But now, something unusual and refreshing:  Environment New Jersey, an environmental advocacy organization, has come up with a plan: Powering New Jersey’s Future.  Instead of the usual rhetoric that goes something like, “this is bad” and “we should be doing something else,” this plan has substance.  As you would expect, the plan recommends a shutdown of the two plants, along with renewable energy initiatives and public conservation measures.  But the plan goes several steps further.  It lays out New Jersey’s current power situation in specific detail, including exactly how much power is being used, when it gets used, and where that power comes from.  It acknowledges, up front, that New Jersey is already in the red, generating less energy than it consumes.  It goes on to discuss where the extra power comes from, right down to specific grids. 

The plan doesn’t naively suggest New Jersey should just shut down the Oyster Creek and Salem nuclear power plants because nuclear power is bad.  Such action would put the state in an even worse energy bind.  Instead, it lays out exactly what the state should do – including specific adjustments to existing programs – to fix its energy deficit.  Solar and wind power are covered, of course, but so are heat recovery, energy efficiency, and demand response. 

I confess I have a knee-jerk reaction whenever I encounter an advocacy group, whether pro-environmental or pro-industry.  I’ve come to expect a one-sided, often emotional outcry that is so completely biased it lacks credibility.  This report has its objectives, to be sure, but Environment New Jersey has assembled a remarkably balanced assessment and recommendation.  It is specific to New Jersey, but the concepts can be applied anywhere.  Other states, counties and municipalities could benefit from some of the work that has gone into the plan.

Pour a cup of coffee and settle in with the report.  There are bound to be inaccuracies and omissions, not to mention complexities that have been oversimplified.  But some good thinking has gone into this, and I applaud the people who gave up their time to put it together.

To a much lesser degree, your radio and cell phone already do it.  Somewhere a transmitter sends out a few watts (or a few hundred thousand watts) of signal, and your wireless device intercepts just enough of this power to convert it to an electrical signal, then uses its own power source to amplify the signal so you can hear it.  Up to now, however, it hasn’t been feasible for your radio to get all of its power from the wireless signal.  It’s possible, but not practical if you want the bass to rattle your car windows.

Now a company called Powercast has made a small, but very significant, step toward practical wireless power transmission.  Their product transmits a low power signal that could be used to either directly power very small devices such as wireless sensors, or recharge batteries on small devices like cell phones and iPods.  If a Powercast transmitter were located at your desk, for example, the cell phone in your pocket would begin to recharge as soon as you sat down to do some work.  Imagine no more little black transformers lined up at your power strip like nursing piglets.

Cool technology.  But when I first heard about it, little alarm bells started thwanging in the back of my head.  Would sitting around in this RF field be safe?  And what about overall power consumption?  That little transmitter would be blasting out watts whether you were there or not, a little like leaving the water hose running while you soap up your car.  At the very least, it’s a waste of energy.  Even when you have a device within range, you’d think a good part of that RF energy will be radiating in another direction, wasted.  Worse, all these little one-watt Powercast transmitters would be constantly drawing power from the grid, about 70% of which is produced by burning fossil fuels.  My mind conjures up thousands of miniature fire hoses pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Powercast doesn’t address this issue in their technology white papers. (Click on “Downloads” on their techno-annoying website).  But they do bring up some interesting – and valid – environmental benefits.  They claim by using this technology, industry can significantly reduce power consumption by using RF-powered remote sensing devices.  (If no one is in the room, turn off the lights.)  Maybe.  But I’m not convinced that current technologies for detecting motion, temperature, humidity, etc. are that difficult to implement.  If you need a wireless sensor, just put in a battery and let it hum.

Batteries, however, are nasty little creatures.  While it makes sense to recharge them instead of throwing them away, the rechargeable versions – like nickel cadmium and lithium ion – are so chock full of toxic substances they’re considered hazardous waste.  I can’t begin to count the number of NiCad batteries I’ve had to replace over the past few years.  Alkaline batteries are much more environmentally friendly, but they don’t hold up well to being discharged and recharged.  Powercast, however, claims that their recharging technology actually works best with alkaline batteries, and that by using their system we’ll reduce our annual consumption of 350 million rechargeable batteries to a “mere trickle.”

