| Name |
Websites
|
|
| A123 Systems | ||
| Borrego Solar | ||
| Cape Wind | ||
| Clean Power Now | ||
| Commonwealth Solar | ||
| Evergreen | ||
| Lighthouse Electrical | ||
| MIT-Fraunhofer Center | ||
| Nexamp | ||
| SEBANE, the Solar Energy Business Association of New England | ||
| Solar Revolution Project | ||
| Solectria | ||
| SunEthanol |
Please share widely!
This is an important initative for the state’s future.
<
p>It can also be very important for the governor’s future as well.
After the casino debacle, Governor Patrick needs to establish a new brand. He needs to take every possible step to be seen as the Governor who works tirelessly to advance the state’s economy and its economic future. This calls for a great deal of message discipline to the point where the average voter on seeing or hearing Governor Patrick immediately thinks of plans to bolster the state’s economy and of plans to secure the state’s environmental future.
Our collective frustration with rising energy prices, and all the trickle down costs, should create public support for our Governor if he can actively address the problem. However, we must recognize that the problem extends far beyond the Commonwealth, so a national, and even world-wide, commitment is necessary. Notwithstanding the enormity of the challenge, we must start somewhere, and the Governor appears to be willing to pick up the baton and start running with it.
<
p>There are those who say the problem is too big – how many solar panels will be required to replace our fossil fuel dependency? How many wind turbines to achieve the same? “Impossible” they say! But one small step not only provides a clean alternative, but at the same time marginally reduces the market forces on the price of the fossil commodities. We cannot let any such relaxation on price diminish our determination to aggressively continue the fight.
<
p>As the Governor stated, Massachusetts is not in a good situation relative to energy, we have little, and we use a lot. And this imbalance is negative for our economy, especially now with the quadrupling of energy costs under the Bush stewardship. So our challenge is to use less energy, while not compromising our ability to grow economically in other respects, and to acquire more energy, without paying exorbitant prices, nor destroying our environment in the process.
<
p>Using less energy while continuing to grow requires improved efficiency. There are many ways to improve, but we could maximize the payoff of investments in this direction by concentrating our efforts on the use of electricity. Whether it be our automobiles, our lighting, our power motors, if we make electricity the source of power we can focus the research for efficiency in those areas, as well as its aquisition and distribution systems.
<
p>Acquiring clean energy is a challenge for Massachusetts. Our high density population uses a lot, and the relatively small area does not absorb a proportional amount of energy, nor does it have fossil reserves. However, our landscape does have some advantages for capturing “realtime” energy, both from water power as it descends through our State, wind at our seashore, and possibly even the higher tides we experience. Our status in the research of nanotechnology may provide options to more effectively capture the power of the Sun in solar panels, but it should also provide some means for more efficiency in its use.
<
p>As far as extending the Massachusetts efforts in this arena to the Nation, the Governor may have some additional leverage through his association with Barack Obama should he be successful in his own campaign. But, we should not wait for the Nation, we have enough frustration, enough intelligence to start this journey with purpose right here in Massachusetts.
<
p>Interesting, but I’m not so sure I agree; rather, I’m sure I don’t completely agree.
<
p>It’s true that MA does have enough wind, tidal, solar, and biomass resources to generate plenty of electricity for the state. It’s also true that those electrical resources can be used to cut into fuel use, thereby reducing fossil fuel consumption.
<
p>But, that one-third of energy that goes towards transportation [nearly all petroleum] can be cut dramatically with public transit policy and zoning policy. Expand the T, buses, and commuter rail. Make parking more expensive and scarce through zoning, taxes, meters, and other policies. Make driving more expensive through taxes & fees, etc. Make taking public transit (or no transit) cheaper and faster and more convenient through expansion, more runs per day on the routes, lower prices, better sidewalks & crosswalks, more bike lanes and bike paths, etc. We’ve talked about Smart Growth for over a decade, let’s actually implement it by reducing zoning requirements for size and parking near public transit locations, so that development will take place in ways that reduce per capita fuel use for transit.
<
p>While we’re on zoning, let’s also zone (and amend building codes) to require more efficient buildings. Of course, building green in terms of insulation and other efficiency is important, but it’s also important to notice that larger buildings have a lower energy requirement per square foot, and that smaller homes require less energy per person — so, bigger buildings with smaller units results in a much lower per capita energy usage, and not much of that is electrical: most of those savings are in oil and gas. Electric heating is horribly inefficient (thanks a lot, Thermodynamics, 2nd law!), so these savings will save expenditures on oil and gas directly.
<
p>And that reminds me — you really want to find electrical savings, you make it illegal for buildings to charge electricity per square foot for tenants greater than 5000 square feet. Electrical meters are cheap, and by charging per square foot instead of by actual usage, there’s no incentive for the tenant to turn out the lights, turn off the computers, or otherwise save electricity. I’d change building codes to make it so that new construction [and major renovations] makes sure that tenants pay their actual heat and cooling too… too many tenants, both commercial and residential, waste tremendous heat and cooling too because they don’t pay their costs directly, and therefore nobody worries about making sure the system is efficient. You’d get more savings there in both oil & gas as well as electricity [during peak demand, where it’s the most costly in price and environmental impact].
<
p>As the price of energy goes up, those who pay the electrical and oil & gas bills are thinking much more carefully about how to reduce wasteful practices. If a 50,000+ sq ft building hasn’t focused on saving energy within the past five years, I’d bet that I could go in and reduce their energy consumption by 10-20% for under $20,000 in investment, resulting in about a 0.8-1.4 year payback. But why should NStar et al worry about trying to reduce the demand for their own product? If not those guys, who will generate “negawatts” — demand reduction?
I agree with your overall strategy. I didn’t mean to limit the overall effort to the electricity component, but rather to focus research effort on that form, as opposed to, for example, making the internal combustion engine more efficient. Certainly mass transit is a great example of energy efficiency in moving people, and we could go to the next level by reducing the need for those moves by strategies that enhanced telecommuting.