Daily Score Blog

From the Six Degrees of Separation Department:

Former Sightline Director Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist from Oregon State University, will be the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Stephen Chu, cousin of former Sightline editorial director Ellen Chu, will be secretary of energy.

Oh, and Sightline's executive director, Alan Durning, went jogging about a year ago with Lisa Brown of the American Constitution Society (not the Senate majority leader from Spokane, WA). She will be President-elect Obama's White House staff secretary.

Here's your economic stimulus idea for today: condensing flue gas waste heat recovery.

With a name like that, it has to be good. And it is. It's precisely the sort of off-the-shelf technology that's ripe for stimulus investment. The investments could yield near-term jobs, as well as savings that would begin immediately and compound into the future.

But what is it? Good question. The folks at Sidel Systems are in the waste heat recovery business, and they've peppered me with fun facts. So while I don't fully understand the technology -- and I don't really know anything about engineering -- I'm going to write about it anyway!

(That means, for the rest of this post, caveat lector...)

Here's the low-down. It's not uncommon for large institutions -- universities, hospitals, schools, prisons, hotels, and certain manufacturers -- to use big and fairly inefficient natural gas-fired boilers. These are boilers that are rated at maybe 80 percent efficiency, but that probably don't hit even that modest mark on most days. And these are boilers that are consuming a huge amount of fuel.

The result of inefficiency is that these huge boilers are expelling hot exhaust tbetween 300 and 700 degrees, a gigantic waste of energy. Now back in the day, when natural gas was cheap and climate change was just a twinkle in Roger Revelle's eye, no one really cared much. But now that gas can be expensive, money is tight, and emissions matter, it's starting to seem like a pretty stupid idea to vent off 700 degree waste heat.

That's where the condensing flue business comes in.

Sightline has a rare opening on its management team: development director.

The development director plays a central role in Sightline’s success. The position is described in detail here, but the life of Sightline’s development director is perhaps best understood by the relationships s/he manages. Sightline is largely funded by a a stable of about two dozen private foundations in the Northwest and beyond, a community of major donors that includes about 100 families and individuals who make gifts in the four- or five-figure range each year, and several hundred additional donors who make smaller gifts. The development director, working closely with the executive director, his/her development staffers, and Sightline’s directors and trustees, strengthens the organization’s relationships with these honored people and institutions.

The full announcement, with requirements and compensation, is here. A detailed job description is here.

Loyal reader and commenter Paul Birkeland points me to this USA Today interactive map showing the decline of air travel in the US.  It's an update of a map we reported on last year, back when fuel prices were soaring and more and more planes were remaining earthbound as a result.

Since last year, fuel prices have come back to earth.  But with the economy now in a nosedive, it looks like the airlines are cutting back even farther on flights.  USA Today now projects that domestic air capacity this March will be down by a little over 8 percent, compared with March '08.  And unlike last year, air travel is on the downturn throughout the Northwest: off 6 percent in Washington, 11 percent in Oregon, and 14 percent in Idaho.

I, for one, am tired of the endless stream of gloomy economic statistics.  I want some good news for a change.  Still, this particular story fascinates me, since it shows strongly our energy-consuming ways are affected by upticks in fuel prices, and downdrafts in the markets.  Apparently, basic economics really do affect our behavior:  all the green cajoling and preaching over the last decade or so about the climate impacts of air travel has never had this kind of effect.  Which means that, for those of us concerned about how air travel affects the climate, the real trick will be to keep air emissions low even after the economy takes flight again.

Live in Seattle? Ever been curious about what goes on in a real-live think tank? Want to celebrate the New Year with your friends at Sightline Institute? Well, now’s your chance.

Wednesday, January 7 will be the Second Annual Vance Building Open House. Come check out Sightline’s office, along with those of two dozen other non-profits in the building. There will be food, drinks, good conversation, and worthy causes. Stop by, bring a friend, and meet a lot of people doing great things.

