Power From the Restless Sea Stirs the Imagination

By KATE GALBRAITH

Published: September 22, 2008

For years, technological visionaries have painted a seductive vision of using ocean tides and waves to produce power. They foresee large installations off the coast and in tidal estuaries that could provide as much as 10 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Enlarge This Image

Verdant Power

Verdant Power tidal turbines being installed in the East River.

Finvera Renewables

A prototype of Finavera’s wave energy machine being assembled in 2007 to be tested off the coast of Oregon.

But the technical difficulties of making such systems work are proving formidable. Last year, a wave-power machine sank off the Oregon coast. Blades have broken off experimental tidal turbines in New York’s turbulent East River. Problems with offshore moorings have slowed the deployment of snakelike generating machines in the ocean off Portugal.

Years of such problems have discouraged ocean-power visionaries, but have not stopped them. Lately, spurred by rising costs for electricity and for the coal and other fossil fuels used to produce it, they are making a new push to overcome the barriers blocking this type of renewable energy.

The Scottish company Pelamis Wave Power plans to turn on a small wave-energy farm — the world’s first — off the coast of Portugal by year’s end, after fixing the broken moorings. Finavera Renewables, a Canadian company that recently salvaged its sunken, $2.5 million Oregon wave-power machine, has signed an agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric to produce power off the California coast by 2012. And in the East River, just off Manhattan, two newly placed turbines with tougher blades and rotors are feeding electricity into a grocery store and parking garage on Roosevelt Island.

“It’s frustrating sometimes as an ocean energy company to say, yeah, your device sank,” said Jason Bak, chief executive of Finavera. “But that is technology development.”

Roughly 100 small companies around the world are working on converting the sea’s power to electricity. Many operate in Europe, where governments have pumped money into the industry. Companies and governments alike are betting that over time, costs will come down. Right now, however, little electricity is being generated from the ocean except at scattered test sites around the world.

The East River — despite its name, it is really a tidal strait with powerful currents — is the site of the most advanced test project in the United States.

Verdant Power, the company that operates it, was forced to spend several years and millions of dollars mired in a slow permit process, even before its turbine blades broke off in the currents. The company believes it is getting a handle on the problems. Verdant is trying to perfect its turbines and then install 30 of them in the East River, starting no later than spring 2010, and to develop other sites in Canada and on the West Coast.

Plenty of other start-ups also plan commercial ocean-power plants, at offshore sites such as Portugal, Oregon and Wales, but none have been built.

Ocean-power technology splits into two broad categories, tidal and wave power. Wave power, of the sort Finavera is pursuing, entails using the up and down motions of the waves to generate electricity. Tidal power — Verdant’s province — involves harnessing the action of the tides with underwater turbines, which twirl like wind machines.

(Decades-old tidal technologies in France and Canada use barrage systems that trap water at high tide; they are far larger and more obtrusive than the new, below-waterline technologies.)

A third type of power, called ocean thermal, aims to exploit temperature differences between the surface and deep ocean, mainly applicable in the tropics.

Ocean power has more potential than wind power because water is about 850 times denser than air, and therefore packs far more energy. The ocean’s waves, tides and currents are also more predictable than the wind.

The drawback is that seawater can batter and corrode machinery, and costly undersea cables may be needed to bring the power to shore. And the machines are expensive to build: Pelamis has had to raise the equivalent of $77 million.

Many solar start-ups, by contrast, need as little as $5 million to build a prototype, said Martin Lagod, co-founder of Firelake Capital Management, a Silicon Valley investment firm. Mr. Lagod looked at investing in ocean power a few years ago and decided against it because of the long time horizons and large capital requirements.

General Electric, which builds wind turbines, solar panels and other equipment for virtually every other type of energy, has stayed clear of ocean energy. “At this time, these sources do not appear to be competitive with more scalable alternatives like wind and solar,” said Daniel Nelson, a G.E. spokesman, in an e-mail message. (An arm of G.E. has made a small investment in Pelamis.)

Worldwide, venture capital going to ocean-power companies has risen from $8 million in 2005 to $82 million last year, according to the Cleantech Group, a research firm. However, that is a tiny fraction of the money pouring into solar energy and biofuels.

This month the Energy Department doled out its first major Congressionally-funded grants since 1992 to ocean-power companies, including Verdant and Lockheed Martin, which is studying ocean thermal approaches.

Assuming that commercial ocean-power farms are eventually built, the power is likely to be costly, especially in the near term. A recent study commissioned by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission put the cost of harnessing the Golden Gate’s tides at 85 cents to $1.40 a kilowatt-hour, or roughly 10 times the cost of wind power. San Francisco plans to forge ahead regardless.

