Solyndra Round-up

News that California solar company Solyndra will be declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy has sent waves through the energy blogosphere, not least because the company was an early recipient of a DOE loan guarantee and because President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu both touted Solyndra as a success story in US innovation policy.

• TIME Magazine's Dan Grunwald: Solyndra’s version did have certain advantages, particularly ease of installation. And according to the Energy Department, the company sold more than 1,000 installations in 20 countries, increasing its sales revenue 2,000% in three years. But they couldn’t keep up with the competition on cost.

• Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig at WaPo: GAO auditors fear that similar defaults could happen with other projects, possibly including the other four that it found weren’t properly vetted. The GAO last year uncovered the department’s rush to provide Solyndra its loan — less than 60 days after Chu was sworn in to the fledgling administration — without completing required reviews.

• Arno Harris at the Energy Collective: Bottom line, I'm sad to see Solyndra fail and feel immense sympathy for the 1,100 employees who are now out of work. But in the bigger picture, Solyndra's failure underscores just how successful the PV industry has been at cost reduction--and highlights the risks when governments try to pick winners and losers in highly competitive markets.

• Slate's Andrew Leonard: So what's really happened here is that half-hearted industrial policy lost out to the real deal. Because if Solyndra's failure is taken as proof that the U.S. government can't pick winners, doesn't that mean that China's success proves the exact opposite?

• Mike Traugher at Mercury News: Solyndra also reportedly received more than $1 billion in venture capital over the past five years from firms including Redpoint Ventures and U.S. Venture Partners. Other reported investors included Virgin Group entrepreneur Richard Branson and the Walton family, heirs to the Walmart fortune.

UPDATE (9/6/2011 at 10:05am): 

• Michael Grunwald at TIME: The operation was successful, but the patient died. Politically, it’s probably an impossible case to make. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. 

• Bloomberg Analysis: Solyndra said it failed because it couldn’t compete with foreign manufacturers funded by their governments. Those factories produced an oversupply of panels at low prices and offered buyers lengthy payment terms. Demand for Solyndra’s panels also fell as European governments reduced incentives for buying solar energy, said W.G. Stover, chief financial officer, in a filing today. 

Climate Pragmatism Coverage

"Climate Pragmatism: Innovation, Resilience, and No Regrets," a new report* from the Hartwell Group, was released this morning. The report is based on the idea that the old paradigms for dealing with climate change -- global accords, abatement timetables, carbon pricing -- have either come up short or failed completely. Thus, a new pragmatic strategy must take hold, and the authors of "Climate Pragmatism" believe the have identified such a strategy. A pragmatic approach to dealing with the causes and effects of global climate change will rely on three general policy goals:

1. Energy Innovation
2. Climate Resilience
3. No-regrets Pollution Reduction

These three elements, often thought of as ancillary goals of what might be considered the more ambitious and sweeping paradigms that failed in the past, can add up to meaningful action on climate change, so say the authors**.

The report, available for only a few hours as of this posting, has already generated considerable coverage.

• Bryan Walsh at TIME Magazine: "What's needed in this long hot season is an oblique approach to climate change, one that sidesteps the roadblocks by taking advantage of popular, no-regrets actions that are worth doing even if global warming wasn't real. It's not as simple or as elegant as one global deal — but it might actually work."
• Teryn Norris at Americans for Energy Leadership: "Climate Pragmatism is an important and welcome contribution to the debate and will surely spark much-needed rethinking among energy and climate policy advocates."
• Michael Levi at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I have nothing against doing the things that the Climate Pragmatism authors recommend. It may even be true that society can’t do much more. But if that’s the case, we need to admit the full implications, so that we can start preparing to deal with the consequences."
• Walter Frick at the New England Clean Energy Council: "Yes, some policies will always be heavier lifts than others. But embracing pragmatism for the long-term means not only evaluating the “realm of the possible” in the short-term, but working to shape it over time."
• Marc Gunther via his blog: "I’m not persuaded that we should talk less about the climate–because we really haven’t began to have an honest debate about global warming...It leads me to wonder whether the authors of this report have the problem exactly backward."

Will update as further coverage comes in...

Click here [PDF] to read the whole report.
--------------
*Full disclosure: I am currently employed as a policy fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, one of the publishers of "Climate Pragmatism."
**The full list of authors can be found here.