Details below the jump.

Over at Washington Policy Center, Todd Myers had a post a couple of weeks ago that gets something importantly right. Free allocation of carbon permits in a cap and trade system is a bad idea. Take it away, Todd:

This system was used in Europe and led to some companies being given large excesses of carbon credits which they then sold on the market. In short, government gave something of value (carbon credits) to companies who then profited from them. Worse, a recent report by the Government Accounting Office found that politicians handed out presents, choosing winners and losers when it came to handing out allocations, leaving some industries short and others long.

That's a good point. Not only is it free allocation inefficient, but it's ripe for abuse and favortism. Forget about fairness for consumers for a moment -- a subject we've written a lot about -- free allocation is not even fair for the firms that will be regulated under cap and trade. It's very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to develop a principled, rational, and fair way to hand out permits for free.

The most popular scheme for free allocation gives out permits based on historical emissions. This is sometimes called "grandfathering". The European cap and trade program took this approach (albeit in some peculiar ways) and it's possible that Washington may head down the same path. Unfortunately, grandfathering can cause some very problematic inequities.

Consider how this might work in practice.

Most popular posts (in order of popularity):

• The Importance of Plastic Bags
  
• Future Gas Prices
  
• Time in the Tank
  
• Bicycles and Moonwalking Bears
  
• Walk Score: Every Big-City Neighborhood in America
  
• Horsepower vs. MPG
  
• Retrofits for All!
• Oregon’s Measure 63
  

Update 12/30: I corrected some inaccuracies in the original version.

Updated12/30, part 2: Over at Slog, Erica Barnett politely takes issue with this post and has some smart ideas to improve the plan. My reply is below the jump.

Seeing as how this year's holiday overeating falls on the eve of a national health care debate, I give you an interesting idea from the land of all things deep-fried:

...the Alabama State Employees' Insurance Board approved a plan that will charge workers  an additional $25 to cover their insurance premiums, if they don't take advantage of free health screenings available to all state employees. The program, to begin in January, will require state workers to receive medical screenings for body mass index and health problems such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and obesity.

Alabam's program is unfairly being called a "fat tax" but that's an inaccurate description. In fact, the $25 fee is optional -- at least at first.

The cost of oil has been a rollercoaster ride since the 1970s. Thankfully, we've hit a low in this season of recession, foreclosures, and a major Wall Street meltdown. But nobody expects the ride to be over -- and the only way to go now is up. 

Just ask oil industry insiders. A recent survey of senior oil and gas professionals by (auditing and consulting firm) Deloitte revealed growing concern among the top brass of the fossil fuel industry about the affordability and sustainability of oil and gas in the near future, along with a surprisingly strong belief in the viability of renewable energy.

Most participants in Deloitte's assessment group expressed a belief that oil and gas will no longer remain the world's cheapest energy source in the next few decades: 71 percent said that oil and gas is today's most affordable energy source, but only 23 percent feel it will still be the cheapest source 25 years from now -- a 48 percentage point drop.

Three-quarters considered it a good idea for the US to phase out fossil fuels for transportation.

Over half believe that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a reasonable goal for oil and gas companies.

When fuel prices are down, the inclination is to back away from energy policy that would get us off this scary ride. But even as we catch our breath (and our knuckles aren't white for the moment), the ride remains dangerous and unpredictable -- and it's likely not getting any better. I shudder to think what lies around the corner (a loop-de-loop perhaps?).

If oil execs -- of all people (!) -- are thinking about bailing off, shouldn't the rest of us?

At the risk of obsessing, check out this new report on "clean coal" from the Center for American Progress.

I'll let CAP do the talking:

...the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry group comprised of 48 coal and utility companies. ACCCE spent at least $45 million on advertising this year to convince Americans that “clean coal” is the solution to global warming. The ACCCE companies claim that they “are committed to making coal a clean energy source.” Yet the coal mining and electric utility industries spent over $125 million combined in the first nine months of 2008 to lobby Congress to delay global warming pollution reductions until clean coal technology is ready.

