سبز: جایگاه شما در انقلاب انرژی جدید

Shades of Green – Energy, Economics, and the Environment

Green: Your Place in the New Energy Revolution, Hoffman, Jane and Hoffman, Michael J.
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008, 272 pages, ISBN-10: 0230605443

“May you live in interesting times.” – Old Chinese curse.
“The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast” – Dylan

Jane Hoffman, a policy wonk, and Michael Hoffman, a professional capitalist, have written a terrific book on the challenges and opportunities we face in moving from a fossil fuel based economy to a sustainable energy economy. Their intended audience includes people who think about where the energy they use comes from, who work, or want to work in the field. If you’re in a position in which you make vote, or make policy, then you should read this book. If you’re life expectancy is greater than 4 years, or you have children or grandchildren, then you should read this book. Unless you’re living off the grid, then you should read this book.

The Challenges

1.”Remaining reserves of oil in the world are just enough to last us for another thirty-six to forty-five years.”
2.”The global demand for electricity is projected to grow by 75% in the next 12 years.”
3.Americans threw over 95 billion barrels of oil in the garbage last year by not recycling plastic bottles.
4.Burning fossil fuels pushes tons of greenhouse gases and other things – mercury, oxides of sulphur, and oxides of nitrogen into the air we breathe.

The Opportunities

1.”It is possible to significantly cut the bottom line of your electricity bill by switching to a renewable power source.”
2.Switching to renewable and sustainable energy systems will enhance or national security, our economy, the environment, and our international competitiveness.

A Secure Energy Future, they say, is a function of Renewable Energy, Conservation, and New Technology.

If “assets = liabilities + equity” is the canonical equation of accounting, then the next fundamental equation is:

A Secure Energy Future = Renewable Energy + Conservation + New Technology.

Jane is an expert on consumer issues. Formerly the chair of the Presidential Forum on Renewable Energy, she was also Commissioner of the Dept. of Consumer Affairs in New York City during the Giuliani Administration. Michael, her husband, is managing director of Riverstone Holdings, LLC, where he manages the world’s largest renewable energy fund. He was formerly a senior partner in the Blackstone Group.

The Hoffmans think that we were on a collision course with a cliff, they offer a rational, calm analysis and reasoned argmuents for re-building the economy around a sustainable energy infrastructure. I agree with their thesis, find their arguments to be compelling, and agree with their conclusions.

They start by discussing the problem:

We use 75 million barrels of oil each day, 27.4 billion barrels per year.
43.5 million barrels per day, 58%, is used in transportation.
24.75 million barrels per day, 33%, is used for herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and plastics.
Plastics in bags, water bottles, and packaging – are used once, then discarded.
Plastics that are not recycled will will persist in the environment for hundreds of years.

Altho Jane says she limits the amount of tuna she serves because it contains mercury from burning coal, the Hoffmans don’t dwell on pollution or “health effects.” They focus on energy, the economy, and opportunities. However, it is worth noting that plastics, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers function like toxins in the ecosystems in which they are applied or in which they collect. As Al Gore noted in Washington, “we are borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet.”

The Hoffmans know what we have to do: “Right away, build more efficient cars and an alternative fuels infrastructure.” “Natural gas,” they say, “is a cleaner fossil fuel, it is not a clean fuel.” Coal emits 208,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per billion BTUs of energy. Oil emits 164,000 pounds of CO2 per Billion BTUs. Natural gas emits 117,000 pounds per billion BTUs. As they note, it’s less, but it’s still a lot. It’s “117,000 pounds of CO2 that our atmosphere can ill afford.”

Coal is plentiful and cheap, but dirty. Every ton of coal produces about 3.667 tons of CO2. And “Clean Coal” according to Jane, is “an oxymoron.” But because it produces about 33% of the electricity we use, we can’t just stop cold turkey, it must be phased out. We have to burn coal, if we want our TV’s, radios, iPods, computers, lights, and air conditioners. If we have to burn coal we should do it as cleanly as possible.

The Hoffmans also talk about Carbon Sequestration. In the United States we produce 20.5 tons of CO2 per year. Natural sequestration – the carbon absorbed in trees – is 1.33 tons per 100 years. We would each have to plant 1541 trees per year to offset the carbon we push into the atmosphere. Technological sequestration is not fully developed. The Bush Administration funded research into “clean coal,” and pulled the plug on the Future Gen plant because the $1.8 billion price tag was too high, according to former Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman. The Obama DoE renewed funding on the project, promising an additional $1.073 billion.

Here’s where I agree with Jane that “Clean Coal” is an oxymoron. $1.1 billion additional funding for a 1.1 gigawatt (GW) plant adds $1.00 per watt to the cost of the plant. If it’s a 550 megawatt (MW) plant, then it adds $2.00 per watt. If, like the Polk Power station in Tampa, Florida and the Wabash Plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, this is a 250 MW plant, then it adds $4.00 per watt. Photovoltaic Solar costs roughly $6.50 per watt or $6.50 billion per GW in total. The total cost and capacity of the plant are extremely important data that are missing from the equation. We know that the plant will use 2500 gallons of clean water per minute, and 1.3 billion gallons per year. We need to know the cost of the water, the cost of the fuel, and the cost of cleaning and managing the mercury, arsenic, sulphur, nitrogen – the toxic sludge. One of the fundamental principles of neo-classical accounting is that decisions are made with complete knowledge. Unless we know these costs we can’t make an intelligent decision.

They also say “60% of the facilities we will need in 20 years are not yet under construction.” It appears that Solar is cheaper than coal. And wind is about half the price of solar. If this is the case then “economic man” would choose to build clean renewable energy facilities.

“Nuclear energy fell into disfavor in the 1970s partly in response to the accident at Three Mile Island and then later at Chernobyl. … Mostly, however, it’s a response to the economics of building and maintaining nuclear power plants.” (pg 54)

Hydrogen won’t be “clean” unless it doesn’t come from fossil fuels. The Bush Administration pledged $2.9 Billion to $3.6 Billion to create a hydrogen infrastructure in 5 years. The Bush Adminstration also committed $195 million a day in the war in Iraq – spending in 15 to 18 days what it committed to over 5 years. But the worst thing about the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is that the timeline is 2020 – fitting in well with the people in Detroit who bankrupted GM and Chrysler. We need to move now, and hydrogen is not a near term solution.

The Hoffmans also talk about the green in green – money. $200 billion in U. S. subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in 2007. Not to mention the money spent on “externalities:” asthma, cancer, immune disorders, early death. They call for government investment in solar, wind, geothermal, conservation and research and development.

The Hoffmans conclude with some observation about the future. The U.N. Climate Change Convention in Bali coincided with the rejection by the United States of a “Realistic Energy Bill that will lead to us to develop a secure and sustainable energy future.” The Hoffmans think lawmakers fail to connect the dots from Energy to the Environment and the Economy. “Countries with a Renewable Energy Economy,” they say, will lead. “Others will be at a serious economic disadvantage. We need to throw off the lethargy of ‘What we have always done’ and embrace ‘What is possible.'”

Green: Your Place in the New Energy Revolution is good. It’s focused, calm, and clear. There’s no hyperbole. They Hoffmans are pragmatic optimists, they don’t whitewash the issues, or greenwash bogus technologies. I don’t know if Steven Chu at the Department of Energy should be working for the Hoffmans or the Hoffmans should be working for Dr. Chu. But one thing is certain: The Hoffmans should be working with Obama for the country: Jane Hoffman with Steven Chu at DoE, and Michael Hoffman in the place of Timothy Geitner at Treasury.