States to get right to set own automobile fuel efficiency and emissions standards

California and 13 other states that have sought to set fuel efficiency standards and limit emissions on new cars sold will get that right.

President Obama is set to issue a federal order Monday to make this possible, according to a New York Times article.

It's clear that people want to hold carmakers to a higher standard. This might make the cars more expensive, but the success of pricier hybrids has shown that people are willing to pay for cars that satisfy their conscience.

The more states that pass such standards on fuel efficiency and emissions, the more that automakers will make all cars more fuel efficient. Really, this is a long time coming. My wife's old 1998 Honda Civic would get 38 mpg on a good day. Now, a decade later, things haven't improved much, and that's not acceptable.

Facing declining oil production, Mexico installs one of the world's largest wind farms

With a price tag of $550 million, a new wind farm in Mexico is not cheap.

But with oil production falling 9% last year, Mexico realized it needed to take a step toward the future, according to this USA Today article.

Situated on the isthmus between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean, the 6,180-acre farm will boast 167 turbines capable of generating 250 megawatts of electricity. The area has wind gusts of 16-22 mph.

The wind farm is being built and operated by Spanish energy company Acciona Energia, which says it should produce enough electricity for a half million homes, and reduce carbon emissions by 600,000 metric tons annually.

Accounting for other wind projects, Mexico aims to generate 2,500 megawatts of electricity by 2012.

One thing I like about this project is the fact that Mexican cement giant Cemex is putting forward 25% of the development costs, in return for the rights to some electricity. Cemex wants to reduce its energy costs.

Under President Obama's plan to revitalize our economy with green initiatives, he should offer tax incentives that encourage U.S. manufacturers to invest in public wind and solar projects.

New leader, new Web site

At the same time as President Obama was being sworn in, the official Web site of the executive branch changed its look.

Whitehouse.gov has a daily blog, a place for proclamations and contact information. The first proclamation was to declare today a day of "renewal and reconciliation."

My wife turned me on to the new Web site, via Facebook. She said, "... I like that the site will now publish all non-emergency legislation for five days -- allowing the public to review and comment before the President signs it."

I agree. I think that's a cool feature. It's nice to have an administration that is so tech-savvy. Reaching out to the younger generation is key to fixing our country's problems.

Welcome Mr. President, here's what the journalists think you need to do

As Obama takes office, many newspaper and magazine columnists are writing their predictions, or their thoughts on what Obama's term may be like.

Here are some links.

Obama's moment arrives, by Barton Gellman, Washington Post.

The politics of cohesion, by David Brooks, New York Times.

Start the fire, by Roger Cohen, New York Times (words set to the Billy Joel tune "We didn't start the fire.")

Obama, the unifier, by Howard Fineman, Newsweek.

The next war president, by William Kristol, New York Times.

Welcome to town, President Obama, by Cal Thomas, Jewish World Review.

Time for (self) shock therapy, by Thomas Friedman, New York Times.

The Obama portfolio, by Jim Cramer, New York Magazine.

Obama send-up

Okay, we're just days away from a historic inauguration of the nation's first black president.

As much as people are focusing on the cost of the inauguration (more than $120 million and counting), what I'm looking forward to are his first 100 days in office. I want to see what he'll do with regards to the economy, the environment, Russia, the Middle East. There are so many problems he will face, and I wish him well.

To keep things more lighthearted, here are some funny and strange Obama-related Youtube videos.

EcoGeek's top 7 trends from 2008 that will make a difference in 2009

EcoGeek's Hank Green presents his roundup of 2008 ideas/trends that will make a difference in 2009.

Light antennas/Nano antennas
Tiny antennas that can capture and emit light, and both passively heat and cool a space. The prospect of mass production is not far off. "The first large array of these nano-antennas was produced this year, and the possibilities for them are endless," Green writes. Personally, I'm in love with the idea of individuals taking control over their own power production/consumption. Individually, we can't really get utilities to change, but we can do a lot in our own backyards, rooftops, windows ... whereever.

