Sarah Hempstead of Schmidt Associates discusses renovation options for Indiana businesses. While green building and LEED designs are certainly positive and revolutionary concepts, sometimes tailoring an existing structure is the best option for your company and the environment.

In our latest issue of BizVoice, Rebecca Patrick looks at the issue in depth.

The carp, which can weigh up to 100 pounds, are predators. They would threaten numerous fish species native to the area, the broader environmental balance and even boaters and tourists striving to enjoy recreational opportunities. Once positive contributors to helping remove algae from Southern fish ponds, they are now regarded as among the most dangerous of invasive species. 

One misguided attempt to deal with the risk is to close the navigational locks in the Chicago area. This would disrupt hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of shipping and essentially sever Northwest Indiana’s crucial water-based commerce with the rest of the world. 

Federal investment, in the form of additional electric barriers, would prove more effective in keeping the carp out of the Great Lakes while still allowing Indiana and the other states in the region to maintain the shipping prowess that benefits so many companies and their employees.

Washington is paying attention – as it should. The barrier plan emerged from a White House-led summit. Indiana and its neighbors must now work together to support this prudent alternative. The threat is real; a radical closure of shipping lanes and economic opportunity, however, is not the answer.

A new organization called Unlock Our Jobs has formed to tackle this issue, offering alternative options while keeping our waterways open for business. Its web site can also help you quantify the economic impact of river traffic and lock closures on your state.

David Forsell of Keep Indianapolis Beautiful explains his passion for his work, as well as how his organization partners with businesses around central Indiana to help keep the area clean. This includes a project that involves 8,500 Eli Lilly staffers helping to clean the Interstate. Forsell is the focus of a BizVoice story in our July/August edition.

It usually takes a good session with Chamber expert Vince Griffin to enhance my knowledge and understanding. But Vince is off on a well-earned vacation so I’ll have to go this one alone in saying that legislation introduced in Congress on Wednesday seems to have, in technical terms, a whole heck of a lot of common sense. And you seemingly can’t often say that today.

The authors are senators John (Jay) Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Opinions may vary on the performances of one or both, but they want to provide incentives for carbon capture and storage. Their states, like Indiana, generate the vast majority of their electricity from coal. It’s a different approach from the controversial cap and trade or other versions of reducing carbon emissions.

More on that in a minute. The senators added a provision related to a renewable electricy standard that is currently part of a separate bill. Instead of a mandate on the amount of power that comes from simply renewable energy, they want to add clean coal and nuclear power to that mix. Again, that simply makes sense in so many ways.

Details below courtesy of CongressDaily:

"If you really want to do something significant about reducing greenhouse gas emissions … this one piece of legislation would do more than perhaps anything else," Voinovich said. "This bill by itself has merit to getting it done this year."

Rockefeller said renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power cannot be developed quickly enough to replace coal anytime soon, so Congress should invest in technology that makes coal clean.

"We’re going to offer [the bill], and I think it’s going to change the face of this debate," Rockefeller said. "A lot of our colleagues won’t face up to the fact that [renewable energy] won’t make up the difference."

The $20 billion in federal money in their bill would go toward developing large-scale pilot projects of carbon capture and sequestration, in which carbon emissions are captured and stored underground or elsewhere instead of going into the atmosphere. The bill establishes a regulatory framework to monitor and govern "long-term geological storage" of carbon, Voinovich said. It also funds additional programs through loan guarantees and new tax credits for companies that are early adopters of the technology.

The bill would be funded by a fee assessed to utilities in both the commercial and industry sector. Consumers would see an increase of roughly $10 a year, both senators said. The fees would total about $2 billion a year, which is how the bill would pay for the $20 billion.

Now there is a new argument, courtesy of a recent study, that the unpredictable nature of wind is causing an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions. I’ll let the expert, James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, explain. The bottom line, as Taylor points out, is that Washington just might need to slow down on the emission regulations and the renewable mandates.

Government policies designed to fight global warming by encouraging, subsidizing, or mandating renewable power may be making global warming worse.

In a published paper, electrical engineer Kent Hawkins shows when wind power surpasses 5 percent of power generated, the frequent ramping up and ramping down of other power sources to compensate for wind’s unpredictable variability causes such inefficiency in power generation that overall carbon dioxide emissions rise.

