the EPA to keep the “zero-emissions” label permanent, in part to raise consumer confidence in a relatively new type of vehicle.”


This, on the part of auto manufacturers, is disturbing, disingenuous, dishonest and frankly, I repeat, UTTERLY MISLEADING.

And to one of my new colleagues, Arno Evers, Mr. Hydrogen of Munich, Germany, who is well-versed with the California Fuel Cell Partnership, CAFCP.org, and in complete agreement with my assertions, I went on to say…

I took a recent look at the California Fuel Cell Partnership web site, to find out if they have been successful at moving away from the reforming of hydrocarbon fuel as the input, and closer to electrolyzing water for hydrogen production in an effort to move toward closing the zero emissions loop. I located this: http://www.cafcp.org/hydrogen-station-configuration

[snip]
Other stations use electrolyzers and solar panels to make hydrogen from water and electricity. Electrolyzers look like commercial refrigerators and are attached to the water line. The equipment to produce, compress and store the hydrogen can be on the forecourt or on the canopy. Solar panels are connected to the grid, producing electricity for the utility during daylight hours, then the electrolyzer “buys back” the electricity to make hydrogen at night, when the demand”and rates are lower. Currently available electrolyzers can make enough fuel for up to 50 vehicles a day.

And this is promising, but I can’t help but think the efficiency is still low and not financially feasible. We have to start somewhere, yes? http://cafcp.org/site-electrolysis

[snip]
Several stations in California produce fuel on site through electrolysis, using solar or wind energy. It’s one way to meet California’s regulation SB1505 that requires 33% of hydrogen for transportation be produced from renewable sources.

The station pictured is a Shell station in West Los Angeles. The electrolyzer, compressor and storage tank are on the roof of the canopy, maximizing space at the station.

Also, the CAFCP trial with buses has been successful, such that second phase deploying more transit buses in the SF Bay Area (Alameda County Transit, Santa Clara VTA) and SunLine Transit Agency in SoCal was invoked in 2008.

http://cafcp.org/transit-buses
[snip]
The third phase of the program, which starts in 2010, will put 16 fuel cell buses in operation under the aforementioned transit routine and will include four additional transit agencies; Golden Gate Transit, San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency (SF MTA), San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans), and the City of Burbank.

And so it goes. I sent a letter to Nissan, raising my concern about how they are not being completely up-front about the Zero Emissions moniker they aspire to attach to the LEAF. Well, I’ll give Nissan credit. My inquiry did not fall into a ‘black hole.’ Here’s a response, that I already thoroughly challenged. You can see integrity is undeniably not one of their stronger suits. If they are going to tout this as Zero Emissions, they should offer crystal clear clarity, it is a “Zero Emissions vehicle from the tailpipe on”, in their copy on their web site and in all their marketing prose–there IS a difference.

Dear Kimberly King,

Thank you for taking the time to personally contact us about your interest in the Nissan Electric Vehicle.

How can this the LEAF be tagged a Zero Emissions vehicle if the batteries are not charged from a station that only delivers electrons strictly from renewable energy generation? Isn’t this an untruth and just more greenwashing?

We apologize for any confusion. The Nissan LEAF is a zero emission vehicle because it does not emit any pollution to move the vehicle forward. Yes, the electricity used to charge the Nissan LEAF’s battery pack could create emissions depending on its source. Refining oil to create gasoline also creates emissions, and then once in an internal combustion engine vehicle gasoline creates emissions in order to propel the vehicle forward.

Please note that the “grid” is 60 percent cleaner than gasoline, even when it’s energy source is “dirty.” And unlike gasoline, which will retain the same properties over time, the electrical grid, like the auto industry – is working to become cleaner, tapping into alternative forms of power such as wind, or solar. Besides the efficiency of an electric engine is much higher than an internal combustion engine (an electric car can drive around 60km with the energy equivalent to 1 liter of gasoline) having a huge impact on the energy consumption.

Rest assured that we are not greenwashing. The Nissan LEAF is a 100% electric, zero emissions vehicle. Please contact us if you require further assistance in this matter.

We appreciate your time, and encourage you to share our contact details with friends and family. For your convenience, we can be reached:

By return email.
Through our website at www.nissanusa.com
By phone at 877-664-2738.
We’re here to serve you from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (CST) Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (CST) on Saturday

Sincerely,
________________
Meg
Nissan EV Customer Support
www.nissanusa.com/leaf
1-877 NO GAS EV (664-2738)

Bottom line: I cannot and will not capitulate to Nissan’s zero emissions reasoning put forth. Arno and I strongly believe, we can only proceed in telling the truth. And acting with high ethics…

‘Green Gone Wrong’ :: Consumption == the bane of human existence?

Preface: Before I launch into another bla bla, let me preface by saying, as a renewable energy ‘evangelist’,  I do my best to practice what I preach to minimize my carbon footprint. Because I aspire to be a project engineer, taking work where ever it may present, I have downsized my belongings to ~35 cubic feet, bicycle, walk, or take mass transpo just about everywhere (and when I cannot do this, I use a car sharing service), go out of my way to purchase local produce, eat very little meat, compost, recycle and thrift for clothes (when needed). Essentially, when I consume, I do my best to try to relegate it to just foodstuffs, and purchasing local foodstuffs at that.

