Learning from an unexpected source

In watching Ken Burns PBS documentary on prohibition, I was struck by how this constitutional amendment was passed by the work of a small dedicated group of activists.  I don't recall the exact percentage, but I believe it was less than 20% of the U.S. population that took on the powerful brewers and distillers, and all the people who were drinkers.  Truly an amazing feat!

My grandmother, a stern Iowa farmer right out of American Gothic, was one of those prohibitionists; she only voted based on whether a candidate favored legalization of drinking.

As much as prohibition was a disaster--just as prohibition against marijuana is today--I have to admire the political achievement of this group of activists, and think it has something to teach us.  If 98% of climate scientists are correct that global warming will make the planet unlivable within 100 years, then we need to be just as dedicated as my grandmother and the prohibitionists were in stopping this real evil. 

We have to go after fossil fuels with the same fervor and in the same single-minded way they went after alcohol.  Defeating Mitt Romney with his $200 million from the Koch brothers is just a start.

Love For The Bug Roundup

First and foremost, I need to write a dedication to a dear friend who has passed from this world all too soon. Heather Braaten was a friend to us all and while not an avid car builder, her custom license plates were immeasurably valuable to our cause. Even if you have never met her in person, she has touched us with her kindness, her humor, and her marvelous LEGO creations. I was part of her search team when she was missing, and when her body was found I attended her funeral service. I'm still feeling a little blue from all of this so if my jokes fall short this time, you know why. Heather, if you read the LUGNuts blog up there in LEGO heaven, you are missed.





 Alrighty, now that that is over with, lets brew some Three-Peckered Billy Goat coffee and sit back for the Love For The Bug Roundup...all about the VW Beetle. Oh yeah, I have Three-Peckered Billy Goat again. Drinking the stuff now for reals, yo. We should make it the official coffee of LUGNuts. Anyway, back to the subject at hand...while we could have built the classic, the 1999 remake, or the sportier new 2012 version in any of its forms, we may as well have just called this challenge...Love For The Volksrod. Let's show ya what I mean.

Our first entry by Ralph Savelsberg is not a Volksrod, but actually a super rare Volkswagen Hebmüller Cabriolet. What does that mean, you ask? Well its a two seater convertible version built between 1949 and 1952 and less than 100 are still around today.



Less than 100 Volksrods were built for this challenge but it seemed like just as many. Jonathan Derksen builds the first of many Volksrods but with its chopped roof and striking red and white color scheme it doesn’t make it any less cool. A custom corvair engine powers this awesome bad boy.



The ladybug inspired this cute pudgy little entry built by LegoMyMamma. You boys know the drill when there’s a lady present. You might wanna comb that hair. Maybe tuck in that shirt. Hide the pinup poster. Maybe straighten up your room a little. Put some chips out or something. Maybe some cheese and crackers...and wine. Women like that. And for the love of God, put some pants on for cripes sakes!



No stranger to wine, cheese, and pant-less cavorting is Lino Martins and my VW convertible called Blue Hawaiian. Anyone who knows me well knows I like tikis, LEGO and cars. Finally I get to combine the three, and like the cocktail of the same name, this surfin’ woody entry goes down smooth! It makes me glad I didn’t go with my second choice...a Volksrod.



That’s because Raphy...and several other dudes after him...did a great job in tackling the Volksrod with it’s chopped, fender-less form. This one is called Werewagen and like Raphy, this entry is “Back In Black”. Click the pic to see that Raphy included the lyrics to that classic AC/DC tune. Ahh that takes me back to high school with its jean jackets, boring math classes, and pimple cream.



Dylan Denton puts us all on Camber Alert with a Volksrod of his own. He tells us...The best way to respect the Beetle...is to completely disrespect the Beetle. This entry is chopped, dropped, and given the import camber treatment. Inspired by the JDM Import scene, this is what Abercrombie and Fitch wearing stereotypes would drive had they not blown all their money on Axe body spray and hair gel.



TechnicFenix13 spins his particular breed of technic trickery with his own Volksrod. I guess those awkward father-son talks would have gone a lot better in this rather than in an Aries K Wagon. You know the ones...had you have learned to wipe like a real man instead of like your mother you would have become an engineer and not an artist.



I know, I know, I used that joke already. But what else can I say to yet another Volksrod? Repeating jokes is like repeating Volksrods. And speaking of which, Peteris Sprogis chimes in with a Volksrod, except he cuts out the whole back end and gives it a big honkin’ performance engine. Yay!



