It’s been quite a couple of weeks for the sustainability movement in Canada, since Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s comments about “environmental and other radical groups” and their opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

The unfortunate result of the government and media’s framing of the pipeline issue is that we are presented with a false choice: save the economy or save the environment. It is an age-old myth that many people have been working hard for years to overcome by promoting the idea of sustainable development. We should not have to choose between jobs and the environment. As a native Albertan with many personal and professional connections to the energy industry, an academic background in commerce from the University of Alberta, and now a role leading what some might call an “environmental NGO” based in Ottawa, you would think by this framing that I would be very conflicted: Am I on the side of the economy or the side of the environment? But I am not conflicted.

Instead, these recent developments have made it clearer than ever to me that Canada needs a national energy strategy (not program!) that includes a compelling vision of a sustainable energy future. My view is that there are very few people (even in the energy industry in Alberta) who wake up every day with the intention to do harm to natural or social systems. Unfortunately, our system has evolved with some inherent “design flaws” that make this harm the natural outcome of our economic activity. But it need not be so—we know what the design flaws are and we can work to design them out of our system.

This is essentially what sustainable development is about, and thousands of organizations around the world—including large and small businesses in every sector—have been working on it for years. Similarly, very few people (even those radical environmentalists) would disagree with the notion that we need a vibrant economy that generates jobs and wealth—now and all the way through the much needed transition to a sustainable future.

If we stretch the timeline out far enough, most people would probably even agree on the most important elements of such a vision. We all want a good future for our children and grandchildren: good jobs, in vibrant economies, in strong communities, in a healthy environment. And we know that the energy industry will be a vital part of that future, since we will need energy to achieve it.

With a vision of the energy system that we desire for the future—one based on sound scientific fundamentals that tell us what sustainability really requires of us—we could then evaluate projects and initiatives for how well they serve as a stepping stone toward that energy future. In that analysis, we could assess how flexible and adaptable the initiative is to accommodate changing circumstances, and, yes, what the return on the investment is.

In the absence of a compelling and broadly shared sustainable energy vision, we are left to evaluate projects based on a list of pros and cons that have no other context and which inevitably leaves us stuck in trade-offs. And that leaves us all vulnerable to a descent into angry name-calling as we each begin to resent the views of those “others” who don’t see the pros and cons the same way we do.

Surely, we can find a way to make the public dialogue a respectful and mature consideration of the best way forward for the country, instead of a polarizing debate about hidden agendas and ulterior motives. At The Natural Step, we call it backcasting. Others might call it common sense: a radical idea whose time has truly come.

Article by Chad Park, Executive Director of The Natural Step Canada, a non-profit sustainability organization that delivers leading consulting and education services. He was recently honored as one of Canada’s Clean16—the 16 individuals in Canada who have done the most to advance the cause of sustainability and clean capitalism. For more on The Natural Step Canada, please visit www.thenaturalstep.org/canada.

Article appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• Exploring a Flawed Paradigm: Why Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is Not Enough
• Smart Grid Goes Video Conferencing: Smart Cities to Provide Telepresence
• Emissions from Tar Sands Will Dwarf Carbon Cuts in Canada
• Canada Could Be Powered Entirely With Geothermal, Scientists Say
• New Solar and PV Installation Agreement Benefits Green Ontarians

A wave of reports trumpeting the oil industry’s shift to unconventional fuels has appeared in recent weeks. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are among the major publications covering changes in the global fossil fuel industry. With their investments in new technologies and new resources, the world’s largest fossil fuel companies are rapidly redrawing the map of the global energy industry, at a global and local scale. Unfortunately, this changing map leaves significantly reduced territory for the cleantech industry.

In the last several years the world’s largest oil companies have shifted their upstream fossil fuel production investments back to OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, typically the largest importers of fossil fuels. What used to look like a 50-50 division of investments between OECD and non-OECD, is now closer to 70-30 for some oil companies, according to The Wall Street Journal. From Australia to Canada, and from the United States to Poland, the exploration and production of oil and gas in the developed world is exploding. Thanks to innovative (and often controversial) new technologies such as horizontal drilling, ultra-deepwater wells, and hydraulic fracturing, oil companies are now exploiting the market for previously inaccessible fossil fuels. A majority of the future value for Big Oil companies – as much as $1.7 trillion, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie – is anticipated to come from Australia, Europe, and North America.

