the 'we see green' blog of Barber & Barber Associates

How To: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook Part 5

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:30:00 +0000

Since this session relies heavily on customizing appointment forms in Outlook, we figure it's worth while giving a refresher course on forms (just in case some of y'all out there aren't really sure what an appointment form in Outlook really is anyway).

The window shown here is the standard appointment form in Outlook 2007. It's really pretty basic: it shows the Subject, Location, Start time and End Time (the data fields) of the appointment; all of the information you need to define the basics of an appointment. Once you've entered data into some or all of these fields, a simple click of "Save & Close" will save the appointment in your calendar and close the window (duh).

Appointments can be a little more complicated than this if they are recurring (regularly repeating) appointments. Let's say you go to church every Sunday and you want to see that on your Outlook calendar. This is a simple example of a recurring task; but how do you make a task recurring, you might ask?

Simply click on the Recurrence button in the "ribbon" menu on the top of the Appointment window (somewhat near the middle horizontally).

You'll then be shown the Appointment Recurrence window, which allows you to define how frequently and how long the appointment will recur (repeat). In this scenario, you'd be planning to go to church from 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM on a Weekly basis every 1 week on Sundays, beginning on July 20th of 2008 and continuing forever.

If you wanted to only go ever other week, you'd simply change the recurrence pattern to "Recur every 2 week(s) on: Sunday." Similarly, if you wanted to only go once a month for ten months in a row, you could add that condition by clicking on Monthly and selecting "End after: 10 occurences."

Once you've selected your recurrence pattern, click "OK" to close the Appointment Recurrence window and return to the Appointment form.

Notice now that the Start time and End time fields are gone and have ben replaced with the Recurrence pattern information. If you want to change the start time or end time, you must again click on the Recurrence button and change the information in the Appointment Recurrence window.

Click "Save & Close" and you'll see your recurring church appointment on your calendar.

But what if you want to go to church Saturday night this week, but you still want to go on Sundays ever other week. To change that, simply drag that appointment from a Sunday to the prior Saturday. Outlook will have a coniption fit and ask you if you only want to change this occurence. Click Yes; you plan to continue going to church on Sundays most weeks.

If however you want to change to Saturdays from here on out, you'll need to double-click on the appointment in your calendar. Outlook will tell you the appointment is recuring and ask you if you want to "Open this occurence." or "Open the series." If you want to change all future appointments, you'll want to "Open the series" and change the recurrence.

So that's about it for the standard Appointment form. Hopefully you can appreciate how even a standard appointment form could be used to track recurring compliance tasks. By customizing the form, we can keep tabs on a lot more compliance information. We'll go over the basics of this next time.

P.S. The standard Task form in Outlook can keep track of recurring tasks too, but we feel that customizing the Appointment task is better. Here's why: with recurring Outlook Tasks, only the next scheduled task appears in the calendar. With recurring Outlook Appointments, all scheduled appointments appear in the calendar. If I have a task that occurs every month, to do a good job of scheduling I want to see it on my calendar every month, not just this month, even if I haven't completed the task yet this month.

Thanks for reading. Join us next time as we discuss setting up new calendars to track compliance tasks and keep them separate from your personal calendar.

How To: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:30:00 +0000

Last time we showed you that in order to have a good compliance system in the end, you must make good compliance decisions from the start. We then said that deciding which compliance information to collect and track is one of the first and most important compliance decisions you'll need to make. Lastly we promised that we'd provide an example of the data to collect from an actual industry example. Well, it's time to make good on that promise.

One of the largest industries we serve is the Solid Waste Management industry. This industry spans collections, hauling, transfer stations, recycling facilities and, of course, all types of landfills. As you can imagine, the Solid Waste Management industry has a diverse and complicated mixture of compliance issues to keep tabs on. Not only is every organization regulated by the EPA and other federal agencies, each state and local municipality has a say in what a solid waste facility should and shouldn't do. Solid waste facility managers surely have an intricate web of compliance tasks to manage.

Having successfully implemented our PRECEPT (formerly B2C) compliance solution at several dozen landfills across the nation, and considering the praise we've received from landfill managers who use the system, we're confident that we know what data is necessary to properly track compliance tasks for solid waste facilities. Consequently, the list below is an industry proven list of the data we collect to track compliance tasks, but it is really only suitable to the Solid Waste Management industry. The required data for your industry may well be very similar, or maybe even identical, but that will be up to you to carefully think through and decide.

