Carbon Offset Fun Fact #1. — November 5, 2021

By Carbonless Community

Buying RECs to reduce Scope 2 emissions won’t reduce Methane Emissions – 

But Buying the “Right” Carbon Offset Will

     Last Tuesday, world leaders at COP 26 pledged to sharply curtail methane (CH₄) emissions.  We all know that CH₄ is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) – but what many don’t appreciate is the magnitude of the impact that methane emissions have in the near-term on warming our planet.  Methane has a 20-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 84-87.  Doing some simple arithmetic on the amount of annual methane emitted and its near-term GWP, one will discover that CH₄emissions equal human’s CO₂ emissions in contributing to global warming this year.  But the situation is not as dire as you may think – there is positive action you can take to reduce CH₄ emissions – but it requires a little modification in your purchasing behavior.  

     Both RECs and Carbon Offsets can mitigate Scope 2 emissions in your carbon footprint accounting.  Unlike RECs, there are several Carbon Offset projects that reduce CH₄ emissions.  By purchasing the “Right” Carbon Offsets rather than RECs for reducing your Scope 2 emissions,  you can select a methane-reducing project that has positive real-world implications.  And here’s an additional benefit for those on constrained budgets – purchasing the equivalent amount of Carbon Offsets will cost you half as much as purchasing RECs.  

For more info please contact:  Jamie Cahillane; jamie@carbonlesscommunity.com ; (413) 329-6546

Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Community Solar Wins Again Over Natural Gas for Savings and the Environment

With the recent rise in natural gas prices, I was asked by an Illinois resident if buying gas from a third party supplier for their house is a good idea – and if so, how would I suggest going about it.  The question came in response to a prediction by the Energy Information Agency that the average gas-heated household would pay an additional $171 to heat their home this winter.  The first question I asked was what is their yardstick for determining if it was a “good idea” or not?  Like most consumers, they want to spend less money than if they were getting their gas from the local gas utility (i.e., the “do-nothing alternative.”)  So, at the end of the winter, they will compare what they spent with a third party supplier versus what they would have spent with the utility.  While the fixed price from a third party supplier is known over the contract term, the price of utility-supplied natural gas in Illinois varies each month.  As a result, accurately projecting the price spread and your savings would be difficult, if not impossible.  And the probability of mitigating the $171 in projected gas expense is virtually zero.  

So here’s what I suggested for a homeowner in Illinois who wants to save $171 over the next year.  Check out a Community Solar program.  Some save 20% off ComEd’s supply rates – and have very favorable contract terms.  When you go through the projected savings calculations for a home owner in Illinois, it’s uncanny how close to $171/year the savings are.  It’s as close to a risk-free investment as you can get and you are helping the environment by using renewable energy.  How can you lose?  Don’t know if the offer has changed, but NexAmp was offering 20% savings AND a $25 Amazon gift card.  Check out this link:  https://refer.nexamp.com/x/vtBgzM

Keep Tongass National Forest Roadless

As far back as the Reagan administration, there have been efforts to clear cut and develop Tongass National Forest – 9.3 million acres of old growth forest located in Alaska. Now, the Trump administration is in the final stages of removing protection for this wildlife habitat. Forests are the best sources for storing carbon and combating the climate crisis. Please check out the the link below – and send an email to express your displeasure with this action.

https://addup.sierraclub.org/campaigns/keep-alaskas-tongass-national-forest-roadless/petition

Thank you.
Craig Schuttenberg
President, Carbonless Community

A Solar Revolution in the Developing World

There’s an article in the most recent National Geographic Magazine titled Power to the People – A solar revolution is transforming lives in the developing world.  It’s a story about distributed solar generation at its finest.  Millions of lives in the developing world are being transformed by the ability to have good quality artificial light after the sun goes down.  The benefits range from increase productivity (people can work at night) to healthier indoor air (by not having to depend on kerosene lanterns) to business development and opportunity (selling and distributing the solar lanterns).  In the article they featured Simpa (the derived from “simple payments.”)  The business concept is that people can afford to lease solar equipment as long as it saves the user time and money over the long-run.  The concept works and is expanding rapidly.  With over 600 million people in sub-Sahara Africa without electricity, the market potential is huge.