For a good analogy, consider this: A driver who keeps his or her speed at a consistent 60 miles per hour will get better gas mileage than one who frequently accelerates and decelerates between 45 and 75 miles per hour. The inefficiency of frequently ramping up and ramping down vehicle speed is substantial enough that the vehicle driving at variable speeds will burn up more gasoline than many vehicles with a lower fuel economy rating.

The same appears to hold true for power generation. Power plants in the Netherlands, Colorado, and Texas switched some of their generation from coal and natural gas to wind power. Because wind speeds are variable and unpredictable, plant operators were forced frequently to vary the ordinarily steady, constant generation of baseload power to back up variable wind power. Whereas a small amount of wind power generation helped reduce carbon dioxide emissions, those emissions began surpassing prior levels once wind power exceeded 3 percent of the power mix.

If the proponents of federal legislation to force reduction of carbon dioxide emissions are sincerely concerned more about alleged global warming than the accumulation of government power to hand out money and favors to preferred industries and contractors, these real-world carbon dioxide facts should put an immediate freeze on renewable power subsidies, renewable power mandates, and cap-and-tax global warming plans. How Congress responds to these new findings will tell us much about the true motivation behind proposed global warming legislation.

In the lawmaking process, as in life itself, rushing to enact "solutions" to speculative problems before the facts are known usually produces more harm than good. Keeping this axiom in mind, Congress need not rush to enact carbon dioxide restrictions on the American economy. After all, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are falling, not rising, and they have been declining for the past decade. To the extent global emissions are rising, the fault does not lie with the United States. 

Burt’s Bees and Whole Foods lead the 2010 ImagePower Green Brands Survey’s list of top 10 U.S. brands perceived to be the greenest, with Aveeno and Microsoft joining the list this year. The fifth annual study also found that in the U.S., people are more concerned about the economy than the environment, while in developing countries, such as Brazil and India, the environment takes precedence.

Making the top 10 brands list in the U.S. after Burt’s Bees and Whole Foods were, in order, Tom’s of Maine, Trader Joe’s, Google, Aveeno, S.C. Johnson, Publix, Microsoft and Ikea.

The survey, released this week, was done by WPP companies Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associates and Penn Schoen Berland in partnership with Esty Environmental Partners, a corporate environmental strategy consultant. They did online interviews from Feb. 27 to March 24 with 9,022 people in the U.S., Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, U.K. and, for the first time, Australia.

The survey found that more than 60% of consumers around the world said they want to buy from environmentally responsible companies. In the U.S., though, 35% of those surveyed said they plan to spend more on green products, down 4% from 2009. That reflects the U.S.’ focus on economic worries. "Almost 80% of the [U.S.] consumers said they were more concerned about the economy that the environment. That’s the highest of any other country," says Russ Meyer, chief strategy officer for Landor, San Francisco.

In developing countries, however, the split goes the other way. Of those surveyed in Brazil, for example, 72% were concerned about the environment while 25% cited the economy. "India’s got a split like that, too—59% and 32%," Meyer says. "It’s interesting to see. There’s a bit of a Western bias that the West is further advanced in thinking about sustainability. India, China—those economies are already on their way to mending, and not so in Europe and the Americas."

On May 4, 2010, the U.S. EPA proposed first-time national rules to regulate the disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Coal ash is also referred to as coal combustion residuals (CCR) and includes fly ash, bottom ash, flue gas desulfurization materials, synthetic gypsum and boiler slag. The proposed rules are largely in response to the 2008 failure of a Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash impoundment which resulted in a massive release of more than a billion gallons of water and coal ash onto nearby land and into streams and rivers, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs. U.S. EPA is seeking comments on two options for the regulation of coal ash: (1) as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA; or (2) as a nonhazardous waste under Subtitle D of RCRA.

