Carbon-Pros Analyst Blog

We have been conditioned to think that flying is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions. It's true that aviation accounts for 2% of human carbon emissions, more than 800 million metric tons annually. But most people don't realize that IT and telecom also produce about 2% of human carbon emissions. Unlike flying, IT/telecoms emissions are growing at 6% per year. Even though technology keeps getting more efficient, the rapid growth in the installed base exceeds the efficiency increases. So next time you hold off on a flight as part of your carbon reduction program, make sure you power-off your computer before leaving the office for the night. If you have any influence over your company''s IT shop, ask them how they are taking advantage of “cloud computing.” That's when the business runs some of its IT services using a remote data center connected to the Internet. The delivery of computer services over the internet on shared machines, enables computers to be run more efficiently with lower costs and lower carbon footprints.

Source: Economist, 2009
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14297036&subjectID=348924&fsrc=nwl

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 04:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

eTec as been selected for a grant of nearly $100 million to deploy the charging infrastructure for 1000s of EVs. This will be the largest EV pilot project announced to date. eTech brings its smart charging technology to the project. Nissan USA will match the DOE grant by providing 1000 vehicles. The Nissan Leaf is a 100% electric vehicle, not a hybrid (see post on low-carbon transportation).

Infrastructure testing will take place in five states including Arizona (eTec's HQ) Tennessee (Nissan USA's HQ), California (with its Clean Cars law), Oregon (a dark green state), and Washington (both green and high-tech). All are logical choices, with state governments ready to support this project and boost local business participation. The cities involved are likely to include Phoenix and Tucson (AZ), San Diego (CA), Portland, Eugene, Salem, and Corvallis (OR), Seattle (WA), Nashville, Knoxville and Chattanooga (TN). 

Here are some of the key features that make this project important:

• Large-scale footprint spread across fives states and 1000s of state-of-the-art EVs.
• Build-out of 2,500 charging stations in the selected markets.
• Deployment of 12,500 Level 2 (220V) and 250 Level 3 (fast-charge) charging systems.
• Field testing EVs in diverse topographic and climatic conditions.
• Tests the effectiveness of charge infrastructure in the real world.
• Experiments with revenue systems for commercial and public charge infrastructure.

Let's face it, if EVs are to become mainstream we need to jump start our charging infrastructure. We will track this project with great interest.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 06:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stage four of smart grid, smart home begs a question about the reality of low-carbon transportation. There are more skeptics about electric vehicles (EVs) than about climate change. Despite this, I strongly believe that we entering a decade-long transition towards low-carbon vehicles. EVs in particular will be cleaner, quieter, and fun to drive. The technology-base for EVs will mature rapidly. They will be less expensive to operate and in time they will be less expensive to purchase. As a side-benefit, they will boost energy security and mitigate climate change. Right now, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) such as the Prius, Insight, and Focus represent the industry standard. That standard will evolve rapidly over the next 18 months. The next generation of vehicles represents a quantum leap in automotive engineering.

Today's HEVs recycle power from regenerative braking to charge a conventional battery pack. During stop-and-go traffic the batteries are engaged to increase fuel efficiency. The electric motor serves as a booster to the primary drivetrain powered by a conventional gasoline engine. By contrast, PHEVs and EVs will draw power from the grid and enable the vehicle to squeeze more miles out of each gallon of gas, *if* they use any at gas at all. These vehicles will have larger, more powerful battery packs using nickel-metal hydride and lithium-ion technology.

Among the majors, some manufacturers are taking an evolutionary approach, others are taking a revolutionary leap. Future power-train design will be different than today. Only time will tell which designs become dominant. Here are three examples representing a range of thinking about the future of low-carbon transportation:

• Toyota is taking the evolutionary path. The 2010 Toyota Prius is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) based on the popular Prius design. Like current model, the plug-in version uses its 1.8 liter internal combustion engine as the primary drive. It has a nickel-metal hydride battery pack to store a few kWh of power from the grid (details). The gasoline engine provides 98HP while the electric motor provides 34HP. The electric motor serves as a booster to the gasoline engine, kicking in during stop-and-go traffic, on up-hills, and in reverse. The electric boost improves the Prius' gas mileage in the city, making it comparable to its highway mileage. This increases gas mileage to 50MPG (from 46MPG for non-plug-in models with 1.5kWh batteries). Due to a design favoring the gasoline engine, the Prius-10 may only have an electric range of 12-18 miles. The 3rd generation Prius is an important step forward but it remains a gasoline-based vehicle. Of the advanced designs, it is a sure bet to hit the market in 2010. Of the three cars discussed, this is the one you can order right now.
  

