It's not easy being green…

I was reminded of this unreasonable obstinacy regarding all things green when I gave a presentation to an audience of public sector building managers. I did my normal breathless 20-minute spiel about the golden age of renewable energy funding, once in a lifetime opportunity, etc, then stood back expecting a smatter of polite applause, a few questions and possibly the odd whoop of enthusiasm.

But, instead, I was met by a silent sea of sullen faces, folded arms and the odd mutter about listed buildings, austerity cuts and 'some of us having to live in the real world'.

This experience was not entirely unexpected. Most of the developers and investors I work with used to moan about trying to sell energy efficiency to the public sector. They complained about a wall of bureaucracy, inflexible procurement regulations and a 'not invented here' mentality.

What is more telling now is that the market has stopped complaining and has pretty much just given up on the public sector all together. They are working with industry, retail and other more sectors where it is simply easier to get things done.

For the hard-pushed public sector, this is a massive missed opportunity. You probably work in a big draughty old building that leaks energy like a sieve. I am guessing you also complain about austerity cuts and worry about your future job security. These three facts are not entirely unrelated.

We have been over this ground before, but it is worth rehearsing once again. Collectively the public sector is the UK's single largest consumer of energy. It has thousands of buildings, most of which are more than 50 years old and cost a fortune to heat, light and cool. As a rough guide, the sector probably spends at least a couple of billion pounds annually buying fossil fuel energy. The price of this is going up inexorably and in the last three years the price of electricity alone has risen by 50%.

At the same time, the development of technology to reduce energy consumption is booming along in leaps and bounds. Low-energy lighting, building management systems, more efficient boilers and good old-fashioned insulation have all become mainstream technologies that collectively can save 25-30% on the average building's energy bill.

So we have three factors coming together: lots of leaky old buildings occupied by users who are facing unparalleled budget cuts; continual improvements in technology that deliver massive savings in energy usage; and, finally, the price of fossil fuel power going up every year.

You would think this would lead to a huge industry in public sector energy efficiency schemes. You would think everybody in your organisation would be turning down the thermostat, installing LED lighting and switching to newer boilers. You would think energy conservation would be top of the list of priorities for your leadership team and members. You would think all of these things, but you would be wrong.

There are lots of public sector organisations that talk about their green credentials but the number that are actually doing anything significant is still less than a couple of hundred or so. Yes, that's right, a couple of hundred or so in a sector that, according to my helpful contact at the Office of National Statistics, employs 5.7 million people and has precisely 8,280 separate organisations.

As ever, there are few shining beacons in the gloom and some councils and hospitals are doing a huge amount to cut their energy costs. Peterborough, Nottingham and Wiltshire councils are all great examples of what can be done, but they are laudable exceptions. 95% of the public sector is not doing anything significant at all about energy conservation or, if they are, they are keeping it very, very quiet.

France sets 'emergency measures' for solar

France has instituted a series of "emergency measures" to revive its flagging solar energy industry, Energy Minister Delphine Batho said this week.

Appearing Monday at the MPO Energy solar panel plant in Mayenne, France, Batho said the government has doubled its target for annual photovoltaic energy growth from 500 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts and is seeking to build large-scale solar farms under the measures.

The minister said the decisions constitute an "emergency response" to help the solar energy industry in the country remain viable at a time when it is reeling following the loss of thousands of jobs during the government of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The new subsidies are meant to spark $2.6 billion in private investments and create or maintain about 10,000 jobs at an added average cost of $1.30-$2.60 per year on energy bills of French households.

French solar manufacturers are also taking a hit from Chinese PV panels that officials say are being unfairly dumped in the European market at below cost. As part of the decree signed Monday, a 10 percent feed-in tariff bonus will be awarded to French buyers of European-made PV panels.

"The challenge is to show that the French industry has a card to play on products with high added-value and that the battle is not lost, even in a fiercely competitive environment," Batho told Le Monde.

The European Commission in September launched an investigation of alleged "dumping" of Chinese-made solar cells, modules and photovoltaic wafers, as well looking into alleged subsidies handed out by China to its solar panel makers.