Other hurdles abound, including sticky environmental and aesthetic questions. In Oregon, crabbers worry that the wave farm proposed by Ocean Power Technologies, a New Jersey company, would interfere with their prime crabbing grounds.

“It’s right where every year we deploy 115,000 to 120,000 crab pots off the coast for an eight-month period to harvest crab,” said Nick Furman, executive director of the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission. The commission wants to support renewable energy, but “we’re kind of struggling with that,” Mr. Furman said

George Taylor, chief executive of Ocean Power Technologies, said he did not expect “there will be a problem with the crabs.”

In Washington State, where a utility is studying the possibility of installing tidal power at the Admiralty Inlet entrance to Puget Sound, scuba divers are worried, even as they recognize the need for clean power.

Said Mike Racine, president of the Washington Scuba Alliance: “We don’t want to be dodging turbine blades, right?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23tidal.html?ref=science

Leading More Buildings to Co-Generate

Energy Prices Climbing

By Jonathan Barnes

Article Options

• Email to Friend
• Print Article
• Add to Favorites
• Add to 'Articles to Read'
• Comments

The energy crisis of the 1970s created long lines of cars, with drivers waiting to fuel up at gas stations. These days, increasing fuel demands and rising prices are forcing the cost of everything from groceries to construction materials and other everyday expenditures ever upward. Heavy demand on the overtaxed utility grid has resulted in periodic blackouts in some major cities during summer months. Since utility costs comprise part of a building’s maintenance budget, maintenance costs for residential buildings also have been affected.

Same Problem, Different Approaches

These factors have forced the administrators of some cash-strapped buildings to take the unusual step of issuing special assessments to pay for spiraling utility costs. Boards and managers of other buildings are looking at their utility usage and thinking about how to lower—or even just freeze—their costs. More buildings are obtaining multi-year contracts for various services, but such deals are only short-term fixes for the long-term headache of exponentially rising costs.

While most co-op and condo buildings in the city get their energy from a major supplier like Con Edison (or from a secondary supplier), more buildings are choosing to generate some of their energy at their own facility, by implementing a co-generation program. A co-generating program produces a portion of the energy the building needs on-site. Sometimes in very large projects, a co-generation program can produce energy in excess of a building’s needs, enabling the building to sell some of the energy back to the utility company for a profit.

In most cases though, a co-generation program in a residential building will provide just a portion of the energy needed for running the building, and that energy will be used for the building. While instituting a co-generation program can result in a significant savings in utility costs for some residential buildings, co-generation is not for every building. Depending upon its size, the amount of energy it regularly uses, and its physical characteristics, adapting the building’s system for co-generation could make great sense. Or, implementing a co-generation plan might be downright foolish, and actually could cost the building’s residents more money.

Knowing whether your building is a good candidate for a co-generation system could save its residents money and years of hassle. Evaluating the potential of such a system for your building is not necessarily as tricky as it might seem. With the right professional counsel, a building’s management can make the right choice, either by co-generating or by sticking with the building’s existing system.

How It Works

Simply put, co-generation is the simultaneous production of two useful forms of energy from one process. For example, steam generated by a boiler could be captured and used to produce electricity or to provide for space heating in a building. In residential buildings, machines that can be used to co-generate generally run either on natural gas or #2 oil.

“Co-generation means you get two thermal products on one fuel; usually you get electricity and heat,” says Damian Sciano, project manager and engineering ombudsman for Con Edison. “It’s when you are already making electricity, and you use the heat—sometimes in the form of steam—from that process.”

No co-generation projects are entirely self-sustaining. Most co-gens will still take power from the municipal grid, at least during summer hours, but probably throughout the year, adds Sciano.

The obvious benefit of a co-generation system is that it uses previously untapped energy (such as heat) to provide for part of a structure’s utility needs. Providing the appropriate system is installed in a building, instituting co-generation should provide savings on utility bills over time. How long it takes for a co-gen system to pay for itself in utility savings depends largely on the system.

One potential feature of co-generation that can be especially attractive to those managing residential buildings is a system’s potential to work off the grid. Some co-generation units can be started independently, and be started in the event of an outage.

Co-generation might sound like a panacea for cities, but unfortunately, such systems aren’t appropriate for every building. A building’s size and utility usage are key factors in determining whether or not it could, or should, co-generate.

Adapting Your System

When a building’s management is considering co-generating, an advantageous time to do so would be when they are planning for a large mechanical replacement project. If the building is considering replacing its boilers, or its steam pipes, such a costly overhaul necessitates that all potential options be considered. In such a scenario, it might make a lot of sense to install a co-generation system.

In addition to cost, the question of utility usage also is paramount. A building’s load factor—the way it uses its electricity—is of particular importance. Determining the building’s average electrical use and dividing that figure by the building’s use during peak hours will determine its load factor.

