via the Google Green Blog

Imagine a renewable energy resource capable of producing more than 10 times the energy of the installed capacity of coal in the US. That’s the potential for Geothermal Energy in the United States, according to a recently completed 3-year project supported by Google.org to update the Geothermal Map of North America.

The study conducted by SMU Geothermal Laboratory, led by Principal Investigator Dr. David Blackwell, incorporated tens of thousands of new thermal data points to create the most data rich perspective on US geothermal resources to date. The full results can be seen in the updated Google Earth layer on U.S. Geothermal Resources and in SMU’s paper to be presented at the Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting.

The project estimates that Technical Potential for the continental US exceeds 2,980,295 megawatts using Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and other advanced geothermal technologies such as Low Temperature Hydrothermal.


2011 Geothermal Heat Flow Map of the US

The new estimates are compliant with the new global geothermal mapping protocol developed by SMU, Hot Dry Rocks PTY, GeoWatt Ag, and Google.org which is now recognized by the International Energy Agency and the International Geothermal Association. Under the protocol, Technical Potential is limited to depths of 3.5 to 6.5 km (6.5 to 10 km is considered “Theoretical Potential” under the protocol) and inaccessible zones such as national parks and protected lands are eliminated.

How’d they do it?

The SMU team has been developing entirely new pictures of the earth’s geothermal resources. They started by aggregating thousands of new Bottom Hole Temperature (BHT) readings from oil, gas, and water wells in previously under-sampled regions of the U.S. For example, The 2004 Geothermal Map of North America used only 5 heat flow points informing geothermal estimates for West Virginia, compared to the additional 1,455 BHT points in the updated version. In addition, the team has improved estimates of heat flow through the earth’s crust with better regional lithologic data.

The updated map is a testament to the incredible SMU team: Dr. David Blackwell, Maria Richards, Zachary Frone, Joseph Batir, Ryan Dingwall, Andrés Ruzo, and Mitchell Williams.

We’re excited that with improvements in EGS technology, all of these resources could one day be harnessed to provide clean, reliable, baseload power — energy that’s available every hour of every day.

via NPR Planet Money

I went looking for a bubble the other day. I’d heard that prices for American farmland were spiking – up thirty percent over the past year, and double what people were paying five or six years ago. It sounded like irrational exuberance.

I flew to Iowa, drove to the town of Colo, an hour north of Des Moines, and dropped in on a land auction. It was a great scene: A hushed crowd of farmers, an auctioneer with a voice made for opera, and a climactic duel between rival bidders, one of whom raised the price with a wink, the other with a slight nod.

The winking man won, if you can call it a win when you have to hand over $1.5 million for 158 acres of corn stalks. The seller, a sweet middle-aged woman, seemed genuinely conflicted about selling her inheritance. But she needed the money, she said. And she said it: “It just seemed like we had this bubble going on with agricultural properties.”

But the more I learned about the economics of corn farming and farmland, the less bubble-ish it seemed.

Consider what our local expert, the Iowa State economist Bruce Babcock, told me: Farmland in Iowa changes owners, on average, every thirty years. Buyers generally put down 30 percent of the purchase price, and 60 percent is common. This isn’t a no-money-down, buy-and-flip kind of market.

And at today’s corn prices, you can earn a tidy 4 percent return on your investment, just by growing corn. In that light, it all seems terribly rational. (Relevant side note: Babcock was so convinced about his calculations that he bought some farmland for himself a few years back.)

Of course, it all hangs on those corn prices. They’re way up, too. As it turns out, corn farmers are in the energy business. You can convert their corn into ethanol, and put it in your gas tank. This is happening on a massive scale: More corn this year will go to ethanol factories than will feed farm animals. And the higher gas prices go, the more profitable the ethanol business, and the higher the demand for corn.

Introducing the Pecan Street Project


via the Texas Tribune By KATE GALBRAITH

One morning this week, several dozen residents of northeast Austin gathered to inspect three plug-in Volt cars. They peered at the electric and gasoline engine components beneath the hood and took turns sitting behind the wheel.

“I really hate buying gas,” said one of them, Joan Neuberger, a history professor at the University of Texas, who is among more than 140 local residents who have expressed interest in buying or leasing a heavily discounted Volt next year.

The plug-in cars will be part of the continuing roll-out of an Austin smart-grid study called Pecan Street, which on Friday is announcing partnerships with a handful of major companies, including Whirlpool, Best Buy and Chevrolet, the Volt’s manufacturer. The companies will test how people use New Age products and systems, including solar panels and “smart appliances” as well as plug-in cars, and how it all affects the electric grid.

There are about 200 residential participants so far in Pecan Street, which is financed partly by a 2009 federal stimulus award of $10.4 million. Besides monitoring how participants use electricity, researchers are also measuring water and natural gas use.

Early results from just a few houses are already showing interesting trends. For example, in the spring, electricity use dips lowest on Thursdays (the reason is a mystery). In the winter, natural gas use is highest in the hour after 7 a.m.

The project is also looking into whether south-facing or west-facing solar panels work better for the grid. One hundred Volts will be offered to participants with a special rebate of either $7,500 (in addition to a federal tax credit of the same amount) for those who buy or $3,000 for those who lease, both courtesy of federal stimulus money. Researchers intend to measure how car charging can be integrated with solar panels.

Pecan Street, which is affiliated with the University of Texas, is one of several smart-grid projects in the state. Another, by the Center for the Commercialization of Electric Technologies and also financed partly with federal stimulus money, will include studies on a new Houston neighborhood that people are still moving into. Texas is a good place to conduct smart-grid research, experts say, because the deregulation of the electricity market roughly a decade ago means that electric companies are motivated to offer consumers different ways to monitor and pay for their power.

“Texas is really leading the nation with respect to promoting a well-balanced approach to smart-grid,” said Jerry Jackson, a former Texas A&M professor who now leads a national smart-grid research consortium based in Orlando, Fla.

More than four million “smart meters” are already installed in deregulated parts of Texas, according to the Public Utility Commission, and many more should be installed by the end of next year, said Donna Nelson, the commission’s chairwoman.

The installation of smart meters has been slightly contentious in Texas, but not nearly as controversial as it has been in California, the other major smart-meter state. Smart meters allow many Texans to monitor their electric use on a Web site in 15-minute intervals, if they choose. This information allows people to know when they are using more electricity than expected.

For Pecan Street researchers, one of the surprising findings to date is that there is little difference in energy use between homes in Mueller, a new, green-built Austin neighborhood, and older homes outside that neighborhood.

What that suggests, said Brewster McCracken, the project’s executive director, is that personal behavior appears, so far, “to be much more important than the green-building rating of the home.”

kgalbraith@texastribune.org

Now, more than ever, prospects for “green jobs” are being treated as a red flag in partisan debate.

Media Matters, a nonprofit watchdog group, has documented a Fox News report proclaiming that the costs of green jobs exceed the benefits. A recent New York Times article, pointing to lackluster programs in California, concluded that “public efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed.” A column by David Brooks in The New York Times was pointedly titled “Where the Jobs Aren’t.”

In reaching for bipartisan support in his jobs speech on Thursday, President Obama avoided the word “green” altogether, though his proposed increase in infrastructure spending could involve investments in improved energy efficiency.

But green jobs still hold considerable promise. While it’s not hard to find examples of programs that haven’t lived up to expectations, considerable evidence demonstrates the actual and potential employment impact of efforts to improve environmental sustainability.
Not that green jobs are easy to define. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is currently in the process of developing an official measure, but employment that either saves energy or increases use of energy generated from renewable sources clearly falls into the category.

In February, the Economic Policy Institute and the Blue-Green Alliance released a comprehensive analysis of the employment impact of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act expenditures aimed in this direction, dominated by efforts to improve energy efficiency in buildings and to promote low-carbon transportation.

The study estimates an increase in direct employment of about 367,000 jobs, while indirect employment effects came to about one million – not a cure-all for an economy with more than 14 million unemployed, but a significant contribution.

