A New Way that Makes Sense & Cents, Solar.

Do you ever think about the fact that the bank you go to is run entirely by electricity?

How about when you went to school, were you conscious about it being 100% powered by electricity?

Our fire stations, police stations, government buildings, airports, homes… they all run on electricity. This means that education, security, and the economy are all sustained by the same means. They all need energy. Without them, we wouldn’t be able to run our businesses, teach our children, live comfortably in our homes… save lives. When you think about the way the world works today, it makes perfect sense. We get home, to a coffee shop, to a waiting area at the airport, and the first thing we do is rush to the power outlet to charge our laptops or phones.

Today’s world runs on electricity 24/7. All 7 billion people in this world need access to electricity.

Not as much as we need food and water, but, when you think about how we acquire food and water, it’s a pretty close call. 

As our population continues to expand (the current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to the United Nations), as we become more connected, as we create faster, better, bigger technology, we need more electricity, more energy to power our everyday lives.

So how have we been producing that electricity? How have we been getting our energy as citizens of the world?

The sources of energy, at a global scale, can be broken down into basic parts:

1.    Coal - 33.2%

2.    Natural Gas - 32.7%

3.    Nuclear - 19.5%

4.    Renewables - 13%

In 2015, 81% of our energy came from fossil fuels. However, this is changing as the planet’s known non-renewable supplies diminish, the difficulties and cost of tapping remaining reserves increase, and the effect of their continued use on our planet becomes more critical. 

Why have these been the main sources of energy?

For starters, it’s been the only way we’ve really known to effectively generate energy for the masses- that is, until recently. Also, fossil fuels have been available in high quantities, are easy to find (although now getting harder and much more expensive), and easy to transport (once underground pipes are laid in place); not to mention, they have generated a massive global economy.

What’s so bad about getting our energy this way?

1.    Environmental degradation. As we burn fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is released into the air, which has been directly linked to global warming. Fossil fuel emissions trap heat which steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. In addition to CO2 emissions, coal mining disturbs the land and modifies the chemistry of rainwater runoff. This in turn affects stream and river water quality and releases substantial amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Thus, negatively affecting the health of our planet.

2.    It’s expensive to generate power this way. Power stations need to be built very closely to large deposits of coal (or truckloads and trainloads of coal need to be shipped miles away to the nearest sub stations regularly) in order to keep up with the high level of energy demanded by the world. Powering these stations, in turn, requires a lot of electricity– which only creates what we know as a positive feedback cycle, with very negative results. As fuel shortage rises, prices are due to rise as well. This is also a result of a rise in costs for finding coal and oil. Attorney and mechanical engineer Peter W. Huber pointed out in 2006 that the world was running out of "cheap oil." As William J. Cummings, Exxon-Mobil company spokesman said, “all the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas.” Former chairman of Shell, Lord Ron Oxburgh coincides, “it is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive.” Still, in 2010 a massive amount of domestic natural gas reserves were found, which once again reshaped the energy landscape, and shows that contrary to popular belief, natural gas continues to grow exponentially- which presents another, more difficult, challenge for renewable energy.

3.    Public health. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7 million premature deaths annually are linked to air pollution. High levels of air pollution are directly linked to lung cancer and asthma – this can be seen especially in areas with large amounts of traffic. Even in the coal-mining workplace, the dust that coats miners compromises their health greatly. This is costing the lives of hundreds of coal-miners every single year. According to the International Energy Agency, in its 2015 Coal Report, “Coal demand in China is sputtering as the Chinese economy gradually shifts to one based more on services and less on energy-intensive industries. New Chinese hydro, nuclear, wind and solar are also significantly curtailing coal power generation, driven not only by energy security and climate concerns but also by efforts to reduce local pollution.”

4.    Finite Source. Fossil fuels are nonrenewable. As they are derived from pre-historic plants and animals, fossils that lived millions of years ago, once used, they cannot be renewed. These fossils take millions of years to form. This means that once gas, coal and other fossil fuels are used up – there will be nothing left to power our world. Although this is centuries away, it’s inevitable, and it’s unsustainable to continue depending on these forms of energy.