Information to track for each compliance task

for the Solid Waste Management Industry

Unique task identifier
Task name
Task description
Applicable facilities
Due date & time
Start date
Assigned personnel
Recurrence frequency
Completed? or % Complete
Status
Reminder date & time
Governing regulatory agency or agencies
Source document references, with page and section references
Document links or embedded pdf pages from actual permits
Task ID markers in pdf documents to indicate source text in permits
Highlighted text in pdf documents to show task source text in permits
Source document revision number and date of issue
Source document most current revision?
Source document precedence order

As you can see, this list isn't terribly long, but when you need to track each of these datum points for each and every task, your compliance task system database can quickly become quite large. What's worse is trying to ensure that the data for each compoiance task is unique, correct and applicable to that particular task. All too often tasks are duplicated or deleted inadvertantly, which causes compliance tasks to become distorted or lost in the shuffle. This just further proves that a good comliance platform prescribes patience and perseverence to perform properly!

For further 'p' alliteration fun, try: "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers."

However, under NO circumstances should you try saying: "She slit the sheet, the sheet she slit, upon the slitted sheet she sits" (especially when in mixed company!)

That's it for now. Join us Monday as we start converting the above data list into a Calendar item form in Microsoft Outlook.

How To: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:00:00 +0000

After you've decided which version of Outlook to use which internal method you'll use in Outlook to achieve compliance, you'll now need to make some more decisions. Yeah, we know: decisions, decisions, decisions! Well, you could have just slapped something together in Excel, but we all know that taking the time up front to make the right choices and put together a good system is well worth it in the end. Remember GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

From here on out, we're going to assume that you're going to go with our recommendation to use calendar/appointment items in Outlook to track compliance tasks. We could assume that you don't like our recommendation, but that would be silly since you're at least still reading this, which means you put some stock in what we say.

Regardless, here are the next decisions you'll need to make:

Decide which complaince data you want to track
Identify which data Outlook appointment items already track
Decide which data from Outlook task items you'd like the appointment item to track
Decide if you'd like to make some more decisions

Once you've got these down, we can actually start building custom forms to track your customized data. However, selecting the appropriate data fields can be one of the most daunting steps of this process because if you aren't tracking the right data, your compliance system won't be all that it should be.

Because this is such an important step, we're going to come back to this next time. Join us on Thursday for Part 4 of How To: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook, where we'll provide an example of the data to collect from an actual industry example.

San Antonio Clean Technology Nuclear Forum

noreply@blogger.com (Jon Pyle) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:26:00 +0000

Yesterday at Pearl Stable The San Antonio Clean Technology Forum (SACTF) hosted a discussion about the future of energy in the city, focusing specifically on the nuclear power investment decision. The event was distinctly non-partisan, which was clearly the aim of the SACTF, a non-profit focused on economic development through efficient and alternative energy. They were able to bring together a variety of speakers with varying opinions to educate the capacity crowd on CPS' potential investment in a new nuclear facility.

The speakers were Dr. Patrick Moore, Craig Severance, Dr. Arjun Makhijani and CPS Interim General Manager Steve Bartley. Bob Rivard, Editor of the San Antonio Express News, moderated the event with a gravitas that kept the proceedings focused. I cannot understate the value of his fantastic work. Mayor Julian Castro was present as well, demonstrating the underlying importance of the issue. While the speakers disagreed on even the most fundamental of issues, namely energy demand, projected cost and method of analysis, the insight they provided was invaluable to inform the opinions from attendees. Unlike a good deal of national political discourse from both sides of the aisle, the Nuclear Forum was deep, substantive and avoided petty squabbling. I imagine that everyone in attendance learned something valuable about both nuclear power and alternative energy, not to mention the circumstances that color CPS' investment decision.

If you'd like to watch the event please head over to NowCastSA, who will be posting their video shortly.

Picture by Nan Palmero via Twitter (@nanpalmero)

How To: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:45:00 +0000

Now that you have a fully licensed version of Microsoft Outlook running on your computer, it's time to choose which of Outlook's internal methods to use to track your compliance tasks. You essentially have three basic flavors to choose from:

First, you can track compliance tasks using, well, the Tasks feature in Outlook. Duh. This makes a lot of sense because the most of features you'll want for tracking compliance tasks are included in the default Task forms and data in Outlook. However, the Task feature in Outlook falls short on a couple of fronts. Primarily, though tasks may be set to recur in the future, tasks don't show up on your calendar unless you've completed each and every previous instance of that task. For example, if you have a personal task to wash your dogs the first Saturday of every month, and you forgot to wash them last month, Outlook won't tell you to wash them this month. In fact, to get Outlook to tell you to wash the dogs this month you have to mark last month's task as complete (which is a lie) or reset the task entirely (a giant PITA). Both of these workarounds stink for task management.
Another option is to use Appointment or Calendar items to track your tasks. The problem with this option is that you need to do a bit more dinking around to add several custom fields to duplicate those found in Outlook Tasks, but getting recurring tasks to appear in the future is much more intuitive. The biggest downside here is all the extra custom fields you need to add to make Calendar items work to track compliance tasks. However, once you get it all together and up and running, you'll probably appreciate the better functionality that using Calendar items provide.
Your last option is to create custom forms via an add-in using something like Visual Studio. This is the most powerful and flexible way to create task items in Outlook, but it is also the most complicated and time consuming. Just like it's easier to bake a Devi's Food cake from a pre-made cake mix, it's also easier to create a compliance system in Outlook from a pre-made task or appointment form (you were wondering about the cake mix box above, and now you know)!

