EcoWatch Journal August/September 2011 : Page 3

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR EMAIL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TO: SPEAR@ECOWATCH.ORG. THANK YOU ECOWATCH Have you ever had ‘one of those mo-ments’? The June 15 edition of Cleveland’s Scene Magazine contained an article about efforts to bring wind energy to the Great Lakes. One of the quotes mentioned “...local sustainability-promoting group EcoWatch.” I’m thinking, “Wait a minute... that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that name before?” So I shifted some papers and there it was—the April-May issue of EcoWatch Journal which I had recently picked up at Mocha Joe’s, a coffee shop in Stow, where some members of the local writing community and I gather to see if we can get our creative juices flowing. When I re-read the quote your name lept from the page! So thank you for keeping up the good fight. Craig Erskine, Stow, Ohio winter heating period. Thanks for educating us on ecological strategies for living in Northeast Ohio. David Slawson, Seven Hills, Ohio they grow, and only give it back when they are completely burned. The most serious deficiency of the article, however, is its failure to note the current growth rate of renewable energy production. Global wind power grew by 27 percent per year over the last decade, and global solar power grew by an astonishing 47 percent per year over the past five years. Both are set to increase even more rapidly as their costs fall relative to fossil fuels. With just these re-newables now providing about one per cent of our useful energy, it will only be a matter of decades, not centuries, until they provide the bulk of our energy needs. Philip Taylor, Cleveland Hts., Ohio I’d expect to see in The Plain Dealer . That’s why it was so disheartening to find it in EcoWatch Journal . Please be mindful of your mission before disseminating such an utterly unconstructive, almost cynical article again. Glenn Campbell, Lakewood, Ohio NUKEEVAC MOBILE APP The large number and age of U.S. nuclear power plants noted in your April-May issue was quite disturbing. In view of ever-escalating problems at the damaged Japanese plant and the threat to some plants in this country posed by recent floods, an inexpensive app called NukeEvac is worth mentioning. It shows if you’re living or vacationing in the area of a nuclear plant as well as the safest escape route in case of an “incident.” It’s available for Androids and covers the whole U.S. Mary Myers, Xenia, Ohio VIABILITY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ARTICLE MISGUIDED AND UNFOUNDED PASSIVE DESIGN ARTICLE DEPRESSING AND FLAWED I wanted to give this feedback on the front page article, Energy-Efficient Smarthome Provides Solutions to Climate Change , in your June-July issue. The article only mentions one area of passive design, leakage of energy out of or into the building, and left out other important aspects of passive design. Here are aspects of passive design the article failed to mention: • House configuration or envelope shape: Each climate zone throughout the country will have an optimum building shape that works best with that region’s climate. For example, in regions with a cold winter, hav-ing an envelope with the minimum exterior square footage for the maximum interior volume is optimal. • Passive solar: This has to do with prop-erly sizing and placing windows for maxi-mum passive solar gain and storage (as in a concrete slab floor and masonry walls) in winter and properly sizing the south-facing overhang for minimum solar gain through those same windows in summer. • Natural ventilation: Placing windows (with proper overhangs to screen out rain) such as casement windows at the best places to capture prevailing summer breezes (typically on the southwest corner) and vent warmer air through higher windows in the east or northeast wall. • Landscaping: Typically in our climate this means planting evergreens to shield the northwest side of the house from prevail-ing cold winter winds from the northwest. If any trees are planted on the south, they should be deciduous so they shed their leaves in winter, and be planted where they least obstruct passive solar radiation entering south-facing windows during the WWW. ECOWATCH.ORG • AUGUST -SEPTEMBER 2011 The article Can renewable energy out-shine fossil fuels? by Megan Quinn Bachman [EcoWatch Journal, June-July] painted a depressing picture of the future. Renew-ables, she said, cannot possibly be our primary energy source for at least a hundred years. Fortunately, her analysis is thoroughly flawed, and is based on a number of mis-conceptions. Ms. Bachman starts with the statement “Renewable enthusiasts claim...that if we covered just a small fraction of the planet’s surface with solar panels we could produce all the energy we need—and more.” She then suggests that she is going to examine this statement from “basic principles,” but fails to do the actual mathematics. It is not a hard calculation to say that because the world’s energy consumption rate is roughly 15 billion kilowatts, and around 100,000 billion kilowatts of solar power land on the Earth, one need only gather one part in 7,000 of that energy to meet world demand. Even if one excludes the sunlight falling on the surface of the oceans (and there is no reason to do so, as the warmed oceans generate winds that can be harvested) one still need gather only one part in 2,000 