Shale gas needs to be part of long-term energy strategy

Published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Thursday, November 11th, 2010 [update: a modified version was published in The Baltimore Sun on November 16th, 2010]:

Let's be smart about shale gas

Pennsylvania should look long-term and slow the boom to avoid the bust

Thursday, November 11, 2010

By Mark Olsthoorn

Marcellus Shale gas can be a boon to Pennsylvania, the catalyst of a clean, sustainable energy sector that creates lasting employment, provided the state doesn't buy into the boom-town mentality. A period of controlled growth would allow for informed debate on shale gas' role in Pennsylvania's energy future and, in the long run, would profit the state economically.
Unfortunately, the industry is in a hurry to extract this precious resource from the Marcellus Shale, prompting deep public concerns about the effects of its production on fresh water sources and human health. The debate has turned loud, extreme and unproductive. Facts and fiction have blurred.
When the shale gas industry convened recently in the former Pittsburgh Hilton, "drill-baby-drill" could be heard between the lines. "Wow" is how conference president Jack Lafield characterized Marcellus prospects. Speakers representing oil and gas companies that operate in Pennsylvania outbid each other with projections of high, higher, highest production rates for the region over the next decade.
The optimism was contagious. The curves only went up. "There's gas for another 100 to 120 years," said Martin Fritz of EQT Midstream. "We should do a better job at selling it."
Unchecked, this gold-rush approach risks quickly exhausting and wasting a valuable, irreplaceable resource.
Natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels, causing much less air pollution and only half as much CO2 emissions as coal when burned in a power plant. It's domestically available and can enable a clean, sustainable energy sector. Gas can be stored, and is versatile. It's too good to waste.
But judging by public comments, how the Marcellus gas is going to be used seems of little concern to the industry. Further, it denounces other, much-needed initiatives, such as wind and energy efficiency, as if they have little role to play in securing America's energy future or improving America's environment.
A more integrative perspective on the place of Marcellus gas in a sustainable energy sector is essential.
Gas can provide backup capacity for wind farms when the wind isn't blowing. Gas can generate cleaner electricity to propel electric cars and provide feedstock for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Gradually replacing coal-fired power plants with more decentralized gas-fired, combined heat-and-power plants would cut CO2 emissions dramatically and enable super efficient local heating networks in urban areas.
The point is that Marcellus gas can be a crucial enabler of sustainable innovations. At present, though, the industry risks flooding the market, keeping prices unsustainably low and frustrating the development of other clean energy sources. Pennsylvania won't see the full promise of Marcellus Shale gas unless it is embedded in a long-term energy strategy for the region.
The gas industry is currently hyping the jobs that shale gas will bring, but they probably won't last long, nor go to many Pennsylvanians. A full-throttle ramp up is so quick that experienced employees have to be brought in from out-of-state. Currently, 75 percent of workers on drilling rigs in Pennsylvania are experienced professionals from Oklahoma and Texas.
By the time the regional economy generates a skilled workforce and specialized services and suppliers, production will be near, at or beyond its peak. And soon the gas will be gone, sold for low prices to fuel inefficient cars and heat badly insulated buildings. A more gradual and better-guided development of Marcellus Shale gas would allow a local energy sector and workforce to arise with better chances of long-term employment and economic benefits.
Pennsylvania regulators are not equipped to deal with the explosion of permit applications, and companies are complaining that long processing times are slowing Marcellus development. But maybe it's fortunate that regulators are understaffed, as this might buy the commonwealth some time.
If states in the Marcellus Shale region want to get the maximum return from their natural capital, in terms of long-term employment and revenue, they would do well to make shale gas production part of an integrated strategy for a sustainable energy sector and economy. They also would do well, while the industry is still learning fast, to let best practices for environmental protection, workforce training and corporate citizenship mature before the boom has come and gone.

Mark Olsthoorn is a researcher at the University of Maryland's Center for Integrative Environmental Research (www.cier.umd.edu).

First published on November 11, 2010 at 12:00 am

Energy lessons from the Nordic countries

This morning the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) had invited representatives from five Nordic countries to reveal why they've been so successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, implementing renewable power generation and taking energy efficiency measures. It was obvious that the Nordic countries felt very good about their frontrunner reputation, and rightly so. Why couldn't the US follow suit? This question wasn't really answered. I think there are quite some barriers to take before the US can go down the same route.

There seem to be three factors that enabled the Nordic countries to be so progressive. The first is abundant renewable energy resources. Norway is blessed with a lot of hydropower potential and has been getting its power from this carbon-free energy source since long. Norway's oil and gas are a an 'extra'; most of it is exported. For Norway energy is not a challenge, it's a source of income, said Fridtjof Unander of the Norwegian Resaerch Council. In Iceland there's abundant geothermal power available at low prices. Sweden also has quite a lot of hydropower and following the energy crises of 1973 it built nuclear power plants, making its power supply practically independent of fossil fuel. In addition, it has extensive woods, which provide a renewable resource for biomass when sustainably managed. The second factor is historically high energy prices. As Jes Christensen of the Danish Board of District Heating (DBDH) mentioned, Denmark has kept its energy prices for households high when prices declined after the oil crisis and they don't regret it. The country is used to high energy prices and with high energy prices energy efficiency measures and alternative energy sources have much shorter payback times. Prices for industry are not taxed as much and are at par with other EU member states.

