The Philosophic Roots of the Paris Agreement Part V: “Small is Beautiful”

“Whenever something is wrong, something is too big.”

-Leopold Kohr

In energy, what is hyped as new and transformative is often not. Renewable energies predate the fossil-fuel era—and with a 100 percent market share, no less. Wind power and solar power have a nineteenth century history, not only a twentieth. Fuel cell physics was developed in the mid-19th century. Electric vehicles dominated the transportation market until the internal combustion engine took over a century ago. Energy conservation/efficiency is as old as energy itself.

Enter the environmental panacea of smallness, the fourth strand in the philosophical underpinnings of the Church of Climate. Other movements behind the global aspirations to control climate change from the enhanced greenhouse effect in this series were Deep Ecology, Malthusianism, and Conservationism. (The political roots of the Paris climate agreement, involving Enron CEO Ken Lay and President George H. W. Bush, were explored here.)

For many decades, the small-is-beautiful movement has influenced energy thinking and public policy. Getting beyond central-station power plants and their energies (natural gas, coal, oil, and uranium) has been an environmental movement within a movement.

In energy policy, smallness is manifested in distributed generation (DT) as an alternative to power plants, the technology of choice from the days of Thomas Edison and Samuel Insull (Bradley 2011, Part I). Fuel cells yesterday and rooftop solar today; the mantra continues.

Beyond Baseload, Fossil Fuels?

“The use of the term ‘baseload’ generation is no longer helpful for purposes of planning and operating today’s electricity system,” concludes a recent study sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council. According to another just released analysis, cosponsored by the American Wind Energy Association, the power system is benefitting from “both grid-connected and distributed solar and wind generation” as well as “growing adaptation of small-scale, decentralized generating technologies on customers’ premises,” upending “the economics of older fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants in many parts of the country.”

In a front-page article in the Houston Chronicle, “Tech Out to Disrupt Power Industry,” author James Osborne sees a new energy future. “Out are centralized, fossil-fuel-fired plants sending electricity in one direction.” He continues:

In are rooftop solar systems, smart thermostats, home battery systems and wind farms. All are controlled by computer algorithms and updated hardware that pull in and analyze thousands of data points on weather, pricing and electricity consumption to create a power grid that can shift demand when supplies run thin and rely more on renewable energy.

The catch? “‘In a few years, maybe a couple decades, when we look back we will be surprised we used to burn all this fossil fuel,’ said Amit Narayan, founder and CEO of AutoGrid, a startup outside San Francisco. ‘There’s fundamentally no reason to do that anymore’.”

Where have we heard this before? Perhaps in Christopher Flavin and Nicholas Lenssen’s 1994 book, Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution:

Fortuitously, technology is being developed to link each fuel cell, flywheel, and air conditioner electronically, allowing the grid to operate as a single “smart” system that avoids overloading lines and turns off decentralized generators when crews are repairing wires (p. 258).

Back-to-nature with high-tech? Time to live affordably and sustainably off the grid? A new energy of era? Energy fundamentals have not really changed; distributed generation is very expensive and infrastructure heavy.

“Small is Beautiful”

The “small is beautiful” movement can be traced to E. F. Schumacher, who in the 1950s warned the Federation of British Industry that “the first signs of a world oil famine” were “visible” (Bradley 2009, p. 227). The “voice in the wilderness” (Bradley 2009, p. 227) came of age with his 1973 book, Small is Beautiful, a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic.

Soon, he found himself in the company of Queen Elizabeth and Royal Dutch Shell at home, and California Governor Jerry Brown and President Jimmy Carter abroad. During the energy crises, he became a hero of thousands of newly minted neo-Malthusians as the new guru of less-is-more (Bradley, 2009, p. 228).

Schumacher’s Malthusianism became spiritual when he left atheism for Zen Buddhism. A Buddhist economy, he said, would make “the distinction between ‘renewable’ and ‘non-renewable’ resources.” Affluence and materialism were bad. “Modern man has built a system of production that ravishes nature and a type of society that mutilates man,” he wrote (Bradley, 2009, p. 227).

Crossing the ideas of other market critics such as John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich, and Amory Lovins, Schumacher sought to replace “the philosophy of materialism” with a “magnanimous kind of prudence,” leading to “justice, fortitude, and temperantia, which means knowing when enough is enough” (Bradley, 2009, pp. 227–28).

Smallness, Not Growth

Another well-timed book, Limits to Growth (1972), sponsored by The Club of Rome, predicted “collapse,” because the “basic behavioral mode of the world system is exponential growth of population and capital” (Bradley, 2009, p. 234). After their book was completed (it would sell 9 million copies in 29 languages), Dennis and Donella Meadows retreated to a New Hampshire farm “to learn about homesteading and wait for the coming collapse.” Going small, they would wait … and wait.

Kenneth Boulding challenged his fellow economists to reconsider economic growth. “Bigger is not necessarily better,” he wrote. “For the poor, growth in income is entirely desirable; for the rich, it may simply mean corruption and luxury.” He urged “a fundamental change in human consciousness,” one that admittedly would require “an adjustment of our ethical, religious, and national systems which may be quite traumatic” (Bradley, p. 239).

On the other side of the Atlantic, meanwhile, Sir Roy Harrod similarly decried the “religious … grand objective” of economic growth embedded in neoclassical economics (Nikiforuk, p. 144).

In The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude (2012), Andew Nikiforuk pleaded for a new approach to living. “A haphazard and improbable emancipation movement has begun to take shape,” he posited.

Around the world, families and groups of individuals are walking away in ever growing numbers from petroleum and the inanimate slave culture of frantic consumption. They are exchanging quantity for quality and relearning the practical arts. Those seeking liberty eat slowly, travel locally, plant gardens, work ethically, build communities, share tools, and eschew bigness in economic and political life. Above all, they are relearning what it means to live within their means, with grace (p. 249).