of this bounty. We then find a number of false state-ments, such as the one stating that “plants …efficiently capture sunlight.” They don’t. For most plants, photosynthesis is much less than 1 percent efficient, and, unsurprisingly, is zero percent efficient for deciduous trees in winter, when they have dropped their leaves. Compare this with solar cells, which can be as much as 40 percent efficient, all year long. We next read that “combustible renew-ables…contribute CO2” to the atmosphere. Wrong again. Combustible renewables actu-ally absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as I was tremendously disappointed to read Can Renewable Energy Outshine Fossil Fuels by Megan Quinn Bachman in your June-July issue. For those who missed the article, Bachman’s answer is “possibly...in a century or two.” This article is misguided and unfounded. Many energy experts say that large-scale transition to non-fossil fuel renewable ener-gy is technically achievable in a few decades, not a century or two. It’s even more likely if we embrace a serious ramp-up of energy ef-ficiency. And if you factor in the the almost certain technological breakthroughs in renewables that we can’t foresee today (such breakthroughs are inevitable over a couple of decades in almost any technology field), the likelihood of faster dominance of renewables is greater still. Bachman’s article fails to distinguish between a challenge of technology, which many experts say we no longer really face in the renewables realm (and almost certainly won’t face a couple decades from now), and a challenge of will—more precisely, political will. Of course, we face the latter challenge in spades—and we’ll continue to face it so long as articles like this are given a spotlight. Bachman’s arguments and sentiment are the same ones responsible for the sea of apa-thy about energy policy our nation has been drowning in for the last four decades. When we keep being told we can’t possibly change our ways and energy sources in significant ways for another century or more, it’s no surprise that we never get serious about changing those ways. The World War II-era Manhattan Project is proof that our nation can massively mo-bilize for change in a very short time if the political will is there. What we need today to combat our energy and climate challenges is that will. Nothing is more destructive of that will than business-as-usual defenses like the Bachman article. It’s the kind of piece In the June-July issue of EcoWatch Jour-nal , Megan Quinn Bachman complained that she has been called a liar by various environmentalists for her views on the vi-ability of renewable energy sources. I will leave it up to others to judge her motives but it is obvious that she presented informa-tion selectively in the article Can Renewable Energy Outshine Fossil Fuels . While it is true that fossil fuels such as coal basically have a higher energy density than renewables, the geologic processes that formed them from photosynthetic source materials also embedded polluting con-stituents such as sulfur, mercury and other heavy metals. During combustion these are released into the environment along with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides caus-ing health and environmental problems. Expensive energy consuming measures are required to remove much of these from the exhaust gas. Newer Environmental Protection Agency regulations will require more measures to increase protection of our health and environment, not to mention the enviromental effects of coal mining. We are only beginning to understand the environ-mental effects of “fracking” for natural gas. The cost of renewables has been dropping dramatically and approaching grid parity while those of fossil fuels are increasing. Renewables, as distributed generation resources, provide many advantages as outlined by Amory Lovins in his book Small Is Profitable (2002). For example, they can help avoid costly distribution and transmis-sion upgrades. However, regulatory changes are needed so that deployers can receive prices that reflect their true value. Lovins also presented data showing that smaller distributed renewables can provide more grid reliability versus larger, centralized generators. Regarding baseload power, while it is true that renewables may require storage because of their intermittency, Bachman simply dismisses the issue with a brief mention of issues with batteries and transmission. How-ever, there are a variety of storage technolo-gies that are in the demonstration phase, from small and large batteries to compressed air storage and pumped hydro.It is estimat-ed that at least 75 percent of the U.S. has geologic formations viable for compressed air storage. Where transmission will be continued on page 8 ECOWATCH JOURNAL • 3

Letters To The Editor

