How clean is your technology?

Many are confused by the number of terms being slung around in the Green Arena today. One of the most common is “Clean Tech.”

Clean Tech, which is short for clean technology, is often used interchangeably with the term green technology. However, clean tech is broader in scope and is driven by market economics (versus regulations). Clean tech covers several industry sectors, including: energy generation, storage and efficiency, transportation, building, manufacturing, recycling and waste management, and agriculture.

Essentially, though, the term cleantech refers to products or services that reduce or eliminate our negative environmental impact while improving the sustainable use of our natural resources. Cleantech products or services not only provide better performance, they often do so at lower costs.

According to the Cleantech Group, LLC, clean tech venture investments in North America, Europe, China and India totaled $8.4 billion in 2008, up almost 40% from 2007; however those figures dropped sharply in the first quarter of 2009 as cleantech investments underwent a “period of transition.”

Nonetheless, based on a 2009 survey of venture capitalists around the world, the National Venture Capital Association predicted “The cleantech sector is poised to become the leading investment category….” And the London-based New Energy World Network has reported: “More substantial funding is coming with the US American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), which contains over $100bn of dollars in direct spending, loan guarantees and incentives to promote the development of cleantech in energy, water and environment.”

30 Years of Nuclear Power

Thirty years ago this month an incident occurred near Middletown, Pennsylvania which has changed the landscape of energy production in America. At four o’clock in the morning, the main feedwater pumps at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant stopped running, causing a series of automatic systems shut-downs which ultimately led to a “loss of coolant accident.” No deaths or injuries occurred to any personnel or to residents of the surrounding area; but nuclear power production in the United States suffered a crippling blow. Not a single nuclear power plant has been licensed in the USA since that year.

Even before climate change became a concern, many experts warned that we needed to build nuclear power plants to meet the growing demand for electricity in the United States. Today, as concerns about carbon emissions increase, so too do the chances for nuclear power. Like it or not, nuclear power is one of the few technologies available for base load power generation. Base load power plants are designed to provide power 24/7. Most of us could care less about base load versus peak load power generation…until we experience an outage of some sort.

Compared to the greenhouse gases and other air pollutants emitted by coal power plants—another sources of base load power—nuclear power plants are one of the cleanest sources of energy. In fact, if it weren’t for the radiation—or, more to the point, the fear of radiation—nuclear power would be the ideal source of base load power in the United States today.

For the most part, we seem to have developed an unspoken “don’t ask, don’t tell” philosophy towards those nuclear power stations currently in operation in this country. Most of my neighbors, for example, have no idea that we live within 20 miles of a nuclear power facility or that we get approximately 20 percent of our electricity from that facility.

Most Americans don’t know that current advances in technology could render the type of accident that happened at Three Mile Island virtually obsolete. Nor do they know that over 95 percent of spent fuel can be recycled (though not in the United States due to political concerns). They don’t know that spent fuel is currently being stored on-site at many nuclear facilities around the United States or that the debate over the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which has spanned two decades and reportedly cost Americans $13.5 billion, is now officially over.

Polls show that the average American is not averse to nuclear energy, as long as we don’t have a nuclear power plant in our backyard. In other words, as long as we don’t see it, we can pretend it’s not really there and that the electricity we use in our homes and businesses just magically appears.

But those things are changing. Soon, we are going to have to get off the fence and take a stand on hard issues like how much we’re really willing to pay for the increase in our utilities if they are powered by “clean” coal and whether or not we are willing to recycle or store nuclear waste in order to continue to run our air conditioners.

As of 2006, one nuclear reactor is still in operation at Three Mile Island, though it only accounts for 9 percent of the state’s total nuclear generation. In the United States, Pennsylvania ranks 2nd in total nuclear capacity. The state is also one of the top coal producers in the country and ranks 4th highest in the United States for carbon dioxide emission—the most common greenhouse gas—2nd highest for sulfur dioxide emissions and 5th highest for nitrogen oxide, both major air pollutants emitted by coal power plants.

All of which leads me to wonder: If I had to choose between living next to a coal power plant or living next to a nuclear power facility, where would I rather be? At the end of the day, I guess I’m not that uncomfortable living where I do.


