Rocky Mountain Institute Spring 2008 Volume xxiv #1 Forget Nuclear By Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich Uncompetitive Costs Ā e Economist observed in 2001 that “Nuclear uclear power, we’re told, is a vibrant power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, industry that’s dramatically reviving is now too costly to matter”—cheap to run because it’s proven, necessary, but very expensive to build. Since then, it’s Ncompetitive, reliable, safe, secure, widely used, become several-fold costlier to build, and in increasingly popular, and carbon-free—a a few years, as old fuel contracts expire, it is perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal expected to become several-fold costlier to power. New nuclear plants thus sound vital run. Its total cost now markedly exceeds that for climate protection, energy security, and of other common power plants (coal, gas, powering a growing economy. big wind farms), let alone the even cheaper Ā ere’s a catch, though: the private capital competitors described below. market isn’t investing in new nuclear plants, Construction costs worldwide have risen far and without fi nancing, capitalist utilities aren’t faster for nuclear than non-nuclear plants, buying. Ā e few purchases, nearly all in Asia, due not just to sharply higher steel, copper, are all made by central planners with a draw nickel, and cement prices but also to an on the public purse. In the , atrophied global infrastructure for making, even government subsidies approaching or building, managing, and operating reactors. exceeding new nuclear power’s total cost have Ā e industry’s fl agship Finnish project, led failed to entice Wall Street. by France’s top builder, after 28 months’ Ā is non-technical summary article compares construction had gone at least 24 months the cost, climate protection potential, behind schedule and $2 billion over budget. reliability, fi nancial risk, market success, deployment speed, and Figure 1: Cost of new delivered electricity 15 energy contribution of new 2007–08 industry estimates 14 nuclear power with those Credit for 13 recovered and Keystone (June 2007) reused heat of its low- or no-carbon 12 Fuel minus heat MIT (2003) credit competitors. It explains 11

10 Transmission why soaring taxpayer and Distribution 9 subsidies aren’t attracting Firming and investors. Capitalists instead 8 integration 7 Operation and favor climate-protecting Maintenance competitors with less cost, 6 5 Capital 2007 cents per kWh

construction time, and 4

fi nancial risk. Ā e nuclear 3

industry claims it has no 2 serious rivals, let alone 1 those competitors—which, 0 -1 however, already outproduce Nuclear plant Coal plant Large combined- Large wind farm Combined-cycle Building-scale Recovered-heat End-use efficiency cycle gas plant industrial cogen cogen industrial cogen nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster. By 2007, as Figure 1 shows, nuclear was the Most remarkably, comparing all options’ costliest option among all main competitors, ability to protect the earth’s climate and whether using MIT’s authoritative but now enhance energy security reveals why nuclear low 2003 cost assessment,1 the Keystone power could never deliver these promised Center’s mid-2007 update (see Figure 1, benefi ts even if it could fi nd free-market pink bar), or later and even higher industry buyers—while its carbon-free rivals, which estimates (see Figure 1, pink arrow).2 won $71 billion of private investment in Cogeneration and effi ciency are “distributed 2007 alone, do off er highly eff ective climate resources,” located near where energy is used. and security solutions, sooner, with greater confi dence. continued on page 24 container is linked to several other sectors In for the Long (and Heavy) Haul in the transportation system that together RMI Tackles the 17 percent of U.S. fuel use and 30 percent represent a large source of environmental of U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions.2 degradation (see Figure 2). Ubiquitous Shipping While freight has accomplished massive So how could a new shipping container gains in effi ciency and productivity in the help this system? Ā e possibilities are Container last hundred years, RMI is researching huge, and our research reveals new options how we can reduce the 10 percent of every day. One intriguing option would be reducing the weight of the container, By Laura Schewel greenhouse-gas emissions due to freight by tackling systematic ineffi ciencies that waste which would lead to a variety of benefi ts energy and produce unnecessary pollution. including: Like the wires hidden inside my computer Lighter loads (and less fuel) for Ā e freight system’s complexity has • as I tap out this sentence, or the billions equipment that carry containers: derailed many attempts to reduce its most of neurons that fi re before your eyes can containers are fi lled with low-density blink, global goods transportation—the energy used and pollution (including some of RMI’s own past projects). Based on this products (like Barbies or paper cups) so the network of boats, trucks, cars, ports, weight of the container itself can be 10 to warehouses, roads, and railroads that get experience, RMI recently came up with a new approach: organize the system around 20 percent of the gross weight. Reducing our stuff to us—is a dizzyingly complex the container weight would decrease the system. Also known as “freight,” this is one simple, common denominator and see if it can be used as a lever to both better amount of fuel needed to haul these loads. a system that must function around the Ā e ability to put more goods in each understand and improve the entire system. • clock for the most simple acts of our container, thereby reducing the total Fortunately, freight has at least one iconic daily lives to work: making coff ee in the number of containers: some containers morning, taking notes in class, or reading and ubiquitous rallying point: the shipping container. aren’t fi lled to their maximum capacity this RMI Solutions after dinner. Figure 1 because they hit weight limits. Reducing illustrates the transportation involved in the container’s weight by 300 pounds creating and delivering this newsletter to The shipping container: thinking means putting 300 more pounds of goods you. inside the box inside each container, which can reduce Ā is system is not just complex, it’s Ā ree-quarters of all general cargo is the total number of containers and save essential to modern life: in 2005, an transported in shipping containers. Ā ese trips. average of 68 tons of goods moved 15,310 steel boxes, now familiar sights on massive • Reduced burden from moving miles in the United States for each U.S. ships or stacked up in ports, are a relatively 1 empties: the trade imbalance between the citizen. And that’s only for the goods recent invention. In 1956 transport mogul producing and consuming nations (e.g., shipped to, from, and within the nation. Malcolm McLean fi rst developed the China and the U.S.) means that up to 50 percent of container “trips” are empty, and repositioning empty containers to meet cargo requires a lot of truck and barge trips (and money). Reducing the weight of empty containers will reduce engine loads and the amount of fuel necessary for this currently unavoidable ineffi ciency. So if lightweighting would be such a great boon for fuel (and hence, cost) savings, why isn’t it happening? Ā e problem lies in the fi nancial structure of the container industries. Lightweighting means each container will cost more to build. Ā e chief benefi ciaries of better tracking (terminal operators, truckers, rail companies) don’t always have a fi nancial role in the design or purchase of containers (where the decision Figure 1: Geographical distribution of freight transport involved in to invest in lightweight materials would delivering this newsletter to DC be made) and when they do, working together to allocate the benefi ts would be It doesn’t include international travel, such shipping container as a way to improve quite complex. Even though the whole as the journey raw materials from South his trucking business. Today, only 50 years system would save money from reduced Africa take to reach factories in China later, containerized shipping has enabled fuel use, the incentives aren’t properly where they are processed into electronic globalization, and containerized shipping aligned to push the lightweighting decision goods before being sent to the United and port services alone are a $370-billion forward. States. business.3 Of course, lightweighting is just one Yet while essential, freight comes with a At fi rst glance, the container seems to innovation we’re exploring. Others include large and growing environmental cost: at directly aff ect only the shipping industry, tracking to optimize the use of container- least 10 percent of global greenhouse-gas which accounts for only 1.5–3 percent of transporting vehicles, improving security emissions are linked to freight, along with global greenhouse gases. But the shipping

2 Spring 2008 systems to reduce scanning bottlenecks, improving the effi ciency of refrigerated containers, and more. Ā ese ideas underscore the most important aspect of RMI’s whole-system approach: combining our knowledge of the best environmental options with a detailed understanding of the business, fi nancial, and cultural systems that infl uence goods transportation—and, working on innovation that incorporates all those systems. To accomplish this we’re seeding the development of Figure 2: How containers play into the freight system a consortium of companies, with one representative from each section of the value chain shown for processing purposes, and we would Formulation, and Analysis, Energy in Figure 2—such as a port operator, a probably not concern ourselves about the Effi ciency and . Oak shipping line, a retailer, etc. Using our management of the forest from which Ridge (TN): ORNL-6978. partners’ combined knowledge of their the pulp was obtained. Ā e unintended own businesses and technical systems, consequences of focusing just on the 3. Datamonitor. For more on the fascinating history of containers, see Ā e and their collective wisdom about gaps transport footprint are clear: more trees in the shipping system, we will—during Box by Mark Levinson or Ā e Box Ā at (from a potentially fragile forest) would Changed the World by Arthur Donovan. an extensive research phase—develop be cut down leading to all the terrible the environmental and business case consequences of deforestation. for a new kind of container. Ā at will Creating an effi cient freight infrastructure be followed by a consortium-wide is necessary, but not suffi cient. Ā us, the What can you do to reduce the Innovation Workshop—RMI’s process container is an important leverage point impact of moving your stuff? that we have used to great eff ect in sectors for RMI to make a short-term impact, and ranging from semiconductor fabrication an excellent fi rst step towards the ultimate Because freight issues are so complex, to mining and automotive design. Ā e goal: making the entire goods system more Innovation Workshop will address both sustainable. there are no 100 percent sure-fi re ways technical innovations and business model to have a smaller impact. However, the innovations. Laura Schewel is an analyst with MOVE, following actions can usually reduce RMI’s Transportation Innovation Group. your freight footprint: Conclusion: Putting the (Freight) • Buy locally, and make sure the System in the (Global) System Notes: product is appropriate for your locality To fully realize RMI’s whole-systems 1. www.bts.gov/publications/freight_in_ approach with respect to containers, the america/html/executive_summary.html. (that means don’t buy strawberries fi nal step is to consider how the freight Figure represents movement in the U.S. grown in a hot house in January in system is imbedded in the global system, alone, and does not refl ect movement that Denver, or local wood if your forest and how any changes we propose infl uence happens overseas involving goods destined for the U.S. can’t sustain logging) and that the most that global system. Ā is may allow us effi cient vehicle available transports it; to fi nd more hidden benefi ts of a new 2. Ribeiro, Suzana Kahn and Kobayashi • Combine your errands or arrange for container; it also ensures that we watch for Shigeki. 2007. “IPCC Report Working unintended consequences. Group III Chapter 5: Transport and its delivery: the trip from a store to your Let’s return to our original example Infrastructure.” Intergovernmental Panel on home can have the biggest impact in of the newsletter: if we optimized its Climate Change. AR-4. terms of goods transportation. Fewer transportation footprint in a vacuum, EIA. 2007. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 trips are better. And a delivery service by, say, facilitating a system in which all with Projections to 2030. Washington usually maximizes the effi ciency of its containerized goods were transported as (DC): US Department of Energy. Report few miles as possible, we would select nr DOE/EIA-0383. Retrieved on 6 August deliveries each day; paper from a mill close to our 2007 from www.eia.doe.gov. Tables 2 and 7. • Don’t buy or send goods via air; and, printers and one that uses trees logged • Buy less stuff . as close by as possible. We might not use Davis, Stacy and Susan Diegel. 2007. “Transportation Energy Data Book: recycled paper, which must be shipped Edition 26.” Offi ce of Planning, Budget

Spring 2008 3 Getting Off Oil: Recent Leaps and Next Steps By Amory B. Lovins, Chairman totaling 257,760—76 percent of the and Chief Scientist national hybrid market. Now practically all automakers are selling or urgently In mid-2005, Rocky Mountain In- developing hybrids to try to catch up stitute launched a three-year eff ort to with Toyota. implement During 1987–2006, the average (www.oilendgame.com)—our detailed light-duty vehicle sold in the U.S. got 2004 roadmap for getting the United 29 percent heavier; cars alone got 17 States completely off oil by the 2040s, percent heavier and 12 percent denser; without needing new taxes, subsidies, but only 30 percent of the fl eet’s weight mandates, or federal laws. We felt this gain (and none in recent years) was $3.6-million eff ort could be led by caused by bigger cars or by shifts to business for profi t, because saving or SUVs, vans, and pickups. Instead, the displacing oil would cost only $15 per obesity came from materials and design. barrel (in 2000 dollars)—far below oil’s Yet in recent months, strategy has price. It might seem foolish to expect begun to go lean: integrative lightweight to shift such gigantic sectors as oil and strategy, based on an effi ciency leap- design has emerged as an important cars. But by taking markets seriously, we frog integrating ultralight materials, trend. In November 2007, Ford led by saw leverage in “institutional acupunc- advanced manufacturing, and whole- announcing a 250–750-pound weight ture”: fi nd meridians and points where system design. Matching our playbook, cut in all cars starting in Model Year the business logic is congested and not in September 2006 Ford hired Alan 2012 (as soon as production can shift) fl owing properly, then stick needles into Mulally, head of Boeing Commercial to capture unexpectedly big design syn- carefully chosen sites to get it fl owing. Airplanes, as its new CEO. I now work ergies. (Mazda had already been quietly Some farsighted donors and founda- with Ford’s leadership team as a charter lightweighting.) Two months later, tions backed this ambitious experi- member of Chairman Bill Ford’s Trans- Nissan announced a 15 percent average ment. Two and a half years later, it has formation Advisory Council. weight cut by MY2015, and China an- exceeded expectations. Of the six sectors On 10 October 2007, Toyota an- nounced an auto lightweighting alliance that must change to set the United nounced the industry’s best-yet aiming to cut 660 pounds out of the States fi rmly on the journey beyond oil, Hypercar®-class concept car— the 1/X average car by 2010. Lightweighting is I believe at least three, perhaps four, (pronounced “one-Xth”—see Fig. 1) fi nally emerging as the hottest strategic have already passed the “tipping point” shown at the Tokyo Motor Show 26 trend in the industry. beyond which the major eff orts still October. Many concept cars never get Unlike traditional improvements, required will become ever easier. to market. But a day earlier, Nikkei had lightweighting can improve fuel Ā e hardest and slowest sector is cars. reported that Toray, the world’s biggest economy and performance and crash- 2 But building on 17 years of patient carbon-fi ber maker, plans a $0.3-billion worthiness. But this seemingly obvious eff ort, our acupuncture is now driving factory in Nagoya to mass-produce solution had lacked two key ingredients. big and accelerating shifts. Ā e tsunami carbon-fi ber body panels and other auto First, light materials looked costly. Ā is of “creative destruction” we foresaw in parts for Toyota, Nissan, and others. To- barrier is rapidly falling due to manu- 2004 is now breaking over the industry gether, these two announcements signal facturing advances, both with familiar and changing the managers or their strategic intent. Toyota is a proven light metals and with newfangled minds, whichever comes fi rst. Chrysler, gamechanger: in the U.S., its Prius carbon-fi ber composites (led by RMI’s like many leading automotive suppli- hybrid, shown as a concept car in Tokyo spinoff Fiberforge, www.fi berforge. ers, has been bought by a private equity in 1995, outsold in 2007 even Ford’s com, whose high-speed manufacturing fi rm; two of the Big Ā r ee fi rms’ CEOs Explorer—the top-selling SUV for over technology recently entered industrial are newcomers to automaking; and a decade. In 2007 alone, U.S. Prius service). Second, most automakers Toyota just pulled neck-and-neck with sales soared 69 percent to 181,221, still count costs per part or per pound, GM as the world’s biggest automaker. while Explorer sales fell below one- yet customers care only about cost Our book urged Detroit to emulate third of their 2000 peak of 445,000.1 per car. Since 1991, we’ve shown how Boeing’s breakthrough competitive Toyota reported 2007 U.S. hybrid sales costlier parts or pounds can make cars