There's a lot more to talk about from here, like custom fields (whatever those are) and using the forms designer. We're not going to go into all that quite yet, but if you want to get a jump-start on what we'll be talking about soon, check out this msexchange.org tutorial, or this other microsoft.com tutorial. For more about working with forms in Outlook, and to learn about the Forms Administrtor Utility, give this Microsoft KB article a read.

That's it for today. Tune in Thursday for Part 3 of How To: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook!

How To: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:00:00 +0000

First things first: if you're going to use Microsoft Outlook to achieve compliance, you're going to need to purchase a copy of Microsoft Outlook. Look, we know you don't want to spend anything at all on this compliance system, but you gotta get a legal copy of Outlook. Do you really want to start your compliance efforts by breaking the law?

So which version of Microsoft Outlook do you need? Well, honestly Microsoft Outlook 2007 is far and away the best, but anything beyond Outlook 2000 will do. Really what you need is the ability to create and customize task forms. What's a task form you ask? Doesn't matter right now. Just know that Outlook 2007 is much better than Outlook 2003 is slightly better than Outlook XP is much much better than Outlook 2000. Of course, this had better be the case or why did we give Microsoft so much money over the years ...

So the long and short of this post is that we recommend Outlook 2007. There is so much about 2007 that is better than 2003 that it is easy to recommend it; so much so, in fact, that we won't go into it all here. However, one feature we will note here is that Outlook 2007 works much better with SharePoint. What's SharePoint, you ask? Hey, we'll get to it ... I thought you learned to stop asking those questions! To wrap up, if you can part with a little money and you want the best compliance system platform, go buy Microsoft Outlook 2007. If instead you have an older version of Outlook, you'll be just fine, but it'll be harder for you to follow along since this How To series will use Outlook 2007 methods and screenshots. That's it for today. Tune in next Monday for Part 2 of How To: Achieve Compliance wiht Microsoft Outlook!

Spilling the Beans

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000

Over the next couple of weeks, we're going to spill the beans: we're going to give you an inside look at how to create your own compliance tracking solution based on Microsoft Outlook.

"So what," you say. Well, if you hadn't noticed, our PRECEPT compliance tracking solution is based on Microsoft Outlook. So essentially, we'll be giving our compliance trackign solution away for free! Yikes!

"Well that sounds pretty dumb," you must be thinking. "Why would you give that away for free?"

So if you're wondering that, or even if you weren't, here's why we're spilling the beans:

If you thought long and hard enough, you could probably figure all this out on your own anyway
You'll get an exhaustive and insightful look at our PRECEPT compliance tracking solution and what it can do.
You'll see that our PRECEPT solution is more convenient than other solutions because it uses Microsoft Outlook (something you probably use already anyway).
You'll realize all the work that goes into creating and maintaining a state-of-the-art compliance tracking solution.
You'll figure out that "Holy cow, it would take me months to get a system like this working properly for my facility."
Next, you'll realize that we can do it faster and cheaper than you can, which means that if you ask us to do it, we'll save you a boat-load of time and money.
Someone out there has plenty of time and zero cash, but still needs a compliance system. God bless the interwebs.

So over the next couple weeks, tune in for our new blog series - "How to: Achieve Compliance with Microsoft Outlook!"

SEatWtC Part 25: Conclusion

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Diplomacy?

Conclusion

In the end, it will come down to technology, fairness and diplomacy. If we can develop the technology to harness and store the sun’s energy more efficiently and cheaply, there won’t be any significant strife over buried energy supplies. However, if we cannot develop such technology in a timely manner, the best solution will likely be a fair solution. Is it fair to say that the U.S. has more right to oil than other countries? Is it fair for developing nations to get to use more energy than advanced nations simply because they aren’t advanced yet? Is it fair for advanced nations to produce goods in lesser developed nations and thereby pollute those nations? These are difficult questions that will take years of dialogue and diplomacy to iron out. Regardless, we as a world will somehow need to learn to work together. Businesses can be a key player in all this because energy costs affect them directly and as businesses prosper, so do nations.

