This seminar will lay out the key issues in sustainable design for buildings and cities from the perspectives of policy, standards, investments and project management. Future seminars will dig deeper into each of these and will explore profitable ways to partner with local ecosystems.
For detailed information about the seminar and seminar registration, please go to
http://ucgef.org/en/activities/seminar/greenbuilding1
July 21 (Tuesday), 6:00PM – 9:00PM
Conference Room Terrace 2D
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Powering Transportation: How Far Can Electricity Take Us?
Upon hearing Stephen T. Lee of the Electric Power Research Institute speak at the Carnegie Mellon Smart Grid Conference in March, Leonard S. Hyman of Black & Veatch recalled that "I had one of those ‘ahahe's on-to-something’ moments. Putting together electric cars and power plants with a strategy to reduce carbon emissions? That's worth talking about.” Leonard Hyman introduced this topic in his lead article as the Holistic Solution.
The Holistic Solution
We need a game changer, and we need one soon. Congress will wrangle about carbon trading; coal burners and coal miners will fight to delay action, industrialists will claim that the Chinese will gain an advantage if we act before they do, and neither windmills nor nuclear power plants will make a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions for a long time to come. We need mitigation proposals and actions that people will embrace rather than oppose; something big that would keep the coal mines in business, reduce dependence on foreign oil, help key American industries, and still reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and meaningfully.
Leonard's interview with me started this way:
Hyman: You talk about a holistic approach toward achieving energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That sounds awfully new age. What do you mean?
To see the interview, please go to the following link for the May 2009 issue of the Pathfinder Newsletter.
http://www.rjrudden.net/Pathfinder.pdf
The Holistic Solution
We need a game changer, and we need one soon. Congress will wrangle about carbon trading; coal burners and coal miners will fight to delay action, industrialists will claim that the Chinese will gain an advantage if we act before they do, and neither windmills nor nuclear power plants will make a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions for a long time to come. We need mitigation proposals and actions that people will embrace rather than oppose; something big that would keep the coal mines in business, reduce dependence on foreign oil, help key American industries, and still reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and meaningfully.
Leonard's interview with me started this way:
Hyman: You talk about a holistic approach toward achieving energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That sounds awfully new age. What do you mean?
To see the interview, please go to the following link for the May 2009 issue of the Pathfinder Newsletter.
http://www.rjrudden.net/Pathfinder.pdf
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Smart Grid for US-China Green Energy Council - 4/29/2009
Check out this great SlideShare presentation on LinkedIn. Click on the link below to view the presentation.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Global Economic Crisis (Opinions Reviewed)
The opinions here were written by me on October 12, 2008, at the start of the global financial and economic crisis. It is interesting to review what I wrote and to see whether any of these ideas are still relevant. I also posted it on my barackobama page on 11/10/2009.
With the passage of nearly one month, this is a look back at my thoughts about solving the global financial crisis.
1. Secure and stabilize the mortgage payments by homeowners unable to pay. Federal government should force the mortgage lenders to write down the mortgage principal to reasonable value and offer current interest rate (i.e., take their loss for their stupidity to loan above reasonable values) and give a second mortgage to the homerowners with deferred payments. Idea is to enable these homeowners to hold on to their homes and continue to pay at their maximum ability. Eventually they will have to pay the government back. Restoring sustainable payments by these homeowners will stabilize the values of the "toxic" financial papers, instead of "mark to market" value of zero.
2. Federal government can inject capital into failing banks as equity investment and lower the reserve % on bank deposits for a 6 month emergency period, so that the banks can start lending more money with the same deposits. This is Soros' idea also.
3. Regulate and reform the rating agencies so that there is confidence in the market about the ratings of different financial papers from different issuers (Step in to nationalize them temporarily if necessary).
4. Develop a massive global database of all the toxic financial papers, tracing their relationships to all the companies and the subrpime mortage lenders and borrowers. This is provide transparency and certainty about the actual financial soundness of all companies involved with this financial crisis. With clarity, transparency and certainty, the sound and the unsound companies will be separated and ratings can be restored.
5. Change the mindset of all Americans, starting from the President, to act responsibly as a global citizen, and spend within the means. Raise taxes, cut spending, and be willing to work hard and settle for a lower standard of living.
Looking back at these issues, some progress has been made to stabilize home foreclosure and refinancing, but the problem is not yet solved. Huge unrestrained capital has been injected into the banks, so the credit problem is eased but the toxic papers are still there. Not much has been done with the rating and valuation of the toxic assets. The political pressure on the FASB to change from "Mark to Market" to "Mark to Model" for asset evaluation will not solve the problem but may add to the non-transparency of the toxic assets. Lastly Obama in trying to stimulate the economy has not yet acted responsibility to promote "living within the means".
