Download PDF Edition

Print PDF

Note: Italicized words refer to sustainability policy nomenclature described by Professor John Ehrenfeld in “Sustainability by Design.”

So many realists and environmental activists who truly care about where our precious and uniquely supportive planet appears to be heading feel enormous disappointment at what was achieved in Copenhagen in December 2009, especially since this was a seemingly logical follow-up to the early 1990’s Kyoto agreements. Within an estimated plus or minus 5-10 years, it is reliably and geologically estimated that Peak Oil Production may have already passed the world by. Disturbingly, the Copenhagen Conference followed less than 18 months after 2008′s meteoric rise and subsequent subsidence of crude oil prices. Even more disturbing is the number of supposedly scientifically-based sustainable energy policy-related editorials that continue to flood the world’s newspapers, magazines and professional scientific journals. Frequently, authors with few scientific credentials utilize only a carefully selected portion of energy-related databases to present self-serving, unsustainable and non-flourishing energy policies. They masquerade under headings such as: “We’ve Got Plenty of Oil,” “Americans are Really Weaning Themselves off Oil,” “Without Nuclear Alternative Energy is Tilting at Windmills,” “The Facts About Clean Burning Natural Gas” and the highly touted Boone Pickens Windmill/Natural Gas Plan. They usually only support short-term financial concerns, political leanings or hopes of gaining funding from agenda-based sources such as the oil industry, the mining/drilling interests, the nuclear power lobby, etc. They present temporary fixes and rarely address mankind’s energy wants as opposed to the global ecology’s true energy needs. Because of New Mexico’s unique agricultural, mining, ranching, sunny climate, limited water supply, spectacular but fragile scenic beauties, etc., state policy is usually directly or indirectly affected by the vast majority of such fabrications.

Among these short-term energy-supply fixes are proposals dealing with:

Oil Shale/Tar Sands/Natural Gas – Huge deposits of all three are found in Colorado, Utah and NM, as well as short-term commercially viable quantities here in NM. Interestingly, even Exxon lost interest in Colorado’s oil shale deposits during the early 1980’s after spending untold millions on exploration and feasibility research. Several well-qualified university professors who profess to teach accredited courses in sustainable energy policy are scientifically correct in stating that the North American (Alberta, Colorado, Utah), Alaskan, Gulf Coast and Western Interior deposits of tar sand/oil shale and natural gas hold between 800 billion and 1 trillion barrels of oil, more than is present in the entire Middle East. It’s even scientifically correct that the oil is recoverable. However, few ever discuss the horrific and irreversible environmental toll when extracting/producing oil from these sources. Luckily, one so far rejected proposal was to melt oil out of the rocks with the heat generated by underground nuclear explosions. Another proposal requires burning a portion of the excavated shale to melt out the oil from the remainder. Yet another necessitates extraction from the crushed/mined ore with water/solvents. The Fort McMurray/Athabasca River, Alberta (the size of Florida) shale/tar sand region is currently being fully exploited to produce oil by non-nuclear processes. After only a few years there are hideous scars on the land, poisoned rivers and blowing sand caused by the excavations. Smokestacks from the crackers belch forth steam, sulfur dioxide and petroleum fumes. Serious illnesses such as lung, colon, bladder, bile duct and prostate cancers have been increasingly recorded at the nearby Ford Chips Health Clinic. Each barrel of oil produced generates two barrels of toxic waste, and the refining process releases up to 80% more CO₂ into the atmosphere than conventional refining. These environmental negatives and long-term environmental disasters only scratch the surface of problems accompanying these energy resources. Already one of Alberta’s unique transcontinental bird migratory regions has been virtually destroyed. Do we really want such long-term environmental devastation in the Southwest?

Coal (so-called clean burning or otherwise) and CO₂ Sequestration - Utah and Colorado are heavily into coal mining and burning. The negative environmental effects resulting from their coal-related business policies directly affect us, their neighbors. Numerous examples of unscientifically based and harmful proposals may be found supporting this widely available and currently utilized energy source. The proposals for “clean burning coal” and “CO₂ sequestration” are scientifically incorrect and thermodynamically unsound.

Probably the most preposterous sequestration plan comes from an Ivy League professor who proposes to develop energy-utilizing, manufactured chemical-rich CO₂ absorbing towers that are touted as substitutes for trees. An article entitled “Clean Coal Most Viable Option” calls for the sequestration of billions of tons of gaseous carbon dioxide in underground caverns or partially empty underground oilfields. Open-cast/pit mining for coal permanently damages the Earth’s surface and ecology. It’s transported by train to distant power stations, which requires vast amounts of energy even before its combustion for energy release. Chemistry 101 tells us that during the burning process, 12 million tons of coal (essentially carbon) require 32 million tons of atmospheric oxygen to generate 44 million tons of gaseous carbon dioxide. Most coal burning power plants are hundreds of miles away from half-empty oil-well/underground caverns for sequestering the generated CO₂. Result: more transportation of close to four times the weight of gaseous CO₂ to the burial sites. To add to the misery, gaseous carbon dioxide has the irritating habit of being able to diffuse out of underground caverns and oil wells back into the Earth’s already heavily polluted atmosphere.

Rarely mentioned, but sadly, even the cleanest coal contains poisonous contaminants such as mercury, antimony, sulfur, and selenium, which either have to be removed after combustion or released into the Earth’s already polluted atmosphere. Millions of tons of highly undesirable particulate fly ash from coal burning plants also have to find a new home. On the positive side, however, a small percentage does get utilized to make cement building blocks.

In short, so-called “clean coal” is not even remotely a viable or sustainable energy option. Remember the 2008 Olympics? In China, particulate emissions from coal-fired plants block the sun and pollute the air they (and ultimately we all) breathe. A chilling message about the effects of human-generated particulates in the atmosphere is found in PBS’s “Dimming the Sun.” It scientifically explains how the particulates are already reducing the amount of the Sun’s energy bathing the Earth daily. Its conclusions spell out the hideous consequences should mankind rely upon the above two energy sources for our ever-increasing energy demands.

Nuclear Power Generation - New Mexico was and still is a major font of knowledge, science and research related to both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Many authors, in addition to some of our 2008 Presidential and 2010 Congressional candidates, advocate building up to 240 1,500-megawatt nuclear powered electricity plants. Engineering-wise and scientifically their suggestions could probably be achieved even safely as far as construction and operation is concerned. However, rarely mentioned is that still the FACT that most of the spent nuclear fuel-rods from our current nuclear power stations continue to be stored on site because there is nowhere else to store or process them. The state of Nevada has very bluntly said, “not in my Yucca Mountain backyard.” Consequently, that site’s opening seems now to be postponed for the foreseeable future. Uranium ores are also finite. Mining them has a disastrous environmental history. Ask NM’s Navajo Indians, who still suffer from the 1950s mining operations. Further research and engineering might eventually solve the ongoing mining, spent-fuel-rod storage and recycling problems. For the safety of the planet, it seems prudent to actually solve them before the US and the world constructs hundreds more nuclear generators.