A big thing in all Nordic countries is the use of waste and environmental heat for heating homes, or district heating. This means that waste heat generated in a power plant or in industrial processes is not dumped in the atmosphere or in river or sea water, but is transported to residential and commercial buildings for space heating. District heating can save lots of energy and be quite profitable, really. It requires a network of pipes to be constructed between the heat source and the heat demand, involving large investments and creating interdependencies between power plants and homes. Heat sources and demand should not be too far apart, otherwise losses and costs would become too large. In the Eastern US power comes from plants in Appalachian coal states and is transported over quite some distances. That's an extra barrier for implementation of district heating. In Denmark they had a similar situation, with a dozen central power plants generating electricity for the nation. Nowadays, the map of Denmark is dotted with many small combined heat and power (chp) generators, producing heat close to where the demand is and feeding electricity to the grid. You don't get the economies of scale of a large power plant, but the overall efficiency is much higher, compensating the loss of scale. Large amounts of renewable resources or high energy prices and shorter distances between supply and demand are the preconditions that helped put the nordic countries in the lead. These conditions are less favorable in the US. Yes, there are vast amounts of renewable resources - there's plenty of sun in the southwest and lots of wind in the midwest and along the ocean coasts - however, the demand is generally far from where the resources are. Besides, energy prices in the US are much lower than in the Nordic countries, giving any alternative a hard time to earn its place in the market.

But Jes Christensen touched upon another issue, too. He said: you have to do it together, and have fun doing it. And: Danes are the happiest people on the world. This caused laughter, but it's less of a joke than you might think and a  crucial point indeed. Danes see value in collectivity, doing things together and cooperating to move the country forward. Apparently, the Danes are relatively united as to where the country should go when it comes to energy. Denmark (and other Nordic countries) has a different value system than the US, which made them accept keeping high energy prices in the first place, government interventions in the power market and more interdependence for the common good. It allows the nordic countries to organize the public and private capacities and harvest the low-hanging fruit. This is a fundamental difference between nordic countries and the US, where much of the economically profitable efficiency measures remain untouched (see Mckinsey 2007: Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?). To see where this difference comes from, we may have to look at demographics. In Denmark more than 90% is of Danish origin. Other Nordic countries have relatively homogenous populations, too. In the US the vast majority may be white (79%), but the whites stem from a wide spectrum of European origins. Like it or not, Robert Putnam (2007) found that in the short term solidarity and trust - including trust in government and academia - suffer in ethnically diverse communities, which might complicate the consensus building needed to transform an economy. This effect may fade over time when younger generations with interethnic social networks grow up, but the urgency of the challenge leaves little time. (I'm NOT saying ethnic diversity should be limited. I'm much in favor of interethnic exchange and exploration and I think energy transformation can be used to foster that.)

In conclusion, the lessons from the Nordic countries are inspiring and valuable, but major differences in value systems and geography complicate their transferability to the US. In the mean time, in the US, the distrust and divides seem to only grow bigger.

A Gas Rush

Did a speech on shale gas at toastmasters on Tuesday. Let me post it below, because the US shale gas frenzy is a development worth following. (I apologize for not listing the references used.)

A Gas Rush

While the political debate swirls around offshore drilling and whether or not to cap-and-trade CO2 emissions, a revolution seems to be unfolding that can profoundly change the energy landscape in the United States. New technologies are unlocking vast amounts of natural gas that are buried under American soil in shale formations – Shale Gas. Different experts estimate that it adds 10 to 40 years of gas supply at present day US consumption rates. That is important, because it can potentially reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and help the transition to a clean energy supply. Natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels and burning it emits only half as much CO2 as does burning coal. Replacing coal fired power plants by gas fired ones significantly reduces CO2 emissions. And, for instance, making heavy-duty trucks use gas instead of diesel can reduce foreign oil by up to 40%. But if shale gas will be the game changer some claim it to be is far from certain.

All over the US there are large plays of shale that contain huge amounts of gas. Let me draw you some.

Figure 1 - Shale gas plays in the US lower 48 states. Source: Energy Information Administration

The main ones are in Texas and the Northeast, and some in the mountain area.
Shale layers are thousands of feet below the surface and can extend hundred of miles. The gas is locked tight in the dense rock that inhibits the gas from flowing freely. Until a decade ago it was too hard and too costly to get it out. But innovative drilling techniques are now making production of gas from shale economically viable.

The two key enabling technologies are horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The shale formations are usually thousands of feet deep and several ten to several hundred feet thick. The drill goes down then goes horizontally to follow the shale layer up to 1.5 miles laterally. In this way, much more of the target formation is exposed to the well than would have been the case if one could only do vertical drilling.

They then inject a mixture of mainly water, sand and chemicals at very high pressure, which fractures the rock around the well bore. That’s why it’s called “hydraulic fracturing.” The sand flows into the cracks and keeps them open. Now the cracks provide a path for the gas to flow to the well and up to the surface.

Figure 2 - Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fraturing. Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The technology has been successfully applied in Texas, near Fort Worth, since 2003, and is expanding rapidly. Shale gas’ share in the US gas production grew to 10% in less than 10 years and is projected to continue to grow to more than 20% by 2020. The early success has fueled interest among gas companies to expand to other shale plays and sparked a drilling rush most notably in the Northeast, in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. Companies anxiously apply for permits and knock the doors of landowners to make them lease their property. They promise to make an end to economically hard times.

This procedure is not without issues. The two most important concerns are the risk of contamination of fresh water wells and impact on local communities. 

One well requires 3-4 million gallons of water. The water is mixed with chemicals and sand and injected into the hole. The chemicals are less than 1% of the mixture, but 1% of millions of gallons is still thousands gallons. And we know that many of the chemicals used are toxic.

The fear is that gas and chemicals migrate to the surface along badly constructed wells or natural faults, or enter the ground water from spills on the surface. more than 1000 incidents have been reported. Incidents that include contaminated private wells near drilling sites, cancers related to chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, and accumulation of gas in water wells and basements. In the documentary Gasland, which is about hydraulic fracturing, you can see a homeowner put his tapwater on fire with a lighter.

Companies claim that there is no need to worry. The industry has decades of experience with hydraulic fracturing and it refers to an EPA study that concluded that there was no evidence that unequivocally linked the incidents to drilling or hydraulic fracturing. However, there’s no evidence that the incidents are NOT linked to the practice either.