Distributed Generation

“A world of completely isolated and self-sufficient economies could conceivably be a peaceful one,” stated Benjamin Higgins and Jean Downing Higgins in Economic Development of a Small Planet (1979). “And in these days of energy shortage, a higher degree of self-sufficiency, achieved by using local renewable materials wherever possible, could … lead to a rich variety of indigenous efforts rather than increasing world uniformity, and to greater independence” (p. 265).

In the same year, Barbara Ward in Progress for a Small Planet spoke of “the new emphasis on smaller and leaner units of production” (p. 136) as part of “a balanced and conserving planet” (p. 277).

In 1994, Flavin and Lenssen wrote about “a new breed of smaller electricity generators” that was challenging the paradigm of “large central stations.” Gas-fired, these units soon may be obliterated by even smaller, more modular generating and storage technologies that are now rapidly entering the market, including fuel cells, rooftop solar generators, and flywheels. Together, these inventions could make power generation at the household level economical (pp. 256–57).

In 2007, Joseph Romm looked to distributed generation as a way beyond central-station electricity. “Cogen and other on-site power systems, such as solar panels, are called distributed energy as opposed to large central-station power plants, like coal or nuclear,” he explained. “Their market penetration is limited by barriers that have nothing to do with their cost or performance—especially the countless obstacles and fees that major utilities can place in their way” (pp. 167–68). Only bad play stood in the way of this ready technology, in his view.

Fuel Cells

Some decades ago, electricity from fuel cells was the next big thing. The battery-like designs, fueled by natural gas, could be sited almost anywhere, even providing “power from the basement” (Bradley, 2018, chapter 13).

The principle of combining energy and oxygen to create electric current and water was proven in 1839. The modern fuel cell was developed at Cambridge University in the mid-twentieth century. By the early 1970s, nearly 50 companies, most of them US businesses, had invested north of $50 million (several hundred million in today’s dollars) to commercialize the technology. Major firms were involved, including Exxon, Arco, and Westinghouse (Bradley, 2018, chapter 13).

Fuel cells became popular discourse as part of a postcarbon energy future. In this scenario, renewables would create hydrogen (via electrolysis of water) for the home or business or industry. Distributed generation would supplant the power grid. “In the United States,” Christopher Flavin reported in 1996, “the race is on” (p. 14). The leader was ONSI Corporation, a United Technologies unit that had just completed the world’s first fuel-cell manufacturing facility to produce dozens of units annually at half the cost of earlier models. Allied Signal, IBM, Dow Chemical, and Ballard Power Systems were also in the fuel-cell market, leading Flavin to predict that “a commercial takeoff for fuel cells is likely within the next decade” (p. 14).

It would not happen. “Fuel cells continue to face major challenges,” summarized Daniel Yergin in 2011. “The fuel cells themselves—the device that converts hydrogen or another chemical feedstock into electricity—are expensive and will require substantial investment and breakthroughs for commercialization” (Yergin, p. 707). And today, virtually no environmental organization touts this technology, probably because natural gas is no longer considered a bridge fuel to sustainability (as back in the 1990s) but, according to Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, “a gangplank to a destabilized climate and an impoverished economy” (Bryce, p. 275).

Conclusion

Central-station power, enjoying scale economies in production and from mass diversified consumption (to improve load factors), remains king compared to distributed generation for grid energy. (Off-grid is another, free-market story.)

In Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (1999), Peter Huber documented that “The Hard technology of modern capitalism is fantastically efficient” (p. 146). “Generally speaking,” he writes, “the greenest fuels are the ones that contain the most energy per pound of material that must be mined, trucked, pumped, piped, and burnt” (p. 105). Dilute renewables such as electricity from wind and solar are environmentally suspect because of their huge land dedication, among other factors.

Robert Bryce has also noted the superior density and thus performance of fossil fuels, as well as uranium. “Density is green” because we can wring “more energy and more food from smaller pieces of land” (p. xxii).

Natural economies of scale and grid reliability emerge from a let the consumer decide energy policy. In a free society, small, medium, and large can be beautiful.

Bibliography

Bradley, Robert. Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy. Salem, MA: M & M Scrivener Press, 2009.

Bradley, Robert. Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons and Scrivener Publishing, 2011.

Bradley, Robert. Enron Ascending: The Forgotten Years, 1984–1996. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons and Scrivener Publishing, 2018.

Bryce, Robert. Smaller, Faster, Lighter, Denser, Cheaper. New York: Public Affairs, 2014.

Flavin, Christopher, and Nicholas Lenssen. Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994.

Flavin, Christopher. “Power Shock: The Next Energy Revolution.” World Watch, January/February 1996, 10–19.

Higgins, Benjamin, and Jean Downing Higgins. Economic Development of a Small Planet. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1979.

Huber, Peter. Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Meadows, Donella, et al. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972.

Nikiforuk, Andrew. The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude. Toronto: Greystone Books, 2012.

Romm, Joseph. Hell and High Water: Global Warming—the Solution and the Politics—And What We Should Do. New York: William Morrow, 2007.

Schumacher, E. F. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond & Biggs, 1973.

Ward, Barbara. Progress for a Small Planet. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979.

Yergin, Daniel. The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.

The post The Philosophic Roots of the Paris Agreement Part V: “Small is Beautiful” appeared first on IER.

Advertisements

The Philosophic Roots of the Paris Agreement Part V: “Small is Beautiful”

“Whenever something is wrong, something is too big.”

-Leopold Kohr

In energy, what is hyped as new and transformative is often not. Renewable energies predate the fossil-fuel era—and with a 100 percent market share, no less. Wind power and solar power have a nineteenth century history, not only a twentieth. Fuel cell physics was developed in the mid-19th century. Electric vehicles dominated the transportation market until the internal combustion engine took over a century ago. Energy conservation/efficiency is as old as energy itself.

Enter the environmental panacea of smallness, the fourth strand in the philosophical underpinnings of the Church of Climate. Other movements behind the global aspirations to control climate change from the enhanced greenhouse effect in this series were Deep Ecology, Malthusianism, and Conservationism. (The political roots of the Paris climate agreement, involving Enron CEO Ken Lay and President George H. W. Bush, were explored here.)