Non-thermodynamically-based energy conservation data – Many of the above-mentioned energy source advocates claim that Americans are really weaning themselves off oil. Their argument: Current data indicates that the US consumes about 21 million barrels of oil a day compared to about the same amount during the mid-1970s. During this time-period the population has increased by 75 million, indicating that on average, each person is using less oil. In reality this indicates that America (the country of), is not weaning itself off oil. Most of the claimed personal consumption improvements have in fact only been induced by mandated regulations such as mileage efficiencies for vehicles, more home insulation etc., etc., and during the summer and fall of 2008 by huge fuel price increases. As a growing, consuming and “want-want-want” nation, we haven’t scratched the surface of reducing unsustainable oil/coal/natural-gas/materials consumption by efficient energy usage.

In their infancy are energy needs solutions such as:

More public transport systems within and between cities

The use of sustainable electricity sources from wind and sun

Manufacturing biofuels from cellulose sources

Providing the necessary energy and fertilizers for biofuel production from sustainable sources

Zero-energy housing, fuel-efficient speed limits, more recycling

Changes in the workweek to 4 days

Reducing late night opening of shops & malls to 3-4 days a week instead of 7, etc.

Europe is way ahead of us in all of these socially responsible energy/materials/ conservation areas. Could this be because they accept that they need to pay higher and economically realistic prices for their energy? We here in NM could easily contribute to all of above solutions with minimal personal discomfort.

Energy Supply – A scientific reality check – If the geologists, materials and nuclear scientists who wrote these articles were truly objective, they would present the scientifically based downsides briefly outlined above. In mankind’s increasingly precipitous descent into global crises, scientists and their representative organizations have social obligations. These require objectively informing the public and sustainable energy research funding agencies of the long-term consequences and true financial cost of a) extracting oil/natural gas/coal/nuclear fuel from apparently lucrative sources and b) the long-term chemical and physical effects these energy producers pose to the Earth’s eco-component’s (plants, animals, humans, fresh water/food supply, unpolluted air, etc) ability to flourish. In this analytical mode, the increasingly rare objective members of the world’s scientific communities are not liberal, conservative, “neocon,” tree hugger, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Moslem, Jew or other epithet that gets constantly thrown at them. They are only considering the relevant thermodynamically based Scientific Facts and Laws. These are few and astonishingly simple to comprehend. Some are:

1. The Most Important: When used for energy supply, 12 tons of coal (essentially carbon, atomic weight 12) require 32 tons of oxygen (molecular weight 32) and release 44 tons of gaseous CO₂ (molecular weight, 44) into the atmosphere. Using similar molecular/atomic weight considerations, one ton of oil and so-called “clean burning” natural gas releases about two or more tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

2. There is increasing and irrefutable evidence, both here in the Southwest and globally, that mankind’s ever-increasing use of these non-sustainable energy and mineral sources is rapidly changing the Earth’s atmosphere and water supply. This decreases the ability of our ever-increasing population to flourish.

3. The Earth’s diminishing reserves of energy releasing coal, oil, gas and consumable minerals were created at least 350 million years ago. The stored energy within them was derived from the Sun (solar energy), and originally trapped/deposited over millions of years utilizing mainly plant-based photosynthetic-processes. Their physical states and locations were determined by Sun powered global climatic changes, volcanic activity, oceanic changes, Earth tectonic plate movements, etc. They currently reside either below or on Earth’s land and oceanic surfaces – many of them right here in the Southwest. When they remain there, the Earth’s essential eco-components appear able co-exist or flourish into the foreseeable future.

4. It would take an equal number of millions of years and solar energy supply to replenish these rapidly depleting energy bearing and mineral deposits by the same processes.

5. All the non-sustainable energy sources and minerals mined, extracted and utilized for human consumption are FINITE. Ultimately, mankind will exhaust ALL of them unless we develop truly sustainable energy sources and recycle materials to support our chosen lifestyles.

6. The population of the planet is increasing. If unchecked it will require more and more energy and materials. Like the facts above, this reality requires scientific and even deeper moral questioning. Only China has ever really tried to face-up to them. At the moment, even their fix does not appear to be providing a flourishing solution. Ultimately, over-population is probably the world’s greatest social, physical and moral dilemma. It’s far, far more complex and difficult than the supply of energy, food, materials and goods.

7. Energy policymakers and suppliers need to comprehend that these LAWS OF NATURE do not give one hoot about the wants or needs of mankind. These laws are “The Uncomfortable Reality” governing how we WILL get our energy in a sustainable fashion and are NOT unfortunately the slightest bit SUBJECTED to mankind’s current energy needs, economics, supplies of energetic materials, political views etc.

Adaptive governmental and personal policies appear to provide the most viable and immediate energy supply/usage options for mankind to flourish alongside our eco-partners. The most obvious require MASSIVE INSTITUTIONAL and PERSONAL CONSERVATION measures (no new technology needed). We can all start TODAY. A hard, moralistic evaluation of the energy demands by a burgeoning world population cannot be put off either.

On the positive side, everyday our very good friend the Sun bathes the Earth with enough radiant energy to generate more electricity and heat than all of us greedy, energy consuming little humans could ever imagine utilizing. Currently, and especially here in sunny NM and the Southwest, we have moderately efficient, further developable technologies such as photovoltaic cells, passive solar heaters, windmills, biofuel capabilities, tidal devices, etc. to trap, collect, distribute and utilize this free energy. In the long run they are more economical and eco-friendly than the processes currently used to generate the unsustainable energy sources we needlessly consume. Our local and world leaders, researchers, energy producers and consumers must eventually understand these issues and initiate a global effort to harness this free energy source, and concurrently, curtail the use of unsustainable energy sources. Let the world’s developed nations (and especially us in the Southwest) demonstrate how to harness our daily free energy gift while cleaning up the atmosphere, reducing global warming and removing the need for distant foreign energy suppliers. This could allow every nation to eliminate their damaging import/export deficits, thereby creating more ways of flourishing within closer vicinity of existing population centers. The time is NOW. In a few years it may well be too late for mankind to flourish on this suffering planet.

Gerald B. Ansell, Ph.D., was an Analytical Chemistry Group Leader/Practicing Chemist/Program Manager at Los Alamos National Laboratory (1996-2005). Before joining LANL, he was Assistant to the Director of the Center for Bio-catalysis and Bioprocessing at the University of Iowa, Technical Director of the Center for Materials Research at Stanford University, a Research Scientist with the U.S. Navy, a Research Associate/Group Leader with Exxon Research and Engineering, and a science and mathematics lecturer at London University, Oxford. Ansell is currently a sustainable energy technology and policy consultant residing in Los Alamos, NM. Contact 505.412.9334 or email gbansell@hotmail.com.

Print PDF

Ask a random person what it means to be green, and they will probably provide some type of explanation that includes the word recycling. The problem is, that reduction and reuse actually have a much larger impact on the environment than recycling. My theory is that, since America is such a wasteful society, we have a lot of things to recycle. An over emphasis of a low priority eco-solution over a higher priority eco-solution can actually do more harm than good to the environment.