Oil companies are leveraging technology innovation to become diversified energy companies. That does not necessarily translate into additional investment in cleantech. Oil company investments are rapidly moving them toward the production of liquefied natural gas, shale oil, and coal gasification, not wind or biofuels. In a time when the future of the Section 1603 tax breaks, which benefit clean energy and mass transit programs, is up in the air, massive new investment in fossil fuels may dampen the momentum the cleantech sector has built over the last couple years.

It certainly does when investment in unconventional oil and gas actively displaces investment in the cleantech industry. This may be the case in Colorado, where ConocoPhillips, the US’s third largest oil company, has indefinitely postponed its plans for a technology research and education campus in the Denver-Boulder area. Following significant investments in the local biofuels industry through 2008, ConocoPhillips (which is in the process of splitting into two companies, ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66) now appears to be more actively pursuing the “unconventional” opportunity. Not until later in 2012 will the full effects of the transformation of Big Oil on the cleantech sector become apparent.

Article by Brittany Gibson, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

The water industry is renowned for being risk averse and conservative. It’s understandable. No one wants people to experiment with their water.

But as fresh water becomes more and more precious and the cost of energy to get fresh water keeps on rising, the challenges of the water-energy nexus are getting bigger. The industry needs innovative solutions but with innovation comes risk. This blog series will put the spotlight on technologies addressing some of the challenges and take a closer look at their markets and growth prospects ahead of our next water conference.

The water industry and the energy industry are fundamental to one another. The water industry needs large amounts of energy to transport, store and treat water. The energy industry needs large amounts of water (for boilers and cooling) to generate and distribute power. Head upstream to the oil and gas industry and the problem is there too – the industry is producing increasing amounts of wastewater, and needing more and more energy to treat it.

This last area – the treatment of wastewater produced by the oil and gas industry (known as ‘produced water’) – is one we think has particularly strong growth prospects, especially at the high level end of the process. Using advanced desalination technologies, water can be treated to a standard whereby it’s no longer a waste product to be disposed of, but a resource which can be used again. But treating water to this level is expensive. It can only work if it’s cheaper than the alternative or if the water can be sold on at the right price. Technologies that can deliver the quality of water required while driving down energy costs are on the money.

This market looks set for strong growth for several reasons. Conventional oil and gas extraction – which refers to the resources we have typically produced using onshore and offshore vertical wells – has likely peaked in some regions, North America being one of them. Large quantities of water are present in oil reservoirs and are brought to the surface along with the oil during the extraction process. As an oil field matures, there is more water in the reservoir and less oil, which means even more water is brought to the surface as the water to oil ratio increases.

Alongside the growing maturity of conventional onshore oil fields, we’re also seeing sharp growth in ‘unconventional’ energy – shale gas and tight oil, oil sands and coal bed methane. Once too difficult and too expensive to exploit, widespread adoption of technological innovations such as hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) and horizontal drilling means these ‘new’ sources of energy are now very much commercially viable. They might be providing a real boost to supplies but they are using a lot more fresh water, and therefore generating a lot more wastewater, often in regions that are already water stressed. Shale projects use large quantities of water in the fracking fluid and oil sands also use huge amounts in processing.

This water from both conventional and unconventional processes isn’t lost, but it does become a highly varied, and growing, waste stream. On average, for every barrel of oil currently recovered, eight barrels of wastewater are also generated. That’s quite a statistic, and probably one not many people outside the sector are aware of. Over the next 15 years, this oil-to-water ratio is forecast to increase from 1:8 to 1:12 and the size of the market (in the US) is set to double to $10 billion. So it’s not hard to see that this is an industry which is becoming as much about water as it is about energy. On top of all that there’s the global issue of water scarcity. If all this produced water can be treated to a level where it can be reused – either within the industry, or sold to another, such as agriculture, that’s a big opportunity.

“The gas associated with CBM is one of the major players at the moment for future gas supply. There are a lot of these activities at the moment where you get a lot of water on the surface, which is on the one hand a waste but if you look at it could be used as a resource and that is a big opportunity.”
Joppe Cramwinckel, Shell

Part 2 of this blog will look at the technologies in more detail and some of the key players.

Article by Tom Whitehouse. Tom is the Chairman of the London Environmental Investment Forum (LEIF), a conference platform which connects environmental innovation with capital, and the Founder and CEO of LEIF’s Initiating Partner, Carbon International, a corporate finance and investor communications consultancy for environmental and cleantech industries.

Thanks to our partner and industry expert Global Water Intelligence for providing us with its excellent report on Produced Water. We will be holding our ‘Investing in Water’ conference in Q2 2012 which will explore this topic, among others, in more depth. The event will feature industry insight, presentations from tech innovators and panel discussions. If you’re interested in partnering with us for this event, please contact us. Find out more about LEIF at www.london-eif.com.

Related posts:

• Investment Opportunities in Water
• Investment Opportunities in Water: Produced Water – Part 2
• Chile Launches Initiative to Measure Water Footprint of Companies
• Water Sector Startups Innovate Efficient Use And Supply
• Tiny Bubbles Used to Clean Oil-Contaminated Water and Soil

Fortunately for the rest of us, some people missed the message, the one that says we’re in an economic slide so slippery there is no climbing back up.

I had a chance to speak to several of these optimists recently. No, they are not members of the Pollyanna Club; they are green energy entrepreneurs, those who are innovating and growing companies as the rest of the world downsizes. (See Energy Entrepreneurs Flock to Renewables Bonanza in Renewable Energy World magazine.)

These are folks that can’t stop creating no matter how mucky our outlook. In fact, problems seem to incite their inventiveness.

Their inventions are diverse; as are they, but their activities are converging into some trends.

* Silicon Valley and the energy industry are teaming up more and more. “You can’t throw a softball around here without hitting another solar company,” said Dan Shugar, Solaria’s chief operating officer, from Silicon Valley.
* Energy is producing its own crop of rising Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs, who I suspect will be the next generation of business legends.
* Perhaps most significant, a lot of today’s innovation focuses on bringing consumers and businesses greater efficiency and control over energy in their homes and businesses, whether through cell phone apps that let you adjust your thermostat while miles away, financing mechanism that make solar affordable to the rest of us, or windows that generate electricity on two sides, using a form of artificial photosynthesis that takes advantage of both the sun outside and the electric lights indoors.

These are just a few of the new energy innovations that focus on what’s right here in my home or even in the palm of my hand. Getty Images, which studies how energy companies speak to consumers through pictures, calls this new trend “Homing in on Green.”

“While pictures of wind turbines and oil rigs remain popular, Getty Images has seen a marked 40 percent increase in images that showcase efforts to ‘go green’ on a smaller scale – for example, images of people swapping old light bulbs for energy efficient counterparts, neighborhoods with solar paneled roofs, families drying laundry outside, rather than relying on technology,” said Getty Images in announcing the third edition of its research report, The Curve.

Are these images actually getting through to people? Do consumers have any sense of the magnitude of change occurring in energy and how it will affect their day-to-day lives? It seems not. Most people are not even aware of federal and state financial incentives they can receive if they integrate new energy technologies into their lives, according to a survey sponsored manufacturer Emerson. Among the 1,007 US adults who participated in the September 2011 poll, 61% were unaware of the financial assistance available.

So, while big things are happening in energy; consumers by-in-large don’t know it yet. But the changes are coming, this time right to our doorsteps – and even if we’re not at home, we’ll be able to let them in, using probably just our cell phones.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Obama, Better Buildings and the Innovators
• The ‘America’s Next Top Energy Innovator’ Challenge Begins Today
• Water Sector Startups Innovate Efficient Use And Supply
• Opportunities for Energy Innovators
• Energy Results Teams Up With Best Buy

A show of hands – who loved their high school chemistry class? Do you still remember the elements in the periodic table? Quick – what’s the symbol for Iron? How about Hydrogen?

OK. Those are easy: Fe and H.

What about Prometheum? or Ytterbium?

While the actual symbols may not be important (they’re Pm and Yb in case you’re interested), perhaps the better question is – why should you care?

The two elements listed above comprise two of 17 Rare Earths Elements (RREs).
And these unique elements are creating major waves in the energy industry.

REEs are essential to the make-up and operation of a many familiar products, from flat-panel TVs to medical devices. REEs also are key components to batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles, catalytic converters, wind turbines and processes like petroleum refining.

Oh. They also happen to comprise about 85% of the phosphors needed for fluorescent lamps.

Unfortunately, REEs are only found in a few places on earth, and a growing imbalance in REE supply and demand is resulting in significant price hikes. For some rare earth oxides – prices have been increased to the tune of 4,500%.

While you may not have noticed such drastic price increases on the shelf of your local retailer, costs for products like CFLs and other fluorescent lamps are showing up in lamp manufacturers’ pricing.

Why the sudden change?
While the U.S. was a major source of REEs in the 60s, 70s and 80s, China has since become the primary source of supply – with an estimated 85% of the world’s stockpile of REEs. However, over the past several years, China has limited exports and throttled back production.

How much have they throttled back? Just last year, China set its export quota of REEs at 30,000 tons – less than 20% of the total estimated demand.

That’s when the ruckus really began to ramp up.

So what does all of this mean?
In the short-term, prices for nearly everything using REEs – particularly CFLs and fluorescent lamps – will rise. By how much is yet to be determined. Many industry experts agree the increase in price for products containing REEs is all but a certainty. But just how much and for how long is unknown – at least until a more long-term agreement or alternative solution is found.

Unfortunately, no sustainable long-term solution has been identified, and REEs will remain critical components to many of the products for which we rely day-to-day.

The good news is that several manufacturers have already begun development of products to address the problem, and negotiations with China continue.

We’ll continue to monitor the situation, and provide input when we can – particularly if any changes affect our rebate programs.

While CFLs (and other efficient alternatives) still provide a significant increase in efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared to incandescent lighting, perhaps this can serve as a reminder for why it’s more important than ever to look for new and innovative ways to save energy in your home and business. It also might be a great time to stock up!

Article by Tim Laughlin, appearing courtesy Xcel Energy Blog.

Related posts:

• Rare Earth Mineral Deposits Discovered on Pacific Seafloor
• China to Keep Rare Earths Export Quota at 2010 Levels
• Siemens Reducing Rare Earths
• Molycorp’s Expansion across the Rare Earth Supply Chain
• South Korea Seeking Rare Earth Concessions in South Africa

Here’s something you don’t hear people complain about much these days: worker shortages. That is, unless you’re in energy efficiency, an industry that is booming as others are busting.

Sixty percent of those responding to a recent survey by the Association of Energy Services Professionals cited a lack of talented workers in energy efficiency.

“Energy efficiency is a rapidly growing segment of the overall energy industry and we believe there is a clear lack of talent that is necessary to fill the positions that are open,” said Meg Matt, the AESP president and CEO.

So where do you find these jobs?

Another recent report, this one by the Brookings Institution and Battelle’s Technology Partnership, sheds some light. Look to major metropolitan areas and young businesses for jobs not only in energy efficiency, but also in other segments of the clean economy, according to Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment.

In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the clean economy expanded by 8.3 percent, says the report. Efficiency, renewable energy, biofuels and other clean industries accounted for 2.7 million US jobs in 2010. To put that number in perspective, that’s more jobs than you’ll find in fossil fuels or biosciences, but still less than information technology.

Green jobs in general, and green construction in particular, were clustered in 100 large metropolitan areas. About 73 percent of the nation’s LEED certified green buildings are in these cities. Raleigh and Seattle have strong green architecture and building sectors. The energy saving/ building materials industry is thriving in Houston and Minneapolis. Boston excels in HVAC and building control systems, according to the Brookings/Battelle report.

The findings are in keeping with U.S. economic geography. The 100 largest metropolitan areas “are the nation’s innovation engines,” responsible for 78 percent of the US’ green patents. Further, most of the “highest-impact” U.S. cleantech firms called out in the 2010 Global Cleantech 100 list are based in these cities, particularly Boston, San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles, said the report. In all, the100 biggest cities created three-quarters of the clean economy jobs from 2003 to 2010.

“In short, metropolitan areas, large and small, are now and will increasingly be the nation’s critical centers of clean economy talent, innovation, and finance and so its top hubs of commercialization, deployment, and trade,” the report said. “Regions and metropolitan areas, in short, are not a part of the national clean economy; they are that economy.”

Looking at broader regions, it’s not surprising to find California and the West responsible for the most clean economy jobs, when measured as a percentage of total employment. About 2.2 percent of the jobs in the West are related to the clean economy. The Northeast comes in second at 2.1 percent, followed by the Midwest’s 2 percent and the South’s 1.8 percent.

What kinds of businesses produce clean economy jobs? The young upstarts – or at least they’re responsible for the recent mercurial job growth.

Here’s how Brooking/Battelle explained this phenomenon. “Old establishments in the clean economy (those born before 2003) created an average of just three jobs for every one establishment from 2003 to 2010 while new establishments created 37 jobs. This compares favorably to new establishments nationally which created just 10 jobs per establishment over the same period.”

How much do these jobs pay? Quite a bit.

Brooking/Battelle found that clean economy jobs pay about 13 percent more than typical US jobs, and have a median wage of $44,000. AESP said 80 percent of those who responded to its survey cited vacant jobs in energy efficiency with salaries of $50,000 to $100,000 and 28 percent said jobs were untaken at salaries of $100,000 to $150,000.

So spread the word. Not all the economic news is gloom and doom. Energy efficiency and the clean economy are hiring.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Latest Renewable Energy Jobs in Solar and Wind Energy
• CleanTech firms hiring! New jobs at SolarWorld, SunPower, and other renewable energy providers worldwide
• CleanTechies Receives “Best Blog of the Day” Award
• Report: CA Energy Efficiency Policies to Create Over 200K Jobs, but Could be Improved
• CleanTechies Launches “Community News” Service

Having served in the military, I’m intimately aware of the role that energy plays in our ability to defend and uphold our national security. This became apparent to me in many ways during my time in the field, to the safety of my unit who ran fuel supply convoys in theater and the dangers we faced in carrying our duties, to hearing about the economic struggles of my relatives and friends back home to afford gas to drive and heat their homes. We understand, perhaps better than anyone, that our pursuit of energy independence and national security are closely linked.

I also know the struggles faced by many Veterans once they leave the service and try to find quality work. Last year for example, the unemployment rate for veterans who served after September 11th was 11.5% compared to 9.4% unemployment amongst non-veterans. Potential employers don’t always understand the value and experience that Veterans can bring to the workforce. And in some cases, it’s difficult for Veterans to express how the jobs we were trained to do in the military are transferable to jobs on the outside. Veterans have the skills, knowledge, leadership and professionalism to excel in any number of fields – including the energy sector. We simply need a bridge to join the wider workforce and contribute to the jobs of the future.

This week, Secretary Chu joined the Edison Electric Institute and the Center for Energy Workforce Development as they announced a new program that will help bridge that divide and increase opportunities for Veterans in the energy sector. “Troops to Energy Jobs” brings together public, non-profit and private sector partners in a pilot program that will provide transitional career training and counseling to help Veterans enter the workforce and get jobs in the energy industry.

A partnership program like “Troops to Energy Jobs” is a great first step in the direction of helping solve the critical problem of Veterans unemployment in this country. The program will be managed by the Center for Energy Workforce Development, a non-profit group of electric, natural gas and nuclear utility companies. The Energy Department will contribute to this partnership through the National Training Education Resource Center (NTER), a virtual campus that can offer interactive training for people online. After training, Veterans can be matched and then enter jobs related to their training with private sector employers who value the skills and experience we bring to the workforce. “Troops to Energy Jobs” is launching as a pilot program and its sponsors hope to be able to expand it to the entire energy industry.

As a proud Veteran and new employee at Energy, I know how much this effort means to those who have served and are eager to continue their contribution to our national security. I look forward to following the stories of Veterans as they go through the program and begin to translate their military skills in to energy sector achievements.

Article by Steve Dunwoody, Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Energy and an Iraq War Veteran.

Related posts:

• Training Veterans for the Clean Energy Economy
• Powering the Military with Game-Changing Solar Tech
• Fastest Growing Industry in the U.S. – Solar Energy
• France Announces Massive Investment in Cleantech
• New Energy for America – And New Jobs

Who would have thought backyards would cause so much trouble for the North American energy industry? First came the NIMBYs, the not-in-my-backyard protesters who block power projects from being built near them. And now we have the GIMBBYs – the give-me-a-bigger-backyard homeowners who are unwittingly getting in the way of energy efficiency.

GIMBBYs aren’t worried about seeing wind turbines or transmission lines from their backyards as are the NIMBYs. It’s the guy next store that they don’t want to see. And GIMBBYs number many among us. A recent study conducted for the National Association of Realtors found privacy to be very important in selecting a home for nearly half of the Americans surveyed.

What’s this got to with energy efficiency? To gain privacy we move to homes that are further from work, schools and stores, suburban and rural outposts that offer us bigger backyards. By way of disclosure, before I go any further let me confess that I am a GIMBBY. I’d probably give up my lights, heat and air conditioning before my five acres of trees shielding me from others.

The Environmental Protection Agency calls big-backyard neighborhoods like mine “automobile dependent locations” and contrasts them with “transit-oriented” neighborhoods, places where you can hop a bus or easily walk to regular destinations. The agency recently looked at which kind of neighborhood uses the most British Thermal Units (BTUs), taking into account size and type of house, its energy efficiency, and vehicle use of its occupants. This is known as Location Efficiency.

The EPA’s findings indicate that location really is everything. Transit-oriented neighborhoods offered up more energy savings whether the houses were single family detached, single family attached or multi-family. This is significant because homes that share walls typically require less energy for heating and cooling. But that advantage was not significant enough to overcome driving distance for the big-backyard neighborhoods. Travel requirements pretty much trumped all, indicating that a home’s location is “a major variable for household energy consumption,” the EPA said.

“The takeaway here is that a location-efficient future does not necessarily mean a world of only multifamily housing. Far from it, location efficiency can enable greater housing choices, access to services, and more transportation options,” said Eric Mackres, communities program manager for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in his blog.

So should all of us GIMBBYs pack up and move to the city? Clearly, that’s not going to happen. But our current housing development slump gives us time to reflect on how to design neighborhoods for the future. The graying of America is leading to an increasing number of childless households. And as the EPA study points out, these retirees often show a preference for “more walkable, vibrant urban places.” Demand will still exist for suburban homes with big backyards, but that demand is decreasing. So we may be entering a rare period when maximum energy efficiency and consumer desire go hand and hand. We may not have to look far afield to achieve significant energy savings; the answer might be in our backyards.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Being Green, One Block at a Time
• Home Energy Efficiency Made Easy
• Phantom Power – A Huge Waste of Resources!
• Thermal IR Imaging Offers Energy Savings and Green Jobs
• Cash for Clunkers Driving Consumers Towards Hybrids & Fuel-Efficiency

We’ve been hearing for years that the energy efficiency industry needs to find its equivalent to the cell phone. These days industry folks refer to it as the ‘killer app,” the revolutionary product or service that consumers can’t resist.

But lately, partly because I’m dieting, I’ve been thinking what energy efficiency really needs is something akin to a Weight Watchers dessert.

Let me explain myself.

Saving energy and saving calories share three precepts. They are most palatable to the consumer if they are devoid of self-sacrifice, appear invisible, and offer some element of delight. Weight Watchers has got these down cold. The energy efficiency industry is doing well with the first and second, but not the third.

No self-sacrifice
Weight Watchers is ingenious because it does not describe itself as a diet; it’s a lifestyle, a way of eating. It’s not about self-sacrifice. Sound familiar? The energy efficiency industry over the last decade shook off the ‘conservation’ moniker, much the way Weight Watcher abandoned the term ‘diet.’

The Alliance to Save Energy describes the difference between energy efficiency and conservation beautifully on its website:

But energy efficiency is a far cry from the energy conservation images and practices of old – of doing with less or doing without, of being uncomfortable or less comfortable. Not unlike the tremendous technological strides on the computer, electronics, and other fronts, energy efficiency takes advantage of advances in technology to provide significantly better, smarter services.

Invisible
On Weight Watchers you still can eat the macaroni and cheese. But it’s made with low fat milk. The calorie savings become invisible to me. Likewise, consumers can be energy efficient and still use their air conditioners and televisions as much as before. Appliance standards are the low fat milk of the energy industry. If you wonder about the significance of these standards read the efficiency section of the US Energy Information Administration’s recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2011. The report forecasts a 17% drop in residential per capita energy use through 2035 and says appliance standards often are “the primary reason for efficiency gains.” The currently controversial lighting standards create the biggest energy savings (See EIA chart below.)

Delight
This one is easy for Weight Watchers. It offers wonderful little chocolate cakes that bring delight to the sweet tooth. But what is energy efficiency’s chocolate cake? Herein rests the problem for the industry. The cell phone, the IPod, the home computer – these technologies were readily adapted because of the delight and convenience they add to our lives. As far as I can tell, neither the smart meter nor any of the other energy savings technologies being offered for the home offer any of this kind of allure. Some folks in the energy industry say they never will because information technology and energy technology part ways here. They may be right. But I remain hopeful. Those who had the first home computers (mine was a DEC Rainbow 100) may remember that they offered far more in the way of frustration than fun or inconvenience. These early computers left critics of the industry doubtful that widespread penetration of home computers would ever occur….and we all know how that all ended.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Geothermal Energy Incentives To Attract $2.5 Billion In The Philippines
• UK Approves Construction of 10 New Nuclear Power Stations
• Swiss Zinc-Air Batteries Store Three Times the Energy of Lithium Ions
• MIT Team Develops Roof Tile That Changes Color as Temperatures Shift
• DOE’s Arpa-e Pumps $151 Million Into Innovative Energy Research Projects

The cleantech industry, and more specifically the clean energy sector — firms in renewable energy, smart grids, clean energy finance, biofuels, and depending on your definition, natural gas — has a lot on its plate. Not only do these businesses, many of which are in their nascency, need to focus on standard business development operations like R&D, market research, branding and sales, they also need to focus on supporting and advocating public policies at the state and national level that will help their products become market competitive with entrenched energy interests.

The question is whether these diverse industries — and their myriad policy needs — that make up the clean energy sector would be better served by speaking with a single voice.

Willie Brent, head of the cleantech practice at the public relations agency Weber Shandwick argues that the various associations that represent the different sectors of the clean energy industry need to band together and apply a unified communication strategy. Brent writes:

Three groups for solar. Four groups for biofuels. More than half a dozen groups for clean energy. At a time when the clean energy industry needs one powerful voice to drive policy and get federal and state lawmakers to actually do something visionary, what we are getting is a 100-part disharmony.”

Brent continues:

…there is a strong need for an all-encompassing umbrella organization that rises above the petty jealousies and turf wars that often make the trade association, non-profit world ineffectual and scattered.”

Facing an uncertain future of political support in Washington, is this a worthy proposition for the clean energy industry? Could it be effective at achieving the kind of public and government support clean energy needs to gain a foothold the U.S?

Could a single clean energy umbrella organization even be able to advocate for such varied interests? Or would such an effort be akin to herding cats?

We value your opinion and really do want to know what you think. Please consider leaving a comment and/or sharing this post with others in your network.

Article by Timothy B. Hurst, appearing courtesy Earth & Industry.

Related posts:

• Cleantech Entrepreneur? Check Out The California Coast Venture Forum
• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?
• Clean Tech Events This Week: MIT & HBS in California
• Top Ten Highlights of Cleantech in Stockholm, Sweden
• TreeHugger asks readers to vote for CleanTechies as “Best Business Blog”