For its part, China has protested to the World Trade Organization. Batho, however, said the bonuses to be paid to European-made panel buyers are "consistent with the energy code," Le Parisien reported.

Under the decree, annual growth targets for small rooftop installations will double from 200 megawatts to 400 megawatts per year and pricing will be simplified to end the distinction between facilities depending on the use of the building.

Meanwhile, a new push will be made to establish new, large-scale solar farms. The government has submitted a new tender for large PV plants with a volume of 400 megawatts, which are to also to be used to develop and research solar technologies as well as help redevelop polluted "brownfield" sites.

A second call for tenders will be launched during 2013, specifically targeting other innovative technologies in the solar field.

The moves come after French President Francoise Hollande in November initiated a national "energy transition debate" over the future mix of France's energy sector, which is now largely dependent on nuclear power.

Hollande campaigned against continued reliance on nuclear power in the run-up to his May 6 defeat of center-right incumbent Sarkozy and has since repeated his pledge to cut nuclear power's share of the energy mix from 75 to 50 percent by 2025.

Batho said the moves to prop up the solar industry are necessary to keep it viable as the country awaits the outcome of the debate at the end of this year.

"The national debate on energy transition will define a predictable, stable and sustainable development of solar energy and other renewable energies in the context of the 2025 goal set by the President Hollande," she said.

Wind farms making way to reality

A last-minute rescue of a federal tax credit for renewable energy last week was welcomed by the companies behind two proposed wind-turbine projects in the area. However, it will likely be years before anyone around here sees any giant windmills going in the ground.

A U.S. production tax credit, extended as part of the fiscal-cliff deal passed by Congress and signed by the president, provides a rebate of 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour over a wind farm’s first 10 years of operation. That rebate can knock up to 30 percent off the cost of such a project.

But two wind farms in the works in north central Ohio still have numerous hurdles to clear before they can take advantage of the tax giveaway.

The Black Fork Wind Farm, a 91-turbine project west of Shelby that was given the go-ahead by the state a year ago, is slowly working its way through the appeals process in the Ohio Supreme Court — a number of area residents are seeking to halt the project on legal grounds.

Meanwhile, another wind farm proposed for northeastern Morrow County is still awaiting approval by the Ohio Power Siting Board before it can proceed.

“We are still actively developing the project. We were meeting with Richland and Crawford counties back in November and December and are working through the road-use issues,” said Scott Hawken, senior project manager with Element Power, an Oregon-based alternative energy company that’s handling the Black Fork project.

That wind farm is to be built over 24,200 acres in Crawford County’s Auburn, Jackson, Jefferson and Vernon townships and Richland County’s Plymouth, Sandusky and Sharon townships, with the cooperation of 150 landowners. It would be located west of Shelby, north of Crestline and nearly surround the village of Tiro. Ohio 598 would bisect the entire site from north to south.

“Sooner or later these things will have to come down, because everything eventually becomes obsolete,” Patrick Murphy, a Bucyrus attorney representing the appellants, said. “If this company goes bankrupt, who’s going to pay for that? It’s going to cost $30,000 to take one of these things down.”

Hawken, who noted local communities would split an estimated $1.8 million in tax revenues, said the Black Fork project would have a life span of 20 to 25 years.

“I would anticipate in 20 years that these projects get upgraded with newer technology,” he said. “This is a good location to gather wind for years and years to come.”

“ I believe in green energy, but we have other alternatives other than wind. We have a 110-year supply of natural gas under our feet, more energy than Saudi Arabia ever had, and it’s clean,” Murphy said.

“These farmers don’t want to be surrounded by 50-story structures. It doesn’t make any sense at all to do this.”

Opponents of wind turbines have also cited their danger to birds, noise level and aesthetic concerns. Studies into shadow flicker, caused by rapidly rotating blades, have not uncovered any significant health threat, although the flicker’s strobing effect has been shown to spook horses, disorient livestock and cause headaches in people.

“We don’t think the siting board gave us an opportunity to present our side and that it went beyond the scope of its authority,” Murphy said.