For many decades, the small-is-beautiful movement has influenced energy thinking and public policy. Getting beyond central-station power plants and their energies (natural gas, coal, oil, and uranium) has been an environmental movement within a movement.

In energy policy, smallness is manifested in distributed generation (DT) as an alternative to power plants, the technology of choice from the days of Thomas Edison and Samuel Insull (Bradley 2011, Part I). Fuel cells yesterday and rooftop solar today; the mantra continues.

Beyond Baseload, Fossil Fuels?

“The use of the term ‘baseload’ generation is no longer helpful for purposes of planning and operating today’s electricity system,” concludes a recent study sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council. According to another just released analysis, cosponsored by the American Wind Energy Association, the power system is benefitting from “both grid-connected and distributed solar and wind generation” as well as “growing adaptation of small-scale, decentralized generating technologies on customers’ premises,” upending “the economics of older fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants in many parts of the country.”

In a front-page article in the Houston Chronicle, “Tech Out to Disrupt Power Industry,” author James Osborne sees a new energy future. “Out are centralized, fossil-fuel-fired plants sending electricity in one direction.” He continues:

In are rooftop solar systems, smart thermostats, home battery systems and wind farms. All are controlled by computer algorithms and updated hardware that pull in and analyze thousands of data points on weather, pricing and electricity consumption to create a power grid that can shift demand when supplies run thin and rely more on renewable energy.

The catch? “‘In a few years, maybe a couple decades, when we look back we will be surprised we used to burn all this fossil fuel,’ said Amit Narayan, founder and CEO of AutoGrid, a startup outside San Francisco. ‘There’s fundamentally no reason to do that anymore’.”

Where have we heard this before? Perhaps in Christopher Flavin and Nicholas Lenssen’s 1994 book, Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution:

Fortuitously, technology is being developed to link each fuel cell, flywheel, and air conditioner electronically, allowing the grid to operate as a single “smart” system that avoids overloading lines and turns off decentralized generators when crews are repairing wires (p. 258).

Back-to-nature with high-tech? Time to live affordably and sustainably off the grid? A new energy of era? Energy fundamentals have not really changed; distributed generation is very expensive and infrastructure heavy.

“Small is Beautiful”

The “small is beautiful” movement can be traced to E. F. Schumacher, who in the 1950s warned the Federation of British Industry that “the first signs of a world oil famine” were “visible” (Bradley 2009, p. 227). The “voice in the wilderness” (Bradley 2009, p. 227) came of age with his 1973 book, Small is Beautiful, a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic.

Soon, he found himself in the company of Queen Elizabeth and Royal Dutch Shell at home, and California Governor Jerry Brown and President Jimmy Carter abroad. During the energy crises, he became a hero of thousands of newly minted neo-Malthusians as the new guru of less-is-more (Bradley, 2009, p. 228).

Schumacher’s Malthusianism became spiritual when he left atheism for Zen Buddhism. A Buddhist economy, he said, would make “the distinction between ‘renewable’ and ‘non-renewable’ resources.” Affluence and materialism were bad. “Modern man has built a system of production that ravishes nature and a type of society that mutilates man,” he wrote (Bradley, 2009, p. 227).

Crossing the ideas of other market critics such as John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich, and Amory Lovins, Schumacher sought to replace “the philosophy of materialism” with a “magnanimous kind of prudence,” leading to “justice, fortitude, and temperantia, which means knowing when enough is enough” (Bradley, 2009, pp. 227–28).

Smallness, Not Growth

Another well-timed book, Limits to Growth (1972), sponsored by The Club of Rome, predicted “collapse,” because the “basic behavioral mode of the world system is exponential growth of population and capital” (Bradley, 2009, p. 234). After their book was completed (it would sell 9 million copies in 29 languages), Dennis and Donella Meadows retreated to a New Hampshire farm “to learn about homesteading and wait for the coming collapse.” Going small, they would wait … and wait.

Kenneth Boulding challenged his fellow economists to reconsider economic growth. “Bigger is not necessarily better,” he wrote. “For the poor, growth in income is entirely desirable; for the rich, it may simply mean corruption and luxury.” He urged “a fundamental change in human consciousness,” one that admittedly would require “an adjustment of our ethical, religious, and national systems which may be quite traumatic” (Bradley, p. 239).

On the other side of the Atlantic, meanwhile, Sir Roy Harrod similarly decried the “religious … grand objective” of economic growth embedded in neoclassical economics (Nikiforuk, p. 144).

In The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude (2012), Andew Nikiforuk pleaded for a new approach to living. “A haphazard and improbable emancipation movement has begun to take shape,” he posited.

Around the world, families and groups of individuals are walking away in ever growing numbers from petroleum and the inanimate slave culture of frantic consumption. They are exchanging quantity for quality and relearning the practical arts. Those seeking liberty eat slowly, travel locally, plant gardens, work ethically, build communities, share tools, and eschew bigness in economic and political life. Above all, they are relearning what it means to live within their means, with grace (p. 249).

Distributed Generation

“A world of completely isolated and self-sufficient economies could conceivably be a peaceful one,” stated Benjamin Higgins and Jean Downing Higgins in Economic Development of a Small Planet (1979). “And in these days of energy shortage, a higher degree of self-sufficiency, achieved by using local renewable materials wherever possible, could … lead to a rich variety of indigenous efforts rather than increasing world uniformity, and to greater independence” (p. 265).

In the same year, Barbara Ward in Progress for a Small Planet spoke of “the new emphasis on smaller and leaner units of production” (p. 136) as part of “a balanced and conserving planet” (p. 277).

In 1994, Flavin and Lenssen wrote about “a new breed of smaller electricity generators” that was challenging the paradigm of “large central stations.” Gas-fired, these units soon may be obliterated by even smaller, more modular generating and storage technologies that are now rapidly entering the market, including fuel cells, rooftop solar generators, and flywheels. Together, these inventions could make power generation at the household level economical (pp. 256–57).

