Common Tragedies

Thoughts on Environmental Economics

Archive for the ‘Efficiency’ Category

Innovative public policy from the Mountain West: Example 1

Posted by Danny Morris on August 6, 2009

It’s rare that the state of Utah comes up with an innovative public policy, let alone gets recognized for it. Come to think of it, it’s rare that Utah gets any shoutout not related to the dominant culture or the occasional piece on the peculiar culinary delights found in the state.That’s why last week was a particularly exciting week for the Beehive State, as both Brad Plumer and Matt Yglesias called out Utah for its clever policies. Both authors highlight a Scientific American article looking at the state’s new 4 10-hr day work week (work M-Th, take Friday off) and the effects it’s had since its inception last year:

For those workplaces, there’s no longer a need to turn on the lights, elevators or computers on Fridays—nor do janitors need to clean vacant buildings. Electric bills have dropped even further during the summer, thanks to less air-conditioning: Friday’s midday hours have been replaced by cooler mornings and evenings on Monday through Thursday. As of May, the state had saved $1.8 million.

Perhaps as important, workers seem all too ready to replace “TGIF” with “TGIT”. “People just love it,” says Lori Wadsworth, a professor of public management at Brigham Young University in Provo. She helped survey those on the new Working 4 Utah schedule this May and found 82 percent would prefer to stick with it.

The environment seems to like it, too. “If employees are on the road 20 percent less, and office buildings are only powered four days a week,” Langmaid says, “the energy savings and congestion savings would be enormous.” Plus, the hour shift for the Monday through Thursday workers means fewer commuters during the traditional rush hours, speeding travel for all. It also means less time spent idling in traffic and therefore less spewing of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The 9-to-5 crowd also gets the benefit of extended hours at the DMV and other state agencies that adopt the four-day schedule.

An interim report released by the Utah state government in February projected a drop of at least 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually from Friday building shutdowns. If reductions in greenhouse gases from commuting are included, the state would check the generation of at least 12,000 metric tons of CO2—the equivalent of taking about 2,300 cars off the road for one year.

Aside from the environmental benefits, the state workers seem to like the new arrangement:

“Utah employees actually show decreased health complaints, less stress and fewer sick days,” Wadsworth says, noting previous research finding that fatigue is typically triggered by workdays over 12 hours. Early results from another multicity survey indicate that just 20 percent of respondents said they felt they ate more fast food and only 30 percent said they worked out less. In fact, 30 percent said they exercised more. Anecdotal evidence from Utah also points to an unexpected benefit: increased volunteerism.

Hopefully, Utah’s experience will spur more discussions about non-traditional 9 to 5 work schedules. People’s ability to connect to their workplace and tele-conference regularly are making the traditional work week less and less relevant. I’m a big advocate of flexible schedules and think that more organizations would be wise to consider allowing their employees to set their own work schedules and patterns. In the meantime, though, cheers to Utah for reducing its environmental impact. This will surely make up for its new governor not believing in global warming.

P.S. Full disclosure: I am a native-born Utahn. The answer to your next question is no.

Posted in Efficiency, Government Policy | 1 Comment »

Questions for the Goreacle

Posted by Rich Sweeney on November 10, 2008

I love Al Gore. No one has done more to increase political awareness about the dangers of global warming. And now, having essentially settled the debate over if we should act, Gore has shifted his focus to informing how we should act. His vision is an admirable one. Since last spring Al has been pushing for the US to commit to getting 100% of its electricity from renewable sources in the next ten year. I think everyone agrees that it would be awesome if that happened. Yet while it is the job of politicians to inspire and lead the public and to challenge us to to achieve our stated social goals, its the job of policy analysts like myself to evaluate their propositions. So I have some questions about the plan that Gore put forth in yesterday’s NYTimes and on the We Can Solve It website.

