An ASCE/ASEE Newsletter
December 2001
Forum Expands its Focus on Sustainability
Beginning with this issue of its newsletter, the Forum has changed its name to "Engineers Forum on Sustainability." This change reflects the fact that "sustainability" is now used as a broad umbrella issue that includes more specific areas of interest, such as sustainable communities, sustainable technologies and sustainable transportation, as well as sustainable development. The Forum has addressed all of these specific areas of interest in recent times. (See index of Newsletter articles in the May, 2000 issue.) Engineers have an important role to play in all of these areas.
In this issue...
- "Sustainability and Environment: Art vs. Science" by Dennis Treacy
- How to Market Sustainability
- Sustainable Federal Facilities Report Available
- Fort Bragg Sets Goals for Long-term Sustainability Planning
- Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source
- Briefing on Wind Power Held
- Legislative Proposals on Renewable Energy Sources Discussed
- Update on WFEO ComTech Activities
- AECP Promotes Energy Conservation
- Guide to Green Engineering of Chemical Processes Published
- World Scientists' Warning to Humanity - Revisited
The mission of the Forum remains essentially the same: that is, to help promote the principles and practices of sustainability by (1) providing a meeting place for interdisciplinary discussion and exchange of information; (2) identifying and distributing information on engineering education programs that incorporate sustainability; (3) encouraging practicing enginers to apply sustainability principles and participate in sustainability programs and activities at local, regional, and national levels; and (4) keeping abreast of and sharing information on international developments that can contribute to global sustainability. The Forum meets at the National Academy of Engineering in Washington, DC three times a year, and a newsletter highlights the issues, activities and developments discussed at the meetings.
Because of a recent change in the organization and priorities of the American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES), the Forum is now co-sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), with AAES continuing to serve as a link in accessing other engineering fields which can contribute to the multidisciplinary requirements of sustainable engineering practice.
Both ASCE and ASEE have been actively engaged in promoting sustainability. ASCE amended its Code of Ethics in 1996 to include striving to comply with the principles of sustainable development, and has adopted a Policy Statement on the Role of the Engineer in Sustainable Development. More recently, ASCE has organized a Subcommittee on Sustainability, which will be responsible on behalf of ASCE for its contributions to the Forum programs and newsletters. Also, the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF), an affiliate of ASCE, has continued to promote sustainability and has recently established a Center for Sustainable Infrastructure.
ASEE sponsored an International Conference on Engineering Education and Practice several years ago which had a major focus on sustainability, and adopted a policy in support of sustainable development education in June, 1999. An ASCE website on sustainability is being developed and will be announced shortly. In the meantime, additional information, including all of the past Forum newsletters, can be found on the ASEE website (www.asee.org/neic/efsd).
The next meeting of the Engineers Forum on Sustainability will be held on Friday, January 11,2002, from 9a.m. to noon at the National Academy of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW in Washington, DC. A copy of the meeting agenda will be sent to all newsletter recipients.
ASCE and ASEE wish to expand the value and usefulness of the Forum to better serve the needs and interest of engineering educators and practitioners, as well as other professions with an interest in understanding and promoting sustainability. We welcome your ideas and suggestions.
Al Grant, Forum Chair
"Sustainability and Environment: Art vs. Science" by Dennis Treacy
(Editor's Note: This article is the fourth in a series of guest articles to be featured in the Forum Newsletter. Mr. Treacy is the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. These remarks are drawn from his talk to the Forum on September 28, 2001.)
"When I attended Virginia Tech my roommate studied chemical engineering. We often had a lot to debate. As an engineer, he could convert anything to anything ... from chicken beaks per acre to wood chips per park bench.
But I struggled. I took engineering classes and worked answers out to the eighth or ninth decimal place. My roommate would calculate an answer and double for a "safety factor."
Today I would like to talk about the environment. In the past 30 years, we have seen great improvements in the health of our environment. The quality of our air and water, and the steps we take to manage waste are vastly different now. We focused on the big issues and developed programs to improve pipe discharges, stack emissions and hazardous waste management.
Now I regulate chickens, pigs, farms, the view (in regional airsheds), parking lots. So, things are changing and America needs your skills in a new way.
At DEQ, we're also changing. We're integrating many of our activities so we can take a more comprehensive look at how to solve environmental problems. For example, we now tie together several programs --environmental management, environmental technology, environmental education, pollution prevention --so we can focus on finding solutions to environmental challenges.
And we're getting out the word in a variety of ways. We're combining a common-sense business approach with true environmental protection - like the Wall Street Journal meets Mother Earth News. We work through the annual sustainability conference, with experts like Bill McDonough at the University of Virginia. We work with the Virginia Manufacturers Association on their annual environmental excellence awards.
So today I would like to ask you to do three things: I want to ask you to convert anything to anything. I want you to think before you double anything. And I want you to communicate.
First, convert anything to anything.
I am convinced that engineers can solve anything. Tell them to stop pollution from a pipe, and they will. Tell them to design a computer chip, and they will. Ask about sewage treatment plants or scrubbers, and they'll give you a solution.
Engineers have been working for a long time to help businesses comply with the regulations. They've done a brilliant job - they can say, 'My process does it!' 'My dev ice does it!'
But what if we asked engineers to solve problems differently? What if we wanted them to design a product that can be reused from cradle to grave? Think about what happens to a device or product when it is no longer used - fluorescent bulbs, electronic goods, bridges, buildings, roads. They're all simply discarded. If we find a way to reuse these items or materials, we can end up saving a company money.
That's right - the idea is to save money. Don't make a change unless you can. As much as we want everybody to be environmentally oriented and "do the right thing," it won't happen unless we save money. It's like buying health food at McDonald's - it will only work if it makes sense economically. You can find ways to convert products and structures, make environmental improvements, if it means lower costs.
Second, don't double.
When you think about what goes into a process or structure, use only what is needed. Make things affordable, design smart. This means use less material or less solvent while still getting the job done, without compromising safety. Here's one example of what I mean: TBT is used in paint to keep ship hulls barnacle-free. We're working on finding ways to keep this toxic chemical out of our waterways, but in the meantime, ship companies should keep their use of TBT paint to a minimum. Don't use more than you need when it comes to substances that can affect the environment.
And finally, communicate.
To do what I'm suggesting requires a broader look at life, your job or your assignment. We need to understand the big picture, and please teach your students that it's OK to see that big picture. They need to understand the environment, not just the rules or the laws of physics. I'll bet many of them do. They just have to be told it's OK.
It comes down to art vs. science - seeing the big picture and understanding how people perceive the world, vs. seeing the technical details and making sure everything meets the scientific rules. The challenge is to communicate in a way that's understandable, but not oversimplified. When art and science meet, we have sustainability - we have joined the big picture with the essential details.
