One for the People...

Two for the globe...

Three for the future... keep it eco...

So many reasons to attend 350's International Day of Climate Action this Saturday! What's yours?

ACE will be getting down at several events across the country, not just in SF... Find us, click HERE!

Look for the ACE tshirts and/or tables at the events. If you say the password "climate hero" when you see us, you may win a secret prize...

Read more!

DIY Solar Part 3: System Components

DIY Solar Part 3: System Components

In our previous posts we talked about the design process and then different kinds of systems to choose from. Now let's talk about the system components that you need to be aware of before tackling a project like this. Many people believe that you just get some panels and wire them into the electrical system. It's not quite that simple.

A typical grid-tie solar power system.

Solar Panels and Film
Of course the most obvious part of the system is the panel. But there are several types of panels to consider.

• Crystalline panels: these are the blue-ish black solar panels that are encased in aluminum and tempered glass to protect them from weather. These are the most common panels and generally the easiest to find. Their advantage is that they can be mounted to nearly any surface and they have the highest efficiency.
• Solar film: these cells look more like rolls of roofing materials than photovoltaic materials. This is probably the future of solar as these are much cheaper to produce. Currently the only solar film that isavailable has to be stuck to a metal roof. This will definitely change in the coming months and years as this technology advances.

Inverters
Solar power makes direct current, or DC power, and your home uses alternating current, or AC, power. An inverter can turn steady stream DC power into wavy AC power. There are several different kinds of inverters and they differ in the kind of wave they create.

• Modified sine wave inverters: create current that resembles connected up and down stair cases, as the inverter creates steps in the current.
  
• Pure sine wave inverters: these inverters create a nice even up and down sine wave.
• Micro inverters: this is a new development where each panel has its own inverter. This helps in several ways. First it means that you can have a far smaller system to start with since you could wire one panel and one micro inverter and tie into the grid. All other grid-tie inverters require a higher voltage and need at least 1000 watts (or 4 to 8 panels) to work properly. Secondly inverting at the panel means you can use small gauge wire (instead of large diameter wire that DC requires) from the panel to the main power panel, saving money on wire cost.

Sensitive electronics, like entertainment equipment, require a pure wave to operate properly, while smaller electronics, like small kitchen appliances, work just fine with modified wave. Pure sine wave is more expensive but it recommended since we have so many advanced-technology electronics in the home these days like computers, plasma televisions, and stereo equipment.

Charge Controllers
Whenever batteries are present in a solar power system, a charge controller is needed. Most grid-tied system won't have batteries and therefore won't have a charge controller. Controller's are needed because, unlike other power sources that have an off and on switch, solar panels are pretty much 'on' as long as the sun is shining. This can be a problem if the batteries are at full capacity as overcharging them would ruin them. So the charge controller controls how much charge goes into the batteries.

A typical battery-backup grid tie system.

Most controllers are now Multi-Point Power Tracking, or MPPT, units. This a fancy way of saying that the controller optimizes the amperage and voltage in the system to recover the maximum wattage. This is becoming a standard feature and you should not consider a non-MPPT controller.

Control Panels, Disconnects, and Wiring
There are a lot of fuse panels, disconnect switches, and wiring in a solar power system. These are mixed and matched to suit a particular solar power system. Usually there is a disconnect between each component. The wiring can get expensive, so the distances between components should be minimized. DC power runs most efficiently through thick, heavy gauge wire, much like water flows better through larger pipe. The bigger the wire, obviously, the more expensive. So keeping your panels and inverters

Next week we'll talk about system and component costs.

Kriss Bergethon is a writer and solar expert from Colorado.

Read more!

Coal: Too Dirty. Even for College!

The Sierra Club and their affiliate, the Sierra Student Coalition, have launched an excellent series of humors ads targeting the use of coal to heat and power college campuses across the country. Check out the latest video below...



You can find two more videos in the series and sign a petition to university and college presidents at www.2Dirty4College.com.

Read more!

Kyoto Pronounced Dead, Makes Room for New Kaya-Direct Framework

Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute

More than a year after Breakthrough's Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger pronounced the Kyoto Protocol dead in "Scrap Kyoto," the rest of the world may be catching on as pressure mounts to produce a workable climate treaty that will encourage global action. National Public Radio wrote its own obituary, of sorts, with regard to international opinion on the framework last week:

"The landmark Kyoto climate treaty, a global warming pact negotiated 12 years ago, is unlikely to live on after its 2012 end date. During climate talks in Bangkok last week it became apparent that after the treaty's initial term ends, a new treaty will almost certainly take its place."