The cost per job created varied considerably, and not all programs have moved forward as quickly as they should have. But as a report from Think Progress carefully documents, sensationalized assertions of a million dollars or more spent per job are misleading. Overall, the costs of green jobs creation, whether funded with public or private dollars, are lower than those in most other sectors of the economy, at an average of about $60,000 each. These jobs are likely to last for years, generating private cost-savings and important public benefits.

Retrofits to improve the energy efficiency of our existing building stock offer a particularly high rate of return.

A recent Brookings Institution report calls for broader attention to “clean jobs,” defined as those in establishments that produce or add value to goods and services with an environmental benefit, such as reducing pollution or natural resource depletion.

By this definition, the clean economy is a pretty small slice of the United States economy, accounting for only about 2 percent of all jobs. But it’s now bigger than the dirtiest slice, related to production of fossil-fuel based energy.

The analysis by Brookings of employment trends on the county level between 2003 and 2010 shows that jobs in wind energy and solar photovoltaics represent a small but rapidly expanding part of the larger clean economy.

The report also points to a growing share of private venture capital moving in this direction: 16 percent in 2010, from 2 percent in 1995.

So why not rely entirely on the private sector? The biggest gains from investments in new renewable-energy technologies are not easily captured in private transactions, because they produce environmental services that are largely unpriced. Companies can sell consumers with a conscience a “share” in global greenhouse gas reduction – that’s what the growing business of carbon offsets is all about. But consumers who don’t pay also get the benefits, creating a strong temptation to free ride.

Companies can’t market to the consumers likely to benefit most, because they haven’t yet been born. Conventional fossil fuels are cost-effective now only because the environmental costs are dumped into a global commons that imposes costs on other people and future generations.

Public policies could remedy this problem, by imposing a tax on carbon emissions so that their market price better approximates their social cost. Adopting clean-energy standards would also increase demand for clean and green production, giving private companies greater incentive to invest.

The Brookings report explains that Germany, carrying out such policies, attracted investments from major American corporations including Google, First Solar and Good Energies. Between 2004 and 2009, German employment in renewable energy increased to more than 300,000 from 160,000.

Globally, the green jobs numbers look pretty strong. Unfortunately, in the United States, the possibilities for bipartisan collaboration still look very weak. Flag-waving is so much easier.

via NYTimes
By NANCY FOLBRE
Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

More than half the energy produced in the U.S. isn’t put to use. Much of it is lost, released as heat when we burn fuels to power vehicles or generate electricity. Entrepreneurs want to harvest wasted energy and identify new sources of power.

This graphic shows the sources and uses of U.S. energy, including where power is lost. It is based on flow charts from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory using data from the Energy Information Administration.

Click on the graphic to access the online data visualization. Roll over an energy stream to see where it goes, or a sector to see its power source and its efficiency. Roll over the orange dots for more detail and examples of how some entrepreneurs are trying to transform the energy landscape.

By John Tozzi and David Yanofsky – July 7, 2011
via Bloomberg.com

JULY 13, 2011 — via Brookings
The “green” or “clean” or low-carbon economy—defined as the sector of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit—remains at once a compelling aspiration and an enigma.

As a matter of aspiration, no swath of the economy has been more widely celebrated as a source of economic renewal and potential job creation. Yet, the clean economy remains an enigma: hard to assess. Not only do “green” or “clean” activities and jobs related to environmental aims pervade all sectors of the U.S. economy; they also remain tricky to define and isolate—and count.

The clean economy has remained elusive in part because, in the absence of standard definitions and data, strikingly little is known about its nature, size, and growth at the critical regional level. Seeking to help address these problems, the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings worked with Battelle’s Technology Partnership Practice to develop, analyze, and comment on a detailed database of establishment-level employment statistics pertaining to a sensibly defined assemblage of clean economy industries in the United States and its metropolitan areas.

“Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment” concludes that:
The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry and bulks larger than bioscience but remains smaller than the IT-producing sectors. Most clean economy jobs reside in mature segments that cover a wide swath of activities including manufacturing and the provision of public services such as wastewater and mass transit. A smaller portion of the clean economy encompasses newer segments that respond to energy-related challenges. These include the solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, fuel cell, smart grid, biofuel, and battery industries.

The clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but newer “cleantech” segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession. Overall, today’s clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, expanding at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. This performance lagged the growth in the national economy, which grew by 4.2 percent annually over the period (if job losses from establishment closings are omitted to make the data comparable). However, this measured growth heavily reflected the fact that many longer-standing companies in the clean economy—especially those involved in housing- and building-related segments—laid off large numbers of workers during the real estate crash of 2007 and 2008, while sectors unrelated to the clean economy (mainly health care) created many more new jobs nationally. At the same time, newer clean economy establishments— especially those in young energy-related segments such as wind energy, solar PV, and smart grid—added jobs at a torrid pace, albeit from small bases.

The clean economy is manufacturing and export intensive. Roughly 26 percent of all clean economy jobs lie in manufacturing establishments, compared to just 9 percent in the broader economy. On a per job basis, establishments in the clean economy export roughly twice the value of a typical U.S. job ($20,000 versus $10,000). The electric vehicles (EV), green chemical products, and lighting segments are all especially manufacturing intensive while the biofuels, green chemicals, and EV industries are highly export intensive.

The clean economy offers more opportunities and better pay for low- and middle-skilled workers than the national economy as a whole. Median wages in the clean economy—meaning those in the middle of the distribution—are 13 percent higher than median U.S. wages. Yet a disproportionate percentage of jobs in the clean economy are staffed by workers with relatively little formal education in moderately well-paying “green collar” occupations.

Among regions, the South has the largest number of clean economy jobs though the West has the largest share relative to its population. Seven of the 21 states with at least 50,000 clean economy jobs are in the South. Among states, California has the highest number of clean jobs but Alaska and Oregon have the most per worker.

Most of the country’s clean economy jobs and recent growth concentrate within the largest metropolitan areas. Some 64 percent of all current clean economy jobs and 75 percent of its newer jobs created from 2003 to 2010 congregate in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas.

The clean economy permeates all of the nation’s metropolitan areas, but it manifests itself in varied configurations. Metropolitan area clean economies can be categorized into four-types: service-oriented, manufacturing, public sector, and balanced. New York, through mass transit, embodies a service orientation; so does San Francisco through professional services and Las Vegas through architectural services. Many Midwestern and Southern metros like Louisville; Cleveland; Greenville, SC; and Little Rock—but also San Jose in the West—host clean economies that are heavily manufacturing oriented. State capitals are among those with a disproportionate share of clean jobs in the public sector (e.g. Harrisburg, Sacramento, Raleigh, and Springfield). Finally, some metros—such as Atlanta; Salt Lake City; Portland, OR; and Los Angeles— balance multi-dimensional clean economies.

Strong industry clusters boost metros’ growth performance in the clean economy. Clustering entails proximity to businesses in similar or related industries. Establishments located in counties containing a significant number of jobs from other establishments in the same segment grew much faster than more isolated establishments from 2003 to 2010. Overall, clustered establishments grew at a rate that was 1.4 percentage points faster each year than non-clustered (more isolated) establishments. Examples include professional environmental services in Houston, solar photovoltaic in Los Angeles, fuel cells in Boston, and wind in Chicago.

The measurements and trends presented here offer a mixed picture of a diverse array of environmentally-oriented industry segments growing modestly even as a sub-set of clean energy, energy efficiency, and related segments grow much faster than the nation (albeit from a small base) and in ways that are producing a desirable array of jobs, including in manufacturing and export-oriented fields.