The question of art vs. science reminds me of what one teacher calls the 'Trail of Tears.' That's how the teacher described his experience with his class when he asked them to think about the impact of a few high-profile activities that affect the environment. He took them to view a mountaintop removal project - and he asked them to describe what it meant to them. He took them to a pulp mill, where he asked them again to think about how it made them feel. Finally, he took them to a power plant, and repeated his question.
He called it the 'Trail of Tears' because of the responses his students gave. All the scientifically accurate explanations about what kind of impact those activities have on the environment meant nothing to the students. They were looking at the bigger picture and responded to it. We need a better way to communicate the art of what we do, the message of what our actions really mean to people.
All this is up to you, not me. I do my job for my mother. She trusts that I'll do the right thing. Go ahead and do the job for your mother.
Find ways to have no discharges, no emissions, no waste disposal. Put me out of business."
How to Market Sustainability
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), along with global business leaders, has released a report entitled: Sustainability Through the Market: Seven Keys to Success. The report shows how open, transparent markets can drive sustainability and makes the business case for implementing sustainable practices. It outlines seven keys to successful implementation and illustrates the economic advantages of doing so with real-world case studies involving some of the world's most successful companies.
The report, which was developed over four years and through extensive dialogues with multiple stakeholders, is the first of its kind to view sustainability as a holistic issue involving an integrated approach to production and consumption. The WBCSD report identifies markets as the primary link to improving and revolutionizing the activities that are at the heart of this inter-relationship.
The report's Seven Keys offer business a roadmap to implementing and benefiting from sustainable practices.
KEY 1 - Innovate: Both technological and social innovation can do much to improve quality of life. By combing personal creativity, innovative climate, strategic depth and operational efficiency - innovation can enable companies to create growth in ways that reflect the changing concerns and values of the world.
KEY 2 - Practice eco-efficiency: By combining environmental and economic performance, this strategy enables more efficient production processes and the creation of better products and services while reducing resource use, waste and pollution along the entire value chain.
KEY 3 - Move from stakeholder dialogues to partnerships for progress: The time has come to move beyond talking to one another to acting together for the purpose of sustainable development. Partnerships for progress are built on common goals, empathy, open feedback, flexibility, ability to compromise and shared rewards. Alliances can offer business, government and civil society new solutions to common concerns.
KEY 4 - Provide and inform consumer choice: Consumer choice in transparent and competitive markets has the potential to improve quality of life. Informed consumers can better judge what products and services reflect the true value of resources and can make purchasing decisions based on this information. This leads to improved consumption and better sustainability.
KEY 5 - Improve market framework conditions: Markets face challenges in fostering sustainability where corruption, protectionism, monopoly, or perverse subsidies exist. Legislation, regulations and enforcement are needed to promote competition and effective property rights, and to enforce fair and transparent accounting.
KEY 6 - Establish the worth of Earth: Inefficient or artificial pricing weakens markets, leads to misuse and waste and hinders sustainability. By taking into account environmental, economic and social aspects of natural resource use, we can establish more accurate price levels and promote more efficient consumption.
KEY 7 - Make the market work for everyone:: Poverty is the single largest barrier to achieving sustainability through the market. The way to reduce poverty is to promote continuous and broad-based market expansion that creates enterprises and jobs. Unmet basic needs represent significant market opportunities for innovative businesses.
Contact: The full report can be obtained at http://www.wbcsd.org. For more information, contact WBCSD at 4 chemin de Conches, 1231 Conches-Geneva, Switzerland, Tel: (41 22) 839 3100; Fax: (41 22) 839 3131.
Sustainable Federal Facilities Report Available
A report developed by a Federal Facilities Council (FFC) task group, Sustainable Federal Facilities: A Guide to Integrating Value Engineering, Life-Cycle Cost, and Sustainable Development provides a framework that aims to help federal agencies meet the objectives of a 1999 presidential executive order. That order - Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management - called for the federal government to establish energy management processes so that the economic efficiency and environmental soundness of the government's approximately 500,000 buildings could be improved.
The report examines the conventional process used to acquire government facilities, a process that involves assessment, conceptual planning, programming, and budgeting, design, construction, and start-up, and then recommends that value engineering and cost analysis be used in the conceptual planning, design and construction phases.
According to the FFC task group, although value enginering and cost analysis traditionally are not included in the conceptual planning stage of a project, that is the time when most of the decisions that affect the sustainability of a structure are made. Therefore, the earlier value engineering and cost analysis are factored into the framework, the greater the benefit.
The report notes that implementing the new framework may prove difficult because federal budgeting procedures examine only a project's initial, rather than life-cycle costs. Therefore, up to 85 percent of a project's life-cycle cost can be overlooked. In addition, measures taken to reduce life-cycle cost can raise the inital costs on a project, making it appear that measures taken to save money are actually raising costs. Unless budget procedures are changed to take life-cycle costs into account, the report states, agencies will have a difficult time realizing the benefits that result from sustainable development.
Contact: The report can be accessed at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10093.html
Fort Bragg Sets Goals for Long-term Sustainability Planning
Fort Bragg held an Environmental Sustainability Executive Conference in April, 2001. The purpose was to find ways to meet the mission of combat readiness while maintaining environmental stewardship. Participants incuded regulators and members of the local community.
The 10 goals established at the April conference will form the basis for the Integrated Strategic Environmental Plan (ISEP), the blue print for the installation's long-term success in terms of infrastructure and natural resources.
Participants at the conference were asked to develop goals "based on an integrated approach that includes all stakeholders - military, civilian, communities, regulatory agencies - to achieve a meaningful consensus and ensure readiness."
Given these challenges, community members identified the following goals for Fort Bragg:
Challenge: Use of energy at Fort Bragg, whether it's generated on post or off, contributes to the high levels of ozone in the air. Further, the events this winter in California and across the nation raise serious concerns about the cost of energy and the availability of energy at any cost. How can Fort Bragg protect and secure the energy it needs to operate?
Goal: Eliminate energy waste, by giving commanders energy goals and data on actual energy use by 2002.
Challenge: Facility construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition is costly, leading to numerous environmental impacts and large energy and water use. How can Fort Bragg provide the world-class facilities that soldiers and families deserve, while minimizing associated pollution, resource depletion, and costs?
Goal: Design all new construction to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum standard by 2006.
Challenge: The state of North Carolina is increasingly concerned about ozone and other air pollutants. How can Fort Bragg minimize future costs and operational restrictions while improving regional air quality?
Goal: Develop acceptable regional commuting options by 2025.
Goal: Operate 100% of non-tactical fleet on alterntive fuels by 2010.
Challenge: Potential sources of water for Fort Bragg consumption have been steadily declining (both in quantity and quality) due to overuse. How can Fort Bragg reduce its dependence on these sources and provide premium quality drinking water, as well as the "right" quality water for other uses, without aggravating future regional water supply issues?
