ECoin's First Project A Success

Middletown’s Environmental Collective Impact Network (ECoin) reached its first goal, resulting in a positive, measurable outcome for the environment. The group facilitated the retrofit of exit light signs, which replaced incandescent 40-watt bulbs with high efficiency 4-watt LEDs. The initial goal was to facilitate 50 retrofits, and ultimately 86 were done. Once the original goal of 50 was surpassed, the group re-set the goal to 100. However, it was hard to find that many more places around town that had incandescents that need to be retrofitted. The energy efficient exit signs were provided at no cost to local businesses and nonprofits, thanks to a $1,200 grant from the City of Middletown’s Clean Energy Task Force.

The reduced environmental impact of these 86 LED exit lights represents just over $4,000 worth of electricity per year, the equivalent of removing nearly 4 average cars from the road or reducing gasoline combustion by about 2,100 gallons per year. This was calculated using an online estimation tool on the Department of Energy's website. Changing one little thing like an exit sign might seem like a small step, but these signs are turned on and lighted at all times, so the savings really do add up when factored together. In the process of contacting facilities about the LED retrofits, ECoin incidentally introduced some businesses to energy efficiency programs and practices and started additional conversations encouraging businesses to go a step further on their own.

A little less than one year ago, ECoin was established to mutually reinforce the work being done by various groups to preserve the natural environment and improve the general quality of life in our city. ECoin now serves as a unifying force among local environmental nonprofits, city commissions, and representatives from the business community. It was created by John Hall through The Jonah Center for Earth and Art for the purpose of streamlining communications and concentrating efforts on specific goals, thus elevating the real measurable impact of environmental activism in Middletown. Hall explains that it is not always very clear if efforts around education and raising awareness really translate into positive impacts for the environment. He notes that multi-faceted problems call for pooling of expertise and concentrating actions. He stresses the importance of collaboration among members of the environmental community. And while it is a great demand to ask groups to dedicate more time to work together, it will eventually result in positive outcomes.

At regular ECoin meetings, participating organizations share information about their individual projects and support each other’s efforts. ECoin also went through a process of establishing goals and selecting and prioritizing specific projects for the group to work on together. The initial process took several months and entailed meetings with brainstorming for ideas and reviewing and vetting all the proposed projects. The high-level goals identified were energy efficiency, open space land preservation, waste management, low impact design, reduction in pesticide use, and making the city more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.

The proponents of these general areas wrote out specific achievable goals that would have a measurable effect on the environment. Next, each proposed goal was ranked using an elaborate scoring system that resulted in a list of projects ranked in order of priority. The criteria for ranking the projects included how well it fits in with the organization's overall goal, how achievable it is, and how easy it is to measure the impact.

Meetings are hosted by the Rockfall Foundation at the DeKoven House. Regular participants in ECoin include the City of Middletown’s Conservation Commission, Recycling Advisory Council, Urban Forestry Commission, and Clean Energy Task Force; South Church’s Earth Ministry; Wesleyan University’s Sustainability Department and the Center for the Arts; Middlesex Community College’s Sustainability Committee; Middletown Garden Club; and the Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District. Liberty Bank Foundation, the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce, and St. Pius X Church have also attended meetings and expressed interest in supporting ECoin’s mission in the future.

In order to respect everyone's time, the group is very disciplined about keeping the meetings limited to one hour. Discussions focus on behavior rather than education. Soon, the group will be moving onto their next project with another specific goal in mind. For more information on ECoin’s activities or meetings, call John Hall at 860-398-3771 or visit http://www.thejonahcenter.org/mailform.php to email your question.

Members of ECoin pictured above, clockwise from top left: Katchen Coley, Krishna Winston, Jane Brawerman, John Hall, Jane Harris, Claire Rusowicz, Kim O'Rourke, Sheila Stoane

Solar Power to Meet US Energy Needs Would Cost $45,000 per US citizen

At least, this is the figure that William Trousdale, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Wesleyan University, arrived at while preparing for his talk Monday evening at the Russell Library. This was the third in the series of seminar presentations by Trousdale and moderated by Marvin Farman on "Global Warming and Energy Options".

Imagine a few hundred thousand of these. [photo credit: solarishi]

In a detailed presentation, Trousdale calculated the cost based on the total estimated field of photovoltaic cells required (20,000 square miles, or an area the size of about 3 Connecticuts) to satisfy per capita US energy consumption at 5,000 kilowatt hours per year. (This consumption figure is a conservative projection, and is about half of current consumption rates). The construction cost of the solar field alone would amount to over $29,000 per person. Add another $15,000 or so per person for energy storage (solar and wind both require storage systems, since the power is wasted otherwise) and about $670 per person for transporting the energy on massive high-capacity aluminum lines from the southwest--where the sun shines--so as to minimize loss, and we're at around $45,000 per person. (Actually, the power transmission estimate here is also low, since it does not include the cost of financing.)

Given that the US population stands at around 300 million, Trousdale concluded that the US would need to spend in the neighborhood of about $13.5 trillion to create a solar energy system that could satisfy US energy requirements. This assumes, not unreasonably, that the US population can conserve energy to the point that it ends up using about half what we currently consume. Given that the US has spent the last six or seven decades ginning up a frenzied consumer culture, the casual observer may be forgiven for thinking that such conservation is beyond the realm of the possible. But, as Trousdale noted, the American people have sacrificed for massive projects before. He pointed to the Hoover Dam and World War II in particular.