4 Spring 2008 cheaper to build. In 2000, our Hyper- car® spinoff (later renamed Fiberforge®) and its Tier One industry partners designed3 a 67-mpg uncompromised midsized SUV that proved how cheaper tooling, simpler assembly, and smaller powertrain could off set costlier mate- rials. Winning the Oil Endgame (pp. 61–72) then showed how eliminating 53 percent of that car’s weight would be essentially free: the 3.6×-more-effi cient SUV would be priced just $2,511 higher (2000 $), a two-year U.S. payback—and would cost more only because it’s hybrid-electric, not because it’s ultralight. To support the transition to such cost- busting integrative designs, in summer 2007 RMI led two automotive eff orts, either of which could transform the industry—one partnering with a major automaker, another with a consortium of Tier One suppliers. Both turned up trumps, and more are emerging. Automakers now face relentless and converging pressures from innovation- Figure 1. Toyota’s impressive 1/X carbon-fi ber concept car (2007) has the interior space of a hungry auto dealers, fi nancial analysts Prius midsize hybrid, but is three times lighter and twice as fuel-effi cient. Its half-liter fl ex-fuel and investors, the United Auto Workers’ engine, tucked under the rear seat, is supplemented by grid electricity via 20 extra kg of batter- ies. Ā e plug-in hybrid’s remaining curb mass, 400 kg, is exactly what I’d claimed in 1991 (to Union, climate and security concerns, much industry mirth) a good carbon-fi ber four-seater could weigh. and a 2007 U.S. law requiring 40 percent higher fuel effi ciency within 12 business-model innovations that could fuel (85 percent ethanol, 15 percent years. “Feebates” (WTOE, pp. 186–190) often give them a sound business case, gasoline) and cut its oil use per mile will further speed and reward the transi- at least redoubling cars’ potential oil by another fourfold, to ~1/16th of the tion, and a private Feebate Forum RMI effi ciency. To push this further, we’re current level. Make it a plug-in hybrid led in June 2007 is stimulating strong developing the “Smart Garage”—an and cut oil use by at least half again, to industry interest. For all these reasons, intelligent interface between electric- ~3 percent of the original. Optionally, a fundamental rethinking is spreading traction vehicle, building, and elec- hydrogen fuel cell, competitive in such 4 rapidly, with lightweighting in the tric grid. Plug-in hybrids’ distributed an effi cient vehicle, could replace both vanguard. But lightweighting in turn battery storage, or fuel-cell cars’ distrib- the engine and its E85 fuel. makes advanced powertrains, especially uted fuel-cell generators, could become Ā is menu doesn’t yet count diesel those using electric traction, cheaper important, even dominant, elements of engines, which are more effi cient than and more advantageous. electrical supply, initially for peak loads normal Otto engines and have half In January 2008, RMI joined with and later for wider needs—realizing the the European market today. In 2004, powerful industry partners to spin “vehicle-to-grid” concept I invented in we weren’t sure diesels could meet off a new venture, Bright Automotiv- 1991. future fi ne-particulate air standards, eTM (our third spinoff in addition to Now let’s connect the automotive dots. so we didn’t include them. But in two staff startups), focused on PHEV Drive your Prius-class car properly (not 2007, a small Colorado fi rm (www. technology development. In 2004, our the way Consumer Reports says to) and sturmanindustries.com) demonstrated published menu for tripled-effi ciency you double a typical non-hybrid sedan’s a radically new digitally controlled cars didn’t yet include plug-in hybrids, miles per gallon. Make it ultralight and engine that promises above-diesel ef- but by 2007, we’d devised technical and slippery and you can redouble its ef- fi ciency, cleanly burning any fuel on fi ciency. Now fuel it with cellulosic E85 the fl y, yet with lower cost, size, and

Spring 2008 5 weight. Successful development of this every airplane it makes before Airbus bring doubled-effi ciency trucks into the concept could quickly bring internal- can catch up. Boeing will also presum- marketplace where everyone can buy combustion engines to and beyond fuel ably apply its momentum and cashfl ow them. In the U.S. alone, that’ll save 6 cells’ effi ciency range—itself a moving to aggressively develop even more effi - percent of total oil use. Now RMI is target—revolutionizing both vehicular cient designs to consolidate its competi- working to enroll more buyers, speed propulsion and stationary micropower tive advantage. So far, Boeing’s strategy suppliers’ innovations, and demonstrate systems. Alternatively, MIT researchers looks like one of the great turnaround tripled-effi ciency designs, which Wal- have shown how a tiny, timely squirt stories in business history: it took only Mart’s CEO has also acknowledged as a of ethanol into the engine can sup- two years (or fi ve years from 2004 start realistic goal. press knock even at tripled compression to delayed 3Q09 fi rst delivery) to move Having analyzed and advocated mili- ratio, permitting half-size, same-torque Boeing from trouble to triumph. RMI tary energy effi ciency for two decades engines about about one-fourth higher is discussing with airframe makers some and served as an independent member effi ciency. Ā at could stretch today’s ways to accelerate such progress within of two U.S. Defense Science Board task modest ethanol supplies to cover the a profi table competitive and climate forces advising the Secretary of Defense whole fl eet. strategy. And in February, Sir Richard on this issue,5 I’ve long urged military Of course innovation continues to Branson’s Virgin Atlantic Airways suc- leaders to start valuing saved fuel at its emerge, encouraged by RMI’s continu- cessfully tested a novel non-food-crop- delivered value—delivered to platform ing conversations with in theatert in wartime.6 automakers worldwide. “Winning the Oil Endgame in 2004 estimated a Ā at “fully burdened” cost More will come from India practical long-term scope for tripling the average fuel is mmany times the $13- (p. 12), where Tata just effi ciency of military platforms and installations. bibillionll cost of undelivered launched the most impor- Today that estimate looks realistic, mmilitaryil fuel in FY2006. tant clean-sheet car design perhaps even conservative.” Ā e cost in blood is also in decades (the $2,500 huhuge:g about half of all Nano) and from China, wherere TsinghTsinghuaua based vegetable oil as fuel in an A380. A380 U.S.U S casualties in theater are related to University Press will publish Winning Winning the Oil Endgame showed how convoys, which mainly haul ineffi ciently the Oil Endgame in 2008. But exist- to triple the effi ciency of heavy (Class 8, used fuel. Tying down whole divisions ing technologies are clearly more than 18-wheel) trucks through an integrated hauling fuel and guarding convoys also adequate to get the world profi tably off suite of improvements, mainly in aero- diverts and degrades combat capability. oil, and they’re getting ever better and dynamics and tires, with a juicy internal Field experience of fuel logistics burdens cheaper, while oil is getting scarcer and rate of return around 60 percent. On has created a unique opportunity for costlier. discovering that major truck buyers switching to effi cient platforms that Meanwhile, the fi rst three sectors didn’t know this was possible, we began radically trim fuel logistics. Winning to have reached the tipping point are facilitating conversations between one the Oil Endgame in 2004 estimated a continuing to accelerate their trans- such fi rm and its suppliers. Ā ey soon practical long-term scope for tripling formations. Let’s start with aviation, discovered that the fi rst 25 percent fuel the average fuel effi ciency of military the fastest-growing oil user. In 2004, saving was free. Ā e buyer said, “Free platforms and installations. Today that Boeing got outsold by Airbus, but isn’t good enough: I want to invest for estimate looks realistic, perhaps even launched a bold riposte: the 20 percent- a return. What can you do for me?” conservative. Ā e resulting DoD R&D more-effi cient, same-price, greatly Dramatic and lucrative opportunities emphasis on light-and-strong materials, simplifi ed, easier-to-build-and-run, quickly emerged. In October 2005, advanced propulsion, etc. will help to 50 percent-carbon-composite-by-mass the fi rm announced that its new truck transform the civilian car, truck, and airplane called the 7E7, later renamed purchases would soon become 25 plane industries toward tripled fuel ef- the 787 Dreamliner. As we expected, it percent more effi cient (it now expects fi ciency, much as past military R&D led proved wildly successful. By 24 Febru- near-completion by late 2008), and to the Internet, the Global Positioning ary 2008, Boeing had sold 885 of these that it would double its fl eet effi ciency System, and the jet-engine and micro- airplanes (892 fi rm, 38 pending) and by 2015. Ā e fi rm is Wal-Mart (see chip industries. Ā e Pentagon is thus 430 options, the fastest order takeoff p. 9), the world’s largest company. It emerging within the U.S. Government of any jetliner in history. Production is will save billions of dollars’ net present as the leader in getting the nation off oil sold out well into 2017. Boeing now value and is strongly motivated. Wal- so nobody need fi ght over oil. plans to add similar innovations to Mart’s immense “demand pull” will Ā is new source of off -oil leadership

6 Spring 2008 became publicly visible on 13 February business and government players in one 2008 with the release of the Defense state (Hawai‘i), plus formation of two John E. Abele Joins Science Board panel’s report. Its Ap- new companies and the other actions pendix E revealed an important policy summarized above, we’ve already multi- RMI Board of Trustees created 10 April 2007 by the Under plied the $3.6-million received in grants RMI is pleased to announce that John Secretary of Defense: “Eff ective im- and donations into at least $375 million Abele, Cofounder and Director of mediately, it is DoD policy to include in measurable benefi ts. Now we’re now Boston Scientifi c Corporation, has the fully burdened cost of delivered seeking another $3 million to build on joined the Institute’s Board of Trustees. energy in trade-off analyses conducted these successes (see summary on pp. A pioneer and leader in the fi eld of for all tactical systems with end items 8–9). “less-invasive medicine,” John holds nu- that create a demand for energy and Please contact [email protected] merous patents and has published and to improve the energy effi ciency of if you’d like to help RMI make oil no lectured extensively on the technology those systems, consistent with mission longer a strategic commodity—much as of various medical devices and on the requirements and cost eff ectiveness.” refrigeration (notes former CIA Direc- technical, social, economic, and political A pilot project is now refi ning and tor Jim Woolsey) did to salt. Nations trends and issues aff ecting health care. fi eld-testing this policy. Another new once warred over salt. Now they just use His major interests are science literacy directive, approved by the Joint Staff an occasional pinch and pay it no mind. for children, education, and the process in 2006, will selectively apply to new At RMI, we’re experiencing a rush of by which new technology is invented, developed, and introduced to society. weapons systems an Energy Effi ciency pre-nostalgia just thinking about the “I’ve been a long-time admirer of Key Performance Parameter—a core richer, fairer, safer world beyond oil. Amory and RMI,” he said. “Ā eir metric that drives requirements-writing systems thinking, non-partisan practical Notes: and acquisition. In May 2008 I hope to advice is unique and powerful and a role 1. B. Simon, Fin. Times, London, 10 Jan. 2008. start helping the Defense Acquisition model for addressing the challenging University, which trains all DoD pur- 2. Ā e government analysis previously inter- preted as showing that lighter cars will kill environmental problems before us.” chasers, to apply these vital concepts. people turned out, as we suspected, to be fl at Currently he also serves as Chair of the And as soon as we can fi nd funding, I wrong: disentangling size from mass in the same FIRST Foundation, which works with intend to expand RMI’s eff orts to help database proved that weight kills if size is held high school kids to make being science- the civilian and uniformed leadership to constant, and so does smallness at the same literate cool and fun. He is also working embed energy effi ciency irreversibly in weight. (Van Auken and Zellner’s 2003 DRI on the development of Ā e Kingbridge the Services’ cultures and processes. analysis separated size from weight in NHTSA/ Centre (www.kingbridgecentre.com) Kahane’s FARS database). Happily, light-but Important changes are also well un- and Institute, a conferencing institution strong materials can make cars both bigger— whose mission is to research, develop, derway in the fuels and fi nance sectors. hence more comfortable and protective—and and teach improved methods for inter- From cellulosic ethanol to butanol to lighter—hence less hostile and ineffi cient. Done algal oils, a portfolio of exciting new right, they can even reduce total manufacturing active conferencing, including problem- options is moving from lab to cost. RMI’s Laura Schewel reported these and solving, confl ict resolution, strategic market, including breakthroughs not other exciting opportunities at the Society of planning, and new methods for learn- Automotive Engineers’ World Congress in April ing, as well as generally helping groups yet announced. (RMI recently helped 2008. to become “collectively intelligent.” the National Renewable Energy Labo- 3. RMI Publ. #T04-01, www.rmi.org/images/ ratory to redesign a cellulosic ethanol PDFs/Transportation/T04-01_HypercarH2Au- plant to save half its steam, three-fi fths toTrans.pdf. of its electricity, and a third of its capital 4. Ref. 3 and 20 Hydrogen Myths, www. cost; some other emerging advances can rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E03-05 _20HydrogenMyths.pdf. cut costs even more drastically.) And 5. Ā e 1999–2001report is at www.acq.osd.mil/ the global fi nancial sector made $117 dsb/reports/fuel.pdf and the 2006–08 report at billion of new “clean energy” invest- www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF. ments in 2007 alone. pdf. In summary, RMI’s “institutional 6. A public DoD factsheet, noting concurring acupuncture” is hitting the right points fi ndings by the Institute for Defense Analyses and SECDEF’s JASON scientifi c advisory group, and starting to elicit potent responses. is posted at www.acq.osd.mil/at/docs/fact_ Ā rough fruitful collaborations with sheets/energy_effi ciency_starts_with_the_acqui- DoD, fi ve Fortune 500 fi rms, and key sition_process.pdf.