I learned this lesson the hard way, by running a recycling business. My company, at the time, recycled Styrofoam, which was an exciting accomplishment. Even with major cooperation from all the communities in the region, it was still much more expensive to collect the post consumer Styrofoam and grind it, than it was to simply buy the ground waste cutoffs from the factory. Most of the cost was associated with recycling Styrofoam was energy. For example, the cost to transport the waste back to our factory and then grind it, made this type of recycling prohibitive.

The striking thing is that cost effective recycling is more the exception than the rule, which raises some important questions, namely, “Why are we putting such a big emphasis on recycling and completely neglecting the reduction and reuse?”
Green building also over emphasizes low priority eco-solutions. Most assessments assume that the home itself should also be disposable and will need to be recycled. The possibility of a home lasting forever and not need to be recycled is not even considered as a possibility. The longevity of a home is almost completely absent from most green building assessments. Wood frame buildings rarely last more than 100 years, and yet continue to be the most common type of construction in the United States and Canada. The Ancient Romans built concrete buildings 2000 years ago and many of these buildings are still standing. It is interesting that even the poorest countries in the world build with concrete. Now, granted, other countries do not put much emphasis on insulation, nevertheless, they do build structures that last for centuries. Insulated Concrete Forms combine the benefits of super insulation with a building that lasts for centuries.

After less than a century, wood frame homes are demolished, which takes energy, hauled to the landfill, which takes energy and space, only to be replaced with yet another wood frame home. In contrast wood frame homes can last a thousand years or more. Insulated Concrete construction is the ultimate reduce and reuse technology since these homes get reused for centuries and utilize less energy for that duration of time.

Now this revelation is controversial since so many people own wood frame homes, but it is important to expose this myth about wood frame homes being considered green building. Giving people the illusion that their wood frame homes are green built is not ethical. Assessments that ignore longevity as a component of green building assessments, force people away from the best environmental technology available

The benefits of Insulated Concrete Form (ICF) construction are staggering. ICF construction is proven to withstand tornado hurricane force winds, have up to a 4 hour fire rating, are resistant termites, roaches and rodents, use up to 50% less energy for heating and air conditioning, are allergen resistant with no hidden danger from mold and mildew. Insurance premiums can be as much as 20% lower, can save up to 47 trees and actually require less construction time and labor. There is simply no better way to build a home.

This passive solar home is built completely with concrete and steel so that it will last for a thousand years or more.

The cost of ICF construction is 2-10% higher than wood frame construction, but this extra cost is usually recovered in energy savings over the first ten years. In addition, in communities like Santa Fe, where 2000+ buildings have been built with ICF, homes appraise up to 20% higher than wood frame construction, so it is an economical as well as environmental solution.

ICF construction is a great example of a reduce and reuse technology since buildings are so large and should never be recycled, but these solutions exist in all areas of our lives. From disposable water bottles to the paper and plastic dilemma at the supermarket, there are always ways to avoid recycling all together by finding a way to simply reuse and thereby completely eliminating a product from the waste stream. After all, isn’t eliminating a waste product altogether better solution than simply recycling it?

Robert Montoya is President of ExtremeGreenDesign.com which is a Design Build company devoted to using environmentally friendly construction techniques that are economically viable.   Extreme Green was ranked as the leading residential green builder in New Mexico, by NM Business Weekly.

Print PDF

by Allan Sindelar

New Mexico has been moving on a deliberate path to become the Clean Energy State since “net metering” – the right to spin your electricity meter backward and be credited for the energy – became law in 1999. Our state is now considered to be among the top states in the country for renewable energy and is poised to grow rapidly in photovoltaic (PV) and renewable energy. Here is an overview of recent developments and an outlook for the near future.

Political Leadership

Last month Governor Richardson signed an executive order that outlines the state’s course to building a comprehensive green economy. The order carries out recommendations and goals detailed in the report developed by the Governor’s Green Jobs Cabinet. The cabinet identified five immediate goals, including:

• To become a leader in renewable energy export
• To become the center of the North American solar industry, including research and development, manufacturing and installation of solar elements in buildings
• To lead the nation in Green Grid innovation
• To continue being a leader in green building and energy efficiency
• To have an educational system that prepares students for jobs in green technologies

Governor Richardson has walked his talk. We have a 10% state income tax credit for renewable energy systems (in addition to the 30% federal credit) and no gross receipts tax on solar equipment.
Power Purchase Agreements
Third-party power purchase agreements (PPAs) have been approved by the NM Public Regulation Commission (PRC). What does this mean? A PPA is an agreement between a solar provider and a customer to purchase ongoing solar power at long-term rates. The provider installs and maintains the solar equipment on a customer’s rooftop or property. The customer pays only for the power generated by the facility – not solar equipment or installation – greatly reducing the risk and complications of implementing a solar electricity solution. It’s a proven way for governments and nonprofit organizations (schools or churches, for example) to install solar, because the tax benefits are passed on to a third party company that finances the investment.

This issue had good public and administration support but was fought by NM’s largest utilities. The PRC approved PPAs in December, but legal issues with a third party selling power will likely require legislative action or force the state supreme court to decide the issue. Legislation to ratify this has been proposed in this year’s short legislative session.
PNM Programs

In July, PNM proposed to sharply limit future growth in renewable energy. PNM’s proposal drew a heated public reaction, generating more comments to the PRC, which sets utility rates and policies, than any issue in years. The utility was eventually told by the administration to work with a range of stakeholders, including the renewable energy industry, to develop a better program.

Through a precedent-setting process, PNM and stakeholders developed a new renewable energy procurement plan that provides for a significant increase in distributed generation (PV systems) with PNM’s full support. This landmark plan recently filed with the PRC is subject to their approval. It will ultimately affect procurement plans of all regulated utilities in NM.

This plan proposes to install up to 79 megawatts of PV over the next three years and stay within cost limits established by the PRC. The plan eliminates “net metering” and the existing Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) program for new customers with PV systems, and replaces these incentives with a Solar Performance Program. This type of incentive program is commonly known as a Feed-in Tariff program or FIT. Instead of a REC payment that is fixed over time and net metering where the value of production is equal to the value of the retail electricity costs (which will change over time), the Solar Performance Program will pay a fixed rate for production over a term of 15 years for systems under 100 kW. The fixed rate represents the avoided costs plus a REC payment.

The Solar Performance Program payment will be between 26 and 22 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated over the 15-20 year term of the program. The starting rate and term of this payment is based on the system size. These Solar Performance Program rates will drop 2 cents for new participants as levels of capacity are met, reflecting the expected drop in the cost of solar. For example, a homeowner who installs a small PV system today under the existing program gets about 23 cents for a 12-year term. As utility rates increase, program benefits also increase so the homeowner is unaffected by rising costs of electricity for the portion that they are providing for themselves. Under the new program the rate is a fixed 26 cents for 15 years. After a combined 1800 kW of systems sized under 10 kW are installed, the rate for a homeowner installing a PV system and new to the Solar Performance Program will be 24 cents over 15 years. Each successive 1800 kW threshold will bring another 2 cent drop until it reaches 16 cents.