The world’s populations aren’t going anywhere, and these problems will only become worse until we unite and develop a vision for the future that is bright for all.

This is the end of this series. Thanks for reading!

SEatWtC Part 24: Tomorrow’s Global Balance of Power

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Countries by CO2 Emissions
*Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons*

Tomorrow’s Global Balance of Power

Today, the United States is the world leader in terms of influence in the global economy but that may not always be the case. If carbon dioxide emissions are any indicator of industrial economic activity and the need for energy in the future, the U.S. will be contending with China, Russia, India for the world’s energy resources.

Currently, North America enjoys the largest consumption of crude oil per capita. Russia, India and China do not use nearly the crude oil per capita that we do in the United States, Canada and certain parts of Europe. However, the pure vastness of the populations of China, India and Russia show that compared to the overall carbon dioxide emissions already in these three countries, if the economic growth continues and their oil consumption per capita meets that of North America, China, India and Russia will consume vastly more oil than we currently do. If oil supplies are decreasing and economic activity is only increasing, does this mean there will be strife over who gets the remaining oil? That could be the case, but it doesn’t have to be. Since all energy comes from the sun, we should turn to it for our energy in the long run.

Oil Consumption per Capita
(Darker colors represent more consumption)
*Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons*

This table orders the amount of petroleum consumed in 2006 in thousand barrels (bbl) per day and in thousand cubic meters (m3) per day:

Consuming Nation 2006	bbl/day x 1,000	m3/day x 1,000	Population x 1,000,000	bbl/year per capita
United States	20,687.42	3,289.0	304	24.8
China	7,201.28	1,144.9	1369	1.9
Japan	5,197.70	826.4	128	14.8
Russia	2,810.76	446.9	142	7.2
Germany	2,691.81	428.0	82	12
India	2,571.90	408.9	1201	0.8
Canada	2,296.66	365.1	32	26.5
Brazil	2,216.84	352.4	187	4.3
South Korea	2,179.90	346.6	49	16.3
Saudi Arabia	2,139.42	340.1	27	28.9
Mexico	2,077.51	330.3	107	7.1
France	1,981.18	315.0	61	11.9
United Kingdom	1,812.01	288.1	61	10.9
Italy	1,742.58	277.0	58	10.9
Iran	1,679.20	267.0	68	8.9

Source: US Energy Information Administration

The other side of the coin is the production of Crude Oil. Those that currently produce a lot of crude will find that they will not enjoy the power and influence they currently have. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Dubai, who currently have power because of their oil reserves, are now building tourist attractions, such as Dubai’s palm tree shaped harbors, that will help supplement their export incomes in the future. As mentioned earlier, countries like the United States who have held back on producing oil will find that they will have more leverage in the future.

Oil Exports by Country
*Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons*

Tune in Friday for the Conclusion of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 23: Reducing Our Carbon Footprint

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Carbon Footprint
*Image courtesy of Nature's Crusaders*

Reducing Our Carbon Footprint

According to online sources, “Being carbon neutral, or having a zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset. The carbon neutral concept may be extended to include other greenhouse gases (GHG) measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence -- the impact a GHG has on the atmosphere expressed in the equivalent amount of CO2 . The term climate neutral is used to reflect the fact that it is not just carbon dioxide (CO2), that is driving climate change, even if it is the most abundant, but also encompasses other greenhouse gases regulated by the Kyoto Protocol, namely: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Both terms are used interchangeably throughout this article.

Best practice for organizations and individuals seeking carbon neutral status entails reducing and/or avoiding carbon emissions first so that only unavoidable emissions are offset. The term has two common uses:

It can refer to the practice of balancing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, with renewable energy that creates a similar amount of useful energy, so that the carbon emissions are compensated, or alternatively using only renewable energies that don't produce any carbon dioxide (this last is called a post-carbon economy).

It is also used to describe the practice, criticized by some, of carbon offsetting, by paying others to remove or sequester 100% of the carbon dioxide emitted from the atmosphere– for example by planting trees – or by funding 'carbon projects' that should lead to the prevention of future greenhouse gas emissions, or by buying carbon credits to remove (or 'retire') them through carbon trading. These practices are often used in parallel, together with energy conservation measures to minimize energy use.” [17]

References

[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutral

Tune in Wednesday for Part 24 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 22: Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the Northern Hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.
*Image courtesy of Wikipedia*

Global Warming

According to online resources, “The causes of the recent warming are an active field of research. The scientific consensus is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era, and the observed warming cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural causes alone. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, being the period most of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations took place and for which the most complete measurements exist.

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of particular greenhouse gases.

Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the Northern Hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable. On Earth the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.

Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the atmospheric concentration of various greenhouse gases, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last seen approximately 20 million years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced approximately three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.

