So What's a Smart Grid Anyway? It's More Power to Ya.

Image by horizontal.integration via Flickr

What is a Smart Grid? Perhaps it is easier to start with what a Smart Grid is NOT.

A Smart Grid is not a bunch of one-way meters spinning around as you consume and a guy who drives around checking the meter periodically, sometimes correcting assumptions made by your electric company about your energy consumption and sometimes not.

A Smart Grid is not a grid that is subject to the whims of weather, mischievous squirrels, bird strikes or spikes in consumption by millions of users.

So, what is a Smart Grid, then?

The good folks at Inhabitat.com put it this way:

A smart grid delivers electricity using digital technology that tracks power consumption with smart meters, special electrical meters that instantly transmit energy usage information to utilities via wireless networks. Smart meters also let us track our own energy use hour-by-hour on the Internet and with third-party computer programs.

Basically, we're talking about real-time, two-way communication between you or your business and your utility provider. This helps manage usage and flow and consumption, can help predict spikes and shift sources rapidly in response to changing needs.

And if you have solar panels, wind turbines, plug-in hybrid vehicles or any other potential generating source, smart grid technology will help you feed that into the mix, so that you become a generator, not just a consumer.

Toronto Star energy writer Tyler Hamilton describes it this way:

The true vision of the smart grid is a self-healing, automated grid that can manage complex flows of electrons, from the hundreds — potentially thousands — of large and small sources of power to the millions of homes, businesses, industrial customers and, potentially, electric cars that require that energy.

Okay, so basically, a Smart Grid is like a brain for energy distribution. Nerve endings all over your body send information back to the brain telling the brain when you are too hot or too cold; that you need more energy in one part of the body or another (exercise and eating, for instance, have different requirements in different regions of the body); and helps you regulate your every action.

Many players are getting involved in the act, from the federal government, which recently allocated $3.3B to Smart Grid technology development, to start-ups and even large companies like IBM and Google.

Google's PowerMeter, which they describe as being in prototype, will receive information from utility smart meters and energy management devices and provide anyone who signs up access to your home electricity consumption right on your iGoogle homepage.

Imagine being able to track and manage your own energy consumption so that you know when it will be least expensive to do your laundry or watch that episode of "Lost" that you Tivo'd. (Of course, that time is probably overnight when you are asleep, but nevertheless...)

Essentially a Smart Grid will put more power in the hands of consumers and make them partners with utilities rather than simply customers or rate payers. In the last analysis, a Smart Grid is just what it sounds like: smart.

Here are more resources on the concept of a Smart Grid:

Wired article from March 2009

Earth2Tech.com FAQ, which includes a list of companies working on various components for making the grid smarter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Creating an Electricity System to Serve the Digital Age: Ontario Smart Grid Forum Issues Recommendations (newswire.ca)
• Electric cars and the smart grid (makezine.com)
• A Little Give and Take on Electricity (nytimes.com)
• Intel to host smart-grid standards confab (news.cnet.com)
• Google crashes smart grid party (news.cnet.com)
• Smart-grid project matches wind to electric cars (news.cnet.com)
• Google Taking a Step Into Power Metering (nytimes.com)
• Technology's Fingerprints on the Stimulus Package (nytimes.com)
• Google PowerMeter (kottke.org)
• I want the Smart Grid! (shannonturlington.com)
• Can the DOE stimulate the smart grid? (arstechnica.com)

Agree to Disagree: Cap-and-Trade vs. Carbon Tax?

NASA’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen, says he hopes that climate legislation proposed by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman (CA) and Edward Markey (MA) to introduce carbon emissions trading to the United States fails.

Hansen says lawmakers should abandon cap-and-trade initiatives altogether and implement a simple carbon tax instead, according to Nathanial Gronewold, a reporter at Environment & Energy Publishing.

"Trading of rights to pollute...introduces speculation and makes millionaires on Wall Street," Hansen told an audience at a conference hosted by Columbia University climate policy students on Saturday. "I hope cap and trade doesn’t pass, because we need a much more effective approach."

This may be a nice way to curry favor with student environmentalists, but is it smart? According to Reuters, even the Chinese are considering a carbon tax over cap-and-trade. What's the difference, really?

Under a cap-and-trade program, the government will set the overall emissions cap and issue allowances or credits to businesses to pollute at a set amount. A company that reduces its emissions quickly and cheaply can auction their extra credits to another that, because of the nature of its business or available technology, may find it more difficult to comply with the caps.

This market-based approach helps ensure that overall caps are met at the lowest possible cost. Cap-and-trade has been modeled after the U.S. effort to control acid rain pollution, which saw greater reductions at lower costs than originally anticipated.