  • In the Times op-ed, Gore writes, “The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.” Does anyone know where that $120 billion came from? Or even what it represents? EIA lists total 2007 electricity sales at $343 billion.
  • Under the heading “Are materials or land availability a limiting factor?” on the We website, there are charts comparing annual US glass and steel production to the quantities called for under Gore’s plan. The solar thermal glass requirement looks to be about 40% of US production and the steel requirement is 8%. Now I guess the point is to show that these quantities are less that we currently produce, but that’s a pretty useless metric. The real constraint is the cost of displacing the 40% of glass currently going to other uses. Lots of great things are technologically or materialistically feasible if cost is no obstacle. Did we learn nothing from the run-up in corn prices this summer?
  • Gore takes 2020 EIA electricity demand estimates as the target level of generation for his scenarios. But then he also calls for the electrification of our transportation sector. Clearly this would increase the amount of electricity demanded (by how much is anyones guess). I like his point about PHEVs acting as batteries for renewables, but doubt that this could really impact the grid. Reliability is a huge issue when it comes to electricity.
  • Gore’s plan also meets 28% of the EIA 2020 target with energy efficiency. Where does this come from? Is it really “efficiency” or simply demand reduction as a result of the high price of eliminating fossil fuels? Again, lots of things are “feasible”, but welfare losses matter.
  • Finally, what actually happens to all the coal and natty gas plants? Much of our current capacity has another 20-30 years of capital life left. How do we eliminate them? Is it through legislative fiat or does the government buy these plants out and retire them? Either way, this would cost somebody a lot of money.

Ok I realize there isn’t a lot of insight here. I really just wanted to list the questions I had when I read Gore’s plan. Any CT readers have answers to these/ questions of their own?

Posted in Climate Change, Efficiency, Government Policy, Renewables | 4 Comments »

Is there such a thing as a free lunch?

Posted by Daniel Hall on May 19, 2008

Yes, at least if you can be in DC at Resources for the Future on June 4:

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: What are the Opportunities, at What Price and Through What Policies?

A central question for U.S. climate policy is the opportunity and cost of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and the best approaches to achieve them. In December, McKinsey & Company and the Conference Board released a major report — Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? This analysis finds that 30 to 45 percent of forecast 2030 greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced at costs of less than $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent — and potentially far less if sizeable energy efficiency gains are captured. Our panel will describe and discuss these findings and their implications for the current policy debate.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008
12:45 pm – 2:00 pm
A light buffet lunch will be available at 12:30 p.m.

Please RSVP by sending your contact details in an email to

The McKinsey study that will be discussed has gotten a lot of publicity for suggesting that there are many large free lunches to be had in the energy and emissions arena — we can reduce emissions for negative total costs — particularly with energy efficiency projects. I will be there and am very curious to hear what one of the report authors says about the study.

Here’s a previous post from Rich on the McKinsey study.

Posted in Climate Change, Efficiency, Energy Technology, Events | Leave a Comment »

Links yo

Posted by Rich Sweeney on May 15, 2008

  1. Ajay Shah has a nice, thorough post on what’s going on with food prices, debunking several common explanations and putting forth a reasonable, if unsexy, story of his own.
  2. Paul Kedrosky challenges the conventional wisdom that OPEC always prefers high oil prices. Persistent, predictably high oil prices would encourage people to switch to alternatives. Instead, he argues that what OPEC prefers is a series of high prices, unpredictably interspersed with periods of very low prices. Saudi Arabia’s role in curbing excessively high OPEC prices has been pretty well documented. It’d be interesting to see any evidence that the Saudi’s actually undercut price with the deliberate intention of warding off substitutes.
  3. Finally last week’s Economist has a briefing on energy efficiency. Overall I found the piece a bit elementary and far too dependent on the McKinsey report. Nevertheless, it’s a good intro for readers who are new to the topic.

H/T to Thom for the first two links.

Posted in Commodities Markets, Efficiency, Oil | Leave a Comment »

Automatic billpay and energy (in)efficiency

Posted by Rich Sweeney on April 9, 2008

Recently we’ve talked a lot about ways to promote energy efficiency/ conservation by making energy prices more immediate and transparent. However, yesterday my boss pointed out to me that there’s a very prevalent technological innovation working in precisely the opposite direction: automatic billpay. Whereas before you’d at least have to sit down with your check book once a month and pay your utility bills, now many households only check up on their energy expenditures once a year or so. Hardly a strong price signal.