If you need spiritual advice from a slow moving reptile, new guy, Reverend Turtle ought to provide the answers you seek. He has also provided his first ever LUGNuts entry, a 4-stud wide cabriolet convertible. Welcome to our happy little group, Reverend! Hey, at least its not yet another Volksrod, right?



You know what is yet another Volksrod? This entry by Dohoon Kim. Except this one takes coloring cues from a bumblebee and is powered by a 2.7 Porsche flat-6 engine. I’m powered by Corn Pops, Three-Peckered Billy Goat, and the hope that we’ll never see another Volksrod again. Don’t get me wrong, they were all awesome...but yanno, there is other things to do with a VW Bug.



Like, for example this Volksrod...uh, I mean Meyers Manxster as built by Tim Inman. Wait, what? Yep, this ultimate beach-mobile is based on a shortened V-DUB chassis and therefore thankfully fits within our rules for the challenge. Back in the 60’s a guy named Bruce Meyers got tired of looking at his Bug and decided to do something radical to it. It was so popular over 300 companies sprouted to offer their own versions.



And speaking of radical, you can always count on Nathan Proudlove to come up with something out of the ordinary. A phenomenon occurs where peeps take a VW chassis and engine and make some pretty crazy trikes outta them. Some even keep the entire VW Bug back end intact. This one doesn’t but is a refreshingly welcome entry nonetheless.



If it wasn’t for Peter Blackert, this challenge would have been completely void of the sporty new 2012 redesign. But thankfully he chimes in better late than never with this LCAD trio. The first in striking Carbon Grey and Orange. It was rendered to evoke the Porsche 911 GT3 RS, big wheels and spoilers. Yep!



And by spoilers, he means the chick in The Crying Game is totally a dude! Hopefully you would have known that by now...and if you didn’t...well, I just spoiled the ending for you. Still, a startlingly attractive shemale like her would be pretty in pink driving this lovely 2012 in Friends colors. The flower on the door adds a nice feminine touch to this frilly pink ride. A girl has gotta accessorize, right?



Hail a taxi in Mexico and you’ll likely hop into a classic Beetle in green and white, just like this one. Hail a taxi in Tijuana and even if you tell them you want to go back to the ship they may likely take you to seedy some bar with a lowbrow floor show that involves...like yanno...ping-pong balls and...stuff. I should know, I was in the Navy once.



Well, now that I left you with that unsettling image in mind, we bring this challenge to a tasteless close. We’re all hot rodders at heart so it was no surprise there were no less than six Volksrods. All the entries turned out awesome but I’ll be pretty happy if I don’t see another Volksrod for awhile. Tune in next month for a little challenge we call LEGO set Overhaulin’ where we take any official vehicle related set from LEGO history and give it a remake. Anything goes, you can scale up, scale down...even change the theme or rework the design entirely. There has already been some pretty snazzy entries so I’m excited to see how the challenge unfolds. Chances are there will be no Volksrods...unless, of course, someone chooses to revamp the 10187 set into a Volksrod. Then what will we do? Roll our eyes, probably.

In light of recent events, be sure to call your parents, your grandparents, sisters, brothers and loved ones. Let ‘em know how you’re doing. They like to know you’re still alive and kicking...even if you’re a crusty old Navy salt like me. Take care. See ya next time.

Review of Bay Area Smart Energy 2020

"We've gone from defense to offense," declared Cisco DeVries at the launch event for Bay Area Smart Energy 2020 (BASE 2020) on March 12 in Oakland.  DeVries, developer of the groundbreaking Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program in Berkeley spoke on a panel with Alex Levinson from Pacific Environment.  Levinson predicted, "California will be the first state to reach 100% renewable energy."  David Hochschild, co-founder of Vote Solar and instrumental in California's $3.3 billion solar initiative, added that we need to "build a solar industry that can take on Exxon."  Francesca Vietor, member of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, described the report as a "roadmap on how to get there."

Bill Powers, Principal Author of Bay Area Smart Energy 2020, at the launch event March 12

Indeed this report is a monumental achievement.  It has 166 pages packed with facts, figures, and illuminating arguments as well as 680 footnotes with hundreds of links to documentation.