Bottom line is that the risks are uncertain and mistakes can lead to serious consequences, like fresh water sources being contaminated forever. For the mitigation of the risks we rely on the industry itself.

Besides water contaminations there are the thousands of heavy-duty truck trips that haul equipment and water to and from the drilling sites. One well requires about 1000 truck trips. They damage local roads and impact road safety.

In the mean time local and state executives have to deal with the uncertainty while making decisions whether or not to accept permit applications. New York City has decided not to gamble with its water supply and ban drilling in the watershed, which 8 million people depend upon for their drinking water. On the other hand, communities in western Pennsylvania and New York are facing high unemployment rates. They need the extra revenue and the jobs. But they can’t tell what price they will ultimately pay for that.

It’s Wild West. There’s not much experience and there is no specific regulatory framework. Shale gas drilling is a surprise technology that burst onto the scene, causing fierce opposition and proposition, creating winners and losers. Among the developers are good guys and bad guys. There are accounts of aggressive sales techniques and bad behavior, but there are examples of fruitful collaboration with local communities, too. The EPA is now starting to study the connection between hydraulic fracturing and water. The results of that study will likely lead to decisions whether and how to regulate.

Shale gas is a rising star, but whether it can play a crucial role in reducing America’s energy dependence and reduce the cost of greenhouse gas emissions depends on whether the industry can keep a clean safety record and create a positive presence in communities to deserve its license-to-operate.

Mende

Vandaag finishte de 12e etappe van de Tour de France op de landingsbaan van het vliegveld van Mende, in de Cevennen. Het vliegveld ligt op een hoogvlakte, het dorp in het dal aan de rivier de Lot. Een steile weg leidt vanuit het dorp naar het vliegveld. Een klim van de tweede categorie, de Côte de la Croix-Neuve, een zeer venijnig ding na een lange etappe zo vlak voor de finish. Garantie voor een spannende finale. Het was niet de eerste keer dat de finish op het Aérodrome de Mende was getrokken.
Precies hier, bovenaan de klim, bezocht ik in 1995, op Quatorze Juillet, voor het eerst de Tour de France.
Vriend Pieter Dijkshoorn en ik waren in de regio op fietsvakantie. De fietsbus had ons in Millau afgezet, vanwaar we door de Gorges du Tarn de Cevennen introkken. Het eerste deel van onze route stond in het teken van Tim Krabbé's wielerklassieker "De Renner." Pieter was er zo enthousiast over, dat het zelfs mij aanzette het open te slaan. Bovendien was het dun, ging het over wielrennen en mocht het meetellen voor de leeslijst op school. Het boek beschrijft een wielerwedstrijd voor amateurs in de Cevennen, rondom de Mt. Aigoual, waarin de auteur een van de kandidaten voor de eindzege is. De koers wordt zo nauwgezet beschreven dat de route vrij eenvoudig te achterhalen is. Naar verluidt zou het uitzicht vanaf de Mt. Aigoual fenomenaal zijn, dat speelde ook mee. Enkele dagen keken we vanaf de top naar de Mt. Ventoux en stelden vast dat het waar was.
Van onze reis hielden we allebei een dagboek bij. Pas jaren later, nadat op 6 mei 2007 Pieter's hart midden in een fietswedstrijd voorgoed stilstond, heb ik zijn voor het eerst dagboek gelezen. Waar mijn schrijfsels feitelijk waren - de route, de temperatuur, dagafstand, dat werk - was Pieter's verslag reflectief, filosofisch soms. Toen we daar bovenop de côte op de tourrenners wachtten waren onze schriften nog nagenoeg leeg, het meeste lag voor ons.
1995 was de laatste keer dat Miguel Indurain de tour won. Hij is nog steeds mijn held. Toen na eindeloos gespannen wachten de renners passeerden was Indurain een van de eersten. Tanden ontbloot, vechtend om in het wiel van Pantani te blijven. Riis zat er dichtbij. In mijn plakboek zit een foto als bewijs. Genomen met een zo'n analoog vakantietoestelletje. De renners zijn meer vegen dan mensen, maar als je het weet dan kun je de wielerlegendes herkennen. Jalabert won. Een legendarische zege. Na 180 km in de aanval bezorgde hij de Fransen een glorieuze overwinning op hun nationale feestdag. Sindsdien heet de Côte de la Croix-Neuve ook wel de Montée Lauren Jalabert. Het was ons niet gelukt Jalabert te kieken. Ik heb toen thuis maar een foto uit een wielertijdschrift geknipt en in mijn plakboek geplakt naast die andere.

Basketballtennis

De muziek stopt abrupt. Op slag is het stil in het stadion. Alleen nog stadsgeluiden op de achtergrond. Ze gooit de gele bal omhoog, volgt zijn boog in het surreële licht van schijnwerpers en vallende avond. Haar lichaam spant als een boog. Iemand roept: "I love you, Venus!" De bal komt omlaag, de opgebouwde energie komt in een klap vrij. Genadeloos ramt haar racket de bal uit de zinderende lucht. Zo hard! Aan de andere kant van het net staat Martina Hingis. Martina slaat half zo hard, maar gracieuzer en gevarieerd. Ze blijft lachen, ondanks het geweld van de oudste zus Williams. De return is te goed geplaatst voor Venus, 0-1 New York. "Make some Nooooiiiise!" galmt het tussen de kantoorgebouwen.