This array is said to power 10,000 homes in Sevilla, Spain. [photo credit: treehugger.com]

$13.5 trillion is a lot of money, approaching the size of the US annual GDP (about $14.26 trillion in 2009). By contrast, it was estimated that building the equivalent capacity of nuclear power would cost somewhere between a quarter and a half of that amount. According to a Trousdale (in a follow up email exchange), "current Department of Energy estimates are that nuclear power is not much different from solar but it gets close to one half when storage is factored in. ["Storage" here refers to "storage of power", not fuel rods, on which see below. Nuclear, unlike solar, does not require facilities to store power.] Any large scale nuclear endeavor, a thousand or so one thousand megawatt plants, would be done with a standard design, greatly reducing the cost per unit. According to reports China builds nuclear power plants at about one sixth the cost in the USA." Of course, with nuclear you do have greater risk and political opposition associated with storage of spent fuel.

So much depends on whether we think we face a crisis with respect to global warming and whether we can come up with ways of dealing with radioactive waste. As to the former question, a close reading of essay in the New York Review of Books, June 12, 2008, by the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson, entitled "The Question of Global Warming", is in order. Dyson suggests that simply planting lots of trees may be the best thing we can do in the short term to deal with the excess of carbon in our atmosphere.

As to the question of what to do with spent fuel rods, this is harder to resolve. One solution that has been mooted by some governments (e.g., the Indians, Russians), and discussed in a previous session, is to build breeder reactors that consume most of the spent uranium and actually produce, in some cases, more usable fuel than they consume. [photo credit: Defence Forum of India] But this creates other issues, such as the production of weapons-grade plutonium and the potential for extremely high exposure when the plutonium is extracted for reprocessing. Trousdale also mentions (in a follow-up email) subcritical reactors, "which, according to their backers, have the potential of burning not only all of the Uranium but most of the radioactive waste as well." Finally, there is also (for those willing to wait a little longer) fusion technology. Fusion devotees are particularly focused on the LIFE project at Lawrence Livermore Labs in California, an experimental laser-aided system that (according to the folks in California) "has the potential to meet future worldwide energy needs in a safe, sustainable manner without carbon dioxide emissions." According to a current story in The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription only), the Livermore scientists are reporting a "major breakthrough." But they seem to be in the habit of doing so, as in this story from March. (Then again, were I on the verge of a technological breakthrough that would change life as we know it, I'd probably brag about it too.)

In any case, the talk attracted a large audience, including scholars, energy plant entrepreneurs, and movement environmentalists. A lively discussion followed the presentation, some of which focused on the importance of cleaner fossil fuel solutions in the short term, such as "clean" natural-gas-fed power plants that run at about 55 to 59% efficiency (depending on whom one is talking to, which in any case is substantially higher than conventional steam turbine plants which operate at about 40 to 45% efficiency) that may act as a bridge to future long-term solutions.

The Global Warming Debate and Energy Choices

7pm, Monday, November 8
Hubbard Room
Russell Library

William Trousdale, Wesleyan Professor Emeritus of Physics, and Marvin Farbman, former Director of CT Legal Services, will lead this last session in the seminar series. The program will examine the pros and cons of solar power along with other energy choices.

23rd Annual Rockfall Symposium at MxCC to focus on Jobs, Energy & Education for a Sustainable Future

The 23rd Annual Rockfall Symposium titled, "Green Light for Our Economy" will be held Friday, October 9th from 8:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m. at Middlesex Community College, Chapman Hall, 100 Training Hill Road in Middletown, Connecticut.

Five distinguished speakers will discuss the effects new green jobs, a refreshed energy policy and progressive education will have on Middlesex County's environment and economy.

· Wilfredo Nieves, President, Middlesex Community College, Middletown, Connecticut
Education - Opportunities

· William Leahy, Director, Institute for Sustainable Energy, Eastern Connecticut State University Energy &Jobs-Environmental Solutions and Sustainability Planning

· John Hall, Director, Jonah Center for Earth and Art, Middletown, Connecticut
Embracing Change-Eco-friendly Practices

· Jiff Martin, Connecticut Director, American Farmland Trust
Eating Green-Farms, Farming and Marketing

· Stephen Tagliatella, Innkeeper, Saybrook Point Inn & Spa, Old Saybrook Connecticut
Green Business Practices-Process and Pay-off

Who Should Attend: Local elected and appointed officials, land use planners, developers, architects, attorneys, real estate agents, educators; town planning, zoning, wetlands and appeals board and commission members, and all who are concerned with effective community planning.

Registration: The Symposium fee of $50.00 includes all materials and coffee breaks. Because space will be limited, registration is on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration forms must be received no later than October 2nd. Optional buffet lunch immediately following the program is $15.00. No refunds can be made after October 7th.
Date & Time Friday, October 9, 2009

9 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. program (8:30 a.m. registration)

12:15 - 1:00 p.m. optional catered lunch

1:00 - 1:30 p.m. tour of MXCC campus and nature trail

Program and Registration Information See www.rockfallfoundation.org or contact the Rockfall Foundation office at 860-347-0340.

The Rockfall Foundation, located in Middletown, CT, supports environmental education, conservation programs and planning initiatives in Middlesex County. As one of the state's oldest environmental organizations, its primary goal is to help promote a healthy balance in the county between development and environmental conservation.

Trevor Davis, Symposium Chair - 860-347-8738

Claire Rusowicz
Development Director
The Rockfall Foundation
27 Washington Street
Middletown CT 06457
(860) 347-0340
crusowicz@rockfallfoundation.org

"Greening & Growing Middlesex County for 75 years"