Goal: Reduce water consumption 90% by 2025.
Challenge: Contamination of regional water resources, particularly by sediments, is a criticalf consideration to North Carolina, because of the economic impacts associated with destruction of fish habitats, treatment of water to drinking quality, and the decrease of drinking water reservoir holding capacity. How can Fort Bragg minimize the future costs and potential operational restrictions associated with water pollution, while improving regional water quality?
Goal: Ensure water quality leaving Fort Bragg is equal to or better than water quality coming onto post by 2025.
Challenge: Fort Bragg buys $176M worth of products and materials every year - and throws away over 200,000 tons at a total cost well over $3M. How can Fort Bragg promote the sustainable manufacture, use, and disposal of materials and products, while minimizing costs and environmental impact? How can Fort Bragg stimulate local and national markets for environmentally preferred products?
Goal: Landfill zero waste by 2025.
Goal: Buy 80% environmental preferable products from local sources by 2025.
Challenge: Fort Bragg maintains 161,597 acres of land for training. Of this, only 72,236 are unrestricted for use. How can Fort Bragg provide enough usable land for military training - and ensure that training is not further constrained by concerns over potential environmental contaimination and negative impacts on endangered species? How can Fort Bragg use its land requirements to address the effects of urban sprawl and regional needs for open space and biodiversity?
Goal: Educate 100% of personnel on environmental responsibilities, to cut enforcement actions to 0 by 2002.
Goal: Adopt compatible land use laws/regulations with local communities by 2005.
After the July meetings, there was an opportunity for the public to get involved in the process. State and federal regulatory agencies, as well as local community officies, were encouraged to share ideas and build partnerships as Fort Bragg works toward sustainability planning.
Contact: For more information, contact the FORSCOM Environmental Sustainability Planner at 910-396-3341, ext. 551.
Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source
At a recent Forum meeting, Don Schutz of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), discussed the role of nuclear power as a sustainable source of energy. The ANS makes the following points:
(1) Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases.
(2) Controlled fission of small amounts of uranium fuel can be used to generate large amounts of electricity without burning carbon-based fuel sources. The amount of fuel (mass and volume) required for nuclear power is significantly less than that required for a fossil-fueled plant. One ton of uranium produces as much energy as 17,000 tons of coal.
(3) Rather than disperse massive quantities of waste products over wide areas, as is the case with emissions from fossil fuel plants (sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, and toxic metals, such as arsenic and mercury contained in the fly ash), nuclear power plant operators are able to consolidate the waste and sequester it safely.
(4) Known fuel resources for nuclear power plants are estimated to provide for 250 years of consumption using current "once through" commerical reactor technology.
(5) Compared to other non-carbon-based and carbon-neutral energy options, nuclear power plants require far less land area
(6) For nuclear power, environmental costs are already internalized as a result of stringent regulations. Yet, nuclear power remains competitively priced.
(7) Potential environmental impacts from nuclear power operations are carefully controlled and regulated
(8) When evaluated in light of impact on climate, land use, waste disposal, fuel availability, safety (occupational, environmental and personal), internalized environmental costs, and technology transfer, nuclear power is an energy option that is itself sustainable and can help nations achieve widely held goals of sustainable development.
Contact: For further information, contact the American Nuclear Society (ANS), 555 North Kensington Avenue, LaGrange Park, IL 60526; tel: 708-352-6611; fax: 708-352-0499; e-mail: outreach@ans.org; website: www.ans.org
Briefing on Wind Power Held
A Congressional briefing on wind energy, a renewable and environmentally sustainable energy technology, was held in June, 2001by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI). This briefing provided information on wind energy technology, its benefits to the environment, the energy sector and the economy.
Wind is a clean energy source. It produces no polluting emissions or greenhouse gases and helps to reduce the threat of climate change. Wind power can be derived from utility-scale wind machines and small wind systems producing less than 100 kilowatts of generating capacity, which are better suited for residential and farm use. Improvements in turbine design have greatly decreased the amount of noise produced by wind turbines, and eliminated interference with radio and television signals.
Wind energy is one of the fastest growing energy technologies in the world, growing over 20 percent each year during the 1990s. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 3,800 megawatts (MW) of new utility-scale generating capacity were brought online throughout the world in 2000, representing annual sales of $4 billion and boosting total installed capacity to about 17, 300 MW. In 2001, the United States is expected to install several of the world's largest wind farms in Texas and Washington. AWEA anticipates that close to 2,000 new MW of wind energy will be added in the United States by the end of the year. By the beginning of 2002, American wind energy producers expect to be producing around 10 billion kilwatt-hours (kWh) of wind energy, enough energy to power one million average American homes.
The costs of wind energy are dropping and in some cases the cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of wind energy is becoming competitive with conventional energy sources. Costs for large wind projects at the best sites range from three to six cents per kilowatt, which includes the production tax credit. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost of wind energy has dropped by 85 percent during the last 20 years. Incentives can improve the economics of wind energy, such as the federal production tax credit which expires at the end of 2001, and net metering, which allows consumers in some states to sell energy they have privately generated back to their energy company. The production tax credit would be extended for the next five years under proposed legislation (H.R. 876). Other introduced legislation would extend and expand the availability of the production tax credit to other renewable energy sources.
The following points were noted at the briefing:
- California, Minnesota, Iowa, and Texas have the largest installed capacity for wind energy. North Dakota is the state with the highest potential for wind energy production, and with increased energy transmission and storage capability, North Dakota alone could provide nearly 33 percent of all U.S. energy needs.
- Wind energy has enormous potential to contribute to California's electricity supply. The wind potential in the seven-state region consisting of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada is enough to supply most of the electricity used by the entire United States, let alone California.
- Wind is also a large potential source of income for landowners in the United States. Dairy and crop farmers increase their profits by leasing their land to wind energy producers, which does not remove significant amounts of land from production.
Contact: For more information on wind power proposals, contact Beth Bleil of EESI; tel: 202-662-1885; e-mail: bbleil@eesi.org
Legislative Proposals on Renewable Energy Sources Discussed
A Congressional briefing on two federal legislative proposals, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the System Benefits Fund (SBF) was held by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) on September, 2001. These complimentary energy policies are designed to help level the energy playing field and encourage investments in new renewable energy resources, which, in turn, stabilize and diversify the nation's domestic clean energy resources, improve electricity reliability, decrease pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and promote rural economic development.
A Renewable Porfolio Standard requires retail electric suppliers to obtain a minimum percentage of their electricity from renewable energy resources. Tradable renewable energy credits can be utilized to all flexibility in fulfilling the RPS requirement. The Sustainable Energy Coalition, an alliance of more than 30 business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations, advocates a federal RPS that would provide for 10 percent renewable energy generation by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020.
