Sustainability is still young enough in the minds of Americans for most of us to think of it as only being associated with buying hybrids, using CFLs and recycling our bottles and cans. In reality, sustainability is an encompassing topic that affects every aspect of how we live in a perpetual search for balance. When it comes to sustainability, our economy has a long way to go, but having Americans revert from their incessant spending of money (that we often don’t have) and actually saving so that we can afford things that we want is a step in the right direction.
An article in the Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the fact that credit card borrowing in the U.S. decreased for an 11th month in a row—an unprecedented occurrence since the Federal Reserve Bank began keeping track of the figures in 1943. According to the Fed, borrowing in the fourth quarter decreased at an annual 4.75%. Not only were Americans borrowing less, but saving more to boot. The article reported that savings as a percentage of personal income had risen to 4.6% in 2009 from 2.7% in 2008.
National efforts for efficiency and conservation continue to lead us to analyze aspects of daily life to find opportunities ripe for sustainable progress. Our transportation infrastructure is one of the largest and most energy intensive systems that our country needs to function. As a result, every time a mode of transportation is pitched it comes laden with facts and figures as to how it is responding to our needs for increased efficiency. But across the board, how do all of these various players (hybrids, buses, planes, trains) stack up in the amount of energy it takes to get someone from one place to another?
With a growing pressure from the government, our economy is beginning to weigh the costs and benefits of reviewing our means of transportation and deciding which deserve promotion while others are best left unaided. Only last week President Obama announced his landmark (albeit under-funded) promotion of High Speed Rail with the doling out of $8 billion in loans. As Americans, our transportation choices decide the course of huge amounts of GDP. When one considers automotive sales, public transit funding and commercial aircraft the order of magnitude is already in hundreds of billions of dollars. It is no surprise that industries are all fighting to shift the course of the next two decades towards their respective products.
On his trip to Florida, President Obama revealed his list of recipients for the High Speed Rail funding portion of the federal stimulus package. Reportedly, the $8 billion pot will be split amongst projects and planning in 31 different states to promote faster, more efficient transit across the U.S. There are numerous parts of our country’s railroad network that the Department of Transportation has designated as potential high speed rail corridor and most of them would benefit from developing such a revolutionary system. On the other hand, not all track beds are alike when the available funds are supposed to promote jobs, provide perceived benefit and comprise a mere fraction of the funding ultimately needed to institute HSR on a national scale.
Politicians can think of few better ways to win public support than giving out free money. Coming the night after the State of the Union, this was a perfect time to publicly dole out the public’s own cash. It is not surprising that the administration would want to make as many constituencies feel better as possible, but sometimes endeavors (such as vast, highly technological, infrastructural upgrades) need a certain degree of critical mass. Otherwise, the result can be a watered down series of half-finished, under-funded tasks that only leaves people frustrated.
In this case, the choice of how to allocate funding for projects of this magnitude are (or at least should be) rather difficult; determined by a number of different factors. Still mired in a lethargic pace of recovery, the economy is searching for job opportunities and the President is pitching this distribution as the road to job creation. This means that projects that are closer to “shovel ready,” the better.
Building new HSR systems is extremely expensive, second only to subways when considering the realm of alternative transit. An estimated example can be drawn from the proposed California line from Los Angeles to San Francisco has estimated costs upwards of $45 billion that would translate into $130 million per track mile. The distance that needs to be covered becomes important quickly. Given that this quick boost of funding is not going to bring any project from start to finish, someone should also be weighing the likelihood that state governments will have to means to complete the projects themselves. Naturally, California is a standout, seeking to create a $45 transit system while their government is bankrupt.
In order to have a chance at operating at higher capacities (and efficiencies), these trains should also be connecting cities that not only have considerable populations, but have mature transit systems of their own, realizing that HSR is only a piece of the ecology of alternative transit. It could be anti-climactic to travel 400 miles in two hours only to take another hour to travel 40 blocks.
Dear Mr. Droz,
I recently came across an article on Cleantech.com that lead me to your presentation critiquing wind power. The decree that wind power is “an insult to science and mankind” seems a bit alarmist and wrought with exaggeration. I understand that you have labeled wind power as a deficient source of power generation and based this conclusion on seven points of criteria that you claim reasonable power sources should strive to meet. These points include:
- Can it provide large amounts of electricity?
- Can it provide reliable and predictable electricity?
- Can it provide dispatchable energy?
- Can it serve as more than one grid element?
- Can its facility be compact?
- Can it provide economical energy?
- Can it make a consequential reduction in carbon dioxide?
According to you, wind energy has failed all but the first point, after which you claim it to be an overly expensive, intermittent and restrictive form of energy production–something the world should stop devoting time and money towards. Instead, we should focus on improving our existing technologies so that they can be improved and better utilized to achieve environmental progress.
Though your individual assessments cannot be labeled as “incorrect”, I think you are unfairly painting a grim picture of wind energy while denying it both its accolades and opportunities for further improvement. Wind energy is a great industry and one of a number of technologies that will eventually allow us to reduce our environmental impact and reach a more balanced, sustainable society. I think a full critique of wind should include not only the shortcomings (which we all know exist) but the possibilities.
Perhaps the largest bane of renewable energy is its intermittent nature that fails to provide a predictable, steady flow of “baseload” power to the grid. After all, the sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing; waves are not always crashing—but how often are all sources weak at the same time? European countries are embarking on a renewable energy master grid that will pair different technologies in different environments to help mitigate the natural ebb and flow of any one source.
According to an article in the Guardian, nine governments are involved in planning a €30 billion ($43.5 billion) network of high voltage, direct current cable that will connect the renewable power sources indigenous to their respective climates. The players include Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland and the UK. Together they can collectively utilize energy from solar, wave generation, tidal, wind, geothermal and hydro-electric.
While in the midst of an economy that is still viewed as fragile, state governments are limited in their ability to match all of their sustainability goals with appropriate funding. Money that is available, usually in the forms of grants and favorable loans, is small enough to rule out sweeping, societal changes but large enough to make people notice—and at this point that is a worthy goal. There are still far too many people far too uneducated about both threats and solutions.
Solaya Energy LLC and the State of Massachusetts are working together to install a 1.5 MW turbine near the Blandford Rest Area on the Massachusetts Turnpike. The press release from the governor’s office explains that the nearly 400-foot-tall turbine near the center of the 68-acre state-owned site, as well as a kiosk at the Service Area that will provide motorists with information about the turbine and its operation. Producing up to 3,000 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, the turbine could produce sufficient clean energy to power roughly 400 households.