Despite the ads’ claims, an analysis by the Center of American Progress determined that ACCCE’s companies spend relatively few dollars conducting research on carbon capture and storage, the most promising clean coal technology to reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants. This technology would allow power plants to capture 85 percent or more of their carbon dioxide emissions and permanently store them underground in geological formations.

Do “snow days” increase social capital--the strength of ties to friends, family, and community? That’s something I’ve been wondering about the past few days, while hearing all kinds of serendipitous Seattle snow encounter stories.

Some are commute related: A stranded co-worker who was picked up at a bus stop on Aurora by a spur-of-the-moment carpooler headed downtown, and ended up having all kinds of connections with the other casual car-poolers; another coworker who, frustrated with the long wait at a Ballard bus stop, stuck out his thumb and was soon picked up by an SUV headed downtown. (His conclusion: Snow makes hitchhiking acceptable.)

Some are neighborhood-related: Yesterday, my husband and I cross-country skied out our door onto what's normally an arterial, then through several neighborhoods, meeting more people in an hour of city skiing than we had in a year of living here. A West Seattle colleague says she's never had so much interaction with neighbors before--10 neighbors and 8 dogs ended up at an impromptu sledding party in front of their house.

Not surprisingly, if you Google “snow and social capital,” you don’t find much, though it does bring up a page on the Better Together website on 150 ways to build community. Tool lending libraries for things like snow blowers are one of the ways.

So in absence of solid academic research but in presence of numerous anecdotes, here's my two-part hypothesis on snow and social capital.

For installment number 9 million of "Sightline's obsession with gas prices and driving behavior" I give you this new report on vehicle miles traveled from the Brookings Institute. I'm a bit late on this, but it's still worth mentioning I think:

Driving, as measured by national VMT, began to plateau as far back as 2004 and dropped in 2007 for the first time since 1980. Per capita driving followed a similar pattern, with flat-lining growth after 2000 and falling rates since 2005. These recent declines in driving predated the steady hikes in gas prices during 2007 and 2008. Moreover, the recent drops in VMT (90 billion miles) and VMT per capita (388 miles) are the largest annualized drops since World War II.

What's especially remarkable to me is not the decline itself, but rather the timing of the decline. That it occurred prior to the big gas price run-up is, I'd argue evidence of at least two things:

We’ve come a long way since 1993, but our overarching goal remains the same: to arm change-makers with the independent research, ideas, and tools they need to shape the region in favor of a healthy, lasting prosperity for all.

In honor of our Quinceaños, we’ve taken a break from our usual modesty and decided to celebrate some of our biggest accomplishments by telling their stories. You can check out the whole article, but here are a few examples (and, surrendering to our wonky nature, we’ve got the by-the-numbers story, too):

Last time, I described a non-profit bank’s program for financing building energy retrofits, as a way to speed the green-collar recovery. Here, I describe two new, innovative approaches to financing efficiency upgrades in buildings—meter loans and local improvement districts—and one old-school, utility-run approach that may be the best bet of all.

First, though, a couple more points about the challenges of financing energy efficiency improvements in buildings.

I didn't get the memo, but apparently it's time to start making You Tube videos explaing cap and trade.

First up, via Yglesias, who got it from Dave Roberts, here's Captain Dividend explaining the cap and dividend approach in less than 2 minutes.

And in this corner, via my colleague Anna, here's the Sierra Club's Carl Pope on why giving away free permits is tantamount to bribery. He'll do it in 47 seconds flat:

I've got to admit that I'm not wild about either one of these presentations. (Nothing against the substance, mind you; I think the explanations are perfectly accurate.) But what do readers think?

Am I wrong? Or is it just that cap and trade doesn't lend itself to You Tube? Is there a better way to get this stuff across in less than 2 minutes?