Currently, 14 states have enacted a RPS or renewable "set asides." Each state's provisions are different, however, with varying renewable energy requirements, time frames and policy mechanisms. The Texas RPS contains capacity targets of 400 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy by 2003, 850 MW by 2005, 1400 MW by 2007, and 2,000 MW by 2009 and through 2019. Since Texas enacted its RPS, renewable energy development, particularly wind power, has taken off and it is expected that the RPS targets will be met years ahead of schedule. The Nevada RPS requires five percent of electricity generation be derived from renewable energy sources by 2003 and grows to 15 percent over 10 years by 2013. It is estimated that this law will stimuate $3 billion in new renewable energy investment in Nevada over the next ten years.
A System Benefits Fund is supported by a small wires charge (small fee per kilowatt hour of electricity) to consumers and invests those funds to help implement renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, as well as low-income energy assistance programs. As electricity markets deregulated across the United States, a number of states implemented Public Benefits programs, previously administered and funded by utilities, to ensure continued investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Federal SBF proposals vary in the size of the wires charge and whether the funds will be matched by states.
Currently, 15 states have System Benefits Funds, and similar to state RPS, they differ widely across the country. For example, New York's fund is entitled "New York Energy $mart" and is run by the NY State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). It provides a total of $234 million to support energy efficiency, low-income energy assistance and R&D for renewable energy and environmental research.
Contact: For more information about these two legislative proposals, contact Beth Bleil of EESI (tel: 202-662-1885; e-mail: bbleil@eesi.org)
Update on WFEO ComTech Activities
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) met in General Assembly in Moscow, September 10-15, 2001. Luther W. Graef, former President of ASCE and former Chair of AAES, was elected to the WFEO Executive Council.
WFEO's ComTech committee held its Annual Meeting on September 11, 2001. The Secretariat office of ComTech has been relocated to the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF). AAES has executed a subcontract to CERF to provide support to AAES in carrying out its obligations as the ComTech Secretariat.
At the ComTech meeting, James W. Poirot, President of ComTech for the last six years, retired. . Don Roberts of the US was approved to fulfill the two remaining years of office. Mr. Poirot was presented a framed certificate of appreciation from ComTech and was awarded a medal from WFEO during an awards banquet.
Joseph Delfino, ComTech's Regional Vice President for North America, reported on his attendance at the Stockholm Water Symposium in August, 2001. The theme of the Symposium was a "bridge building process" that was intended to link water science, practice, policy, decision making and citizen involvement. Reports were provided on the World Water Vision, now evolved to the next phase. The Vision process, a product of the World Water Council (WWC), with strong support from the Global Water Partnership and other water-related Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), was unveiled at The Hague. The Vision process is now manifested by the World Water Action process. The WWC has established a Water Action Unit in Marseille, France, and one of its goals is to maintain the momentum generated at The Hague and to prepare for "action" that is, to see that the "vision" becomes a reality during the next two years. It will make an initial report at the 3rd World Water Forum in 2003, which among several themes, will see discussion of the impact of climate change on water, food supplies, and the environment.
A recurring theme at the Stockholm Symposium was "who is going to finance water infrastructure for those in need of such development throughout the world? " While governments have been, and will continue to be important in providing basic funding, future water projects will need to involve "public-private partnerships," something that the World Water Council and WFEO/ComTech have been working on for the past few years.
Contact: Jane Moran Alspach, Managing Director, ComTech, c/o CERF, 2131 K Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20037-1810; (tel: 202-785-6459; fax: 202-833-2604; e-mail: jalspach@cerf.org)
AECP Promotes Energy Conservation
The Association of Energy Conservation Professionals (AECP) is a non-profit, membership-based organization dedicated to "providing, promoting, and advocating energy conservation." Billy Weitzenfeld, AECP's Executive Director, briefed the Forum at it's most recent meeting. He explained that AECP was formed in 1993, as a volunteer association, to advocate for the Virginia Weatherization Program in the areas of funding, training, and education.
AECP has expanded the scope of its original mission. While still advocating for the Weatherization Program, AECP is now very focused on providing educational opportunities to the general public concerning the importance of saving energy and how energy conservation practices can be incorporated into the home and business. AECP pursues this educational mission through the following avenues: the production and distribution of educational videos and cd-roms, a quarterly newsletter, an annual Energy Conservation Fair, legislative work on behalf of consumers, and sponsorign and conducting educational workshops and seminars on energy conservation, energy efficiency, green building, and renewable energy.
AECP believes very strongly that a better educated general populace is the key to a future where all people will be able to live in a clean, safe, and healthy environment. Learning how to practice energy conservation on a daily basis and take advantage of current energy efficient technology will enable homeowners and consumers to exercise the necessary stewardship and responsibility that will lower their energy bills, save natural resources, and help preserve the environment.
Contact: For further information, contact Billy Weitzenfeld, Executive Director, AECP, 209 Roanoke Street, Suite #9, Christiansburg, VA 24073; (tel: 540-382-3528; e-mail: aecp@swva.net; website: www.aecp.org.
Guide to Green Engineering of Chemical Processes Published
Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, is a newly published chemical engineer's guide to managing and minimizing environmental impact. The authors of the guide are David T. Allen, Reese Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and David R. Shonnard, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan Technological University.
First conceived by the staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Green Engineering draws on contributions from many leaders in the field, and introduces advanced risk-based techniques including some currently in use at the EPA. Coverage includes:
- Engineering chemical processes, products, and systems to reduce environmental impacts
- Approaches for evaluating emissions and hazards of chemicals and processes
- Defining effective environmental performance targets
- Advanced approaches and tools for evaluating environmental fate
- Early-stage design and development techniques that minimize costs and environmental impacts
- In-depth coverage of unit operation and flowsheet analysis
- The economics of environmental improvement projects
- Integration of chemical processes with other material processing operations
- Lifecycle assessments: beyond the boundaries of the plant
Contact: The guide is published by Prentice Hall, Ptr; tel: 1-800-382-3419; e-mail: corpsales@prenhall.com; website: www.phptr.com
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity - Revisited
Almost ten years ago, the following appeal was issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Over 1,500 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, signed the appeal. This appeal was designed to raise awareness of the effects humanity has on its environment and to challenge the world to utilize our natural resources in a more sustainable and responsible manner. It is reprinted here as a decade-long perspective on environmental concerns and sustainability:
Introduction
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at a serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
The Environment
The environment is suffering critical stress:
The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste - some of it toxic.
Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded - an area larger than India and China combined - and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain - with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe - but the potential risks are very great.
Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life - coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change - could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.
Uncertainty over the extend of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.Population
The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.
Pressure resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.
No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished."