Spring 2008 7 initial creation of the intellectual Winning the Oil Endgame, capital, the implementation process requires philanthropic support. Round Two WTOE’s successes illustrate how RMI’s hybrid philanthropy/consultancy In spring 2004, when RMI was writing Plan. WTOE Phase I’s successes were funding model allows us to drive Winning the Oil Endgame—a peer- made possible by both long-time and environmentally benefi cial innovation reviewed roadmap for getting the new donors, including a challenge further, faster, and deeper into the United States completely off oil by the match from an individual donor that business world. 2040s—the government forecast that sparked additional funding.” Overall, WTOE Phase I achieved oil in 2025 would cost $26 a barrel. RMI has calculated that it leveraged the highly gratifying results. Yet the U.S. is By the time we published the study $3.6 million it received in grants and still two-thirds dependent on imported in September 2004, the actual price donations to implement WTOE Phase I oil, and world oil consumption is still was nearly $40. Today, with prices more than 100-fold through consulting rising, especially with growth in India pushing through $110, the solutions to work, technology investments, and and China, so we must redouble our America’s oil addiction are worth almost oil saved by clients’ implementing implementation eff orts in WTOE three times as much—conservatively WTOE recommendations. For Michael Phase II. assuming, as WTOE did, that oil’s Brylawski, “It was the biggest social hidden costs to security, climate, etc. return on investment you could want as Phase II Projects are worth zero. But the cost of WTOE’s a philanthropist.” Phase II will use four main tools: solutions still averages around $15 a Ā is support allowed MOVE high-level infl uence, entrepreneurial barrel. consultants to break into a variety of innovation, corporate engagements, RMI is seeking funding over high-leverage areas and use radical and public outreach. In Phase I, these the next three years to implement effi ciency solutions to advance the ideas methods were illustrated respectively by many of these solutions. Michael laid out in WTOE (see pp. 4–7). our military work, Bright Automotive, Brylawski, Vice President of MOVE But that’s not all. WTOE donations Wal-Mart and a major automaker, and (MObility + Vehicle Effi ciency), RMI’s also fi nanced the development of new Forbes and Wall Street Journal articles, Transportation Practice, explains that technical and business designs that among others. For Phase II, we have TM “With this funding we’ll help ‘wildcat helped RMI start Bright Automotive , comparable or better channels in view. for effi ciency’ and fi nd some really big a plug-in hybrid electric development Phase II will continue to emphasize the ‘negabarrels’.” Inspired by the term company. Donors supported our automotive and trucking sectors, the “negawatt,” “negabarrel” simply means pathfi nding work with stakeholders on military, and next-generation , oil saved by more effi cient use. innovative policies, such as revenue- but will expand our eff orts in aviation With this fundraising eff ort, RMI is neutral feebates, and on lightweight and freight. kicking off the second portion of the vehicle safety. WTOE funding helped In addition, although Winning the Oil multi-year implementation of Winning RMI partner with a major automaker Endgame was a book about the U.S., the Oil Endgame: WTOE, Phase II. Ā e to create a “transformational” vehicle RMI wants to expand its outreach Snowmass-based MOVE team is geared that is now being fl eshed out by more beyond our country, especially to the up to build on, replicate, and exceed the than two hundred engineers. It allowed developing markets that increasingly success of Phase I. RMI to team up with the National drive growth in global oil use. We Renewable Energy Laboratory and host are currently fi nalizing the Chinese Phase I’s Success a charrette to catalyze competitive next- translation of the book with Tsinghua In many ways, WTOE and its generation cellulosic biofuels. And it University, and looking at tackling implementation represent what RMI helped fund our work with the military, selected foreign projects, especially for does best: researching, developing, and which is now requiring its future automaking in India and China. Ā ose implementing whole-system solutions platforms to account for the “fully two nations have the same percentage of led by business for profi t. As RMI burdened” cost of the fuel transported auto ownership that the United States 1 Senior Development Offi cer Ginni to the place of use. had in 1915. Ā e Chinese auto industry Galicinao points out, “Ā is work is Ā is work requires extensive research, has quadrupled in size in the past six made possible by individuals and documentation, and marketing before a years, and the cars it produces need to foundations who were excited about the client engagement or commercialization be far more effi cient. MOVE aims to potential of WTOE’s Implementation step can occur. Just as much as the

8 Spring 2008 get Indian and Chinese automakers, like unlike conventional consultancies that Mahindra, Tata, and Chery, to leapfrog seek incremental gains and quick wins, Wal-Mart Foundation Western effi ciency gains while also MOVE and RMI seek transformational Donates to RMI accelerating effi ciency eff orts at U.S. change. What we do is not easy. But it automakers so that they remain at the is vital, urgent, and exhilarating, and we RMI got a special holiday gift in front of the competition. Early work feel we are uniquely equipped for the late December when the Wal-Mart along these lines is encouraging, but to challenge. Foundation, the charity arm of the convince automakers to come on board, “In implementing WTOE, Amory -based retailer, donated MOVE must do signifi cant additional uses the metaphor of ‘institutional $250,000 to the Institute. Ā e research using philanthropic funding. acupuncture’,” Brylawski notes. “I like Wal-Mart Foundation made the As our experience with Wal-Mart to combine this metaphor with that of donation to support RMI’s cutting- showed, integrative design could ‘effi ciency wildcatters.’ Acupuncture edge work on various initiatives radically improve heavy trucks’ fuel implies that you know exactly what that encourage the effi cient use of effi ciency. Ā e MOVE Team is looking needs to be done, which is great when energy and resources. specifi cally at trailers, which create you do. But while our desired outcomes “We owe a great deal of credit to much of the aerodynamic drag. MOVE and vision for WTOE are clear, often the staff of RMI,” said Tom Mars, aims to raise 6-mpg trucks to 12–14 the path to get there is not—and we Wal-Mart Executive Vice President mpg, roughly the fuel effi ciency of a must take risks in how we stimulate and General Counsel. “Without Suburban—not bad for vehicles that industry and other stakeholders into the kind of thought leadership regularly carry 50,000–70,000 pounds. commercializing transformational the Institute brings to this arena, Aviation is yet another area where the effi ciency. For example, we didn’t know we wouldn’t be as far along in our MOVE Team will apply its growing when we started looking into plug-in sustainability eff orts as we are.” experience to help make planes 2–3 hybrids that bringing together Google has times as effi cient. With airframe makers and the Turner Foundation with two and other major players now knocking traditional industrial giants to launch a worked with Wal-Mart for many on RMI’s door, the MOVE Team will company (Bright Automotive) was the years, primarily on making Wal- add a senior aviation specialist. best way to stimulate the industry, but it Mart’s trucking fl eet and large Ā e MOVE Team continues to turned out to be a good approach with a stores more energy effi cient. investigate lightweight shipping potentially huge effi ciency payoff . “I think Wal-Mart is one of containers and how to make them “Similarly, wildcatters know in general the leaders in the corporate thermally effi cient (see p. 2). RMI where the oil is,” Brylawski adds. sustainability space,” said RMI estimates that containers’ refrigeration “Ā ough not specifi cally where to Executive Director Marty is responsible for 1 percent of all drill—but the prize is big, so they risk a Pickett. “Ā ey’re genuine in their greenhouse-gas emissions. And the lot for potentially huge rewards. Ā at ’s commitment and this [grant] is Team continues to work on the us. We are effi ciency wildcatters drilling evidence of that.” electrifi cation and effi cient design of for negabarrels. Ā is area is dynamic. In October 2005, Wal-Mart’s CEO ports (see www.rmi.org/sitepages/ It’s rapidly changing, and we have Lee Scott announced his company’s pid382.php). ambitious WTOE implementation goals intention to green up its operations. for the next Phase. Ultimately, we hope Wal-Mart’s environmental MOVE and WTOE to hit more than a few negagushers.” goals include using 100 percent Ā e MOVE Team (Michael Brylawski, renewable energy, creating zero Lionel Bony, Michael Ogburn, If you’re interested in accelerating the Oil waste, and selling products that Stephanie Johns, Laura Schewel, Endgame, please contact developers@rmi. sustain natural resources and the Mike Simpson, Schuyler Senft- org environment. Grupp, Alok Pradhan, and Laurie Pickett noted that this $250,000 Ramroth; www.rmi.org/sitepages/ Notes: will provide signifi cant support for pid56.php#MOVE) practices rigorous 1. Delivering a gallon to a military vehicle, in RMI’s continued work on fuel- program management to assess project theater, in wartime can cost tens of dollars— effi cient vehicles, high-performance much more if the delivery must be rapid or to a impact and allocate resources. Such remote site. buildings, and utility and industrial best-practice process discipline should energy effi ciency. amplify Phase I’s success. In addition,

Spring 2008 9 City of Cambridge Pushes Energy Efficiency to New Level RMI Helps the “City of heavily on the New England Indepen- energy-effi ciency programs. Ā e CEA dent System Operator (ISO-NE). plans to fund the energy-effi ciency Squares” Cut Ā e ISO-NE’s job is to ensure that programs 80 percent through private Greenhouse-Gas adequate electricity supply exists to funding and 20 percent through exist- Emissions and Use Less meet customers’ needs. It does so by ing energy-effi ciency programs. monitoring the purchase and sale of Ā e City chose to reduce energy Energy electricity on the wholesale electricity demand by 50 megawatts to bring By Natalie Mims market. In June 2007, the ISO-NE its peak electricity demand down to announced that it would begin off er- approximately 300 megawatts. Ā is pre- As the “going green” trend grows, ing payment for measures that reduce sented an interesting challenge because local, state, and big-city governments demand. Ā is will, for the fi rst time in in order to reduce the last 50 megawatts are joining the movement that smart ISO-NE history, allow energy effi ciency of peak demand, the City needs to focus developers and forward-thinking cor- measures to compete with supply-side on energy consumption in the summer- porations have been leading. Regional resources for capacity payments. Ā e time, when system demand is highest and city climate-change initiatives are ISO-NE decided to allow demand-side (see Figure 1). mounting, and eff orts to cut energy resources to participate in the capac- In addition to the peak energy and use and greenhouse-gas emissions have ity market because they cost less than fossil-fuel reduction goals, the Barr become as varied and individualistic as traditional supply-side resources. By Foundation also thought it would be in- the communities themselves. Recently, allowing effi ciency into the capacity teresting to explore what kind of energy RMI worked with one market, electricity costs to consumers in challenges could be solved by means of city on its energy and greenhouse-gas the ISO-NE region could decline as the a community competition. Ā e Boston reductions eff orts. cost of the procurement per megawatt Innovation Challenge, developed by In March 2006, the City of Cam- decreases (or the value of a negawatt the Foundation, is a new initiative that bridge, Mass. announced an ambitious increases). Ā e CEA is poised to earn off ers a prize to stimulate the develop- goal: to reduce electricity demand by some of this revenue from the ISO-NE’s ment of new ideas and eff orts (rather 50 megawatts and to reduce fossil-fuel capacity market through its planned than reward existing eff orts). consumption by 5 percent in fi ve years. After much planning and coordina- Following the announcement, the City, Cambridge hopes to reduce tion,ti a Design Workshop was held in the Barr Foundation, the Kendall Foun- electricity demand by BostonB last November. Participants dation, and Rocky Mountain Institute 50 megawatts. fromfr the Cambridge Energy Alliance, began preparing a Design Workshop theth Kendall Foundation, the Barr Foun- in which the four organizations could dation,d and RMI, as well as various brainstorm ways to meet those goals. expertsex from local institutions met One of the fi rst steps the City took was toto develop strategies. Ā e Workshop to establish the Cambridge Energy Alli- producedp many creative and practical ance (CEA), a new non-profi t organiza- ideasid as to how the City can meet its tion to create and implement a cutting- energye reduction goals, as well as ideas edge program to signifi cantly reduce forfo other Boston Innovation Challenge energy use in Cambridge. Ā e CEA topics.to then announced that it would use a new Following the Workshop, RMI com- fi nancing model to fund the massive piledp the all of the ideas generated, and energy-effi ciency retrofi ts necessary to offo ered a portfolio of solutions that achieve the 50-megawatt peak energy couldc be used by the City. RMI recom- reduction goal. mendedm that the Cambridge Energy Ā is innovative fi nancing model relies AllianceA simultaneously pursue all

10 Spring 2008 available “low-hanging 200,000 400 be based on behav- 50 MW peak fruit” while working with 180,000 demand reduction ioral, fi nancial, or target 350 energy service companies social changes to 160,000 (ESCOs) to implement as 300 encourage a high many advanced energy- 140,000 penetration of 250 effi ciency strategies as 120,000 energy effi ciency. Moving forward, possible. 100,000 200 MWh

ESCOs develop, install, Peak MW future Boston 80,000 and arrange fi nancing 150 Innovation Chal- for projects designed to 60,000 lenges could build 100 improve energy effi ciency 40,000 on ideas generated and maintenance costs for 50 at the workshop or 20,000 facilities over a seven- to they could develop twenty-year time period. 0 0 new technology J-06 F-06 M-06 A-06 M-06 J-06 J-06 A-06 S-06 O-06 N-06 D-06

Some of the specifi c (Electricity consumption (MWh (Monthly peak demand (MW challenges. recommendations Ā e Cambridge included: Figure 1: Cambridge Electricity and Demand, 2006 Energy Alliance • Residential electricity has already begun metering and education comment at (http://ceic.cambridgeener- chipping away at eff orts, gyalliance.org/). energy consumption and plans to move • Energy Star appliance replacement, Many other interesting ideas for the forward aggressively to achieve its goals. • High effi ciency central and window Boston Innovation Challenge were Ā e CEA is hoping the example they air-conditioning units, discussed, including: set will ultimately become a model • Comprehensive light upgrades, • Enhancing the fi nancial model that that other cities can use to reduce their • High-performance glazing, the Cambridge Energy Alliance is using energy consumption without taxpayers • Solar hot water heaters, and by lengthening the payback period for bearing a fi nancial burden. • Boiler or furnace replacement. energy-effi ciency measures by using While these recommendations are not carbon cost accounting or on-bill Natalie Mims is a Consultant with RMI’s particularly cutting edge, the challenge fi nancing; Energy & Resources Team (www.rmi.org/ for the City of Cambridge will be to • Creating super-effi cient rooftop air- sitepages/pid48.php). implement them widely. For example, if conditioning systems for smaller com- all the residential sector recommenda- mercial applications in tions are implemented at a 7 percent humid climates; and “Ā is timely and ambitious project provides penetration rate, or 35 percent over fi ve • Retrofi tting all build- an opportunity to apply highly innovative new years, the City will achieve a 42-mega- ings in the city with approaches to energy effi ciency in terms of ad- watt peak energy reduction. Ā is level real-time energy con- vanced technology, integrated building design, of penetration is ambitious, but not un- sumption information to novel business models, and creative policy achievable, and it will require the City allow consumers to make mechanisms to capture the full potential for ef- to get more than a third of its residents their energy use deci- fi ciency, our cleanest, cheapest, to adopt signifi cant effi ciency retrofi ts. sions based on real-time and most secure energy resource.” Most of RMI’s analysis focused on information. aggressive, comprehensive energy Technology break- —Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute effi ciency in the building arena, notably throughs and products the residential and commercial sectors, were mentioned many timeses during the but the Design Workshop also gener- Innovation Challenge, and while some ated many ideas for the transportation of these ideas off ered great opportuni- sector, from closing streets to display- ties, the lead-time necessary for imple- ing vehicles’ tire pressure. Ā e report is mentation may be beyond the City’s available on the Cambridge Energy fi ve-year goal. RMI recommended that Alliances’ website for review and the fi rst Boston Innovation Challenge