EMAIL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TO: SPEAR@ECOWATCH.ORG. THANK YOU ECOWATCH Have you ever had ‘one of those moments’? The June 15 edition of Cleveland’s Scene Magazine contained an article about efforts to bring wind energy to the Great Lakes. One of the quotes mentioned “...local sustainability-promoting group EcoWatch.” I’m thinking, “Wait a minute... that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that name before?” So I shifted some papers and there it was—the April-May issue of EcoWatch Journal which I had recently picked up at Mocha Joe’s, a coffee shop in Stow, where some members of the local writing community and I gather to see if we can get our creative juices flowing. When I re-read the quote your name lept from the page! So thank you for keeping up the good fight. Craig Erskine, Stow, Ohio PASSIVE DESIGN Page article, Energy-Efficient Smarthome Provides Solutions to Climate Change, in your June-July issue. The article only mentions one area of passive design, leakage of energy out of or into the building, and left out other important aspects of passive design. Here are aspects of passive design the article failed to mention: • House configuration or envelope shape: Each climate zone throughout the country will have an optimum building shape that works best with that region’s climate. For example, in regions with a cold winter, having an envelope with the minimum exterior square footage for the maximum interior volume is optimal. • Passive solar: This has to do with properly sizing and placing windows for maximum passive solar gain and storage (as in a concrete slab floor and masonry walls) in winter and properly sizing the south-facing overhang for minimum solar gain through those same windows in summer. • Natural ventilation: Placing windows (with proper overhangs to screen out rain) such as casement windows at the best places to capture prevailing summer breezes (typically on the southwest corner) and vent warmer air through higher windows in the east or northeast wall. • Landscaping: Typically in our climate this means planting evergreens to shield the northwest side of the house from prevailing cold winter winds from the northwest. If any trees are planted on the south, they should be deciduous so they shed their leaves in winter, and be planted where they least obstruct passive solar radiation entering south-facing windows during the Winter heating period. Thanks for educating us on ecological strategies for living in Northeast Ohio. David Slawson, Seven Hills, Ohio NUKEEVAC MOBILE APP The large number and age of U.S. nuclear power plants noted in your April- May issue was quite disturbing. In view of ever-escalating problems at the damaged Japanese plant and the threat to some plants in this country posed by recent floods, an inexpensive app called NukeEvac is worth mentioning. It shows if you’re living or vacationing in the area of a nuclear plant as well as the safest escape route in case of an “incident.” It’s available for Androids and covers the whole U.S. Mary Myers, Xenia, Ohio ARTICLE DEPRESSING AND FLAWED The article Can renewable energy outshine fossil fuels? By Megan Quinn Bachman [EcoWatch Journal, June-July] painted a depressing picture of the future. Renewables, she said, cannot possibly be our primary energy source for at least a hundred years. Fortunately, her analysis is thoroughly flawed, and is based on a number of misconceptions. Ms. Bachman starts with the statement “Renewable enthusiasts claim...that if we covered just a small fraction of the planet’s surface with solar panels we could produce all the energy we need—and more.” She then suggests that she is going to examine this statement from “basic principles,” but fails to do the actual mathematics. It is not a hard calculation to say that because the world’s energy consumption rate is roughly 15 billion kilowatts, and around 100,000 billion kilowatts of solar power land on the Earth, one need only gather one part in 7,000 of that energy to meet world demand. Even if one excludes the sunlight falling on the surface of the oceans (and there is no reason to do so, as the warmed oceans generate winds that can be harvested) one still need gather only one part in 2,000 of this bounty. We then find a number of false statements, such as the one stating that “plants …efficiently capture sunlight.” They don’t. For most plants, photosynthesis is much less than 1 percent efficient, and, unsurprisingly, is zero percent efficient for deciduous trees in winter, when they have dropped their leaves. Compare this with solar cells, which can be as much as 40 percent efficient, all year long. We next read that “combustible renewables… contribute CO2” to the atmosphere. Wrong again. Combustible renewables actually absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as They grow, and only give it back when they are completely burned. The most serious deficiency of the article, however, is its failure to note the current growth rate of renewable energy production. Global wind power grew by 27 percent per year over the last decade, and global solar power grew by an astonishing 47 percent per year over the past five years. Both are set to increase even more rapidly as their costs fall relative to fossil fuels. With just these renewables now providing about one per cent of our useful energy, it will only be a matter of decades, not centuries, until they provide the bulk of our energy needs. Philip Taylor, Cleveland Hts., Ohio ARTICLE MISGUIDED AND UNFOUNDED I was tremendously disappointed to read Can Renewable Energy Outshine Fossil Fuels by Megan Quinn Bachman in your June- July issue. For those who missed the article, Bachman’s answer is “possibly...in a century or two.” This article is misguided and unfounded. Many energy experts say that large-scale transition to non-fossil fuel renewable energy is technically achievable in a few decades, not a century or two. It’s even more likely if we embrace a serious ramp-up of energy efficiency. And if you factor in the the almost certain technological breakthroughs