Krugman Still Doesn't Get It

By Alex Trembath and Devon Swezey. Originally published at the Breakthrough Institute Blog.

Yesterday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman published a blog post repeating his insistence that a carbon price is the key (if not the only) incentive needed to unleash "the magic of the marketplace" and drive innovation in clean energy technology. It was reminiscent of the conventional wisdom of the climate community over the past decade, and reflective of Mr. Krugman's own typically neoclassical views on the economics of climate change. Unfortunately, Mr. Krugman (and most climate policy advocates) continues to get the story wrong on clean energy innovation.

In the spring of 2010, Krugman wrote a widely-read piece in the New York Times Magazine called "Building a Green Economy," which pondered why, if anti-environmentalists are so adamant in their free-market faith, do they not support a price on carbon dioxide emissions. A carbon price, in Krugman's estimation, would serve as a signal to the market, driving innovation in cleaner technologies to the point where they achieved price parity with fossil fuels.

Since publishing his original article, cap-and-trade has crashed and burned. The prospect of pricing carbon emissions in the United States is effectively zero for the foreseeable future, but Mr. Krugman is still pushing a carbon price as the key to unlocking a clean energy future. On his blog, he noted the successful innovation in fossil-burning energy technology over the past century, and suggested that the only thing standing in the way of renewables achieving the same innovation path is the lack of a carbon price.

"The point is that renewable energy like wind and solar has not gone through a comparable process of improvement -- yet -- because the incentives haven't been there. But once we get to the point where a carbon price makes these commercially viable, there's every reason to expect huge improvement over time through, yes, the magic of the marketplace."

But Mr. Krugman neglects the substantial obstacles to a large-scale shift to renewable energy technologies, stemming from technical challenges related to intermittency of electricity generation, energy storage, and materials constraints. Contrary to what Krugman implies in his article, fundamental scientific breakthroughs are required to fully replace our fossil fuel infrastructure with clean energy technologies, a view shared by Nobel physicist and current Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.

To his credit, Krugman acknowledges the need for new innovation in clean energy technology, a view that would place him outside of the mainstream climate advocate's mantra that "we have all the technology we need and lack only political will." Yet in expressing his zeal for a carbon price, Krugman ignores the actual history of technological innovation. As research from the Breakthrough Institute has shown, the emergence of key technologies has much more often been the product of directed and sustained government investment than the result of price signals. Breakthrough's report, "Where Good Technologies Come From," demonstrates that most game-changing technological developments--from interchangeable parts to railroads to jet engines to microchips to the iPhone, GPS and the Internet--resulted from direct federal investments in research, procurement, and deployment, often in active partnership with private industry.

Krugman falls victim to an ignorance of technological history and the relative roles for technological "push" policies, like research and development, and demand "pull" policies, like a carbon price. As Robert Atkinson and Matt Hourihan of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation explain in their report on carbon pricing, "truly disruptive innovation comes, not from price-based demand-pull, but from focused (and occasionally, not-so-focused) technology supply-push, in the form of research-driven technological development."

Indeed, if our goal is driving innovation in maturing clean energy technologies, a carbon price is not even the most effective demand-pull mechanism in our policy toolbox. To be sure, pricing carbon can increase demand for clean energy technologies, but it is not optimized to drive innovation in energy technologies. Krugman writes that aviation technology steadily improved through "experience and practical innovation," and that clean energy must do the same. But innovation in aviation and jet engines did not happen because the price of sea travel (the main substitute) increased. Rather, military procurement created a demanding customer relationship that constantly pushed the private sector to innovate and improve technology for military application.

Despite his enduring affection for a price on carbon emissions, there is no indication that Mr. Krugman's sensibilities would prevent him from embracing an energy agenda founded on government research and investment. Indeed, Krugman's New York Times colleague David Leonhardt has embraced a technology-first energy innovation agenda, recognizing that a carbon price will be more politically difficult and less effective in the absence of cheaper, more reliable clean energy technologies.

As the Breakthrough Institute has consistently advocated, there are multiple policies and institutions with great potential to drive investment and innovation in clean energy technology. Some, like the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, are already in existence (if underfunded). Others, like a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), are not. Overcoming the challenges presented by market lock-in of fossil energy infrastructure, engineering challenges of clean energy technology, and climate change demands a broad suite of policies, of which a carbon price is only a small (and not even the most important) part.