• General Motors is reversing Toyota's logic. The Chevy Volt is a PHEV with much more powerful batteries. The Volt uses the electric motor as its primary drive. Its small internal combustion engine serves as an on-board charging station to extend the driving range of its 16kWh lithium-ion batteries (details). With a battery-electric range of 40 miles most trips will be made on 100% electricity. For longer trips, the gas engine will kick in, adding a few hundred miles to the driving range. The Volt represents a step into the future because it is based on a battery-electric drive train. If successful, it positions GM with a platform that provides extended driving range today and can evolve into a 100% electric car in the future.
  

• Nissan is taking the revolutionary road. The Nissan Leaf is not a hybrid. It eliminates the internal combustion engine and gas tank. The Leaf is a 100% EV with an expected range of 100 miles. Its all-electric design makes the car mechanically simpler, 100s of pounds lighter, and less expensive. Nissan betting that its lithium-ion battery technology will provide a market-leading range of 100 miles (details). Just as important, they are developing a smart charging system to recharge the batteries in 15 minutes, about the same time as it takes to fill-up with a tank of gas. The battery packs 24kWh of energy storage with a maximum output of 90kW. That's enough juice to power an average US home all day long. Nissan is betting that battery technology will progress rapidly over the next few years and that mass-production will drive battery prices down. In the Leaf, Nissan is leapfrogging its competitors into the future of low-carbon transportation.
  

Let's hope that all three of these vehicles (and their competitors) stay on track for release next year. In addition to the three profiled above, Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes Smart, and dozens of small companies will hit the market by 2011. More low-carbon choices for consumers mean more ways to gain energy security and more ways to to mitigate climate change. As automotive history gets rewritten over the next decade, 2010 will go down as a very important year.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 07:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As we head into stage two, let say you like what was happening in stage one: (check all that apply)

• Reducing your carbon footprint.
  
• Lowering your impact on the environment.
• Lowering your monthly utility bill.
• Getting an annual check from your utility for lets say $100.

After rolling out a million smart meters and 50,000 smart thermostats, a few years has gone by and your utility has its enterprise (software) applications in place to control all these devices. Your utility is ready for stage two and offers a you a variety of devices that can be used to reduce your electrical demand. You quickly sign up, because you are keen on the idea of (see checklist above). Plus you would not be reading this if you were not an early adopter.

Here's what the utility offers:

• In-home display with readouts on your energy use
• Web interface to see the same information on your PC and smart phone
• Smart plugs that go between your larger appliances and the outlet
• A $500 rebate on smart appliances such as a fridge, dishwasher, and dryer.

At your request, the home display gets mounted on the kitchen wall where your phone used to be, back when you still had a landline. The display does not need the phone line, but it covers up the scar left from the old wall jack. Your installer inserts a chip-card into your dishwasher authorizing it to communicate with the utility. And one of the smart plugs gets inserted between your old electric dryer and its 240V outlet. The plug automatically connects to your home network, just like the new dishwasher. The installer also leaves behind a handout giving you the web address for a customized energy portal where you can monitor and control your electrical usage from any PC or smart phone.

On the dog days of summer and the icy days of winter, you are more than a customer. You have become a valued partner for your utility as it attempts to reduce both its costs and its carbon emissions. On that hot summer afternoon during a “super peak” when your utility is running out of megawatts, it sends the command to 1) raise your thermostat by two degrees, 2) delay your dryer for a couple of hours, and 3) put the dishwasher on hold. And you don't mind because 1) you barely notice the changes, 2) you are being paid for your flexibility, and 3) and on the rare occasion when these subtle changes do matter, you can push a button to override the utility's DR request. If your grandmother is at the house and you are away, you'll be able to push the override button from the convenience of your iPhone. Back at the utility, they just saved a bundle by not needing to buy super peak power on the spot market.

Our scenario focuses on the smart home, but in stages one and two, demand response may see its biggest payoff with commercial and industrial customers. Even though the long-term energy savings might be split equally between residential and commercial demand. It will be easier to implement demand response for a few hundred thousand commercial customers than it will be to implement it for a hundred million residential customers. 