In 2007, Joseph Romm looked to distributed generation as a way beyond central-station electricity. “Cogen and other on-site power systems, such as solar panels, are called distributed energy as opposed to large central-station power plants, like coal or nuclear,” he explained. “Their market penetration is limited by barriers that have nothing to do with their cost or performance—especially the countless obstacles and fees that major utilities can place in their way” (pp. 167–68). Only bad play stood in the way of this ready technology, in his view.

Fuel Cells

Some decades ago, electricity from fuel cells was the next big thing. The battery-like designs, fueled by natural gas, could be sited almost anywhere, even providing “power from the basement” (Bradley, 2018, chapter 13).

The principle of combining energy and oxygen to create electric current and water was proven in 1839. The modern fuel cell was developed at Cambridge University in the mid-twentieth century. By the early 1970s, nearly 50 companies, most of them US businesses, had invested north of $50 million (several hundred million in today’s dollars) to commercialize the technology. Major firms were involved, including Exxon, Arco, and Westinghouse (Bradley, 2018, chapter 13).

Fuel cells became popular discourse as part of a postcarbon energy future. In this scenario, renewables would create hydrogen (via electrolysis of water) for the home or business or industry. Distributed generation would supplant the power grid. “In the United States,” Christopher Flavin reported in 1996, “the race is on” (p. 14). The leader was ONSI Corporation, a United Technologies unit that had just completed the world’s first fuel-cell manufacturing facility to produce dozens of units annually at half the cost of earlier models. Allied Signal, IBM, Dow Chemical, and Ballard Power Systems were also in the fuel-cell market, leading Flavin to predict that “a commercial takeoff for fuel cells is likely within the next decade” (p. 14).

It would not happen. “Fuel cells continue to face major challenges,” summarized Daniel Yergin in 2011. “The fuel cells themselves—the device that converts hydrogen or another chemical feedstock into electricity—are expensive and will require substantial investment and breakthroughs for commercialization” (Yergin, p. 707). And today, virtually no environmental organization touts this technology, probably because natural gas is no longer considered a bridge fuel to sustainability (as back in the 1990s) but, according to Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, “a gangplank to a destabilized climate and an impoverished economy” (Bryce, p. 275).

Conclusion

Central-station power, enjoying scale economies in production and from mass diversified consumption (to improve load factors), remains king compared to distributed generation for grid energy. (Off-grid is another, free-market story.)

In Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (1999), Peter Huber documented that “The Hard technology of modern capitalism is fantastically efficient” (p. 146). “Generally speaking,” he writes, “the greenest fuels are the ones that contain the most energy per pound of material that must be mined, trucked, pumped, piped, and burnt” (p. 105). Dilute renewables such as electricity from wind and solar are environmentally suspect because of their huge land dedication, among other factors.

Robert Bryce has also noted the superior density and thus performance of fossil fuels, as well as uranium. “Density is green” because we can wring “more energy and more food from smaller pieces of land” (p. xxii).

Natural economies of scale and grid reliability emerge from a let the consumer decide energy policy. In a free society, small, medium, and large can be beautiful.

Bibliography

Bradley, Robert. Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy. Salem, MA: M & M Scrivener Press, 2009.

Bradley, Robert. Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons and Scrivener Publishing, 2011.

Bradley, Robert. Enron Ascending: The Forgotten Years, 1984–1996. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons and Scrivener Publishing, 2018.

Bryce, Robert. Smaller, Faster, Lighter, Denser, Cheaper. New York: Public Affairs, 2014.

Flavin, Christopher, and Nicholas Lenssen. Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994.

Flavin, Christopher. “Power Shock: The Next Energy Revolution.” World Watch, January/February 1996, 10–19.

Higgins, Benjamin, and Jean Downing Higgins. Economic Development of a Small Planet. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1979.

Huber, Peter. Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Meadows, Donella, et al. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972.

Nikiforuk, Andrew. The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude. Toronto: Greystone Books, 2012.

Romm, Joseph. Hell and High Water: Global Warming—the Solution and the Politics—And What We Should Do. New York: William Morrow, 2007.

Schumacher, E. F. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond & Biggs, 1973.

Ward, Barbara. Progress for a Small Planet. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979.

Yergin, Daniel. The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.

The post The Philosophic Roots of the Paris Agreement Part V: “Small is Beautiful” appeared first on IER.

from Raymond Castleberry Blog http://raymondcastleberry.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-philosophic-roots-of-paris_30.html
via http://raymondcastleberry.blogspot.com

The Philosophic Roots of the Paris Agreement Part V: “Small is Beautiful”

“Whenever something is wrong, something is too big.”

-Leopold Kohr

In energy, what is hyped as new and transformative is often not. Renewable energies predate the fossil-fuel era—and with a 100 percent market share, no less. Wind power and solar power have a nineteenth century history, not only a twentieth. Fuel cell physics was developed in the mid-19th century. Electric vehicles dominated the transportation market until the internal combustion engine took over a century ago. Energy conservation/efficiency is as old as energy itself.

Enter the environmental panacea of smallness, the fourth strand in the philosophical underpinnings of the Church of Climate. Other movements behind the global aspirations to control climate change from the enhanced greenhouse effect in this series were Deep Ecology, Malthusianism, and Conservationism. (The political roots of the Paris climate agreement, involving Enron CEO Ken Lay and President George H. W. Bush, were explored here.)

For many decades, the small-is-beautiful movement has influenced energy thinking and public policy. Getting beyond central-station power plants and their energies (natural gas, coal, oil, and uranium) has been an environmental movement within a movement.

In energy policy, smallness is manifested in distributed generation (DT) as an alternative to power plants, the technology of choice from the days of Thomas Edison and Samuel Insull (Bradley 2011, Part I). Fuel cells yesterday and rooftop solar today; the mantra continues.

Beyond Baseload, Fossil Fuels?

“The use of the term ‘baseload’ generation is no longer helpful for purposes of planning and operating today’s electricity system,” concludes a recent study sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council. According to another just released analysis, cosponsored by the American Wind Energy Association, the power system is benefitting from “both grid-connected and distributed solar and wind generation” as well as “growing adaptation of small-scale, decentralized generating technologies on customers’ premises,” upending “the economics of older fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants in many parts of the country.”