Posted in Efficiency | Leave a Comment »

Energy efficiency and behavioral econ

Posted by Rich Sweeney on April 3, 2008

Normally I’m not a big fan of John Tierney, but this piece from last week was really interesting. Recounting experiments detailed in “Nudge”, Tierney muses over innovative new ways for people to monitor their carbon footprint and show off their environmental piety. Here’s the behavioral evidence that caught my eye:

“Getting the prices right will not create the right behavior if people do not associate their behavior with the relevant costs,” says Dr. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics. “When I turn the thermostat down on my A-C, I only vaguely know how much that costs me. If the thermostat were programmed to tell you immediately how much you are spending, the effect would be much more powerful.”

It would be still more powerful, he and Mr. Sunstein suggest, if you knew how your energy consumption compared with the social norm. A study in California showed that when the monthly electric bill listed the average consumption in the neighborhood, the people in above-average households significantly decreased their consumption.

Meanwhile, the people with the below-average bills reacted by significantly increasing their consumption — not exactly the goal of the project.

That reaction was avoided when the bill featured a little drawing along with the numbers: a smiling face on a below-average bill or a frowning face on an above-average bill. After that simple nudge, the heavy users made even bigger cuts in consumption, while the light users remained frugal.

Tierney goes a little crazy with the jewelry stuff towards the end, but overall I like the idea of thinking outside the box when it comes to monitoring energy use.

Posted in Behavioral Economics, Efficiency | 3 Comments »

A Price Signal May Not Be Enough to Promote Energy Efficiency

Posted by Erica Myers on March 7, 2008

As energy prices increase, consumers will reduce their demand through energy efficiency measures and behavioral changes, which in turn will lead to fewer GHG emissions, right? Not according to the latest Carbon Market News Release form Reuters. Despite a recent spike in domestic gas and electricity prices, demand for energy has barely moved. In fact, the more that 100% increase in oil prices in recent years may actually be leading to an increase in carbon emissions.

” ‘The paradox here is that what looks like an increase in energy prices is in fact feeding through to an increase in carbon emissions rather than a reduction,’ said Oxford University economist and government adviser Dieter Helm.

‘That is because the oil price is not a genuine carbon tax. Far from cutting demand for carbon, the high energy prices have prompted a rush for coal — the dirtiest fuel,’ he told Reuters.

While known reserves of oil are expected to last only to around mid-century, and gas is in relatively plentiful but still finite supply, coal reserves are estimated to last for several centuries more.

There are big increases in coal burn in China, India and the United States where even tar sands have started to look attractive to investors again.”

Why isn’t a price signal enough to kick start investment in energy efficiency, “the low hanging fruit”? Rich did call me out on CT almost two months ago to put in my two cents on this; better late than never. Here are a few thoughts-most of these issues work in tandem:

1. The incentives for energy savings are not always there

– The person making the capital investment decisions is not always the person benefiting from energy savings (principle-agent problem). For example, the owner/manager of a building may not be the one paying the utility bills.

– The benefits from energy efficiency often come from relatively small diffuse pieces, and private businesses are more likely to invest in one large deal.

– People can’t respond to prices because they don’t have real time pricing information

2. The costs of achieving energy efficiency are likely higher than some estimates suggest (they are sometimes reported as negative costs)

– Lack of substitutability/Hidden Costs- Rich’s example of the difference in the quality of light emitted from incandescent vs. CFL light bulbs (though they do come in soft white now)

– Transaction costs of raising awareness or implementing programs such as putting smart grid technology in everyone’s house.

3. How people actually behave does not always match theory

– With advances in behavioral economics, we are recognizing things such as the “status quo bias” where there seems to be some added cost to switching behavior. The investment that it takes to review the options to make a different decision may seem confusing and not worth it for uncertain benefits.

– Rich suggested (in the same post as above) that people may be using higher discount rates than those in many energy models. For example, if people deal with expenses on a monthly basis, a large upfront cost may seem more expensive than the meager per month savings felt over time. This could be the case even if the cost savings exceed the initial capital investment at market discount rate.

“Evidence shows that there are few visible behavioural changes as a result of high prices. Governments need to do more than just rely on the price mechanism,” said Jim Watson of the Sussex Energy Group. “You need demand side measures too.”

Getting these demand side measures right means getting the incentives right, and matching them to actual human behavior.