5.    Oil Spills. When they occur they kill hundreds – if not thousands- of species. The most recent example of this is the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the Deepwater Horizon by BP, Exxon Valdez caused by Exxon in 1989, Amoco Cadiz in 1978. Our waters get polluted, damaging entire ecosystems- bird, mammals, sea turtles, shellfish, fish and plants. According to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, “Oil has the potential to persist in the environment long after a spill event and has been detected in sediment 30 years after a spill.”  If that’s not enough of an incentive, the fact that they cause billions of dollars’ worth of damages for the responsible parties could be.

6.    Costs rising. Since 40% of the world’s oil is in just a few Middle Eastern countries, there is much fear that this puts the rest of the world at risk. Political turmoil, war, strikes by trade unions, or simply lower output by the country, can have an exponential effect on the cost and supply of the fuel used by the rest of the world. The U.S. alone has been spending over $1 trillion per year on foreign oil, which poses a big threat to its security. Not to mention, there’s a history of instability, generated by dependence on these resources by the entire world, in some of these countries. (The $1 Trillion per year spending number is a bit outdated; our foreign oil dependency has decreased dramatically because of cleaner natural gas and wind and solar.

Here’s a look at where CO2 emissions are at an all-time high (China, New Mexico, etc.), and what’s becoming of these places’ air and living conditions?

New Mexico in 1992, was named by the UN "the most polluted city on the planet." At the time pollution was thought to cause 1,000 deaths and 35,000 hospitalizations per year. Nearly 20 years ago, record levels of ozone and other airborne pollutants led the Mexico City government to introduce a program, Hoy No Circula, which bans most drivers from using their vehicles one weekday per week, based on the last digit of the vehicle's license plate. When imposed in 1989, the restrictions applied to 2.3 million vehicles, or 460,000 vehicles per day. 

 Paris in 2004, air pollution exceeded safe levels for five days running in Paris and surrounding areas. It reached its worst air quality on record (127 in its air pollution index chart, the average for Paris is about 38. Over 100 is considered harmful.) In response, 50% of vehicles were not allowed on the road (all even-numbered license plates), public transport was made free of charge for three days in an attempt to encourage people to leave their cars at home, and speed limits were reduced by 12 miles per hour.

Another example is Beijing. The graph below shows the measure of the amount of particulate matter in the air small enough to lodge in the respiratory system (known as PM2.5) Beijing (the capital of China) is at about six times what the US Environmental Protection Agency deems safe.

Just this year, New Delhi’s air quality hit 33 times the safe limit, at 848 PM 2.5 units with PM2.5 at an astounding 848 units at 4 p.m. -- 33 times the safe limit.

I like to compare burning fossil fuels to the act of smoking. When we seek smoking cigarettes as an alternative source of “energy”, we release toxins in our bodies. Smoking is linked to about 90% of lung cancer cases in the United States. It can cause an increase in blood pressure, heart rate, flow of blood to the heart and a narrowing of the arteries (vessels that carry blood). Nicotine may also contribute to the hardening of the arterial walls, which in turn, may lead to a heart attack. That’s exactly what we have been doing to our beautiful planet, home to 7 billion people. We are releasing thousands of toxins every day through the burning of fossil fuels… shortening our lifespan as a humanity. We are destroying it at will because it’s all we’ve known. We have been doing this for the past 100+ years… This is a physical manifestation of the society’s habits. We’ve allowed this, as citizens of global society; as a species on this planet.

Can we reverse this? Unfortunately, we can’t.

However, can we change the trajectory of Mother Nature’s well-being? Can we collectively start recreating the world that will soon be home to 8 billion, 9 billion, 10 billion people?

I believe we can. We can turn this planet into a healthy one, a prosperous one, a sustainable one. It’s our duty as stakeholders of a global society.

There is hope.

According to EIA projections, the share of total energy used by renewable power plants from sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal is projected to reach 28% by 2040.

The beauty of this opportunity is that world leaders are already doing something about it. Companies that you hear of on a daily basis, have committed to switching to renewables to accelerate the transformation of the global energy market and aid the transition to a low carbon economy.