Spring 2008 11 Prize from HRH Prince Carl Philip OCS Update (see www.environment-prize.com/ pressRelease.e) as the fi fth person in Ā e past few months have been landscape architects Greg Hurst and the world to win both of these top exceptionally busy for Amory and his David Sachs and by our staff ’s project environmental awards, and the fi rst to staff . manager Aaron Westgate (who largely win both in the same year. Volvo later Alex Markevich joined RMI in installed it), saw inch-a-day banana-tree made a special 60-second spot on our October. As Vice President of the growth last summer; the trees should go work (see www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid41. Offi ce of the Chief Scientist (OCS), bananas (and papayas, guavas, mangoes, php), carried 60 times on the Volvo- he’ll oversee this six- to nine-person etc.) this summer. In April, the OCS sponsored global telecast of the Nobel team, foster external partnerships, and team moved back into its much- Prize ceremonies. strengthen integration between OCS improved workspace. Via London for meetings with and the rest of the Institute. His keen In late 2007, Amory Lovins did a 38- senior business leaders, Amory fl ew strategic insight is already making its day round-the-world trip, supported on to Boston to co-lead a charrette mark. Alex comes to RMI with 13 in stages by Alex Markevich, Michael for the Kendall and Barr Foundations years of strategic consulting experience, Brylawski, and Lionel Bony. In New on accelerating Cambridge’s electric most recently on Bain & Company’s York, Amory received the Popular effi ciency, then a San Antonio fi nancial- management team in London and Mechanics Breakthrough Leadership industry keynote, then home. But the Moscow, and previously at Cannon Award and addressed a J.P. Morgan next month saw trips to Atlanta for Associates and LEK Consulting. utility conference. He and Judy then another utility fi nance conference, His three years at Hewlett-Packard fl ew to Tokyo to receive the Blue Planet (to receive the Goff Smith included technical and marketing Prize (www.af-info.or.jp/eng/honor/ Prize, U. Mich.’s top external award work, emphasizing computer systems honor-e.html), where, in the presence in engineering), Syracuse U., Perth in performance. He holds a Ph.D. in of Prince and Princess Akishino and Western Australia (helping redesign physics from Stanford. many other dignitaries, he invited Japan two radically effi cient mines with Ā ree OCS staff are completing an to lead the global . Rio Tinto), Big Sur, and . intensive half-year update to our best- He also lectured at Tokyo University, Ā ere his keynote (www.rmi.org/ selling 1999 business book Natural Ministry of Environment, Foreign sitepages/pid444.php) to the Institute Capitalism. Aaron Westgate, Maria Correspondents’ Club, and National for Healthcare Improvement about Stamas, and Noah Buhayar have been Institute for Environmental Studies, analogies between health and energy, revising the text, reassembling worthy which has shown how to cut Japan’s and a side-seminar on designing overfl ow material, and updating old 2050 carbon emissions by 70 percent supereffi cient healthcare facilities, and adding new case-studies. All will below the 1990 level despite robust sparked breakthrough thinking on be published later this year as optional economic growth. which we’ll report later. hypertext at www.natcap.org, which In Delhi, Amory addressed a leading Busy though 2007 was, 2008 looks also contains, by permission, the global business-strategy conference even busier, but diff erently so. In a original book edition and our Harvard keynoted by the Prime Minister, then two-week period in early 2008, Amory Business Review overview of it, “A continued to Mumbai for Mahindra helped redesign an oil refi nery, a data Roadmap for ”—one & Mahindra and the Indian Institute center, a famous big building, and an of HBR’s most reprinted articles. A of Technology. Our hosts were excited auto company; each project should long-awaited French edition is also in by his two national industry seminars strongly steer its industry toward press at Editions Scali in Paris. on supereffi cient ultralight cars and by advanced resource effi ciency. Ā e Over the past year, RMI’s original integrative design for radical energy carbon saved by his work enormously (1982– ) headquarters building has effi ciency. exceeds the amount emitted by his undergone extensive renovations and Next, in Gothenburg and Stockholm, travel, but Amory is thrilled that a more improvements to physical fabric, Amory addressed the Volvo group, thoughtful strategy led by Alex and superwindows (now R-14, or in one Chalmers Institute of Technology, U.S. Judy will help him travel less, and more case R-19—insulating like 19 sheets Embassy, and Royal Swedish Academy virtually—moving only the electrons of glass), lighting, daylighting, wiring, of Engineering Sciences, which later while leaving the heavy nuclei at home and other systems. Ā e new interior elected him a Foreign Member. He at the passive-solar banana farm. jungle, designed pro bono by EDAW received the Volvo Environment

122 SpringSpring 202008088 fascinating results, some of which im- Farewell to mediately infl uenced aid and humani- tarian work. Other important work funded under Dale Levy Dale’s leadership includes: teaching By Ginni Galicinao National Capitalism at the University of Peking, RMI’s Design Recommendations With the 1 July 2000 arrival of Dale for High-Performance Data Centers, Ā e Levy as RMI’s Development Director, New Business Climate: A Guide to Lower fundraising at RMI would never be the Carbon Emission and Better Business same. RMI was fortunate to have him Performance, the Community Energy at the helm of its Development Opportunity Finder, the Greening of Department until he retired at the end Greater Boston’s Health Care Systems of December 2007. and Facilities, RMI’s Energy Resource During his tenure, Dale challenged Investment Strategy, and the Biomim- icry Database. RMI to explore new ways of building Institute conconvened ened a bipartisan group of Dale and his wife, Linda, plan on relationships with our supporters and the nation’s best energy thinkers to craft having fun during this next phase of off ering our donors new ways and op- a stakeholder-based national energy their lives. Ā ey have relocated to Okla- portunities for giving. policy that meets security, economic, homa to be closer to their families. During Dale’s tenure, RMI’s contrib- and environmental needs simultaneous- All of us RMI wish them the very best, uted income grew from $2 million in ly and without compromise. Ā e result and are grateful to Dale for his invalu- FY2000 (total FY2000 operating rev- integrated creative win-win opportuni- able leadership role at RMI. Ā ere is no enues and support was $4.9 million) to ties in transport and mobility, electrical question that Dale’s contributions to $4.7 million in contributed income for services, energy security, and climate. RMI will have an eff ect long after his FY2006 (total FY06 operating revenues Endorsed by 33 leading private- and departure. and support was $9.6 million). public-sector energy leaders, the NEP Dale was particularly instrumental in Initiative received wide praise and was cultivating RMI’s relationship with the presented to Congressional leaders of William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, both parties and houses in the hope of RMI Legacy Society whose giving rose from $500,000 over reshaping how legislators responded to three years in 1998 to a $750,000 three- the nation’s unresolved Esther and Francis Bligh year grant. He also took the lead in the issues. Jill Bolduc Sandler Family Foundation’s matching • Small is Profi table: Ā e Hidden Joanne and Michael Caffrey grants campaign. Ā rough the generos- Economic Benefi ts of Making Collier ity of the Sandler Family, RMI was able Electrical Resources the Right Size: Anne Cooke to considerably leverage those grants. Ā is defi nitive work describes 207 ways Richard Ford Some of the important work that RMI in which optimizing the size of “electri- Marcia and John Harter was able to fund as a result of Dale and cal resources”—devices that make, save, Stanton Klose the Development Team’s work include: or store electricity—increases their eco- Erika Leaf • Winning the Oil Endgame (WTOE): nomic value. SIP showed that “distrib- Published in 2004, WTOE clearly rep- uted” (decentralized) electrical resources Susan and Arthur Lloyd resents one of the most important and are typically worth about tenfold more Margaret Wurgel and Keith ambitious pieces of work ever under- than previously assumed. Although Mesecher taken by RMI. Ā is independent, peer- directed at the electricity sector, over the David Muckenhirn reviewed detailed roadmap for getting years Small is Profi table has proved to Judith and Mark Schaffer the United States completely off oil by have a much broader audience. Joan Semmer the 2040s drew on the skills and time of • Sustainable Settlements: RMI joined Joel Shapiro everyone at the Institute. forces with Dr. Eric Rasmussen and an Jane Sharp-MacRae • National Energy Policy Initiative array of relief organizations to rethink Anonymous (7) (NEP Initiative): In February 2002, refugee and displaced persons settle- RMI and the Consensus Building ments from scratch. Ā e study yielded

Spring 2008 13 identifi ed are: limited potable Water, Water…But Not Everywhere water supply (the Atlanta Regional RMI Helps Design an blends indoor and outdoor classroom Commission predicts that water will spaces, exterior trails and exhibits, a be the resource that limits the region’s Environmental Center collection of permanent and rotating growth); polluted stormwater; and poor Near Atlanta displays, and interactive learning air quality (due to urban heat-island opportunities. Ā e Center is projected eff ect and air pollution from coal-fi red By Jim Nicolow to use 76 percent less potable water power plants in the area). and 35 percent less energy than a A green roof was anticipated from Rocky Mountain Institute has conventional building of the same size, the project’s inception to reduce urban collaborated with numerous design and the GEHC achieved LEED Gold- heat-island eff ect as well as naturally fi rms over the years, but eff orts with level certifi cation in the U.S. Green controlling and treating stormwater. design fi rm Lord, Aeck & Sargent Building Council’s LEED system. Ā e building is fully capped with an (LAS) have been particularly fruitful. RMI’s role was to analyze glazing, extensive green-roof system planted RMI worked with LAS on the Blue daylight, shading, and energy use. with six species of conventional Ridge Parkway Visitor’s Center, Ā roughout the design process, drought-tolerant sedums. An 800- the Southface Energy Institute Eco charrettes were conducted with square-foot portion of the roof is Offi ce, the Great Smoky Mountains the entire design team, the owner’s planted with native granite outcrop National Park’s Twin Creeks Science team, and various user groups and plants, providing a test plot for and Education Center, the National stakeholders. Ā e facility’s signature developing a native palette of plants for Estuarine Research Reserve’s Grand integrated design feature—a unique use on green roofs in the local Piedmont Bay Visitor’s Center, and a handful of cooling shoals water feature1—sprang region. Four diff erent types of porous other buildings. Recently, RMI helped directly from the charrettes. Ā e paving are featured, and runoff from the LAS with the design of a remarkable landscape architect proposed a water green roof and paving is directed into new building in , the Gwinnett feature, the owner suggested re- bioswales as well as two detention areas [County] Environmental + Heritage using non-potable water from the planted with native wetlands species. Center (GEHC), which was awarded adjacent treatment plant, and the After the building was completed, the Environmental Design + one of architect envisioned using the feature amount of stormwater running off the Construction magazine’s 2007 Excellence to condition the building. Ā ese site remained the same—in both quality in Design Awards. wonderful synergies can only happen and volume. Gwinnett County is one of the fastest when everyone is at the table. All site plantings are native to the growing counties in the country, Ā e project’s environmental goals and region and are grouped according to and, although the Atlanta area gets strategies were developed specifi cally appropriate existing plant communities 50 inches of rain per year, the water to respond to regional environmental and onsite micro-climates. Non-potable table lies deep within the area’s granite challenges. Ā e three major challenges water from the facility’s water treatment bedrock, making it plant is used for irrigation inaccessible to users. via a drip irrigation system Atlanta area suburbs and for toilet fl ushing (the thus rely on surface fi rst such installation in water. Recognizing that the state). Waterless urinals the County’s fast-paced and low-fl ow (0.5 gallon- growth would place per-minute), automatic tremendous strain on lavatory faucets were used water resources, County throughout. offi cials established Ā e building was the Center to improve elongated on an east–west education about the axis to maximize passive critical role that water heating and cooling, plays in daily life. Ā e and daylight modeling, two-story, 59,000- solar geometry analysis, square-foot facility and energy modeling were utilized to optimize

14 Spring 2008 systems design of this facility. Ā e interior, exterior, and site design show an integration of aesthetic with performance that shine above other submissions in this category. Coupled with an intent to educate the public, this Environmental and Heritage Center is a space I would not want to miss visiting.”

Notes: “It’s an attractive building. And it 1. Designed to span a ravine, the shoals demonstrates how synthesizing environmental will function like a heat exchanger and concerns into the design can result in better be an integral part of the building’s architecture as well as better performance.” mechanical system. —Victor Olgyay, RMI Ā is article was adapted from “2007 the design. Daylighting is abundant environmental concerns into the design Excellence in Design Awards: Gwinnett throughout the building, and the can result in better architecture as well Environmental + Heritage Center,” provided by Jim Nicolow, AIA, LEED AP, clerestory monitors are equipped as better performance.” and published in Environmental Design with operable louvers for the exhaust ED+C’s award judge Peter Levasseur + Construction magazine. Jim leads the of hot air during fan-assisted passive said, “Seventy-six percent water Sustainability Initiative at Lord, Aeck ventilation mode. usage reduction and 35 percent & Sargent. Last year he was named one “It’s an attractive building,” said energy usage in such a great-looking of Building Design & Construction RMI’s Victor Olgyay, AIA. “And facility demonstrate that care was magazine’s “40 Under 40” up-and- it demonstrates how synthesizing placed in both the architectural and comers. Different Ways of Giving

Long-time National Solutions Council member Christopher H. Smith will be remembered for his environmental devotion and commitment to Colorado’s Roaring Fork Valley communities. One of Chris’s dreams was to develop energy-effi cient buildings and a sustainable farm at his ranch in the Gunnison area. Because of his commitment to the sustainable and effi cient use of energy and resources, Chris sponsored the production of RMI’s award-winning fi lm High-Performance Building: Perspective & Practice, which was fi rst shown in November 2007 at the U.S. Green Building Council’s conference in Chicago, Ill. After his untimely death, his family and friends chose to recognize and honor Chris’s dream by asking that donations be directed to RMI. For more than twenty years Joseph Ā omas, IV and Etel Ā omas generously and consistently supported RMI. Such longstanding commitment spoke volumes of their high regard for RMI and spanned the growth of the Institute from its early days into the world-changing organization it has become. Joe and Etel (founding members of RMI’s Legacy Society) left a lasting legacy when they remembered RMI as benefi ciaries of two charitable remainder trusts. Ā r ough their trusts, Joe and Etel ensured that the support they provided to RMI for more than two decades will continue on in perpetuity. What was particularly exceptional about their generous gift was that they shared their planned gift intentions with RMI staff , enabling us to thank them for their generosity while they were still with us. RMI was saddened by the passing of Chris Smith and Joe and Etel Ā omas yet grateful to be the benefi ciaries of their years of support (both past and future) and the generosity of their friends and family. RMI’s work fostering the effi cient use of resources was enhanced as a result of these individuals and we thank them deeply.