I’ve learned to take “marketing facts” with a grain of salt.  We should also do the same with our own alarmist reactions to new ideas.  With any new technology, there is good and bad to weigh.  (I think about this often when standing on talking scales.)  My gut tells me that this breakthrough, while incredibly impressive, may ultimately hurt us more than it helps.  I think more Powercast modules will be sold in the name of consumer convenience than for energy conservation.  But who knows?  Your comments and predictions, pro and con, are invited.

The Verdant turbines look and function much like a windmill, except the turbine blades are turned by water rather than wind.  (Verdant even calls their turbine an underwater windmill.)  As with a wind farm, several of these “tidal turbines” can be arranged in an underwater field to take full advantage of the current.  In order for tidal turbines to work, the water must pass through a relatively narrow channel that creates a strong current. Roosevelt Island creates an excellent channel in New York’s East River for tidal currents, which Verdant says has to energy potential to generate 10 megawatts of power.  As with wind, solar or conventional hydro power, tidal power produces no hydrocarbons and no CO2 .  That’s the good part.

But what about fish kill, spawning cycles, and underwater noise?  It could be an issue, according to Friends of the San Juans, an environmental group in Northwest Washington that has formally intervened against a tidal generating facility proposed by Snohomish County Public Utility District.  Indeed, the thought of having a field of 168 underwater windmills occupying a channel does give one pause.  According to an excellent article published in the Everett Herald recently, other groups such as the Orca Network have similar concerns.

That’s what makes the Verdant RITE project so intriguing.  It’s not just a “proof of concept” for the ability to generate power from tidal forces; it is also a detailed study on the effect of these turbines on the marine environment. An overview of the study can be found on Page 2 of the April 2006 Newsletter of the International Energy Agency’s Ocean Energy Systems organization.  Keeping in mind the article was written by a Verdant spokesperson, it does outline Verdant’s objectives to measure fish movement, navigation, recreational impacts, historical consequences, and water quality.  If the environmental impact proves acceptable, this important test could pave the way for future tidal projects.  And, according to a report generated by the Electric Power Research Institute,  tidal power could be one of the most environmentally benign ways to generate electricity.

So how is the RITE project working out?  After 40 days of operation, the system has exceeded expectations.  Tidal action has made it possible to generate electricity 77% of the time, and the turbines work equally well in both directions.  Average power output while the tide is flowing has been about 14.5 kilowatts.  This isn’t a huge amount of electricity, but keep in mind this is a pilot test.  According the the EPRI report, “Existing tidal power plants include a 240 MW plant in France, a 20MW plant in Nova Scotia, and a 0.5 MW plant in Russia.”  Clearly, this is a technology with the potential to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for generating electricty.

No doubt there will be environmental impact; there always is.  But the question to ask is not whether tidal power generation affects the environment, but how it compares with the way we produce power today. 

I won’t go into the virtues of carpooling and public transportation here.  If people aren’t doing these things yet, they probably have a reason.  I’m not even challenging the decision to by an SUV or pickup.  Because quite often, people need that big rig to haul soccer kids, potted plants, plasma TVs – whatever.  Sometimes you just need a vehicle that can carry stuff.

But most times, not.  Here is where I humbly suggest – if you can afford it – you buy a new car that gets fantastic gas mileage, say 30 mpg or more.  And if you need it, keep your SUV or pickup.  I have an old pickup named Lumpy just for that purpose.  Lumpy is quite content to sit around and watch us come and go, yet still gets really excited when he gets to haul something.  He likes to haul dirt, bicycles, the occasional Christmas tree, and would just love to go get a plasma TV one day.  But Lumpy drinks too much (and freely admits it), so almost all our routine travels are done in more economical vehicles.

So keep that SUV  for those occasions when you really need it, and get something cool to drive the rest of the time.  Hybrid cars are current fashion favorites, and there’s nothing that says “I’m environmentally conscious!” like the distinctive shape of a Toyota Prius.  If you prefer to be more subtle with your hybrid habits, take a look at a Honda Civic hybrid.  Or go with high-mileage cars with more conventional propulsion.  The Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit deliver 37-40 mpg (EPA highway).  If you need to haul a dog, kid, or weekend garage sale treasures, consider one of the small sport-boxes like the Ford Focus, Mazda 3 or Toyota Matrix.  Not willing to give up the luxury appointments you’ve come to love in that big SUV?  Take a look at the Audi A3.