Apple’s operations in 23 countries run on 100% renewable power. Worldwide, 96% of its electricity use comes from renewable sources, and Apple is committed to reaching 100%. Microsoft has been 100 percent powered by renewable energy since 2014.Ikea has committed to produce as much renewable energy as the total energy it consumes in its buildings by 2020. Adobe has committed to powering its operations and the digital delivery of its products entirely with renewable electricity by 2035. Bank of America has set a goal to become carbon neutral and purchase 100% renewable electricity by 2020. Bloomberg has set a goal to become 100% renewable by 2025. BMW has committed to procuring 100% of electricity from renewable sources – as well as Burberry 100% by 2022, Citi 100% by 2020, Coca-Cola 100% by 2020, Ebay 100% by 2025, Facebook 50% by 2018, GM 100% by 2050, Goldman Sachs 100% by 2020, Google 100% by end of 2017. H&M, Hewlett Packard, HP, HSBC, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Kellogg’s, Lego, Morgan Stanley, Nestle, Nike, Phillips, Salesforce, Starbucks, TD Bank Group, Walmart, Wells Fargo, and many more have committed to go 100% renewable in the coming years. These world leading companies have recognized the opportunity and need right now, more than ever, to take positive massive action towards becoming a 100% renewable world.

(See more at https://there100.org/companies)

Nations across the world are also coming together to solve this energy crisis.

In 2015, 196 countries negotiated and adopted a consensus known as the “Paris Agreement” to take world action on keeping a global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius. This is the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement with a focus on divestment of fossil fuels with 3 primary aims as described below:

"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 Â°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 Â°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."

(All the signatories of Paris Agreement can be found here: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&clang=_en)

The Paris Agreement’s efforts to limit global temperature to a hypothetical 2 degrees Celsius rise would demand a 75% decline in carbon emissions in industrial countries by 2050, if the population is 10 billion in 2050. Across 40 years, this averages to a 2% decrease every year. What would a 2-degree Celsius rise do to our world? Take a look at the following diagrams.

What’s our progress so far?

We have a lot more work to do.

The United States is also taking deeper measures, through the release of what’s called the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a regulation that requires the increased production of energy from renewable energy sources. The RPS mechanism generally places an obligation on electricity supply companies to produce a specified fraction of their electricity from renewable energy sources – which is ultimately creating competition and innovation to deliver renewable energy at the lowest possible cost. This has been adopted by 29 of 50 U.S. States.

Hawaii has a state target mandate of 100% clean energy by 2040. California, for instance, had a target of 50% by 2030 and just recently stepped it up to 100% by 2045 with a new senate bill. (This bill can be read here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100)

Just recently, State Representative Sean Garballey (D-Arlington), State Representative Marjorie Decker (D-Cambridge), and State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) filed a bill that would commit Massachusetts to obtain 100 percent of its energy from clean, renewable sources.

To find more local programs visit https://www.dsireusa.org/

What are the renewable technologies that we can bank-ably and sustainably get our energy from – right now?

Renewable energy is energy from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished with time, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, geothermal and more.  These resources don’t deplete with time through usage or consumption.

Based on REN21's (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century) 2016 report, renewables contributed 19.2% to humans' global energy consumption and 23.7% to their generation of electricity in 2014 and 2015, respectively. 

Worldwide investments in renewable technologies amounted to more than US$286 billion in 2015. Globally, there are an estimated 7.7 million jobs associated with the renewable energy industries, with solar photovoltaics being the largest renewable employer. As of 2015 worldwide, more than 50% of all new electricity capacity installed was renewable.

Although projections vary, the EIA has predicted that almost two thirds of net additions to power capacity will come from renewables by 2020 due to the combined policy benefits of local pollution, de-carbonization and energy diversification. Some studies have set out roadmaps to power 100% of the world’s energy 

Here’s a look at how fast renewables have been being adopted:

(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Gross_electricity_generation_from_renewable_sources,_EU-28,_1990-2015_F3.png)

 Renewable energy has risen with new high of US$329 Billion for global renewables investment. A key benefit that this investment growth brings is a growth in jobs. Although, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says that the fossil fuel industries still receive almost $548 billion in subsidies each year. According to a QUARTZ article “One of the biggest criticisms of the renewable-energy industry is that it has been propped up by government subsidies. There is no doubt that without government help, it would have been much harder for the nascent technology to mature.” In reality, although we might think of renewable energy as a highly subsidized technology, it isn’t nowhere near the investment received by fossil fuels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that there are few fundamental technological limits to integrating a portfolio of renewable energy technologies to meet most of total global energy demand. In reviewing 164 recent scenarios of future renewable energy growth, the report noted that the majority expected renewable sources to supply more than 17% of total energy by 2030, and 27% by 2050; the highest forecast projected 43% supplied by renewables by 2030 and 77% by 2050.

What are the benefits of renewable sources of energy?