Spring 2008 15 provides an in-depth look at feebates and recommends that they include the Good Car, Bad Car following characteristics: RMI Holds the Nation’s First effi cient vehicles reduce social costs. Constant rate: Ā e rate is the Feebate Forum A feebate is a better approach to component of the feebate that regulating the automotive industry determines how much the fees or rebate Ā e centerpiece of the policy because it allows manufacturers for each vehicle will be. It is measured recommendations made in Rocky to install as much fuel economy in dollars per gallons per mile. It is Mountain Institute’s (RMI) most recent technology as is cost-eff ective as critical that the rate remains the same book Winning the Oil Endgame is the opposed to requiring manufacturers for every vehicle to ensure that all “feebate.” to install technology regardless of the gallons of fuel saved are equally valued. A feebate is a policy that provides cost. Feebates also help consumers Self-fi nancing: Ā e policy should be a one-time rebate on fuel-effi cient to consider the long-term impacts of revenue neutral or slightly revenue vehicles and places a surcharge on a vehicle’s fuel economy when they generating (to pay administrative costs). vehicles that are ineffi cient. New purchase a car. Better yet, a well- Ā is is achieved by resetting the pivot light vehicles that exceed a defi ned designed feebate can be self-fi nancing. point regularly and accurately. fuel economy benchmark, called the Fees could pay not only for the rebates Preserve consumer choice: Ā e policy “pivot point,” qualify for a rebate. Ā e but also the administrative costs of should not interfere with consumer logic is that people who choose to running the program. freedom of choice. Creating size classes drive more effi cient vehicles deserve a Last year, RMI organized and hosted with separate pivot points is one way to rebate because they are helping reduce the fi rst Feebate Forum in the United achieve this. social problems, such as pollution, States in Snowmass Village, Colo.1 Continuous fuel improvement: Ā e oil dependence, congestion, health Twenty-seven diverse stakeholders from policy should be dynamic and require problems, and climate change. across the United States and Canada constant innovation by a given vehicle Ā e amount of the rebate would attended the two-day Forum, which manufacturer for them to continue to depend on where the vehicle’s fuel was funded by the Smith Richardson receive rebates on vehicles. Ā is can be economy falls in relation to the pivot Foundation. Ā e purpose of the achieved by regularly evaluating the point for all vehicles in that class. A Forum was to encourage an open, pivot point, which also ensures the Honda Civic, for instance, would off -the-record discourse between the policy is self-fi nancing. qualify for a rebate because it’s more auto industry and policymakers about Optimize size classes: Ā e current six effi cient and consumes less fuel than feebates. passenger-car class system and six light- comparably sized vehicles. Conversely, Subsequently, RMI produced a white duty truck class system under CAFE new vehicles that are less fuel-effi cient paper on feebates (www.rmi.org/images/ may be the easiest way to introduce the than others in the same class would be PDFs/Transportation/Feebate_fi nal. feebate policy. subject to a fee. pdf), which analyzed the eff ect that the In principle, feebates are gaining “Feebates are truly a market-oriented number of size classes and the variety acceptance. Canada has had a feebate solution to improving automobile of size attributes used to divide the law in eff ect since 2007. Last year, fuel economy,” said Natalie Mims, feebate classes would have on a new several European countries adopted a Consultant with RMI’s Energy & 2005 vehicle. Ā e research had two feebates. Finland and Ireland changed Resources Team. “State governments major fi ndings. First, as the number of their automobile tax structure to vary should consider feebates as an vehicle size classes increases the range based on greenhouse-gas emissions, opportunity to create incentives to in the volume of vehicles in each class and France just implemented what’s improve vehicle fuel economy and help decreases; the range of fuel economies being called the “bonus-malus” law in get the United States off oil without in each class gets smaller; and the January. ’s State Assembly federal leadership. Ideally, the federal diff erences in size of the fees or rebates recently considered a feebate bill to government could use the feebate as decreases. Second, regardless of the reduce vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions an alternative to CAFE, and shift to a size attribute used to divide a vehicle after the EPA denied the state a waiver national incentive-based system instead class (interior volume, exterior volume, to regulate tailpipe emissions. of the current command-and-control footprint and rectangular shadow), system.” there is not a signifi cant impact on Notes: Many public policy experts believe automobile manufacturers. 1. In October 2006, feebates were discussed as off ering a rebate for the purchase of In addition to providing this part of the 7th Annual Global Conference on effi cient vehicles is justifi ed because additional research, the report also Environmental Taxation on Ottawa, Ontario.

16 Spring 2008 meaningful collaboration and actions moving speech entitled “Imagine a Life at RMI for the future, inspiring and motivating Future” about RMI’s past and next 25 Celebrating Solutions a new audience to become part of the years—and yes, it’s on our website. for 25 years solution, raising funds for cutting-edge Even if you were there to hear it, listen initiatives, and having fun! again. It highlights RMI’s solutions- By Marty Pickett Master of Ceremonies Tom Friedman, oriented approach and is full of hope OneO of keynote speaker President Bill Clinton, for the future. ththe most panel moderators, and other luminaries Ā e event raised more than $500,000 sisignifi cant (who donated their time and in most in net revenues plus more than half eeventsv since cases, their travel expenses) were that amount of in-kind donations. oour last impressive and inspiring. New levels We welcomed guests from all over nnewsletter—in of conversation and engagement the country and had a total of 500 fafact, one of have begun as a result of some of the attendees at the RMIQ, 500 at the ththe most connections made during that weekend. Symposium, and 782 at the Gala. sisignifi cant Our website includes a video about Many thanks to all of you, friends old eeventsv of RMI’s work and staff that was shown at and new, who joined us for RMI25. It RRMI’s the gala, as well as videos of the RMIQ was truly a transformational event for lifetime/existence—was RMI25: and Symposium panel discussions RMI in many ways. Celebrating Solutions in August. on “A Convenient Truth: Profi table But you won’t have to wait another 25 We are delighted that we met our Business-Led Climate Solutions; years to visit us again. We are already goals, which included convening Corporate Leadership: How Smart planning our annual National Solutions infl uential luminaries, engaging RMI’s Firms are Making the World Better Council weekend, which will be held network of friends, supporters, and and Safer;” “Venture Philanthropy in Denver this year. It promises to be colleagues, encouraging development of and Entrepreneurial stimulating, informative, and fun. Stay NNonprofi ts: tuned for more details and we hope to TTransformational see you then. CChange Agents

wwith Business Tools At the RMI25 gala, RMI trustee Adam aand Social Goals;” Albright and friend and supporter Jesse aand “Building Real Fink offered a spontaneous challenge SSecurity: Harnessing to match the membership fees of all new RMI National Solutions Council RResource Effi ciency to members who joined as a result of the CCreate Freedom from event. We’re pleased to announce that FFear of Privation or 32 new members joined the NSC as a result. Thank you Adam and Jesse for AAttack.” Ā e highlight offering this added motivation for new Tom Friedman and Amory Lovins at RMI25 oof the weekend was NSC memberships! AAmory’s amazing and

We extend a warm thank you to the many voluneteers, including the following people, who helped RMI pull off its biggest event yet, RMI25: Celebrating Solutions. Lonnie Bones Nels Hoff man Erika Leavitt Sandy Orsmond-Holmes Vicki Brooks Stu Huck Linda Levy Calla R. Ostrander Don Chaney Zia Hucks Liv Lively Suzanne Richman Jill Cohen Anna Jaff e Barclay Lottimer Victor Sanchez Jackie Daly Mary Karottki Nanette Martin Jon Sanders Jeanette Darnauer Alex King Morley McBride Michelle Sandoval Shelle de Beque Jon King Adam Meff ord Chris Stefan Ben Diamond Jay Kinghorn Rob Merritt A. J. Ā ompson Jan Hamilton Mitch and Lori Knotts Mary Anne Meyer Frank Todaro Miles Hill Stan Kunard Nick Occhipinti Trevor Washko Nastassia Urlapava-Hill Katrin Laird-Anderson Chad Ogburn John Zijacek

Spring 2008 17 National Solutions Council Members As of 31 March 2008 Sally Cole Diana and C. A. Kalman Pamela Levy and Rick Crandall Michelle Escudero and Scott Kane Peter Boyer Co-Chair Hilary and Kip Crosby Moira and Ward Kane Douglas Weiser Co-Chair Charles Cunniffe Inga and Nicholas J. Karolides Kathryn Finley Founder Lois-ellin Datta Bruce Katz Elaine LeBuhn Founder Martha Davis Helen J. Kessler Jinny and Tim Ditzler Katie Kitchen and Paul Kovach Maryvonne and Curtis Abbott Marion Cass and Stephen Doig Steven Kline Mary and John Abele John and Marcia Donnell Kathy Bole and Paul Klingenstein Rachel and Adam Albright Augusta and Bruce Droste Bill and Jane Knapp Pat and Ray Anderson Gordon Eatman Colleen and Bud Konheim Jim Aresty Melissa and Peter Evans Karen and Tom Konrad Elyse Arnow Brill and Joshua Arnow The Fackert Family Peter Laundy Joan Abrahamson and Jonathan Aronson Judith Barnard and Michael Fain Erika Leaf and Christopher Meeker Leslie and Rutgers Barclay Charles Farver Elaine and Robert LeBuhn Mitzi and Woody Beardsley Suzanne Farver and Clint Van Zee Jane Leddy and Robert Andrews Ben Beattie Chrissy and Andrew Fedorowicz Martin and Jenny Levion R.A. Beattie Betsy and Jesse Fink Peter Light Molly and Tom Bedell Kathryn Finley Paula and Monty Loud Sami Bedell Kathryn Fleck Gerald Lovins Mac Bell and Family Angela and Jeremy Foster Judy Hill Lovins and Amory B. Lovins Vivian and Norman Belmonte Bob Fox, Cook + Fox Architects Nancy Gerdt and Glenn Lyons Cheryl and Chris Bentley Ann and Friedman Janice and Arthur Martin Andy Bernstein Jessica and John Fullerton Elizabeth and Lou Matlack The Bialis Family Jared and Cindi Gellert Bert J. Maxon Maryam Mohit and Erik Blachford Elliot Gerson Geraldine and Donald McLauchlan Pamela and John Blackford Jennie Muir-Gordon and Mark Gordon Charles P. McQuaid Rita and Irwin Blitt Dana and Jonathan Gottsegen Leslie and Mac McQuown Kathy and Bjorn Borgen Bob Graham Lee Melly Terry Gamble Boyer and Peter Boyer Diane Troderman and Harold Grinspoon Kathleen and Bob Miller Wendie Kellington and Josh Bratt Christina and Christopher Guido Irene G. Miller Carolyn Brody Anne and Nick Hackstock James T. Mills Markell Brooks Yancey Hai Sandra and Michael Minaides Anne H. Brown Margie and John Haley Barbara Mitchell and Robert Boyar Abby and Doug Brown Margot Hampleman Elizabeth Mitchell Alison Teal and Sam Brown Jamie and Leanna Harris Cyndi and Jerry Mix Kathleen and John Buck Marcia and John Harter Karen Setterfi eld and David Muckenhirn Jacolyn and John Bucksbaum Sue Helm Mindy and Reuben Munger Shelley Burke and Al Nemoff Elaine Ply and David Henry Justine Nathanson Susanne B. Bush and Robert B. Wilcox Jessica Herzstein Kelly Erin O’Brien and Martha Joy Watson Nicole and Patrick Callahan Karen and Bayard Hollins Elaine and David Orr Steve Campbell Abby and Mark Horowitz Melinda and Norm Payson Robin and Dan Catlin Pam and Bob Howard Julia Pershan and Jonathon Cohen Eleanor Caulkins Jacqueline Merrill and James E. Hughes, Jr. Robert Philippe Mary Caulkins and Karl Kister Nancy Reynolds and Logan Hurst Marty Pickett and Edgell Pyles Ramey and Max Caulkins Maureen Jerome Michael Potts Betsy and James J. Chaffi n, Jr. Mary and Michael Johnston Rita Ayyanger and Rick Powell Patti and Ray Chambers Sam and Sarah Jones Rebecca R. Pritchard Ann and Doug Christensen Irene and Al Juvshik Sara Ransford

18 Spring 2008 Xiaomei and Joseph Reckford Dawn Holt and Shaun Simpkins Allison Wear and Frank Navarro Martha Records and Rich Rainaldi Amy Springer Lynda and Douglas Weiser Franz Reichsman Srinija Srinivasan Llewellyn Wells Nancy and Cy Rich Coco and Foster Stanback Kevin D. White Philip E. Richter Alice and Fred Stanback William B. Wiener, Jr. Diana and Jonathan F. P. Rose Hope and Robert T. Stevens, Jr. Jane Woodward, Mineral Acquisition Hope and Paul Rudnick Linda Stone Partners Vicki and Roger Sant Nancy and Dan Streiffert Sue and Jim Woolsey Emily M. Sack and Robert J. Schloss Bente Strong B. Wu and Eric Larson June and Paul Schorr, III Andrea and Lubert Stryer Linda Yates and Paul Holland Jean and Arent Schuyler Peter Sun Margaret and Martin Zankel Seymour Schwartz Roselyne Chroman Swig Toni Zurcher Joan Semmer Nancy Kitzmiller Taylor Anonymous (6) Mr. and Mrs. Thomas L. Seymour Anne and Bardyl Tirana Jane Sharp-MacRae and Duncan MacRae Deborah and Ken Tuchman Sally Dudley and Charles Sieloff Leah and Ralph Wanger Peter Boyer Joins Doug Weiser as Co-Chair of National Solutions Council

After helping found the National Solu- RMI projects, most recently the short A member of the Florida Bar tions Council (along with Kathy Finley) fi lm High-Performance Building: Association, Doug is a hotel developer in 2003, Elaine LeBuhn is stepping Perspective & Practice. and owner (Ā e Ritz-Carlton Hotel, down from her role as Co-Chair of the Peter is an artist by profession and Key Biscayne, Florida). He currently NSC. RMI is pleased to welcome Peter maintains a studio in San Francisco, resides in Snowmass, Colorado with Boyer as our new Co-Chair. Peter will where he lives with his wife and two his wife and two children, writing and be serving with Doug Weiser, who has children, both of whom are militant producing screenplays and serving as a served as NSC Co-Chair for the last recyclers. volunteer fi refi ghter. two years. Who is Doug Weiser? As our world Who is Peter Boyer? After hearing a continues to become more talk by Amory Lovins in 1992 at San crowded and the pace of life Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, Peter quickens, we are confronted Boyer was convinced that he had heard with mounting challenges that a voice that demanded much closer our ancestors never had to face. attention. Indeed, Peter has gone on to Doug believes “wholeheartedly become an avid student of RMI publi- in, and supports RMI’s construc-- cations, and a sort of Johnny Appleseed tive eff orts to partner with and for Winning the Oil Endgame, carrying guide, rather than to blame and 10 copies around in his car and giving undermine, the corporations, them out to people who seem interested institutions, and other entities (or should be). that are positioned to meet these Peter and his wife Terry’s family, in challenges and eff ect signifi cant, conjunction with their family founda- immediate positive changes in tion (Ā e Ayrshire Foundation), have our society and in the world at NSC Co-Chairs Doug Weiser and Peter Boyer gone on to help raise funds for various large.”

