Cranky today? You aren’t alone. Feel free to blame the theft of your missing hour of sleep on Benjamin Franklin, who first suggested Day Light Savings time in 1784 as a way to save candles. (Way to go, smarty pants!)

However, even today, adjusting our clocks is seen as a way to save energy. OK, well, that depends on who you ask.

Officially, at least since 2005, Daylight Savings Time is part of the Energy Policy Act, even though it’s still not observed by Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and by most of Arizona (although the Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona does adjust their clocks).

The idea is, in the fall, if we go to bed an hour earlier we turn off our energy sucking lights and electronics an hour earlier too, thus saving scant amounts of electricity. We also get off the roads earlier, saving gasoline and oil. Conversely, in the spring, if we get up an hour earlier as the days lengthen, we’ll be able to enjoy more daylight hours and won’t need as much electricity then, either, because we’ll, ideally, be outside working or playing as long as the sun lights the sky.

The California Energy Commission conducted a study to see if these ideas about energy conservation are accurate. So did Indiana, with the help of Duke Energy. Now the federal goverment’s gearing up for a study of their own since the two states’ studies disagree about whether or not energy is actually being saved due to our time tinkering. (California reports a marginal savings and Indian reports more energy was consumed.)

Though, if you ask me, the concept seems kind of goofy on the surface since nothing we do on earth is actually going to change the number of daylight hours we enjoy on any given day. We, you see, are beholden to the sun — not the other way around. Plus, I don’t know about you, but the clock doesn’t dictate how much energy I consume — I do — and the sun’s position in the sky makes no difference to me most days since my office isn’t in my garden, it’s under a roof.

With that said, scant energy savings is still energy savings and, accumulated over time, it can really add up. So, if — and only if — Daylight Savings Time actually helps the average yahoo conserve energy then I’m for it. All the same, I sincerely doubt an expensive federal study is necessary and, frankly, I’d much prefer people learn how to conserve energy via education rather than government clock-adjusting mandates. But, that’s just my opinion which is, admittedly, tainted by a slight lack of sleep.

What do you think? Is Daylight Savings Time antiquated and worthless, or is it a great way to conserve energy?

If you’d like to trip down memory lane with Daylight Savings Time, here’s an interesting Web site on it’s history.

Bookmark It

For years, WalMart has made greens toward a more sustainable business model. Now they’re forcing others to do so, too.

Here’s the context: Over the past five years the retail giant has taken big, splashy steps to save energy, reduce waste, and sell cleaner products, like compact-fluorescent light bulbs. It’s given less focus to the impact of the factories that churn all over the world to keep the chain’s shelves and display cases full. Today’s announcement—a goal to cut 20 million metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions by the end 2015—focuses on those factories.

Read the rest of this Grist.org article, by Jonathan Hiskes, here.

Of course, not everyone buys the hype:

Bookmark It

One of the things that scares me about our country building new nuclear energy plants to solve our energy woes is this: We’re out of practice. The last plant completed in the U.S. went online 14 years ago, in 1996.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Despite all of this relatively attractive news regarding nuclear power, there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996. A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors.”

Though, keep in mind, it’s not like we’re not already living with — and using — nuclear energy. Almost a third of the nuclear plants in the country are in the Carolinas. Five of the country’s 43 licensed nuclear reactors are in North Carolina, seven are in South Carolina. There are two near Charlotte alone. (Around these parts, nuclear energy equals jobs which, in turn, equals tax revenue.)

In fact, on any day but Sunday, you can hang out at Duke Energy’s EnergyExplorium and gawk at the McGuire nuclear plant, which is on the same campus, on Lake Norman’s south shore. Hell, in the 1950s, people used to go to Nevada and watch nuclear bomb tests on vacation.

So, it’s not like we don’t have any practice where nuclear energy is concerned (ask the Japanese), we’re just out of practice. Since it takes years — maybe decades — to get a nuclear power plant up and running, we have a minute to study. But, our lack of recent experience building nuclear reactors isn’t my biggest concern.

Something else that scares me about nuclear energy: There is very, very little room for error — if any. And nuclear disasters, as you might suspect, are no joke. (Just yesterday there was a leak at a plant near Charlotte. Um. Yeah. ScArY.) That doesn’t mean nuclear is necessarily bad, it’s just scary.

Meanwhile, in Washington, our president says he wants more nuclear power but we still have one major problem with the energy that’s already being produced: What to do with all that radioactive waste? We already have one solution, Yucca Mountain, but the Obama administration is attempting to pull the funding for the waste site in a move that smacks of political posturing. (A move that’s being challenged, of course.)