Rapid deployment of renewable energy is resulting in significant energy security, climate change mitigation, and economic benefits.

Here are some of the value-adds of renewable energy:

Infinite supply, we’ll never run out of them. Sunny skies, strong winds, fast-moving water have the technical potential to provide all the electricity the nation needs many times over. In 2012, NREL found that together, renewable energy sources have the technical potential to supply 482,247 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually (see Table 1). This amount is 118 times the amount of electricity the nation currently consumes. Here’s a chart that shows the potential of each renewable resource.

 Renewable energy facilities require less maintenance since fuels are derived from natural and available resources. (According to data aggregated by the International Panel on Climate Change, life-cycle global warming emissions associated with renewable energy—including manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance, and dismantling and decommissioning—are very minimal.)

Produce little to no global warming emissions on environment.

Compared with natural gas, which emits between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2E/kWh), and coal, which emits between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of CO2E/kWh. Solar emits .07-.2, wind .02-.04, geothermal .1-.2, hydroelectric .1-.5 CO2E/kWh.

For example, a 2009 UCS analysis found that a 25 percent by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would lower power plant CO2 emissions 277 million metric tons annually by 2025—the equivalent of the annual output from 70 typical (600 MW) new coal plants. In addition, a ground-breaking study by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explored the feasibility and environmental impacts associated with generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2050 and found that global warming emissions from electricity production could be reduced by approximately 81 percent. 

 Better living quality. 

Wind, solar, and hydroelectric systems generate electricity with no associated air pollution emissions. The air and water pollution emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked to breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, and cancer. This will also reduce overall healthcare costs. The aggregate national economic impact associated with these health impacts of fossil fuels is between $361.7 and $886.5 billion per year, or between 2.5 percent and 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (Source: A study from the Clean Energy and Climate Change Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

Wind and solar energy require essentially no water to operate and thus do not pollute water resources or strain supply by competing with agriculture, drinking water systems, or other important water needs. In contrast, fossil fuels can have a significant impact on water resources. For example, both coal mining and natural gas drilling can pollute sources of drinking water. Natural gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) requires large amounts of water and all thermal power plants, including those powered by coal, gas, and oil, withdraw and consume water for cooling. 

More jobs and more money.

Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025; it found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels—resulting in a benefit of 202,000 new jobs in 2025. Growth in renewables also creates a “ripple” economic effect. This promotes local economy and further benefits even unrelated local businesses from increased household and business incomes.

UCS analysis found that a 25 by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities. Renewables therefore keep money circulating within the local economy, and in most states renewable electricity production would reduce the need to spend money on importing coal and natural gas from other places.

 Affordable, accessible energy.

Renewables are providing affordable electricity for hardworking homeowners and businesses across the country right now, and can help stabilize energy prices in the future. UCS’s analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable electricity standard found that such a policy would lead to 4.1 percent lower natural gas prices and 7.6 percent lower electricity prices by 2030

 In addition, utilities spend millions of dollars on financial instruments to hedge themselves from these fossil fuel price uncertainties. Since hedging costs are not necessary for electricity generated from renewable sources, long-term renewable energy investments can help utilities save money they would otherwise spend to protect their customers from the volatility of fossil fuel prices.

 Savings.

"Higher energy prices act like a tax. They reduce the disposable income people have available for other things after they've paid their energy bills." (John W. Snow) Electric bills make up a large expense of homes and businesses’ energy bill. It’s a necessary expense, and with rising utility rates, homeowners and businesses have less of their hard-earned money to spend on other goods and services. Solar power can free up more spending money, because it can significantly reduce or eliminate an electric bill. This means that homeowners that choose solar and other renewable sources of power will have more money to spend, instead of being tied to rising electricity rates.

Physical Security.

Wind and solar are less prone to large-scale failure because they are distributed and modular. Distributed systems are spread out over a large geographical area, so a severe weather event in one location will not cut off power to an entire region. Modular systems are composed of numerous individual wind turbines or solar arrays. Even if some of the equipment in the system is damaged, the rest can typically continue to operate. Plus, PV and storage battery systems provide value on several different levels. It can provide backup energy for homes and businesses. “Batteries solve that problem by allowing utility companies to collect excess electricity and store it for times when the sun may not be shining or the wind not blowing,” says TIME magazine in its article “How Batteries Could Revolutionize Renewable Energy.”