Unfortunately, of the solar lights shown in the beautiful National Geographic pictures aren’t from Simpa.  I believe they are from Green Light Planet (http://greenlightplanet.com) – a not-for-profit that grew out of some smart engineering students from the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana (now UIUC).  Their technology is more compact and advanced, and the design of the lights is focused on how the lights are used in the developing world – National Geo’s pictures don’t lie – just look at the picture of the motorcycle mechanic in Uganda working at night.

Here’s the link to the article:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/climate-change/solar-power-text

Bloomberg Report — Wind and Solar Boost Cost-Competitiveness Versus Fossil Fuels

This past week, Bloomberg released a report saying that on a global basis, renewable energy from on-shore wind generating plants is cost competitive with fossil fuel electric generating plants.  The levelised costs (i.e., average cost of generation) were compared from multiple generation fuel sources.  The reporter, in an interview with the BBC today (10/13/2015), mentioned that one still has to consider local plant siting and weather, along with regional electricity consumption patterns and alternate fuel prices, when determining what form of renewable energy to utilize.  In other words, a renewable project selection is critical as you can’t just “plug an play” an economic renewable energy solution.  Renewable energy won’t be the least cost every time, but the gap between renewable and fossil fuel plants continues to close and in some cases renewable energy is cheapest cost of generation.

Here’s the link to a summary of the Bloomberg report:

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-cost-competitiveness-versus-fossil-fuels/

The Curious Politics of the ‘Nudge”

There was an article in last Sunday’s New York Times that addresses nudging among different political parties — The Curious Politics of the ‘Nudge,”  by Craig R. Fox and David Tannenbaum.  While it is interesting to see that in a controlled experiment both liberal and conservatives are susceptible to nudges, it is most important to note the what makes the greatest impact on the outcome is from whom the message emanates.  It’s a good introduction to the nudge.  We’re going to see more them as we deal with the need to change our habits and our lives, and how we do business.   Here’s the link:   http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/the-curious-politics-of-the-nudge.html?_r=0

Microsoft Business Units Factor in Price of Carbon

With the past week’s media focusing on VW’s software shenanigans associated with their turbo diesel power trains, you may have missed this article in this Sunday’s New York Times  — A Carbon Tax Imposed by the Head Office.  It’s about Microsoft’s current effort to link climate change with business risk by charging business units a fee for carbon based upon their energy consumption.  Disney and Shell have similar internal accounting programs in place.  By linking carbon with business unit performance, climate change becomes front and center in the consideration of ongoing business decisions.  The link is below:

NY Times Article — Shifting the Tax Burden to Cut Carbon

In this past Sunday’s New York Times (9/6/2015), there was an interesting article titled
Shifting the Tax Burden to Cut Carbon.  The article is written by N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard.  The subject is Washington state’s Measure 732 – a revenue neutral approach to cutting carbon.  Rather than taxing carbon and using the revenue for renewable energy projects, Measure 732 taxes carbon but rebates the revenue collected to groups adversely affected by the higher cost of energy, thus making it revenue neutral.  Conservative groups like it because it doesn’t create a financial windfall for environmental organizations promoting renewable energy projects – a long-standing impediment to reducing carbon with conservatives.  Despite its projected positive result in reducing carbon, the measure isn’t supported by many environmental groups.  The article is worth a read.

The Power Revolutions – Article in Wall Street Journal

Today there was an article in the Wall Street Journal by Daniel Yergin.  It talked about how emerging renewable energy technologies and cheap natural gas are changing the landscape of the energy industry.  However, it also mentioned how change is painfully slow in this industry.  Despite Mr. Yergin’s company’s projection that wind and solar energy generation may make up 20+% of world electricity production by 2040, older forms of energy (i.e., coal and oil) are not going away.  The question that wasn’t addressed was how are we going to accommodate all the carbon in the atmosphere from all the mining and drilling we continue to do.  It’s written with a cautiously optimistic tone and is worth reading.    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-revolutions-1440172598

Alphabet Energy and NPR’s “all tech considered”

This morning there was an interesting piece on NPR’s “all tech considered.”  It was about the development of Alphabet Energy and how their technology recovers waste heat from combustion processes (e.g., electrical generation and internal combustion engines).  Instead of capturing thermal heat by way of making either hot water or steam (as is the usual process for recovering waste heat from combustion), Alphabet Energy generates electricity using thermal gradients created by combustion.  Here’s the NPR link:  http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/20/432738291/a-lot-of-heat-is-wasted-so-why-not-convert-it-into-power

There is more info on Alphabet Energy’s website about how this technology works.   www.alphabetenergy.com/    It is very cool.