It looks like there is a cushion to slow down the move towards the new lower equilibrium, but there is no attempt to steer it towards the long term equilibrium. Also, the attempt to use the energy and electric vehicle industries as the new boost to raise the long term equilibrium has not yet gotton off the ground, especially with the latter. China on the other hand, has caught on strong with its national priority on taking the global lead in electric vehicles.
With the passage of nearly one month, this is a look back at my thoughts about solving the global financial crisis.
1. Secure and stabilize the mortgage payments by homeowners unable to pay. Federal government should force the mortgage lenders to write down the mortgage principal to reasonable value and offer current interest rate (i.e., take their loss for their stupidity to loan above reasonable values) and give a second mortgage to the homerowners with deferred payments. Idea is to enable these homeowners to hold on to their homes and continue to pay at their maximum ability. Eventually they will have to pay the government back. Restoring sustainable payments by these homeowners will stabilize the values of the "toxic" financial papers, instead of "mark to market" value of zero.
2. Federal government can inject capital into failing banks as equity investment and lower the reserve % on bank deposits for a 6 month emergency period, so that the banks can start lending more money with the same deposits. This is Soros' idea also.
3. Regulate and reform the rating agencies so that there is confidence in the market about the ratings of different financial papers from different issuers (Step in to nationalize them temporarily if necessary).
4. Develop a massive global database of all the toxic financial papers, tracing their relationships to all the companies and the subrpime mortage lenders and borrowers. This is provide transparency and certainty about the actual financial soundness of all companies involved with this financial crisis. With clarity, transparency and certainty, the sound and the unsound companies will be separated and ratings can be restored.
5. Change the mindset of all Americans, starting from the President, to act responsibly as a global citizen, and spend within the means. Raise taxes, cut spending, and be willing to work hard and settle for a lower standard of living.
Looking back at these issues, some progress has been made to stabilize home foreclosure and refinancing, but the problem is not yet solved. Huge unrestrained capital has been injected into the banks, so the credit problem is eased but the toxic papers are still there. Not much has been done with the rating and valuation of the toxic assets. The political pressure on the FASB to change from "Mark to Market" to "Mark to Model" for asset evaluation will not solve the problem but may add to the non-transparency of the toxic assets. Lastly Obama in trying to stimulate the economy has not yet acted responsibility to promote "living within the means".
It looks like there is a cushion to slow down the move towards the new lower equilibrium, but there is no attempt to steer it towards the long term equilibrium. Also, the attempt to use the energy and electric vehicle industries as the new boost to raise the long term equilibrium has not yet gotton off the ground, especially with the latter. China on the other hand, has caught on strong with its national priority on taking the global lead in electric vehicles.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Holistic Power Supply and Delivery Chain – Foundations for a Smart Grid
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Friday, March 13, 2009
Good Answer?
Steven Pottle wrote: Good answer!!
--------------------
My Question:
What do you think of these ideas for funding the energy revolution in the midst of this financial crisis?
Your Answer:
During this global financial and economic crisis, which will last for at least a year or longer, oil prices will likely remain low. This would mean that hybrid cars, and future plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will not be competitive. Investments in large scale wind and solar projects will stop. Other new energy technologies such as coal gasification or liquefaction will also even less economical. How much taxpayer subsidy do we want to interfere with free market economics?
Mandatory national Renewable Portfolio Standard is central planning in disguise. Large scale wind power developments forced to be accepted into the nation's fragile transmission grid will likely increase the frequencies of blackouts. These will cause economic disruptions. There are solutions to the problem, but the risk of blackouts will still be higher.
The best idea is to modify the proposal to raise the gasoline tax. A carbon public benefit investment program should be instituted instead. This is not a carbon tax, but is similar. A rough calculation shows that your $1 per gallon add-on price is about $60 per ton of CO2 emission, which is very high. NordPool CO2 market price is around $15/ton. I have done some screening analysis which shows that at about $25-30 per ton, a CO2 charge will make wind or solar power plants firmed up with storage economicly highly competitive without tax subsidies. Nuclear and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants would also be competitive.
If we translate $30/ton of CO2 into gasoline price, that is about $0.50 per gallon.
The automobile industry is highly dependent on the oil price, which has become very volatile. Long term investments prefer stable economic and financial forecasts. The government can intervene to provide a stable gasoline price to the consumers by adding a quickly adjusted variable CO2 public benefit charge, so that the consumer price, no matter what the oil company costs are, will be stable at about $3.50 per gallon. That seems to be the breakpoint when people start to feel the pain and want to switch to alternate fuel vehicles. At today's gasoline price around $2 per gallon, this means that the CO2 charge would be $1.50 per gallon now. But if the oil price goes back up to $120/bbl, the CO2 charge would be effectively reduced to zero.