Mr. Krugman is no technologist, by his own admission. In yesterday's blog post, he referred to the engineering of wind technology as "not my field of expertise, to say the least." But if a political economist as influential as Krugman is to continue weighing in on the energy technology challenge, it would be appropriate for him to develop a literacy in the history of technological innovation. Ever the champion of publicly funded health care, Krugman should have great affection for the government policies and institutions that can more effectively build a green economy.

After the failure of the carbon-price-centric American Power Act last summer, and with austerity measures increasingly dominating federal policy, the prospects for a carbon tax in the United States remain very low. Without one, the case for an energy innovation agenda not only remains, it has grown stronger.

Alex Trembath is a Breakthrough Generation Fellow and Devon Swezey is Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute.

Google can see the future

Google, whose energy initiatives and investments have always impressed me, yesterday released an energy innovation analysis that uses a model they built with McKinsey to forecast global power production mixes by different energy technologies in 2030. The analysis is available in a report [PDF] and interactive website that allows users to consider different potential energy mixes. Their technology pathways depend largely on breakthroughs and policies, the various combinations of which result in varying degrees of clean energy deployed in the future (#NoDuh).

Teryn Norris at Americans for Energy Leadership lauded the analysis and Google's willingness to bring energy innovation to the spotlight.

[The] implication is loud and clear: U.S. policy should seek to unleash clean energy technology innovation as rapidly as possible...Google’s report is a much-welcomed addition to the debate that opens up a whole new lens for evaluating various energy policy proposals, and it offers a message that clean energy and climate advocates across the board would be wise to take seriously.

Walter Frick at the New England Clean Energy Council has another take on Google's release, emphasizing that policy is an absolutely essential addition to technological breakthroughs.

Technology has an extremely important role to play. But policy that incents the development and deployment of clean energy and discourages the use and further deployment of fossil energy is also essential.

It is very encouraging to see a major player like Google getting front and center in the global energy innovation effort.

Election Season or Investment Season?

I'm reminded recently of Daffy Duck fighting with Bugs Bunny, the duck demanding that it's Rabbit-Hunting Season and Bugs refuting that it's Duck Season. In this cartoonish analogy, President Obama is both Bugs and Daffy, in a shouting match with himself. It's either Investment Season or Election Season. It apparently can't be both.

There's a reason Energetics' subline is "A blog on climate, energy and politics." As frustrating as it sometimes is, the pursuit and achievement of goals on the path towards decarbonization and a clean energy future depend heavily on the institutional intricacies set up by our political landscape. The political infrastructure in place establishes the ability of our nation to invest in our future. President Obama's speech at George Washington University yesterday illustrated this notion, and his stump speech that ostensibly kicked off his 2012 campaign was often inspiring in its liberalism and rhetorical embrace of innovation economics.

The America I know is generous and compassionate. It’s a land of opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future we share.
...
I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs.

In place of "jobs," the President could have easily said "a national infrastructure renovation" or "a clean energy economy." All three are true, but the politics of the game will probably guarantee that jobs are the key focus of his speeches from now until at least November 2012.

Like Bugs vs. Daffy though, there is some trickery at play. The President is calling this moment Investment Season when it's shaping out to be anything but. The sweeping and not entirely insincere verbiage dedicated by the President to investing in a "future we want" is undercut by the recent budget debacle, where we see funds for innovation, science and research cut across the board. The Breakthrough Institute crunches the thoroughly uninspiring numbers, and while investments levels for FY2012 aren't quite as low as they would be if Congressional Republicans had their way, more often not the President and his allies came away on the losing end of the draw.

I believe the President would be better served by a more ambitious agenda, one that aims to significantly increase investments in our nation's transportation grid, energy infrastructure, education and technological robustness. Indeed, I wish Obama would act exactly like he said he would in his 2011 State of the Union address. Instead, we have conflicting messaging coming from his podium. "Invest in our future" is sidelined by "live within our means" and calls for the government to tighten its belt like millions of families across the country. Economists agree this is a red herring -- now is not the time to worry about the deficit, but instead a time to rebuild a nation whose citizens, infrastructure and resources will guide it out of debt in the future.

The President is going to win next year. But a victory without a bold agenda will ill-serve the needs of an American economy desperately crying for the investments it's been robbed of for decades. Obama need not fret whether it's Investment Season or Election Season. It's both. Investing in America's future is good politics, and Obama's characteristically hopeful and progressive political rhetoric needs a policy backbone that seriously invests in the future we want.