Under a carbon tax, such as that proposed by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), emitters are required to pay a tax for every ton of pollution they produce. Carbon taxes lend predictability to energy prices, according to supporters, who claim that cap-and-trade systems will simply aggravate price volatility and adversely affect consistent investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

But, argue cap-and-trade supporters, such a system also provides certainty: it fixes the ceiling on emissions (stepping it down over time) and lets the price vary with demand.

Despite rhetoric on both sides, neither system is really more complex than the other, as each requires often difficult monitoring and enforcement.

Cap-and-trade and carbon tax do share another issue: what to do with the proceeds? The Obama administration seems to favor distributing 10 percent of the proceeds to American citizens; others, including Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), would return 90 percent to Americans. Still others call that highway robbery.

Now, Jim Hansen says we'll create a bunch of robber barons on Wall Street if we go this route. But a carbon tax will simply create bigger government, or at least help pay for the biggering and biggering the government has done since last fall.

As readers of the green skeptic know, I firmly believe we won't make the shift until one of two things happens: 1.) we can make boatloads of money off of addressing the issue or 2.) oil prices go through the roof and supply plummets to worse than anticipated levels.

Rep. Markey claims his Bill, the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (HR 6186), or iCAP, is a cap-and-invest strategy.

President Obama has already included a line item for cap-and-trade in his budget, which clearly signals the Administration's preference for capping global warming pollution, auctioning all the emission allowances, and investing $15 billion per year in clean energy.

Wither a tax? It's probably, as every politician knows, an idea that is dead on arrival. And it is looking less and less likely we'll get a decent cap-and-trade program in place any time soon. So, perhaps we should just focus, as blogger Gar Lipow suggested in Grist, "on pushing for green infrastructure, paid for the moment by 10-year bonds with a 3 percent interest rate."

If time is money and we're running out of time, then why not support an approach that will generate more money and maybe, just maybe, buy us some time?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Oil Industry Ready to Work on Global Warming (nytimes.com)
• Democrats Unveil Ambitious Global Warming Bill (nytimes.com)
• Carbon trading 'undermined by boom and bust' (guardian.co.uk)
• European carbon trading scheme will not cut power sector emissions, MPs told (guardian.co.uk)
• Back to future for Liberals on carbon tax (nationalpost.com)
• China studies carbon tax (financialpost.com)
• On Climate Change, Henry Waxman Wants Congress to Act Now (usnews.com)
• Tax What You Don't Want: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• David Roberts: Carbon Tax is a Poison Pill (huffingtonpost.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

On Learning to Fail Fast

The best advice I've heard all week? Learn to fail fast.

A couple of weeks ago, in this blog I was wrestling with the question of whether my idea for a green investing platform was a failure or not.

After a few conversations with advisory board members and investors, I realized that I need to give myself permission to declare this idea a failure -- for now -- and move on. Why?

Everyone I talked to says the investing climate is the worst they've ever seen. Deals are taking longer, money is staying on the sidelines, and valuations are completely out of whack.

As I understand it, deals that took two months are now taking six or nine, while many investors play a waiting game. This just exacerbates the slowing rate at which deals can get done and makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to close deals.

And for an idea like mine, which is really still in its infancy, the current climate makes it nearly impossible to get the jump start it needs.

Then I came across Brad Feld's post of a couple of nights ago, on Mark Pincus and the concept of failing fast.

If you haven't read this piece or watched Pincus's interview on Vator.tv, do yourself a favor and go do so now.

It doesn't matter whether you are working on a start-up, a business unit in a big company, a social enterprise, or developing a product, the advice is golden: learn to fail fast and learn from the experience.

I'll be back with another idea and will be, as Feld says in his post, "super-extraordinary-amazingly hungry for a success."

Related articles by Zemanta

• What comes to your mind when someone says Venture Capital? (texasstartupblog.com)
• VC or Angel Money? (usnews.com)
• Brad Feld Talks Startups (killerblog.com)
• VC Model Is Not Broken: Insights from Brad Feld of TechStars and Foundry Group (xconomy.com)
• Why Focusing on Innovation Success Rates Misses the Point (blogs.harvardbusiness.org)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Philly to be America's Number One Green City by 2015, Says Mayor Nutter

Philly Mayor Michael A. Nutter and the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability today announced Greenworks Philadelphia, an ambitious, comprehensive framework to make Philadelphia the greenest city in the United States of America by 2015.

It sets goals in five areas — energy, environment, equity, economy and engagement — and encompasses more than 150 initiatives. Together, they will reduce the city’s vulnerability to rising energy prices, limit its environmental footprint, and reposition its workforce and job development strategies to build upon Philadelphia’s competitive advantages in the emerging green economy.