Although the Black Fork project has yet to secure a long-term agreement to purchase power from local utilities, “because of Ohio’s alternative energy portfolio standard, we are well-positioned to proceed with this project, with or without the tax incentive,” Hawken said.

Why George Will Was Wrong

The allure of many environmentally beneficial technologies is that they also hold the eventual promise of being economically efficient.  This is particularly true in the field of energy.  However, efficient devices that require less fossil fuel generally involve higher capital costs, especially when they are newly introduced to the market.  This is particularly the case if one doesn’t include any externalities – the costs borne by somebody else.

But leaving aside the consideration of externalities just for a minute, let’s just look at the as-priced economics.  More efficient technologies often have higher upfront costs for at least two reasons: 1) because there is some additional technological element built into the thing we are buying, compared with the technology being replaced, and 2) because they are newer technologies and have to amortize development costs over a smaller number of units produced.  In other words, they haven’t gotten to scale yet.

This holds true for many efficient technologies.  In buildings, efficient lights, special windows, and new design technologies aren’t cheap, but t hey lower overall operating costs.  It holds true with renewable power plants, such as solar and wind facilities.  These technologies are still evolving, and costs still have a way to fall as conversion efficiencies improve and manufacturing scales up. However, recent trends in solar show us the way: once manufacturing does scale up and markets mature, costs can drop dramatically – as much as 30% over the past two years for solar.  Grid parity is within sight in some markets already.

If the technologies are good, and the market is there, then market transformation is probable over time.  With scale, new technologies become more competitive in price.  Or at least close enough in cost that people actually buy the product based on lifecycle costs rather than just the initial sticker price.  This transition has happened with compact fluorescent bulbs.  It will happen with LED lighting very shortly.   It will occur shortly with solar energy.  And it has clearly happened with hybrid cars.

Government subsidies can help such technologies to reach an inflection point at which they can survive and thrive on their own.  It’s a similar path to that taken by countries that launch and support infant industries.  Initial subsides and tariffs create enough breathing room for the new entrant to eventually flourish.  In many cases, the result is that whole new markets are created, while older technologies give way.

More efficient devices are good for everybody.  They lower overall user costs to the user and to the environment, and they decrease demand on fuel, lowering costs for all everybody.  And yet, for all of these new and more efficient technologies, and their beneficial impact on demand, there always seems to be a crowd that just doesn’t like them. Sometimes we see justified skepticism, and perhaps the emotion is aimed at some of the perceived piety of the eco crowd, but it’s a curious phenomenon.

George Will’s stance on Toyota’s Prius is a fascinating case in point. For the record, the Prius isn’t really a green vehicle (marketing notwithstanding), but it is a step in the right direction.  My 2007 Prius still pollutes, but it uses only a third of the gasoline consumed by my 2001 Ford F150.  While I appreciate the environmental benefits, I really like that I can go 450 miles on 30 dollars of gasoline.

It turns out Consumer Reports likes the Prius for the same reason.  They not only rated the Prius as having the best value – in terms of total cost of ownership – among cars in its class, but among all 2013 models they tested.  Based on their calculations, the Prius costs an estimated 49 cents/mile, less than 50% of the cost of the average car, with a reliability factor also much better than average.

Hourly total should include small tasks

Brushing teeth or pressing a suit doesn't count as the start of the workday for most people. But for many, the job still starts well before punching in for the day -- and experts say those employees should make sure they're being paid in full.

Whether a worker is securing a protective suit in a steel mill or checking emails before hitting the office, those actions -- if required by an employer -- could add to an employee's hourly total under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Enacted in 1938, the act defines employment loosely but the Supreme Court has ruled that work hours include "physical or mental exertion that is controlled or required by the employer." According to that definition, time spent waiting to complete a task for the employer's benefit, time spent working off-site for employers and time spent putting on or securing certain equipment for work could qualify.

Joseph Chivers, an employment attorney who founded the Downtown-based law firm Employment Rights Group, said a more refined definition of work hasn't prevented years of misinterpretation of the law by employers and employees alike.