Posted in Efficiency, Electricity, Energy | 4 Comments »

Sunshine on my double-glazed low-E windows makes me happy

Posted by Daniel Hall on February 15, 2008’s Tech.view columnist has a great article up today about his research into putting solar cells on his own home. The article provides an accessible overview of photovoltaic technology as the author goes through the calculations of home installation. His conclusion? Even living in sunny southern California, he estimates that going solar would cost him “$600 a month for ten years, even after setting the interest charges against tax. And all that just to feel good about saving $75 of electricity a month.”

Although the article doesn’t state it explicitly, it sounds as if the downfall of solar technology is not only the expense — around $65,000 at his home, before any subsidies or rebates — but that there are easier ways to go green. We get a clue here, as he talks about the electricity needs of his home:

It’s not even as though the place gobbles electricity. When the house was being rebuilt five years ago, the new roof came with over a foot of thermal insulation. The floor-to-ceiling windows along two sides of the structure were replaced with double-glazed “low-E” glass (the sort that blocks infra-red radiation), and thermal linings were included in all the exterior walls. Even during the summer, the air conditioner usually stays off.

Admittedly, the architect went overboard on lighting. Fully illuminated, the house demanded seven kilowatts of raw lighting-power before fluorescent lights replaced thirsty tungsten filaments. Overall electricity consumption is now a reasonable 8,300 kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year.

Based on this description it sounds like his home is already pretty efficient. And those efficiency improvements were probably undertaken primarily because they made financial sense — the installation cost was less than the expected savings on energy. But given the author’s interest in going solar and his exactitude in calculating the cost, it’s also likely that he’s much more environmentally aware and economically savvy than your average homeowner. There’s a lot of research suggesting that many other — less savvy — property owners are leaving money on the table by failing to increase the efficiency of their buildings.

From the viewpoint of both the homeowner and the electricity company, efficiency improvements and solar technology look very similar: they reduce a home’s demand for electricity from the grid. Given the large subsidies regulators seem ready to give out to solar panels — perhaps $14,000 in this author’s case — it’s easy to think that regulators could be getting a much better deal if they figured out how to buy some energy efficiency with those dollars.

Posted in Efficiency, Electricity, Energy Technology, Solar | 1 Comment »

Trends in energy efficiency

Posted by Rich Sweeney on February 1, 2008


Data taken from the BEA and EIA websites.

***Update: Apparently this was unclear to some. One very crude measure of energy efficiency is the amount of stuff you can make with a given amount of electricity. By this metric, you could say energy efficiency has been increasing over the past 16 years, albeit at a rate slower than overall economic growth.

Posted in Efficiency, Electricity | Leave a Comment »

Decoupling + Energy Efficiency Programs = Corporate Welfare?

Posted by Rich Sweeney on January 28, 2008

N-dot’s assertion that “Cap-and-trade = Carbon tax + Corporate welfare” seems to have resonated with policymakers in DC . It’s been mentioned at just about every cap-and-trade talk I’ve attended in the past few months. While I sense that the tide is turning towards a full (or at least close to full) auctioning of permits, listening to people talk about what we should do with all this revenue raises some new concerns about corporate welfare. In particular, as the title indicates, I’m a little concerned that we may overcompensate utilities in our quest for energy conservation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Efficiency, Electricity | 4 Comments »

Free money or high discount rates?

Posted by Rich Sweeney on January 18, 2008

A few months ago McKinsey released a study which calculated the costs of cutting GHG emissions in the US. One of the more interesting results of the consulting firm’s analysis was the large amount of savings from energy efficiency compared to modelers at PNL, MIT, and EPRI. That’s because McKinsey used a bottom up approach to develop its efficiency supply curves, as opposed to the top down approach of teasing out information from consumer purchase decisions. Put another way, McKinsey calculated efficiency supply curves in which the price is equal to the present discounted costs of energy efficient technologies above and beyond their inefficient counterparts. The result, is a graph that implies there’s a lot of free money lying around out there.