Note: Please feel free to contact me for a list of resources used in this article. Also, for more interesting facts about nuclear power, read Jessica A. Knoblauch’s commentary online at E/The Environmental Magazine.

Greenpeace -- Clean power

Thursday, Greenpeace is throwing Clean Power to the People parties across the country. These parties, whose goal is to get people together on a grass-roots, community level to “end coal’s stranglehold over Washington,” are a precursor to the March 2nd Capitol Climate Action—“the largest mass civil disobedience for climate in U.S. history,” which will be held at the Capitol Power Plant in Washington D.C.

According to The Washington Post, the Capitol Power Plant produces steam and chilled water which are used to heat and cool many of the most prominent government buildings on Capitol Hill, including the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, it also produces sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, fine particulates, and other pollutants, including greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. Located a few blocks from the Capitol building, the Capitol Power Plant has come to epitomize everything about old government thinking that activists want to change.

The fact that the plant is still in operation, even as today’s government leaders are espousing the benefits of greening our public buildings, is symbolic to many of the hold that big coal has over our decision makers. But I think it is also indicative of the conundrum that many of us are facing as we get down to actually making substantive changes to our business-as-usual routines.

The United States has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more coal reserves than any other country in the world. About half of all electricity generated in this country comes from coal-fired power plants; and, in some areas, such as West Virginia and Kentucky, over 90 percent of the electricity generated comes from coal. Is it any wonder, then, that efforts to eliminate coal from the Capitol Power Plant have reportedly been “thwarted” by Senators from those states?

It’s easy for me to say we should eliminate coal from our power mix. I live in a state which generates only a meager one percent of its electricity from coal. On the other hand, asking those states which are in the 90th percentile to eliminate coal from their power mix at this point in time is tantamount to asking them to go back to the Stone Age. Sorry Greenpeace. Not to be a party pooper, but that’s not going to happen.

So, what is the answer?

For some, the answer lies in utilizing Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology to produce “clean” coal. With IGCC technology, coal is converted into a gas, from which pollutants are removed before it is burned in the turbines that drive the electric generators. The heat produced by those turbines is then recovered and used to produce steam, which is also used to generate electricity. Proponents claim this technology dramatically reduces emissions while producing more power. Opponents claim the whole idea of clean coal is an oxymoron. For them, the money needed to construct so-called clean coal power plants would be better spent on developing truly renewable technologies such as geothermal, solar or wind power.

But are we really prepared to walk away from one of this country’s biggest sources of energy?

That’s the million dollar question and one which the people of Austin, Texas answered when they were faced with the prospect of having to build a power plant to generate additional electricity. They opted, instead, to implement city-wide energy efficiency and green building programs, which reduced the need for energy to such an extent that the power plant never had to be constructed. Austin Energy, which was one of the EPA’s 2008 Climate Award Winners, is currently on track to offset the need for another 700 megawatt power plant and to provide 30 percent of its power mix with renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and even land fill gas, by 2020. Even so, Austin still gets about a third of its power from coal. And, while the city has shown that it has tremendous resolve to act sustainably, it takes time to change from one power source to another.

In the meantime, the question isn’t so much how we can get our representatives in Washington to make that change. The real question is to what extent each of us is willing to alter our lives in order to make pulverized coal-fired power plants a thing of the past. Are we willing to conserve energy or to be more energy efficient? Are we willing to make the infrastructural changes to our own homes—install energy efficient roofs, windows, heating and air conditioning systems, etc.? Are we willing to pay a little extra to buy green power from our energy providers or perhaps even install onsite power systems ourselves? Because, bottom line, if we don’t buy it, energy providers will stop selling it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But some day.

Don’t get me wrong, I think marching on Washington is a great way to make a statement about the importance of using clean power. But if that’s all we do, then we’ve wasted our time…and energy. At the end of the day, it’s not what Washington decides that will make the difference; it’s the actions we take (or don’t take) in our own homes and businesses that will change our world. So party hard this Thursday. Just make sure to turn the lights off when you leave.