Spring 2008 19 Q&A with a to make a diff erence and it was clear to keep growing its ‘environmentalizing’ me (and to Amory) that change needed businesses.” Donor: to happen if RMI was going to have the Adam: “ wrote in the forward to Rachel and Adam Albright level of impact that was clearly possible. the Earth in Balance that one of the main You think about potential for impact and reasons he said he was writing the book How did you fi rst learn of RMI’s RMI to my eyes was like a huge boulder was that it was what he really knew and work? resting at the top of a hill being blocked felt, and that he hoped that if he ever ran Rachel: “ network.” by a few small rocks. Ā ere were a lot of for offi ce again his friends would remind Adam: “Ralph Cavanagh, a brilliant good people and good work being done him of what he had written. He did run and witty person has worked for at that time, but the level of infl uence was for offi ce and never spoke what he knew decades leading NRDC’s demand side not anywhere close to what it should have and what he felt about the environment. management initiatives. Ralph holds been. Ā e board really was not functioning Ā at was a huge disappointment but it Amory in highest regard and I hold Ralph at a high level and good staff people woke me up to the huge limitations on in highest regard, so the connection was weren’t sticking around. I knew I could even the best national political leader to made.” help change the dynamic, so working with truly lead. Ā at leaves it largely to the key board and staff members we rolled up non-profi t sector to hold government What attracts you to RMI’s work? our sleeves and got those little rocks out of accountable (which NRDC does so Rachel: “It’s, ‘You the way. Today it’s ‘look out below!’” eff ectively) and mobilize the private can make a profi t and sector to play more of a leading role. help the Earth.’ Ā is RMI sits at a unique and powerful nexus will appeal to many of charity and business. Ā ere is no powerful polluters, other organization like it, and I think its most of whom think potentialp to shift the way we think and live not of their fellow men are unmatched. or even, apparently, of You and Jesse Fink played a huge their children’s future.” Y impromptu role at RMI25 … what Adam: “I remember i motivated you to jump on stage and in the early ’90s challenge everyone to join the NSC? learning of Paul Erlich’s IPAT equation Rachel: “Success breeds success.” (environmental Adam:A “It was such a great gathering and Impact = Population x from my view really was the Coming Affl uence x Technology) Out Party for RMI. As a group we were and thinking that it made a bunch of basically saying ‘we’re going to play on sense. When Rachel and I founded the Is there any one area of RMI’s work that the bigger stage now and we’re going to ARIA Foundation we decided to search for gets you really excited? make a bigger diff erence, so get on board.’ organizations with the potential to move Rachel: “Getting business people to realize Jesse and I are both long-time, dedicated one of those factors in a real way. I got there is profi t in ‘greening’—hopefully our and we both know very excited when I read some of Amory’s pathetic government will follow suite.” that energy builds upon itself. What a articles on the Hypercar and the more I Adam: “I am fi xated by how we use energy great opportunity to encourage so many learned about his vision for revolutionizing in this country. It is so rare that we can people who were perhaps just learning the way we get and use energy, the more I fi nd such an obvious huge win-win on about the issues and learning what a felt RMI would fi ll the bill in shifting the so many levels and RMI is right in the great organization RMI is, to step up in ‘T’.” middle of it. It continually amazes me a real way, support the work, and make a how diffi cult it is to do something that is diff erence.” You’ve been on the Board of RMI since so clearly good for the environment, job 1998, what are you most proud of creation, and our wallets. Finally things are What got you interested in the non- profi t world? during your tenure? beginning to shift, and it’s no small credit Rachel: “Adam and a few other to RMI.” Rachel: “Maturation, along with realizing functioning board members and staff the world, and particularly the United pulling together excellent board and staff What are your hopes for RMI’s future? States, is too tilted toward materialism, teams.” Rachel: “RMI’s team will get more into leaving nonprofi t groups—which are Adam: “As a board member I look for ways ‘greening’ government sectors as well as generally underfunded—as the main

20 Spring 2008 societal watchdog.” championing their causes. Ā ey ’re both those four subjects you will change the Adam: “I had met John Adams, the elements of the Earth that are too often world (and be very, very busy).” founding President of NRDC, in the ignored and left to fend for themselves. Adam: “I strongly feel RMI is at a time in early ’80s and we hit it off . He decided he What do they have in common? Ā ey are its organizational evolution when it needs would like a younger non-lawyer on the more important than most people realize.” to be strongly focused on really making board, and so it came to pass. In 1990 I Adam: “Our support for various issues a diff erence with a few priority issues, became actively involved in their strategic usually starts with our priorities, which and the ones mentioned above would all planning process and saw the dedication may be quite strategic (as in the case of the make my short list. If this country were to and knowledge that then board member, environment) or quite personal (as in the truly shift the way it approaches any one now President, Frances Beinecke brought case with indigenous peoples). We then of these priorities it would have a huge to the table and realized that this non- research the groups in the fi eld looking ripple eff ect throughout all sectors of our profi t volunteer stuff was a something I for those that are particularly eff ective economy. To take on all of them in a could get serious about. I must have done in their work and which have a unique meaningful way should keep us busy for a a good job on the Strategic Planning and powerful approach to addressing the while.” Committee because after the process was issues. For instance, Amazon Conservation over John asked me if I’d be willing to Team’s support of indigenous peoples What could RMI do better? Chair either the newly formed Program would be far less compelling to us if they Rachel: “Periodically ask yourselves—both or Fundraising Committee. I said I’d love did not teach them to use GPS systems to board and staff —is the rubber hitting the to do the Program Committee, as that map their traditional lands, fi le a formal road?” was clearly the sharp edge of the sword. claim for them, and thereby gain the right Adam: “Making sure that its brilliant John said ‘Great, I’m sure you’d do a good to continue to manage them sustainably ideas actually get adopted. I think it’s now job, but you should realize that you can and evict illegal miners and loggers. We time to build more systematic and serious do the most good for the organization also try to support only one group in a follow-through into RMI’s operations to if you would head up the Fundraising sub-sector at a time. For instance, in the ensure that its thought leadership becomes Committee.’ Ā at was an eye-opener for environmental arena we are active with implementation leadership.” me and one of the main things I try to do and support NRDC (policy, advocacy, with any organization I’m involved with is litigation, etc.), Redefi ning Progress help build a ‘value-added board.’ Diff erent (economics and environmental justice), Save The Date! boards need diff erent things at diff erent Worldwatch Institute (environmental times, and over the years I’ve held pretty research and public education), Global Denver, Colorado much every board leadership position, Greengrants (support for a wide variety of Ā e 4th Annual National Solutions usually multiple times, always looking to international initiatives), Environmental Council Weekend where I personally can make the biggest Working Group (media and the Friday, September 19 through contribution to the organization.” environment), Berkshire Natural Resources Sunday, September 21, 2008 Council (local land conservation), and You’re (Adam) on the board or have been Amazon Conservation Team (tropical Join us for a unique opportunity to on the boards of several organizations biodiversity protection and empowerment learn more about RMI’s work. Take (Natural Resources Defense Council, of indigenous peoples). part in stimulating discussions with Conservation International, staff and explore global projects in Worldwatch Institute, Redefi ning Are there organizations that you, Rachel, which RMI is playing an infl uential Progress, Population Communications have an interest in other than those role. Ā ere will be plenty of time for International, Futures for Children, mentioned? Any other interests of note? socializing, special fi eld trips, and and, of course, RMI). How about you, Rachel: “I am on the board of Amazon fascinating conversations. Ā is is a Rachel? What other organizations do Conservation Team (ACT). My work with unique opportunity to expand your you support and why? indigenous peoples has made me want to knowledge and understanding of key issues—and to discover new and Rachel: “I support all organizations our give back.” vital ways to be part of the solution! Foundation supports—it is a partnership.” RMI works on effi ciency in For more information, call Liz Why are you so involved with these transportation, buildings, and Bauer at (970) 927-7218 or email particular organizations and how do infrastructure, and energy generation. [email protected]. Be sure to visit our they complement each other? Do you think RMI needs to apply its up-to-the-minute website at www. Rachel: “Ā e environment and certain eff orts in other areas? If so, what areas? rmi.org/NSCweekend. underdog groups of people need someone Rachel: “Let me say, if you truly tackle

Spring 2008 21 Willard Brown, in honor of B. Odell Sam Brown & Alison Teal John & Jacolyn Bucksbaum A Hearty Thanks! Shelley Burke & Al Nemoff Joan & Michael Busko Contributions to RMI between Roger & Vicki Sant Tina Butera 1 September 2007 and 31 March 2008 Sue & Jim Woolsey Elizabeth W. Cady Anonymous (3) Nicole & Pat Callahan HEROES Tim Callahan & Joan Loughnane $1,000,000 and above INTEGRATORS Eleanor Caulkins Alice & Fred Stanback $5,000–$9,999 Ralph Cavanagh & Devra Rhodes The Ackerman Family Fund CH2M HILL, Thomas Kraemer Paul M. Anderson Foundation VISIONARIES Betsy & James J. Chaffi n, Jr. Jerome & Lorraine Aresty Charitable Foundation, Inc., Jim $100,000–$499,999 Freddy & Rosita Choi Aresty Rachel & Adam Albright Yvon Chouinard The David R. & Patricia D. Atkinson Foundation ARIA Foundation Carole & Peter Clum John N. Caulkins Barr Foundation Thomas & Noel Congdon Ziska Childs Tom Dinwoodie Cook + Fox Architects, LLP The Chisholm Foundation Joy Family Foundation Anne Cooke Earth Share Mertz Gilmore Foundation Marcia A. Corbin The Firefl y Trust, the Carter & Joan B. Norris Family Sandler Family Supporting Foundation Rick Crandall & Pamela Levy Fleet Charitable Gift Fund Clarence F. Stanback Hilary & Kip Crosby Freed Family Foundation Etel & Joseph B. Thomas, IV Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Carol Gunby, in honor of The Energy Resources Team Turner Foundation Mike & Mary Curzan Katz Family Foundation, Bruce Katz Wal-Mart Foundation Daniel Family Foundation Colleen & Bud Konheim, in memory of Eric Konheim The Darby Foundation Jason Larsen PATHFINDERS Lois-ellin Datta Middlecott Foundation, Ames Byrd $50,000–$99,999 Martha Davis Mineral Acquisition Partners, Inc., Jane Woodward Mary Caulkins & Karl Kister Rosamond A. Dean Cyndi & Jerry Mix, The Watt Stopper, Inc. CREDO Delta Electronics Foundation David Newberger The J.M. Kaplan Fund, Richard Kaplan Ben Dudley Nicole Miller, Ltd., in memory of Eric Konheim The Cissy Patterson Foundation, Adam & Rachel Albright Priscilla Duffi eld The Pew Charitable Trusts Wiancko Charitable Foundation The Durst Organization Michael Potts Stephan Ellner, in honor of the Energy Resources Team R.E.M./Athens, L.L.C. INNOVATORS Niko Elmaleh Rumsey Engineers, Inc. $25,000–$49,999 Sandra Pierson Endy Adele & John Simmons Bedell World Citizenship Fund The Fackert Family William E. Slaughter, Jr. Foundation, Kent Slaughter The Caulkins Family Foundation, John Caulkins, David Michael Fagen Ken & Deborah Tuchman, in honor of Jay Hughes Caulkins, Max Caulkins, & Ellie Caulkins Fanwood Foundation The Walton Family Foundation, Ben S. & Lucy Ana Walton John & Marcia Donnell Suzanne Farver & Clint Van Zee Linda Yates & Paul Holland Edison International Chrissy & Andy Fedorowicz Margaret & Martin Zankel The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, Inc. The John E. Fetzer Institute Paula Zurcher, in memory of Chris Smith Johanette Wallerstein Institute The Triford Foundation, Rob & Debbie Ford Anonymous (7) The Libra Foundation Angela & Jeremy Foster The Louis Legacy Foundation Franklin Philanthropic Foundation OPTIMIZERS Mac & Leslie McQuown Naomi Franklin $1,000–$4,999 The Moses Feldman Family Foundation Fullerton Family Foundation Stanley & Hope Adelstein Santa Fe Art Foundation, Gerald & Kathleen Peters Jared & Cindi Gellert Peter & Patricia Adler Hope Sass Elliot Gerson Adobe Systems Incorporated Anonymous (2) John B. Gilpin The Bakewell Foundation, Edward L. Bakewell, III Joan Goddy Paul & Evelyn Baran PIONEERS Mark Gordon & Jennie Muir-Gordon Barnabas Foundation $10,000–$24,999 The Gottsegen Family Foundation, Jon & Dana Gottsegen Richard & Debra Barth 3 Form, Inc. Bob Graham Carol & William Beale Allen-Heath Memorial Foundation Jerry Greenfi eld & Elizabeth Skarie Woody & Mitzi Beardsley Sharman & David Altshuler Anne & Nick Hackstock R.A. Beattie Pat & Ray Anderson Robert M. Hadley Ben Beattie Arntz Family Foundation Margot Hampleman Sami Bedell Peter Boyer & Terry Gamble Boyer Jamie & Leanna Harris Mac Bell Peter & Susan Bradford Marcia & John Harter Norman & Vivian Belmonte Chaffi n/Light Associates Sue Helm Chris & Kathy Berg The Colorado Trust, Stephen Clark Tom Heule, in memory of Chris Smith Andy Bernstein Craigslist, Inc. Gloria & Bennie Hildebrand Diana Beuttas, in memory of Chris Smith Jesse & Betsy Fink The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Christian Hilton Pamela & John Blackford John & Elaine French I. Jerome Hirsch Blank Charitable Foundation, Inc. Thomas L. & Ann B. Friedman Abby & Mark Horowitz Rita & Irwin Blitt Harold Grinspoon & Diane Troderman Bob & Pam Howard Blueridge International, Bill Henagan Stephanie & Hunter Hunt Logan Hurst & Nancy Reynolds Kathy & Bjorn Borgen The Roy A. Hunt Foundation Charles N. Jaffee & Marvina Lepianka Beth Brennan Lafayette Energy Company The Jebediah Foundation, Daniel & Joan Amory Carolyn Brody Judy Hill Lovins & Amory B. Lovins Karen Jenne The Allan & Marilyn Brown Fund, an advised fund of Gerald & Kathleen Peters Johnson Controls, Inc. Silicon Valley Community Foundation Martha Records & Richard Rainaldi Sam & Sarah Jones, in honor of David Caulkins