In a front-page article in the Houston Chronicle, “Tech Out to Disrupt Power Industry,” author James Osborne sees a new energy future. “Out are centralized, fossil-fuel-fired plants sending electricity in one direction.” He continues:

In are rooftop solar systems, smart thermostats, home battery systems and wind farms. All are controlled by computer algorithms and updated hardware that pull in and analyze thousands of data points on weather, pricing and electricity consumption to create a power grid that can shift demand when supplies run thin and rely more on renewable energy.

The catch? “‘In a few years, maybe a couple decades, when we look back we will be surprised we used to burn all this fossil fuel,’ said Amit Narayan, founder and CEO of AutoGrid, a startup outside San Francisco. ‘There’s fundamentally no reason to do that anymore’.”

Where have we heard this before? Perhaps in Christopher Flavin and Nicholas Lenssen’s 1994 book, Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution:

Fortuitously, technology is being developed to link each fuel cell, flywheel, and air conditioner electronically, allowing the grid to operate as a single “smart” system that avoids overloading lines and turns off decentralized generators when crews are repairing wires (p. 258).

Back-to-nature with high-tech? Time to live affordably and sustainably off the grid? A new energy of era? Energy fundamentals have not really changed; distributed generation is very expensive and infrastructure heavy.

“Small is Beautiful”

The “small is beautiful” movement can be traced to E. F. Schumacher, who in the 1950s warned the Federation of British Industry that “the first signs of a world oil famine” were “visible” (quoted in Bradley 2009, p. 227). The “voice in the wilderness” (quoted in Bradley 2009, p. 227) came of age with his 1973 book, Small is Beautiful, a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic.

Soon, he found himself in the company of Queen Elizabeth and Royal Dutch Shell at home, and California Governor Jerry Brown and President Jimmy Carter abroad. During the energy crises, he became a hero of thousands of newly minted neo-Malthusians as the new guru of less-is-more (Bradley, 2009, p. 228).

Schumacher’s Malthusianism became spiritual when he left atheism for Zen Buddhism. A Buddhist economy, he said, would make “the distinction between ‘renewable’ and ‘non-renewable’ resources.” Affluence and materialism were bad. “Modern man has built a system of production that ravishes nature and a type of society that mutilates man,” he wrote (Bradley, 2009, p. 227).

Crossing the ideas of other market critics such as John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Ehrlich, and Amory Lovins, Schumacher sought to replace “the philosophy of materialism” with a “magnanimous kind of prudence,” leading to “justice, fortitude, and temperantia, which means knowing when enough is enough” (Bradley, 2009, pp. 227–28).

Smallness, Not Growth

Another well-timed book, Limits to Growth (1972), sponsored by The Club of Rome, predicted “collapse,” because the “basic behavioral mode of the world system is exponential growth of population and capital” (quoted in Bradley, 2009, p. 234). After their book was completed (it would sell 9 million copies in 29 languages), Dennis and Donella Meadows retreated to a New Hampshire farm “to learn about homesteading and wait for the coming collapse.” Going small, they would wait … and wait.

Kenneth Boulding challenged his fellow economists to reconsider economic growth. “Bigger is not necessarily better,” he wrote. “For the poor, growth in income is entirely desirable; for the rich, it may simply mean corruption and luxury.” He urged “a fundamental change in human consciousness,” one that admittedly would require “an adjustment of our ethical, religious, and national systems which may be quite traumatic” (Bradley, p. 239).

On the other side of the Atlantic, meanwhile, Sir Roy Harrod similarly decried the “religious … grand objective” of economic growth embedded in neoclassical economics (Nikiforuk, p. 144).

In The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude (2012), Andew Nikiforuk pleaded for a new approach to living. “A haphazard and improbable emancipation movement has begun to take shape,” he posited.

Around the world, families and groups of individuals are walking away in ever growing numbers from petroleum and the inanimate slave culture of frantic consumption. They are exchanging quantity for quality and relearning the practical arts. Those seeking liberty eat slowly, travel locally, plant gardens, work ethically, build communities, share tools, and eschew bigness in economic and political life. Above all, they are relearning what it means to live within their means, with grace (p. 249).

Distributed Generation

“A world of completely isolated and self-sufficient economies could conceivably be a peaceful one,” stated Benjamin Higgins and Jean Downing Higgins in Economic Development of a Small Planet (1979). “And in these days of energy shortage, a higher degree of self-sufficiency, achieved by using local renewable materials wherever possible, could … lead to a rich variety of indigenous efforts rather than increasing world uniformity, and to greater independence” (p. 265).

In the same year, Barbara Ward in Progress for a Small Planet spoke of “the new emphasis on smaller and leaner units of production” (p. 136) as part of “a balanced and conserving planet” (p. 277).

In 1994, Flavin and Lenssen wrote about “a new breed of smaller electricity generators” that was challenging the paradigm of “large central stations.” Gas-fired, these units soon may be obliterated by even smaller, more modular generating and storage technologies that are now rapidly entering the market, including fuel cells, rooftop solar generators, and flywheels. Together, these inventions could make power generation at the household level economical (pp. 256–57).

In 2007, Joseph Romm looked to distributed generation as a way beyond central-station electricity. “Cogen and other on-site power systems, such as solar panels, are called distributed energy as opposed to large central-station power plants, like coal or nuclear,” he explained. “Their market penetration is limited by barriers that have nothing to do with their cost or performance—especially the countless obstacles and fees that major utilities can place in their way” (pp. 167–68). Only bad play stood in the way of this ready technology, in his view.

Fuel Cells

Some decades ago, electricity from fuel cells was the next big thing. The battery-like designs, fueled by natural gas, could be sited almost anywhere, even providing “power from the basement” (Bradley, 2018, chapter 13).

The principle of combining energy and oxygen to create electric current and water was proven in 1839. The modern fuel cell was developed at Cambridge University in the mid-twentieth century. By the early 1970s, nearly 50 companies, most of them US businesses, had invested north of $50 million (several hundred million in today’s dollars) to commercialize the technology. Major firms were involved, including Exxon, Arco, and Westinghouse (Bradley, 2018, chapter 13).