in renewables that we can’t foresee today (such breakthroughs are inevitable over a couple of decades in almost any technology field), the likelihood of faster dominance of renewables is greater still. Bachman’s article fails to distinguish between a challenge of technology, which many experts say we no longer really face in the renewables realm (and almost certainly won’t face a couple decades from now), and a challenge of will—more precisely, political will. Of course, we face the latter challenge in spades—and we’ll continue to face it so long as articles like this are given a spotlight. Bachman’s arguments and sentiment are the same ones responsible for the sea of apathy about energy policy our nation has been drowning in for the last four decades. When we keep being told we can’t possibly change our ways and energy sources in significant ways for another century or more, it’s no surprise that we never get serious about changing those ways. The World War II-era Manhattan Project is proof that our nation can massively mobilize for change in a very short time if the political will is there. What we need today to combat our energy and climate challenges is that will. Nothing is more destructive of that will than business-as-usual defenses like the Bachman article. It’s the kind of piece I’d expect to see in The Plain Dealer. That’s why it was so disheartening to find it in EcoWatch Journal. Please be mindful of your mission before disseminating such an utterly unconstructive, almost cynical article again. Glenn Campbell, Lakewood, Ohio VIABILITY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY In the June-July issue of EcoWatch Journal, Megan Quinn Bachman complained that she has been called a liar by various environmentalists for her views on the viability of renewable energy sources. I will leave it up to others to judge her motives but it is obvious that she presented information selectively in the article Can Renewable Energy Outshine Fossil Fuels. While it is true that fossil fuels such as coal basically have a higher energy density than renewables, the geologic processes that formed them from photosynthetic source materials also embedded polluting constituents such as sulfur, mercury and other heavy metals. During combustion these are released into the environment along with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides causing health and environmental problems. Expensive energy consuming measures are required to remove much of these from the exhaust gas. Newer Environmental Protection Agency regulations will require more measures to increase protection of our health and environment, not to mention the enviromental effects of coal mining. We are only beginning to understand the environmental effects of “fracking” for natural gas. The cost of renewables has been dropping dramatically and approaching grid parity while those of fossil fuels are increasing. Renewables, as distributed generation resources, provide many advantages as outlined by Amory Lovins in his book Small Is Profitable (2002). For example, they can help avoid costly distribution and transmission upgrades. However, regulatory changes are needed so that deployers can receive prices that reflect their true value. Lovins also presented data showing that smaller distributed renewables can provide more grid reliability versus larger, centralized generators. Regarding baseload power, while it is true that renewables may require storage because of their intermittency, Bachman simply dismisses the issue with a brief mention of issues with batteries and transmission. However, there are a variety of storage technologies that are in the demonstration phase, from small and large batteries to compressed air storage and pumped hydro.It is estimated that at least 75 percent of the U.S. has geologic formations viable for compressed air storage. Where transmission will be Required, new high voltage DC transmission lines can provide a cost of transmission much lower than the existing AC lines. Large centralized fossil fuel facilities also have major issues with transmission. Over half of new and planned future generation in our region has been renewable. Displacing the existing baseload coal and nuclear units is complicated by the way utility restructuring was done in Ohio and other states. The utilities won concessions requiring the full recovery of the cost to construct those plants from captive ratepayers. This provides an enormous incumbent advantage to these plants. However, reducing peak load is an immediate opportunity for solar in Ohio as, for example, maximum solar insulation on a hot day is close to being in sync with maximum air conditioning loads. Bachmann is also dismissive when it comes to the local siting of renewables. Newer technologies will embed solar photovoltaic into roofs and windows. Wind power sites in Lake Erie have the potential to meet a large percentage of our power. Smaller wind turbines can provide power at a site with no distribution or transmission power losses. It is clear that renewable and associated technologies are rapidly becoming practical and economical. The real barriers are indeed regulatory barriers that are only beginning to be addressed. The transition to a clean energy economy with energy efficiency is possible on a much faster time scale than Bachmann suggests. Dennis Worthem, Berea, Ohio

Previous Page Next Page

Publication List
Using a screen reader? Click Here