"A lot of employees really don't understand [the law], and some employers are also clueless," Mr. Chivers said. "They figure the only time they need to pay for is the time an employee punches in or punches out, and that's not always the case."

Varying state laws add to the confusion surrounding what are considered paid actions, but many court cases that arise from the law focus on an employee's intent, according to an article by Rebecca Bentz, associate editor for Neenah, Wisc.-based safety and regulatory consulting firm J.J. Keller and Associates.

The article noted that nurses whose jobs require them to change into antimicrobial scrubs when arriving at work would be compensated for their time, whereas a nurse who could wear scrubs from home wouldn't be paid for the clothing change. Time spent putting on personal protective equipment such as full-body safety suits or footwear can qualify as paid work but the law allows employers to ignore that time if the employee is doing a minor task such as putting on a hard hat or safety glasses.

Once a paid work action or "principal activity" takes place, other actions including walking and waiting are considered work, too. Mr. Chivers said nurses and other shift workers should be paid for duties such as updates to incoming shift workers or chemical showers that take place after the shift.

Principal activities are described as "integral and indispensable" to an employee's job, according to the U.S Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division. Ms. Bentz's article uses the example of a nurse who puts on antimicrobial scrubs to illustrate when the law would apply.

"Consider the earlier example of the nurse who must change into scrubs at the start of the workday. The time the nurse takes to walk from the locker room to the nurse's desk or a patient's room would be compensable, as changing into scrubs was the principal activity that started this person's workday," reads the article.

Still, even actions that would be difficult to interpret as anything other than work have come into question by employers, Mr. Chivers said.

He noted a current case he is working where a company requires its employees to log in to computers or smartphones before they leave their homes, but the company does not mark the employees' hours until they arrive at the work site.

A damning indictment of the new 'Green-friendly' Energy Bill

In Britain, however, the Government remains wedded to a post-Kyoto strategy, and along with the rest of the EU has agreed to ‘extend’ the treaty’s provisions. One consequence of this is the new Energy Bill, which by 2020 will triple the subsidies paid by taxpayers and consumers to ‘renewable’ energy suppliers to 7.6 billion a year.

The bungs paid to operate offshore wind turbines – the most expensive form of energy ever devised – will rise 16-fold to an annual 4.2 billion. The hated onshore turbines will also get huge new subsidies, at least doubling their number to about 6,500.

Even this underestimates the Bill’s full burden, which is closer to 110 billion. Among its enormous further costs are those which will be incurred by the inconvenient fact that wind turbines make electricity for only a third of the time.

Replacing coal or ageing nuclear stations with wind requires new back-up capacity powered by gas at the same time – though this itself will be uneconomic because when the wind is blowing it will have to be switched off.

Meanwhile, as Oxford University’s Professor Dieter Helm points out in his recent book, The Carbon Crunch, Britain’s claim to stand as a shining example of emissions rectitude is bogus.

Yes, the UK’s own production of CO2 fell by 15 per cent between 1990 and 2005, but this was achieved only by exporting British industries to countries such as China, where on average two new power stations fuelled by coal – by far the dirtiest type – come on stream each week.

Taking this into account, writes Prof Helm, means the emissions caused by UK economic activity rose by 19 per cent. It doesn’t matter whether one is a global warming sceptic, or an alarmist: considered either as an effective means of cutting world CO2 emissions, or as a way to restart growth, Britain’s energy strategy is self-defeating.

And however much subsidy existing renewable technology gets, it will never be enough. In 2008, David Mackay, now the chief scientific adviser at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), wrote that if one put a strip of wind turbines more than two miles wide around the whole of Britain’s coastline, it would still generate only less than half of the country’s electricity needs. Needless to say, the cost would be utterly ruinous.

So what should we be doing? The immediate answer is obvious. Thousands of feet beneath Lancashire and many other areas is a vast and readily accessible energy source: clean natural gas, which can be tapped through fracking – pumping in water and one non-toxic chemical to release the gas trapped in shale rock fissures.