Fuel cells became popular discourse as part of a postcarbon energy future. In this scenario, renewables would create hydrogen (via electrolysis of water) for the home or business or industry. Distributed generation would supplant the power grid. “In the United States,” Christopher Flavin reported in 1996, “the race is on” (p. 14). The leader was ONSI Corporation, a United Technologies unit that had just completed the world’s first fuel-cell manufacturing facility to produce dozens of units annually at half the cost of earlier models. Allied Signal, IBM, Dow Chemical, and Ballard Power Systems were also in the fuel-cell market, leading Flavin to predict that “a commercial takeoff for fuel cells is likely within the next decade” (p. 14).

It would not happen. “Fuel cells continue to face major challenges,” summarized Daniel Yergin in 2011. “The fuel cells themselves—the device that converts hydrogen or another chemical feedstock into electricity—are expensive and will require substantial investment and breakthroughs for commercialization” (Yergin, p. 707). And today, virtually no environmental organization touts this technology, probably because natural gas is no longer considered a bridge fuel to sustainability (as back in the 1990s) but, according to Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, “a gangplank to a destabilized climate and an impoverished economy” (Bryce, p. 275).

Conclusion

Central-station power, enjoying scale economies in production and from mass diversified consumption (to improve load factors), remains king compared to distributed generation for grid energy. (Off-grid is another, free-market story.)

In Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (1999), Peter Huber documented that “The Hard technology of modern capitalism is fantastically efficient” (p. 146). “Generally speaking,” he writes, “the greenest fuels are the ones that contain the most energy per pound of material that must be mined, trucked, pumped, piped, and burnt” (p. 105). Dilute renewables such as electricity from wind and solar are environmentally suspect because of their huge land dedication, among other factors.

Robert Bryce has also noted the superior density and thus performance of fossil fuels, as well as uranium. “Density is green” because we can wring “more energy and more food from smaller pieces of land” (p. xxii).

Natural economies of scale and grid reliability emerge from a let the consumer decide energy policy. In a free society, small, medium, and large can be beautiful.

Bibliography

Bradley, Robert. Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy. Salem, MA: M & M Scrivener Press, 2009.

Bradley, Robert. Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons and Scrivener Publishing, 2011.

Bradley, Robert. Enron Ascending: The Forgotten Years, 1984–1996. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons and Scrivener Publishing, 2018.

Bryce, Robert. Smaller, Faster, Lighter, Denser, Cheaper. New York: Public Affairs, 2014.

Flavin, Christopher, and Nicholas Lenssen. Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994.

Flavin, Christopher. “Power Shock: The Next Energy Revolution.” World Watch, January/February 1996, 10–19.

Higgins, Benjamin, and Jean Downing Higgins. Economic Development of a Small Planet. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1979.

Huber, Peter. Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Meadows, Donella, et al. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972.

Nikiforuk, Andrew. The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude. Toronto: Greystone Books, 2012.

Romm, Joseph. Hell and High Water: Global Warming—the Solution and the Politics—And What We Should Do. New York: William Morrow, 2007.

Schumacher, E. F. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond & Biggs, 1973.

Ward, Barbara. Progress for a Small Planet. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979.

Yergin, Daniel. The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.

The post The Philosophic Roots of the Paris Agreement Part V: “Small is Beautiful” appeared first on IER.

How Content Can Succeed By Making Enemies – Whiteboard Friday

Posted by randfish

Getting readers on board with your ideas isn’t the only way to achieve content success. Sometimes, stirring up a little controversy and earning a few rivals can work incredibly well — but there’s certainly a right and a wrong way to do it. Rand details how to use the power of making enemies work to your advantage in today’s Whiteboard Friday.

https://fast.wistia.net/embed/iframe/na2zq26gxd?videoFoam=true

https://fast.wistia.net/assets/external/E-v1.js

How content can succeed by making enemies

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high-resolution version in a new tab!

Video Transcription

Howdy, Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Today, we’re going to chat about something a little interesting — how content can succeed by making enemies. I know you’re thinking to yourself, “Wait a minute, I thought my job was to make friends with my content.” Yes, and one of the best ways to make close friends is to make enemies too.

So, in my opinion, I think that companies and businesses, programs, organizations of all kinds, efforts of all kinds tend to do really well when they get people on their side. So if I’m trying to create a movement or I’m trying to get people to believe in what I’m doing, I need to have positions, data, stories, and content that can bring people to my site. One of the best ways to do that is actually to think about it in opposition to something else, basically try and figure out how you can earn some enemies.

A few examples of content that makes enemies & allies

I’ll give you a few examples, because I think that will help add some context here. I did a little bit of research. My share data is from BuzzSumo, and my link data here is from Ahrefs. But for example, this piece called “There Are Now Twice as Many Solar Jobs as Coal Jobs in the US,” this is essentially just data-driven content, but it clearly makes friends and enemies. It makes enemies with sort of this classic, old-school Americana belief set around how important coal jobs are, and it creates, through the enemy that it builds around that, simply by sharing data, it also creates allies, people who are on the side of this story, who want to share it and amplify it and have it reach its potential and reach more people.

Same is true here. So this is a story called “Yoga Is a Good Alternative to Physical Therapy.” Clearly, it did extremely well, tens of thousands of shares and thousands of links, lots of ranking keywords for it. But it creates some enemies. Physical therapists are not going to be thrilled that this is the case. Despite the research behind it, this is frustrating for many of those folks. So you’ve created friends, allies, people who are yoga practitioners and yoga instructors. You’ve also created enemies, potentially those folks who don’t believe that this might be the case despite what the research might show.

Third one, “The 50 Most Powerful Public Relations Firms in America,” I think this was actually from The Observer. So they’re writing in the UK, but they managed to rank for lots and lots of keywords around “best PR firms” and all those sorts of things. They have thousands of shares, thousands of links. I mean 11,000 links, that’s darn impressive for a story of this nature. And they’ve created enemies. They’ve created enemies of all the people who are not in the 50 most powerful, who feel that they should be, and they’ve created allies of the people who are in there. They’ve also created some allies and enemies deeper inside the story, which you can check out.

