Articles by Gar Lipow

RoofKrete makes thin flexible ferrocement that is also vapor barrier

I recently stumbled across a green builders' discussion of a product called RoofKrete, which claims to be a form of semi-flexible ferrocement that can be sturdy and self-supporting in shells as thin as a quarter inch. An additive to the cement makes it a vapor barrier as well, rated to last over 100 years and expected to last much longer than that.

The obvious use for RoofKrete, and the major market at which it is currently aimed, is repairing failed flat roofs and constructing long-lasting, low maintenance new ones. But the reason it caught my eye was the potential for green buildings.

Plasma TVs and solar cells not so bad after all

A recent Grist article shared a bit in some of the panic about NF3 and plasma TVs. If all the NF3 manufactured were released, it warns, it would have a warming effect equivalent to that of Austria.

It turns out that is mighty big "if," one that Eli Rabett manages to blast into smithereens.

Clean Air Interstate rule struck down because it devalues sulfur trading permits

The court decision striking down the Clean Air Interstate Rule, a major loss for clean environmentalists, can be traced directly to the sulfur trading program often (mistakenly) considered an example of the success of trading over other forms of regulation. Because the new permitting process would have overwritten existing permits, the electric utility industry was able to successfully argue that these regulations would have resulted in economic damage.

You won't find this in the New York Times article itself but in the mp3 of a background interview in a sidebar of the NYT online story. Although the court was careful not to say so directly, in essence this was a "takings" argument. [Update] (In response to comments, I don't think I successfully make a case that this is a movement towards takings. I'll return to the subject of at a later date. But the main point of this post is that undermining the value of permits is one basis for this ruling - and they do say that right in the ruling (linked in a an early comment.)) The court ruled that that the EPA was not allowed to devalue certain acid rain permits. This is a damn good reason not to turn pollution into property rights (or pseudo property rights in the first place.

And thanks to Brian Tokar for his email -- sent to a list I'm on -- that pointed this out.

Renewables and efficiency would provide more GDP than fossil fuels

The attached Excel spreadsheet takes specific technologies, the known cost of implementing them, and various scenarios for responses to such implementation and technical improvements (including no technical improvement!) and calculates costs and benefits. This is intended to be an open source model. The comment section will be used to revise the spreadsheet with links to the old versions added to the bottom of this post as revisions are made (for the sake of transparency.) There is also a Word document with a narration of assumptions.

The conclusion in this 1.0 version: Unsurprisingly, the key to eliminating emissions profitably is large efficiency increases. With maximum efficiency improvements even a scenario with (completely unrealistic) zero technical progress in efficiency or renewables would make our economy as a whole richer than if we stuck to fossil fuels. If we combine aggressive efficiency improvements with aggressive (but reasonable) improvements in technology we would end up richer by more than a trillion dollars a year. Aggressive efficiency spending which yields small reductions, unsurprisingly has poor financial payback.

Warning: There is an easy misinterpretation the data does not support -- that we can do nothing. The fact that eliminating most fossil fuel use is more profitable than continuing to use fossil fuels to society as a whole does not mean that elimination will happen without policy changes. Nor does it mean that is currently profitable to those who could make the technical changes. For example, transforming commercial office space into a green building raises worker productivity by a minimum of 4 percent. If a landlord makes that transformation, and somehow gets hold of the confidential data needed to document that productivity gain, how much can she increase rents based on those productivity improvements? If you guessed zero, you are right and win the no-prize. Incidentally, even if the building is 100 percent owner occupied, what do you think the odds are they will invest in improved lighting and ventilation for the sake of productivity improvements?