“It helps if the building has a good load factor—that is, if the way it uses electricity is pretty constant,” Sciano says.

Other areas to examine when considering a co-gen facility in a residential building include whether there is space for the co-gen facility; if natural gas is available to power the facility; and whether the building has a central air conditioning system. A centralized air conditioning system generates heat, helping the load factor.

Depending upon the size of the co-gen system, one or more employees may be needed to maintain the facility, sometimes around the clock. Having enough space for the unit also can be tricky, especially in New York. A co-gen facility for a 100-unit residential building would need about 20 feet by 20 feet of space.

For Penn South, a multi-building co-op community in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood, planned capital improvements 22 years ago led management to consider switching over to a co-generation system. The community had a steam pipe system at the time, and antiquated boilers—all of which needed to be replaced.

“We thought if we could get rid of the boilers and use the byproduct to heat the hot water system, there could be significant savings,” says Brendan Keany, general manager of Penn South.

Mike Gordon, chief strategy officer for Consumer PowerLine in Manhattan, recommends that residential buildings with a facility that creates a lot of heat at least consider co-generation. “Anyone with a pool should do it, because you can use that heat effectively,” Gordon says. “New York City intends to achieve reduction in energy consumption over the next eight years. Co-generation is often classified as renewable. It reduces the carbon footprint.”

Sciano cautions that a building’s management should take particular care in determining its load factor before installing a co-generation system. cent of the time.”

Part of PlaNYC

One of the co-generation options these days is installing a microturbine system. This equipment which is about the size of a soda machine can be put almost anywhere mechanical equipment goes, like inside a boiler room, the basement or on the rooftop of a building, according to Bruce Beckwith of RSP Systems in Brooklyn.

Using this type of equipment is actually one of the mandates of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030 master plan for New York City. Late last year, Bloomberg announced a rule setting a standard for city buildings to reduce harmful emissions. “This rule will help us to meet our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions citywide by 30 percent between now and 2030, and it will help spur the real estate and development communities to build more efficient, greener projects moving forward,” Bloomberg said in a statement.

Buildings in New York City generate 79 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. By supplying on-site power generation to buildings, microturbine systems provide an energy-efficient supplement to power plants, New York City’s conventional power supply. Estimates show, for a given amount of fossil fuel, microturbines generate 70 to 80 percent of its usable energy, whereas only 30 to 35 percent of the energy produced by power plants is usable.

Here’s how it works. Natural gas goes into the turbine to produce electricity and thermal energy. “Simply put, with co-generation you have two types of energy going out with one type of energy going in,” explains Beckwith. “We’re taking natural gas in. We’re making electricity and reclaiming wasted heat and turning it into hot water. We’re displacing electric demand and usage and also displacing traditional boiler use.” It could also work in conjunction with an HVAC system to provide chilled water for air conditioning as well.

A building using co-gen could operate entirely off the grid and be self-sufficient. Additionally, some of the reclaimed energy can also be put back onto the power grid helping the city prevent blackouts or brownouts.

This system could be installed in a new construction, as it was in the Millennium Towers Residences in Battery Park City, or can be retrofitted to work with the existing energy systems in a building, he says. One of the benefits of a microturbine, unlike a traditional boiler, is that it has few moving parts. It basically runs on compressed air and doesn’t need any oil or lubricants.

The system installed at the Millennium Tower Residences is a 60kW unit to provide domestic hot water to the top half of the 234-unit apartment building. The Millennium Tower Residences is the first LEED Gold-certified condominium in BPC. According to Charles Norman, project manager in design and construction for the property, the microturbine generates about 10 percent of the electrical load needed to power common areas, and heat about half of the building’s hot water. The installation cost for the equipment was roughly $250,000.

Other current installations, Beckwith says, are in a new building on Fox Street in the Bronx, where a microturbine is providing domestic hot water and water for heating the building, and a Park Avenue building, which is seeking a system for backup generation.

The city’s rule allows for microturbine systems to be installed in residential or commercial buildings provided clearance is obtained from the utility company and an application is filed with the Department of Buildings. An operational permit from the FDNY is also necessary. While cost is hard to define, most buildings will see a three- to four-year return-on-investment, according to Beckwith, with a typical service and maintenance agreement of about nine years.

Benefits & Drawbacks

In addition to the upfront cost of buying and installing a co-generation system, providing funds to pay for new employees to maintain the system may be beyond a building’s means. The cost to install a co-generation system in a residential building usually starts at around $1,500 per kilowatt. Conversion of a 100-unit building to co-generation could cost from $150,000 to $300,000, Sciano says.

Installation costs don’t account for the ongoing costs of salaries for workers to maintain the co-generation facility, however. While smaller facilities might need the care of one or a few people, a large structure will require a more significant staffing commitment. Keany says that Penn South had its system updated a dozen years ago, and the 2,820-unit community has a boiler room staff of 14 people.