De World Team Tennis (WTT) kampioenschappen is een verbasketballiseerde vorm van tennis, met commercials, publieksprijsjes, mascottes, cheerleaders en een schreeuwende "yoyoyo"-moderateur. Gelegenheidsteams van (ex-)toptennissers met namen als Washington Kastles en New York Buzz spelen in tijdelijke stadions tussen de wolkenkrabbers. 15-30-40 is hier gewoon 1-2-3. Wie het eerst bij 4 is wint de game, niks geen twee punten verschil. De All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club zou met hangende mondhoeken de neus ophalen - "O, good Lord!" - maar het tennis is (voor mij als leek) indrukwekkend. Baseline rally's, dropshots, lobs, gekreun: alles komt voorbij. Na 5 sets - 1 set per discipline - sturen de Kastles Hingis c.s. met lege handen terug naar New York. Het publiek verdwijnt in de zwoele nacht terwijl de speaker nog buldert: "Refuuuuse to Loooose!"

Women singles match: Venus Williams vs. Martina Hingis, Washington D.C., July 7, 2010.

Photos: Merijn Bronsgeest.

Fourth of July

Girl watching fireworks at Washington Monument. Photo: Merijn Bronsgeest.

Fourth of July, Independence Day at the National Mall, together with several hundred thousand people. Heard all songs containing 'America' and closed off with the most magnificent fireworks. Lincoln watched from his chair. His name was frequently heard, but he didn't move. The clouds of smoke calmly drifted off to the Northwest. Is this what geo-engineering looks like? Expect to see a global cooling effect within several days and grounding of air traffic in Northwest Europe. After the last explosion, the crowd retreated through the streets of downtown Washington in peaceful harmony, leaving behind amazingly little litter. It was the first time I could really appreciate fireworks and experienced a strange sensation of feeling proud of a country that isn't mine. They're good at this.

Crowd on steps of Lincoln Memorial awaiting fireworks at Reflective Pool. Photo: Merijn Bronsgeest.

RFF seminar: toward a national energy policy

Attended a seminar at RFF yesterday, where scholars presented the results of a study on policy options for climate and energy. Objectives: reducing US oil dependence and domestic energy related CO2 emissions. Options seemed to be somewhat confirming common sense. I was impressed, though, by the eloquence of Jason Grumet, president of Bipartisan Policy Center, who commented on the study. No slides, a coherent story, beautiful sentences. And some insights in catchy phrases, like for example on cap-and-trade: "For cap and trade you basically have to trust two institutions: Washington and Wall Street. Congressmen have to explain to their constituents in the Midwest: listen, we're going to create a new commodity. It's called carbon and it's going to be worth x billion dollars. Those guys at the coast will manage it." He also shared his take on the odds for a climate and energy bill. He said there are elements that enjoy bipartisan support, like electrification of transportation, a shift toward LNG, technology R&D, performance standards, but also a cap on the power sector. About the latter he said: people get it; it's been successfully done before with other pollutants (SO2, NOx). Nevertheless, those elements seem to boil down to the leftovers that define the least common denominator. Besides, they don't include the policies that came out as most effective in the study, i.e. a tax on oil and carbon. Would be better than nothing, though, but enough to trigger the critical mass to save Greenland's ice and the grilling of the Southwest? Hope that the renewed public support for climate and energy legislation in the wake of the oil spill translates into a little more ambition and the opportunity for Obama, with the RFF study in hand, to deliver on his campaign promise prior to Cancún.

Speech 3 at Toastmasters: Oil Spill

Did speech #3 at Capital Toastmasters 1 today. I posted it below, it's about the oil spill. The evaluator judged that it required more detail and concreteness to make the points. She's right. But besides me failing to find the examples (they may just not be there and if they are, they're not that clear or more nuanced and would do the case more harm than good - that being true, there would be no case), I generally find it hard to do. Repeatedly, when I do the research after having chosen a topic, I discover that things aren't as clear as I thought in the first place. I start of with an opinion, but end up with none. As Poul Anderson once said: "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated [1]." Still, I think it's a valid case.

Spill of Blame

Today is the 64th day of the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf. On April 20th, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed 11 people and injured 17. It unleashed an uncontrollable flow of crude, life-destroying oil. Estimates of how much oil is gushing out have been raised repeatedly. The latest number suggests that today again 60.000 barrels are spilled into the waters of the Gulf. If that’s true, more than 3 million barrels have been spilled into the water by now. Despite thousands of ships involved in fighting the spill, the damage is heart wrecking: you have probably seen the pictures of birds covered oil, of Dolphins that have died trying to catch a breath of fresh air above the surface, but finding oil instead. Complete communities whose livelihoods are tied to the Gulf are hopeless. It’s devastating. It should stop and never happen again.

While in the Gulf the people are working hard to deal with the oil coming ashore, in the media and in politics the blame seems to be the national response to the disaster. “Who dun it?” I want to make the case that this is blaming and shaming, this climate of hatred and revenge, is counterproductive, and that the investigations into the root causes require different questions.

In the blame game, everyone is looking for a scapegoat. And with every charge, the accused feel the need to deny the charges and prove the charges wrong with actions the effectiveness of which is of minor concern. It’s an escalating dynamic of showing off and coming out on moral top. In this case moral seems to mean blood-thirsty. And every party is using the situation to proof their own world views. It’s absorbing resources that should be directed to the stopping of the leak and the clean-up.

Understandably, BP is receiving the most severe blows. It’s their well and they’ve acknowledged so. And obviously they have a bad safety record and made many mistakes. But they are a safe target, too. Those British, didn’t we kick them out 200 years ago? For Democrats BP is the embodiment of corporate interests exploiting the commons for profit. Republicans rather attack the Obama administration: how its oversight failed and its response was weak.

I think we need some fair play, here. Let’s suspend the PR battle. The first adversary in the game is not BP; it’s the oil gushing out of the ground. In this game, BP is the striker. I believe BP CEO Hayward when he says he more than anything else wants this thing to be over. Being to blame for the millions of victims, for loss of so much life and hope…I do not envy him. If they want to keep at least some chance to regain their license to operate, the only thing they can do is plug the hole and be nice. We should make sure they can do their work. Not vilification but collaboration. Suspend the accusations and resource consuming investigations. It’s now important that they tell the truth about what they’re doing, that they share the right information and maximize the learning. That they do not need to undertake useless actions just to ‘show’ they ‘do something.’