22 Spring 2008 JustGive.org Paul & Hope Rudnick Michael Fuller The Mayer & Morris Kaplan Family Foundation, Charles Chris Sawyer & Julia Ferguson Sawyer Marian & August Gerecke, Jr. Kaplan Shelley & Greg Schlender Katy & Paul Gerke Inga & Nicholas J. Karolides Seymour Schwartz, The Common Sense Fund Inc. Kathy & Gerard Grande Charles & Roberta Katz Tony Schwartz & Deborah Pines Bill & Joyce Gruenberg The Kearns Family Foundation, Kayleigh & Andrew Kearns Gary & Beth Schwarzman Hagman Architects Helen J. Kessler Serendipity Charitable Gift Fund Mindy Handler Richard & Marianne Kipper Mr. & Mrs. Thomas L. Seymour Heidi Hat Katie Kitchen & Paul Kovach Doug & Barbi Sheffer Martin Hellman Steven Kline Charles Sieloff & Sally Dudley Joe Henry Paul Klingenstein & Kathy Bole Shaun Simpkins & Dawn Holt Jack Hidary Bill & Jane Knapp Estate of Christopher H. Smith Nancy Hirshberg Lawrence Ladin Mark Smith, in honor of the Mobility/Vehicle Effi ciency Holland & Hart, in memory of Chris Smith Peter Laundy Team ID Interiors, in memory of Chris Smith Carola B. Lea Warren W. Smith, in honor of The Energy Resources Team ImportantGifts, Inc. Jane G. Leddy & Robert W. Andrews Amy Springer Sudhanshu & Lori Jain Colette Muller Lee The Srinija Srinivasan Fund, an advised fund of Silicon Michael & Chantal Jennings Martin & Jenny Levion Valley Community Foundation Anne Jones Betsy & Steven Levitas, in honor of Jimmy Mills Steeplechase Construction Greg Kats Roger & Florence Liddell Anne M. Stoddard Robert A. Kevan Jim & Dianne Light Nancy & Dan Streiffert Susan Morser Klem Douglas & Susan Linney Bente Strong Nancy Koppelman Gerald Lins & Ann Parry Moorhead-Lins Lubert & Andrea Stryer Virginia Lacy Frances & Robert Ludwig Peter Sun Charles W. Lemke The John P. McBride Family & the Aspen Business Center The Tara Fund of Tides Foundation, Kathleen Barry & John P. Linderman Foundation Robert Burnett The Little-Reid Conservation Fund, William D. & Gwyneth Robert & Mimi McCallum Elizabeth & Michael Thele Reid Charles P. McQuaid William Laney Thornton & Pasha Dritt Thornton Darcey & Steven Lober Steven & Lauren Meyers US Freedom Charitable Trust Bob Lorenzen & Priscilla Elder Irene G. Miller Veris Wealth Partners Judy & Nigel MacEwan Margot & Roger Milliken, Jr. Jane & David Villa MADA CLT, Barry & Abby Wark Barbara Mitchell & Robert Boyar Roger Walsh & Frances Vaughan Siri & Bob Marshall Elizabeth Mitchell Thomas Warren Joel & Jean McCormack Money/Arenz Foundation, Inc. Allison Wear & Frank Navarro James T. Mills The Moore Charitable Foundation Lynda & Doug Weiser Ibby & James T. Mills, Jr. Norman M. Morris Foundation, Mike Hundert Effi e E. Westervelt Morley Foundation, Chase Brand Michael S. Morton William B. Wiener, Jr. Joyce & F. Joseph Murphy David Muckenhirn & Karen Setterfi eld David Wilson & Melody Wilder Ken & Jill Olstad Werner & Helen Tyson Muller, in memory of Frances K. Janice & Peter Wizinowich, in honor of Peter & Mildred PAJWELL Foundation Tyson Wiznowich & Iala & Akal Jaggs Pearlstone Family Fund, Richard Pearlstone Reuben & Mindy Munger Barbara & Gilbert Wynn Richard H. Peeples The Nagourney Institute, Robert Nagourney Anonymous (11) Marc Porat, in honor of The Built Environment Team Network For Good Mary B. Ratcliff Werner & Judith Neuman STEWARDS Sharon Ricketts Newton Family Fund $500–$999 Richard & Marilyn Schatzberg Northern Trust Charitable Giving Program John M. & Betty Ann Altman Meryl & Bob Selig Kelly O’Brien & Martha Watson Sharman & David Altshuler Michael & Yvonne Silverman Abby & George D. O’Neill James B. Anderson Polly Strovink Elise M. O’Shaughnessy Doug Ayer, in honor of The Offi ce of the Chief Scientist Garret & Lalitha Swart OzArchitects, Inc., Troy Worgull Walter S. Baer & Jeri L. Weiss Charles Taylor Will & Julie Parish Leslie & J.F. Baken Telaka Foundation Melinda & Norm Payson Joel Barker The Thousand Windows Fund, Chris & Derek Denniston Anthony P. Pennock Richard & Joanne Barsanti Darla Tupper & Tye Tyson Julia Pershan & Jonathon Cohen Steedman Bass Elaine W. Warner Robert Philippe A. Jonathon Becker & Lynn Israel Pat & Bob Waterston Pisces Foundation James Boorstein Rom P. & Pamela Welborn Rick Powell & Rita Ayyanger Brett Boye Paul & Elena Westbrook Rebecca R. Pritchard Molly Brooks William E. & Margaret Westerbeck The Rabuck Agency, Peter Stranger James & Barbara Butler Alexandra Woods, in memory of Chris Smith The Joseph & Xiaomei Li Reckford Fund of Triangle Edward Celnicker Suze Woolf & Steven Price Community Foundation Michael Chun Barry Yatt Martha Records & Rich Rainaldi CKarma Marketing, Cindy Kerr David Zeller Dan Redmond Marilyn & William Clement Anonymous (6) Barbara Reed The Conservation & Research Foundation Franz Reichsman Lisa & Dan Culhane IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS The Linda Campbell Reilly Fund, a Donor Advised Fund of John S. & Julie Daniel, Jr. Ben & Jenny Diamond The Denver Foundation Energy Opportunities, Inc. Stan Kunard Philip E. Richter Charles & Chase Ewald Ethel Lossing Caroline Robinson Greg Fletcher SunEarth, Inc. B.T. Rocca, Jr. Foundation Dean Flugstad Frank Todaro Gray & Mollie Rogers Tim Flynn VinAspen Mark & Rochelle Rosenberg Joe & Rita Foss Xpedx Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld Karen Freedman & Roger Weisberg John & Cass Zijacek

Spring 2008 23 Figure 2: Operating CO2 emitted per delivered kWh Wind, gas, which does emit carbon (though

1 cogeneration, half as much as coal), so they displace and end-use somewhat less net carbon than nuclear 0.9 effi ciency power could: around 0.7 kilograms of 0.8 already CO per kilowatt-hour.7 Even though Recovered heat credit 2 0.7 provide cogeneration displaces less carbon

0.6 electrical than nuclear does per kilowatt-hour,

kWh services more it displaces more carbon than nuclear 0.5 per 2 cheaply does per dollar spent on delivered 0.4 kg CO than central electricity, because it costs far less. 0.3 thermal With a net delivered cost per kilowatt-

0.2 power plants, hour approximately half of nuclear’s, whether cogeneration delivers twice as many 0.1

<0.01 0 0 0 nuclear- or kilowatt-hours per dollar, and therefore 0 Nuclear plant Coal plant Large combined- Large wind farm Combined-cycle Building-scale Recovered-heat End-use efficiency fossil-fuelled. displaces around 1.4 kilograms of CO cycle gas plant industrial cogen cogen industrial cogen 2 Ā is cost for the same cost as displacing 0.9

gap will only kilograms of CO2 with nuclear power. from page 1 widen, since central thermal power Figure 3 compares diff erent electricity Ā erefore, they don’t incur the capital plants are largely mature while their options’ cost-eff ectiveness in reducing costs and energy losses of the electric competitors continue to improve CO2 emissions. It counts both their grid, which links large power plants rapidly. Ā e high costs of conventional cost-eff ectiveness, in delivering kilowatt- and remote wind farms to customers.3 fossil-fuelled plants would go even hours per dollar, and their carbon Wind farms, like solar cells,4 also higher if their large carbon emissions emissions, if any. require “fi rming” to steady their variable had to be captured. Nuclear power, being the costliest output, and all types of generators option, delivers less electrical service require some backup for when they Uncompetitive CO2 Displacement per dollar than its rivals, so, not inevitably break. Ā e graph refl ects Nuclear plant operations emit almost surprisingly, it’s also a climate- these costs. no carbon—just a little to produce the protection loser, surpassing in Making electricity from fuel creates fuel under current conditions.6 Nuclear carbon emissions displaced per dollar large amounts of byproduct heat that’s power is therefore touted as the key only centralized, non-cogenerating normally wasted. Combined-cycle replacement for coal-fi red power plants. combined-cycle power plants burning industrial cogeneration and building- But this seemingly straightforward natural gas.8 Firmed windpower and scale cogeneration recover most of that substitution could instead be done cogeneration are 1.5 times more cost- heat and use it to displace the need for using non-nuclear technologies that are eff ective than nuclear at displacing separate boilers to heat the industrial cheaper and faster, so they yield more CO2. So is effi ciency at even an almost process or the building, thus creating climate solution per dollar and per year. unheard-of seven cents per kilowatt- the economic “credit” shown in Figure As Figure 2 shows, various options emit hour. Effi ciency at normally observed 1. Cogenerating electricity and some widely diff ering quantities of CO2 per costs beats nuclear by a wide margin— useful heat from currently discarded delivered kilowatt-hour. for example, by about ten-fold for industrial heat is even cheaper because Coal is by far the most carbon- effi ciency costing one cent per kilowatt- no additional fuel is needed.5 intensive source of electricity, so hour. End-use effi ciency lets customers displacing it is the yardstick of carbon New nuclear power is so costly that wring more service from each kilowatt- displacement’s eff ectiveness. A kilowatt- shifting a dollar of spending from hour by using smarter technologies. hour of nuclear power does displace nuclear to effi ciency protects the climate As RMI’s work with many leading nearly all the 0.9-plus kilograms of CO2 several-fold more than shifting a dollar fi rms has demonstrated, effi ciency emitted by producing a kilowatt-hour of spending from coal to nuclear. provides the same or better services from coal. But so does a kilowatt- Indeed, under plausible assumptions, with less carbon, less operating cost, hour from wind, a kilowatt-hour from spending a dollar on new nuclear power and often less up-front investment. recovered-heat industrial cogeneration, instead of on effi cient use of electricity Ā e investment required to save a or a kilowatt-hour saved by end-use has a worse climate eff ect than spending kilowatt-hour averages about two cents effi ciency. And all of these three carbon- that dollar on new coal power! nationwide, but has been less than one free resources cost at least one-third less If we’re serious about addressing climate cent in hundreds of utility programs than nuclear power per kilowatt-hour, change, we must invest resources (mainly for businesses), and can even so they save more carbon per dollar. wisely to expand and accelerate climate be less than zero in new buildings and Combined-cycle industrial protection. Because nuclear power is factories—and in some retrofi ts that are cogeneration and building-scale costly and slow to build, buying more coordinated with routine renovations. cogeneration typically burn natural of it rather than of its cheaper, swifter

24 Spring 2008 units had to solar fractions will require less backup Figure 3: Coal-fired CO2 emissions displaced per dollar spent on electrical services 1¢: 93 kg CO2/$ shut down. or storage capacity than utilities have 2¢: 47 kg CO /$ 35 2 Carbon displacement at various efficiency costs/kWh Twelve days of already bought to manage big thermal 3¢ stations’ intermittence. Ā e myth of 30 painfully slow restart later, renewable energy’s unreliability has

25 their average been debunked both by theory and by 4¢ capacity loss practical experience. 20 had exceeded 50 percent. For Large Subsidies to Off set High 15 Keystone high nuclear cost scenario the fi rst three Financial Risk displaced per 2007 dollar 2 days, just when Ā e latest U.S. nuclear plant proposed 10 kg CO they were most is estimated to cost $12–24 billion

