The essence of carbon offsets is for an individual to donate to clean energy technologies with money equivalent to his or her CO2 usage. It is an invisible, but valuable exchange. For instance, running an average American household for two months comes out to a ton of CO2 emission. This ton of personal pollution can, for example, be absolved by moving 145 SUV drivers to hybrids for one year.  By donating as little as $100 a year to clean energy initiatives, Clean Air-Cool Planet claims the average American household can become “carbon neutral,” that is, convert its carbon use into dollars that go to pay for positive, carbon-free change.

The carbon offset market is intent to point out that counterbalancing your carbon output is not “feel-good” environmentalism, and investors should use caution. Carbonfund.org notes that consumers must reduce their CO2 emissions as much as possible, but a total elimination of the individual carbon footprint is impossible. For the leftover carbon use we can’t erase, there’s offsetting. Yet within offsetting, there is yet to be implemented an across-the-board market standard, and this puts consumers at risk when buying such an invisible commodity. The standard of excellence to look for in choosing a method of offsetting is, for one, something called “additionality.” Additionality means that the company is using the donated money to promote clean energy that could not have been accomplished without the donation.

For instance, a one-way flight from Los Angeles to Boston equals $9.44 in calculated carbon use. To effectively offset this waste, a company should put that entire amount toward a project that would not have been possible otherwise: in this way the return is directly proportionate to the carbon emitted by the consumer. Furthermore, the David Suzuki Foundation points out that not all offsets are created equal. Tree planting, a popular offset choice due to its low cost, does not address the dependence on fossil fuels, has a slower return, and is not as effective as donating to a solar or wind initiative.

Clean Air-Cool Planet’s Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers suggests that once consumers have reduced their carbon output as much as possible they should then calculate their remaining carbon use. Carbonfund.org provides a nifty calculator to instantly figure the carbon used for flights, car trips, electricity use, and even events with out-of-town guests and hotel stays. Your total carbon use put into dollars can then be donated to one of their sponsored projects, all of which are third-party verified to ensure additionality as well as permanence. The list of projects, which includes wind and solar energy, methane landfills, and conservation, promises to use the offsets to promote sustainable, permanent energy efficiency rather than band-aide fixes.

Many organizations are catching onto this idea, particularly in the travel sector. EasyJetparticipates in a carbon offset program that allows you to pay a couple of extra dollars on top of the flight to offset your airborne carbon use. Sustainable Travel International advocates travelers to offset their CO2, part of a trend in the responsible travel sector that goes beyond the now-standard eco-vacation. Carbon offsets may appear, to the weary environmentalist, to be yet another gimmick aimed at our consciences. It is not without its criticism: for instance, planting a tree in an unnatural climate with a credit card does perhaps worse for the climate crisis. By investing wisely and cutting all-around carbon emissions, however, the offsetter can feel safe in his or her decision.

Carbonfund.org makes it easy to offset in a safe way, but for buyers seeking to invest elsewhere, the Consumer’s Guide provides the buyer with stringent guidelines on how to be sure the offset is indeed offsetting as efficiently as possible. Buyers are advised to ask the provider about their dedication to additionality, transparency, permanence, and education. Once a provider is carefully chosen, the buyer should be sure to communicate with transparency about his or her carbon footprint and to watch his or her investment over time, as the provider and the carbon market change over time. (Source:http://www.theclimategroup.org/news_and_events/top_ten_tips_for_purchasing_carbon_offsets/)

So this Christmas, go to Carbonfund.org and purchase carbon offset gift cards for your friends and family. Time will tell if it will become all the rage in charitable giving. Lowering carbon emissions generated over the holiday season is a challenge, and stuffing stockings with a bunch of nothing is in some ways worse than coal.

The transmission aspect of energy needs a thorough analysis of some of the fundamental aspects of energy generation. Renewable energy differs significantly from conventional fossil fuel power in a number of ways. Fossil fuels are in effect energy stockpiles (i.e. they contain energy that has been amassed over millions of years).  Such stockpiles provide high flexibility and the freedom to time the conversion process and place of conversion. In other words it is possible to have a power station and thus a corresponding power grid in the middle of nowhere provided there are associated benefits.

Renewable energy, particularly solar and wind are not conventional stockpiles. Solar energy is periodic, variable but consistently available over a period of time and is virtually inexhaustible. The same could be said for wind with much less consistency. The process of energy conversion, in the case of renewable sources is thus, a dynamic energy conversion process as opposed to a static stockpile conversion in the case of fossil fuels.  It’s not possible to have a wind or solar farm anywhere you want, so the creation of a successful grid for transmission of renewable power would need a paradigm shift in process planning.