Time goes by and demand response is providing your utility with better load control each year. At the same time, another revolution is sweeping across the grid. During stage one, while your utility was installing two-way meters, it was also installing sensors, relays, voltage regulators, circuit breakers, and other grid devices. And each one of these is connected to the utility's digital network. As the utility's enterprise software capabilities have matured, its operations staff now has a real-time view of where the power is flowing, at what voltages, where the bottlenecks are building, and which lines are getting overheated (and therefore in danger of sagging into nearby trees). They know where power is needed and where an excess is being generated from rooftop solar systems. This so called “grid optimization” lets your utility:

• respond to peak demand loads more efficiently
• identify outages more precisely
• restore power more quickly
• switch generation to cost-effective and low-carbon fuels
  
• re-route energy to avoid bottlenecks and unnecessary strain
• eliminate “truck-rolls” with automated disconnects, reconnects, and troubleshooting

This part of the revolution will lack fanfare, but it will make the grid more responsive and more manageable. It represents a big change from the past. On the legacy grid, a bird flying around town might have had a better idea about what was going on inside the grid than your utility. In Boulder Colorado, Xcel Energy was so bullish on the benefits of grid optimization, that it built the business case for the smart grid investments primarily on the economics of optimization (rather than demand-response). In contrast to demand-response which helps utilities get through peak periods, grid optimization benefits accrue 24 hours/day, 7/days week, 365/days per year. At scale, the resulting savings will be in the tens of billions of dollars over the life of the equipment. To the extent that blackouts and brownouts can be avoided the long term savings are greater. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates power outages and disruptions cost the US more than $100B per year... that's PER YEAR.

During the several years of stage one, renewable energy generation was also growing rapidly. New wind farms were put into place, concentrating solar thermal plants are operating in sunny regions. More important, millions of homes have rooftop solar PV and thousands of commercial buildings and warehouses have rooftop wind and solar. When wind and solar represented a few percent of total generation, it was relatively easy for your utility to use this capacity whenever it became available. But with penetration pushing past 10% and needing to get to 20%, the legacy grid had no way to handle these large intermittent sources. Utilities had no way to know how much power these distributed sources were generating and little idea whether they were ramping up or down.

The smart grid's ability to let utilities absorb and use low-carbon renewable sources of power is the other big success in stage two. Only time will tell how soon this will become a major factor. A great deal depends on the declining cost curves for solar and its overall economics. But without a smart grid in place, we will be forever stuck with a low level of renewable integration. Geeks want to know a lot more about this, but most people won't care if they see their costs going down AND their electrical carbon footprint shrinking. Stage three is still a few more years down the road past stage two, but we can't wait so we'll talk about it next week. Stay tuned.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 08:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The first stage of smart grid deployment arrives when the utility installs a “smart meter” on your house. Your new meter will establish two-way communication with the utility. Depending on the technology (and this is a big decision point for utilities), meter communication could be over the power line itself, via cell phone network, via radio-frequency network, or several other alternatives. The choice matters greatly to the utility, but not much to you. The main point is that the utility will now be able to “read” your meter on a continuous basis. Instead of just monthly, data can flow hourly, daily, or on whatever schedule the utility determines. The meter will also log your electrical use by the hour of the day and the day of the week. That's because in the future, just like riding public transport, the rate you pay for a kilowatt-hour will vary depending whether use it at peak or off-peak periods.

This gigantic step toward the smart grid (your shiny new smart meter) might come and go with very little fanfare. Your bill will still come monthly and your electrical service will be the same as before. Back at the utility however, good things are happening. They will know within seconds if you have a power outage. They will also know the extent of the outage and very likely what caused it. With the other sensors and controls the utility has installed on the grid, they may not even need a truck-roll to restore your power. Smart meters, when deployed in mass and in parallel with sensors on the electric distribution network, provide the utility with a capability called grid optimization. Instead of flying blind, they will know where the power is, what the voltages are, where bottlenecks are building, and where faults are happening. Over time, this will be revolutionary for the utility... but let's get back to our smart house.

The second gigantic step toward becoming a smart home is when your utility offers, and you opt-in, to a demand-response program. Hopefully they won't call it by that name. These programs will be infinitely more marketable if they have a catchy name like eco-power-saver or super-moms-home-efficiency-program or sooper-smart-consumers or you get the idea. Marketers will do their thing. At this stage, the utility will send someone out to your home to install one or more devices. The major reason people will join these programs is because utilities will open their pocketbooks and pay you to join. They will give you a rebate, a monthly discount, or some other incentive. That's right, they will pay YOU.

