Ask most people about the connection between water and energy and at best you’ll get a reference to hydropower generation.  But the connection between water use and energy extends well beyond the use of water to generate power–the ways we use water are some of of the largest energy consuming activities there are.  A recent article on CNNMoney highlights the connection:

“Power generation takes water. Pumping water takes power. As the nation struggles to meet electricity demand - expected to surge 50% in the next 30 years - big sections of the country are suffering from drought conditions.

“We’re going to have both water and power shortages, maybe in areas where we aren’t used to them,” said Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, an environmental research organization. “Atlanta in the last few years is a good example of that.”

“Most people don’t realize how closely power and water are linked.

“In California, the water pumps that keep the Los Angeles area hydrated are the single largest users of power in the state, according to Gleick. Running a hot water faucet there for five minutes uses as much energy as keeping a 60-watt light bulb on for 14 hours, he said.

“Gleick said that California could achieve 95% of its energy conservation goals 58% more cheaply by targeting water consumption rather than power consumption.

“‘Water and energy are tightly linked, but these links are poorly understood and rarely used in policy,’ he said.”

Gleick is no Johnny-come-lately to water issues.  A 2003 MacArthur Fellow in freshwater issues, he was the first person GBN referred us to when we said we were exploring the fesibility of a fresh water institute on Lake Erie.  Energy and water are intimately connected in ways that will affect our region for decades to come.  Click here to read the rest of the CNNMoney article.  To learn more about Peter Gleick and the Pacfic Institute, click here.

Up until now most of the debate about biofuels has centered on the inefficiencies of corn-based ethanol vs. the promise of biobutanol and cellulosic ethanol.  As reported in the New York Times, however, two recent studies indicate that biofuel production in and of itself is more harmful to the environment than conventional fossil fuels:

“Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these ‘green’ fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

“These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

“The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

“Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.”

You can read the full article here.  This is by no means a justification of continuing our dependence on oil.  But in the rush to develop alternatives it is good to remember that sometimes technology bites back, and that the most direct and immediate solution may not, in the long run, prove the most appropriate choice.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

You’ve heard the numbers: Ohio has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs so far this decade.

But state officials say many of those could be replaced by 2030 if Ohio’s manufacturing strength can be tapped in the cause of renewable energy.

“This is one of our best bets, particularly on the manufacturing side,” said Mark Barbash, chief economic-development officer for the state Department of Development.

“It also offers the opportunity for additional research and development jobs.”

You can read the rest of the story here, courtesy of Crain’s.

Like we said, Shift Happens.  But it might be Generation Q that makes it happen…what do you think?

 From the American Wind Energy Association:

 “Shattering all its previous records, the

What is the single most important rate-limiting factor when it comes to economic development?

If you live in Northeast Ohio and have been following the Avon exchange controversy, you might think it was highways and roads.  Proponents argued the new highway exchange will be a much needed stimulus to the economy; opponents argued that it contributes to sprawl and negatively affects efforts to revitalize downtown.

Both arguments contain some truth–and yet both also miss the single most important factor that enables economic development to occur in the first place:  access to cheap, potable water.  There could be no economic development in the area surrounding the Avon exchange if there weren’t also easy access to abundant fresh water.

Why was it that places like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and even Chattanooga became major industrial centers?  Water.  And lots of it. 

Most attention these days is placed on developing alternative energy resources, yet even here water plays a critical role.  Water plays a major role in removing carbon from the atmosphere.  The quality of our water has been adversely affected by the choices we’ve made with respect to the fuels and other energy sources we use.

(Historical note with no small amount of irony: When Rockefeller first set up shop in Cleveland he developed a process for extracting kerosene, the fuel of the day, from oil.  A by-product of the cracking process was gasoline.  Since there was no use for gasoline at the time, Rockefeller and team simply dumped the gasoline into the Cuyahoga River…)

Everything eventually comes back to water.  Our manufacturing processes depend heavily on water, and in the process have damaged the quality of our water, air, and land.  Precipitation draws pollutants out of the air and puts them into our water table.  It also pulls them out of the ground and deposits them in our rivers and streams.

We certainly can and need to develop alternative fuels–indeed, we have to if we want to survive–but what we can’t develop is an alternative to water.

As a result Northeast Ohio has two critically important assets that, despite continued industrial use, are woefully underutilized: Lake Erie, part of the chain of lakes that make up the largest remaining source of surface fresh water in the world (the five lakes combined account for nearly 20% of the world’s surface fresh water), and the Cuyahoga River Valley watershed–once the source of late night TV jokes but today one of the most important watershed testbeds in the world.