For many years now, I have wondered if all this comodification of the environmental revolution was indeed as mindful about preserving our living space as intended. It was about five years ago, while in The Netherlands, when I was sitting in an environmental science class that focused on energy and resources, that this notion piqued my interest. I wondered, if my toxic emissions from, say flying, were singularly mine. What I came to learn in this class, is my emissions are linked to a larger socioeconomic reliant on polluting to maintain it’s status–mopping up our ‘mess’ cost more than dumping, poking holes in our space ship and extracting its rich resources. I was/am troubled.

I was duly troubled in this class when I came to better understand more about the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), after only months prior to, performing quantitative carbon sink calculations in a Quantitative Aspects of Global Environmental Problems course at UCBerkeley. For those of you that don’t know what the CDM represents, it is a mechanism that…

…allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission-reduction project in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets.

I have often wondered if ‘green’ is truly as green as intended. So, I instead,  go out of my way to use the operative ‘greener.‘ I often cogitate on whether the well-intended purchasing of organic foodstuffs (Certified Organic, Fair Trade, etc.), energy efficient homes/appliances, biofuels, green cars, CO2-offsets really all that ecologically green.

I have been reading Green Gone Wrong – How Our Economy is Undermining the Environmental Revolution. I have found a like-minded, empathetic soul in Heather Rogers and her sobering read. As she closes in her Introduction:

…we have the capacity to find solutions that are not simply products to buy, but ways of engaging with how we live and what we want our world to be.

Ja, buying/consuming to me equates to certain death of our ecosystem–that is, if we persist in conducting our lifestyles the current manner–and if this climatology positive feedback loop I am certain we are immersed doesn’t end up sanitizing all life/current lifestyles as we know it.

I am looking forward to reading the chapter on one of the greenest cities in the world, Vauban neighborhood of Frieburg, Germany which has been practicing sustainable development for years. I was fortunate enough to engage some of these visionaries this past summer at the InterSolar 2010 Convention in San Francisco. I had some nice chats on how this city rose from the ashes of WWII dealt with a finite amount of electricity to service a growing population, scale and passive, more sustainable living spaces where green living is compulsory–but, they have had their own growing pains, too.

And so, to ask the question, since it’s highly unlikely humans will cease consuming, will Earth-friendly products save our space ship? Dubious…

The latest on California’s AB32 vs Prop 23 => Stop TX Oil & 10-10-10


I’m not sure if the LinkedIn matrix community is attuned to what is transpiring in the state of California these days. We have an election coming up  on 2 November 2010. One of the most heated items being challenged is Proposition 23. But let me back up a moment…

For those of you unaware, California is the 12th biggest carbon emitter in the world. Our AB32  Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is supposed to go into effect at the start of 2011, as a means to mitigate climate change. It is one of the most aggressive offerings in the world to invoke these measures. For starters…

Proposition 23 would suspend all of those measures adopted to date, including CARB’s low-carbon fuel standard, restrictions on high global warming potential refrigerants, increased landfill methane capture, SmartWay truck efficiency, tire pressure program, reduction of high global warming potential greenhouse gases in consumer products, ship electrification at ports, reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) reductions in non-utility and non-semiconductor applications.

If Proposition 23 AKA California Jobs Initiative passes, AB32, California’s landmark clean energy and climate solutions law, will be undermined/suspended–essentially:

…the dirty energy proposition would repeal the state’s clean energy regulations until unemployment reached 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters’ a market condition that has only occurred three times in the last 30 years.

California’s unemployment rate is at about ~12.2% now. If AB32 is repealed, then the greener, renewable energy industries in Cali will be COMPLETELY compromised and likely crawl to a standstill for many years to come. Furthermore, what happens in California could very well affect the rest of the USA. California has historically been a vanguard in passing sound, sensible environmental legislation. If California cannot keep this much-needed legislation on the books how willing will lawmakers in other states in the USA be likely to expend political capital on such a fight?

The Union of Concerned Scientists, of which I am a member, has a fact sheet you can download here. And a summary of the key points are outlined here.

What can you do?

Oil companies have had their filthy go, time for them to make way, step down and those of us who are stewards in mitigating the adverse effects of our anthropogenic exacerbations take charge and invoke more greener, holistic measures and practices–this way, future generations can even attempt to have a chance at a quality of life we have been accustomed…


Return top

What is a Hybrid RE Engineer?

An engineering generalist with an understanding of sustainable development whose skills set are typically comprised of an amalgam of mechanical and electrical engineering. One who is able to design and assemble systems and components that are comprised of more than one renewable energy (RE) technology i.e. solar, wind, hydro-kinetic (ocean/wave/micro-hydro), biomass, hydrogen fuel cell, geothermal and storage (battery, fly wheel, pumped-hydro). The RE technologies selected depend on one's geographical predisposition, resource availability, the end-use need, practicing conservation (behavioral change) to name a few considerations...

Content © 2009-2017 by Kimberly King