State of the Union 2011

Last night, President Obama delivered the State of the Union. Much has and will be said about its content and delivery - I personally like Nate Silver's tweet calling the speech "Smart. Safe. Centrist. Vague. Optimistic." As Silver has regularly reminded us, SOTU speeches tend not to propel the electorate significantly in either direction (even though 91% of those who tuned in gave the speech positive ratings). However, this speech in particular indicates how Obama intends to direct his attentions in the second half of his first term. Without laboring too heavily on the subject, I think it's important not to mislabel the meaning of the President's words.

Two minor mischaracterizations come to mind, all of 18 hours after Obama exited the Chamber. First, the speech has already been called "the most pro-business speech a Democrat has given," which to me suggests a favoring of business over government. This stereotypical dichotomy seems to exist in everyone's political worldview except for President Obama's, who struck me as more an industrialist than CEO-in-Chief last night. The President does not observe dueling forces between business and government, but rather a symbiosis. To wit:

Cutting the deficits by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you'll feel the impact.

In other words, the President views public investment as a driving force behind the economy. So when Rachel Maddow describes Obama's speech as a "prayer to the free market," I think she's being hyperbolic. Critics will note the lack of any rhetoric concerning the foreclosure crisis and unemployment, and these criticisms are valid - as Robert Reich reminded us before and after the speech, corporate profits do not equal economic well-being. But let's not move forward with an impression that the President has abandoned his faith in the federal government to drive American progress.

The second slight mischaracterization, and the one more germane to this blog, is that Obama "ignored" climate change. While I do think that the conspicuously absence of the words "climate change" was a political calculation, we should not decouple Obama's words on modernizing our energy infrastructure from the movement to save the climate. The two are innately connected, and while the latter remains divisive and scientifically chaotic at best, the former is much closer to a technical challenge that our political and bureaucratic infrastructure can tackle. And President Obama continues to believe in the power of energy innovation to create jobs, rejuvenate American education and business, and to make cleaner our environment.

This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the creativity and imagination of our people to create jobs and industries of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.

If not for its eternally inspiring and true sentiments, the following would fast become a cliché: we are experiencing a new Sputnik moment. A decade before America landed a man on the moon, we had no idea how we were going to do it. The difficulties presented our decaying and poisonous energy infrastructure are daunting, but at least we have a President with a bold vision of American greatness to lead us forward in this next challenge.

Chunks: A(nother) New Approach to Energy Policy?

Cross-posted at WattHead - Energy News and Commentary and the Americans for Energy Leadership Blog.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, President Obama addressed the failed climate/energy attempt of this summer, promising to move forward with a reinvigorated agenda in 2011. However, any such action will likely bear little resemblance to previous attempts. Mr. Obama conceded that "we may have to end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive legislation." If this is indeed going to be the form of a new course of action on climate/energy for Mr. Obama, commentators are beginning to wonder exactly what those "chunks" will be.

Never mind the fact that the most recent attempts at energy reform have been piece-meal to begin with--that's more or less inevitable with so many regulations, markets, fuels, interest groups and players at stake. Before its total dismantling, the American Power Act (formerly Kerry-Graham-Lieberman) was a hodge-podge of cap-and-trade, tax incentives and subsidies for renewables and clean coal technology, loan guarantees for next-generation nuclear power production, and a slew of regulatory reforms to preempt state action of GHGs and promote energy efficiency. Of course that bill never came close to a floor vote in the Senate, but my point stands: a "comprehensive" bill would have to be built one brick at a time anyway, so maybe Obama's explicit "chunks" approach will get the job done.

So what's on the table this time around? And, more importantly, what can pass a divided Congress?

Glenn Hurowitz at Grist proposes his favorite chunks in his "Peanut Butter Plan." He advocates a combination of tax credits for carbon capture; regulations to reduce black carbon pollution; intensifying regulations banning HFCs; and international finance to help LDCs adapt to climate change. Hurowitz refers to these four as "low-hanging fruit" solutions, and believes that if combined properly they could achieve greater emissions reductions than more comprehensive legislation.