CO2 concentrations are expected to continue to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.” [16]

Yet no matter what the cause of global warming, the cause is of little importance if we cannot stop the effects. Some purport that reducing our carbon output is the best path forward. Though this is unlikely to actually do anything to reduce global warming, it is still the most popular path forward for now. Since this is the case, we’ve also included some of the recent thoughts on reducing our carbon footprint.

References

[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Tune in Monday for Part 23 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 21: Nuclear

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

South Texas Project Nuclear Plant
*Image from Getty Images*

Nuclear

According to online sources, “Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. The most common method today is through nuclear fission, though other methods include nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. All utility-scale reactors heat water to produce steam, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power.”[15]

The two biggest issues with nuclear energy are safety and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. No one wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have shown what dangers lay there. Nuclear energy has become much safer over the years to the point where portable nuclear reactors the size of shipping containers were featured on CNN as a potential temporary source of energy for developing nations. Nuclear energy is clean, in that there are no emissions into the atmosphere in the generation of nuclear power. However, nuclear plants are not entirely carbon emission free, as significant CO2 is emitted during the construction of the reactors and supporting plant. Also, while nuclear waste cannot really be considered as an 'emission', it is very dangerous stuff and great care must be taken to properly dispose of it. Other options inlcude reprocessing the waste, but no one in the US currently does this.

References

[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Tune in Friday for Part 22 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 20: Biomass

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Biomass = Plants
*Image courtesy of Independent Green Voice*

Biomass

According to online sources, “Biomass, as a renewable energy source, refers to living and recently dead biological material that can be used as fuel or for industrial production. In this context, biomass refers to plant matter grown to generate electricity or produce biofuel, and it also includes plant or animal matter used for production of fibers, chemicals or heat. Biomass may also include biodegradable wastes that can be burnt as fuel. It excludes organic material which has been transformed by geological processes into substances such as coal or petroleum.”[14]

Biomass is an attractive source of energy because it renewable and there is only one generation removed between the sun and the use of biomass as energy. The problem with biomass is that it is plants, and plants are what feed humans. Any use of biomass to create electricity or transportation fuels reduces the availability of biomass to feed humans and the animals that humans consume. For example, ethanol from corn is a biomass fuel, but with the mandate that more ethanol from corn should be produced in the U.S., prices for corn have skyrocketed. Therefore biomass may not be the best selection for an economically viable renewable energy source.

References

[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass

Tune in Wednesday for Part 21 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 19: Geothermal

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant in Þingvellir, Iceland
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Geothermal

According to online sources, “Geothermal power (from the Greek roots geo, meaning earth, and therme, meaning heat) is energy generated by heat stored in the earth, or the collection of absorbed heat derived from underground, in the atmosphere and oceans. Prince Piero Ginori Conti tested the first geothermal generator on 4 July 1904, at the Larderello dry steam field in Italy. The largest group of geothermal power plants in the world is located in The Geysers, a geothermal field in California. As of 2008, geothermal power supplies less than 1% of the world's energy.”[13]

The difficulty with geothermal energy is two-fold. First, it can only be harnessed at certain locations on Earth. Second, it takes a significant investment to convert thermal energy into electricity, though no more so than hydropower or some of the more complicated contemporary power plants.

References

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

Tune in Monday for Part 20 of SEatWtC!

Summer Break is Over

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Well, we're finally back at it. We didn't tell y'all, but we took a break from posting to the blog for the summer. As we're sure is true for many of you, consistency in the summer is tough enough, but it's made even more difficult when you're chasing down several large projects. We're a business, after all, and the long and short of it is that generating new work is always more important than posting to blogs, no matter how fun blogging can be. So as school starts for many kids around the country (and world) we'll be continuing on with the series we were working on last May: Sustainable Energy and the World to Come (SEatWtC). We hope you enjoy our take on sustainable energy, and its implications in our world; we think it's an important topic for our world community to take seriously. So sit back, relax, and let us know what you think as we wrap up this series over the next few weeks!

SEatWtC Part 18: Solar, Wind and Hydropower

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Solar Land Area
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Solar, Wind and Hydropower

According to online sources, “Solar energy is the light and radiant heat from the Sun that influences Earth's climate and weather and sustains life. Solar power is sometimes used as a synonym for solar energy or more specifically to refer to electricity generated from solar radiation. Since ancient times solar energy has been harnessed by humans using a range of technologies. Solar radiation along with secondary solar resources such as wind and wave power, hydroelectricity and biomass account for most of the available renewable energy on Earth.

Solar energy refers primarily to the use of solar radiation for practical ends. All other renewable energies other than geothermal derive their energy from energy received from the sun.