An ASCE/ASEE Newsletter
December 2001
Forum Expands its Focus on Sustainability
Beginning with this issue of its newsletter, the Forum has changed its name to "Engineers Forum on Sustainability." This change reflects the fact that "sustainability" is now used as a broad umbrella issue that includes more specific areas of interest, such as sustainable communities, sustainable technologies and sustainable transportation, as well as sustainable development. The Forum has addressed all of these specific areas of interest in recent times. (See index of Newsletter articles in the May, 2000 issue.) Engineers have an important role to play in all of these areas.
In this issue...
- "Sustainability and Environment: Art vs. Science" by Dennis Treacy
- How to Market Sustainability
- Sustainable Federal Facilities Report Available
- Fort Bragg Sets Goals for Long-term Sustainability Planning
- Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source
- Briefing on Wind Power Held
- Legislative Proposals on Renewable Energy Sources Discussed
- Update on WFEO ComTech Activities
- AECP Promotes Energy Conservation
- Guide to Green Engineering of Chemical Processes Published
- World Scientists' Warning to Humanity - Revisited
The mission of the Forum remains essentially the same: that is, to help promote the principles and practices of sustainability by (1) providing a meeting place for interdisciplinary discussion and exchange of information; (2) identifying and distributing information on engineering education programs that incorporate sustainability; (3) encouraging practicing enginers to apply sustainability principles and participate in sustainability programs and activities at local, regional, and national levels; and (4) keeping abreast of and sharing information on international developments that can contribute to global sustainability. The Forum meets at the National Academy of Engineering in Washington, DC three times a year, and a newsletter highlights the issues, activities and developments discussed at the meetings.
Because of a recent change in the organization and priorities of the American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES), the Forum is now co-sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), with AAES continuing to serve as a link in accessing other engineering fields which can contribute to the multidisciplinary requirements of sustainable engineering practice.
Both ASCE and ASEE have been actively engaged in promoting sustainability. ASCE amended its Code of Ethics in 1996 to include striving to comply with the principles of sustainable development, and has adopted a Policy Statement on the Role of the Engineer in Sustainable Development. More recently, ASCE has organized a Subcommittee on Sustainability, which will be responsible on behalf of ASCE for its contributions to the Forum programs and newsletters. Also, the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF), an affiliate of ASCE, has continued to promote sustainability and has recently established a Center for Sustainable Infrastructure.
ASEE sponsored an International Conference on Engineering Education and Practice several years ago which had a major focus on sustainability, and adopted a policy in support of sustainable development education in June, 1999. An ASCE website on sustainability is being developed and will be announced shortly. In the meantime, additional information, including all of the past Forum newsletters, can be found on the ASEE website (www.asee.org/neic/efsd).
The next meeting of the Engineers Forum on Sustainability will be held on Friday, January 11,2002, from 9a.m. to noon at the National Academy of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW in Washington, DC. A copy of the meeting agenda will be sent to all newsletter recipients.
ASCE and ASEE wish to expand the value and usefulness of the Forum to better serve the needs and interest of engineering educators and practitioners, as well as other professions with an interest in understanding and promoting sustainability. We welcome your ideas and suggestions.
Al Grant, Forum Chair
"Sustainability and Environment: Art vs. Science" by Dennis Treacy
(Editor's Note: This article is the fourth in a series of guest articles to be featured in the Forum Newsletter. Mr. Treacy is the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. These remarks are drawn from his talk to the Forum on September 28, 2001.)
"When I attended Virginia Tech my roommate studied chemical engineering. We often had a lot to debate. As an engineer, he could convert anything to anything ... from chicken beaks per acre to wood chips per park bench.
But I struggled. I took engineering classes and worked answers out to the eighth or ninth decimal place. My roommate would calculate an answer and double for a "safety factor."
Today I would like to talk about the environment. In the past 30 years, we have seen great improvements in the health of our environment. The quality of our air and water, and the steps we take to manage waste are vastly different now. We focused on the big issues and developed programs to improve pipe discharges, stack emissions and hazardous waste management.
Now I regulate chickens, pigs, farms, the view (in regional airsheds), parking lots. So, things are changing and America needs your skills in a new way.
At DEQ, we're also changing. We're integrating many of our activities so we can take a more comprehensive look at how to solve environmental problems. For example, we now tie together several programs --environmental management, environmental technology, environmental education, pollution prevention --so we can focus on finding solutions to environmental challenges.
And we're getting out the word in a variety of ways. We're combining a common-sense business approach with true environmental protection - like the Wall Street Journal meets Mother Earth News. We work through the annual sustainability conference, with experts like Bill McDonough at the University of Virginia. We work with the Virginia Manufacturers Association on their annual environmental excellence awards.
So today I would like to ask you to do three things: I want to ask you to convert anything to anything. I want you to think before you double anything. And I want you to communicate.
First, convert anything to anything.
I am convinced that engineers can solve anything. Tell them to stop pollution from a pipe, and they will. Tell them to design a computer chip, and they will. Ask about sewage treatment plants or scrubbers, and they'll give you a solution.
Engineers have been working for a long time to help businesses comply with the regulations. They've done a brilliant job - they can say, 'My process does it!' 'My dev ice does it!'
But what if we asked engineers to solve problems differently? What if we wanted them to design a product that can be reused from cradle to grave? Think about what happens to a device or product when it is no longer used - fluorescent bulbs, electronic goods, bridges, buildings, roads. They're all simply discarded. If we find a way to reuse these items or materials, we can end up saving a company money.
That's right - the idea is to save money. Don't make a change unless you can. As much as we want everybody to be environmentally oriented and "do the right thing," it won't happen unless we save money. It's like buying health food at McDonald's - it will only work if it makes sense economically. You can find ways to convert products and structures, make environmental improvements, if it means lower costs.
Second, don't double.
When you think about what goes into a process or structure, use only what is needed. Make things affordable, design smart. This means use less material or less solvent while still getting the job done, without compromising safety. Here's one example of what I mean: TBT is used in paint to keep ship hulls barnacle-free. We're working on finding ways to keep this toxic chemical out of our waterways, but in the meantime, ship companies should keep their use of TBT paint to a minimum. Don't use more than you need when it comes to substances that can affect the environment.
And finally, communicate.
To do what I'm suggesting requires a broader look at life, your job or your assignment. We need to understand the big picture, and please teach your students that it's OK to see that big picture. They need to understand the environment, not just the rules or the laws of physics. I'll bet many of them do. They just have to be told it's OK.
It comes down to art vs. science - seeing the big picture and understanding how people perceive the world, vs. seeing the technical details and making sure everything meets the scientific rules. The challenge is to communicate in a way that's understandable, but not oversimplified. When art and science meet, we have sustainability - we have joined the big picture with the essential details.