At this stage, the utility might offer you several devices ranging from thermostats, to energy monitoring displays, to switches for your electric dryer or dishwasher. To keep it simple, let's say your utility only installs one device, a “smart thermostat.” Like your new meter, your new thermostat will have two-way digital communication built-in. It will send and receive signals from the utility. That means your utility will be able to “read” your thermostat. Those signals might use the same communications technology as the meter uses, or the signal might take a different path. You won't really care unless you are a geek who needs to know “how things work.” The technical term “demand-response” is appropriate because your new thermostat gives the utility a tiny bit of control over your electrical demand. On hot summer afternoons, when electrical loads are peaking and the utility needs to fire-up expensive natural gas turbines, or buy extra power on the spot market, they will instead, send a signal to your thermostat to turn it up a couple of degrees.

The utility did the heavy-lifting when it installed the smart meter and its network (AMI for advanced metering infrastructure) and the thermostat and its network link (HAN for home area network). With a robust network in place (robust is the operative term), the data flow is relatively simple as illustrated in the diagram. At 2PM on that hot summer weekday when the utility is “running out of power” they'll send a signal to their smart homes requesting a 2-degree reduction in cooling. At 6PM when other loads are dropping, they will send another signal to restore your thermostat to its initial setting.

By tweaking your thermostat, your AC unit will skip a few cycles and your house will slowly warm up to the new set point of 78º. The net effect to you will be negligible. The net effect for the utility will be huge when they can make these slight reductions in demand to millions of homes. When demand-response is implemented at scale, whole new power plants won't be needed and that will bring reductions in air pollution and carbon emissions. The real selling point: will save money for both you and your utility. That's two giant steps for the smart grid. But there's much more of course. So stay tuned.

For more information on the chart, see Smart grid ecosystem, part 4. 

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 06:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Anyway, the meter reading started me thinking about Rufus' carbon footprint. I figured it could not amount to much because he walks a lot and he never drives except for rare trips to the vet. He eats only two meals a day and never leaves the lights on. He makes minimal use of major appliances such as the refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer, and dryer. Being the data hound that I am, I decided to research his carbon pawprint. This was more challenging than I expected. In fact I did not find the detailed data I wanted, but I did find an estimate for dogs and cats:

An average dog causes around 1.75 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year. A cat causes around 0.50 tons. Rufus's size is smaller than most dogs and larger than most cats. My guess is that Rufus' carbon pawprint is about one ton per year. That includes the CO2 emissions to produce his food, its packaging, litter bags, occasional transport to the vet, his toys, etc. From what I learned, the largest CO2 contributor for dogs and cats may be from the meat in their foods.

Considering that the average American is responsible for about 29 tons of CO2 per year, 1 ton seems reasonable (3.5% of a person). However, considering that the average person in Malawi (Africa) is responsible for a scant 0.7 tons of carbon, Rufus is living large. Rufus is a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel. His ancestors were bred for the kings and queens of England so I guess he's used to living the high life. Since my own footprint is about 17 tons, I've decided to keep working on my own footprint and let Rufus enjoy himself. --JCB

btw, If you are interested in reducing your pet's already small carbon footprint, take a look at these articles from the Santa Barbara Independent and GreenDivaMom.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Paper bags (believe it or not) have higher carbon intensity than plastic bags, so using them increases your shopping footprint. Paper bags leave their black mark during pulp processing and manufacturing. They kill trees, use a lot of water, and pollute the air with nasty volatile sulfur compounds. Choose paper bags and you are supporting clear cutting and habitat destruction. We tend to think well of paper because unless we live next to a pulp mill, or the (formerly beautiful) forest, we don't see all the problems. The good news is that paper bags are biodegradable and have less impact during disposal. Reuse your paper bags at least once, then compost them at end-of-life. Recycling uses a lot of energy and chemicals so it's not benign. If you can't compost them, recycling (after reuse) is better than sending them to the landfill.

Plastic bags are made from oil. Need I say more? Plastic bags are not good for the environment or for energy security. But plastic has lower energy requirements than paper and a lower carbon footprint. Surprisingly, production of plastic bags creates less pollution as well. Plastic bags leave their black mark in the disposal phase. Reuse your plastic bags at least once. Recycle them if possible. Realize that recycling plastic really means downcycling it into something less functional. There is not much else you can do once you've brought the plastic bag home from the store. Almost a trillion plastic bags go to landfills every year. We can do better than that.

Reusable bags are the only eco-friendly choice. It's no contest. Use any bag at least three or four times and your average “bag footprint” goes down with each use.

Me? I try to remember to bring my reusable bags. I keep them in my car. When I forget, I ask for plastic (if available) and make sure I reuse them at least once. They become trash bags, doggie bags, lunch bags, and a dozen other things. I need to get better at remembering my reusable bags, however, because I never seem to run low on plastic bags.