Solar technologies are broadly characterized as either passive or active depending on the way they capture, convert and distribute sunlight. Active solar techniques use photovoltaic panels, pumps, and fans to convert sunlight into useful outputs. Passive solar techniques include selecting materials with favorable thermal properties, designing spaces that naturally circulate air, and referencing the position of a building to the Sun. Active solar technologies increase the supply of energy and are considered supply side technologies, while passive solar technologies reduce the need for alternate resources and are generally considered demand side technologies.”

Yearly Solar Fluxes & Human Energy Consumption
Solar	3,850,000 EJ
Wind	2,250 EJ
Biomass	3,000 EJ
Electricity (2005)	56.7 EJ
Primary energy use (2005)	487 EJ

(1 Exajoule (EJ) = 1x10^18 joules, a unit of energy)

The difficulty with solar power is that it is an intermittent supply of energy: every night the energy supply goes to bed. That is where wind and hydropower come into play. Also, for now, direct conversion of solar energy to electricity is not terribly efficient. Strides are being made every year to improve the efficiencies, but we’re not there yet. The benefits of solar power, however, are great. The distributive nature of solar power helps reduce the need for extensive and complex electrical distribution networks. It also reduces the demand on power plants during the daytime when power plants experience their peak demands.

References

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

Tune in Monday for Part 19 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 17: Natural Gas

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Natural Gas Production by Country
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Natural Gas

Natural gas is a colorless, odorless, organic fuel that occurs naturally underground (hence the term, ‘natural’ gas). According to online sources, “natural gas is commercially produced from oil fields and natural gas fields. Gas produced from oil wells is called casinghead gas or associated gas. The natural gas industry is producing gas from increasingly more challenging resource types: sour gas, tight gas, shale gas and coalbed methane.

The world's largest gas field by far is Qatar's offshore North Field, estimated to have 25 trillion cubic metres (9.0×1014 cu ft) of gas in place—enough to last more than 200 years at optimum production levels. The second largest natural gas field is the South Pars Gas Field in Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. Connected to Qatar's North Field, it has estimated reserves of 8 to 14 trillion cubic metres (2.8×1014 to 5.0×1014 cu ft) of gas.” [11]

Natural gas has several immediate benefits. First, the infrastructure for natural gas is already in place. Developed countries could begin using natural gas as a transportation fuel in a matter of a couple years. Secondly, natural gas burns more efficiently and cleaner than petroleum products. Lastly, the ratio combustion byproducts from natural gas are better than for petroleum. For all combustion reactions, the products of combustion are H2O and CO2. For gasoline, the ratio of H2O to CO2 is about 1:1. For Natural gas, the ratio of H2O to CO2 is about 2:1. For every covalent bond broken to produce energy, the amount of CO2 is essentially cut in half.

Natural gas will eventually suffer the same peak problem as crude is now. Peak Gas is the analogous problem to Peak Oil, and has the same causes and effects. However, it is estimated that the reserves of Natural Gas in worldwide are much larger than the reserves of crude oil.

References

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

Tune in tomorrow for Part 18 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 16: Peak Oil

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Annual U.S. Crude Oil Field Production
*Image courtesy of ASPO-USA*

Peak Oil

According to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO-USA), “Very simply, Peak Oil describes the point in time when oil production in an area—an oil field, a state, a nation, or the world—reaches maximum production. Graphically represented, after reaching the top of a roughly bell-shaped curve, oil production may flatten out for a few years but then it will inevitably decline. Historical proof of Peak Oil is demonstrated by the work of M. King Hubbert, who, in 1956, correctly predicted that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.

A growing number of very credible industry participants and analysts believe that we are now at or near the top of the curve of global oil production.

Peak Oil is not about “running out” of oil, but the curve does illustrate the quantity and pace at which humanity has extracted and used oil. With a rising world population, and large developing countries like China and India experiencing rapid growth, between 2005 and July of 2008 demand was gradually outstripping supply. During the second half of 2008, high oil prices plus financial turmoil and the economic slump actually reduced demand for oil, thus prices crashed. But the reprieve will only be temporary because more oil is being consumed than found; despite the latest technology, few major oil fields have been discovered since the mid-1970s.” [10]

The Peak Oil theory has therefore been around for a long enough time that perhaps we should have been looking for better alternatives to oil sooner. The problem seems to be that oil is such a cheap (relatively) source of energy, and it has made so many people rich, that it is hard to separate ourselves from it. One alternative that we can begin looking at sooner than other sources is natural gas.