Andrew Revkin kick-started a similar discussion over at DotEarth, putting forward a couple of his favorite policy chunks to replace a larger bill. He credits Hurowitz's list, and adds making the R&D tax credit permanent and the RE-ENERGYSE program to the list. If anything, Mr. Revkin's recommendations are more comprehensive than "chunky," as he puts it. Rather than approaching certain piece-meal aspects of climate/energy one at a time, Revkin's suggestions create policy infrastructure for energy innovation and energy education at large. Instead of writing different legislation for solar, wind, CCS, nuclear, EE, carbon finance, and emissions regulations (to name a few), funding for innovation and education create the foundations of a workable and flexible industrial policy on energy.

I'm a fan of piece-meal, and I'm a fan of big picture. But the problems will arise, as usual, with the politics. As Senator Jay Rockefeller said, "We [the Senate] tend not to be very good at chunks, but then you could argue that we tend not to be very good at big things either." Bonus points for honesty. However, a recent piece in Politico might forecast some political leeway for the President as he moves forward with a chunks approach. The article cites Senators Brown (R-MA), Alexander (R-TN), and Snowe (R-ME) as potential allies on a chunky approach, in addition to Democrats like Rockefeller, John Kerry and Dick Durbin.

A quick aside on the politics. Much has been said that, if Republicans have been so unwilling to cooperate thusfar with the Obama Administration, what makes us think that the chances for climate/energy legislation will be higher in 2011, when Republicans will certainly have more seats in both Houses? To the naysayers, I offer my cautious optimism that Republicans will accept their increased share in political power as an opportunity to shake off the still trenchant "Party of No" vision that many voters have adopted for them. Beating Democrats in Midterms is one thing; beating a still reasonably popular President in 2012 without a legitimate Republican frontrunner will take more than straight obstruction. Time will tell.

But I digress. What would I add to the chunky climate agenda? Well, I appreciate the efforts of individual members of Congress to promote clean coal, nuclear, renewables, energy efficiency, biofuels and other fuel-focused policies. However, I would add my name Mr. Revkin's endorsement of research and innovation before partitioning climate/energy policy into too many segments. In addition to increasing cleantech R&D funding to at least $15 billion annually and re-investing in science and engineering education, we should expand the scope of DoE's ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, and create public private partnerships with similar goals of targeting and funding specific energy technology projects for demonstration and deployment.

Like extending the research tax credit and RE-ENERGYSE, these proposals are less chunky and have received proportionately lower attention in Congress. However, policy and business leaders from the Brookings Institution and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation to the American Energy Innovation Council and the Breakthrough Institute have all advocated similar approaches to our energy challenges. I've consistently added my voice to these calls to actions here and with Americans for Energy Leadership, who have done excellent work on the RE-ENERGYSE proposal in particular.

At the end of the day, we need a strong energy agenda, one way or another. But looking past the chunks, we must keep pushing for a policy infrastructure built on education, research and innovation, without which such piece-meal approaches may not be able to form an effective climate/energy agenda.

Cleantech, China, and the WTO

There's a pretty fascinating saga unfolding following some intrepid reporting by the New York Times on Wednesday. To make a long story short, the United States Steelworkers Union has petitioned the Obama Administration to sue China in the WTO for violating trade regulations, specifically by implicitly and explicitly subsidizing clean tech manufacturing; blocking the export of rare-earth minerals and other raw materials necessary for batteries and solar panels; and discriminating against foreign goods and firms.

This drama shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with the clean energy race, and the growing threat to U.S. competitiveness from Asian nations like China, Japan, and South Korea. In the seminal report "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," co-authors at the Breakthrough Institute and ITIF called attention to the billions of dollars in cleantech investment and the myriad of policies to encourage R&D, deployment, manufacturing and exports of clean technology. These investments and direct action on clean energy far surpass any efforts taken in the United States, where a decade-long focus on the politically toxic cap-and-trade has poisoned the well for anyone laboring to bring clean tech industrial policy to America.

The question is, should we be spending the bulk of our energy condemning China for its vigorous pursuit of a guaranteed-growth industry, or should we take a leaf out of their book? I would obviously not support the use of illegal trade policies to promote clean tech development in the United States, but perhaps this conflict will serve as the inspiration for the creation of a new American industrial policy. Government investment as a response to international forces were responsible for the propagation of nuclear energy, the space race, and tertiary effects of these investments like the personal computer and the Internet. Cleantech will be the next game-changing industry, and China obviously isn't afraid to get a little skin in the game. Are we?