Santa Fe County’s Property Tax Program

Financing has been one of the biggest obstacles to developing the renewable energy field. Last year’s passage of two bills in the NM legislature paved the way for cities and counties to set up property tax financing of renewable energy systems. A local agency would provide financing to install a solar system, and repayment would be paid along with property taxes. Besides allowing homeowners of modest means to install solar, two significant benefits differentiate property tax financing from borrowing from a lender: as the loan becomes attached to the property, it doesn’t show up as an obligation under your credit; and the obligation stays with the home, so when the home is sold, the new homeowner takes over the payment.

Santa Fe County has approved a program that is now in its implementation phase. The county hopes to have the application process in place in early spring. (See article, page …)

Industry Trends

2009 saw a substantial drop in PV module prices due to global market shifts and the recession. Spain illustrates the former: last year Spain installed about three billion watts of PV. The Spanish program was poorly managed and ultimately terminated, so installations ceased, leading to a global market glut. The banking collapse led to financing for large solar projects suddenly disappearing. As a result of both, PV module prices dropped an average 25%. Since PV modules represent more than half of total system cost, this has been a huge benefit for the buyer. We do not expect this to last, as demand picked up at the end of 2009, and some manufacturers have recently increased their prices.

Huge Systems Coming

In recent years, utility-scale renewable energy has almost entirely been large-scale wind energy, with a number of large wind farms built on NM’s eastern plains. We are suddenly hearing announcements of large PV plants as well. Southwestern Public Service, which serves the northeast corner of the state, announced plans to build five ten-megawatt (MW) PV plants in Lea and Eddy counties, and PNM just announced a contract for 22 megawatts of PV. One megawatt is a million watts of PV, equal to 5,000 modern 200-watt PV modules. To put this in perspective, these plants together will power about 17,000 NM homes.

Federal Money Flowing

The Obama administration has made clean energy a core focus, providing federal support and funds to numerous projects. Much of this comes through ARRA economic recovery funds, with NM receiving a healthy share. Grants have recently been announced for Clean Energy Workforce Training ($6M), Clean Energy Manufacturing ($38M), Green Training ($10M), Battery Abuse Testing at Sandia ($4M), Geothermal ($7M), Energy Efficiency ($8M) and more.
Green Workforce Development and Training

For years, San Juan College in Farmington offered the only accredited solar training program in NM, and it became nationally respected for its quality. Now many of the state’s schools are scrambling to develop new programs in sustainable technology and renewables. With recession job losses, schools offering workforce training programs to meet demand are very popular. Community colleges with such programs include Santa Fe CC, Central NM CC, Northern NM CC, and Dona Ana CC.
The Rise of Mainstream Solar
The exponential growth of solar power has been on homes and businesses with utility power as well as utility-scale installations. Off-grid power, the original use of PV, is becoming a tiny part of the industry, almost a niche market. This rapid growth has many new solar companies starting up, as little more than a contractor’s and business license are required. For the purchaser of a system, the best resource remains referrals from satisfied friends and neighbors. Some resources can help sort the most skilled solar companies from newcomers. NABCEP (www.nabcep.org) is a voluntary national certification for PV and solar thermal installers, requiring training, experience, continuing education, adherence to a code of ethics, and passing a rigorous examination. Solar Estimate (www.solar-estimate.org) allows homeowners to compare contractors and read customer reviews of a contractor’s work. Both the NM Solar Energy Association (www.nmsea.org) and the state industry association (www.reia-nm.org) have installer directories, although neither offers a ratings service. NM’s Construction Industries Division (www.rld.state.nm.us/cid/index.htm) allows a check for required licensure.
You can sign up to receive a statewide Green Economy newsletter at http://www.edd.state.nm.us/greenEconomy/overview/index.html.

Allan Sindelar installed his first off-grid PV system in 1988, founded Positive Energy Inc. of Santa Fe in 1997, and has lived off-grid since 1999. He is a licensed commercial electrician and a NABCEP-certified PV installer. Email: allan@positiveenergysolar.com

Print PDF

How big can desalination plants get?

Joan E. Price – South Central New Mexico Correspondent

In the historical effort to clean saline water sources for municipal use, costs have skyrocketed for the technologies that would do the cleaning. In the meantime, customers in the rural areas of Otero County pay for desalinated water by the gallon in small stores – for coffee, tea and juicers – because the taste is so much better.

The technology to desalinate millions of gallons is the same as that used in a small store run by Maurice and Mary Hobson in Tularosa, where individuals who live far away from water services – or those whose wells have dried up, pay the cost for nearly pure water rather than use well water or the village tap.

In 1978, Maurice Hobson, an elected representative for the Lincoln/Otero areas, introduced the very first desalination bill into the NM legislature; House Bill 409, seeking $200,000 from the state and $700,000 from federal sources. But now, the very first state-of-the-art desalination plant underway in NM, in Alamogordo, is getting expensive at $27 million from the state, including lawsuits and technical expenses. Just the environmental study has required over $800,000, according to a story by Kendra Wells in the Alamogordo Daily News (February 2008).

In those early days, Hobson was following the work of a cadre of scientists calling themselves the NM Research Institute, including Dr. Mark Jones and Ernst Steinhoff, a rocket scientist from Germany working at White Sands Proving Grounds (which became the White Sands Missile Range) and Holloman Air Force Base. Steinhoff had a passion for groundwater and climate modeling.

Hobson starting listening to Steinhoff about the possibility of using technologies to clean salts and contaminants out of the ancient ocean bed of the Basin to supplement the sources of fresh water streams in the mountains.

In those days, water quality was not an issue. People drank local water. Some of it tasted okay; some tasted very bad. Lots of wells were useable, recalls Hobson, who grew up in the farming community of Tularosa. “The cattle would drink the water in our tanks where the green algae were growing. That was the sweet water – the algae cleaned the mineralized water flowing in from wells.”

“Steinhoff was brilliant,” said Hobson. “He was a global thinker. He wanted to help the people. The Tularosa Basin had the second biggest underwater lake in North America. The biggest was in the Salt Lake basin in Utah.”

By the late 1970’s, Steinhoff had analyzed all the existing data on rainfall. He showed Hobson that droughts were in three cycles – a 70-year cycle, a 7-year cycle and an intermediate cycle. As Hobson remembers, “He had projected those out in a chart. As I looked at this, I said, ‘look, those all come together at the beginning of 2000. Boy, that is going to be a barn burner of a drought!’” “Oh, yes,” Steinhoff agreed. “That is going to be a bad one.”

Hobson brought HB 409 to Santa Fe seeking state funds for test wells around Carrizozo at the high end of the Tularosa Basin. NMRI reasoned that the water; fresh, brackish or mixed, was dropping in altitude underground over 160 miles south to the Rio Grande River and El Paso, Texas.

“NMRI planned to watch surrounding individual wells that had prior water rights carefully to avoid any impacts,” said Hobson. This would then become a model for small-scale desalination plants to be constructed, one by one, moving south close to mountain freshwater recharge.

HB 409 made it all the way to Gov. Bruce King’s desk but King vetoed the matching funds request from the federal government. It could have been a number of things – the finance authority, opposition to Steinhoff, or legislators who had interest in desalination projects in their own districts. “I never really understood that,” said Hobson.

