Mailing Lists

Re: Transitioning between technologies. Salient point. 

 

I was working in Navy environmental programs when they started the
HazMin program at Pt. Mugu in the early 90's. Yeh, I know - that dates
me. Everybody was buying their own stuff and throwing it in yellow flam
lockers. You couldn't buy a can of spray paint from Supply, only a
dozen. Use one can - a couple spritzes - and then throw the can back in
the locker. Inventory your stuff once a week. Get your OSHA training.
After six months, throw the whole case of paint in the hazwaste bucket
because it was now expired. More work/risks related to hazardous waste
compliance in the next office over.

 

It took an installation commander with the guts to use his authority to
break the old paradigm. He sent his folks out with a truck to collect it
all up and put it in a single warehouse. He turned a couple folks into
hazmat custodians, and made a CPO the officer in charge. Mechanics were
issued paints, coatings, and lubes for the day and returned them when
they were finished. Miraculously (heh) the based saved a million bucks
in a hurry. More here:

 

http://205.153.241.230/P2_Opportunity_Handbook/2_1_A_3.html

 

The program is now DOD wide, and has saved hundreds of millions in both
hazmat procurement and waste disposal costs. 

 

Then there is the "extended" savings of fewer requirements for
regulation by EPA (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, OSHA, etc) and a half-dozen executive orders. It's
important to note that when you lower your environmental footprint you
also lower your regulatory burden. I imagine that will be true of
greenhouse gas emissions as well!

 

The supply and procurement chain adapted to this in a huge way.
Logisticians started buying non-hazardous cleaning substitutes, and set
up recycling contracts to replace waste disposal. People building ships
and airplanes started incorporating materials that were either
pre-coated (powder coating, etc), or didn't need painting. I think most
importantly, Navy tiger teams (NAVFAC's ECE Team and NAVSEA's Pollution
Prevention Team for ex) traveled around picking up and sharing lessons
learned. Huge improvements.

 

How does that apply? Like Amory Lovins shared with us back in September
here at the College, a simple reduction in energy use through lighter or
more fuel efficient vehicles has an enormous effect. That's what the
Secretary is noting - saving one gallon of gas a mile in a piece of
rolling stock isn't saving 3 or 4 bucks. It's saving the cost of all the
people, ships and equipment it takes to get it to the guy whose foot it
on the accelerator.

 

Final thought on this thought - the lowest hanging fruit is making base
facilities more energy efficient. NWC's recent program to link up with
URI in this effort is an outstanding start. Again, my hunch is the 10-15
energy we could save isn't the final number, but grows as you look at
infrastructure, energy delivery, and other related costs. More on that
project here:

 

http://www.usnwc.edu/About/News-And-Events/News-1.aspx

 

 

Anyway, now for the "but..."

 

John (and John), there are a couple of other realities in alternative
energy. 

 

First, heard a great lecture a couple years ago by ADM Skip Bowman here
at the Pell Center, speaking on National Security and Climate Change. A
lot of what he said is captured here at CNA's site:

 

http://securityandclimate.cna.org/mab/

 

Even though he's the lobbyist in chief for the nuke industry, he noted
that renewables and nuclear would have a difficult time outpacing fossil
fuel use for some time to come. The growth of the grid, for instance,
outpaces nuclear power construction so it will never be more than 20%,
not to mention the unavailability of nuclear engineers to run all those
plants. The best plan is a mix of technologies. Solar in the SW, hydro
in NW/Pacific, clean coal tech in the Midwest, nuke where it makes sense
(you still need lots of water for nuke power), etc.

 

Also met Roscoe Bartlett a while back. He reminded me that there's
nothing out there with as much energy per unit weight/volume as a gallon
of gasoline. Just try pushing your SUV for 10 miles, he said. The
transition from wind to coal to oil to gas turbines made sense because
of the energy gains. What we really need is another transition like
that. Will that happen? Well, who could have predicted the last
century's worth of change.

 

The biggest hurdle in my mind is bureaucracy. Heard yet another great
lecture here at NWC by Paul M. Rich at Deepwater Wind
(http://www.google.com/search?q=deepwater+wind
<http://www.google.com/search?q=deepwater+wind&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1>
&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1)

 

The prob with getting wind power installed here in Rhode Island is not
the technology, but more with the state and federal bureaucracy, NEPA,
and the issues related to plugging into National Grid's politically
charged energy rate structure. And then there are the environmentalists
and famous political figures (may he rest in peace) standing in the way
of wind and solar because of their own rather selfish NIMBY issues.

 

Well, that's probably more than two cents. Good discussion starter. I
emailed the link to a couple environmental blogs/friends/listserves to
see if they want to participate.

 

Best regards,

Bull

 

Don Bosch

Institute of Professional Environmental Practice (NE Regional Coord,
IPEP #04050013)

Registered Environmental Manager

 

US Naval War College

donald.bosch at usnwc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osiris.usnwc.edu/pipermail/nwc_onlinediscussion/attachments/20091120/ccfb708c/attachment.html