Be careful of luxo-creep, however.  Insist that the EPA city mileage number remains above 25, and the highway mileage remains above 30.  (These numbers will adjust downward when the EPA introduces new measurement parameters this Fall.)  It’s easy to give up just an mpg or two to get that one extra goodie and lose sight of your high-mileage objective.  Remember, every gallon of gasoline you burn produces about 20 pounds of CO2.

True, you’ll have to give up a few things you’ve come to love about your SUV.  You won’t sit as high.  You’ll be more vulnerable to other people’s big SUVs.  Sometimes you may have to pack stuff (or people) in a little tighter.  But in return you’ll get a car that is much more agile and a heckuva lot more fun to drive (remember fun?).  Oh yeah, you will also paying less for gas and producing a fraction of the CO2 you’re dumping into the air now.

Your SUV will be proud of you.

The Kill-A-Watt measures all the basics of power consumption, using an LCD readout to show line voltage, amps, watts, volt-amps, frequency, power factor, and a cumulative measure of what’s been used in watt-hours.  Besides its simplicity, one of its strong features is the ability measure – and compensate for – power factor.  This is important for any device that produces an inductive load (such as a transformer), as opposed to a purely resistive load (such as an incandescent bulb).  You can read a fairly good review of the Kill-A-Watt here.

Measuring wattage with a Kill-A-Watt is typically a down-on-your-knees, butt-in-the-air affair, since it plugs right into the wall and most of those plugs are near the floor.  Let me warn you ahead of time, others in the house may find these positions humorous.  Braving snickering comments about plumber’s crack, I dutifully crawled around the house plugging various devices into the Kill-A-Watt.  It’s a tedious process to wedge yourself behind the stereo rack, plug each device into the Kill-A-Watt, and then check power consumption with the device off, on, playing, not playing, etc.  I’m still trying to decide whether all the laughter from the gallery made the project seem faster or slower.

A few surprises emerged.  First, all that talk about the evils of ”phantom loads” – the power drawn by certain devices even when they’re off – is only about half right.  Many devices such as my computer, monitor, stereo receiver, microwave and coffeepot drew less than one watt when turned off.  Battery chargers for my cell phone, camera, and wizbang Universal Remote Control drew no measurable current at all without a battery in them.  For me, a half-watt device is a nit not worth worrying about, even when you add them all up.

But there were some truly evil devices.  My inkjet printer/fax, which tends to get left on all the time in case someone sends a fax, draws 11 watts when idle.  My DVD player draws 12 watts when turned off, and 35 watts when turned on but not playing.  And the king of evil, my Dish Network receiver/DVR, draws a whopping 24 watts when turned off but, interestingly, just 26 watts when turn on.

My TV is a 32-inch Sony with a traditional CRT display, and I was expecting some ugly numbers.  Not so.  It drew 2 watts when off, and about 130 watts when on.  I’ve been wanting a plasma TV, so I went to the web to find our how much power I would save by getting rid of that CRT and getting 42″ of brilliant HDTV Boston Legalreruns.  Holymoly.  A 42″ plasma TV draws almost 400 watts (!) - hardly the savings I was looking for.  Bigger units draw substantially more.  My new TV just got a little harder to justify.  By the way, I did stumble into a great CNET review that focused on TV power consumption.  It’s good reading.   

I did have one gratifying discovery.  Recently I sprang for a new Panasonic digital receiver to replace my old Pioneer stereo.  I measured the old Pioneer first, and found it drew 69 watts when powered on without music playing, and about 100 watts with music at moderate volume.  By contrast, the new Panasonic drew about half the power: 30 watts when on, and about 50 watts at fairly high volume.  Lesson learned?  Buy a new digital receiver!

If I could only figure out what to do about that Dish DVR.  Unplugging it wouldn’t be an acceptable solution, because it takes 10 minutes to establish it’s satellite connection when you plug it back in.   Plus, I’d miss recording Boston Legal when I’m away.  Maybe if I spend lots of money on a new one…

This was big news!  I went to the Philips “news” website, but found no mention of the story.  Apparently this was not a major corporate initiative.  So I went back to ABC News, where I found a very short trail that led back to the Christian Science Monitor story, which was based on the original NRDC press release, which was little more than a call to action to do something about incandescents.  It wasn’t such big news after all.