Hobson went into small-scale desalination in 1998, setting up The Water Source, a store in Tularosa. All the components of desalination technology – the village water supply and electricity, filters, pressure valves, membranes, ultraviolet light, and storage of nearly pure produced water in two 1,000-gallon tanks occupy a ten by thirty foot space in the back of his outlet. He understands it all and continues to find new improved technology for his ongoing interest. A steady stream of people from the surrounding area come with containers large and small to enjoy better tasting low cost drinking water.

Since Ernst Steinhoff passed away in1987, prices for water have risen dramatically. “It is just like the price of gas,” said Hobson. “When gas was 32 cents per gallon, they didn’t care how clean or efficient it was. Now it’s ten times that much so now it’s relevant.”

The first inland desalination plant has been in operation in El Paso and is currently running at 4% of capacity. The 20,200 square foot plant can produce up to 27.5 million gallons a day, reported David Burge for the El Paso Times last year.

John Balliew, the utility’s vice president of operations and engineering, told Burge, “A joint project between El Paso Water Utilities and the army, it was designed to meet growth in El Paso and at Fort Bliss and to combat droughts.”

In the meantime, the El Paso Water Utilities website shows the shift in the subsurface groundwaters of the Rio Grande and the drain on the groundwaters of the Tularosa Basin that have been developing as the border city grows.

NEXT MONTH: Part two looks at companies that have claimed deep groundwater sources on the border between Texas and NM in a grab for potentially lucrative brackish deep waters to supply NM, Texas and Mexico industries. In the eyes of NM State Engineer John d’Antonio, this is the next “gold rush.” What are the stakes for the borderlands?

©Joan E. Price is a freelance writer and photographer based in Tularosa. Email rainhousejoan@hotmail.com.

Print PDF

THE DREAMING NEW MEXICO PROJECT

AGE OF RENEWABLES

by Project Directors Kenny Ausubel and Peter Warshall

“Socialized” costs

New Mexico (and the U.S.) have never had a coherent policy on how much the costs of energy should come from public coffers. How much of energy production, transport, processing, use and waste handling should be at taxpayer expense? Nuclear power is the most “socialized” of all energy production, enjoying the largest energy subsidies in U.S. history at almost every step from mine to waste burial. Oil and gas receive huge tax breaks— regardless of market price. Public financing must place renewables on a level playing field with fossil fuels and nuclear power.

A Restoration Economy reshapes fiscal policy and financing to help return our damaged atmosphere and lands and waters to its earlier state of health — a time of fewer greenhouse gases and volatile toxics, a time when climatic change was more predictable and less cruel. Restoring the atmosphere capitalizes on the expertise and imagination of environmentally friendly industries (like renewables manufacturers), businesses, venture capitalists, well-targeted public funding and incentives, new and quality jobs, economic development with multiple benefits (such as geothermal greenhouses, spas and heating), and educated citizens who purchase goods and services that curtail greenhouse gas emissions. It also succeeds when bank bonds, loans and investors direct their cash to renewables, energy efficiency appliances and equipment, and smart computer software for distributed energy.

DREAM

The market and regulatory framework quickly level the playing field between the old system (centralized fossil fuel feeding superhighway transmission lines) and the new (renewables, energy efficiency and distributed energy).

How to accomplish this dream may be the most complex undertaking humans have ever attempted. Transmission lines, for instance, were never designed for competitive pricing nor for distributed energy. In areas with congested lines, the power line owner can raise access charges and demand higher prices. There is no competition or incentive to upgrade or build new lines. Or, if two power line companies merge, the price to the customer may skyrocket because the merged company averages costs of the two service areas. If the acquired service area has higher costs, the old customers pay more for electricity that they never receive.

This amazingly intricate complex of cash flows and energy flows can bewilder even experts.

New Mexico’s dream envisions:

• accelerated market penetration of renewables, energy efficiency and distributed energy;

• assistance to local businesses to help them enter emerging green energy markets;

• shrinking price margins between fossil fuels and renewable power generation;

• tax structures that benefit renewable technologies and, once established, treat all power and heat technologies equally;

• private and public investment (subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees ) that spur large wind and solar farms for energy export and replace coal-fired generation and gasoline-powered vehicles;

• local “aggregators” who finance micropowers and microgrids, and negotiate fair contracts with Big Grid owners and operators;

• rate structures that favor energy efficiency, not more profits for more electrons sold.

The market, by itself, cannot shift to the Restoration Economy. Energy is too important to allow wild price swings, the manipulation of prices by traders or accountants (Enron), or the burdening of innocent customers with “inherited” or “stranded” costs from bad investments, mergers, previous mismanagement and unanticipated bills (e.g., decommissioning nuclear power plants). The restoration of the atmosphere — and the lands and waters damaged by the fossil fuel and uranium economies — requires public oversight as well as public funding.

DREAM

Accounting is transparent to prevent market manipulation and artificial shortages.

Customers and taxpayers pay for what they receive — with no burdens of stranded, inherited, or mismanagement costs.

Conversion Costs

New Mexico’s economy and fiscal rules have been shaped by a century of fossil fuels. Major amounts of greenhouse gases come from the oil, gas and coal industries. Taxes on these industries contribute to the state coffers and have become crucial to financing public education.

No one is quite sure who should pay how much for the transition to an energy system of renewables, distributed energy, and energy efficiency. State and federal governments have initiated production tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and other benefits such as green tags and renewable energy certificates. These types of credits are crucial to investors and local businesses. Investors dream not just of the kind of power generator, but of a stable investment climate, a reasonable rate of return, and a clear contract. Congress has treated tax incentives in a fickle manner — here one year and gone the next. Congress has long awarded the fossil fuel and nuclear industries with tax breaks on a scale unavailable to renewables.

DREAM

Public tax funds help support the conversion to the new energy economy. Production tax credits and similar financial instruments balance market price and start-up needs. Conversion costs — such as stability charges — have sunset clauses to encourage utilities and coops to incorporate the new energy system into their normal accounts.

DREAM

Incubator technologies have public funding for research, development, demonstration and deployment. No established technology receives more subsidies and/or accelerated depreciation than another.

Tax and Rate Structures

Fuel harvesters, power generators, investor owned utilities, traders and other private sector players have earned greater profits by selling more and more electricity, gas and fuel. The more sold, the greater the profits. This rate structure has discouraged energy efficiency. If households can save money by energy efficiency, they have reduced their percentage of income going to home operations costs and can spend it on other items. There is a need to change financial policy. In the dream, the more work per kwh or miles per gallon or BTUs per cubic foot of natural gas, the more profitable. “Performance-based” rate structures and time-of-day pricing have jump-started the shift. But utilities concerned with fixed costs and lost revenue have protested. In New Mexico, some bills contain “conservation surcharges” and “stability charges.” In other words, the customer is a good citizen (saves energy and greenhouse gas emissions) but also pays extra for his/her actions.

DREAM

Consumer bills go down when consumers conserve energy and improve energy efficiency.

Distributed Energy

Power markets do not justly reward distributed energy for their contributions to affordable energy and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Distributed energy, for instance, has very low delivery costs. Long-distance delivery from central power plants adds about 20 percent to your energy bill. To be justly rewarded, the markets must be restructured or distributed energy owners must “aggregate” so that they are large enough to meet entrance requirements into the market system.