That said, management at Penn South determined two years ago that the system was saving about $500,000 per year in utility costs, and Keany estimates that it now saves about $700,000 annually. Though, a building should probably have at least a couple hundred units for a change to a co-generation system to make sense, especially right now. Fuel prices and technology are uncertain and changing rapidly, and moving to a co-generation system could be unadvisable.

“If I were a co-op board, I would wait a few years to co-generate,” Keany says, adding that fossil fuel use and prices are still in flux. “Hopefully, technology will catch up, because costs are so high.”

The question of “future-proofing” technologies also is important to mull, Keany says. “The concept of future proofing [includes asking the question:] does it make sense to make the change now, or would it make more sense to wait for some other technology, such as solar panels, which might make more sense in the [near] future,” Keany says.

More Buildings Co-generating

While more buildings are making the change, the trend is fairly limited, Sciano says. Currently in New York there are about 100 “active” co-generation projects. “Active” means the projects at least have paperwork filed with the city regarding the work. Much more is entailed in the process of changing over to co-generation, which is partly why far fewer buildings install the systems.

“The projects that get done [each year] are in the dozens,” Sciano says. Whether more buildings choose to follow suit and explore the possibility of co-generation remains to be seen. But, with fuel costs continuing to rise and New York City’s push toward a greener more sustainable environment, it seems likely that other buildings will at least look toward co-gen as one possible option for cutting costs and saving residents money in the long run.

Jonathan Barnes is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to The Cooperator and other publications.

http://cooperator.com/articles/1685/1/Leading-More-Buildings-to-Co-Generate/Page1.html

Citywide Green Initiatives

The Green Scene

By Raanan Geberer

New York City officially became a leader of “green” initiatives when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced his “PlaNYC 2030” initiative in 2007, although many elements of this omnibus serious of measures were public policy in the city well before it.

The Master Plan

PlaNYC 2030 is officially known as a “sustainability plan” aimed at improving the life of New Yorkers. It is divided into six main areas of focus— Land, Water, Transportation, Air, Energy and Climate Change.

Not every element of the plan necessarily addresses energy efficiency, clean technology and the like—for example, one element of PlaNYC 2030 deals with completing Water Tunnel No. 3, and another deals with expanding the city’s natural gas infrastructure. The construction of Water Tunnel No. 3 is one of the most complex and intricate engineering projects in the world to supplement the city’s drinking water. Constructed by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the tunnel will eventually span 60 miles and is expected to be complete by 2020.

But enough of the master plan does deal with environmental and energy-efficiency issues to make it first and foremost an energy-and-environment initiative. For example, various portions of the plan involve cleaning up brownfields (heavily polluted former industrial sites), encouraging public transportation, ferries and bicycling; creating more parks and playgrounds; planting one million trees within the five boroughs; reducing emissions in public buildings; and retrofitting or replacing diesel trucks, just to name a few.

Much of the plan deals with housing as well. PlaNYC makes a point of redeveloping former school, hospital and industrial buildings into housing, for example, as well as using transit expansions to promote new development. There are also plans to build housing over highways and railways (which was an integral part of the plan for the Far West Side of Manhattan.)

Ahead of the Curve?

Has New York City always been ahead of the curve when it comes to environmental incentives? Experts seem to feel that is has.

“From its beginning as a densely built urban city, New York has always been inherently green,” says Amalia Duarte, director of communications for the New York chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council. “By default, our living spaces are small and use less power. The city has long invested in public transportation—like subways and buses—and also protected land in upstate New York early on to provide clean, potable water.”

Bomee Jung, program director of Green Communities for the Enterprise Community Partners Inc., a nonprofit that helps build affordable housing, adds, “New York is head of the curve on many aspects of public policy relating to green building. New York State, primarily through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) provides financial incentives and technical assistance to both small and large buildings.” We’ll read more about some of these incentives later.

The comment about public transportation is particularly prescient. During the post-World War II years, many cities radically de-emphasized and phased out public transportation—like Los Angeles’ famed “Red Car” streetcar system, for example. When this writer lived in Indianapolis in the 1980s, he found that many residents had never been on a city bus. Many of these same cities, including Los Angeles, had to build new public transit systems later on.

Here in New York City, many environmentally friendly and energy efficient initiatives have already been put into effect, even before PlaNYC 2030 was announced. For example, says Duarte, in 2005 alone, the City Council and the mayor passed 30 environment-related bills.

The City and Beyond

Within the Empire State, New York City is not alone in pursuing environmentally-friendly policies. Michael Colgrove, senior project manager for multifamily building performance in NYSERDA’s New York City offices, points to towns in the Hudson Valley—such as Woodstock and New Paltz—that have hosted similar initiatives of their own.