President Barack Obama
Promises, promises. Let's see how he's able to balance his promises with the economic and political mayhem that he's inheriting.

EEStor emerges as competition to lithium ion batteries
Power storage company EEstor has patented a technology to store electrical energy in ceramic powder encased in plastic and has a contract with Lockheed Martin to put this to use in military and homeland security appliations. Compared to lithiom ion batteries, this technology would be significantly lighter, hold ten times more power, and be half the cost. As Green writes, "We're still not 100% sure (EEStor) isn't full of crap." Maybe so, but a lot of people thought Edison would never get light from electricity. See the original article here.

Cheap gas
Gas is so cheap we can party like it's 1999. This will surely have a short-term effect on new product innovation, but as Green notes, "Better hybrid systems, more efficient engines, massive investments in biofuels, the re-emergence of diesel in America were all direct implications of skyrocketing gas prices." I don't think anyone expects fuel to remain this cheap for long.

Solar reaches parity with coal-electric grid?

There may be some fuzzy math involved here, but Green wrote Dec. 22 that Nevada solar power producer First Solar, at least according to one analyst's view, is able to produce electricity from solar at a cost of 7.5 cents per kilowatt/hour versus 9 cents for coal. Green notes that this math does not include the cost of developing the plant, just the cost of delivering the electricity. The jury is still out on the costs involved, but the ecological impact of solar compared to coal is not in question.

Project Better Place
Better Place has signed deals with California, Hawaii, Australia and Denmark to put in place electric car networks. Utilizing one type of battery for various automotive platforms, Better Place - based in Israel - is putting in battery swapping stations and customers will pay for the service much as they do for cell phones. Consumers will lease the batteries for their vehicles. Some other company could come along and make this solution obsolete, but no one else is actually putting in place projects this aggressively.

Pickens counterbalances Gore
Green writes, "We've tired of Al Gore. The love affair was great while it lasted, but he's been attacked from too many angles to really latch onto his message anymore. But what about an ultra-conservative, Texas oil man?" Well, with the price of oil in the dumper, T. Boone Pickens' big ideas for alternative energy are now on the impractically expensive side. I'm all for Pickens' plan (see the youtube video), but I don't see this 80-year-old tycoon actually making a go of it. Prove me wrong, Pickens.

Fuel from artificial photosynthesis - Steven Chu discusses

Steven Chu, President-elect Obama's nomination as energy secretary, gave this speech in September 2007 about using the natural chemical process of photosynthesis to create fuel.

It's an interesting concept, although one that would require using plants for fuel, not food. Today, that may or may not be a good use of arable land. In the future, that is likely to be less and less viable. Still, it's good to know Obama wants to tap such an innovative thinker as Chu, a 1997 Nobel prize winner for his research into laser cooling.

Here's a video excerpt from his speech.



You can see the full video at FORA.tv.

Free trade that is not one-sided

For 15 years, we have operated under more and more free trade agreements that have indeed opened up economic ties and created more cross-border commerce.

This has been good mostly for U.S. consumers and retailers, who have been able procure more goods, for less. These deals are the reasons many Americans have more TVs than they can watch, more toasters than they deserve toast, a new cell phone every two years.

In the realm of stewardship to the environment and laborers as it relates to manufacturing, these trade deals have served to squelch the many years of progress made in the U.S. When manufacturing is sent overseas, quite often the plants do not have to adhere to the same standards regarding wastewater management, proper disposal of hazardous waste, safety and decent pay for employees.

When Obama introduced former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk as nominee for chief U.S. trade negotiator, Obama insisted that future deals will take a keen look at their effect on labor and the environment, according to this story. Obama has suggested that Canada, Mexico and the U.S. renegotiate NAFTA, with an eye towards these reforms.