The report concentrates on the generation of electricity and how to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the nine counties surrounding San Francisco Bay.  It details plans that will reduce GHG emissions from electricity usage by more than 60% by 2020 compared to 2008.  The report focuses on reducing peak demand with plans from 14,000 megawatts (MW) to 6,500 MW.  This reduction will come about by:

·         Efficiencyimprovements (2500 MW),

·         Upgrading and on/off cycling of air conditioners (2100 MW),

·         New rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) (1900 MW),

·         Combined Heat and Power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) (840 MW)

·         Battery storage from PV (200 MW)

 Additional renewable energy toward the 60% GHG reduction goal will come from wind (300 MW), additional solar (1700 MW), and geothermal (300 MW).  Solar water heating would reduce natural gas by about 5% statewide.

BASE 2020 builds on the California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan.  For example, the California Strategic Plan envisions that 25% of residences will achieve 70% less grid electricity by 2020. The BASE 2020 plan envisions 25% of residences to achieve zero net energy by 2020.  Also, the California Strategic Plan envisions all new residences to be zero net energy by 2020 while BASE 2020 envisions the same goal, but by 2015.

The report strongly supports rooftop solar panels rather than remote utility scale projects, often citing Germany as an example of how to do it.  The report also supports geothermal and wind, but sees rooftop solar as a more economical source of renewable energy, especially given the dramatic price drops in recent years.  BASE 2020 argues that PV is very reliable on hot summer days when energy demand is at its peak.  This is why BASE 2020 emphasizes solar over wind as a way to reduce peak demand.   California's price is now around $5 per watt for small residential installations, but Germany is installing at half that price. The Feed-in-Tariff in Germany adjusts its price downward as the cost of PVs decreases so there is no windfall profit, but the incentive to add solar remains strong.

The concept of merit benefits, discussed in detail in the report, is also important.  This concept is that renewable energy and efficiency measures reduce the peak demand, and by doing so, lower the price of peak electricity.  This means that for every 1% of California's energy that becomes renewable or is reduced by efficiency, there is a benefit on the order of 6 cents per kwh.  (see graphs and discussion on page 128 of the report).

One issue that the report brings out is that the profit model of a public utility often conflicts with best public policy.  In general, the investor owned utilities (IOUs) have as their "core financial interest--construction of new IOU owned generation and transmission infrastructure" (page 112) from which they can collect from ratepayers an 11-12% rate of return for their stockholders.  For example, remote solar installations add about 3 - 4 cents/kwh for transmission lines but these large scale installations are more profitable for utilities than paying people who install rooftop solar panels.  Similarly, with regard to energy efficiency measures, the report notes that Oregon has set up a non-profit agency for this task and has made much more substantial improvements than California has under the leadership of utilities. 

 Some specific policy initiatives detailed in the report include:

·         No more natural gas power plants.  The report argues that PG & E (our local utility) has more than enough capacity with its existing natural gas plants and that plans for over 4,000 MW of additional natural gas power plants and peaker plants by PG&E should be scrapped. 

·         The PACE program needs to be expanded and defended against current Federal Housing Finance Administration efforts to stop it due to their fears that it will override first mortgages.

·         Establish Feed-in-Tariffs that pay at least 22 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) to account for all avoided costs and merit costs for the utilities.  BASE 2020 recommends that an agency such as the State Department of General Services should purchase PV and sell it to the IOUs if the feed-in-tariffs set by the state Public Utilities Commission do not accurately represent the cost and cost savings for the utilities. 

·         Support Community Choice Aggregation as an important way to increase renewable energy amounts for consumers.

·         Eliminate the 5% cap that currently limits how much solar net metering is possible

·         Eliminate electricity from coal in the mix that is imported to the state  

·         Set up a non-profit organization to administer energy efficiency measures

·         All new homes should be equipped with enough solar to be zero net energy

At the launch event for BASE 2020, Paul Fenn, a creator of Community Choice Aggregation, was asked how optimistic he was about the prospects achieving the goals of BASE 2020.  He said on a scale of  1 - 10 he was a "10 or die".  In other words, we have no choice but to achieve this, given the reality of catastrophic climate change.

 The report offers such a wealth of good ideas and carefully supported points, that I hesitate to  criticize it.  Nonetheless, I do feel there are some ways that the report could be strengthened.