The question of art vs. science reminds me of what one teacher calls the 'Trail of Tears.' That's how the teacher described his experience with his class when he asked them to think about the impact of a few high-profile activities that affect the environment. He took them to view a mountaintop removal project - and he asked them to describe what it meant to them. He took them to a pulp mill, where he asked them again to think about how it made them feel. Finally, he took them to a power plant, and repeated his question.
He called it the 'Trail of Tears' because of the responses his students gave. All the scientifically accurate explanations about what kind of impact those activities have on the environment meant nothing to the students. They were looking at the bigger picture and responded to it. We need a better way to communicate the art of what we do, the message of what our actions really mean to people.
All this is up to you, not me. I do my job for my mother. She trusts that I'll do the right thing. Go ahead and do the job for your mother.
Find ways to have no discharges, no emissions, no waste disposal. Put me out of business."
How to Market Sustainability
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), along with global business leaders, has released a report entitled: Sustainability Through the Market: Seven Keys to Success. The report shows how open, transparent markets can drive sustainability and makes the business case for implementing sustainable practices. It outlines seven keys to successful implementation and illustrates the economic advantages of doing so with real-world case studies involving some of the world's most successful companies.
The report, which was developed over four years and through extensive dialogues with multiple stakeholders, is the first of its kind to view sustainability as a holistic issue involving an integrated approach to production and consumption. The WBCSD report identifies markets as the primary link to improving and revolutionizing the activities that are at the heart of this inter-relationship.
The report's Seven Keys offer business a roadmap to implementing and benefiting from sustainable practices.
KEY 1 - Innovate: Both technological and social innovation can do much to improve quality of life. By combing personal creativity, innovative climate, strategic depth and operational efficiency - innovation can enable companies to create growth in ways that reflect the changing concerns and values of the world.
KEY 2 - Practice eco-efficiency: By combining environmental and economic performance, this strategy enables more efficient production processes and the creation of better products and services while reducing resource use, waste and pollution along the entire value chain.
KEY 3 - Move from stakeholder dialogues to partnerships for progress: The time has come to move beyond talking to one another to acting together for the purpose of sustainable development. Partnerships for progress are built on common goals, empathy, open feedback, flexibility, ability to compromise and shared rewards. Alliances can offer business, government and civil society new solutions to common concerns.
KEY 4 - Provide and inform consumer choice: Consumer choice in transparent and competitive markets has the potential to improve quality of life. Informed consumers can better judge what products and services reflect the true value of resources and can make purchasing decisions based on this information. This leads to improved consumption and better sustainability.
KEY 5 - Improve market framework conditions: Markets face challenges in fostering sustainability where corruption, protectionism, monopoly, or perverse subsidies exist. Legislation, regulations and enforcement are needed to promote competition and effective property rights, and to enforce fair and transparent accounting.
KEY 6 - Establish the worth of Earth: Inefficient or artificial pricing weakens markets, leads to misuse and waste and hinders sustainability. By taking into account environmental, economic and social aspects of natural resource use, we can establish more accurate price levels and promote more efficient consumption.
KEY 7 - Make the market work for everyone:: Poverty is the single largest barrier to achieving sustainability through the market. The way to reduce poverty is to promote continuous and broad-based market expansion that creates enterprises and jobs. Unmet basic needs represent significant market opportunities for innovative businesses.
Contact: The full report can be obtained at http://www.wbcsd.org. For more information, contact WBCSD at 4 chemin de Conches, 1231 Conches-Geneva, Switzerland, Tel: (41 22) 839 3100; Fax: (41 22) 839 3131.
Sustainable Federal Facilities Report Available
A report developed by a Federal Facilities Council (FFC) task group, Sustainable Federal Facilities: A Guide to Integrating Value Engineering, Life-Cycle Cost, and Sustainable Development provides a framework that aims to help federal agencies meet the objectives of a 1999 presidential executive order. That order - Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management - called for the federal government to establish energy management processes so that the economic efficiency and environmental soundness of the government's approximately 500,000 buildings could be improved.
The report examines the conventional process used to acquire government facilities, a process that involves assessment, conceptual planning, programming, and budgeting, design, construction, and start-up, and then recommends that value engineering and cost analysis be used in the conceptual planning, design and construction phases.
According to the FFC task group, although value enginering and cost analysis traditionally are not included in the conceptual planning stage of a project, that is the time when most of the decisions that affect the sustainability of a structure are made. Therefore, the earlier value engineering and cost analysis are factored into the framework, the greater the benefit.
The report notes that implementing the new framework may prove difficult because federal budgeting procedures examine only a project's initial, rather than life-cycle costs. Therefore, up to 85 percent of a project's life-cycle cost can be overlooked. In addition, measures taken to reduce life-cycle cost can raise the inital costs on a project, making it appear that measures taken to save money are actually raising costs. Unless budget procedures are changed to take life-cycle costs into account, the report states, agencies will have a difficult time realizing the benefits that result from sustainable development.
Contact: The report can be accessed at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10093.html
Fort Bragg Sets Goals for Long-term Sustainability Planning
Fort Bragg held an Environmental Sustainability Executive Conference in April, 2001. The purpose was to find ways to meet the mission of combat readiness while maintaining environmental stewardship. Participants incuded regulators and members of the local community.
The 10 goals established at the April conference will form the basis for the Integrated Strategic Environmental Plan (ISEP), the blue print for the installation's long-term success in terms of infrastructure and natural resources.
Participants at the conference were asked to develop goals "based on an integrated approach that includes all stakeholders - military, civilian, communities, regulatory agencies - to achieve a meaningful consensus and ensure readiness."
Given these challenges, community members identified the following goals for Fort Bragg:
Challenge: Use of energy at Fort Bragg, whether it's generated on post or off, contributes to the high levels of ozone in the air. Further, the events this winter in California and across the nation raise serious concerns about the cost of energy and the availability of energy at any cost. How can Fort Bragg protect and secure the energy it needs to operate?
Goal: Eliminate energy waste, by giving commanders energy goals and data on actual energy use by 2002.
Challenge: Facility construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition is costly, leading to numerous environmental impacts and large energy and water use. How can Fort Bragg provide the world-class facilities that soldiers and families deserve, while minimizing associated pollution, resource depletion, and costs?
Goal: Design all new construction to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum standard by 2006.
Challenge: The state of North Carolina is increasingly concerned about ozone and other air pollutants. How can Fort Bragg minimize future costs and operational restrictions while improving regional air quality?
Goal: Develop acceptable regional commuting options by 2025.
Goal: Operate 100% of non-tactical fleet on alterntive fuels by 2010.
Challenge: Potential sources of water for Fort Bragg consumption have been steadily declining (both in quantity and quality) due to overuse. How can Fort Bragg reduce its dependence on these sources and provide premium quality drinking water, as well as the "right" quality water for other uses, without aggravating future regional water supply issues?