Obama seems to recognize that our economy has not gotten back what it has given in trade agreements. He has criticized the recent trade deal with S. Korea because it would permit more S. Korean autos to the U.S. but does not open the S. Korean market to U.S. autos.

Some think Obama's stance toward trade will put a crimp on the Doha round of trade talks, with developing economies that export consumer goods worried that rich countries will use labor and the environment as excuses to block their goods.

If that's the case, so be it. I've been to China, Mexico, Guatemala and many other poorer nations that have industries devoted to exports. To a degree, many of the products are safe for consumption. But in my travels, I always asked what sort of wages the workers made. Most will make less in a day than someone at Best Buy makes in an hour.

This is why we have retail shelves chock full with cheap TVs and cheap food. And don't forget that sometimes this cheap food causes illness, that the cheap TV you buy today might last less than five years (Last year, wallowing in the relative luxury of a five TV household - for two people - I finally gave away a U.S.-made TV from about 1981 that still had a great picture. It probably cost $400 back then, which would be much more in today's dollars.).

Do I long for a future where U.S. consumer goods are more expensive? Not really. But I do long for fair trade that does not needlessly destroy U.S. manufacturing capability for the sole sake of filling shelves with cheaper goods. Nor do I believe we need to be making TVs, unless those TVs consume considerably less energy than others.

I do long for a U.S. where the emphasis is put on creating products that reduce our dependency on foreign energy, products that can likewise be exported to energy hungry developing nations. And I want trade deals that will enable us to actually get our products into those countries, to compete on a fair basis.

If Ron Kirk can help make that happen, I wish him a speedy confirmation in the Senate.

Continuing education

Have you heard of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education?

I just learned about it today. I'm considering a masters degree in green technology or sustainability, with an emphasis on the business side.

If Obama holds true to his campaign promises, this should be a ripe area for business in our nation, perhaps as much of an economic lightning rod as the internet boom.

If you have any experience with these kinds of university programs, I'd love to hear your feedback.

Building for the future

For the past couple years, I've been telling friends that if the U.S. spent 40% of our defense budget instead on renewable energy technologies, a great deal of our problems would be solved.

No one looked at me as if I had the answer, but I still feel that doing this would be a great boon. We would go from a nation with a warmongering image to a nation that is helping find a new way forward, toward greater energy independence, not only for ourselves but for all other nations.

And as other nations purchased this technology from us, we would go back to an exporting powerhouse.

Of course by reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, we would have less need to flex our muscle in the Middle East. The jihadists there would have less reason to hate us, and they would instead rightfully focus their energies on their own repressive governments.

In reading this interview that President-elect Obama gave to Time magazine, I am struck by a sense that he gets this too. Obama said, "The drop in oil prices, I do think, makes the conversation about energy more difficult, not less necessary. More than ever, I think, a wholesale investment in transforming our economy — from retrofitting buildings so that they're energy-efficient to changing our transportation patterns and thinking about how to rebuild our electricity grid — those are all things that we're going to need now more than ever."

I would suggest that we redeploy big chunks of our troops stateside, with the purpose of upgrading the electrical grid, installing community wind machines, bringing public buildings up to date as far as energy efficiency. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could go to work installing machines like the Vivace that use low-speed water currents to generate electricity. This would mean we wouldn't have to dam our rivers to garner kilowatts. And it might be more fish-friendly than some turbine-based projects that have been proposed.

If we do this, it is not an easy conversion, but it is one that sets the nation up for energy independence for the long haul. And if we quit messing with other nation's business just so we can have oil, we will be less feared, more respected. We can flex our military muscle in areas like Darfur and other genocidal hotspots. Working with regional allies, we can go after truly despotic dictators like those in Myanmar.

Really, aren't we better than trading bullets for oil? Is that how we want to heat our houses? Is that how we want to say we were able to drive to work?

As the post-beat bard sang, "The answer is blowing in the wind." And it's rippling in the waters.