Now, how do we make this CO2 charge work in the midst of this financial crisis? The amount of CO2 charge we pay at the pump, if charged through a credit card, can be traced to the account holder and credited to the consumer/investor. I look at this money as being held in a trust fund by the government in the name of the consumer. It may be treated as a savings account which can be withdrawn by the consumer under some conditions. It may eventually be available like another source of retirement income. So the consumers do not see it as a tax burden, but a savings that also is for the public and global good.
Car companies will see this as providing a forecastable and stable financial future for developing more efficient cars.
But actually, with today's oil and gasoline prices, the CO2 adder of $1.50 per gallon is about $90/ton of CO2. That is too high. If CO2 credit is traded between the electricity CO2 market and a car CO2 market, the disparity between the $15/ton in NordPool and the $90/ton to make the new car technologies viable would indicate that the world would be better off to reduce CO2 in power generation rather than in cars.
The same idea on how to treat a CO2 charge on the cost of electricity would apply, but instead of continously adjusting the CO2 price to maintain a stable electric price, the price schedule of the CO2 charge will be projected into the future with periodic adjustments. In this manner, long term investments in different power plants will have a more stable financial forecast.
Electricity consumers will similarly see the charge as their investments held as a public benefit fund.
--------------------
My Question:
What do you think of these ideas for funding the energy revolution in the midst of this financial crisis?
Your Answer:
During this global financial and economic crisis, which will last for at least a year or longer, oil prices will likely remain low. This would mean that hybrid cars, and future plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will not be competitive. Investments in large scale wind and solar projects will stop. Other new energy technologies such as coal gasification or liquefaction will also even less economical. How much taxpayer subsidy do we want to interfere with free market economics?
Mandatory national Renewable Portfolio Standard is central planning in disguise. Large scale wind power developments forced to be accepted into the nation's fragile transmission grid will likely increase the frequencies of blackouts. These will cause economic disruptions. There are solutions to the problem, but the risk of blackouts will still be higher.
The best idea is to modify the proposal to raise the gasoline tax. A carbon public benefit investment program should be instituted instead. This is not a carbon tax, but is similar. A rough calculation shows that your $1 per gallon add-on price is about $60 per ton of CO2 emission, which is very high. NordPool CO2 market price is around $15/ton. I have done some screening analysis which shows that at about $25-30 per ton, a CO2 charge will make wind or solar power plants firmed up with storage economicly highly competitive without tax subsidies. Nuclear and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants would also be competitive.
If we translate $30/ton of CO2 into gasoline price, that is about $0.50 per gallon.
The automobile industry is highly dependent on the oil price, which has become very volatile. Long term investments prefer stable economic and financial forecasts. The government can intervene to provide a stable gasoline price to the consumers by adding a quickly adjusted variable CO2 public benefit charge, so that the consumer price, no matter what the oil company costs are, will be stable at about $3.50 per gallon. That seems to be the breakpoint when people start to feel the pain and want to switch to alternate fuel vehicles. At today's gasoline price around $2 per gallon, this means that the CO2 charge would be $1.50 per gallon now. But if the oil price goes back up to $120/bbl, the CO2 charge would be effectively reduced to zero.
Now, how do we make this CO2 charge work in the midst of this financial crisis? The amount of CO2 charge we pay at the pump, if charged through a credit card, can be traced to the account holder and credited to the consumer/investor. I look at this money as being held in a trust fund by the government in the name of the consumer. It may be treated as a savings account which can be withdrawn by the consumer under some conditions. It may eventually be available like another source of retirement income. So the consumers do not see it as a tax burden, but a savings that also is for the public and global good.
Car companies will see this as providing a forecastable and stable financial future for developing more efficient cars.
But actually, with today's oil and gasoline prices, the CO2 adder of $1.50 per gallon is about $90/ton of CO2. That is too high. If CO2 credit is traded between the electricity CO2 market and a car CO2 market, the disparity between the $15/ton in NordPool and the $90/ton to make the new car technologies viable would indicate that the world would be better off to reduce CO2 in power generation rather than in cars.
The same idea on how to treat a CO2 charge on the cost of electricity would apply, but instead of continously adjusting the CO2 price to maintain a stable electric price, the price schedule of the CO2 charge will be projected into the future with periodic adjustments. In this manner, long term investments in different power plants will have a more stable financial forecast.
Electricity consumers will similarly see the charge as their investments held as a public benefit fund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)