For example, in 2012 Hurricane Sandy damaged fossil fuel-dominated electric generation and distribution systems in New York and New Jersey and left millions of people without power. In contrast, renewable energy projects in the Northeast weathered Hurricane Sandy with minimal damage or disruption 

Also, the modern world relies on a vast energy supply to fuel everything from transportation to communication, to security and health delivery systems. Perhaps most alarmingly, peak oil expert Michael Ruppert has claimed that for every calorie of food produced in the industrial world, ten calories of oil and gas energy are invested in the forms of fertilizer, pesticide, packaging, transportation, and running farm equipment. Energy plays an important role in the national security of any given country as a fuel to power the economic engine.

Political Security & Independence.

"Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people." – George W. Bush. Since the dawn of the fossil fuel age, the United States’ reliance on unstable or hostile countries to supply oil, gas and other energy resources has caused plenty of trouble. Indeed, the country’s political and business leaders are often forced to make unsavory compromises with disagreeable parties in order to guarantee steady energy imports. Since all of the solar power that the United States needs can be generated within the country’s own borders, the technology has the potential to eliminate this less-than-ideal reliance on imperfect actors. In the long run, such a development could increase the economic and physical security of every American citizen.

Renewables are a huge step towards our energy independence.

 For instance, with solar. The sun cannot be taxed or tariffed, and once your solar panels are installed, there are no price fluctuations or negotiations about the cost of fuel. Solar energy is not owned or supplied by any entity in particular. Therefore, using the sun to our advantage is a step toward energy independence.

 Where is the public consensus on this?

A fascinating study was just released by Yale and George Mason Universities that involved a national survey of American opinions. Almost 70% of registered voters in the U.S. believe that their country should participate in international agreements to limit global warming. Only 1 in 8 registered voters believe the U.S. should not participate in such agreements. Similarly, 70% of respondents support decreasing carbon dioxide, the most important human-emitted heat trapping gas. 

A different Republican firm, Public Opinion Strategies, found that 75 percent of Trump voters surveyed wanted action to accelerate the development and use of clean energy. The latest nationwide Quinnipiac University Poll found that 76 percent of Americans are very or somewhat concerned about climate change, and 68 percent say it's possible to tackle climate change while protecting jobs.

What this tells us, ultimately, is that there is that the need for more renewable, sustainable, and accessible sources of energy is more universal than we believe it to be. It goes beyond political parties, or economic statuses.

(Source: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/trump-voters-democrats-want-clean-energy#gs.eyAd2wk)

 The US solar job force had a year of exponential growth in 2016, increasing 25% year-on-year and constituting one in every 50 new US jobs, according to analysis by the Solar Job Census.

It found that solar outpaced the overall US economy by 17 times as it increased by more than 51,000 jobs for a total of 260,077 solar workers. “With a near tripling of solar jobs since 2010, the solar industry is an American success story that has created hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs,” said Andrea Luecke, president and executive director of The Solar Foundation.

WHY SOLAR, WHY NOW?

Here are two simple, obvious reasons:

We have it all

More power from the sun hits the Earth in a single hour than humanity uses in an entire year.

The US Energy Information Administration's estimation of global energy consumption by 2030 is 678 quadrillion Btu = 198,721,800,000,000 kilowatt-hours (simple conversion). If we divided that number by 400 kilowatt-hours of solar-energy production per square meter of land (which is based on 20% efficiency, 70% sunshine days per year and the fact that 1,000 watts of solar energy strikes each square meter of land on Earth), we get a total of 496,805 square kilometers of solar panels (191,817 square miles) – which is displayed in the image above.

 That’s minimal space, and minimal damage, to power the entire world. We have all the resources, the space and the technology to produce all our energy from renewable sources. We just need to make up our minds to put these tools to work. As Buckminster Fuller famously philosophized: "Don't fight forces. Use them!"

There is no planet B.

If we want to continue to live on Earth for a long time (Mars is not ready to be inhabited), let’s begin taking ownership for our doings, and responsibility for shaping and protecting the future of our planet. We need to foment awareness for the consequence of our behaviors, and be more open and proactive for new, better ways of living.

The barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be "primarily social and political, not technological or economic".  (Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University) There is nothing getting in the way but ourselves.

“The greatest threat our planet faces is waiting for someone else to change it.”

 We live in a beautiful world, let’s power it in a way that makes sense. We no longer have time left to wait.