Bottom line: Don't sweat this one too much. Combine your errands and drive fewer miles or ride your bike when possible. Weatherstrip your windows and doors and adjust your thermostat. Those changes will have far greater impact on bringing down your carbon footprint. But it's true that small things add up. So don't forget your reusable bags. I'll try to remember too! --JCB

If you want details, Treehugger.com has an in-depth analysis.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 06:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 07:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm a big fan of appropriate technology. In May, I switched my cell phone service to AT&T just so I could get an iPhone. In less than two months, it's become an indispensable part of everyday life. I knew I would like the device. It's very easy to use. I expected to be more productive given the wealth of applications. My biggest surprise is that the iPhone is on the way to replacing so many other devices. Here's my list:

• Watch/time/compass/altitude functions (replaces a $400 Suunto Wristtop Computer, AKA my watch)
• GPS for tracking workouts (replaces my $200 Garmin Forerunner that needed a factory repair)
• GPS for the car (replaces a $150 Garmin Nuvi I was planning to buy)
• City maps (replaces paper in most cases, and my $100 Garmin Mapsource City Navigator software)
• Email, web, business news, and “cloud” services (replaces a $500 NetBook I was planning to buy)
• Business news reader (replaces paper subscriptions to WSJ, NYT, and the Economist)
• Voice recorder for notes and interviews (replaces a $50 dedicated device)
• Music, podcasts, audio books (replaces need for a second iPod)
• Remote control for iTunes broadcast through my PC (replaces a $50 dedicated controller)
• Photos/slideshows (replaces need to make photo prints to show friends and family)
• Camera/videocam (replaces my camera for indoor and casual use)
  
• Language translation (potentially replaces dedicated device)
• Spelling/thesaurus (potentially replaces dedicated device)
• Calendar, address book, to-do list, calculator, scientific calculator, carbon calculator, and flashlight

In the 4Rs of “reduce, reuse, recycle, and replenish,” there is a reason REDUCE is listed first. When we reduce our use of a product, we save money and reduce our impact on the planet. In this case, my $300 phone is supplanting about $1,500 of specialized gear. It's also helping me be more productive and lightening my travel bags. The iPhone has significantly reduced my need to buy specialized electronic devices. This is a very good thing. Score one for appropriate technology. --JCB

*Does not replace my ruggedized GPS for backcountry travel
*Does not replace my waterproof camera for outdoor adventuring
*Does not include heart rate monitor (yet)

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 06:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

• 54 million Americans mow their lawns each weekend
• 5 percent of US air pollution comes from gas lawn mowers
• 80 pounds of CO2 is released each year by the average mower
• 800 million gallons of gas are consumed each year by lawn mowers

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 01:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 09:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

• Family vs. couple vs. single shares
• Veggies and/or Fruit
• Eggs and/or meat
• Mushrooms
• Cut flowers

Money is paid upfront (invested) for the season, meaning we may get slightly more or less food depending on the size of the harvest. Just like any other shareholder we experience both the upside and the downside of the (farming) business. CSA members are true partners in the local food system. CSA's have been gaining traction since coming over from Europe in the mid-1980s. This season, we have more than 400 CSAs across the US. There's probably one in your area. The USDA's website on sustainable agriculture offers a search tool for finding CSA's. The first weeks of our program have been wonderful. I'm looking forward to eating the freshest, local, organic foods all the way through the end of the 2009 harvest. --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 05:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Shortly after we installed solar PV, we bought a data monitor. Our system has a centralized inverter, typical of most installations. The inverter takes DC power generated by the solar array and converts it to AC power for use inside our home. The data monitor measures and records the kilowatt-hours (kWh) generated on the roof. The inverter a good place for monitoring because the solar power flows though it before joining the electrical service panel. Data logging occurs at frequent intervals whenever the sun is shining. Our inverter manufacturer, SMA, offered several options for receiving data feeds including direct-to-PC, wireless-to-countertop display, and Ethernet-to-Internet for capture on SMA's web portal. We chose the latter option because it was the most flexible approach. From the web portal, we can see real-time and cumulative statistics. And we can view it on any device from our PCs and Macs to our iPhones. Therefore we know what's going on whether we are at home or traveling. Data monitoring has been more valuable than we anticipated. If not for the data monitor, we'd have no idea how much power is coming off the roof. Solar PV is totally silent and because our panels are installed flat to the roof, they are virtually out of sight. The SMA web portal sends us a daily email with production statistics and provides web access to accumulated data. Last May, we had a defective breaker shut off the power feed from the roof. Fortunately, our installer receives the same daily emails, noticed that our production had dropped to zero, and quickly fixed the problem. Without monitoring, we may not have noticed the outage until our month-end utility statement. In the future, several components in the "smart grid" will perform a more complete monitoring function including energy production (if any) and energy consumption by circuit. Even though SMA's monitor only provides production data (not consumption) it has become a daily reminder of our electrical usage. This has led to an ongoing effort to reduce usage through better lighting, more efficient appliances, and reduction of phantom loads. With a year of minor tweaking behind us, we have shaved about 10% off our annual power use. This year, we estimate that our solar array will produce about 90% of our electricity. We last paid for electric usage in February 2009. With the meter running backwards every week of the summer, we don't expect to pay any more usage fees until November 2009 when the days are short and the snow is flying. Now that's a happy thought. --JCB