As to what governments, policymakers, and regional leaders should do to catalyze faster and broader growth across the U.S. clean economy, it is clear that the private sector will play the lead role, but governments have a role too. In this connection, the fact that significant policy uncertainties and gaps are weakening market demand for clean economy goods and services, chilling finance, and raising questions about the clean innovation pipeline reinforces the need for engagement and reform. Not only are other nations bidding to secure global production and the jobs that come with it but the United States currently risks failing to exploit growing world demand. And so this report concludes that vigorous private sector-led growth needs to be co-promoted through complementary engagements by all levels of the nation’s federal system to ensure the existence of well-structured markets, a favorable investment climate, and a rich stock of cutting-edge technology—as well as strong regional cast to all efforts. Along these lines, the report recommends that governments help:

Scale up the market by taking steps to catalyze vibrant domestic demand for low-carbon and environmentally-oriented goods and services. Intensified “green” procurement efforts by all levels of government are one such market-making engagement. But there are others. Congress and the federal government could help by putting a price on carbon, passing a national clean energy standard (CES), and moving to ensure more rational cost recovery on new transmission links for the delivery of renewable energy to urban load centers. States can adopt or strengthen their own clean energy standards, reduce the initial costs of energy efficiency and renewable energy adoption, and pursue electricity market reform to facilitate the use of clean and efficient solutions. And localities can also support adoption by expediting permitting for green projects, adopting green building and other standards, and adopting innovative financing tools to reduce the upfront costs of investing in clean technologies.

Ensure adequate finance by moving to address the serious shortage of affordable, risk-tolerant, and larger-scale capital that now impedes the scale-up of numerous clean economy industry segments. On this front Congress should create an emerging technology deployment finance entity to address the commercialization “Valley of Death” and also work to rationalize and reform the myriad tax provisions and incentives that currently encourage capital investments in clean economy projects. States, for their part, can supplement private lending activity by providing guarantees and participating loans or initial capital for revolving loan funds targeting clean economy projects using new or improved technologies. And for that matter regions and localities can also help narrow the deployment finance gap by helping to reduce the costs and uncertainty of projects by expediting their physical build-out, whether by managing zoning and permitting issues or even pre-approving sites.

Drive innovation by investing both more and differently in the clean economy innovation system. With the needed major scale-up of investment levels unlikely for now, Congress at least needs to embrace continued incremental growth of key energy and environmental research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) budgets. At the same time, Congress should continue its recent institutional experimentation through measured expansion of such recent start-ups as the Energy Frontier Research Centers, ARPA-E, and Energy Innovation Hubs programs. Two worthy additional experiments would be the creation of a water sciences innovation center and the establishment of a regional clean economy consortia initiative. States can also advance the clean economy through maintaining and expanding their own RD&D efforts, perhaps by tapping state clean energy funds where they exist. All should be focused and prioritized through a rigorous, data-driven analysis of the nature, growth, and strengths of local clean economy innovation clusters.

In addition, the “Sizing the Clean Economy“ emphasizes that in working on each of these fronts federal, state, and regional leaders need to:

Focus on regions, meaning that all parties need to place detailed knowledge of local industry dynamics and regional growth strategies near the center of efforts to advance the clean economy. While the federal government should increase its investment in new regional innovation and industry cluster programs such as the Economic Development Administration’s i6 Green Challenge, states should work to improve the information base about local clean economy industry clusters and move to support regionally crafted initiatives for advancing them. Regional actors, meanwhile, should take the lead in using data and analysis to understand the local clean economy in detail; identify competitive strengths; and then move to formulate strong, “bottom up” strategies for overcoming key clusters’ binding constraints. Employing cluster intelligence and strategy to design and tune regional workforce development strategies will be a critical regional priority.

The measurements, trends, and discussions offered here provide an encouraging but also challenging assessment of the ongoing development of the clean economy in the United States and its regions. In many respects, the analysis warrants excitement. As the nation continues to search for new sources of high-quality growth, the present findings depict a sizable and diverse array of industry segments that is—in key private-sector areas—expanding rapidly at a time of sluggish national growth. With smart policy support, broader, more rapid growth seems possible. At the same time, however, the information presented here is challenging, most notably because the growth of the clean economy has almost certainly been depressed by significant policy problems and uncertainties.

That question is: Will the nation marshal the will to make the most of those industries?

View the report’s interactive map

Metropolitan and State Profiles