Everything below the x-axis represents a good with negative marginal costs. Now we’ve talked a lot about energy efficiency on CT lately, and I don’t want to repeat what I’ve said before. However, it is useful to think about why this estimate, and the dozens others like it, may be incomplete. As I see it there are three possible explanations for why negative marginal costs can persist:

1. People hate money.

2. There are additional/ hidden costs that aren’t being accounted for. And I’m not even talking about oversight or accounting errors on McKinsey’s part. Assuming that they considered all the actual “costs”, it’s possible that the price disparities between the efficient and inefficient goods reflect qualitative differences. One of the best examples of this is the perceived difference in light quality between incandescent light bulbs and cfls (for the record, i can’t tell/ don’t mind the difference).

3. Consumers have higher discount rates than studies like McKinsey accounted for. Most energy efficient goods have higher up front costs but lower future costs. If studies like McKinsey’s are identifying obvious positive npv opportunities but consumers aren’t taking advantage of them, it’s possible that McKinsey has overvalued the present value of future cash flows.

The more you buy into these two possible explanations, the higher up the low hanging energy efficiency fruit appears be (To continue with the whole “no free lunch” theme).

*Thanks to Anthony Paul for discussing this stuff with me. And Erica, you know you want to add something to this conversation…….

Posted in Efficiency | 3 Comments »

Energy consumption and real time information

Posted by Evan Herrnstadt on January 10, 2008

The New York Times reports that a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study shows people could substantially reduce their energy consumption and spending when given the means to constantly monitor and adjust their level of usage. Specifically, the program involved the following measures:

In the Olympic Peninsula, west of Seattle, 112 homes were equipped with digital thermostats, and computer controllers were attached to water heaters and clothes dryers. These controls were connected to the Internet. The homeowners could go to a Web site to set their ideal home temperature and how many degrees they were willing to have that temperature move above or below the target. They also indicated their level of tolerance for fluctuating electricity prices. In effect, the homeowners were asked to decide the trade-off they wanted to make between cost savings and comfort.

Giving consumers this level of information and control over their consumption choices gives them a clearer set of options. The current system in which all energy decisions are bundled with exogenous shocks into one price can be opaque:

The market signals from household utility bills are not clear to people, some experts say. Conservation steps, they note, may bring savings of only a few percentage points, and even those may be obscured by seasonal swings in electricity use and pricing.

Still, the enthusiasm over this project should be tempered. In this geographically skewed sample, I’m skeptical of how many people were actually responding to an improved awareness of cost incentives:

The monetary savings were nice, but Mr. Brous said his main motivation for joining the project was to participate in research that might accelerate the spread of energy efficiency programs.

One must be careful when extrapolating these results to a broader program, as I’m guessing not every part of the country is as ecstatic about energy efficiency deployment for its own sake.

Update: Lynne Kiesling over at Knowledge Problem (who was involved in the project) addresses some of the hurdles involved in implementing this new technology.

Posted in Efficiency | 4 Comments »

Energy efficiency: if wishful thinking won’t make it so, what will?

Posted by Rich Sweeney on January 6, 2008

Commenting on the Democratic debate last night, Alex Tabarrok writes the following,

On energy and economics, Clinton was very poor. She made some crazy argument that mandating energy efficiency was the way to get us out of the looming recession – as if wishing for greater efficiency would make it so.

Ignoring Clinton’s very tenuous connection with economic growth, what can we make of her advocacy of governmental promotion of energy efficiency in general? Can the idea really be simply dismissed as wishful thinking?

UPDATE: According to N-dot, Hillary’s comments actually fall under the category of “magic wand economics”.

Keep reading to see why I’m not quite as dismissive.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Efficiency | 5 Comments »

Conserving in the Kitchen

Posted by Evan Herrnstadt on January 3, 2008

The New York Times discusses how improper use of heat in the kitchen wastes energy and gives some tips on how to be more efficient. Much of it is common sense:

No matter how efficient an appliance is, the cook can help simply by covering pots and pans with their lids. Some of the heat that enters through the bottom of the pot exits through the top, but a lid prevents much of it from escaping into the air. This is especially true when you’re bringing a pot of water to the boil. With the lid on, it will start bubbling in as little as half the time. Turning water into steam takes a lot of energy, and every molecule that flies away from the water surface takes all that energy with it into the air. Prevent its escape, and the energy stays with the pot to heat the rest of the water.

