Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on October 26, 2015

Bookmark and Share

Who Will Lead the Clean Energy Future?

Alternative Energy

At the heart of every major transformation are the people carving the new path forward. The same goes for the transition currently occurring in our electricity system, which is moving away from traditional monopoly utilities relying on coal, to a world with distributed energy generation (like rooftop solar),new technology, and disruptive market entrants.

But just who are these trailblazers and how do we identify them? Earlier this year, energy-centric outlet Midwest Energy News set out to do just that for seven states. It launched a call for nominations to recognize “emerging leaders throughout the region and their work to accelerate America’s transition to a clean energy economy” for its 40 Under 40 awards.

Recently, Midwest Energy News announced the winners, who come from a variety of sectors including industry, government, regulatory, business, academic, and advocacy. Environmental Defense Fund is proud to say the group includes Andrew Barbeau, our senior clean energy consultant leading efforts like our demand response collaboration in Illinois.

Using smart buildings to create a cleaner, more reliable grid in Illinois

Andrew leads the charge on our Combined Capacity Asset Performance Project in Chicago, a collaboration between Environmental Defense Fund, consumer advocacy watchdog Citizens Utility Board, and grid operator PJM Interconnection. The project resulted from new rules in the PJM electricity market that require energy sources to be available year-round, making it more difficult for newer players like renewable energy and demand response to participate.

The pilot program will create dynamic clusters of buildings, home thermostat programs, wind and solar farms, and energy storage projects that will layer their capabilities together to provide electricity at any time of the year. The innovative project can serve as a model to other players in the PJM market, and will help ensure clean energy resources can continue to contribute to building a smarter grid in Illinois.

Congratulations to all of the winners! We can’t wait to see where you take the Midwest.

edf.org



28 Comments on "Who Will Lead the Clean Energy Future?"

  1. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 2:29 pm 

    Seen from over here , all the comments suddenly disappeared ???

  2. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 2:36 pm 

    “Seen from over here” I was suddenly mistaken . No comments disappeared. Sorry about that.

  3. Boat on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 3:28 pm 

    Build it already and let’s compare the costs.

  4. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 3:54 pm 

    Give it a chance Boat. Maybe it will work in the end.

  5. Boat on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 4:08 pm 

    clanman,

    Much to the dismay of the doomers I cheer all efforts to solve problems. Peak everything should come from population reduction and efficiency. I believe mankind can do well in a degrowth scenario and severely cut carbon.

  6. ghung on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 4:30 pm 

    Boat said: “Much to the dismay of the doomers I cheer all efforts to solve problems.”

    Not sure why you think that would cause dismay, but it’s clear to some of us that the old truism “..all of our problems began as solutions” applies to most of what you consider solutions. I’m reasonably neutral on this. It is what it is. Humans are hard-wired for growth and to burn shit, and the vast majority don’t see the problem with that.

    How many human societies have voluntarily reduced their populations and consumption when faced with overshoot and resource/environmental depletion?

  7. James Tipper on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 5:05 pm 

    @ghung

    That’s a good point, perhaps we should ask the reindeer that were on St. Matthew Island what they did. Oh wait, you can’t, because they all died.

    We like to think because we’re conscious and thinking that we won’t fall for the same age old problems of overpopulation, overshoot, and overcapacity. But we already have in the past and without massive technological improvements we would still be there. There will be no long term solution, that’s just a joke peddled by MSM to help gullible morons sleep at night.

    By 2100 Earth will probably be a polluted, used up wasteland with maybe 500 million people.

    And by 2200, Earth will probably have gone under the worst impacts of global warming and resource depletion, suffering horrifying unknown diseases(diseases most likely caused by overuse of antibiotics), famine, and war. Humans will be all but extinct and animals will reclaim what it theirs.

  8. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 5:12 pm 

    ghung; How many human societies have voluntarily reduced their populations and consumption when faced with overshoot and resource/environmental depletion?

    You got a point there, but it did actually exist in the pacific islands untill christianity told them otherwise

  9. ghung on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 5:29 pm 

    but it did actually exist in the pacific islands untill christianity told them otherwise

    Actually, those folks were forced to deal with overshoot in real-time. It wasn’t until westerners arrived with western technology that they changed. Christianity was justification to exploit; nothing more.

    So I would follow my above question with; “How many human societies have had the technology to cheat overshoot for as long as, and to the degree, we have?” The industrial age kicked overshoot off the scale as set by any previous human experience. Uncharted territory.

  10. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 5:54 pm 

    The basic evil, when it comes to over population, is christianity’s “good samaritan” complex.

    Christianity does not have a very good relation to death.
    The muslims, on the other hand, do not seem to have this fear of other peoples death. If a man dies it’s the act of god(allah)

    Christianity’s big mistake is that they believe they are responsible for all other peoples survival and salvation.

    Over population is not a result of technology, but a result of misunderstood christian samariatism.

  11. apneaman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 5:54 pm 

    “How many human societies have voluntarily reduced their populations and consumption when faced with overshoot and resource/environmental depletion?”