Distributed energy may require: tax credits or exemptions to encourage the purchaser to buy on-site renewables and install two-way meters; incentives and assurances of cost recovery for utilities that invest in customer-owned renewable energy; and research and development funds to help new technologies such as load-sharing computer software for smart substations. Financial tools including “load ordering” favor financial rewards for renewables over non-renewables. Load ordering can require a utility to give preference to distributed energy.

DREAM

Financing in high-growth areas such as Las Cruces and Albuquerque establishes the first aggregated micropower/microgrid complexes, two-way metering, and accommodations for rooftop renewables.

No Financial incentives for Greenhouse Gas

When Sithe Global, a New York-based multinational, and the Navajo Nation asked the state of New Mexico for an $85 million tax credit to build a new coal-fired power plant, many legislators and citizens thought this was the wrong direction. The plant would emit so many metric tons of greenhouse gases that the Climate Change Advisory Group’s reduction goals would become unachievable. The tax credit died in committee after a tough fight.

This tax incentive, called a “perverse incentive,” illustrates the close ties of politics and economics. There are many perverse incentives shaped by the fossil fuel era. The Natural Gas Processors Tax, for instance, is based on the number of BTUs entering the processing plant. Processors gain deductions for gas lost to flaring or lost through plant malfunction. They are rewarded financially for increasing greenhouse gas emissions and wasting energy.

Positive incentives move the dream faster. But, if there is insufficient cooperation between the private and public sectors, then disincentives (the punishing sticks) must be considered. Typical disincentives include steep fines for emitting too many toxic chemicals from smokestacks, polluting groundwater or blocking someone else’s solar access. This tool, while not preferred, may be all that is effective. A carbon tax, for instance, punishes those with higher greenhouse gas emissions and may raise electric bills so much that customers rebel and oppose all actions to curtail climate change. Balancing cash and conscience takes the dream another step, to the doable dream.

This article cannot comprehensively review all the opportunities to stimulate the restoration economy and reduce greenhouse gases. We know that simple tools such as better energy labels can be very effective, or recycling aluminum cans, which eliminates all the greenhouse gases required for mining and processing ore.

The message is simple: New Mexicans do not have to sacrifice their comforts and can even achieve more disposable income by thoughtfully incorporating energy efficiency, renewables, and distributive energy into their lives.

Green collar jobs

Green collar jobs are good jobs with health insurance, benefits, meaningful work and job satisfaction. One study says that wind energy in New Mexico could provide 20,000 construction jobs for large-scale wind projects with 52,000 jobs in operation and maintenance over 20 years, yielding an income of $6.4 billion. Another study estimates 6,000 jobs from occupations related to energy efficiency. The full blossoming of the Age of Renewables holds thousands more jobs for re-metering and re-conductoring the microgrids, residential retrofits, green building and energy efficiency as well as large and small solar manufacturing (already over 600 jobs in three companies).

The New Energy Economy

Two big changes are (1) nearby “renewable energy parks” (left column) that feed the local grid, and (2) consumers who are also generators of renewable electricity from their homes, businesses and vehicles. The consumer-generator feeds the local grid and receives credits or payments from

Fossil fuel taxes and public schools

After state sales taxes, the fossil fuel energy sector is the second largest contributor to the state’s coffers. Oil and gas account for 90% of all extractive industry revenues. The coffer can lose or gain $100 million or more in any year with changes in oil and gas prices. In 2001, $330 million of the oil and gas severance tax went to the public school system. As crude petroleum decreases (as it has since the 1970s), the tax burden shifts to coal seam methane gas production. The future is unclear. The public schools could suffer from tax breaks for the fossil fuel industries to improve their environmental performance, carbon emissions taxes, lower production rates, world prices, or other environmental costs. Transitioning to the Age of Renewables requires skillfully revising the tax codes.

The flow chart outlines the complex entanglement of cash flows, energy flows and human participants. Elected legislators, citizen and business lobbyists, state agency personnel, fossil fuel suppliers and utility gifts to political campaigns — all influence the funds available to public education.

New Mexico’s electricity rates (2007):

9.2 cents per kwh (residential)

7.86 cents (commercial)

6.02 cents (industrial)

Research

New Mexico benefits from America’s wealth through federal financing of new technologies. Technological innovation and testing occurs at Sandia and Los Alamos National Labs and at colleges such as the community colleges in Española and Tucumcari and universities (e.g., UNM’s Alliance for a Carbon-Neutral Foodshed). New Mexico has a great opportunity of moving from nuclear to renewables research, development, demonstration and deployment, as well as to innovative grid management software, composite conductors and capacitors.

To purchase the Dreaming NM poster/map and pamphlet, visit www.bioneers.org or call 1-877-BIONEER (246-6337) More information is available at www.dreamingnewmexico.org.

Print PDF

Congrats on stirring up discussion about LEED.

I was invited to be on the expert panel to revise LEED v 1, because I’d written a book, Sustainable Landscape Construction. We met on an opulent Rockefeller estate, a schizoid experience – but that’s another story.

Prior to this, LEED had little landscape architectural representation; we added many outdoor-tactic points. But one fundamental issue was unresolvable: a perfectly green structure, placed badly within an ecosystem, can still do more damage than good. At that time, for example, you could not get LEED certification if smoking was permitted, but you could if you built in a wildfire zone! The underlying issue is still a weakness of LEED and its imitators.

LEED explicitly and deliberately avoids this issue. It is a voluntary system, which means there can’t be any “knock-out” criteria based on the ecosystem where the property is located – landowners simply wouldn’t participate.

Thus, we have to parallel LEED with intelligent land-use. We must make it desirable to leave some land alone because developing it is costly in “ecosystem services.” Serious land-use planning challenges the US attitude that ownership means doing whatever one wants with any property anywhere. But without it, green technology risks becoming mostly feel-good.

It’s also critical to be honest about what LEED is: a marketing tool to create demand for green building – conceived at a time when green was still far from mainstream. It has served that purpose well. In some (but far from all) cases, it has outgrown its usefulness or has unintended consequences. It is most popular among those who can use it for marketing, and nothing wrong with that. From a whole-system sustainability perspective, its rather narrow focus is a concern, but this asks LEED to be something bigger than it is. We need to be listening to critics because although their complaints may sometimes be biased or inaccurate, they contain the seeds of necessary evolutionary change.

Conversation with Green Builders

Dear GFT:

I liked your conversation with green builders, but the conflict inherent in corporate market values always turns conversations into a fight. I would like to add a little of what was left out that I will call the art, science and soul of green building. We also need to address the black elephant in the room: until we address the lack of human values in the corporate system of doing business, we will always have a need for social justice, and we will always be pseudo-green builders. The corporate system is a lie. A corporation is not a person; it is an unfair monetary and political power advantage and a system that has no morality [or a psychopathic morality if that could be described as a morality]. It has taken over our elected government and rules our country imperiously.

To begin to change will be difficult but it is the most important issue in our culture at this time. In place of the lack of morality in our current corporate system we need to insert the word “harmlessness” as an intention for doing business in order to stop green building harm. We also need to grow up developmentally as a people, and instead of values of greed and selfishness, we need to focus on the greater good as a green value. We will have to learn how to share resources and knowledge.