 There are, however, movements afoot to ban incandescent bulbs entirely.  On January 30, Lloyd Levine introduced legislation to ban incandescent bulbs in California.  Similar measures are cropping up elsewhere.  On February 20, Australia announced plans to ban incandescent bulbs by 2010.  This seems over-reactionary to me, a little like banning old radios because the tubes consume too much power.  Technologies improve, and companies like GE claim to have ways to reduce incandescent power consumption. 

But it got me to thinking about my own use of light bulbs.  I admit I haven’t gone off the deep end on energy conservation, and I still have a few incandescents around the house.  I started out with good intentions, using fluorescent bulbs just about everywhere, but was frustrated with the time it took for them to come up to full brightness.  Sometimes when you flip on a switch you want light right now, and incandescents tend to deliver faster results. 

For example, my kitchen has a bunch of those “can” lights that sit flush to the ceiling and shine straight down.  When I was using 100% fluorescent bulbs in them, there really wasn’t enough light to see anything for a few minutes, so I swapped in a single halogen to deliver instant gratification.  It worked great, but not without causing a twinge of guilt every time I turned it on.  I also use an incandescent for in my hall coat closet, where the light comes on for about 15 seconds before I shut if off again.

Last week I tried an experiment. Hoping that technology had improved over the 5-year old fluorescents I’d been using, I went down to Home Depot and bought a new fluorescent floodlight for my kitchen.  Technology had improved.  The new bulb provided usable lighting instantly, and was up to full brightness in about a minute.  (My old bulbs took five minutes or more!)

After I saw the news bit on ABC News last night, I began to wonder if I could completely eliminate incandescent bulbs without feeling I was sacrificing something.  Almost, I decided.  I could replace that halogen in the kitchen, for sure.  I could also replace the incandescent in the hall closet, although I’m not sure the change would have a huge impact on anything.  But that nice light fixture in the bathroom would be a tougher choice, because those extra-large fluorescent bulbs would stick out and look bad.  I also have some incandescents hooked up to motion detectors that deliver the “instant on” lighting I bought them for.  Some of my lights are on dimmers, and others are 3-way bulbs.  Special-purpose  fluorescents may work for some of these situations, but probably not all.

Nope, I’m not quite ready to switch to 100% fluorescents.  And I may not need to.  New technologies such as LED lighting are constantly being introduced, which deliver the speed of incandescent bulbs while consuming less power than fluorescents.  GE and other manufacturers may come through with low-power incandescents (if they’re not banned).  While these new technologies may not be quite ready for mass adoption, I have faith.

Still burning incandescent bulbs?  Go buy a new flourescent, screw it in, and see what you think.

Windmills kill birds.  Hydro power impacts fish spawning.  Solar PV panels require too much heat to build.  Ethanol robs the food supply.  Hydrogen explodes.  And, of course, fossil fuels belch huge amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere.  But at least we’re familiar with fossil fuels.  All these other “alternative energy” ideas would require us to change our habits (never a comfortable thing), and besides, each one has bad aspects and we don’t like bad things.

Our energy culture is a little like a battered wife who sticks with her abusive husband because leaving him would force her into unknown territory with new – possibly worse – perils.  As a society, we stick with the familiar because even though we know fossil fuels cause us all kinds of problems, any alternative would inject uncertainty into how we live our lives.  Gas and oil are cheap and plentiful, and work for everything from cars to Tupperware.  Sure, these fuels are a bit abusive to us, but we hang in there.  It’s a system that pretty much works okay (as long as we don’t look at the big picture), and ”no change” is the simplest path for us.

For those of us already in love with alternative power, this kind of resistance is frustrating.  But understandable.  We have to remember that all forms of energy production are, in some way, harmful to our environment.  It comes down to choices.  The first big choice is whether we should produce any energy at all, or just live off the land like they did back in the Day.  For me personally, this wouldn’t be one bit comfortable.   I like my warm rooms in the winter and cold beer in the summer.