Start at the beginning with NZE step 1.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 09:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We hired a local company, Flatiron Solar, to design and install a 5,250 watt system. It was designed to maximize production from our second-floor south-facing roof while being aesthetically beautiful. We chose an all-black system from BP Solar consisting of 30 panels along with a centralized inverter from SMA. The array blends perfectly with the house. The system was sized to provide about 80% of our electrical needs annually with the expectation that we might be able to reduce our future electrical usage through additional energy efficiency improvements. --JCB

Read about NZE Step 6 or start at the beginning with NZE step 1.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 08:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Transportation makes up a significant portion of the carbon footprint of every company and every employee (about about 22% globally, see IPCC). Making carbon-aware transportation choices can reduce your footprint and have a positive impact on your bottom line. For individual companies, the transportation footprint includes inbound and outbound shipping, business travel, and employee commuting. Carbon emissions from travel are directly related the mode of transport, the efficiency of fuel consumption, and the distance traveled. Assuming two persons in a mid-sized car, trains can be twice as efficient per passenger-mile than cars, and over short-distances cars can be twice as efficient than planes. Actual results vary because a single person driving a large SUV is less efficient than flying in a peak-loaded airplane. And because landing and take-off reduce airplane efficiency, trips shorter than 500 miles favor a car, whereas longer distances favor a plane. Peak-load buses and ferries are less efficient than trains but more efficient than cars. Peak-load is important because off-hour and rural buses (with few passengers on board) can be less efficient than a small car. Employee commuting via bus can be highly carbon-efficient since typical work hours coincide with peak-period travel. Ferries are a special case because fuel efficiencies vary all over the map. Slow moving ferries are much more efficient than high-speed ferries due to the tremendous drag involved. High-speed ferries can exceed plane travel in terms of carbon emissions per passenger-mile. We all know that car efficiencies vary greatly. Per 100 miles driven, hybrids and small cars emit about 50 pounds of CO2, mid-sized cars emit about 80 pounds, and SUVs and pickups emit about 120 pounds (EarthTrends). Van-pools and big SUVs are more carbon-efficient than small cars if fewer miles are driven and/or more passengers are on-board. In summary, trains and buses are usually less environmentally damaging than cars and planes but the best choice depends entirely on the circumstances. Living close to work, car-pooling, cycling, and telecommuting can radically reduce emissions from employee commuting. Phone, web, and video-conferencing can radically reduce emissions from business travel. Fuel-efficient fleets, ground-transport options, and reduced packaging can reduce emissions from shipping. Obviously, carbon-efficiency is only one part of business decision making about transportation. Time-to-market, employee efficiency, and customer requirements are usually more important. That said, the savings from reducing transportation requirements and making smart transport choices go directly to your bottom-line.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 10:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