5 needed, their (for 2.2–3.0 billion watts), many times

N/A output was industry’s claims, and off the chart in 0 Figure 1 above. Ā e utility’s owner, a Nuclear plant Coal plant Large combined- Large wind farm Combined-cycle Building-scale Recovered-heat End-use efficiency below 3 percent cycle gas plant industrial cogen cogen industrial cogen of normal. large holding company active in 27 Ā e big states, has annual revenues of only rivals will instead reduce and retard transmission lines that highly $15 billion. Such high, and highly climate protection. concentrated nuclear plants require are uncertain, costs now make fi nancing also vulnerable to lightning, ice storms, prohibitively expensive for free-market Questionable Reliability rifl e bullets, and other interruptions. nuclear plants in the half of the U.S. All sources of electricity sometimes Ā e bigger our power plants and that has restructured its electricity fail, diff ering only in why, how often, power lines get, the more frequent system, and prone to politically how much, for how long, and how and widespread regional blackouts will challenging rate shock in the rest: a new predictably. Even the most reliable become. Because 98–99 percent of nuclear kilowatt-hour costing, say, 16 giant power plants are intermittent: power failures start in the grid, it’s more cents “levelized” over decades implies they fail unexpectedly in billion-watt reliable to bypass the grid by shifting that the utility must collect ~27 cents to chunks, often for long periods. Of to effi ciently used, diverse, dispersed fund its fi rst year of operation. all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52 resources sited at or near the customer. Lacking investors, nuclear promoters percent of the 253 originally ordered), Also, a portfolio of many smaller units have turned back to taxpayers, who 21 percent were permanently and is unlikely to fail all at once: its diversity already bear most nuclear accident prematurely closed due to reliability makes it especially reliable even if its risks and have no meaningful say or cost problems, while another 27 individual units are not. in licensing. In the United States, percent have completely failed for a Ā e sun doesn’t always shine on a taxpayers also insure operators against year or more at least once. Even reliably given solar panel, nor does the wind legal or regulatory delays and have operating nuclear plants must shut always spin a given turbine. Yet if long subsidized existing nuclear plants down, on average, for 39 days every 17 properly fi rmed, both windpower, by ~1–5¢ per kilowatt-hour. In 2005, months for refueling and maintenance. whose global potential is 35 times desperate for orders, the politically To cope with such intermittence in world electricity use, and solar potent nuclear industry got those the operation of both nuclear and energy, as much of which falls on the subsidies raised to ~5–9¢ per kilowatt- centralized fossil-fuelled power plants, earth’s surface every ~70 minutes as hour for new plants, or ~60–90 percent which typically fail about 8 percent humankind uses each year, can deliver of their entire projected power cost. of the time, utilities must install a reliable power without signifi cant Wall Street still demurred. In 2007, roughly 15 percent “reserve margin” of cost for backup or storage. Ā ese the industry won relaxed government extra capacity, some of which must be variable renewable resources become rules that made its 100 percent loan continuously fuelled, spinning ready for collectively reliable when diversifi ed in guarantees (for 80 percent-debt instant use. Heavily nuclear-dependent type and location and when integrated fi nancing) even more valuable—worth, regions are particularly at risk because with three types of resources: steady one utility’s data revealed, about $13 drought, a serious safety problem, or renewables (geothermal, small hydro, billion for a single new plant. But a terrorist incident could close many biomass, etc.), existing fuelled plants, rising costs had meanwhile made the plants simultaneously. and customer demand response. Such $4 billion of new 2005 loan guarantees Nuclear plants have an additional integration uses weather forecasting to scarcely suffi cient for a single reactor, so disadvantage: for safety, they must predict the output of variable renewable Congress raised taxpayers’ guarantees to instantly shut down in a power failure, resources, just as utilities now forecast $18.5 billion. Congress will be asked for but for nuclear-physics reasons, they demand patterns and hydropower another $30+ billion in loan guarantees can’t then be quickly restarted. During output. In general, keeping power in 2008. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan the August 2003 Northeast blackout, supplies reliable despite large wind and Congressional Budget Offi ce has nine perfectly operating U.S. nuclear

Spring 2008 25 concluded that defaults are likely. 07 average) and probably more in In this broader competitive landscape, Wall Street is ever more skeptical that 2007–08. high carbon prices or taxes can’t save nuclear power is as robustly competitive An even cheaper competitor is end- nuclear power from its fate. If nuclear as claimed. Starting with Warren Buff et, use effi ciency (“negawatts”)—saving did compete only with coal, then far- who just abandoned a nuclear project electricity by using it more effi ciently above-market carbon prices might because “it does not make economic or at smarter times. Despite subsidies save it; but coal isn’t the competitor sense,” the smart money is heading for generally smaller than nuclear’s, and to beat. Higher carbon prices will the exits. Ā e Nuclear Energy Institute many barriers to fair market entry and advantage all other zero-carbon is therefore trying to damp down the competition, negawatts and micropower resources—renewables, recovered- rosy expectations it created. It now says have lately turned in a stunning global heat cogeneration, and negawatts—as U.S. nuclear orders will come not in a market performance. Micropower’s much as nuclear, and will partly tidal wave but in two little ripples—a actual and industry-projected electricity advantage fossil-fueled but low-carbon mere 5–8 units coming online in production is running away from cogeneration as well. 2015–16, then more if those are on nuclear’s, not even counting the time and within budget. Even that roughly comparable additional growth Small Is Fast, Low-Risk, and High in sounds dubious, as many senior energy- in negawatts, nor any fossil-fuelled Total Potential industry fi gures privately agree. In generators under a megawatt (see Figure Small, quickly built units are faster to today’s capital market, governments can 4).9 deploy for a given total eff ect than a few big, slowly built units. Widely accessible Figure 4: Low- or no-carbon worldwide electrical output (except large hydro) choices that sell like cellphones and

4500 PCs can add up to more, sooner, than ponderous plants that get built like 4000 Total renewables plus decentralized generation cathedrals. And small units are much easier to match to the many small pieces 3500 of electrical demand. Even a multi-

3000 Nuclear megawatt wind turbine can be built

Decentralized Gas so quickly that the U.S. will probably 2500 Turbines and Diesel Generators have a hundred billion watts of them (mostly cogeneration, installed before it gets its fi rst one 2000 about half natural gas)

TWh per year billion watts of new nuclear capacity, if

1500 any.

Geothermal Small, quickly built units also have 1000 far lower fi nancial risks than big, slow Biomass and Waste ones. Ā is gain in fi nancial economics 500 Small Hydro (<10 MW)

Wind is the tip of a very large iceberg: Actual Projected 0 micropower’s more than 200 diff erent 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 kinds of hidden fi nancial and technical Year benefi ts can make it about ten times have only about as many nuclear plants Ā e nuclear industry nonetheless more valuable (www.smallisprofi table. as they can force taxpayers to buy. claims its only serious competitors org) than implied by current prices or are big coal and gas plants. But the by the cost comparisons above. Most of Ā e Micropower Revolution marketplace has already abandoned the same benefi ts apply to negawatts as While nuclear power struggles in vain that outmoded battleground for well. to attract private capital, investors have two others: central thermal plants Despite their small individual size, switched to cheaper, faster, less risky vs. micropower, and megawatts vs. micropower generators and electrical alternatives that Ā e Economist calls negawatts. For example, the U.S. added savings are already adding up to huge “micropower”—distributed turbines more windpower capacity in 2007 totals. Indeed, over decades, negawatts and generators in factories or buildings than it added coal-fi red capacity in the and micropower can shoulder the entire (usually cogenerating useful heat), past fi ve years combined. By beating burden of powering the economy. and all renewable sources of electricity all central thermal plants, micropower Ā e Electric Power Research Institute except big hydro dams (those over ten and negawatts together provide about (EPRI), the utilities’ think-tank, megawatts). Ā ese alternatives surpassed half the world’s new electrical services. has calculated the U.S. negawatt nuclear’s global capacity in 2002 and its Micropower alone now provides a sixth potential (cheaper than just running electric output in 2006. Nuclear power of the world’s electricity, and from a an existing nuclear plant and delivering now accounts for about 2 percent of sixth to more than half of all electricity its output) to be two to three times worldwide electric capacity additions, in twelve industrial countries (the U.S. nuclear power’s 19 percent share of the vs. 28 percent for micropower (2004– lags with 4 percent). U.S. electricity market; RMI’s more

26 Spring 2008 detailed analysis found even more. caught trying to get. Ā is would make them nuclear operators. Ā e authors Cogeneration in factories can make proliferation far more diffi cult, and are grateful to their colleague Dr. Joel as much U.S. electricity as nuclear easier to detect in time by focusing Swisher PE for insightful comments and does, plus more in buildings, which scarce intelligence resources on needles, to many cited and uncited sources for use 69 percent of U.S. electricity. not haystacks. research help. A technical paper preprinted Windpower at acceptable U.S. sites Nuclear power has other unique for the September 2008 Ambio (Royal can cost-eff ectively produce at least challenges too, such as long-lived Swedish Academy of Sciences) supports twice the nation’s total electricity use, radioactive wastes, potential for this summary with full details and and other renewables can make even catastrophic accidents, and vulnerability documentation (www.rmi.org/sitepages/ more without signifi cant land-use, to terrorist attacks. But in a market pid257.php#E08-01). RMI’s annual compilation of global micropower data variability, or other constraints. Ā us economy, the technology couldn’t from industrial and governmental sources just cogeneration, windpower, and proceed even if it lacked those issues, so has been updated through 2006, and in we needn’t consider them here. effi cient use—all profi table—can many cases through 2007, at www.rmi. displace nuclear’s current U.S. output org/sitepages/pid256.php#E05-04. roughly 14 times over. Conclusion Nuclear power, with its decade-long So why do otherwise well-informed Notes: project cycles, diffi cult siting, and people still consider nuclear power a 1. Ā is is conservatively used as the basis for all (above all) unattractiveness to private key element of a sound climate strategy? comparisons in this article capital, simply cannot compete. In Not because that belief can withstand 2. All monetary values in this article are in 2007 2006, for example, it added less global analytic scrutiny. Rather, it seems, U.S. dollars. All values are approximate and representative of the respective U.S. technologies capacity than photovoltaics did, or a because of a superfi cially attractive story, in 2007. Capital and operating costs are levelized tenth as much as windpower added, an immensely powerful and eff ective over the lifespan of the capital investment. or 30–41 times less than micropower lobby, a new generation who forgot 3. Distributed generators may rely on the added. Renewables other than big or never knew why nuclear power power grid for emergency backup power, but hydro dams won $56 billion of private failed previously (almost nothing has such backup capacity, being rarely used, doesn’t require a marginal expansion of grid capacity, as risk capital; nuclear, as usual, got zero. changed), sympathetic leaders of nearly does the construction of new centralized power China’s distributed renewable capacity all main governments, deeply rooted plants. Indeed, in ordinary operation, diversifi ed reached seven times its nuclear habits and rules that favor giant power distributed generators free up grid capacity for capacity and grew seven times faster. plants over distributed solutions and other users. 4. is not included in Figure 1 And in 2007, China, Spain, and the enlarged supply over effi cient use, the because the delivered cost of solar electricity U.S. each added more windpower market winners’ absence from many varies greatly by installation type and fi nancing capacity than the world added nuclear offi cial databases (which often count method. As shown in Figure 4, photovoltaics are capacity. Ā e nuclear industry does only big plants owned by utilities), and currently one of the smaller sources of renewable trumpet its growth, yet micropower is lazy reporting by an unduly credulous electricity, and solar thermal power generation is even smaller. bigger and growing 18 times faster. press. 5. A similar credit for displaced boiler fuel can Isn’t it time we forgot about nuclear even enable this technology to produce electricity Security Risks power? Informed capitalists have. at negative net cost. Ā e graph conservatively President Bush rightly identifi es the Politicians and pundits should too. omits such credit (which is very site-specifi c) and shows a typical positive selling price. spread of nuclear weapons as the After more than half a century of 6. We ignore here the modest and broadly gravest threat to America. Yet that devoted eff ort and a half-trillion dollars comparable amounts of energy needed to proliferation is largely driven and of public subsidies, nuclear power still build any kind of electric generator, as well as greatly facilitated by nuclear power‘s can’t make its way in the market. If we possible long-run energy use for nuclear waste accept that unequivocal verdict, we management or for extracting uranium from fl ow of materials, equipment, skills, low-grade sources. and knowledge, all hidden behind its can at last get on with the best buys 7. Since its recovered heat displaces boiler fuel, innocent-looking civilian disguise. fi rst: proven and ample ways to save cogeneration displaces more carbon emissions (Reprocessing nuclear fuel, which more carbon per dollar, faster, more per kilowatt-hour than a large gas-fi red power the President hopes to revive, greatly surely, more securely, and with wider plant does. 8. However, at long-run gas prices below those complicates waste management, consensus. As often before, the biggest assumed here (a levelized 2007-$ cost of $7.72 increases cost, and boosts key to a sound climate and security per million BTU) and at today’s high nuclear proliferation.) Yet acknowledging strategy is to take market economics costs, the combined-cycle plants may save more nuclear power’s market failure and seriously. carbon per dollar than nuclear plants do. Ā is moving on to secure, least-cost energy may also be true even at the prices assumed here, Mr. Lovins, a physicist, is cofounder, if one properly counts combined-cycle plants’ options for global development would Chairman, and Chief Scientist of Rocky ability to load-follow, thus complementing and unmask and penalize proliferators Mountain Institute, where Mr. Sheikh is enabling cleaner, cheaper variable renewable resources like windpower. by making bomb ingredients harder a Research Analyst and Dr. Markevich is to get, more conspicuous to try to 9. Data for decentralized gas turbines and diesel a Vice President. Mr. Lovins has consulted generators exclude generators of less than 1 get, and politically costlier to be for scores of electric utilities, many of megawatt capacity.

Spring 2008 27 what’s inside

2. A Long-Needed Overhaul in Shipping megawatts and to reduce fossil-fuel consumption Three-quarters of all general cargo moves in heavy by 5 percent in fi ve years. Last fall, RMI helped steel shipping containers. Goods transportation is Cambridge on its way. Here, RMI’s Natalie Mimms fundamental to our society, but it carries an often- explains how. overlooked environmental burden. RMI’s Laura Schewel explains. 14. Water, Water Everywhere…Sort of Recently, RMI helped design fi rm Lord, Aeck 4. Winning the Oil Endgame & Sargent with the design of a remarkable The end of oil is in sight, and RMI’s doing everything new building in Georgia, the Gwinnett [County] we can to accelerate the transition away from the Environmental + Heritage Center (GEHC), which ubiquitous and costly . was awarded one of Environmental Design + Construction magazine’s 2007 Excellence in Design 10. Community Energy Use in Our Fair City Awards. Here, Jim Nicolow of LAS describes the In 2006, the City of Cambridge, Mass. announced an project. ambitious goal: to reduce electricity demand by 50

Rocky Mountain Institute NON-PROFIT ORG U.S. POSTAGE PAID 2317 Snowmass Creek Road PERMIT #90 Snowmass, CO 81654-9199 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

Printed on 100% PCW recycled paper using vegetable-based inks.