Others are things I’d never thought to do:

However heretical it may sound to soak dried pasta, doing so can cut its cooking time by two-thirds.

These ideas save energy and improve one’s cooking by increasing the precision with which the food is heated. Full article here.

Posted in Efficiency | Leave a Comment »

The political economy of Chinese pollution

Posted by Daniel Hall on November 24, 2007

Today’s New York Times has the latest entry in their excellent series on pollution in China. It focuses on the difficulties China confronts as it tries to improve the energy efficiency of its economy, with a goal of cutting energy use per unit of output by 20% by 2010. One root cause of their failure that the article highlights is a lack of control over local government officials, combined with mixed signals regarding what constitutes successful economic governance:

Officials in Beijing, faced with the likelihood that they will fall short of their target, have issued uncharacteristically scathing assessments of the performance of some local leaders, and they have vowed to use more of their powers to bring wayward officials into line. …

The struggle to meet the target highlights the challenge of making China greener at a time when China’s top leaders have continued to emphasize breakneck growth, even as they worry about its costs. Officials at all levels arguably still face greater risks to their careers if they allow economic performance, job creation or tax revenue to lag than if they fail to curb pollution. Slower growth also means fewer opportunities for friends and relatives of people in power to cash in on the country’s boom.

We’ve highlighted this dynamic — the relative autonomy of local leaders in China — previously in regards to “illegal” electric plants.

Indeed, the article notes that many regions, rather than raising electricity prices to encourage conservation and efficiency, are actually subsidizing rates for energy-intensive industries such as metals production:

Even after the national government canceled exemptions to special consumption fees that used to be available to companies like Qingtongxia in 2004, the local government extended them for another year, obtaining huge savings for its metal industries. As recently as 2005, regional officials continued to argue that the exemptions should remain.

Local officials have long permitted big companies like Qingtongxia to undercut even officially established energy prices. The lowest officially permitted electricity price in Ningxia, usually reserved for the most efficient of big industrial energy users, is 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour. But until this past May, Qingtongxia had managed to win itself a rate of 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour.

This brings the frustrations of energy-intensive industries in the EU and the U.S. into sharper focus, as these regions either implement or consider emissions pricing. It will be difficult enough for these industries to remain in business if they must pay for their emissions while Chinese companies do not; it is that much worse when China is actively subsidizing energy costs to enable even faster economic growth.

Posted in Efficiency, International | Leave a Comment »

The “make-work bias” meets energy policy

Posted by Rich Sweeney on November 13, 2007

Last week I attended an Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) event at the Hart building on “Green Collar Jobs”. The event was co-sponsored by the American Solar Energy Society, which was presenting its study on how many jobs energy efficiency and renewables would create in the US over the next 25 years. The answer? 40 million new jobs by 2030.

Now this “study” was about as rigorous as the Power in the Public Interest electricity deregulation paper the NYTimes cited last week. When I saw the title for the talk, I naively assumed that said study would involve some sort of macro model, with efficiency and renewables supply curves and labor explicitly defined as a factor input. Clearly, as the tone of this post indicates, I was mistaken. Yet what I really want to talk about today is not the shortcomings of the ASES study, but the fact that nobody at the briefing cared. Among the attendees were Senate Energy Committee member Ken Salazar and Washington Director for the State of Ohio Drew McKracken. Despite the glaring lack of substance or specificity, both felt compelled to loudly tout the study as justification for the renewables and efficiency spending bills currently being pushed through Congress. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Change, Efficiency, Green Collar Jobs, Renewables | 5 Comments »

Leave it to the hippies

Posted by Rich Sweeney on November 9, 2007 reports that Berkeley, California is set to become the first city in the U.S. to allow property owners to pay for solar system installation and energy efficiency improvements as a long-term assessment on their individual property tax bill. As the article reports, “The City’s plan eliminates the two major financial hurdles to solar electric and solar hot water systems—the high upfront cost and the possibility that those costs will not be recovered when the property is sold.”

We’ve talked about the perplexing persistence ‘negative cost’ energy-saving opportunities before on CT. Large upfront costs and risk of transferability are two of the most likely causes. While the details are still being worked out, Berkeley seems to have come up with a clever way to solve these problems.

Posted in Efficiency, Renewables | Leave a Comment »