References

[10] http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/peak-oil/

Tune in tomorrow for Part 17 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 15: Crude Oil

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Oil Producing Countries
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Crude Oil

According to online sources, crude oil (petroleum) “is found in porous rock formations in the upper strata of some areas of the Earth's crust. There is also petroleum in oil sands (tar sands). Known reserves of petroleum are typically estimated at around 190 km3 (1.2 trillion (short scale) barrels) without oil sands, or 595 km3 (3.74 trillion barrels) with oil sands. Consumption is currently around 84 million barrels (13.4×106 m3) per day, or 4.9 km3 per year. Because the energy return over energy invested (EROEI) ratio of oil is constantly falling (due to physical phenomena such as residual oil saturation, and the economic factor of rising marginal extraction costs), recoverable oil reserves are significantly less than total oil in place. At current consumption levels, and assuming that oil will be consumed only from reservoirs, known recoverable reserves would be gone around 2039, potentially leading to a global energy crisis. However, there are factors which may extend or reduce this estimate, including the rapidly increasing demand for petroleum in China, India, and other developing nations; new discoveries; energy conservation and use of alternative energy sources; and new economically viable exploitation of non-conventional oil sources.” [9]

So the biggest issue with crude oil is that it seems it will run out. There are some opinions floating around out there that suggest that crude oil may be more renewable than we think, but even if crude oil is renewable, if we’re consuming it faster than it is being renewed then we will still run out. What’s even more concerning is that based on the Peak Oil theory, it looks like we may be running out of oil sooner than later.

References

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_oil

Tune in tomorrow for Part 16 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 14: Energy Types and Sources

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:30:00 +0000

Future Energy Sources
*Image © 2007 by Aleksandar Rodic*

Energy Types and Sources

All global sources of energy except two can be derived from a single energy supply: the sun. The only two energy supplies that don’t receive their energy content from the sun, either directly or indirectly, are geothermal and nuclear energy. Solar power is the only energy supply that receives its energy content directly from the sun, but all others receive their energy from the sun indirectly. Crude oil is simply plant and animal matter that has decayed, compressed and stored for a very long time. Since plants get their energy from the sun, and since animals get their energy from plants and other animals, the initial source of energy in crude oil is the sun. The same argument is made for Natural Gas or any other organic combustion fuel. Even hydrogen, which is not organic, has to be created from either organic fuels or from water. Even wind and hydropower ultimately get their energy from the sun. Wind gets its energy from pressure gradients in the atmosphere caused by heating and cooling cycles that are caused by: the sun. Hydropower produces energy by capturing the potential energy of water at one elevation as it moves to a lower elevation. How does the water get from lower elevations to upper elevations? The sun evaporates it so that it may fall as rain in the water cycle.

Geothermal energy captures heat from the Earth’s core and nuclear energy captures heat from the radioactive decay of certain elements. Even these two energy sources can indirectly attribute their energy to the sun, because millions or billions of years ago the sun provided a gravitational center around which matter collided, producing the Earth itself and the heavier radioactive compounds found therein.

The point of this is that no matter what we do to conserve or use energy wisely, there will come a time when the sun stops shining and our source of energy will cease. Hopefully by that time we’ll be able to pack up and move to another solar system, but it is important to keep this in perspective. Knowing that the sun is the ultimate source of all our energy is also important because it shows us where we should turn for our energy demands in the future. More on that later. First, let’s discuss our current energy sources more and see how they might affect the near future of business and politics.

Tune in tomorrow for Part 15 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 13: Global Effects of Energy Policies

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Our Planet
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Global Effects of Energy Policies

The interplay between the energy policies of these four major states is already a major driver of world politics. The United States, while importing much of its crude oil and other energy sources, is actually sitting on huge energy reserves. It almost seems as if the U.S. is playing the waiting game to let other nations deplete their energy reserves first so that in the long run, the U.S. will be in control of whatever energy is left. That may not actually be the case, but it almost seems that way. China and India, with nearly half the world’s population between them, are growing their middle classes as phenomenal rates, meaning their energy needs are growing at phenomenal rates too. Given that producing more oil than current rates is difficult at best, the growth of China and India will lead to ever increasing fuel prices unless other sources of energy are found or developed. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in that the concern over global warming would be more quickly abated with higher fuel costs. However, higher fuel costs will have serious economic impacts on businesses and states around the globe.

Currently, relatively low fuel costs promote shipping of products around the globe. Fruit grown in South America can be shipped to Europe for sale and clothing in China is shipped to the U.S. every day. However, if fuel prices are going to rise, the prospect of shipping internationally will become much more expensive and will seriously change the business models of several firms that have globalized.

Other potential effects have to do with the stability of energy supplies that are exported/imported around the world. Political unrest in parts of the world means that energy prices increase with increased political volatility. Therefore there is a direct economic cost to businesses worldwide when political unrest and terrorism exist. It would seem that there would be a viable business case for businesses to team together and pass legislation in states around the world that promote peace. More on this later when we discuss the future balance of power in the world.