Here's a round-up of reactions to the China-WTO story:

• Kate Sheppard (Mother Jones): "We can ask China to knock off the subsidies, but unless the US ramps up its own policies, we're probably still going to keep handing our lunch money over to China."
• John Whitehead (Environmental Economics): "The dynamic effects are not so clear. If the export subsidies trigger some sort of positive spillover effects (e.g., learning by doing that leads to a reduction in production cost), then the exporting country might benefit."
• Teryn Norris and Daniel Goldfarb (Americans for Energy Leadership): "Not only could China's practices end up suppressing innovation from both domestic and foreign firms, they could also discourage other countries from deploying clean energy."
• Brad Plumer (The New Republic): "So how should the United States respond? One possibility would be to retaliate and set up new trade barriers. But that runs the risk of making various renewable technologies more expensive, which would only deepen the world's reliance one cheaper and dirtier energy sources like coal."
• Michael Levi (Council on Foreign Relations): "This dynamic is no different from happens in many other sectors. China assembles computers that used to be made in the United States. Does anyone think that this means America is losing from the computer and IT revolutions? Of course not: the United States is making its contributions primarily in fields that yield far greater profits, while cheap Chinese computer assembly is enlarging the market for everything computer and IT-related."
• Randy Rieland (Grist): "Multinational companies have shied away from formally challenging the practice because they're afraid they'll be shut out of the alluring Chinese market."

Energetics Cliff Notes - Friday Edition

The week that was: (/climategate) and, yes, more oil.

• Dave Roberts was on Rachel Maddow last night talking about the oil spill and the climate/energy bill.
• Prop 23, a.k.a. the Dirty Energy Proposition, isn't doing so hot in the opinion polls.
• As you've no doubt heard if you're reading my blog, the Solar Impulse, a plane powered entirely by retrofitted solar panels, finished its 26-hour flight yesterday...meaning it flew through the night.
• Alexis Madrigal of The Atlantic asks: can the US innovate without manufacturing? Quick answer: NO. (Seriously though, read the whole piece.)
• Not that it really matters anymore (except maybe for the researchers themselves), but a British panel has cleared the East Anglia climatologists at the center of "climategate" of any wrongdoing.
• Michael Levi figures that a utility-only cap, while not raising nearly as much revenue as an economy-wide cap, would still reduce the deficit due to a correlatively diminished effect on business.
• Keep an eye on this: the EPA's new "transport rule" may place bureaucratic restrictions on cap-and-trade schemes for more than just CO2.
• Robert Cialdini, psychologist and author of the influential Influence, weighs in on energy conservation.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Friday Edition

• Dave Roberts gets hopeful over the Senate Democrats' caucus yesterday, thinking carbon pricing may be back in the mix.
• Michael Levi discusses the inherent problem in the climate science/climate skeptics debate, as illustrated by the latest poll of climate researchers.
• In a similar vein, Roger Pielke Jr. asks: Do climate back lists matter?
• Weeks after Obama lifted the moratorium on deep-water drilling, he put the cap back on, so to speak. Now a judge has lifted his replaced moratorium.
• Bryan Walsh at TIME thinks the oil spill might be good for environmentalism as a whole.
• Andy Revkin gives us a much-needed reminder of the energy innovation gap (with help from my Professor at Cal, Dan Kammen).
• SciAm interviews Jon Wellinghoff, FERC chairman, on his predictions for the US electrical grid.
• Researchers at MIT continue their quest to use America's vast domestic resources of natural gas as a platform towards renewable energy.

Sweden uses body heat as new green energy source

This is cool:

It's 7:30 on a wintry morning in downtown Stockholm and a sea of Swedes are flooding Central Station to catch a train to work. The station is toasty thanks to the busy shops and restaurants and the body heat being generated by the 250,000 commuters who crowd Scandinavia's busiest travel hub each day. This heat used to be lost by the end of the morning rush hour. Now, however, engineers have figured out a way to harness it and transfer it to a newly refurbished office building down the block. Unbeknownst to them, these sweaty Swedes have become a green energy source: "They're cheap and renewable*," says Karl Sundholm, a project manager at Jernhusen, a Stockholm real estate company, and one of the creators of the system.

Awesome engineering aside, this is just one small example of the type of innovation needed to decarbonize the economy. I always liked the idea of powering commercial gyms with energy generated by ellipticals, ergometers, weight machines and stationary bikes. What other innovative ways can we think of to lower our emissions?

___________________________
*OTOH, this sounds suspiciously like another plan to generate power using human body heat.