“Replace Your Lawn with These Superior Alternatives,” well, guess what? You have now created some enemies in the lawn care world and in the lawn supply world and in the passionate communities, very passionate communities, especially here in the United States, around people who sort of believe that homes should have lawns and nothing else, grass lawns in this case. This piece didn’t do that well in terms of shares, but did phenomenally well in terms of links. This was on Lifehacker, and it ranks for all sorts of things, 11,000+ links.

Before you create, ask yourself: Who will help amplify this, and why?

So you can see that these might not be things that you naturally think of as earning enemies. But when you’re creating content, if you can go through this exercise, I have this rule, that I’ve talked about many times over the years, for content success, especially content amplification success. That is before you ever create something, before you brainstorm the idea, come up with the title, come up with the content, before you do that, ask yourself: Who will help amplify this and why? Why will they help?

One of the great things about framing things in terms of who are my allies, the people on my side, and who are the enemies I’m going to create is that the “who” becomes much more clear. The people who support your ideas, your ethics, or your position, your logic, your data and want to help amplify that, those are people who are potential amplifiers. The people, the detractors, the enemies that you’re going to build help you often to identify that group.

The “why” becomes much more clear too. The existence of that common enemy, the chance to show that you have support and beliefs in people, that’s a powerful catalyst for that amplification, for the behavior you’re attempting to drive in your community and your content consumers. I’ve found that thinking about it this way often gets content creators and SEOs in the right frame of mind to build stuff that can do really well.

Some dos and don’ts

Do… backup content with data

A few dos and don’ts if you’re pursuing this path of content generation and ideation. Do back up as much as you can with facts and data, not just opinion. That should be relatively obvious, but it can be dangerous in this kind of world, as you go down this path, to not do that.

Do… convey a world view

I do suggest that you try and convey a world view, not necessarily if you’re thinking on the political spectrum of like from all the way left to all the way right or those kinds of things. I think it’s okay to convey a world view around it, but I would urge you to provide multiple angles of appeal.

So if you’re saying, “Hey, you should replace your lawn with these superior alternatives,” don’t make it purely that it’s about conservation and ecological health. You can also make it about financial responsibility. You can also make it about the ease with which you can care for these lawns versus other ones. So now it becomes something that appeals across a broader range of the spectrum.

Same thing with something like solar jobs versus coal jobs. If you can get it to be economically focused and you can give it a capitalist bent, you can potentially appeal to multiple ends of the ideological spectrum with that world view.

Do… collect input from notable parties

Third, I would urge you to get inputs from notable folks before you create and publish this content, especially if the issue that you’re talking about is going to be culturally or socially or politically charged. Some of these fit into that. Yoga probably not so much, but potentially the solar jobs/coal jobs one, that might be something to run the actual content that you’ve created by some folks who are in the energy space so that they can help you along those lines, potentially the energy and the political space if you can.

Don’t… be provocative just to be provocative

Some don’ts. I do not urge you and I’m not suggesting that you should create provocative content purely to be provocative. Instead, I’m urging you to think about the content that you create and how you angle it using this framing of mind rather than saying, “Okay, what could we say that would really piss people off?” That’s not what I’m urging you to do. I’m urging you to say, “How can we take things that we already have, beliefs and positions, data, stories, whatever content and how do we angle them in such a way that we think about who are the enemies, who are the allies, how do we get that buy-in, how do we get that amplification?”

Don’t… choose indefensible positions

Second, I would not choose enemies or positions that you can’t defend against. So, for example, if you were considering a path that you think might get you into a world of litigious danger, you should probably stay away from that. Likewise, if your positions are relatively indefensible and you’ve talked to some folks in the field and done the dues and they’re like, “I don’t know about that,” you might not want to pursue it.

Don’t… give up on the first try

Third, do not give up if your first attempts in this sort of framing don’t work. You should expect that you will have to, just like any other form of content, practice, iterate, and do this multiple times before you have success.

Don’t… be unprofessional

Don’t be unprofessional when you do this type of content. It can be a little bit tempting when you’re framing things in terms of, “How do I make enemies out of this?” to get on the attack. That is not necessary. I think that actually content that builds enemies does so even better when it does it from a non-attack vector mode.

Don’t… sweat the Haterade

Don’t forget that if you’re getting some Haterade for the content you create, a lot of people when they start drinking the Haterade online, they run. They think, “Okay, we’ve done something wrong.” That’s actually not the case. In my experience, that means you’re doing something right. You’re building something special. People don’t tend to fight against and argue against ideas and people and organizations for no reason. They do so because they’re a threat.

If you’ve created a threat to your enemies, you have also generally created something special for your allies and the people on your side. That means you’re doing something right. In Moz’s early days, I can tell you, back when we were called SEOmoz, for years and years and years we got all sorts of hate, and it was actually a pretty good sign that we were doing something right, that we were building something special.

So I look forward to your comments. I’d love to see any examples of stuff that you have as well, and we’ll see you again next week for another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Take care.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

from Raymond Castleberry Blog http://raymondcastleberry.blogspot.com/2017/06/how-content-can-succeed-by-making.html
via http://raymondcastleberry.blogspot.com

Solarize Delta County Farms Enters Its Final Month!

Solar Energy International’s (SEI) Solarize Delta County Farms, a community-powered outreach program offering a streamlined process to go solar by partnering with a local installer, is entering its final month. After 10 weeks of 20 outreach events reaching over 500 community members, the program is entering its final three weeks and registration closes on July 18.

Solarize Delta County Farms is the last of three Solarize programs which have been implemented by SEI in Delta County in the past three years. After the success of the first two programs, this final program was designed with the mission of providing more resources to farms and business, crucial components to the Delta County Economy. In the past month, the Solarize team has partnered with the Colorado Energy Office and the Department of Agriculture for outreach programs to farmers, along with other events such as a sustainable farming documentary viewing and solar and micro-hydro farm tours.