1.      The context of global warming

2.      Electric Vehicles

3.      Wind energy

1.  I feel that the scope of the report--reducing greenhouse gases from electricity usage--needs to be put in context.  As I've argued (e.g. see What Will it Take to Stop Global Warming--the Case for Electric Cars page 2), if we are going to stop global warming, fossil fuels need to be cut from the current 31 billion tons per year, to no more than seven or eight billion tons--i.e. one ton per person on the planet.    Since the U.S. average is about 20 tons per person, this will require 95% reduction in fossil fuels.

 As shown in Figure 1 below, electricity generation accounts for 1/3 of the overall greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.   Since certain uses of fossil fuels are difficult to replace (e.g. aircraft, home heating in very cold weather), it is necessary to eliminate fossil fuels from electricity production if we stand a chance of stopping global warming.

Figure 1:  Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S.

So the goal of BASE 2020 to reduce GHG from electricity by 60% by 2020 is wonderful, but it is only a step in the process.  It would be good for the report to explain this so people understand how BASE 2020 fits into the overall goal.

2.  With that in mind, my second suggestion is that it is important to look at the relation of transportation to the BASE 2020 plan.  Figure 2 shows the greenhouse gas sources from transportation.  Light duty vehicles generate 59.3% of the GHG from transportation.  The good news here is that all of these can be converted to plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs) or extended range electric vehicles with proven technology--e.g. Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, and many others.   

Figure 2: Sources of Greenhouse Gases from Transportation

The BASE 2020 report mentions that there could be up to 1.6 million electric vehicles in California by 2015, quoting from PG&E's 2006 Long-Term Procurement Plan, Volume II, page I-29. That PG&E plan also correctly notes (page I-28):

"PHEVs, like pure battery electric vehicles, will be subject to Time-of-Use  (“TOU”) rates, such as PG&E’s Schedule E-9 residential rate which is specifically designed to strongly encourage off-peak overnight recharging of the vehicle when PG&E has excess capacity.   Because of the large amount of excess generation available at night, it would take millions of PHEVs charging nightly on PG&E’s system before there would be any concern about the need for additional off-peak procurement."

BASE 2020 offers a different perspective:  "Charging PHEVs in the middle of the day will be both economic and serve the critical grid function of absorbing excess non-dispatchable midday PV generation."  (page 62) While this would be a wonderful situation--i.e. so much PV that we don't know what to do with it--the current situation is vastly different.  Fortunately, nighttime charging of PVs is no problem for the grid as PG&E notes above, and the low off-peak price is a good incentive for switching to electric vehicles.

Again, coming back to the overall context of global warming, it will be necessary to convert to 100% electric cars running on 100% renewable energy if we can even hope to stop the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

So what are the implications for the grid if, indeed we do convert all light duty vehicles to electric?  As BASE 2020 points out, a typical car requires about 8 kwh of electricity per day. (page 62)   There are about 23 million cars in California California DMV registered vehicles/fees paid report so they would require 8000 x 365 x 23 million = 67,160 GWH.  Interestingly, if the state succeeds in achieving 30% reduction in current electricity consumption by energy efficiency measures, the increase in electric vehicles would be covered by the savings. (30% of 277,000 GWH = 83,000 GWH saved)  Therefore, even with 100% adoption of electric vehicles, there would be no need to expand the grid, especially since most people charge at night in otherwise low demand periods.

Many local delivery trucks could also run on batteries.  Long haul diesel trucks could run on low-carbon biofuels.  Even aviation fuels could be carbon neutral, but that needs more technical advancement.  But even if all electricity and all transportation is run on renewables, that is still only 61% of the greenhouse gases that we emit, so we still have a ways to go!

As to whether it is really possible to convert all the cars to electric, all projections of electric vehicle growth are market based.  But if we as activists can pass legislation--

·         Warning people about the hazards of fossil fuels (e.g.on fuel pumps, car ads, oil company ads, etc.),

       ·         Providing incentives for electric cars and solar panels,

·         Taxing carbon, and

·         Putting a cap on carbon (ideally one ton per person worldwide),

the market will be vastly different than projected today.  So I agree with Paul Fenn's sentiment, we either do it or we die.

One problem with electric cars is that, if people charge at night, solar is not available, unless storage batteries are used.  The BASE 2020 solution of using PV to charge cars during the day is questionable in my mind since it will add a lot to peak loads.  Plus it is generally not as convenient to charge during the day--most homes have garages or driveways with outlets to charge the vehicle, while most parking lots do not.  Therefore, the infrastructure is already in place for nighttime charging.