While developing countries have expressed anger that negotiations in Copenhagen may not focus on a Kyoto framework, the legitimacy of this anger is questionable. After all, a major reason that the Bush administration refused to sign the agreement was that Kyoto did not require participation from developing nations. Thus, while such countries are not wrong in arguing that they are not to blame for current carbon emissions levels, it still is illogical to build another treaty based on a dated framework that deals with only a subset of countries, instead of all of them, regardless of culpability. As top U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing told NPR:

"The notion that we should have an agreement which looks explicitly and exclusively at a handful of countries, doesn't seem right. The whole purpose of this is to move the world to a better place, not to move one set of countries down that road."

So, while Sudanese diplomat, Lumumba Di-Aping told NPR that scrapping Kyoto will be like "throwing away your baby and saying, 'No, I will have a new one," viewing the Kyoto Protocol as a so-called baby or brain-child is lip service to its creators, but not relevant to what will actually provide a foundation for an actionable global strategy to mitigate climate change. Not to harp, but legislation is not comparable to children in any way, since there is no obligation to remain loyal to a global treaty that not only failed to achieve global agreement, but also failed to achieve most of its desired results.

The U.S. never supported the Kyoto Protocol, but now even European signatories seem to see the advantage in allowing the pact to expire. But, as Michael Levi notes in the piece, a modified version of Kyoto will not suffice. The onus is on delegates to come up with a new framework that will not only be agreeable to the U.S., but to the world's rapidly developing nations as well, in order to craft a deal that is actually global in terms of the scope of nations it involves.

A recent suggestion that countries commit to "national schedules" in which each nation employs what Prins et al consider a Kaya-Direct approach by outlining a workable, verifiable strategy for reducing emissions by decreasing carbon and energy intensity - and protect and enhance natural carbon sinks like forests. This alternative shows considerable potential in terms of inclusiveness and efficacy because it would allow countries to commit to actions they are realistically capable of achieving and that are consistent with the nation's economic development goals. This sort of approach, if pursued aggressively, decouples emissions reductions from economic growth by providing nations with a framework from which to battle climate change via means that are not economically destructive, but in fact productive, such as investing in the research, development and deployment of clean energy technologies and improving the efficiency of key industrial sectors.

Even if a new strategy may slow negotiations in the short-term, Levi points out that's not necessarily a bad thing:

"Will it take time to negotiate? Yes. Will it mean we don't have a deal by this December? Yes, but we weren't going to have a deal under Kyoto this December, either."

Now that it is clear that Kyoto is essentially dead in the water, delegates must turn to the creation of a Kaya-Direct international climate framework that is global in its impact, not simply its symbolism. Kyoto or otherwise, any framework that does not internalize both the scale and the varying interests inherent in this global problem, is doomed to fail. Even if an agreement in Copenhagen is not finalized, pursuing this new route will be indicative of more progress than simply accepting the failed Kyoto framework.

As Nordhaus and Shellenberger concluded in "Scrap Kyoto" we now face a clear choice:

"Continue with the failed policy agenda of the last 15 years, one that offers an unpromising mix of bad politics, poor policy outcomes, and at best very modest and incremental progress on climate change. Or strike out boldly in a new direction - one that aligns America's economic aspirations with its ecological interests [and] invests directly in the energy technology we need ... The choice should be clear."

Read more!

Maddow: Chamber of Commerce Punked on Climate

Rachel Maddow and reporter Kate Sheppard of Grist.org Mother Jones discuss the Yes Men prank that punked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today, forcing the Chamber to reiterate its staunch opposition to proposed climate change policy. Check it out (and bravo to Kate for her cable news debut):

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read more!

Symbolism? German Solar Team Bests U.S. In Shadow of U.S. Capitol

Originally published at the Breakthrough Institute

Team Germany has emerged victorious from the three-week Solar Decathlon that overtook the National Mall in D.C., shedding a solar-powered spotlight on young clean technology innovators. But the German victory in a U.S. dominated competition may be a portent for the future of U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation.

The Solar Decathlon, in its fourth iteration, involved twenty teams of college students from all over the U.S. as well as Germany, Spain, and Canada. Each team submitted a solar-powered house for competition in 10 individual contests. Importantly, Team Germany succeeded in edging out the closest competition, Illinois and Team California in the net-metering contest, which a test to see how much power a house generates relative to how much it consumes.

The victory, while certainly well deserved, seems particularly poignant in the context of concerns about U.S. economic competitiveness in clean energy technology innovation. Given that this year is the first in which international teams competed in the Solar Decathlon, it seems to be a harbinger of what's to come in the clean energy sector as technologies mature and the markets continue to develop.