This in turn should be used to fuel modern ‘combined cycle’ power stations whose emissions are only 37 per cent of the coal plants they would replace. All of this could be achieved with no subsidy at all. By such means, America, where fracking began on a large scale in 2003, has reduced its gas price by two-thirds and cut its CO2 emissions to the levels of 20 years ago.

However, the ultimate scandal is that the new technologies that really do present an opportunity to create a low-carbon future are being starved of funds.

One is nuclear fission using thorium as a fuel, which produces less than one per cent of the radioactive waste of a conventional, uranium reactor and cannot be used to make weapons.

Professor Steve Cowley, the project’s director, told me that by the mid-2020s, there would be a ‘Wright Brothers moment’ when people finally grasped that commercial fusion power was attainable: the successor to Culham, being built at Aix-en-Provence in the South of France, will, he said, produce a self-sustaining fusion ‘burn’ with a net output of 500 MW for an hour.

However, in the meantime, he admitted, progress is frustratingly slow because of the lack of funds. The UK budget for fusion research amounts to a pitiful 25 million a year, a tiny fraction of the money being thrown at wind power.

Sandy victims weigh future

Two months after Hurricane Sandy bludgeoned the city with the new year at hand, residents in the hardest-hit areas of Queens were mixed on their outlook for 2013. Al Kinsler was one of those who thought things were looking bright.

“I’m always optimistic,” said Kinsler, who lives on the corner of Beach 47th Street and Beach Channel Drive in the Rockaways.

Details of Kinsler’s story may be familiar to others living in the path of the storm’s surge, which caused soaring floodwaters that left a wake of destruction. He, like others, faced daunting water damage to his home and has had to live elsewhere as he applied for federal aid and made needed repairs.

Although he still cannot live in his house in its present condition, he said, he was working on the dwelling Saturday and was hopeful he could move back in within a month. And he said there are good signs around that his neighborhood was slowly inching back to life.

“I think we’ll bounce back,” he said. “I’ve seen [the neighborhood] at its worst and I’ve seen it at its best,” adding that its best was during the storm with so many people rallying to help others.

Broad Channel resident Robert Keith was also optimistic about 2013.

“I feel very good now that Rapid Repairs is here,” he said, referring to the program aimed at accelerating home repairs through a team of trade workers contracted by the city.

He said things were not looking as good about two weeks ago, when the program seemed to be poorly managed in the neighborhood. He said contractors would show up to make assessments or repairs late or not at all.

But at a recent community meeting to discuss the neighborhood’s concerns, Keith said an official from Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office showed up and got an earful from residents about the disorganization.

“Somebody put a flame under the mayor’s rear end,” he said.

He said since then the program has been running smoothly and effectively, making him look hopeful to the future.

But others were angry at the government response to the storm and worried about what 2013 had in store.

“I’m very nervous about the new year,” said Bruno Rinaldi, owner of Bruno restaurant, at 158-22 Cross Bay Blvd. in Howard Beach.

The restaurant sustained nearly $400,000 in damages during the storm, including the complete destruction of freezers, an ice machine, refrigerators and its entire inventory. It was shut down for five weeks and is now operating at half capacity with many employees loyally working for free because there is no money to pay them.

Although Rinaldi immediately applied to the U.S. Small Business Administration for a loan and filed a claim with his insurance company, he said so far both have delayed payments and are projecting it could still be weeks before they send any money.

And without monetary aid soon, he said, the restaurant will have to close for good, putting his employees out of work. Two weeks from now, we don’t get help, we’re done, he said, making a cutting motion across his neck.

A single tunnel boring machine (TBM) will be launched in early 2014 tocreate nearly 1km of twin-bore tunnels between Limmo Peninsula near Canning Town station and Victoria Dock Portal in the Royal Docks, completing a key part of the Crossrail route in east London. Once the TBM completes its first tunnel and breaks through at Victoria Dock Portal, it will then be turned around and driven back to Limmo to create the second adjacent tunnel.

Bill Tucker, Crossrail Area Director Central said:“Engineers worked around the clock over the Christmas break to complete these important track works as planned. The completion of this DLR track work paves the way for construction of Victoria Dock Portal to begin, a key part of the Crossrail route in east London.”