Tune in Monday for Part 14 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 12: Energy Policy of Russia

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Russia
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Energy Policy of Russia

According to online sources, “the Energy policy of Russia is contained in an Energy Strategy document, which sets out policy for the period up to 2020. In 2000, the Russian government approved the main provisions of the Russian energy strategy to 2020, and in 2003 the new Russian energy strategy was confirmed by the government. The Energy Strategy document outlines several main priorities: an increase in energy efficiency, reduced impact on environment, sustainable development, energy development and technological development, as well as an improved effectiveness and competitiveness.

Russia, one of the world's two energy superpowers, is rich in natural energy resources. It has the largest known natural gas reserves of any state on earth, along with the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Russia is the world fourth largest electricity producer after the USA, China, and Japan. Russia is the world’s leading net energy exporter, and a major supplier to the European Union.

Renewable energy in Russia is largely undeveloped although there is considerable potential for renewable energy use. Geothermal energy, which is used for heating and electricity production in some regions of the Northern Caucasus, and the Far East, is the most developed renewable energy source in Russia.

On July 2008 Russia's president signed a law allowing the government to allocate strategic oil and gas deposits on the continental shelf without auctions.”[8]

References

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_russia

Tune in tomorrow for Part 13 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 11: Energy Policy of the European Union

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The European Union
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Energy Policy of the European Union

According to online sources, “the European Union has legislated in the area of energy policy for many years, and evolved out of the European Coal and Steel Community, the concept of introducing a mandatory and comprehensive European energy policy was only approved at the meeting of the European Council on October 27, 2005 in London.

The EU currently imports 82% of its oil and 57% of its gas, making it the world's leading importer of these fuels. Only 3% of the uranium used in European nuclear reactors was mined in Europe. Russia, Canada, Australia and Niger were the largest suppliers of nuclear materials to the EU, supplying more than 75% of the total needs in 2007

France has made a common energy and environment policy by the end of the year the top priority of its six-month 2008 presidency of the European Union.”[7]

References

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_european_union

Tune in tomorrow for Part 12 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 10: Energy Policy of China

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The People's Republic of China
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Energy Policy of China

According to online sources, “China has been taking action on climate change for some years, [and] with the publication on Monday 4 June 2007 of China's first National Action Plan on Climate Change, China became the first developing country to publish a national strategy addressing global warming. The plan does not include targets for carbon dioxide emission reductions, but it has been estimated that, if fully implemented, China's annual emissions of greenhouse gases would be reduced by 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2010, although other commentators put the figure at 0.950 billion metric tons.

Publication was officially announced during a meeting of the State Council, which called on governments and all sectors of the economy to implement the plan, and for the launch of a public environmental protection awareness campaign.

The National Action Plan includes increasing the proportion of electricity generation from renewable energy sources and from nuclear power, increasing the efficiency of coal-fired power stations the use of cogeneration, and the development of coal-bed and coal-mine methane.

In addition, the one child policy in China has successfully slowed down the population increase, preventing 300 million births, which is equal to 1.3 billion tons of CO2 emission based on average world per capita emissions of 4.2 tons at 2005 level.” [6]

References

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_china

Tune in tomorrow for Part 11 of SEatWtC!

SEatWtC Part 9: Energy Policy of the United States

noreply@blogger.com (Nate) — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The United States
*Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons*

Energy Policy of the United States

According to online sources, “The energy policy of the United States is determined by federal, state and local public entities in the United States, which address issues of energy production, distribution, and consumption, such as building codes and gas mileage standards. Energy policy may include legislation, international treaties, subsidies and incentives to investment, guidelines for energy conservation, taxation and other public policy techniques. Several mandates have been proposed over the years, such as gasoline will never exceed $1.00/gallon (Nixon), and the United States will never again import as much oil as it did in 1977 (Carter), but no comprehensive long-term energy policy has been proposed, although there has been concern over this failure. Three Energy Policy Acts have been passed, in 1992, 2005, and 2007, which include many provisions for conservation, such as the Energy Star program, and energy development, with grants and tax incentives for both renewable and non-renewable energy. State-specific energy-efficiency incentive programs also play a significant role in the overall energy policy of the United States.

The United States has resisted endorsing the Kyoto Protocol, preferring to let the market drive CO2 reductions to mitigate global warming, which will require CO2 emission taxation. Multiple 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates have published aggressive energy policy platforms, and some propose carbon emission taxation, which could help encourage more clean, renewable, sustainable energy development.”

References

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_united_states

Tune in tomorrow for Part 10 of SEatWtC!