3.  This brings me to what I see as the third area needing strengthening in the report--wind. 

The BASE report justifiably focuses on the peak hour demand for electricity with the goal of showing that renewables can negate the need for gas peaker plants.  The report downplays wind, stating that wind is limited "in the renewable energy mix to reduce the amount of back-up power necessary for frequency regulation and reliability support during peak demand periods." (page 153)  

This point is well taken, but I feel it loses sight of what must be our real goal--i.e. to get to 100% renewable energy.  Now if solar does indeed become so cheap that we can use it to meet peak demand and still charge all of our cars and store the extra energy in batteries, that would be just fine.  But I think we should hedge our bets on that a bit and take advantage of the wind that blows at night.  The BASE 2020 report does note that wind is "reasonably reliable--especially at night" (page 43).  So why not build wind to replace fossil fuels for the nighttimes?  Wind may not be a reliable afternoon peak generator, but it could replace non-renewable sources at night.  The old natural gas plants, hopefully running on biogas, could be used on rare occasions when the wind doesn't blow.

The report asserts that wind power must provide backup power that can "equal the reliability of fixed PV on hot summer days."  It seems to me that wind and solar complement each other very well (see graphic below from Scientific American, November, 2009) and with cars charging at night, the wind can provide fairly reliable means to do this charging.  There is no need to provide new backup power plants for wind at night, since there is already capacity in the existing grid.  Without adding this backup power, wind's cost becomes comparable to the cost of PV solar, i.e. very cost efficient.

Germany generates twice as much electricity from wind as it does from solar.  China added 19GW of wind last year, roughly enough to power the entire Bay Area. 

Let me re-state that BASE 2020 is a magnificent achievement.  It shows how we can truly embark on the path to 100% renewable electricity.  I urge everyone to get on board with the legislative agenda proposed in BASE 2020.  The issues are complex, but it's a wrestling match we have to win.

In case you need a laugh

A New Hope

One long proven way to wage a campaign is to sing.  With that in mind, I've started a blog called   "Songs About Global Warming".

So far I just have three songs, but plan to add lots more of my own and other people's.

Please check it out, and I hope you enjoy it!

What we're up against

While visiting friends and family in Arizona over the past couple of weeks, I had a chance to look at sample utility bills in Phoenix and Tucson.  (I also gave lots of test drives for people to try out our Volt).  The Phoenix electric bill charged 9 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) for over 4000 kwh.  The Tucson bill was 11 cents per kwh for about 1000 kwh.  This compares to an average of 18 cents/kwh charged by our utility here in Oakland, CA. 

The important point here is that our solar panels generate electricity at a cost of about 13 cents per kwh after the 30% federal tax credit (see earlier post:  "Everything is going according to plan").  Based on these numbers, most people in Northern California will save money by putting up solar panels, which is great.  But people in Arizona, which has even more sunshine than California, will still find it cheaper to use electricity generated by its combination of nuclear, coal and natural gas.

The utility in Phoenix, APS, has a lot of publicity about solar on its website, so that is a good thing.  Hopefully they will phase out all of these dirty energy sources (including natural gas) and move to renewables, but this will take a lot of pushing by activists.  The Tucson Electric Power company also is increasing its percentage of renewables, but as of 2011, only 3% of its electricity was renewable, and its goal is only 15% by 2025.  This is not going to slow global warming, let alone stop it.

I also notice that the utility companies are focussed on utility scale solar projects rather than promoting residential and commercial rooftop solar panels.  The same goes for PG&E here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've been reading a good report on this titled Bay Area Smart Energy 2020. 

 I'll write more on this when I finish it, but it does seem clear that the profits for utilities are in large scale projects, while the most economical and environmentally promising projects are smaller scale on parking lots, schools, commercial buildings, and residences.

Tucson does offer $0.60 per watt as a rebate for solar panels, so this should bring the price down by at least 10%--say to 11.5 cents per kwh.  This is very close to the utility bill that I saw, so hopefully, everyone will be switching to solar soon.

I was also encouraged to learn that Tucson is one of 18 cities to receive a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to install 14,000 charging stations across the U.S. 

From my brief visit to Arizona, I feel certain that most people are not aware of the disaster that lies ahead, and that Arizona will be one of the places hardest hit with extreme drought forecast for the near future.  Both in California and Arizona, we need to elect leaders who will stop denying the problem and start working for real solutions.