Under the Subtitle C option, coal ash would be listed as a “special waste.” As a special waste coal ash would be regulated as a hazardous waste under the cradle-to-grave requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA, except that coal ash would be unregulated if it is reused for certain beneficial purposes, such as encapsulation in building materials or road construction. Under the Subtitle C approach, U.S. EPA will effectively phase out the wet handling of coal ash and existing surface impoundments. Existing surface impoundments must meet land disposal restrictions and would be required to be retrofitted with liners within five years of the effective date of the rule to remain in operation. New surface impoundments must meet land disposal restrictions and liner requirements. New landfills must install liners. Existing and new landfills would be subject to groundwater monitoring requirements. Surface impoundments operated after the effective date of the rule would be required to meet structural stability standards set by the federal Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The Subtitle C option would require permits for the treatment, storage or disposal of coal ash…

According to U.S. EPA, Indiana ranks third highest among the 45 states which generate CCR. Nationally 56% of CCR is disposed in landfills or surface impoundments. About 37% of CCR is beneficially reused and the remaining 7% is used as minefill. The proposed rule does not address minefilling. U.S. EPA estimates annual compliance costs of $1.4 billion for the Subtitle C option and $587 million for the Subtitle D option. Utility customers can expect to bear the costs of the new regulations.

Bowman and his colleagues from Bingham McHale also author the Chamber’s Environmental Compliance Handbook, which is used by many Indiana companies.

CongressDaily

It seems that, when asked, two-thirds of Americans say it is "very important" for Congress to pass legislation on energy policy. Sounds about right, right? But, only one-third of Americans said the same about climate change.

So it seems a large portion of the electorate puts these two areas of public policy in two different categories (likely because some don’t believe climate change is a valid concern). Shedding some light on the matter is that there is largely a partisan divide here. According to the poll, climate change showed the widest gap between Republicans and Democrats of all the issues that were asked about (including prioritization of job creation, immigration and regulating financial markets). Just 17% of Republicans said it was important to act on climate change, while 47% of Democrats and 29% of independents thought it was.

Is this surprising, or on par with what you’d expect?

As we have the last two years, we’re going to highlight some of those companies, organizations and communities in the July-August BizVoice magazine. (Check out the last two years: 2009 and 2008 issues). There are good stories to tell, and we’ve got excellent writers on staff who will do just that.

But the growth of green was closely followed by "greenwashing," defined as misleading information about environmental practices or benefits. Recently, Energy Star products that may not be as efficient as advertised and green buildings that don’t always live up to that label have been in the news. Are there other "not so fast on the green claims" that are out there? Let us know your thoughts and any leads would be appreciated.

It will be another great "going green" issue, but if some green initiatives are leaving you feeling blue, we want to report on those too.

Under development for two academic years, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology students are set to unveil a prototype advanced technology vehicle that has been designed to achieve improved fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions for EcoCAR: The Next Challenge, a national engineering design competition sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and General Motors Corporation to encourage energy-conscious advanced transportation engineers.

A special unveiling ceremony and information session is set for Friday, May 7, from 2:30-3:15 p.m. on the patio of the Hulman Union. The public is invited to come and examine the vehicle and talk with team members about the project.

Students have spent countless hours developing a hybrid-electric sport utility vehicle that features a 1.3-liter Fiat diesel engine using B-20 diesel fuel, a four speed automatic GM transmission, two TM4 electric motors arranged in a parallel pre-post transmission architecture and an innovative, high-performance battery system provided by Indiana advanced lithium-ion battery maker EnerDel Inc.

Rose-Hulman’s vehicle will be shipped on Saturday, May 8, to participate in the EcoCAR’s Year II Competition Finals being conducted May 17-27 at the GM Desert Proving Ground in Yuma, Ariz., and at locations throughout San Diego, Calif. The vehicle will be judged in more than a dozen technical events, and must meet California Air Resources Board (CARB) zero emission vehicle (ZEV) regulations.

Rose-Hulman is the only Indiana college or university among 16 North American teams selected to participate in EcoCAR, a three-year competition that demonstrates leading-edge advanced transportation technologies.

"EcoCAR is real-world engineering. This experience gives Rose-Hulman students the opportunity for hands-on learning and valuable skills preparing them for careers as the next generation of engineers to develop clean vehicle solutions," said Rose-Hulman Team Co-Faculty Advisor Zac Chambers, associate professor of mechanical engineering. The team’s other advisor is Marc Herniter, professor of electrical and computer engineering.