Goal: Reduce water consumption 90% by 2025.
Challenge: Contamination of regional water resources, particularly by sediments, is a criticalf consideration to North Carolina, because of the economic impacts associated with destruction of fish habitats, treatment of water to drinking quality, and the decrease of drinking water reservoir holding capacity. How can Fort Bragg minimize the future costs and potential operational restrictions associated with water pollution, while improving regional water quality?
Goal: Ensure water quality leaving Fort Bragg is equal to or better than water quality coming onto post by 2025.
Challenge: Fort Bragg buys $176M worth of products and materials every year - and throws away over 200,000 tons at a total cost well over $3M. How can Fort Bragg promote the sustainable manufacture, use, and disposal of materials and products, while minimizing costs and environmental impact? How can Fort Bragg stimulate local and national markets for environmentally preferred products?
Goal: Landfill zero waste by 2025.
Goal: Buy 80% environmental preferable products from local sources by 2025.
Challenge: Fort Bragg maintains 161,597 acres of land for training. Of this, only 72,236 are unrestricted for use. How can Fort Bragg provide enough usable land for military training - and ensure that training is not further constrained by concerns over potential environmental contaimination and negative impacts on endangered species? How can Fort Bragg use its land requirements to address the effects of urban sprawl and regional needs for open space and biodiversity?
Goal: Educate 100% of personnel on environmental responsibilities, to cut enforcement actions to 0 by 2002.
Goal: Adopt compatible land use laws/regulations with local communities by 2005.
After the July meetings, there was an opportunity for the public to get involved in the process. State and federal regulatory agencies, as well as local community officies, were encouraged to share ideas and build partnerships as Fort Bragg works toward sustainability planning.
Contact: For more information, contact the FORSCOM Environmental Sustainability Planner at 910-396-3341, ext. 551.
Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source
At a recent Forum meeting, Don Schutz of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), discussed the role of nuclear power as a sustainable source of energy. The ANS makes the following points:
(1) Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases.
(2) Controlled fission of small amounts of uranium fuel can be used to generate large amounts of electricity without burning carbon-based fuel sources. The amount of fuel (mass and volume) required for nuclear power is significantly less than that required for a fossil-fueled plant. One ton of uranium produces as much energy as 17,000 tons of coal.
(3) Rather than disperse massive quantities of waste products over wide areas, as is the case with emissions from fossil fuel plants (sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, and toxic metals, such as arsenic and mercury contained in the fly ash), nuclear power plant operators are able to consolidate the waste and sequester it safely.
(4) Known fuel resources for nuclear power plants are estimated to provide for 250 years of consumption using current "once through" commerical reactor technology.
(5) Compared to other non-carbon-based and carbon-neutral energy options, nuclear power plants require far less land area
(6) For nuclear power, environmental costs are already internalized as a result of stringent regulations. Yet, nuclear power remains competitively priced.
(7) Potential environmental impacts from nuclear power operations are carefully controlled and regulated
(8) When evaluated in light of impact on climate, land use, waste disposal, fuel availability, safety (occupational, environmental and personal), internalized environmental costs, and technology transfer, nuclear power is an energy option that is itself sustainable and can help nations achieve widely held goals of sustainable development.
Contact: For further information, contact the American Nuclear Society (ANS), 555 North Kensington Avenue, LaGrange Park, IL 60526; tel: 708-352-6611; fax: 708-352-0499; e-mail: outreach@ans.org; website: www.ans.org
Briefing on Wind Power Held
A Congressional briefing on wind energy, a renewable and environmentally sustainable energy technology, was held in June, 2001by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI). This briefing provided information on wind energy technology, its benefits to the environment, the energy sector and the economy.
Wind is a clean energy source. It produces no polluting emissions or greenhouse gases and helps to reduce the threat of climate change. Wind power can be derived from utility-scale wind machines and small wind systems producing less than 100 kilowatts of generating capacity, which are better suited for residential and farm use. Improvements in turbine design have greatly decreased the amount of noise produced by wind turbines, and eliminated interference with radio and television signals.
Wind energy is one of the fastest growing energy technologies in the world, growing over 20 percent each year during the 1990s. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 3,800 megawatts (MW) of new utility-scale generating capacity were brought online throughout the world in 2000, representing annual sales of $4 billion and boosting total installed capacity to about 17, 300 MW. In 2001, the United States is expected to install several of the world's largest wind farms in Texas and Washington. AWEA anticipates that close to 2,000 new MW of wind energy will be added in the United States by the end of the year. By the beginning of 2002, American wind energy producers expect to be producing around 10 billion kilwatt-hours (kWh) of wind energy, enough energy to power one million average American homes.
The costs of wind energy are dropping and in some cases the cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of wind energy is becoming competitive with conventional energy sources. Costs for large wind projects at the best sites range from three to six cents per kilowatt, which includes the production tax credit. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost of wind energy has dropped by 85 percent during the last 20 years. Incentives can improve the economics of wind energy, such as the federal production tax credit which expires at the end of 2001, and net metering, which allows consumers in some states to sell energy they have privately generated back to their energy company. The production tax credit would be extended for the next five years under proposed legislation (H.R. 876). Other introduced legislation would extend and expand the availability of the production tax credit to other renewable energy sources.
The following points were noted at the briefing:
- California, Minnesota, Iowa, and Texas have the largest installed capacity for wind energy. North Dakota is the state with the highest potential for wind energy production, and with increased energy transmission and storage capability, North Dakota alone could provide nearly 33 percent of all U.S. energy needs.
- Wind energy has enormous potential to contribute to California's electricity supply. The wind potential in the seven-state region consisting of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada is enough to supply most of the electricity used by the entire United States, let alone California.
- Wind is also a large potential source of income for landowners in the United States. Dairy and crop farmers increase their profits by leasing their land to wind energy producers, which does not remove significant amounts of land from production.
Contact: For more information on wind power proposals, contact Beth Bleil of EESI; tel: 202-662-1885; e-mail: bbleil@eesi.org
Legislative Proposals on Renewable Energy Sources Discussed
A Congressional briefing on two federal legislative proposals, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the System Benefits Fund (SBF) was held by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) on September, 2001. These complimentary energy policies are designed to help level the energy playing field and encourage investments in new renewable energy resources, which, in turn, stabilize and diversify the nation's domestic clean energy resources, improve electricity reliability, decrease pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and promote rural economic development.
A Renewable Porfolio Standard requires retail electric suppliers to obtain a minimum percentage of their electricity from renewable energy resources. Tradable renewable energy credits can be utilized to all flexibility in fulfilling the RPS requirement. The Sustainable Energy Coalition, an alliance of more than 30 business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations, advocates a federal RPS that would provide for 10 percent renewable energy generation by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020.