Deal with the accusations later, in the second game, when we investigate if BP really is the only adversary. I think, it turns out that it won’t be that simple. It’s hardly maintainable that this case is an incident.  The fundamental causes that led to the great human and environmental disaster may have to be found in a much larger domain than BP’s internal culture. It could have happened to other companies, too. There are 1000 similar wells around the world. And as a hearing of Big Oil CEOs in Congress revealed: no company has an adequate battle plan for a disaster like this.

So, besides the investigation into the actions that lead to the disaster, we may want to ask questions like the following:

➢ Why are the plans for dealing with an oil spill so inadequate?
➢ What incentives made that the engineers felt a need to compromise on safety? How is that in other companies?
➢ How is it possible that conflicting interests infested the institutions so deeply?
➢ Why do we doubt that BP cares for the Gulf’s people and wildlife? If so, why have we allowed them to operate there? Can we trust other companies better?
➢ What makes us allow oil exploration and production in ever more risky and pristine environments? There’s no doubt that technological progress is improving the safety of oil exploration and production. But the end of easy oil is driving us toward deeper and colder places, where risks are greater. Can safety keep up with the thirst for oil?
➢ For who are the oil companies exploring those difficult sources, anyway?

Answering those questions would likely lead to substantial controversy. But I hope it won’t be avoided and the temptation of returning to business-as-usual as soon as possible is resisted. An urgent, long-term public investigation into the fundamentals of the oil spill lies ahead, leading to a broad debate on the US energy future, and the role of corporations and government. But first, let’s stop the oil from flowing, clean-up the beaches and help the victims.

[1] Poul Anderson, quoted in Donella H. Meadows, "Thinking in Systems," Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2008, p.11.

Hocus POTUS

I can check the box of one my goals for my time in Washington: I saw president Obama! Live. If I'd have had a pair of binoculars I would have even recognized him as he walked over from the White House to the Blair House this morning.

Today the president is discussing Health Care reform in a much talked about televised 6-hour meeting with representatives from both parties. I went to the White House to spot some senators and maybe the president himself. The pedestrian area on the North side of the White House, including the Lafayette park, was closed with fences. Even the 'live by the bomb, die by the bomb' protester tent, which has been in front of the White House ever since I first got there (and who knows how long before that), and which stood through three snowstorms this winter, was relocated to a far corner of the park. I encountered the greatest activity on the West side, at Pennsylvania Avenue and 17th Street. Some 100 protesters and 10 TV crews had gathered there. As 10AM approached, the police started directing everyone further away from where the president would pass. Their authority was undisputed; onze senior officer took ownership of the crossing and with resolute voice and gestures directed his juniors, the protesters and the press, who backed off without complaints.

It all went quite peaceful, except for one man who was put to the ground, handcuffed and arrested by three policemen, while relentlessly shouting "Stop Obama! Stop Obama!" Maybe the police overreacted a little bit, but that uncompromising attitude may as well be safeguarding that undisputed authority. The man's shouts faded as he was led away from the scene. Most protesters were against health care reform. Their signs read things like "Hocus POTUS" (POTUS being the acronym for President Of The United States), "Socialism Failure," "Hands off health care!," "This summit is a shame," "All bills off the table, start all over," and "Obamacare no! America can't afford it." And I saw a couple of Gadsden flags (Enter: the Tea Party?). The most awful sign called for Obama's impeachment and showed Obama with a Hitler moustache next to the words: "One small man, one big disasters for mankind." Apparently, the education system doesn't cover all either. It's a mystery to me why these protesters so fiercely oppose their beloved nation finally doing something about that stain on its civilization.

With the moment of the president's passage coming closer, the outbursts of shouts from the protesters got more frequent and louder. Then, a little past 10, quite suddenly lenses raised and a high-held microphone came wobbling behind some black government SUV's. That should be him. I pierced over the cameras, but in the three seconds he was in view I couldn't tell him apart from his company. Camera crews I was standing behing took their cameras off their shoulders and began packing their stuff. Was this it? The crews had to take their shots 150 m away from their target. "He was walking with Biden," one cameraman said. Thanks for the info, now I can check them both. With a little sarcastic smile on his face,  a German sounds man said: "That was worth waiting three hours in the chilly morning for." I guess he doesn't have to worry too much, as he likely enjoys good and reasonably priced coverage in case he catches a cold.

Why aren’t there any solar PV panels in DC?

After having spent nearly five months in the capital of the United States, I suddenly realized that I hadn’t seen any solar panels on rooftops or facades. This observation cannot be proof that there are none - there likely are some – and, besides, it’s hard to spot rooftop-mounted panels in a city with tall buildings. But I haven’t seen any on normal houses with inclined roofs either. DC is definitely no Germany. By my personal, Northwest European standards, Washington enjoys plenty of sun. And data confirm that Washington has more potential per square meter than also the sunnier parts Germany [7]. So, why is solar-PV so dominantly absent here?

In 2008 some 200 kW of solar-PV capacity was installed in the District of Columbia, bringing the total to 700 kW [1]. The average grid-connected residential PV installation in the US had grown from 2.5 kW in 1999 to 4.9 kW in 2008 [1]. So, there must be around 200 installations in DC…somewhere. That isn’t a lot and, hence, it’s not strange that I haven’t seen any. And those high buildings downtown do not hide many from pedestrians’ eyes, either.

Until now, solar-PV in Washington must have been a hobby for those who could spare something extra for the environment’s sake, or for the thrill of the technology or being energy independent. No serious incentives have been in place for Washingtonians to install solar panels, and an adequate contracting process for supplying excess solar energy to the grid has been lacking [6].