"Greenworks Philadelphia is a vision for how Philadelphia can and should seize this moment, building on the assets of the city left to us by the past and creating a better future for ourselves, our children and generations to come," said Mayor Nutter.

Greenworks Philadelphia seeks to make more homes and buildings weather-tight, increase recycling and minimize trash, give residents better access to parks and fresh food, and capture the benefits of solar and geothermal energy. It envisions planting thousands of trees, equipping the municipal fleet with less-polluting engines and expanding green job training, so plenty of Philadelphia’s workers have the skills to retrofit buildings and install solar arrays.

For more info: www.phila.gov/green/mos.html or www.greenworksphila.org or a full copy of the report.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Green Scene: Sustainable Philadelphia (phillyist.com)
• Creating New Jobs By Investing In Renewable Energy And Energy Efficiency (treehugger.com)
• King: Green jobs grow slowly in Philadelphia (cnn.com)

Clean Coal: Like It or Not, We Need to Figure It Out

We burn coal. We can't ignore it. It's a plentiful resource and fuels the cheap electricity we use everyday. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

Don't get me wrong, I hate things like mountaintop removal and the dangers coal-miners have to face every day. But I'm a realist and I don't believe we're going to be able to transition fast enough to alternatives to completely eliminate coal from our energy diet.

My pal Gregor MacDonald had a stimulating post on Earth Day that generated some lively dialogue on the subject in which he argued that it's hard to win a fight against a cheap BTU. Gregor is smarter than I am on this subject, so you should definitely check out his blog: Gregor.us.

Readers of the green skeptic know that I think there is a need for some serious R&D into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and that we need to figure out whether we can really make coal clean.

As I wrote in my comment on Gregor's post: I know this isn't a popular view, but coal is still so cheap and plentiful that it's hard to ignore. Of course, there are those who say it can't be done and others who say we'll hit peak coal before getting the technology right. If we do nothing, however, and others continue to ramp up coal production in its dirtiest form, where will we be?

On Sunday night, 60 Minutes featured a story on Clean Coal, including interviews with both Duke Energy's CEO Jim Rogers and NASA's climate scientist James Hansen:


Watch CBS Videos Online

Worth watching.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Environmentally friendly coal - you're kidding (isiria.wordpress.com)
• Jeff Biggers: BREAKING NEWS: Capitol Action: 1 Dirty Coal: 0 (huffingtonpost.com)
• Stimulus Money Puts Clean Coal Projects on a Faster Track (nytimes.com)
• Dirty claims on clean coal (guardian.co.uk)
• Mountaintop Removal: Look at what Coal Mining Companies like Duke Energy Are Doing (iflizwerequeen.com)
• EPA says it could block mountaintop coal permits (sciam.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Energy Use in Buildings Can Be Cut by 60 Percent, WBCSD Study Says

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) announced the results of a study that shows how energy use in buildings can be cut by 60 percent by 2050, but noted that it will require immediate action to transform the building sector.

The four-year, $15 million research project released its report today in Paris at the Alliance to Save Energy’s EE Global Forum and Exposition. Transforming the Market: Energy Efficiency in Buildings, as the report is known, uses new modeling techniques and provides a roadmap to transform the building sector.

"Energy efficiency is fast becoming one of the defining issues of our times, and buildings are that issue's 'elephant in the room'," said Björn Stigson, president of the WBCSD, in a press release. "Buildings use more energy than any other sector and as such are a major contributor to climate change."

According to the WBCSD, the "project took a bottom-up, market-driven approach to understanding the barriers to lower energy use, based on the most detailed view ever of the current state of energy demand in buildings. Energy use by building type was analyzed for millions of existing and new buildings and projected out to 2050, accounting for differences such as climate and building design."

Researchers used computer simulations to show the market response to various financial, technical, behavioral, and policy options, identifying the optimum mix to achieve transformation for each market studied, according to WBCSD.

The project's report makes six principle recommendations:

• Strengthen building codes and energy labeling for increased transparency.
• Use subsidies and price signals to create incentives for energy-efficient investments.
• Encourage integrated design approaches and innovations.
• Develop and use advanced technology to enable energy-saving behavior.
• Develop workforce capacity for energy saving.
• Mobilize for an energy-aware culture. (Whatever that means - GS)

The full report is available on the World Business Council for Sustainable Development website: EEB Report

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pondering the Sustainable Consumption Conundrum (futurelab.net)
• Ontario to Make Buildings More Energy Efficient (newswire.ca)
• Do These Events Do Any Good? (alan.com)
• How Should Local Planning Commissions Reward Energy Efficiency? (barrier-busting.com)
• A crash course in emerging technologies (core77.com)
• World's top businesses call for green G20 deal (businessgreen.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">