Woodstock, for example, adopted a “zero carbon” initiative that seeks to reduce the volume of carbon emissions thought to contribute to global warming. And in New Paltz, students at the State University have started their own green initiatives, including solar panels on the roof of the gymnasium.

In Westchester County, the Town of Greenburgh (which includes the villages of Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry, Irvington, Hastings and Tarrytown) sponsored a Green Living Fair. The town, on its website, includes information about tax incentives for energy efficiency, how to buy Energy Star appliances for your home, and the like.

And in Levittown on Long Island—long a symbol of suburban blandness and conformity—the Green Levittown program aims to persuade residents to upgrade their homes, improving energy efficiency and cutting fuel bills.

Colgrove, by the way, echoes some of the other positive comments about New York City and Mayor Bloomberg. “No other mayor of New York City has ever launched such a wide-ranging initiative,” he says. “He stands alone among mayors of the city.”

Wherever these programs are proposed, how successful have they been? Many would say that, in the words of the old song, “it’s too soon to know.” Still, there are more than 300 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) registered projects in the pipeline in this city, although the concept took awhile to catch on.

“If you go as far back as the Clean Water Act [passed in 1972] at the federal level, it trickles down to the state,” says Duarte. “For the past two or three years, you can finally go swimming in the East River. That’s proof positive that these policies can work.”

Programs for Residential Building

Now we get to the heart of the matter—at least for readers of the Cooperator—which specific programs and incentives exist purely for residential developers and building administrators to encourage them to go greener and reduce their environmental impact?

As we’ve mentioned before, the main “clearinghouse” for these incentives, at least in New York, is NYSERDA. Colgrove mentions several programs, all of them detailed on the agency’s website (www.nyserda.org).

The Multifamily Building Performance Program for New Construction provides “performance partners” who work with the design team to incorporate potential energy efficiency options into the building’s design. Energy savings come from higher-efficiency cooling and heating, energy-saving lighting strategies, better insulation and more. “The economics for this,” says Duarte, “work best with buildings of 100 units or more.”

There are also recently approved special incentives to help buildings achieve LEED certification, to be financed out of a special Green Buildings Fund. Buildings achieve LEED certification at either a Silver, Gold, or Platinum level as a result of a special rating system that assess factors including water savings, sustainable selection, indoor environmental community, energy efficiency and more. In addition, NYSERDA maintains a special Energy Smart Loan Fund with reduced interest rates.

And for retrofits of existing building, NYSERDA maintains a separate component of the aforementioned Multifamily Building Performance Program. Eligible buildings are required to “benchmark” their energy performance compared to similar buildings, then are assigned a performance target to achieve. After they achieve these goals, the buildings are eligible for various financial incentives. The U.S. Green Buildings Council, which originated and maintains LEED certification programs, also maintains one for existing buildings.

One person who can testify about how these incentives are helpful is Russell Albanese, president of Albanese Development, a Garden City, Long Island-based firm that pioneered green development with the first green residential building in North America—the Solaire. His firm later developed the Verdesian, which recently became the first residential development in the U.S. to obtain LEED Platinum certification, and is now developing the Visionaire. All are located in Battery Park City.

NYSERDA, he says, was “very helpful” in the case of the Solaire, providing a $100,000 grant for LEED design assistance and energy modeling, an incentive of more than $300,000 for an energy-efficient mortgages, a $90,000 grant for solar panels and more. The Verdesian also received NYSERDA incentives. Albanese also praises the support of the Battery Park City Authority for installing these measures.

Among the features of Albanese’s buildings, he says, are solar panels, a “green roof” that makes the building less susceptible to heat, and more efficient windows (that make the buildings less susceptible to heat), lower energy bills, a 25-percent reduction in the building’s water-sewer rate, and recycling of waste water for cooling and irrigation.

Where To Get Info

What can condo or co-op boards and managers who are interested in learning more about these programs and in getting involved do? Well, for one thing, they can call NYSERDA or the Green Buildings Council.

Jung adds that “there are many organizations providing information about green building in New York City. At Enterprise Community Partners, we work with owners and developers of affordable housing with the goal of eventually greening all affordable housing.”

Other professional organizations, such as the American Institute of Architects’ local chapter, also serve the community at large, as do non-profits such as GreenHomeNYC, Sustainable South Bronx, Sustainable Flatbush, Solar One and others. And that’s not to mention co-op and condo associations, of course, such as the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums and the Federation of New York Housing Cooperatives and Condominiums.

All in all, “green” or sustainable building (or retrofitting) is an idea whose time has come. Those co-op and condo board members and managers who are interested can count on plenty of support.