As the debate over the Senate version of the House-pass climate and energy legislation continues to heat up, the symbolism of this event and the tell-tale results should send a very clear message to Congressmen: a) that the legislation under consideration will provide too little money, just $1 billion annually, to clean energy R&D, the most critical component of U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation and b) slashing the budget for President Obama's national education initiative, RE-ENERGYSE could have widespread ramifications for the strength and success of our clean energy future.

So, while the student participants will walk way from this exciting event with many skills that will allow them to succeed in a clean energy marketplace, Congressmen must glean a far more urgent lesson: if the U.S. does not make the kind of large scale public investments in clean energy RD&D now, the U.S. will miss out on the economic benefits of both clean energy innovation and a generation of youth who can be trained to lead the world in the clean energy industry.

Read more!

US Chamber of Commerce: We Remain "As Staunchly Opposed As Ever" to Climate Bill

[Updated with video from press event below]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reversed their position on climate change policy this morning, throwing their full support behind Congressional climate legislation.

Citing overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change poses dire risks to human societies and will be unquestionably "bad for business," the Chamber released a press statement and held a briefing at the Washington D.C. Press Club to announce the group's new position:

"There is only one sound way to do business: that's to support a strong climate-change bill quickly, so that this December in Copenhagen, President Obama can lead the entire business world in ensuring our long-term prosperity. ... The Kerry-Boxer Bill is a good start to a strong climate bill, and the Chamber will work with Senators Kerry and Boxer to strengthen it"

Does this about face from the previously staunchly anti-climate bill Chamber sound too good to be true? It is.

Only a few minutes into the event at the Press Club, a Chamber of Commerce spokesperson showed up to confront "the Chamber of Commerce spokesperson" at the podium as a hoax. A flurry of calls to reporters later, and the Chamber had strongly reiterated the not-so-leading business group's true position on Congressional climate policy:

"An actual Chamber spokesman, J.P. Fielder, said the group remains as staunchly opposed as ever to the climate bill," reports a Wall Street Journal blog. Phew, good to know the Chamber remains "staunchly opposed" to any real proposals for Congressional climate legislation.

As the WSJ makes clear:

"[Chamber President Tom] Donohue has been vociferous in his opposition “cap and trade” legislation favored by the White House that would make industries pay for carbon emissions. That position has resulted in the defection of big chamber members including Exelon Corp., PNM Resources, Pacific Gas & Electric and Apple Inc. Others, including Xerox, Lockheed Martin and Caterpillar, are under pressure from environmentalists and shareholder activists to do the same."

[Update: Here's video of the "real" Chamber of Commerce representative confronting the prankster Chamber of Commerce representative. Will the real Chamber please stand up?!]


The Chamber quickly blamed the hoax on the infamous pranksters, the Yes Men, before removing the blog post and replacing it with a simple statement that today's announcement, "Is a prank." According to the WSJ, the Chamber now claims the fake press release is the latest in "a campaign against the group’s climate stance" by an unnamed "youth environmental group."

Reuters, CNBC, Fox and a National Journal blog all apparently reported the prank announcement as real news before corrections were quickly issued and the stories were pulled. Here are the Fox and CNBC reports and screenshots of the Reuters and National Journal stories before they were pulled (click to enlarge):

Read more!

Forest Offsets Scam Exposed, Not a Strategy to Mitigate Climate Change

Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute

Serious doubts about the efficacy of carbon offsets projects to produce real, verifiable emissions reductions have been validated by a Greenpeace report, released this week, that exposes a prominent sub-national forest offset project as a "carbon scam."

The Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) has been underway in Bolivia since 1997 thanks to a coalition that involves the Bolivian government, concerned environmentalists and sponsorship from oil major BP and U.S. utilities American Electric Power and PacifiCorp. Originally designed to protect a 6,000 square mile section of the Bolivian rainforest while simultaneously allowing its sponsors to offset carbon emissions, the project was supposed to be a win-win-win for the rainforest, climate change advocates, and private utilities.

But according to the Greenpeace report, entitled Carbon Scam: Noel Kempff Climate Action Project and the Push for Sub-national Forest Offsets, the original goal to avoid emitting 55 million metric tons of carbon has not been met. The project had to recalculate its estimates, concluding it will prevent just 5.8 million metric tons from entering the atmosphere - an order of magnitude less. Furthermore, Greenpeace uncovered evidence that the project sponsors - AEP, BP and PacifiCorp - misreported the project's efficacy to the EPA, telling the agency it kept 7.4 million tons from entering the atmosphere between 1997 and 2009.

Recent Washington Post coverage of the report points out that regardless of intentions, the Greenpeace findings add further support to doubts about the validity of carbon offsets:

The mix of pragmatism and idealism -- providing powerful financial incentives to encourage influential companies and poor countries to work together to slow global warming -- shows the complexity of a much-heralded approach that Democratic lawmakers and international negotiators are trying to write into law.