Currently, 14 states have enacted a RPS or renewable "set asides." Each state's provisions are different, however, with varying renewable energy requirements, time frames and policy mechanisms. The Texas RPS contains capacity targets of 400 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy by 2003, 850 MW by 2005, 1400 MW by 2007, and 2,000 MW by 2009 and through 2019. Since Texas enacted its RPS, renewable energy development, particularly wind power, has taken off and it is expected that the RPS targets will be met years ahead of schedule. The Nevada RPS requires five percent of electricity generation be derived from renewable energy sources by 2003 and grows to 15 percent over 10 years by 2013. It is estimated that this law will stimuate $3 billion in new renewable energy investment in Nevada over the next ten years.
A System Benefits Fund is supported by a small wires charge (small fee per kilowatt hour of electricity) to consumers and invests those funds to help implement renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, as well as low-income energy assistance programs. As electricity markets deregulated across the United States, a number of states implemented Public Benefits programs, previously administered and funded by utilities, to ensure continued investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Federal SBF proposals vary in the size of the wires charge and whether the funds will be matched by states.
Currently, 15 states have System Benefits Funds, and similar to state RPS, they differ widely across the country. For example, New York's fund is entitled "New York Energy $mart" and is run by the NY State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). It provides a total of $234 million to support energy efficiency, low-income energy assistance and R&D for renewable energy and environmental research.
Contact: For more information about these two legislative proposals, contact Beth Bleil of EESI (tel: 202-662-1885; e-mail: bbleil@eesi.org)
Update on WFEO ComTech Activities
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) met in General Assembly in Moscow, September 10-15, 2001. Luther W. Graef, former President of ASCE and former Chair of AAES, was elected to the WFEO Executive Council.
WFEO's ComTech committee held its Annual Meeting on September 11, 2001. The Secretariat office of ComTech has been relocated to the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF). AAES has executed a subcontract to CERF to provide support to AAES in carrying out its obligations as the ComTech Secretariat.
At the ComTech meeting, James W. Poirot, President of ComTech for the last six years, retired. . Don Roberts of the US was approved to fulfill the two remaining years of office. Mr. Poirot was presented a framed certificate of appreciation from ComTech and was awarded a medal from WFEO during an awards banquet.
Joseph Delfino, ComTech's Regional Vice President for North America, reported on his attendance at the Stockholm Water Symposium in August, 2001. The theme of the Symposium was a "bridge building process" that was intended to link water science, practice, policy, decision making and citizen involvement. Reports were provided on the World Water Vision, now evolved to the next phase. The Vision process, a product of the World Water Council (WWC), with strong support from the Global Water Partnership and other water-related Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), was unveiled at The Hague. The Vision process is now manifested by the World Water Action process. The WWC has established a Water Action Unit in Marseille, France, and one of its goals is to maintain the momentum generated at The Hague and to prepare for "action" that is, to see that the "vision" becomes a reality during the next two years. It will make an initial report at the 3rd World Water Forum in 2003, which among several themes, will see discussion of the impact of climate change on water, food supplies, and the environment.
A recurring theme at the Stockholm Symposium was "who is going to finance water infrastructure for those in need of such development throughout the world? " While governments have been, and will continue to be important in providing basic funding, future water projects will need to involve "public-private partnerships," something that the World Water Council and WFEO/ComTech have been working on for the past few years.
Contact: Jane Moran Alspach, Managing Director, ComTech, c/o CERF, 2131 K Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20037-1810; (tel: 202-785-6459; fax: 202-833-2604; e-mail: jalspach@cerf.org)
AECP Promotes Energy Conservation
The Association of Energy Conservation Professionals (AECP) is a non-profit, membership-based organization dedicated to "providing, promoting, and advocating energy conservation." Billy Weitzenfeld, AECP's Executive Director, briefed the Forum at it's most recent meeting. He explained that AECP was formed in 1993, as a volunteer association, to advocate for the Virginia Weatherization Program in the areas of funding, training, and education.
AECP has expanded the scope of its original mission. While still advocating for the Weatherization Program, AECP is now very focused on providing educational opportunities to the general public concerning the importance of saving energy and how energy conservation practices can be incorporated into the home and business. AECP pursues this educational mission through the following avenues: the production and distribution of educational videos and cd-roms, a quarterly newsletter, an annual Energy Conservation Fair, legislative work on behalf of consumers, and sponsorign and conducting educational workshops and seminars on energy conservation, energy efficiency, green building, and renewable energy.
AECP believes very strongly that a better educated general populace is the key to a future where all people will be able to live in a clean, safe, and healthy environment. Learning how to practice energy conservation on a daily basis and take advantage of current energy efficient technology will enable homeowners and consumers to exercise the necessary stewardship and responsibility that will lower their energy bills, save natural resources, and help preserve the environment.
Contact: For further information, contact Billy Weitzenfeld, Executive Director, AECP, 209 Roanoke Street, Suite #9, Christiansburg, VA 24073; (tel: 540-382-3528; e-mail: aecp@swva.net; website: www.aecp.org.
Guide to Green Engineering of Chemical Processes Published
Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, is a newly published chemical engineer's guide to managing and minimizing environmental impact. The authors of the guide are David T. Allen, Reese Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and David R. Shonnard, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan Technological University.
First conceived by the staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Green Engineering draws on contributions from many leaders in the field, and introduces advanced risk-based techniques including some currently in use at the EPA. Coverage includes:
- Engineering chemical processes, products, and systems to reduce environmental impacts
- Approaches for evaluating emissions and hazards of chemicals and processes
- Defining effective environmental performance targets
- Advanced approaches and tools for evaluating environmental fate
- Early-stage design and development techniques that minimize costs and environmental impacts
- In-depth coverage of unit operation and flowsheet analysis
- The economics of environmental improvement projects
- Integration of chemical processes with other material processing operations
- Lifecycle assessments: beyond the boundaries of the plant
Contact: The guide is published by Prentice Hall, Ptr; tel: 1-800-382-3419; e-mail: corpsales@prenhall.com; website: www.phptr.com
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity - Revisited
Almost ten years ago, the following appeal was issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Over 1,500 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, signed the appeal. This appeal was designed to raise awareness of the effects humanity has on its environment and to challenge the world to utilize our natural resources in a more sustainable and responsible manner. It is reprinted here as a decade-long perspective on environmental concerns and sustainability:
Introduction
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at a serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
The Environment
The environment is suffering critical stress:
The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste - some of it toxic.
Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded - an area larger than India and China combined - and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain - with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe - but the potential risks are very great.
Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life - coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change - could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.
Uncertainty over the extend of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.Population
The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.
Pressure resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.
No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished."