For carbon as a household greenhouse gas? Absolutely, yes. Up until now, carbon has gone unaccounted for by most of us. It's invisible, it's not taxed, and yet comes as a byproduct of nearly all our activities. We typically don't want carbon, we want heat, electricity, transportation, food, and other useful products. Unfortunately, all that stuff has “embodied carbon.” Meaning carbon dioxide is released at some stage of the product life cycle (production, delivery, or use). The typical American produces about 20 tons of carbon dioxide per year. That's the weight of ten SUVs! If carbon were priced at $20/ton (a typical cost for carbon offsets), the cost would be $1,600 for a family with two kids. We currently don't pay this cost directly. Economists like to say the cost is “externalized,” meaning “society” pays the cost. Someday we will pay the cost through carbon taxes on energy, gasoline, food and other carbon-intensive products. Scientists say that the environment is paying the price right now. Even if you can afford the extra cost, shrinking your carbon footprint is a good thing to do. It helps society deal with climate change and it will eventually save all of us a lot of money. You can get ideas for personal action from a variety of sources. Check out The Nature Conservancy to get started. --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 07:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sometimes it takes the strangest circumstances to trigger change in a long-standing lifestyle habit. I make a lot of good lifestyle choices but I'm nowhere near perfect. In February, I was in England for my niece's wedding. I love ale and especially British ales. My wife and I were shopping the farmers market in Oundle and came across a guy selling what they call “real ales;” handcrafted local beer. I was surprised to see any kind of beer at a farmers market so I chatted him up and bought a few bottles. When the beer man found out that I lived in Colorado, he started praising the beer made here. He told me that handcrafted beer is making a comeback in England (I had no idea it had declined) and that Brits often looked to beer-crafters in the US for best practices. He said Colorado was one of the great places for micro brewing. I went on with my day and my travels, but this conversation apparently stayed in the back of my mind. A couple weeks later, back home in Colorado, I went to the corner store to restock the fridge. As I was reaching for the Guinness, I thought about all the freight-miles imported beer travels around the world, and all the extra carbon emissions. I thought about it for two seconds and realized that I buy local food when I can get it, so why not beer? I went home that day with a sampling of beers from Fort Collins, Boulder, Breckenridge, and Durango. Now only a couple months later, I'm a confirmed local beer drinker. What was I thinking? I wasn't! I was just operating off old habits and memories of great British ales from the years I lived in Europe. My ah-ha was simply that the choices we make every day are often by habit, rather than by design. Oftentimes, making an eco-friendly choice yields a better product at a lower price. We're not used to that so we don't think of it. So the next time you have a choice between a local vs. global purchase, just give it some thought. The right choice depends totally on the circumstances, and is solely up to you, but do give it some thought. Everything we do makes a difference. Cheers! --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 08:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In measuring carbon emissions, we typically begin by defining a relevant scope, boundary, and base year. Since business value chains are complex and overlapping, it can be difficult to draw the lines. For companies covered under federal legislation, the law will define the scope. For others, the scope will subject to management judgment given the objectives of the carbon inventory. We generally start by including all direct emissions by the business and any related organizations it controls. Direct emissions include all internal operations but exclude all emissions from suppliers and customers. While direct emissions give you a starting point, they often fail to provide a fair assessment of the businesses' impact on carbon released into the atmosphere. In the old days of vertical integration where all functions were performed internally, counting direct emissions would have been sufficient. In the current era built around specialization and core-competencies, many formerly core activities are now accomplished through suppliers, thus we typically count indirect emissions. For example, if a company uses computers, paper, and toner in its operations, the carbon footprint of these materials is typically counted even though provided by outside suppliers. If the company retains a janitorial service that uses toxic cleaners with high levels of offgassing, these “emissions” should be counted even though provided by your supply chain. In the carbon inventory for a service business, we typically count the following direct and indirect sources:

• Energy services: heating, cooling, electricity, gas, propane, oil, etc.
• Transport fleet: company cars, trucks, etc.
• Business travel: auto mileage, airline miles, rail miles, etc.
• Products/services consumed: office supplies, furniture, janitorial, etc.
• Fugitive emissions from wastewater, trash, and landfill.
• Employee commute method, distance, and frequency.
• With additional components from the supply chain depending on the situation.