Specifically, this process needs a focus on energy capture, storage and monitoring of the energy generation process. Since renewable energy is dynamic, research into the domains of weather forecasting and impact of geography on energy output would be critical in predicting the associated energy output over an extended period of time.  Finally, integration of disperse power sources into a central grid would pose a critical challenge because existing grid mechanisms that have been in place for decades would need an upgrade.  For instance the European Grid was installed in the 1950s and was not designed for two way traffic or specifically to take input form numerous dispersed sources.

A popular grid management process is the vehicle to grid (V2G), process. This technology allows for a method of integration of electric vehicles and plug in hybrids to the existing power grid. Essentially it allows for flow of electricity from car’s battery to power lines and vice versa. In a V2G mode, the car battery charge increases or decreases depending on the grids energy demand. Thus the battery acts as a “sponge “and provides an alternative to reduce utilities expense on generating stations for balancing the grid. Additionally the V2G technology allows for charging of the battery as well.

University of Delaware is investigating V2G concepts that would allow for mass adoption of the technology. Willett Kempton, UD associate professor of marine policy and a V2G pioneer says “A car sitting there with a tank of gasoline in it, that’s useless. If it’s a battery storing a lot of electricity and a big plug that allows moving power back and forth quickly, then it’s valuable.” And exactly how valuable is it ? Well it takes utilities an estimated $4000 an year to maintain grid balance. Utilizing car batteries, for grid management would mean saving on this expense partly and thus a fraction of the saving could be given to the car owner.

So in essence, if you have an electric car, you could get paid for charging its batteries!  It’s not without some challenges though. The biggest is having an efficient battery technology for electric cars. Additionally, integration of several localized batteries into a grid would be a huge process, the reliability of which is unclear.

There have been developments towards achieving a smart grid.  GridPoint , a leading clean tech company is engaged in providing smart grid platforms to optimize grid management. The platform offered by GridPoint leverages IT to provide utilities an efficient network of distributed energy sources. Additionally some countries are also progressing towards adoption of smart meters.  Countries such as Italy and Sweden anticipate a full installation of smart meters by year 2009.  This technology is also being introduced on a large scale in Denmark, Finland and Austria.

The future of smart grids would largely be IT driven. A smart grid would essentially allow for a dynamic two way interaction between power consumers and generators. The grid would also assimilate information regarding anticipated power generation as a function of local weather conditions and leverage heavily on the power of internet in the coming decade.

High oil prices and increased demand for energy across the globe has pushed research in the alternate fuel segment.  Biofuels are seen as an attractive, eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels. However, the availability of appropriate raw material and an inexpensive processing technology is critical for widespread adoption of biofuels.

Ethanol, a major biofuel is predominantly produced using crops such as corn and soy. US, in its bid to be energy sufficient has announced massive ethanol subsidies and diverted tonnes of corn and soy for biofuel production. Utilization of food grains for energy development has received a lot of criticism from different quarters. Experts highlight that  the quantity of corn/soy burnt by automobiles in the US is sufficient to cover the import need for a significant number of food deficit countries.

Now it seems that the lowly pond scum (algae) may be the answer to the food vs. fuel debate. The science behind the use of algae for biofuel production is simple. Algae requires water, sunlight and carbon dioxide to grow. Once fully-grown these can be harvested and processed to produce biofuel. Their growth rates are tremendous and some strains of algae almost quadruple the quantity of biomass in a single day.  Experts believe that an acre of algae may provide nearly 500 gallons of biofuel/year as compared to 70 gallons/year from an acre of soy or corn.

A host of enterprises such as GreenFuel Technologies, Solix Biofuels and Live fuels are currently researching efficient and economical methods for algae cultivation and harvesting. Solix Biofuels, based in Fort Collins was started in 2006. It is funded by private equity and has raised nearly $ 5 million. CEO Doug Henston said that Solix is further targeting $ 10 million in the first half of 2008. In addition, Solix is also aiming to develop a research proposal for Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for advanced algae-to-fuel conversion technology by November 2008.

Algae cultivation for fuel production is akin to killing two birds with one stone. The process of algae growth absorbs carbon dioxide from the environment and the processing of algae in turn leads to clean fuel.  Solix in fact is planning a research project near New Belgium Brewing Co. Inc. in Fort Collins that will use carbon dioxide from the brewery for algae cultivation. Hence, the entire production cycle leads to an overall reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and may lead to a significant reduction in global warming. John Sheehan, an energy analyst with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) also highlights that algae can grow well in brackish water .Thus algae can proliferate in areas having highly saline groundwater, which are unsuitable for other forms of agriculture. Algae holds enormous potential to provide an answer to the worlds growing energy needs by providing an abundant, carbon neutral fuel source.