We also need to follow the “Precautionary Principle.” If a substance seems to be harmful, we must rule out its harm scientifically first and not wait, as we have done for the last 75 years, for corporations to poison our air, water and food. The current medical holocausts from the tobacco, chemical, radiation, and cellular industries have harmed millions of people. It would also be helpful to add the science of art to green building and make beauty as important as technology, and technology and science to be whole [to contain spirit and soul]; not just thinking intelligence but the feminine logic and reason, which is also more whole and includes social, spiritual and moral values.

Robert-Francis “Mudman” Johnson of Santa Fe, is a cob builder, poet, sculptor, Earth artist, eco-psychologist, initiated elder, humorist, writer and classic underachiever.

Print PDF

by Susan Waterman

You may be one of the many gardeners who look forward to having an early taste of spring in February by attending the annual NM Xeriscape Council Conference and Expo in Albuquerque (February 25-28). There will be many gardening, plant and soil experts there with numerous displays, seminars and information tables.

In keeping with the upcoming conference, I was inspired to consider the place for xeric plants, flowering plants requiring minimal water, in the food garden. These plants have a superstar role where they are highly beneficial and even essential – as attractors for pollinators such as honey bees, other bees and other hairy insects, wasps, ants, beetles, moths, butterflies and flies, who come to harvest their nectar. Some of the veggie garden plants may be wind-pollinated or self-pollinated, but many require the activity of honeybees or other creatures. All outbreeding plants, for example gourds or celery, where the pollen is ready before the female part (stigma) is ready to receive it, will require assistance from bees or other insects.

An important consideration in selecting plants to attract and feed pollinators is the fact that if you choose xeric plants, they won’t want as much water as many of the veggies may be receiving. Of course, the way water is delivered to the plants is a main factor, and often a drip irrigation system is recommended as a highly efficient way to help conserve water by utilizing specific watering points. Infrequent and deep watering is generally considered the best approach; water will rise upward in the soil as moisture evaporates from the surface, so roots get double the benefit! Even if you’re using a drip system, the amount of water for the xeric plants should be about half of what the veggies are receiving.

We simply can’t have seeds and fruits without pollination, and without seeds, we have no plants. Pollination is a natural process that perhaps has been taken for granted for generations of farmers and growers. Nowadays, even pollination is a natural process subject to the vagaries of nature and the follies of humankind. For many years around two decades back the bee population was decimated by infestations of mites and other diseases. Populations of pollinators have declined due to pesticide misuse and overuse as well as urban sprawl. Now it has been suggested that the normal activities of bees may be hampered by the presence of GMO genes in plants and by the ubiquitous matrix of low frequency wavelengths generated by cell phone and radio towers. The navigation capacities of the bees are rendered ineffective so that bees are unable to travel back to their hives after a day of pollinating. Don’t these vital garden friends deserve a little treat, a helping hand?

While the high desert environment presents its own challenges to growing veggies and fruits, one measure we as gardeners can take to assist Mother Nature in providing food to ourselves is to provide gourmet food to attract and sustain bees and other pollinators that are so essential. Some areas are experiencing a shortage of pollinators for various reasons, so attracting pollinators to your garden will help ensure adequate and even pollination. Many xeric plants are wonderful for attracting pollinators. Not only will these lovely plants sustain the pollinators essential to an abundant garden, but many are perennials and will add lively color and fragrance to the garden.

The plants attracting pollinators may be planted on the garden border, especially the shrubs and small trees. Or, the flowers may be planted in clumps throughout the garden or in a mini flowerbed in one central location within the vegetable garden.

Here are a few suggestions for xeric plants that are great forage for pollinators, especially bees. All the plants listed are xeric and perennial. They will also attract butterflies to the garden. Xeric plants for pollinators include herbs, flowers, shrubs and small trees.

Herbs and flowers

Blanket flowers (Gaillardia species)

Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculantum, Eriogonum fasciculatum): also a good green manure crop

Catmint (Nepeta species)

Clay –Orange Butterfly weed  (Asclepias tuberosa):  up to 18” high

Goldenrod ( Solidago sp.)

Hyssop - (Agastache species): some varieties (e.g. Blue Fortune or Black adder) may prefer a little shade and a little more water. Up to 3 feet high. Also known as “hummingbird mint”

Jupiter’s Beard (Centranthus sp.)

Lavender (Lavandula species): select early, mid-season and late blooming varieties.

Maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximiliana)

Penstemon

Prairie clover (Dalea scariosa): provides early forage

Russian Sage (Perovskia atriplicafolia ): can become a bit invasive

Sages (Salvia species)

Shrubs and small trees

Fruit trees of all varieties

Bird of paradise (Caesalpinia gilliesii): Zone 7 and warmer

Blue Mist Spirea (Caryopteris sp.)

Chaste tree (Vitex agnus-castus)

Desert willow (Chilopsis linearus)

Golden Raintree (Koelreuteria paniculata):  up to 20 feet tall or more

Lilac (Syringa sp.):  select early and late bloomers for the perimiter

Mock Orange (Philadelphus sp.)

Service berry (Amelanchier alnifolia)

Enjoy the added beauty and the song of bees and play of butterflies in your garden all season long.

Susan Waterman has a Ph.D. in botany and over 25 years in sustainable agriculture. For more info, visit www.harvestbyhand.com. Question? Email green@harvestbyhand.com.

Print PDF

by Stan Euston

Remembering a backpack trip in the Pecos, I still can see and smell and hear the morning in its pure clarity. In all this wonder I think I’m alone in the high mountains. But really? Well, no. In the distance I spot several bighorn sheep munching their way across an alpine meadow. Or I think I do. On second look, binoculars in hand, I see the antlers and know they’re elk. Grand enough.

I watch these great creatures in the rocky mountain meadow. A few marmots are whistling. And I mull over a thought that is strangely freeing: “These creatures need our species not one iota.” Fellow travelers of the wildlands, they have lured me into an unbounded spiritual communion. The alpine sun-splashed terrain, the elk herd, the ravens, the New Mexico mountains’ infinite blue turning in on itself—I remember still and still wonder at it all.

Some sturdy folks tramp 12 or 20 steep miles into the deep wilds. There time stops. We find a hushed center place, away from the whirling world of cities and worries. We notice the small, and we notice infinity. We are “thinking like a mountain,” in Aldo Leopold’s memorable phrase.

Some find solace in smaller places like nearby Little Embudito Canyon at the entrance to the Sandia Wilderness. Here is a boulder- strewn sanctuary, a sanctuary from development. The sunny billion year-old granite rocks welcome us, mere humans, into their territory.

Many of us accept nature as a grace from whatever spiritual source is at our core. And in this world of so much confusion, so much uncertainty, there is solace in knowing that the world of wildlands cares not a whit about you or me. It just goes on in its two billion year evolutionary way.