Given that we’re hooked on energy, the next choice is how we will produce it.  This one gets more complicated, because nothing is perfect.  Wind farms do occasionally kill birds, and some would argue they look bad.  So which is worse: killing birds or pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?  These same kinds of questions need to be posed – and answered – for all types of alternative energy.   Before we can change the minds of the masses, we must first by very clear about why one source of energy is less bad than another.  And to change the fossil-fuel habits we’ve established over the past 100 years, these arguments will need to be very compelling.

Could be.  Just a couple of weeks ago, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, made the news by claiming global warming is caused by increased output from the sun.  He validates his assertion by noting that the ice caps on Mars are also melting (obviously not influenced by mankind), and postulates that our increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the warming, not the other way around.

My scientific credentials are about as impressive as fleas on a dog, so I’ll admit right up front that Mr. Abdussamatov probably knows a lot more about solar radiation and Mars ice caps than me.  But in the days that followed, I was amazed at just how many scientific experts there really are – most of them with their own talk shows, but also a surprising number who conduct their research from bar stools.  Armed with 18 seconds of sound bites about how Mars is melting and how that can’t be our fault, these experts now have irrefutable evidence that we’re all worked up over nothing.

They might be right.  With natural forces beyond our comprehension at work on our planet , it’s difficult to assert with absolute certainty that we are causing global warming.  But I’m guessing these self-appointed experts haven’t done much reading on the topic, because when you look at actual measurements conducted by real scientiests, there sure are some strong correlations between our adoption of fossil fuels and the huge spike in CO2 concentrations.

If you haven’t already, take a few minutes to read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers, released in February.  Some of the reading is a little thick, but it’s a short document presented without the emotional hype that often accompanies these types of things.  Also take a look at the United Nations Confronting Climate Change report, released this past month, which expands on the information contained in the IPCC report.  Unfortunately the Executive Summary of this report does take a “sky is falling” approach, which I think will alienate skeptics before they read the rest.  The hype goes away in Chapter 1, however, and I found it to be highly informative and, for the most part, balanced.  I strongly recommend it.

Do these reports prove mankind is causing global warming?  Maybe not absolutely conclusively, but they sure put a dent in the argument that we are not the cause of the problem.  Bedsides, what do we have to lose by assuming we need to make some changes?  

The Washington State definition of “renewable resource” does include water, along with an impressive array of alternative technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal, landfill gas, biodiesel, and others.  But an “eligible” source of alternative energy is defined as “electricity from a generation facility powered by a renewable resource OTHER THAN fresh water.” [Emphasis mine.]  In other words, any new hydropower installations wouldn’t count toward the 15% requirement.

Well, color me perplexed.  Maybe I’m missing something, but I’ve always considered water power to be one of the cleanest, most efficient ways to generate electricity.  It’s 100% renewable, produces zero CO2 emissions, and doesn’t use an ounce of petroleum.  Oh wait – you gotta have grease for the bearings.  Hydropower keeps producing when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, and the water that comes out of the turbine is just as pure as what went in.

I can understand why the initiative writers in Washington State might want to exclude existing hydroelectric installations from their 15% requirement, because well over half the power generated in the state already comes from hydro.  If they didn’t exclude current systems, they wouldn’t have a very interesting intiative.  But what about new hyrdopower facilities?  Why aren’t they included?

Part of it might be the dam issue.  Hydropower is usually associated with tall dams that flood lots of acreage and impede salmon runs.  Because of these issues, I suspect that the era of big dams may be behind us – at least in the States.  But what about Streaming Hydro (aka “small hydro” or “run of the river” projects)?  There is no big dam, and water still runs down the original creek bed so the fish can swim just like their ancestors.

Streaming Hydro plants are smaller – usually between 5 and 20 megawatts – which means they can be placed on smaller streams and rivers with negligible environmental impact.  They feed the grid just like the big boys, but can be deployed in higher numbers because there are so many more small streams.  Most importantly, they can produce more power for less money – and less energy cost – than other forms of renewable energy.

A few years ago I wrote a Guide to Hydro Power for Canyon Hydro, which outlines how hydro systems work, how to measure streams for power potential, and some of the different types of turbines used.  Check it out.  You may find that hydroelectricity is the greenest of our green energy options.