In good news, once a nuclear reactor is up and running, we enjoy electricity for all of our gadgets with (the energy industry swears on this) a smaller carbon dioxide footprint. See, when we burn coal the waste product is ash and CO2. With nuclear, it’s spent radioactive fuel.

But, it’s not fair to simply look at a plant’s waste when trying to determine its ‘green’ potential. The plant must still be constructed, the fuel (coal or uranium) must still be mined and the waste must still be disposed of … somewhere. All of that work requires enormous amounts of resources and energy.

From Nature.com:

Critics claim that other technologies would reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions more drastically, and more cost effectively. “The fact is, there’s no such thing as a carbon-free lunch for any energy source,” says Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace in Washington DC. “You’re better off pursuing renewables like wind and solar if you want to get more bang for your buck.” The nuclear industry and many independent analysts respond that the numbers show otherwise. Even taking the entire lifecycle of the plant into account nuclear energy still ranks with other green technologies, like solar panels and wind turbines, they say.

In case you aren’t aware, there are examples of countries running on nuclear power without trouble. Take France, for instance. That country runs on 75-percent nuclear energy. (Get this: They use our technology!) You don’t hear the French crying in their wine about the dangers of nuclear energy. In fact, they love nuclear energy. They appreciate the country’s energy independence and enjoy loads of high-paying jobs. Unfortunately, they have the same core problem with nuclear energy we do: No one wants a radioactive dump in their backyard.

While waste management is a critical issue, that’s still not my biggest concern about America’s energy future. What scares me most is laziness.

We’ve kinda dropped the ball on nuclear energy, and that’s too bad because it’s crunch time. We’ve got to figure out how to get off the foreign oil tit and produce more of our own energy all while saving the planet like the heroes we think we are. Whether we build new nuclear plants or not, we’ve got to figure out what to do with the radioactive waste our plants produce. (Ahem. Mr. President? About that Yucca Mountain funding.)

Now, I’m not going to tell you we shouldn’t invest in nuclear energy (bring on the hate mail). What I will tell you is we can’t focus on one solution to our gigantic energy problem. But, if we’re going to invest in nuclear — yes, I’m talking to you Mr. President — we have to get real about what we’re going to do with the waste and stop lallygagging when it comes to issuing licenses and permits for new plants. Politics won’t save us; we need real solutions, and we need them now.

Nuclear is expensive, but it can work; however, it shouldn’t be our only option. Sure, it’s scary, but so is continuing to rely so heavily on coal and foreign oil. You decide which is scarier and more detrimental, then call Washington and tell them what you think.

Bookmark It

Remember, back in May, when we noticed then-Mayor Pat McCrory didn’t pledge that our city would cut greenhouse gases? If you missed it, here’s a link to John Grooms post: ‘Greenest mayors’ list: Guess who’s not on it?

Considering that the movers and shakers in the city keep talking about how Charlotte is going to be a hub of alternative energy companies, that seemed a little odd.

McCrory, though, refused to sign his own group’s agreement. Why? Because it doesn’t recommend nuclear power as an alternative energy source (he was employed by Duke Energy at the time, and we all know how eager Pat  has always been to embrace his inner corporate puppet) — oh, and because the agreement noted that there just may be a problem with global warming, a statement McCrory found to be “too political.”

However, only a couple weeks into his first term, Mayor Anthony Foxx plans to sign the pledge.

Charlotte will finally join more than 1,000 other cities (including Gastonia) in promising to reduce emissions as a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Mayor Anthony Foxx is set to sign the pledge Thursday, commiting the Queen City to meeting or beating the standards of the Kyoto Protocol.

Read the rest of this Charlotte Business Journal article, by Susan Stabley, here.

Bookmark It

Thought he was in the energy business? But, he does have a point: Now is the time for forward-thinking vision, not politics.

[Jim] Rogers contended the nation’s economic recovery would be undermined by record-high government spending deficits, a growing national debt and unfunded entitlements for the large number of soon-to-retire baby boomers.

He said without stimulus spending the nation’s third-quarter economic growth would have only totaled 0.7 percent of GDP. He said consumers would be unable to make major contributions to recovery when unemployment rates are expected to remain in double digits. And he said electricity sales — historically a leading indicator of economic growth — are projected to be flat or slightly up for the next five years.

“Now is the time for vision, for a long-term plan and for people to find a way forward,” he said. “But have to be realistic about where we are. We can’t put our head in the sand. … That’s something Wall Street hasn’t shown the ability to do. And that’s something our politicians don’t have the ability to do because they’re only worried about the next term.”

The luncheon’s other panelists struggled for words when given an opportunity to respond to Rogers’ not-so-sunny comments.

…

[Ken] Lewis said he believes recovery will be better than Rogers’ forecast, but “given our track record, I can’t argue against him,” he said.