Or, we must say, had gone on. Now, walking and observing on the trail or following the news, we know something is deeply wrong. Something immense has changed in a nanosecond of geologic time. Incredibly—and sadly—nature herself, in her grand totality, is now at stake. We collectively have met the outer reaches of our burden on the Earth. With climate change, ecosystems worldwide are ebbing. The wildlands, like the glaciers, retreat every day. The scale and finality of the climate challenge make it history’s great test. Our ultimate home is at stake. And now sadly, at Copenhagen, the great hope for an historic and binding international carbon limits treaty has been dashed. Those in power have failed us all.

So be it! In this time of Earth crisis, those of us who love nature are compelled to act locally. For if we love something, and if that thing is our Earth home, then we are bound up in a web of moral responsibility to protect it.

In the last analysis, here lies one of the bedrock reasons why we innovate new architectural designs and new construction techniques, why we work the political system for implementation of alternative energy strategies, and why we lobby for more funding for energy efficiency. Aside from all the economic arguments, at the core lies the fundamental fact of ethical responsibility to the Earth and to the future.

Human hubris may well bring down as many as one half of the Earth’s species. But think of it this way. Every insulated building, every solar installation, every alternative fuels program is a response that says to the Earth, to other species: “We hear your call.” And we in New Mexico are responding to that call.

Stan Euston is the President of the Sustainability Project and former Environmental Director at the NM Conference of Churches.

Print PDF

by Doug Pushard

In last month’s article I reviewed our growing population and the declining precipitation rates that Northern New Mexico has experienced over the past several decades. This paints a very arid picture indeed for this part of the country. Pumping more water or increasing water transfer from other areas is not going to solve this problem; it just increases the need for more power generation, and this directly translates into more power plants. For those of us who love our amazing vistas and crystal clear blue skies, the solution to our water needs can’t involve polluting our skies. Clearly, we must look to other solutions.

No matter how much pollution control equipment is installed, traditional power plants still pollute. Another less realized fact is that power plants consume vast quantities of water. An average coal plant will consume 390 gallons for every MWh (megawatt hour) generated. The Desert Rock Power Plant, proposed for a 580-acre site on the Navajo Nation, San Juan County, NM, is a 1,500-megawatt (MW) coal-fired plant projected to produce 211,000 to 375,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year. This hotly contested plant would emit 12-13 million tons of CO₂ and consume over 1.6 billion gallons of water annually, or 438,000 gallons a day!

There is no free lunch when it comes to power generation. All types will require water, either during operations or during the manufacturing process. Wind and small distributed photovoltaic solar systems use virtually none to operate, while nuclear and coal use prodigious amounts. Manufacturing solar panels or wind turbines does require water, but recent studies show it is not extensive amounts.

Traditional power generation and distribution literally use tons of water each and every day. Water and energy usage are inextricably linked. Conserve one and it conserves the other. Consume one and it consumes the other. The most direct way to prevent a kWh from needing to be generated or a gallon of water from being pumped is not to use either in the first place – conserve, don’t consume.

A National Resource Defense Council (www.nrdc.org) study concluded that there are more than 60,000 water systems and 15,000 wastewater systems in the US, and they are among the country’s largest energy consumers, using about 75 billion kWh/year nationally – 3 percent of annual US electricity consumption to treat and deliver water. This demand alone is equivalent to the entire residential demand for the state of California. If San Diego relied on water conservation instead of additional water from Northern California to provide the next 100,000 acre-feet, it would save water and enough energy to provide electricity for 25 percent of all of the households in San Diego.

Although buying and installing large cisterns and/or a photovoltaic tracking array may be sexy – they both consume resources. It is far better for the environment and your pocketbook to start with conservation. To get the biggest bang, be extremely aggressive on water conservation. It saves water but it also saves energy, which in turn saves water.

Although many Northern New Mexicans can be proud of our water conservation efforts and our lower than average water use per person than the average American, we pale in comparison to water use of those poor blokes in the UK who consume only 40 gallons per person per day.

Albuquerque and Santa Fe both have good water conservation programs; Albuquerque since 1995 and Santa Fe since 2002. Both have significantly reduced per capita water consumption. These cities and others realize conserving water is the way of the future. Their programs have saved massive quantities of water, and consequently, tons of CO2 emissions. Other cities in the US have come to realize that these normally small, isolated, “liberal environmental programs” can be part of the solution to other, much larger problems.

A great example is James City County (JCC), Virginia. The county knew that as the area grows, so does the demand for water. Between 1990 and 1999, JCC’s population grew 33.5 percent, from 36,309 to 48,475. To meet that growth, JCC’s groundwater withdrawal had increased from 600 million gallons per year to over 1 billion – a 50 percent increase. In the first year of its aggressive water conservation program the county replaced just 0.15% of high-water use appliances owned by customers and saved 6 million gallons. The county quickly determined that by increasing the replacement of low water use appliances from 0.15% to 25%, it could meet over 50% of future water demands while at the same time reducing by 2,590 tons per year CO₂e (i.e. carbon dioxide equivalent) that would have been produced.

The program also involved installing rain sensors, rain barrels and cisterns, high efficiency toilets, high efficiency washing machines, on-demand hot water recirculators and high efficiency dishwashers. For this program, the EPA recognized JCC as a WaterSense Water Efficiency Partner of the Year.

Chicago is another city with a similar, yet even more aggressive and integrated water/energy management program. Chicago’s goal is to reduce CO₂e by 98,000 MT by 2020 through a Green Infrastructure Program. Components of this program include aggressive replacement of aging, leaking infrastructure as well as programs to promote disconnecting downspouts from the city stormwater system and directing this “waste water” to rain barrels, cisterns and rain gardens. Other programs include promotion of green roofs and replacing normal asphalt with green paving to reduce storm runoff. Permeable alleys and rain gardens reduce flooding, and use rainwater as a resource to beautify neighborhoods. These programs have been promoted through community meetings, instructional videotapes, brochures and discounts on materials to homeowners. The city is actively working to require specific water conservation approaches be mandatory on future buildings.

The US is not alone in the drive to conserve. Even more dramatic is the program implemented in Queensland, Australia’s fastest-growing state, with 2.7 million residents. The Queensland Water Commission asked that residents use just 35-40 gallons of water per person per day – a savings that could be more easily attained if residents reduced their seven-minute showers to four minutes. The message was widely advertised on television and on outdoor advertising. A major rebate program was implemented that provided over 500,000 water-saving devices including rainwater tanks, low-flush toilets and water-efficient showerheads. Rebates for cisterns could nearly pay for the tank (i.e. close to $1 a gallon) if the tank was plumbed to supply water for both outdoor irrigation and indoor toilets. The result of all of this was that the stated goal was not just met, but exceeded.

Cities around the country and world are discovering water conservation, as well as the direct link between water, energy, and CO₂ emissions. Aggressive water conservation programs (i.e., larger incentives, increased awareness programs, etc.) can be part of the solution to help address even larger issues (i.e. future water supply needs, easing growth constraints, decreasing air pollution, etc.). It is not just the water – it is our clear blue skies we should also care about. Please help conserve our most precious resource. The solution starts with each of us doing what we can.

Doug Pushard, founder of the website www.HarvestH2oO.com, has designed and installed residential rainwater systems for over 12 years. He is a member of Santa Fe Water Conservation Committee and can be reached at Doug@HarvestH2oO.com.

Print PDF