Raanan Geberer is a freelance writer and editor living in New York City.

http://cooperator.com/articles/1684/1/Citywide-Green-Initiatives/Page1.html

CNET.com

GridPoint buys V2Green to charge electric cars

Posted by Martin LaMonica

Smart-grid outfit GridPoint on Tuesday, flush with an additional $120 million in equity funding, said it has acquired V2Green, a start-up with software to charge electric cars en masse.

GridPoint said that it has raised $100 million mainly from existing investors, which include Goldman Sachs, New Enterprise Associates, Robeco, Susquehanna International Group, and Quercus Trust. An additional $20 million is expected later.

The company makes software for utilities to better integrate distributed generation units, such as solar panels, and home devices, such as Internet-connected thermostats, into the power grid. It also makes a home energystorage unit and software for consumers to track their energy usage.

By purchasing V2Green, GridPoint intends to add the capability for utilities to manage an anticipated wave of electric cars being plugged into the electricity grid.

Some researchers have estimated that plugging large numbers of electric cars to charge batteries during peak times, such as the early evening, would tax the grid, making it necessary to build more power plants. But bringing new power plants online is expensive and opposed in many areas because of environmental reasons.

V2Green's software lets utilities manage the process so that charging can take place at night at off-peak times.

The company's software also lets utilities draw power from many electric cars' batteries--another potential method for easing the load on the grid during peak times. The Seattle-based company is staffed with some former Microsoft employees.

"Our combined capabilities will enable utilities to mitigate the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on the grid while reducing carbon emissions and providing their customers with reduced rates for off-peak charging," said V2Green CEO John Clark in a statement.

GridPoint earlier this year started a "smart charging" trial with Duke Energy.

With the additional $120 million, GridPoint has raised over $200 million to date, making it one of the most capitalized private smart-grid companies.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10049104-54.html

What's behind San Antonio's low ranking on sustainability?

Carlos Guerra - Carlos Guerra

Whether it's about obesity or environmental concerns, when I see cities ranked, I want to know who did the ranking and what criteria were used.

Startled that San Antonio ranked 33rd among the nation's 50 most populous cities in “sustainability” — down from 21st in 2006 — I called James Elsen, CEO of SustainLane.com, who is quite open about the methodology. The rankings, he says, weigh 50 criteria, half of which use data from politically neutral sources. They also rely on interviews of experts and officials in the 50 cities, and the findings are peer-reviewed.

“We try to be as nonsubjective as possible,” Elsen says.

The rankings, the Web site says, “explain how people's quality of life and city economic and management preparedness are likely to fare in the face of an uncertain future.”

And the reasoning is simple. A majority of the world's population now lives in cities. With populations growing, large numbers of Third World residents are demanding — and can now afford — First World lifestyles, and the implications will be enormous.

Dependence on fossil fuels — whose costs are likely to keep rising — and dwindling water supplies will require lifestyle changes globally, and U.S. cities won't be spared. How efficiently U.S. cities use energy and water — and safeguard water quality — and how safely they dispose of waste are some of the things that will make some desirable and others unsustainable. To what extent urban dwellers' food is produced nearby, instead of transported from far away, and how city residents are enriched by local culture, history and lifestyle amenities will also determine which cities are winners.

To produce its 2008 rankings, SustainLane's researchers quantified their research into 16 economic, environmental and green/clean tech categories. Factored in were air and water quality, parks, sidewalks and public transit, bicycle use, walking, and “a robust sustainable local economy with green building, farmers markets, renewable energy and alternative fuels.”

“This is a relative ranking, so it's possible for San Antonio to improve in some areas and fall in ranking because other cities are improving more rapidly,” Elsen says.

The top three overall rankings went to Portland, Ore., San Francisco and Seattle, in that order. The bottom three went to Oklahoma's Tulsa (48) and Oklahoma City (49), and to Mesa, Ariz. (50).

Though the Alamo City ranked 33rd overall, it did rank in the top 25 in six categories — 1st in housing affordability, 7th in water quality, 16th in both natural disaster risk and air quality, 18th in metro street congestion, and 22nd in city innovation.

But San Antonio ranked 32nd in energy and climate change policies, programs and performance and 37th in solid waste diversion. The top five solid-waste diverters, all in California — San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, Los Angeles and Fresno — divert more than 60 percent of their solid waste away from landfills by recycling and composting, as required by state law.

In the construction of energy-efficient and environmentally friendly structures, San Antonio ranked 38th. And we ranked 40th in commuting, or “getting around without driving alone,” and were among the five worst cities for bicycling and walking.

We also ranked 40th on our overall sustainability plans and in educating our populace about the importance of building sustainable urban areas.

Elsen pointed out that unlike other cities with city-owned utilities, San Antonio is moving very slowly in incorporating solar energy, for example.

But he is impressed with how San Antonians have become very conservative water users, and added: “That is a great indicator that more communication with your people could make a huge difference in becoming more sustainable.”

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/carlos_guerra/29728129.html

Chicago outlines plan to slash greenhouse gases

By CARYN ROUSSEAU – 1 day ago

CHICAGO (AP) — Mayor Richard M. Daley has announced a plan to dramatically slash emissions of heat-trapping gases, part of an effort to fight global warming and become one of the greenest cities in the nation.

The plan calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to three-fourths of 1990 levels by 2020 through more energy-efficient buildings, using clean and renewable energy sources, improving transportation and reducing industrial pollution.

"We can't solve the world's climate change problem in Chicago, but we can do our part," said Daley on Thursday. "We have a shared responsibility to protect our planet."

It's the first step toward cutting emissions to one-fifth of 1990 levels by 2050, as called for in the 1997 Kyoto global warming protocols, officials said.

Daley is one of about 800 mayors who have agreed to adopt that goal, and Chicago is the first to identify specific pollution sources and outline how it would achieve the reductions in a measurable way, said Suzanne Malec-McKenna, Chicago's environmental commissioner.

Malec-McKenna said the city would use a combination of incentives and mandates.

Next month, the City Council is expected to consider an ordinance that would update the city's energy code to require such things as better insulation, heating and cooling systems and windows in all commercial, industrial and residential buildings.

The city also has an agreement with two coal-fired power plants to reduce emissions or shut down by 2015 and 2017, respectively, Malec-McKenna said.

The plan also calls for expanding the number of green rooftops, increasing recycling and car-pooling and promoting alternative fuels.

Malec-McKenna said the city would not rule out imposing mandates on residents — though she said there are no immediate plans to charge motorists a fee to drive in congested areas, as New York had considered before the plan died last spring.

"We have 12 years to go on the plan, so we're trying now to have enough incentives," Malec-McKenna said.

Officials say Chicago emits 34.6 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year; including the six surrounding counties, that climbs to 103 million metric tons per year.

If climate change is not addressed, summer heat indexes in Chicago could climb as high as 105 degrees — similar to Mobile, Ala. — by the end of the century and there would be more frequent heavy rains and floods, according to researchers from Texas Tech University in Lubbock and the University of Illinois who were commissioned by the city to study climate change.

Since 1980, Chicago's average temperature has risen approximately 2.6 degrees, 4 degrees in the winter.

"If you look at the records in Chicago, we have had the tendency to be moving toward milder weather conditions, the harsh winter seems to have decreased over time," said Jim Angel, climatologist with the Illinois State Water Survey at Champaign.

The city concedes that it won't be able to avoid future climate change entirely. The plan lists ways Chicago will deal with that, including implementing a heat warning system, reducing summer energy use, improving air quality, preparing for increases in rainfall and flooding, reducing erosion along Lake Michigan's shoreline and planting vegetation that can adapt to climate change.

Rebecca Stanfield, a senior energy advocate at the National Resources Defense Council in Chicago, said the report sets out a lot of work for the city.

"It's not like you can just walk away from this and say, 'We've got a plan to do this,'" Stanfield said. "It's a callback to everyone to the business sector, to the government sector to the advocacy community, that we've got a lot of work to do but at least we've got a road map."

On the Net:

• Chicago Climate Action Plan: http://www.chicagoclimateaction.org

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jseSSvGYaHVKl5SHWei9RMZ_3IwwD939M46G1

Can 'small wind' reap big rewards?

• Story Highlights
• In good locations, micro wind turbines can cut energy bills and carbon emissions
• Large models of micro turbine can have a payback time in as little as five years
• Questions remain over economic and environmental worth of smaller machines
  

By Matthew Knight
For CNN

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Micro wind turbines are beginning to pop up all over our urban and rural landscapes. But is it worth investing your hard-earned cash in your very own wind machine? In short, it depends. Take a look at our quick guide to see if "small wind" could help you reduce your energy bills and your carbon footprint.

What is available?

There are plenty of small wind turbines on the market. Most are the more traditional horizontal axis -- which have two or three blades. But some are vertical-axis which look a bit like the beaters on a food mixer. Micro turbines can be as small as 100 to 500 watts and can be mounted on the side of a building. Larger models -- 2.5 kilowatts to 50 kilowatts -- need to be mast-mounted.

How much do they cost?

Prices vary a lot. One kilowatt models range from $1500 to $3000. More powerful models will cost considerably more. A six kilowatt machine will set you back $45,000 and 15 kilowatts a hefty $70,000. Prices generally include installation but other essential kit -- you will need a battery and an inverter if you are off grid --may not be included. With regular maintenance, turbines can last over 20 years.

Are subsidies available?

Yes. In many countries government grants are often available. For example, in the UK the Low Carbon Buildings Program offers funding up to £2,500 on domestic renewable energy ventures.