    None that I know of, but according to Joseph Tainter, the 7th century Byzantium’s scaled back for 2 centuries, but that was in large part to survive the Muslim onslaught. It worked. Funny how you can get people to make sacrifices (material & blood) when confronted by other ape tribes, but not when they are destroying themselves. The only thing that could have been different for us is the timing. If more people had been responsible and exercised just a little caution, challenged the neo-liberal propaganda machine, listened to POTUS Jimmy Carter, scientists and the limits to growth, I think we might have at least been able to kick the can by a handful of decades – maybe a century. It just seems to me that the last 50 years or so we have been completely fucking reckless in spite of our ever growing knowledge – threw the precautionary principle out the window and laughed about it. Maybe the technology made it too easy to infect ape brains with the wrong propaganda. Ultimately we would be doomed by our own hand sooner or later once our numbers increased. We extincted the all the mega fauna by 10,000 years ago and took up agriculture to survive, switched to coal in Europe because we deforested the place. A while later we started using kerosene because we slaughtered too many whales going for their oil. Now there are too many yeast apes again and no new sugar to exploit. Same as it ever was.

  12. Boast on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 5:55 pm 

    ghung,

    How many human societies have voluntarily reduced their populations and consumption when faced with overshoot and resource/environmental depletion?

    It’s an impossible unless religion and politicians get on the degrowth bandwagon.
    I don’t see that happening but to me I would rather be solution oriented than give up.

  13. Boast on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 6:00 pm 

    clanman,

    Over population is not a result of technology, but a result of misunderstood christian samariatism.

    I would disagree. Tech made it possible to overshoot. Capitalism and making a dollar made it spread. Good Samaritans mostly give it away cheap or for free in exchange for access to spread their message.

  14. Boast on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 6:08 pm 

    ghung,

    That is the basic difference between me and the rest here. Let’s take the semi truck for example. A lightweight body and aerodynamic body can get 15 mph. A typical truck gets 5-5.5 mph. I applaud the effort and expect governments to use incentives and penalties to push for change. Will it change the world much? no But we humans need to push every angle that makes progress whether we collapse down the road or not.

  15. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 6:11 pm 

    Apne:”Now there are too many yeast apes again and no new sugar to exploit.”
    Ap I like that expression. Please do continue the line thought.

  16. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 6:23 pm 

    Boat: “Good Samaritans mostly give it away cheap or for free in exchange for access to spread their message.”

    That is exactly how the english build up their colonies in africa. First the samaritan missionairies, then the random merchants, and then the troops went in to protect the samaritans and the english export/import interests.
    Charity allways has a purpose.

  17. Wilton Granger on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 6:38 pm 

    Edo Japan cut back for 200 years and was sustainable, population, etc. – until the US came knocking on its door making them open up to US trade.
    I’ve read this book about it – I doubt many in the US would like how they controlled their population, but we can’t judge others.
    I highly recommend the book:
    http://www.justenoughjapan.com/JustEnough/HOME.html

  18. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 7:01 pm 

    wilton: Maybe the japanese are just like the african and muslim cultures. You don’t know how to limit your own population growth.
    Ecological sustainability is more about how many you are than what technology you use

  19. makati1 on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 7:19 pm 

    “Who Will Lead the Clean Energy Future?”

    Answer: Mother Nature, sans humans.

  20. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 7:41 pm 

    Mak, Answer: Mother Nature, sans humans.

    I agree, except for some 500.000.000 or a billion, would be quit nice.

  21. wiltongranger on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 8:07 pm 

    A short intro to Edo Japan:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pBOJuqjtjM

  22. claman on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 8:15 pm 

    Wilton:”I’ve read this book about it – I doubt many in the US would like how they controlled their population, but we can’t judge others.”

    “but we can’t judge others.”. I think that judging each other is what peakoil is all about.

  23. makati1 on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 8:30 pm 

    claman, it won’t stop there. Zero is our future, and likely before 2100. Maybe even 2050. Nukes or climate change. Both signal the end of humans. One just faster then the other.

    Yes, we do have a cross section of humanity here. Cornucopians, deniers, fatalists, realists, brainwashed, open minded, educated, less educated, 1%ers and the doomers, not necessarily separate. Individuals all. Ain’t it fun?

  24. ghung on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 8:34 pm 

    wiltongrangerposted; “Edo Japan cut back for 200 years and was sustainable, population, etc.”

    A homogeneous, mostly isolated society with centuries of dress-rehearsals; tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanism… In short; a tribe with a long-standing common culture with generally compatible sub-cultures and a well-developed, semi-complex hierarchical, pre-industrial-age system of governance. Virtually everyone knew their place, their roles, and what society expected of them. Sounds great, but doesn’t scale well to 7+ billion humans on a resource-depleted planet.

  25. steve on Mon, 26th Oct 2015 10:11 pm 

    how can we make it another 5 years…the markets are fully bloated and everyone knows it is a fraud. It is just the “doomers” that talk about it. The rest of the “Good people” know not to mention the problems facing the world

  26. penury on Tue, 27th Oct 2015 12:22 pm 

    I will repeat what I have said before. Christians are burdened with the hubris of Divine Creation, which apparently teaches that nothing bad can ever happen, because “god” will always take care of you. I think that we are about to test the veracity of this belief.

  27. Kenz300 on Wed, 28th Oct 2015 9:24 am 

    All Fossil fuel companies need to transition to “ENERGY” companies and embrace safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy.

    Wind Power Now Cheaper Than Natural Gas for Xcel, CEO Says – Renewable Energy World

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/10/wind-power-now-cheaper-than-natural-gas-for-xcel-ceo-says.html

  28. GregT on Wed, 28th Oct 2015 9:52 am 

    Kenz,

    “Wind Power Now Cheaper Than Natural Gas for Xcel, CEO Says”

    The title of the article is misleading. The first sentence from the article:

    “Xcel Energy Inc., the biggest U.S. provider of wind power, expects long-term contracts for the technology to beat the cost of natural gas.

    This copy and paste stuff, although somewhat redundant, sure is a lot easier than actually getting involved in any meaningful discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *