Climate Change

I wrote one week ago about Al Gore’s important speech setting a very high bar indeed for renewables. I have believed in 100% renewables for many years but, to tell you the truth, never thought the stars would align as they have to make that vision perfectly realizable. Well, if you’ve read the many posts I’ve done here on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and you look around the world at all the incredible activity, it’s already happening!

There was a particularly off-key op-ed in yesterday’s “NY Times” calling for Solar from Space. (This evokes the old Muppet Show sketch: “Pigs in Space.”) It – very strangely – lumps together everything that’s not Solar from Space into one category, saying: “alternative energy sources — coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based solar — are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems or harm the environment.” Huh? Oh well, maybe the guy drank too much Tang.

In any event, if you’d like to see six minutes of highlights of Gore’s speech, see this:

For the full half-hour speech and transcript you can go here.

In the spirit of my post from a good while back, If You Don’t Like Al Gore, Then …, here are some reactions to Gore’s speech from three Presidential candidates and an EPA administrator under Reagan. (from wecansolveit.org)

Sen. John McCain: McCain said he admires Gore as an early and outspoken advocate of addressing the global warming problem even though “there may be some aspects of climate change that he and I are in disagreement (on).” Of the goals Gore outlined Thursday for generating more electricity with solar and wind resources, McCain said, “If the vice president says it’s do-able, I believe it’s do-able.”

Sen. Barack Obama: “For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels …”

Bob Barr: “America responds well to challenges, if it is laid out, if it’s in terms that people can understand and relate to, if it makes sense – and what he’s laid out makes sense.”

Lee Thomas: “Our environment, economy and national security interests are threatened as never before. It’s time for all of us to commit to a comprehensive plan to break free of these threats. Al Gore is challenging each of us to be a part of the solution. I believe it will take this kind of bold initiative and strong national leadership if we are to be successful.”

China – This article from RenewableEnergyWorld.com, talks about the continuing explosion in China’s deployment of windpower and its rapidly growing manufacturing capacity. China was in fifth place worldwide in installed base at the end of last year with 6 GW, heading to 20 GW by 2010, and 100 by 2020. The current global wind installation is 94 GW.

This sort of growth rate for putting windpower in place obviously conduces to manufacturing. The article says “According to Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, by 2009 China will become the world’s largest producer of wind turbines.” The article covers a lot of ground on the companies, the financing and the components involved.

Micro Wind – The same issue of RenewableEnergyWorld has a piece written by Jim Fugitte, a manufacturer of micro wind. While stipulating that large-scale renewable projects are important, he says that “The U.S. government, and the renewable energy industry in general … desperately need to reexamine the utility-scale solutions that many see as the only answer.” He points out, for one thing, the difficulties in routing and building transmission lines. His pitch: “The new generation of wind turbines makes distributive wind solutions feasible in urban areas and other settings where wind power is just not an alternative today. And micro-wind research is enabling applications and sites never before considered; meaning consumers, no matter where they’re located, have the potential to harness a new energy resource for themselves.”

The American Wind Energy Association does not seem to disagree. See this area of their website devoted to “small wind.” See also this informative article from CleanTechnica.

Big Solar – Going back to the macro, see Large-Scale U.S. Solar Power Facilities Becoming Commonplace from the excellent weekly newsletter “EERE Network News” (from DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division). According to the article, “…relatively large-scale systems are becoming commonplace” with the trend “most apparent in concentrating solar power (CSP).” The article talks about plans for facilities in California, New Mexico and Florida. Plenty of sun in those places!

CSP, not incidentally, is discussed at some length in the terrific EDF book, “Earth: The Sequel”. CSP, as you no doubt know, relies on a solar thermal approach, rather than photovoltaic. These big projects are all thermal. (Photovoltaics, which are also burgeoning, are applicable much more for distributed generation.)

PV Windows – While we’re on the subject, here’s a promising take on PV, from “DailyTech” - MIT Designs Solar Power Producing Windows, Coming Within 3 Years. Definitely micro and hugely interesting. Excellent article.

DG – So let’s revisit distributed generation (aka distributed energy) or, as the Europeans call it, decentralized energy. It’s simply locally generated power; not generated by an enormous plant and transmitted over long distances. DG has a big contribution to make. It should be, at least in the medium term, complementary to the utility-scale, central-power model. However, there is nothing but potential for locally generated power. Here are a couple of good videos: this from the National Renewables Energy Lab (short and to the point), and this from Greenpeace UK. It’s 18 minutes but it’s a great survey of DG and combined heat-and-power (CHP).

Smart Grid – What do you need to make DG work? The smart grid. The DG power is available to the local user but also needs to be taken up by the local utility if there’s a surplus. Conversely, the consumer needs to be able to draw on the utility when necessary. The importance of the smart grid also lies in the self-monitoring capacity embedded in the system that will help optimize it. I’ve written about the smart grid concept at Green Building, Smart Grids and Renewables. See also this on Boulder, Colorado from WorldChanging and this from the Gristmill. (The comments here, as is often the case, are as interesting as the article.)

SuperSmart Grid – So now it’s time to join the micro and the macro. I wrote the other day about the $5 billion infrastructure upgrade in Texas to bring windpower to the cities. I also wrote in March about an “… exciting prospect: the idea of supplying virtually limitless amounts of power from solar arrays in the Sahara Desert. The Europeans and some of the North African and Middle Eastern states are working on precisely this. See the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) project. See also this informative UK website on this concept. Solar power for massive desalinization projects? Why in the world not?!”

Well, you need High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology to bring all that juice to Europe and, when it gets there, you need to integrate it into the grid. If there’s a simultaneous building out of new infrastructure to accommodate DG, then you need, what else, a SuperSmart Grid. Some very smart people from places like the European Climate Forum and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research are working on this. Here’s a fascinating paper that lays out the rationale for, the shape of, and the obstacles to the SSG in Europe.

Further to my last post, here are some more looks at transportation issues.

Air Show – This article from the “NY Times” today, The Wild Green Yonder, describes some of the initiatives of the airline industry I touched on the other day:  new materials, new engines, new fuels.  The article refers to a series of test that Boeing is running with major airlines on biofuels as alternatives to traditional jet fuel.  You can go to Boeing’s website covering its environmental programs to learn more about its biofuels R & D and even about its fuel cell test flight – in a plane considerably smaller and lighter than a commercial jet, to be sure, but then every journey begins with a first step. 

New Book – Here’s a timely book, The Limits to Travel - How Far Will You Go?, that looks worth your while.  Take it on the next long flight you’re on. 

Teleconferencing – You can’t take a vacation via telecommunications, but you can probably do a lot of your business that way.  Save time, money, and GHG emissions.  See How Teleconferencing Works from the great website “How Stuff Works” from the Discovery Channel folks.

Trains – Business on the Eurostar service between London and Paris or Brussels has been booming.  A lot of that has to do with more convenient connections.  See this from the “FT” today.   I’ve been on European trains going (way) back to my college-days tour with the second-class Eurailpass through to TGV travel in the more recent past.  European trains are the real deal.  They go everywhere, they run regularly, they’re quick, they’re cost-effective, you don’t have to drive, and the scenery’s good.  What’s not to love? 

Algae – I’m a little in love with algae.  I’ve written about some of the innovations here a few times.  See As planet swelters, are algae unlikely saviour? from AFP via the WBCSD from last week.  Algae has enormous potential as a carbon sink.  It can eat the carbon dioxide right out of your power plant.  It can also be cultivated to produce potentially prodigious amounts of biofuel. 

Arizona Public Service is piloting carbon dioxide capture with algae along with GreenFuel Technologies.   See this from APS.  See also the informative “Oilgae” website.  Stay tuned on algae, fershur.

Biofuel Slowdown – This article from the “FT” from earlier this month, Britain to put brakes on biofuels policy, reveals that in the UK, as elsewhere, that growing concerns about pressures on food prices and the increasingly open secret that biofuels produced from seed crops appear to actually exacerbate global warming are producing action to throttle back.  (I wrote about the growing awareness of the problems at Are Biofuels A Bummer? in February.)  See the UK Transport Secretary’s statement to Parliament in which she says “… the introduction of biofuels should be slowed until policies are in place to direct biofuel production onto marginal or idle land, and that these are demonstrated to be effective.  The detail of these control mechanisms would need to be agreed internationally.”  The Gallagher Review from the UK government generated this level of concern.  See the report and the mandate of the Renewable Fuels Agency here. 

Energy and Commerce Committee – We all seem agreed that substantive federal legislation addressing climate change will emerge from the 111th Congress.  It seems entirely likely that the new Congress will have a measurably higher Democratic component than now, in both houses.  (See this from PollingReport.com and this from the “NY Times” which reports that “… the political handicapper Charlie Cook envisions Democratic gains of up to 20 House seats and 7 Senate seats, close to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to break filibusters by the minority.”) 

What also seems likely, to me anyway, is that the main vehicle for climate change legislation is going to come from the House of Representatives.  The puissant John Dingell, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has long since set his staff and the subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality to flesh out concepts for legislation.  The committee has issued a series of thoughtful, cogent “Climate Change Legislation Design White Papers.”  These are worth reading as we gather momentum toward a real US cap-and-trade regime, along with a raft of other possible measures such as some form of carbon tax, and heightened “… efficiency and or other performance standards, incentives for the purchase of advanced technology, and funding for research, development, and deployment of advanced technology.” 

Boone Pickens Meets Al Gore – You would have to be pretty foolish to ignore input from a successful energy billionaire.  Boone Pickens made his in oil.  Now he’s got a Plan.  It’s called, appropriately enough, the Pickens Plan.  He wants to expand windpower, take natural gas out of electricity production and devote it to surface transportation, and reduce US oil imports by $300 billion a year in the bargain.  He’s got a folksy slide show right at the top of the website.  Check it out.  See also Green In Greentech For Pickens from “Forbes.” 

Canada – I haven’t said an awful lot here about our brothers and sisters to the north.  I noted in March, though, that a strict interpretation of the EISA might bar the importation of fuels made from Canadian tar sands.  (See under Oil Sands here.)  In a story from last month from the Canwest News Service, Scientists make climate plea to Harper, we are told that “More than 100 leading climate scientists have launched a new offensive challenging the federal government’s climate change plan …”   For more on this story and the letter itself, see Scientists appeal for ‘urgency and determination’ on climate issues from the CBC.

One of the driving forces behind the letter and a powerful force among Canadian scientists for an aggressive approach to confronting global warming is Gordon McBean – a sort of Canadian Jim Hansen.  McBean is the policy chair for the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction and took part in a conference last month, North America 2030 - An Environmental Outlook, along with a host of other academics studying the environment, including Thomas Homer-Dixon.  Homer-Dixon does fascinating work on the confluence of environmental stresses and conflict.

In any event, the scientists’ letter to the Canadian political leadership was an important call for Canada to come up to speed on confronting the climate change crisis. 

Good Information Resource – You might want to bookmark this site:  Environmental Expert.  There are thousands of potentially useful links, articles, companies, etc. to explore.

(photo courtesy of Kaveh Sardari)

Dr. James Hansen is both an icon and a working scientist at the forefront of global warming research.  He’s a world-renowned physicist and an impassioned activist.  He’s soft spoken and hard hitting.  Hansen is the director of an important US government lab, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and has sometimes been an outspoken critic of government policies.  He has also been subject to censorship under the present Presidential administration.  He has never been a victim. 

Dr. Hansen appeared in Congress exactly 20 years ago this Monday to testify on the dangers of global warming.  (I’ve written about or referenced him here a number of times.)  His testimony then, along with other top scientists, was a landmark event in the battle to confront climate change.  He came on the anniversary to testify again. Scientist: “We’re toast” without action on global warming  is the headline from CNN.com on an AP story.  He also said “Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic.  Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.”  Shocking, certainly, and inconvenient as well to some.  You will find his full remarks, “Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near,” here.

Later, Hansen was honored by the Worldwatch Institute and the United Nations Foundation.  There is great coverage of this event here, including an op-ed for Worldwatch.  In his opinion piece, Hansen says: “The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising by about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.”  (The Tallberg Foundation has a vigorous climate change program including a drive to get back to 350 ppm.  Hansen is a signatory of their letter which recently appeared as a full-page ad in the “NY Times,” “International Herald Tribune,” and “Financial Times.”)

There’s more on Hansen, Worldwatch Institute partnered with Grist on a three-part bio to be found here as well.  He was a hero 20 years ago and he’s a hero now.  One difference, thankfully, is that there are a whole lot more people on board these days.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that we’ve got an awful lot of work to do in a relatively short amount of time. 

There really are a ton of stories out there.  Here’s a sampling:

Cars – I’ve written recently about electric cars and other exciting initiatives.  There are more developments on the automotive front.  Mitsubishi and Peugeot have entered into an alliance to supply key components for electric vehicles and may build their own as well.  See this from Planet Ark.  As noted here last month, Renault and Nissan already have come together to produce electric cars.

Meanwhile, in California – where else? – Pacific Gas & Electric announced a commitment of billions of dollars to build out an infrastructure to support plug-in hybrids.  See this story, also from Reuters’ Planet Ark.  PG & E made the commitment at a conference hosted by Google and the Brookings Institution, “Plug-in Electric Vehicles 2008: What Role for Washington?”  The conference featured some top people in the field, including one of the two authors of ZOOM: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future, Vijay Vaitheeswaran, and John Dingell, also known as Big John, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Finally, Honda just made a big splash when they announced the rolling out of their fuel-cell car.  Get all they’ve got to say about it here. 

Take a video break now for fun.

That’s from a nine-year old!  You go, Jupe!  There’s a world of important, useful information on plug-ins at Plug In America.  (Plus more videos.) 

Climate Change in the House – Speaking of John Dingell, this recent story from the “Detroit News” talks about draft legislation that the exceedingly powerful Mr. Dingell is putting together.  As you know, the Senate just failed to bring a climate change bill to the floor there for a vote.  (See No Surprise from the blog and Why The Climate Bill Failed from “Time.”)

Dingell’s legislation will be a powerful vehicle.  He’s got serious juice and committee staff has a world of expertise.  See his committee’s white papers on climate change for more on where we might be headed.  As noted here, and in every other venue following climate change matters on The Hill, we’re not going to get anything this year, but in 2009 the stars will undoubtedly align for something robust.  (By the way, Hill Heat is a good blog for following this story closely.)

Africa – The UN came out with a comprehensive report recently on the impact of climate change in Africa.  This story from the “LA Times” summarizes things nicely.  It’s not, in a work, pretty.  The story reports that “Computer models project major changes in precipitation patterns on the continent, which could lead to food shortages and increased desertification.  Yet on the whole, African nations lack the resources and technology to address such changes.”  In its Fourth Assessment Report last year, the IPCC pronounced that “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability, a situation aggravated by the interaction of ‘multiple stresses’, occurring at various levels, and low adaptive capacity.”

Australia – I’ve been writing recently about CCS and coal plants.  Well Greenpeace in Australia has just come out with a report saying that phasing out coal down under is not only necessary, it’s perfectly do-able.  They are providing a blueprint for just how to do it.  “The report shows how we can completely phase out coal-fired electricity in Australia by 2030 by harnessing the country’s renewable energy resources – which are enough to power half of Asia.”  Good on ya.

Bonn – I noted here the international climate change negotiations that took place earlier this month.  Here’s an item from the Environmental News Network summing up the talks, and a link to the UNFCCC website for more.  “The road ahead of us is daunting,” said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.  Okay, Yvo, tell us something we didn’t know.  But we’re on it, baby.  

Okay, so a lot of scientists and engineers are working on CCS. That’s clear. The question is: Will their hard work and expertise translate into a viable, affordable mechanism for eliminating, or even curtailing the massive, climate-altering impact of the carbon dioxide that spews inexorably, interminably from the world’s thousands of coal-fired power plants?

Remember, also, that there are impacts from fossil-fueled power plants other than carbon dioxide? There’s sulfur dioxide, a precursor pollutant for acid rain, and mercury, and the particulate matter that is also a prime and vicious air pollutant. See this post from April on black carbon and its effects. Remember that nearly all of the power plants in the rapidly industrializing countries of China and India have virtually no pollution controls. There’s the sludge and the toxic ash too, and there’s also massive water use. See this from the Union of Concerned Scientists. And then there’s the environmental havoc that coal mining wreaks. See The Crime of Mountaintop Removal Mining from May.

This is all just a sketch of the environmental problems. See the magisterial Big Coal for the full picture. It’s a truly excellent book, in the tradition of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

Okay, so let’s look at the technology. The scientists I noted on June 11 below have called for an accelerated program of research and development on CCS. See this story from “The Times.” The US Dept. of Energy has a lot of information on carbon sequestration programs at this website. Bellona, a foundation begun in the 1986 to highlight Norwegian environmental problems and then later the specter of nuclear contamination from Russia, concerns itself with CCS. See this from them. Ten things you need to know about carbon capture is also useful from “The Times.” Like the article from “Trading Carbon” cited in the previous post, it looks at some of the things that are going right and some that are going wrong for CCS.

I referenced Shell in the previous post.  If you are interested, they’re having a webcast at 11 AM Eastern Time on this Thursday, June 19, to discuss CCS.  You’ll be able to ask questions online.  Go here to register.   

There certainly is a truckload of work getting done. There’s no getting around that. The question is, though, is there more heat than light? Are we getting anywhere or are we just spinning our wheels?

I wrote a couple of weeks ago here on clean coal technology.  First of all, let me explain that I am not rooting against the possibility of finding some way to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and other sources.  It’s just that there is so much reliance on coal now, and it appears for the foreseeable future, and we still have no reliable technology on hand that utilities and others see as cost-effective, that it seems the much more intelligent choice to phase coal and other fossil fuels out.  That’s what it comes down to at this point.  We will do much better, environmentally and economically, if we move away now from the massive reliance on coal.

Now when I say we, I mean the US which still relies on coal for 50% of its electricity.  I also mean the Europeans who, believe it or not, are looking to build new plants.  I, of course, also mean the Indians and especially the Chinese.  See China Increases Lead as Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter from today’s “NY Times.”  Elisabeth Rosenthal, their international health and environmental reporter, looks at the new study from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and writes:  “China is heavily dependent on coal and has seen its most rapid growth in some of the world’s most heavily polluting industrial sectors: cement, aluminum and plate glass.”  Listen to Rosenthal’s interview at this terrific podcast.  You can also see the discussion at the blog “Dot Earth.”  

So, if we stick with coal, it’s going to cost us dearly, either with an inexorable slide to real climate change catastrophe – see the IPCC’s projections – or, if we face the challenge of CCS, with astronomical costs.  “Trading Carbon,” ” which is published by Point Carbon, the excellent news and information service on energy and environmental markets, had a story in their May issue on CCS.  Robin Lancaster, the editor, and the writer of the story, says in his lead editorial in the magazine “… the technology is available to capture carbon dioxide at its source, transport it, and then store it underground.  However, the extra cost of putting this technology in place is currently one of the main stumbling blocks to project development.”  You can read Going Underground here.  It’s a great, comprehensive look at the forces working for and against a commercially viable CCS technology.   

Here’s another recent story, from the “FT” - BP axes plan for carbon capture plant in which we learn that the canceled project in question, for a coal-fired plant in Australia, follows on the heels of another cancellation in Scotland.

For more perspective on CCS, you can visit the website for European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), an industry group, and this from Shell.   

(I’ll have some more on CCS in the next day or two, so stay tuned.)

The leading scientists of 13 nations yesterday called for significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.  The science academies of the G8 plus those of Brazil, Mexico, India, China and South Africa issued a joint statement on “Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society.”  See this from Reuters.  The statement targets the G8 Summit to take place in Japan in early July.  (I wrote about last year’s G8 Summit and its implications for the climate change debate here.)

The scientists said “We have advised prompt action to deal with the causes of climate change and cautioned that some climate impacts are inevitable. However, progress in reducing global greenhouse gas emission has been slow.”  On adaptation, the joint statement said “Climate change is a pressing issue for today. Action on adaptation is needed now and failure to respond poses a significant risk.” 

They further noted:  “The transition to a low carbon society requires: setting standards; designing economic instruments and promoting energy efficiency across all sectors; encouraging changes in individual behaviour; strengthening technology transfer to enable leapfrogging to cleaner and more efficient technologies; and investing strongly in carbon-removing technologies and low-carbon energy resources: nuclear power, solar energy, hydroelectricity and other renewable energy sources. These points are also stressed in the InterAcademy Council report.”  (See Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future from October.)

Scientists are conservative, folks, if you didn’t already know that.  They are trained to tread carefully, to look at all sorts of variables, to reject unsound hypotheses and tainted evidence.  Yet the world’s leading science academies, echoing the call of the IPCC, are calling on the world community to get it into another gear, to step it up, as Bill McKibben and his colleagues would say, to address climate change now and much more vigorously. 

For more on the work of two of these academies, see Climate & Global Change @ the National Academies (for the US) and this from the UK’s Royal Society. 

For another recent perspective, from four top scientists, and published in “Nature Reports - Climate Change,” see Squaring up to reality.  “Both emissions reduction and adaptation will need to be much stronger than currently planned if dangerous global impacts of climate change are to be avoided.”  This sounds precisely the same notes as the message from the national academies.

Offshore in Britain – The UK’s Crown Estate is looking to create up to 25 GW of offshore wind in the next dozen years. Okay. What is the Crown Estate? It is the British monarchy’s real property and enterprises, and it is managed separately from government properties. Here’s the story from CarbonFree. The Crown Estate will help its partners get the sites identified and approved, but the developers “will remain wholly responsible for construction and operation of windfarm sites.” Also, here is the story from the Crown Estate itself.

Marine Power – A story from Reuters tells us that serious marine power is about to explode into greater use. They note that the “ethical” bank Triodos thinks that “wave and tidal power lags maturer wind power schemes by just five years and will catch up rapidly.” Pourquoi pas?!

Envisioning the Future for US Wind – I noted here an important new report from the DOE last month saying that the US could move from its current wind generating capacity of 16.8 gigawatts to 304 GW in 2030, accounting for 20% of US electrical capacity. This was a big part of the buzz at the recent American Wind Energy Association’s “Windpower 2008” conference on the technical, political and financial issues facing the US wind industry. There were over 13,000 attendees and 776 exhibitors in Houston for this. Here is an interesting, fact-filled podcast: a selection of interviews by RenewableEnergyWorld.com from the conference. See RenewableEnergyWorld.com for a host of terrific stories on wind and other renewables. If you go to the bottom of the page, there are eight links to “Renewable Energy Technology Basics.”

Energy Efficiency and Renewables in Asia – The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has made a commitment to financing $1 billion a year for clean energy. See this from AFP via the WBCSD. See also the ADB recent “Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2008” in which more than 500 experts met in Manila last week.

Thermoelectric Generators – Finally, here’s another interesting story from CarbonFree about thermoelectric generators that convert the heat from car exhaust fumes into electricity. I mentioned cogeneration at my recent post on the carbon finance conference I attended, and had some useful comment in response. This technology is cogeneration for your car. Again, pourquoi pas?! One of the researchers estimates that the TEGs would “…cut gas consumption by between five and seven percent.” (See also my rave review from April of the Nova special, Car of the Future.)