Read the rest of this Charlotte Business Journal article here.

Bookmark It

Did the cost-savings carrot we call a tax-free weekend lure you into stores? No, me either.

Just because a discount is offered — brace yourself shop-a-holics — you don’t need to take advantage of it. In my house, we’d rather fix something than replace it.

Remember: Reduce, reuse, renew, recycle, rethink.

Retailers were expecting a boost in appliance sales this weekend as North Carolina’s second tax-free holiday for energy-efficient electronics lured in customers ready to purchase the big ticket items.

Most washers, dryers and refrigerators which carry the Energy Star seal are among the purchases which qualify for tax-free sales.

“The newer models use up to 50-percent less energy,” said Mike Wilson, a manager at the Lowe’s Home Improvement store on Iverson Way.

Lowe’s was among several stores that offered discounts on energy efficient appliances during the sales tax holiday.

Read more from MSNBC and NewsChannel 36.

So what happens to all of those old appliances? Good question.

Bookmark It

The energy industry is getting a makeover. The U.S. needs to lead the way to remain competitive in the global market, and Charlotte’s ready to lead the charge.

The $787 billion stimulus package the Obama administration put together this year includes about $70 billion in grants and tax breaks for the energy industry — almost all of it directed at clean-energy companies. The Charlotte region, hungry for growth in the sector, has already received significant grants from the clean-energy programs in the bill.

The largest was the $42.9 million awarded to Celgard, a local subsidiary of Charlotte-based Polypore International Inc. That will help Celgard beef up production of membranes used in lithium batteries to power electric vehicles.

That effort will create 200 jobs. Celgard has payroll of 300 at its plant on Carowinds Boulevard. But it’s not clear whether all the new jobs will be in the region. The company intends to use the stimulus funding to help build a second plant, but Mitch Pulwer, general manager, says Celgard has not decided on a site.

Chemetall Foote Corp. in Kings Mountain, a division of Germany-based Chemetall, will also be working on batteries for electric vehicles, using a $28.4 million grant.

The funds will be part of a $56 million investment in expanding Chemetall’s lithium-production facilities.

Tim McKenna, spokesman, says about 60% of the total will be spent in Kings Mountain.

Both companies are already major players in the lithium-battery market. Chemetall produces about a third of the lithium for batteries worldwide. And Celgard is a major supplier for membranes used in batteries for cell phones, laptops, digital cameras and other common products.

But both see the nascent electric-vehicle business as a major new market. That could mean more growth in Kings Mountain and Charlotte down the line.

Read the entire Charlotte Business Journal article here.

Bookmark It

Great news: North Carolina’s Biomass Trader is at your service whether you’ve got trash or need some trashy materials. The site will even connect you to the 411 on composting, organic products and more. Check it out :

Bookmark It

The anger isn’t just about the rate hike, though. It’s also aimed at the new Cliffside plant, which is being erected a few dozen miles from Charlotte.

Charlottean Betty Robinson, 87, has: “I’m mad as hell,” she told the commission.

The rate increases would increase her costs by $100 a year, she said, despite her efforts to use energy efficiently. “Just let me tell you something loud and clear: We don’t want that power plant to be built at all,” she said.

Critics say dropping demand, and growing attention to energy efficiency, make new coal-fired and nuclear power plants unnecessary. Duke’s Carolinas electricity sales dropped nearly 2 percent from 2007 to 2008, and company forecasts predict slowing growth in retail sales over the next 20 years.

…

“We recognize this is a challenging time to ask customers to pay more,” Tim Gause, Duke’s regional director of government relations, told the commission. “Duke Energy is certainly not immune either. In fact, we are in a pretty tough spot.”

Read the entire article at Charlotte.com.

Ms. Robinson isn’t the only one who’s mad as hell. From this April’s Uptown protest:

Bookmark It

Builders and companies love to shout about their LEED status, but is it bunkus?

LEED, by the way, actually stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.

Here’s more on the topic from The New York Times:

The Federal Building in downtown Youngstown, Ohio, features an extensive use of natural light to illuminate offices and a white roof to reflect heat.

It has LEED certification, the country’s most recognized seal of approval for green buildings.

But the building is hardly a model of energy efficiency. According to an environmental assessment last year, it did not score high enough to qualify for the Energy Star label granted by the Environmental Protection Agency, which ranks buildings after looking at a year’s worth of utility bills.

The building’s cooling system, a major gas guzzler, was one culprit. Another was its design: to get its LEED label, it racked up points for things like native landscaping rather than structural energy-saving features, according to a study by the General Services Administration, which owns the building.

Read the rest of this article here.

Want to know more about LEED ratings?

Bookmark It