But things seem to be changing. Only recently, in 2008 and 2009, local government moved forward and put in place more serious regulation. In October 2008, the Clean and Affordable Energy Act (CAEA) amended the renewable portfolio standard (RPS), requiring utilities that supply Washingtonians to have at least 20% renewable energy in its electricity sourcing portfolio in 2020, including 0.4 % solar [2]. In 2009 a rebate scheme was opened for distributed solar and wind installations [2]. Under this program, there will be $ 2 million available each year from 2009 to 2012. The aim is to support at least 100 installations per year. The scheme is budget neutral to the city government, as it is paid by a surcharge on natural gas and electricity consumer bills. This budget neutrality is a success factor that the scheme has in common with the successful German feed-in system. However, a second success factor was not copied: the rebate scheme is not open-ended. The sum is limited to $ 2 million per year, which appeared to be way too little to meet the demand. Only two months after the program was opened, the city had to close it for the year, because the applications had exceeded the allotted funding [3].

The incentives program allows $3/W for the first 3 kW installed capacity, $2/W for the next 7 kW and $1/W for the next 10 kW. With an average system size of 4.9 kW, the subsidy is $ 12,800 per system. With the apparent demand for the subsidy, can we safely expect full use of the yearly $ 2 million over the next years? In that case, assuming people don’t install systems when they can’t get a rebate, we could see around 150 systems added in the District each year. So, solar systems will expand quickly, but it might take a while for those beautiful blue panels to claim their presence in views of Washington.

In addition to the incentives program, there’s a net metering regulation, allowing a PV owner to supply excess electricity to the grid and let his meter spin backward. The utility only charges the net energy delivered over a billing period. And then there’s a 30% federal tax credit for consumers who install solar electric systems [2]. (I should calculate if the stimuli make a financially compelling case for buying a PV-system.)

In 2020 solar power should generate 0.4 % of DC’s electricity. Taking current electricity consumption in DC buildings as the baseline, which is 11.4 billion kWh per year, 0.4% would amount to 46 million kWh [4]. This would require 30 MW of installed solar PV capacity, which is 43 times the present day total. With the rebate program adding 0.7 MW a year, the target is not going to be met. However, this likely is too linear a projection for 2020. Anticipating higher fossil fuel prices, maybe some price on carbon and cost reductions in solar PV, the future looks brighter. But 0.4%?! Come on…

The most famous DC solar panels are ones that aren't there anymore. Jimmy Carter installed a set of solar water heaters (not PV) on the White House's West Wing in 1979, but Ronald Reagan later removed them. They are on a Unity College cafetaria in Maine now, but out of service. Under Bush jr., in 2003, a modest PV system was installed on the White House's maintenance building. Photo credit: www.whitehousemuseum.org

[1] Larry Sherwood, “US Solar Market Trends 2008,” Interstate Renewable Energy Council, July 2009
[2] http://www.dsireusa.org
[3] http://www.mdv-seia.org/dc_news.html
[4] District Department of the Environment, “District of Columbia Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2006 Calendar Year Baseline.”
[5] http://www.solar4power.com/solar-power-insolation-window.html
[6] Washington Post, 2/11/2007, "Going solar isn't easy in the District.
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

Born to run

Anxiety to run - long and free - is all over me. Got it from the book Born To Run by Christopher McDougall, which I finished yesterday. The irony is that the author's asking the question "why does my foot hurt?" led him through intriguing explorations and adventures resulting in this book (which I highly recommend). Now I'm inspired, but my foot hurts. Two snow storms last week have left miles of winter wonderland trails in DC's parks; I'd better not trot them. The author makes a strong case for 'barefoot' - or less guided - running, the way the people run who have never worn shoes and have never been manipulated by running gear commerce. But the tips for staying injury-free don't help much to get rid of one. Patience.

Maybe, this forced time off serves me well, letting it sink a bit. O, am I easily influenced by books. Born to Run has left me with the conviction that running is the best thing you can do to stay healthy and happy and I can't wait to get some of it. But only three years ago, reading Midas Dekkers' "Lichamelijke Oefening" seriously took away all my running ambitions for a while. Dekkers claimed that there is no scientific proof that running long and hard has any health benefits; it would only cause injury, look stupid and consume valuable time that had better be spent on intellectual exercise. Now, who's right? I think I should take some distance and compare the two accounts. But from what I remember there is plenty agreement in the two. Also Dekkers recognizes the need for sufficient exercise, not much, but more than is built in in present-day modern society. And one should eat healthy. The peoples that are natural runners or get sufficient exercise in daily life and hardly show wealth related diseases such as diabetes, heart and vessel diseases, forms of cancer, etc. are usually poor, too, and do not have access to copulent, fat and meat-rich menus. Both authors stress that the single most important reason to exercise more than is required for health reasons should be fun. And both warn not to push too hard, to not overdo it. Following these principles, allegedly, can save you a lot of stress and bring you more fun, and much more distance.

(foto source: http://www.allwedoisrun.com/tarahumara.htm)

Because it's right

Came across this 1994 Donella Meadows column, which in the wake of the De Wit Parliamentary Inquiry on the financial crisis is worth rereading, I think.

In that same archive on the Sustainability Institute website, there are many more little gems to read.

3 maart: GroenLinks Den Haag

Stem 3 maart GroenLinks in Den Haag from GroenLinks Den Haag on Vimeo.



Zie ook de GroenLinks Den Haag Stadsgids. Blits en belangrijk.

Washington Auto Show

The past couple of days you could see the same new Chevy models being test driven around my block many times. GM invited visitors to the Washington Auto Show in the neighboring Convention Center for a test-drive in one of their models. As I happened to be one of those visitors on Friday, I happily used this chance to experience a hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicle (Chevy Equinox, see the model in the picture). After signing up, I passed some ten people waiting for their turn in the Camaro, Chevy's muscle car, as their was no one waiting for the fuel cell car. After circumdriving my own block I was pleased by the silence in the car and had experienced a powerful acceleration upon pushing the throttle shortly. Nevertheless, I must admit feeling slightly disappointment. The test drive had been pretty...normal. This was just a fine car, but nothing spectacular for me as a driver. The benefit for the environment is not obvious behind the wheel, but the insecurity of not knowing where to refuel is. I guess I'd have to reason hard to let the distant environmental benefit make me accept the insecurities and higher prices the first small series. A clean car is not a mobile phone, which gives you additional functions, clear and direct benefits. If it's not money, how else could sufficient new buyers be seduced to choose a clean vehicle and let the market take off?

At the Auto Show in several other places one could find confirmation that the environment is an important theme, but not yet a real buyers' concern. Compared to the American models, the big European ones, like the larger Volvos, looked small. Going small was clearly a road less taken by the producer than hybridization, as most brands now showed at least one or two hybrids, but quite often as a fuel saver in a big SUV or truck. Of the hybrids, Toyota's Prius is still the most fuel efficient, according to the fuel economy labels, which were present on every vehicle on display. An average sized Dutchman like me (6 foot 1.2 inch) still has to bend his neck sitting in the backseat. My impression after scanning fuel economy labels randomly is that very few automakers are ready for the coming 35 mpg fuel economy requirement.

Plug-in hybrids were only on display as concept or demonstration models. Chevrolet showed its Volt, which should enter selected markets later this year. According the long-legged girl presenting the model, it can do 40 miles in full-electric mode, allegedly enough for 76% of American daily commuter trips. A range-extender on board can kick in and generate electricity from regular gasoline to make the car go for another 200 miles. The Volt looked quite nice to me, but not as hot as its big brother on the other side fo the aisle: the Cadillac Converj concept car. There was very aerodynamically shaped electric sports model with (just like the Volt) a range extender. What's more, natural materials were used for the interior, like mulched and compressed bamboo and organic LED displays. Very very nice, but, unfortunately, whether this concept car will ever make it to the showrooms remains a question. As the lady presenter told the audience, most questions are about its color.

Barefoot running

I've become increasingly intrigued by barefoot and forefoot running as it just makes much sense to me as a more natural, efficient and elegant technique. And now here's a piece of quantitative evidence: runners out there, you've got to watch this video.

I'm actually quite surprised that this isn't a long resolved issue. I guess it has something to do with asphalt being the major surface most people are running on (try running barefoot on pavement for the first time and it won't be long before the blood comes out) and, that's my little theory, the calf-strength required which starters may not develop before running into their first injuries. Besides, there's the interests of the incumbent sportswear industry. In the same time a new industry around barefoot running is developing quickly; see e.g. the prducers ecco biom, vibram, nike free and feelmax, and a range of methods like pose and chi, and instructions for those.

In the video, look how the calves are shaking at heel strike, while staying firm at forefoot strike. As I said, barefoot running makes sense to me. I think it was due to some injury that out of fear for overloading I have become a forefoot runner. And increasingly I am bothered by the large heel cushion in the sole of my trainers. It's in the way all the time. And every time I do hit the ground heel first the impact shocks me. On the other hand, I suspect that forefoot running caused a metatarsal stress fracture in my right foot last year, as it might stress those little bones more on bending. Nevertheless, I find this quite convincing; now here's some serious evidence supporting personal observations and bringing the moment I take off my running shoes closer.

Swollen right foot due to metatarsal stress fracture. June 2009

Admissibility Review Area

Doing my icebreaker speech at the Capital Toastmasters 1 club in DC today is something that could not be taken for granted, so I discovered recently.

When I arrived at Dulles Airport on New Year’s day – Merijn and I had been back in The Netherlands for Merijn's thesis defense and for Christmas with our families - I felt that the worst was over. No bomb had exploded during the descent into Washington and we’d be home soon. It was just a matter of checking through immigration and reclaiming our luggage and we’d be out of here.

Right. So I handed the friendly officer at Immigration my I-94 form and my passport. I was already smiling in his camera and putting my finger on the little glass pad to have my photo and fingerprints taken and waited for the stamps. I knew the drill. He scanned my passport. “You’ve been to the US three times last year?” he asked. “When? For how long?”

He was right. Last June, Merijn went to College Park for a post-doc at the University of Maryland and I was working to follow shortly after. I had come in August for a week on a reconnaissance mission. In September I quit my job in the Netherlands and went to the US for as long as was allowed to look for a job in the DC metro area, including a ticket to stay longer. Whether to blame the economic crisis or my presentation skills, I don’t know, but my job hunt had not been unsuccessful yet and so, here I was again at the immigration officer’s booth.

“Welcome to the United States”, said the man. “No stamps?” I asked. “No stamps.” A bit confused we picked up our luggage and with our forms reaching out we approached customs. “You’ve got a B,” said the lady, “B is that way.” Merijn had no B, she could move on. OK, B it is, whatever, so I was off, through the door leading into a room…where no one was moving. I was like a drop of water in a river that ends up in small side stream flowing into a pool where the water is moving too slowly to see. Suitcases on carts messily lined up. Empty eyes, hanging cheeks. I got nervous, this was trouble.

Above the counter with the B there was a sign that read “Admissibility review area.” Review? Hadn’t the guy just said to me “welcome to the US?" Behind the counter were officers in blue uniforms doing……..doing what? In the three hours that followed, I couldn’t figure it out.

Waiting with me, there were many Arabic looking people, some with children. How long had théy been waiting here, after 20+ hour journeys from the Middle East possibly? Judging from the skewed demographic mix in the room, obviously these people had to answer tough questions and have their luggage searched much more often than me. I was the lucky one, but nevertheless, I felt feelings of anger and fatigue emerge. I cared less and less for actually getting in. Apparently it works, this kind of psychological war.

When the room was almost empty, I was finally called forth by an officer who seemed to take more interest in his colleagues’ whereabouts on New Year’s Eve than in getting me out of here. He searched my wallet, my bags, fished out with two fingers the latest Al Gore book. “Are you an environmental guy?” he asked. I wasn’t sure if that would be a good or a bad thing now, but I could only say “yes.” Amusedly he browsed my notebook. It was humiliating. Thank you, God, that I grew up in a free country. “Ok," he said, "I’m going to let you in. You’ve been honest to me. Believe me, most people are not, it drives me nuts. But you can’t keep on doing this: go out for a short time and then come back for a long time. You’ve got to think, man.” Right! That’s exactly what I’ve been doing: trying to find a solution! I would not want to do anything illegal. It just hadn’t worked out yet.

Finally, I got the stamps. Grabbed my things and walked out, past the sign that I had been looking at for the past four hours and that said: “Welcome to the United States.” Through the doors into the terminal to finally reunite with Merijn, who had been sitting there for six hours without knowing what was going on.

In the bus into town I felt small, closed. Rationally it had been a fair process, understandable. To the officer I was no other than an economic refugee, a fortune seeker. Probably I wás welcome, but I had trouble feeling so. It took me more than a day to get over it. I now blame it on the jet lag and thank the officer for setting a clear time limit for my mission here. Let me now work on competent communication, elevator pitches, etc. and make this work.

The climate change building

Let me share this great cartoon summarizing the climate deal negotiations:

It's from http://www.diplomacy.edu/climate/

Got it forwarded from Alan AtKisson.

MLK jr. day

Today, is MLK Day, the national holiday on which the US commemorate one of their great acronyms, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., born January 15, 1929. Public institutions are closed, as are universities and schools. MLK day is a day of service, of volunteer projects. In DC alone, there are close to 100 initiatives, varying from discussions about race equality to cleaning up public spaces. A friend of my brother's knew about this and suggested doing our bit.
So this morning we cycled to JO Wilson Elementary School on K Street Northeast (home of the JO Wilson Cardinals) to help Ms. Wheeler, Ms. Smith and colleagues clearing their classrooms of broken or useless equipment, books, furniture etc. Ms. Wheeler told the 30 to 40 volunteers who had shown up with us that the school was preparing for a major renovation due in May this year. It was time to get rid of all the surplus material. In the process of throwing things out, we should not let ourselves be held back by sentimentality, she told us, as this was likely the reason that all this stuff was still there. The next three hours we were busy carrying all things down into the commons area and sorting them out. On the upper floors Ms. Fudge had positioned herself strategically to oversee the whole floor from an intersection of corridors, on ground level in the commons area, Ms. Smith held everything comfortably under control and gave directions where to put everything. If I asked what to do next, she always had a command ready, keeping all volunteers satisfied.
I cane across some interesting stuff. There was text book on "the American way of life", apparently something that doesn't come naturally and has to be taught. And above the class rooms the name of the room and of the teacher were shown in French, the proof of a passionate French teacher. Nothing wrong with it, but it puzzled me why elementary school kids in the US should be taught French? Apparently MLK had been a theme in class, too, because on the walls there were several creations featuring the historic icon.
Around noon Ms. Wheeler got nervous, as the 140 (!) volunteers she expected for the second shift - for moving a hall full of trash onto the parking lot for shipment or disposal - didn't show up. When we were taking a break in the conference room, loading up for the second wave to stand in for the missing army of volunteers, red-shirted consultants from Accenture were starting to drop in, saving the day for Ms. Wheeler. She'd be fine. We dismissed ourselves, said good bye to Ms. Fudge c.s. and agreed that we hadn't come in vain.

And now the commemoration part: one of the greatest speeches in history, delivered August 28, 1963, on the steps of the monument in which two more historical speeches, by Lincoln, are engraved, and which has become my favorite place in Washington, DC. It has done a lot of good, but today, 46 years later, 147 years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, still, everyday, on the streets of DC and in the confrontation with my own prejudices, there is inescapable evidence that the "Dream" dreamt more than 46 years ago has not fully come true yet.

Meaning of Copenhagen? It depends....

A new world order is taking the stage; in Copenhagen the G8 has been replaced by the C5, is what Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, told journalists this morning at the National Press Club, where he briefed the media on "Environmental Stories to Watch in 2010." Most of the talk and the questions focused on the meaning of the remarkable developments at the COP15 in Copenhagen. What happened was so unusual and the interpretations so diverse (ranging from "disaster" to "success"), that the only serious conclusion as to what it will mean is "don't know." A small group of heads-of-states, representing over half of the world's population, sitting together personally for multiple hours to forge an agreement, is unprecedented. A clear target (less than 2ºC mean global warming) in an international agreement is (apparently) unprecedented (although published emission reduction commitments fall far short). However, many things are still unclear, but Lash observed that a this initiative broke through "15 years of disfunction" of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, under which a global climate deal was supposed to be negotiated. This failed in Copenhagen.
And where was Europe? Is it out of the game? Was it a shame - as some have said - that it wasn't at the table when the C5 negotiated?  (What's that C for? Copenhagen? Climate? No one asked or told.*) Well, no. Europe wasn't the problem after all, said Lash, it was the disagreement between the USA and the emerging economies that was the blockage. Europe had put clear and ambitious goals at the table long before Copenhagen. If it manages to create a strong presidency, with a mandate to represent the European Union, it will be back at the table.

*The C is for Copenhagen, Jonathan Lash mentions in this Guardian article.

Find complete coverage (incl. video, slides, transcript) on WRI's website here.
Read the Treehugger account of the event here.