Mid-way through June with one month left to go, the program was successful in garnering community commitment to 100 kW of newly installed solar in the form of both residential and commercial systems. Comparatively, last year the program ended with 150 kW, and the year before with 123 kW. Per program design, if more community members go solar, there will be a higher rebate back on solar system equipment cost.

Community members interested in going solar who register for the program now will be eligible for an exclusive program discount, but only if they register by July 18. Registering for the program includes a free remote site assessment, and a no-cost, no-commitment onsite assessment from our partnered installers, Empowered Energy Systems.

The Solarize Team will be appearing throughout Delta County in July at various community events and through Solarize outreach events. Community members can see the team to learn more about the program at Celebrate Cedaredge on July 1 or Cherry Days in Paonia on July 4. There will also be a financing workshop on July 13 at 138 Grand Avenue in Paonia from 6-8 p.m., a Summer Solarize Celebration at Delicious Orchards on July 14, 6-8 p.m. and a Registration Rush Happy Hour in Delta at CB’s Tavern on July 17 from 5:30- 7 p.m.
Interested community members can sign up for Solarize at https://www.solarenergy.org/solarize-delta-county-farms/ or contact the Solarize Team at 970-527-7657 x213 or email solarize@solarenergy.org.

The post Solarize Delta County Farms Enters Its Final Month! appeared first on Solar Training – Solar Installer Training – Solar PV Installation Training – Solar Energy Courses – Renewable Energy Education – NABCEP – Solar Energy International (SEI).

Solarize Delta County Farms Enters Its Final Month!

Solar Energy International’s (SEI) Solarize Delta County Farms, a community-powered outreach program offering a streamlined process to go solar by partnering with a local installer, is entering its final month. After 10 weeks of 20 outreach events reaching over 500 community members, the program is entering its final three weeks and registration closes on July 18.

Solarize Delta County Farms is the last of three Solarize programs which have been implemented by SEI in Delta County in the past three years. After the success of the first two programs, this final program was designed with the mission of providing more resources to farms and business, crucial components to the Delta County Economy. In the past month, the Solarize team has partnered with the Colorado Energy Office and the Department of Agriculture for outreach programs to farmers, along with other events such as a sustainable farming documentary viewing and solar and micro-hydro farm tours.

Mid-way through June with one month left to go, the program was successful in garnering community commitment to 100 kW of newly installed solar in the form of both residential and commercial systems. Comparatively, last year the program ended with 150 kW, and the year before with 123 kW. Per program design, if more community members go solar, there will be a higher rebate back on solar system equipment cost.

Community members interested in going solar who register for the program now will be eligible for an exclusive program discount, but only if they register by July 18. Registering for the program includes a free remote site assessment, and a no-cost, no-commitment onsite assessment from our partnered installers, Empowered Energy Systems.

The Solarize Team will be appearing throughout Delta County in July at various community events and through Solarize outreach events. Community members can see the team to learn more about the program at Celebrate Cedaredge on July 1 or Cherry Days in Paonia on July 4. There will also be a financing workshop on July 13 at 138 Grand Avenue in Paonia from 6-8 p.m., a Summer Solarize Celebration at Delicious Orchards on July 14, 6-8 p.m. and a Registration Rush Happy Hour in Delta at CB’s Tavern on July 17 from 5:30- 7 p.m.
Interested community members can sign up for Solarize at https://www.solarenergy.org/solarize-delta-county-farms/ or contact the Solarize Team at 970-527-7657 x213 or email solarize@solarenergy.org.

The post Solarize Delta County Farms Enters Its Final Month! appeared first on Solar Training – Solar Installer Training – Solar PV Installation Training – Solar Energy Courses – Renewable Energy Education – NABCEP – Solar Energy International (SEI).

from Raymond Castleberry Blog http://raymondcastleberry.blogspot.com/2017/06/solarize-delta-county-farms-enters-its.html
via http://raymondcastleberry.blogspot.com

Solarize Delta County Farms Enters Its Final Month!

Solar Energy International’s (SEI) Solarize Delta County Farms, a community-powered outreach program offering a streamlined process to go solar by partnering with a local installer, is entering its final month. After 10 weeks of 20 outreach events reaching over 500 community members, the program is entering its final three weeks and registration closes on July 18.

Solarize Delta County Farms is the last of three Solarize programs which have been implemented by SEI in Delta County in the past three years. After the success of the first two programs, this final program was designed with the mission of providing more resources to farms and business, crucial components to the Delta County Economy. In the past month, the Solarize team has partnered with the Colorado Energy Office and the Department of Agriculture for outreach programs to farmers, along with other events such as a sustainable farming documentary viewing and solar and micro-hydro farm tours.

Mid-way through June with one month left to go, the program was successful in garnering community commitment to 100 kW of newly installed solar in the form of both residential and commercial systems. Comparatively, last year the program ended with 150 kW, and the year before with 123 kW. Per program design, if more community members go solar, there will be a higher rebate back on solar system equipment cost.

Community members interested in going solar who register for the program now will be eligible for an exclusive program discount, but only if they register by July 18. Registering for the program includes a free remote site assessment, and a no-cost, no-commitment onsite assessment from our partnered installers, Empowered Energy Systems.

The Solarize Team will be appearing throughout Delta County in July at various community events and through Solarize outreach events. Community members can see the team to learn more about the program at Celebrate Cedaredge on July 1 or Cherry Days in Paonia on July 4. There will also be a financing workshop on July 13 at 138 Grand Avenue in Paonia from 6-8 p.m., a Summer Solarize Celebration at Delicious Orchards on July 14, 6-8 p.m. and a Registration Rush Happy Hour in Delta at CB’s Tavern on July 17 from 5:30- 7 p.m.
Interested community members can sign up for Solarize at https://www.solarenergy.org/solarize-delta-county-farms/ or contact the Solarize Team at 970-527-7657 x213 or email solarize@solarenergy.org.

The post Solarize Delta County Farms Enters Its Final Month! appeared first on Solar Training – Solar Installer Training – Solar PV Installation Training – Solar Energy Courses – Renewable Energy Education – NABCEP – Solar Energy International (SEI).