As the Post suggests, the report has critical implications for the pending House-passed climate and energy bill that is awaiting Senate consideration, as well as forest conservation efforts in general.

At their core, offsets projects are a cacophony of too many combined interests vying for attention, which precludes actual, measurable, efficacious action to limit carbon emissions, preserve forests, or create opportunities for sustainable economic development. On one hand, there are those intent on preventing deforestation and degradation for the sake of biodiversity, as well as those concerned with the associated carbon emissions that result from such destructive practices. On the other hand, there are the citizens of developing countries who illegally deforest and degrade their indigenous rainforests in order to make a living and who will not be motivated to stop without significant social and economic reform on the part of their national governments.

Finally, there are large corporations and firms who want a cost-effective way to offset their carbon emissions without actually cleaning up their business practices. As AEP chief executive, Michael G. Morris' response to the Greenpeace report makes clear, these companies are primarily concerned with their own bottom line, not the fate of rainforests, developing countries, or climate change:

"When Greenpeace says the only reason American Electric Power wants to do this is because it doesn't want to shut down its coal plants, my answer is, 'You bet, because our coal plants serve our customers very cost-effectively."

Thus, there are three major implications of such projects for U.S. and international climate policy, particularly in developing nations. First, forest offsets project are difficult to count and monitor accurately thus restricting the ability to be certain the carbon emissions are actually being reduced. In terms of the NKCAP project alone, Greenpeace found that leakage from the project - the portion of logging that is displaced and simply occurs elsewhere as a result of protecting a particular section of forest - was estimated to be as high 42-60% in just the area near the project site. According to the report, other locales were not monitored for leakage at all, meaning that potentially millions of tons of carbon emissions have gone unaccounted for and that the project sponsors have not been offsetting their emissions at all. This problem is inherent to forest offset or preservation projects: while a particular piece of land may be preserved, without fundamentally changing demand for forestry products or offering local economic reforms that provide alternatives to logging, deforestation simply migrates to other forests, and there's basically no way to guarantee any net reduction in deforestation.

Second, the offsets provisions in both House and Senate versions of the bill will allow firms to rely heavily on carbon offsets and continue with business-as-usual activities while remaining within the confines of the greenhouse gas emission "cap" - even if that is only true on paper. So, not only is it almost impossible to tell whether additional carbon is being offset, but firms delay or avoid implementing more efficient practices and investing in cleaner, more innovative technologies. In actuality, offsets are illogical because they support an "either/or" approach to climate change mitigation, not a "both/and" approach - one in which we work towards a clean energy future by transforming the global energy system to low-carbon technologies, with developed economies taking the lead, and protect and strengthen natural carbon sinks. Both steps are critical to mitigating climate change, and the pursuit of forest offsets should not delay the transition to a cleaner energy system.

Third, the fundamental problems inherent in sub-national forest offsets projects like NKCAP have implications for policy directed towards assisting developing nations. While rainforest degradation and deforestation is a serious concern, efforts aimed at protecting tropical forests from deforestation must be carried out alongside modernization efforts in developing nations. Instead of imposing additional limits on nations whose citizens are struggling for survival and who will not realize the benefits of conservation efforts, rich nations must provide direct assistance to help developing nations pursue sustainable economic development and modernization plans. The results of these sustainable development efforts will not be calculated in precise terms or lend themselves to the use of offsets and other accounting tricks, but the real progress towards both greater economic wellbeing and stronger systems of forest preservation will be far more tangible than an offsets-driven forest strategy.

In sum, the complexity of deforestation and degradation of forests makes carbon offset projects an approach to climate change mitigation that is entirely too indirect to succeed. The Greenpeace report concludes with a call for negotiators at climate talks in Copenhagen to set up a global fund of $40 billion per year to protect tropical forests, with large contributions flowing as a result of auctioned emissions allowances, however this only addresses the offsets-related portion of the problem. It does not address the fundamentally flawed environmental approach that emphasizes conservation and limits to the development of already poor countries, an effort that is misguided and - evidently - not working. In addition to directly funding the protection of tropical rainforests, we must also embrace the challenges of global development by helping developing nations grow strong economies that are fueled by low or zero-carbon sources of power, are highly energy efficient, and offer their citizens means of making a living instead of degrading their indigenous tropical forests in order to survive.

Climate change is a global problem that affects developed and developing countries, alike. If developed nations aspire to mitigate climate change and enjoy the rewards of a clean energy future, they cannot do so at the expense of developing nations. In order to protect tropical rainforests and other critical carbon sinks, the richest countries must ensure that all nations have the resources to improve their quality of life through the development of robust, clean energy economies.

Read more!