Hybrid Living

Yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed an order that set aside 676,000 acres of federal land out west for the possibility of developing solar projects.  Of the huge lot, 351,000 acres are located in the Mojave Desert with the rest located in areas in California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

The land will be studied for the next two years and environmental reviews will be performed to determine the ability to safely develop large solar projects.  Protected lands are not being considered for these projects.  The proposed areas in California could generate 39,000 to 70,000 MW of electricity and serve millions of homes if fully developed.

This news follows promises by Obama and Salazar to have 10 percent of the nation’s electricity coming from renewable sources by 2012 and to have 13 commercial-scale solar projects under construction by the end of 2010.  The two-year study will open up the areas to leasing by private companies and will cost about $22 million.

via LA Times

Today we have a guest piece from RecycleBank. I usually don’t like to post guest pieces from companies vs. bloggers, but I actually like the RecycleBank concept, so today we’ll see what they have to say. BUT first a little info about the company. RecycleBank offers families points for recycling.

Basically it works like this…

See if [...]

Post from: Blisstree

Recycling…as American as Apple Pie

In the previous post we looked at some problems with automobile dependence. However, you don’t have to be a slave to your car. You can learn to live on less automobile time with very few major changes, although, if you’d like to make major changes and minimize your car dependence even more, that’s cool too.

Major [...]

Post from: Blisstree

Minimize your automobile dependence

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced measures on Monday to hasten the development of solar energy on public lands in six western states. Salazar expects to have 13 commercial-scale projects with solar power arrays under construction by the end of 2010.

If you’re 110% dependent on your car there are some major eco-issues you’re contributing to. Currently the U.S. has about 4 million miles of paved roads alone, not counting parking spaces. Even if you ignore the fact that all these roads and parking lots are taking away our green spaces there are other negative eco-issues [...]

Post from: Blisstree

Problems with automobile dependence

Dust in the wind is rewriting the cycle of life in the mountains. Throughout memory the warmth of spring has begun the mountain snowmelt, bringing life-giving water to greening plants so they can blossom and renew their species.

But now, scientists say, the timing is being thrown off by desert dust stirred as global warming dries larger areas and human activity increases in those regions.

Dust in the wind is rewriting the cycle of life in the mountains. Throughout memory the warmth of spring has begun the mountain snowmelt, bringing life-giving water to greening plants so they can blossom and renew their species.

But now, scientists say, the timing is being thrown off by desert dust stirred as global warming dries larger areas and human activity increases in those regions.

An interesting op-ed from yesterday’s New York Times discusses clean coal.  I encourage our readers to read the piece themselves, but for those who want the short version, here’s a summary:

1. FutureGen, a federal program to design a zero-emission clean coal power plant is not going to work for two main reasons:

• Zero-emission clean coal technology doesn’t exist, and might take a really long time to get here
• Huge, politically charged federal research projects like these have not historically accomplished anything

2, If the government is going to support some kind of clean coal, it should support IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle), for three reasons:

• IGCC technology already exists
• Once Washington passes a cap-and-trade law of some kind, the cost of carbon will make IGCC cost-competitive
• To generate the same amount of electricity as regular coal plants, IGCC plants use only one third of the coal, which means they naturally cut GHG emissions by two thirds

An important take away message is that when people throw around the term “clean coal”, they may be referring to different things.  Here we see two distinct technologies – one theoretical, nonexistent technology that promises zero emissions by sequestering all the carbon dioxide underground, and another, existing technology which squeezes more power out of less coal by gasifying it first (this also makes it easier to sequester the CO2, but we’re not even getting into that now).

However, though I agree with the author that the government should be worrying about practical solutions rather than (in his words) pie-in-the-sky ideas, I think he overplays the benefits of IGCC.  True, the technology exists, but it’s extremely expensive.  Carbon legislation isn’t going to make it cheaper, it’s just going to make everything else really expensive too.  You can’t really expect every utility to pour money into a technology that, while proven, is still wet behind the ears.

But – and this is the author’s main point – the government can, and it should.

Via NYTimes

Smart USA is hoping to take advantage of the recently passed “Cash-for-Clunkers” program by offering its own joint incentive to lure buyers.  The car hasn’t been selling as well in the US as the company hoped, but now with the new incentives making it possible to get one for cheap, that may all change.

The company is offering 4.2 percent financing on the car through the end of July.  When combined with the highest voucher level of $4,500 through Cash-for-Clunkers, you’re looking at a fortwo for $99 a month.  The fortwo has had limited appeal because of its small size and the fact that the fuel economy is not much better than some roomier cars that sale for the same price.  These incentives may tilt the balance in the smart’s favor though.  At a time when people are concerned with fuel economy and getting a good deal, it may turn out to be a great business move.

I’d love to see other car makers offering similar incentives to go with the Cash-for-Clunkers program.  Making their most fuel-efficient models extra affordable would not only lead to better business for them, but more efficient cars on the road. Instead of people using the program to trade in an old gas-guzzler for a newer, only slightly less gas-guzzling model, we could possibly see this program make a noticeable difference in overall fuel use and emissions.

via Autoblog Green

The Waxman-Markey climate bill passed the House on Friday, but it still has to face the Senate and the changes that body may require.  There has been a lot of controversy over the many aspects of the bill, particularly relating to the coal industry, cap and trade and whether it’s strong enough legislation to make a difference, but the lovely people over at the NRDC have pointed out one glowingly positive element of the bill.  They’ve calculated that the bill will end up saving American households an average of $13.93 a month on gas.

The bill includes funding for fuel-efficient vehicles, which, in addition to the fuel efficiency standards already adopted, the NRDC calculates will lead to a 25 percent increase in fuel efficiency by 2020.  So, even with rising gas prices, the increase in fuel efficiency will still slash our monthly gas bills.  The group estimates the monthly savings for each state, and they range from $5.50 a month to more than $23 a month.  I’m lucky enough to live in a state where I could see savings of almost $22 a month.

An interesting thing to point out is that these gas savings almost negate the cost of the bill for the average family, which is estimated to be $175 per year by the US Budget Office.  The decrease in gas spending will save the average family about $167 a year, meaning the bill will only cost $8 a year per family.  Families in some states will actually see a net gain.

It’s easy to listen to all the pundits and all the partisan opinions on this legislation and to be discouraged, but I appreciate the NRDC putting at least part of it into perspective.  Fighting climate change will require money and sacrifices, but there will be a whole host of ways in which it will pay off.   In this case, in cash.

via Treehugger