Once sources are identified and data are collected, we enter the details into a tracking system, calculate carbon emissions, and privately report the results. The fun begins with benchmarking, analysis, and making ongoing carbon reductions. This helps the environment, saves you money, and strengthens your position in the marketplace.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 09:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As much as I'd like to get our condo in Crested Butte Colorado to NZE (net zero energy); it's not going to happen. For starters, our roof orientation and structure is not suitable for the production of solar or wind power. Our property lines are too tight to fit ground-mount solar. And the homeowners association does not allow solar panels on our decks. The condo was built in 1980 and suffers from the weak energy efficiency requirements in building codes back in the bad old days. Luckily for me, the condo has some positives we can work with. It is situated on the ground floor with the north and east walls below grade, the west wall and ceiling are warmed by adjacent units, and the south wall is fully exposed to radiant heat from the sun. Therefore heat-loss is minimized compared to having fully exposed walls and roof. Still, this little 1200SF all-electric home consumes 16,000 kWh/year in a locale with 14,000 heating degree days. My home in Boulder is twice the size and uses half the energy (but only 6,000 heating degree days). The condo's energy situation is not good, but there are many things I have done to slash my energy usage: 1) switch most of the lighting to CFLs (cost $150), 2) weatherstrip any and all leaks including electrical outlets (cost $50), 3) insulate the crawl space (cost $100), 4) buy 100% green power from my electrical provider; 90% wind and 10% solar (incremental monthly cost $7), 5) wrap the hot water heater with insulation blanket (cost $20), 6) install a switch on the electric hot water heater so it can be turned off when the unit is vacant (electrician cost $120), 7) replace the room thermostats with digital ones with manual setbacks (cost for 9, $100), 8) put a few well-placed signs out reminding guests to conserve energy (cost $0), and eventually, the biggie I will tackle in the future 9) replace the aging windows and doors with new high-efficiency ones (cost $14,000). You might be in a similar situation, where NZE is not going to happen without moving into a new purpose-built house. But you can still make a big difference and slash your energy bills saving money, helping the planet and improving our energy security. With 100% green power, I can say I'm “carbon neutral” on electricity, but more important, I've reduced my electrical load by 25% with an investment of $550 and a modicum of time and attention. The payback period on my investment is less than two years. The feeling of making a small difference is immeasurable. --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 08:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Back in 1977 my wife and I were living in Fairbanks. I was working on the University of Alaska campus on one of the most advanced computer networks in the world. The "UACN" linked Alaska's three universities and ten community colleges via landlines, microwave, and satellite links into a unified computer network. I was a young computer scientist and loved living in the far north and working on state-of-the-art technology. My wife and I decided to make our home in Alaska. Even though we didn't know much about building, many of our friends had “owner-built” homes and we were intrigued with the idea of building our own. We bought some south-facing acreage a few miles from campus. Our plan was to build a log cabin; it would be so charming in the woods. WRONG! I took some building classes at the university extension service, one of which covered super-insulated home construction. This was a new concept in 1977, but in Fairbanks, a climate with 14,000 heating degree days, it was compelling. I learned everything I could about passive-solar, double-wall construction, triple glazing, radiant barriers, vapor barriers, heat-exchangers, and the like. It was difficult to find green-building information back then. Working weekends and summer evenings, it took us (and our friends) two years to hand-build the 1600 SF, 3 BR house. The walls were just over a foot thick with multiple layers of insulation and barriers. We achieved approximately R-60 in the walls and R-68 in the floor and ceiling (the house was built on pilings to keep the permafrost frozen). We bought the smallest wood stove offered by Vermont Castings and heated the house in 50-below winters with 1-2 cords of elder and aspen. That house was incredibly efficient and comfortable. The home heating index (HHI), a measure of energy used in heating normalized for square footage and degree days, was 1.50 with anything below 2.00 considered highly efficient. In our sub-arctic climate, it was so comfortable sitting in the living room for hours with the temperature never varying by more than one degree. Thirty years later, I've learned so much more about green building. But one thing has not changed despite our new knowledge and advanced technologies. To get to NZE in cold climates, your best strategy is to build a super-insulated envelope and put in a very small heater. In contrast, my current home in Boulder (also built in 1977), was constructed with 2x4 walls (R-11) and minimal concern for energy-efficiency. This has left me with a real challenge in retrofitting it to NZE! --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 03:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Carbon-Pros is in the business of sustainability, but what we do at work is also our personal passion. My wife and I are trying make a difference right inside our home in Boulder, Colorado. We have been making small upgrades to our house for the past 20 years. Some changes were made for purely aesthetic reasons, but many changes were done with energy efficiency (and comfort) in mind. It turns out that a lot of small changes can really add up over time. Our house, built in 1977, used to leak cold air in the winter and suck in attic heat in the summer. The west wind blew right through every room. It was a typical build for those days; I'm sure the builder never once thought about “going green." A few years ago we decided we were going to stay in our house for a long time and therefore we decided to get serious about going green. Our goal is to make it a net zero energy (NZE) home. In other words, we are making changes that both reduce our energy loads and increase our power generation. The house eventually will produce as much power as it consumes. In our case, the most important steps include tightening the building envelop, being more efficient with lights and appliances, adding solar PV, tweaking the envelope again, and finally adding a high-efficiency geothermal system for heating and cooling. Believe me, we weren't operating our household from a top-down strategy. It's a place where we like to hang out and relax. We didn't always do things the right way or in the right order, but it's all adding up to a great result. I want to share our experience because there is never enough published information for people who want to improve their home a little at time. Where should you start? What is a cost-effective sequence? How far can you go? When should you stop? Over the next month, I will outline what we've done so far and what we've learned that might be helpful. --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 04:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)