Also, prices are falling all the time as more people invest in small wind systems. Alex Murley, Small Systems Manager at the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) told CNN: "The domestic wind turbine market in the UK grew by 80 percent from 2006 to 2007". Improving technology will also drive costs down.

Is it worth getting one?

The most important thing to remember is location. If you are going to realize long-term cost and carbon savings then this has to be your priority. Your local meteorological bureau can give you data on average wind speeds in your area. If you want to check the wind speeds in a specific location an anemometer will tell you all you need to know.

"At the right locations," say the BWEA, "small wind systems can produce electricity cheaper than the grid and payback their embedded carbon within months."

Rural settings generally represent the best opportunities for micro turbines. A recent report published in the UK by the Carbon Trust concluded that turbines in rural locations were four times more efficient than their urban cousins.

The problem with installing micro turbines in built-up areas is two-fold. The first is that buildings can often disrupt wind flow and render a poorly appointed turbine utterly useless.

Secondly, smaller one kilowatt models -- which are often the only option for many urban households -- just can't deliver the requisite cost and energy savings at the moment.

Lynda Garman, technical sales executive at Proven Energy, a leading UK supplier of small wind turbines told CNN: "The swept area [the area through which the blades turn] is very important to the function of a wind turbine. If you put a small turbine in a turbulent area it will not work efficiently."

An ongoing UK study, The Warwick Microwind Trial Project appears to cast further doubt over the usefulness of turbines in urban environments. The fourth interim report published in August 2008 stated: "Great care should be taken in selecting suitable sites for building-mounted turbines" and "more work is required to create a robust method for predicting average wind speeds in urban locations."

But not all urban sites should be written off. "We need to be wary of generalizations," said Alex Murley. "If you put a turbine on a high-rise building above all the wind turbulence it will perform very well."

What sort of energy savings can I expect to make on a domestic turbine?

In short, the bigger the turbine, the greater the rewards.

According to Alex Murley, a typical one kilowatt model is likely to produce between 10 and 20 percent of your total annual electricity requirements.

In the UK, an average household -- according to the energy industry -- uses 3,300 kilowatt hours of electricity annually at a cost of £500. So a one kilowatt machine will save you between £50 and £100 a year. If the turbine costs £1500 to buy, then at current energy prices payback will between 15 and 30 years.

Based on an average wind speeds of 6.5 meters per second, the BWEA have calculated that a £22,000 Proven Energy six kilowatt model can produce 12,500 kilowatt hours. For many households this would amount to a surplus of electricity which is where the real benefits kick in.

In many countries surplus energy can be sold back to the grid using what are called Renewable Energy Certificates or Green Tags. Rates of return vary but in the UK, at current energy prices, they could help reduce your payback period to around ten years.

The figures for a larger Gaia-Wind 11 kilowatt turbine -- which has been installed at a dairy farm in the Scottish Borders -- are even more impressive. Initial costs total around £35,000 ($65,000) but at an average wind speed of 6.5 meters per second the turbine will produce around 40,000 kilowatt hours of energy per year. Factoring in selling surplus, the BWEA calculate that the payback time could be as little as five years.

It's worth remembering that even small changes in average wind speed can make a huge difference to payback periods.

Stephen Andrews, a Senior Technical Project worker at the UK's Center for Sustainable Energy told CNN:

"For urban areas there is still a large question mark. The wind resource is less than expected. But as soon as you move into a rural area, and as long as you have a good resource then small-scale wind turbines -- up to 15 kilowatts -- are very good. They can have a payback of much less than 10 years."

What are the carbon savings?

Repaying the carbon cost of a turbine varies. "It can take six months to two years depending on the size of the machine and the size of the wind," Proven Energy's Lynda Garman said.

Reducing your carbon footprint will depend on where you live. But BWEA's Alex Murley said: "In the UK market, 172 grams of carbon is saved for every kilowatt hour produced by a wind turbine."

Any other considerations?

Planning permission is required for most domestic turbines. Erecting a mast-mounted turbine in your back garden will not make you flavor of the month with your neighbors or the local planning department. Larger models can also be quite noisy. Regular servicing is crucial to a turbine's effectiveness. Also, battery storage systems do not last as long as a turbine and will need to be replaced, which is costly.

Final word:

You might be salving your conscience rather than saving the planet if you buy a small one kilowatt turbine and attach it to the side of your house. Their economic worth is very much open to question.

But it is early days. "As the cost of energy goes up and up and technology costs come down, even the smaller micro turbines will be very interesting opportunities to save money and carbon," said the BWEA's Alex Murley.

Whilst bigger turbines are expensive they can, in the right location, make a real difference and in the long-term could be a extremely astute financial and environmental investment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/18/micro.turbine/?iref=intlOnlyonCNN