From our lesson and readings, energy efficiency is a relatively low cost opportunity to realize substantial energy savings in the long term. Of all the barriers listed in the McKinsey report, education about energy efficiency should be paramount in government policy making for social responsibility, and it should be started in two places: Corporate America and kindergarten. In educating Corporate America, the government should spearhead existing working programs (and experimental programs which show strong potential) with incentives for short term payback and measurable long term programs that will directly show results to the bottom line. By beginning energy efficiency education in kindergarten, we make efficiency education part of the program, not just the conversation. In order to educate the kids, however, we first have to educate the adults. As with Corporate America, the government can provide affordable incentives to produce realistic, tangible paybacks periods for the investments that the government would like ordinary citizens to make towards energy efficiency.

According to the U.S General Services Administration, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the government provided 5.5 billion dollars to green federal buildings. Let’s do some math. $5,500,000,000 divided by 50 states equals $110,000,000 million dollars per state. 110 million divided by 3303 (the number of public schools in Pennsylvania) comes to 33,303 dollars per school. If that investment were quadrupled, it would be $133,212.00 dollars per school. In Philadelphia, the district manages about 300 schools (including charters) which would come to $39,963,669 dollars for the district.

If the U.S is going to go green, we’re going to need skilled workers for that to happen, and our schools seem like the perfect place to start. Most Philadelphia schools have massive amounts of roof space that would be perfect for solar installations and CHP and could provide realistic hands-on training for students to enter the workforce. In the districts 30 million dollar per year energy budget, 55.5% of that goes to electricity costs. If the electricity bill alone could be negated, it would be a savings of 16.65 million dollars that could be re-invested into additional efficiency programs. At least that’s on my wish list.

If, for example, the government mandates future home sales to meet minimum efficiency compliance, it will need government certified energy auditors or inspectors to ensure that compliance. My business idea would be to set up training centers across the United States to produce certified auditors or inspectors, because financial institutions will need them in order to process mortgages.

http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/f/facilities/programs–services/energy-management

http://pennsylvania.educationbug.org/public-schools/

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105326

• While the USA has more private sector participation in the production of civilian nuclear power than any other nation, the government is heavily involved through safety and environmental regulations, R&D funding, and setting national energy goals.
• Beginning in the late 1990s, US government policy and funding decisions have encouraged the development of greater civilian nuclear capacity.
• The commitment to nuclear power as part of the USA’s long-term energy strategy continues, but there has been a reduction in some nuclear programs as a result of greater emphasis on alternative sources of energy.
• The disposal and storage of high-level nuclear waste remains a major unresolved issue.
• Over the last 25 years public opinion has steadily grown more positive towards nuclear energy.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA–Nuclear-Power-Policy/
Why are renewable energy projects failing to recieve the same degree of support from the financial community and the government that nuclear does?
A conventional plant costs about $780 million to build, according to Bechtel…a comparable coal-gas plant would cost about $975 million. source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/18/news/economy/coal/
Coal externalized cost (cents per kWh) from Epstein et al. (2011) estimates that the externalized cost of an actual coal plant to be 3 times higher than the building costs, excluding government subsidies for coal. The Vogtle plant (from our lesson) currently being built in Georgia is estimated right now to be 6.76 billion dollars (with cost over-runs), according to powermag.com. I believe that the heavy level of government regulation in this industry is a major contributor to the high fixed costs of the design and building of nuclear power plants. Although the fixed costs for building nuclear power plants are high, the operational costs are relatively low for this much cleaner power generation source. From our video, the new generation of gas cooled nuclear power plants do not need to rely on a water source in the event of a shut down, whether planned or accidental. This gives nuclear power much more portability in areas lacking access to abundant water sources, i.e, the drought stricken western U.S. Also, nuclear doesn’t require the large land areas needed for utility sized production of solar or wind power. Although the government does provide subsidies for renewables, I believe it is trying to let market forces and efficiencies and innovations in technology drive the transition to renewables.
Niche markets. I believe distributed solar generation is going to be the primary source of electricity generation in the very near future. The current cost of solar installations is now comparable to traditional utility generation and continued research and development will drive the costs of solar even lower. Recently, scientists at the University of Scheffield have developed a spray on material that can turn just about any surface into a power generating solar cell using an abundant and easily processed material called perovskite. As these technologies continue to develop economically, the traditional utility is going to go the way of the dinosaurs.
References:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA–Nuclear-Power-Policy/
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187416-high-efficiency-spray-on-solar-power-tech-can-turn-any-surface-into-a-cheap-solar-cell
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=639
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_it_cost_to_make_a_coal_fired_power_plant

My name is Pat McMahon and I’m a construction inspector in Philadelphia, PA, where I call home since 1998. I was born in Philly but we moved to northern Tioga County when I was 9. I loved growing up in the country; tire rope swing into the Cowanesque river, tree houses in the back woods, swinging from the barn rafters into piles of hay, camping in the summer time, what a blast. I like the fact that I’m comfortable in both my country and city skin. Fishtown started its gentrification in the early 2000’s and it was amazing to go through the transformation. We went from corner bars and junkies on every corner to nice casual restaurants, BYOB’s, art galleries and music venues. I love the city.
A former friend of mine and I tried starting a car detailing business, but as you can guess from the beginning of this sentence, it didn’t work out. From the knowledge I’ve gained during this ESP program, I realize, in hindsight, why it didn’t work and the good news is, I wouldn’t be afraid to try a new business in the renewable energy field. With the ever falling prices of solar panels and recent gains in that technology, I see distributive generation meeting the future of our electric needs with current utilities being used for back-up power only. That’s where I see myself in the future.