In our 2005 report on the possible futures Northeast Ohio might face, green/sustainable systems and new energy sources were identified as key global drivers of importance to the region.  Increasingly, access to fresh water is becoming a key driver for other regions around the world.  While we currently explore the feasibility of offshore wind as one possible energy solution, have demonstration solar setups at the Great Lakes Science Center and Progressive Field, have projects in the Valley focused on fuel cells, green bulkheads, alternative storm water treatments, and even a nanotechnology-based filtration company in the region, we don’t have a highly visible, focused effort around fresh water issues and solutions.

With the Port of Cleveland contemplating a move–the kind of thing that happens in a region once every hundred years or so at best–with a LEED certified development going up in the Flats District, the potential to develop offshore fresh water wind in Lake Erie, with the 50th anniversary of the river catching fire coming up in just over a decade, and with the region as a whole sitting right on the edge of the shallowest of the Great Lakes with one of the three most critical dead zones in the country, the opportunities for Northeast Ohio to be the testbed for critical fresh water research and solutions development is enormous.  

And this is the most important economic development lesson I learned from my visit to Chattanooga.  Water–access to it, its quality, and how it is used–is the single most critical factor to the amount of productive economic development that can take place in a region.  Does that mean I think we should run out and build an aquarium? No, but we should learn from the Tennessee Aquarium’s efforts to focus on the freshwater econsystem and the watersheds that run from Chattanooga down to the Gulf. 

While fresh water fish will always be fascinating to flyfishers like me, they don’t make for the most exciting aquarium exhibits, and so Chattanooga had to build on a salt water addition so people could see “all the pretty colors.” Given Chattanooga’s emphasis on developing downtown as a tourism destination, this made sense.  The same for their River Walk, which is far more people-friendly than our Towpath Trail, with well-designed convenience centers that incorporate recycled materials from the region’s major industries every two miles, and exceptionally good signage that ties the city’s industrial past to its present and future direction. 

We should certainly do more with design than we do (another of the key global drivers identified in the 2005 report), plagued as we are with a plethora of Soviet-era style architecture that is almost as much of a turn off in our wonderful summers as it is in our more Soviet-like winters. But the main things I took away from Chattanooga that are important to Cleveland are the following:

We know we need to boost the amount of R&D that takes place in our region.  We also need to pay greater attention to design as well.  The two can be done together.

We know water is the ultimate rate-limiting factor on economic development and that, while we have it in abundance today, tomorrow may well be a different story.

We know that water touches or is touched nearly every major sustainable technology in some way or another: nutrient loading from and diversions for agricultural use and neighborhood development; pollution from industrial processes; dredging to keep shipping channels open; green bulkheads to help repopulate depleted fish stocks; permeable concrete to minimize stormwater runnoff; filtration to remove contaminants; alternative energy that uses offshore wind and water movement to generate clean power; diminishing sources of fresh, clean drinking water sufficient to support growing populations…the list goes on and on.

And so it isn’t an aquarium we need, but rather a Fresh Water Institute–not a building, but a way of organizing and increasing the amount of academic research that takes place here focused on near shore and watershed loading issues in Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga, things that have universal applicability and growing importance over time.  An organization that is able to focus attention on that research and raise its visibility the way Woods Hole and Scripps do for oceanic research.  But even more the organizational capacity to convert what we learn from this increased academic research into commercial solutions that serve the global marketplace but are based here in Northeast Ohio. 

We also need to make sure that as part of the marketing and educational pieces of this Institute that the public outreach and K-12 educational components are thoroughly integrated, so that people in the community understand the importance of these resources and our children grow up with an enthusiasm for both water and the science of making sure there will be enough fresh water for all of us in the future.

Lastly, because so much depends on how we use this essential resource, having a policy group within the Institute–a mix of legal, research, commercial, and governmental expertise–is essential.  It not only can help change how we use water here, but how water is used around the world, and it also helps to elevate the visibility of both the research and the commercial development occuring in the region.  Not to mention reinforcing the image of Cleveland as a “Green City on a Blue Lake,” an attractive, clean place to live and raise a family.

There were lots of other lessons I learned in Chattanooga, but for purposes of the economic development in Northeast Ohio, this is it: make better use of water as the key factor necessary for robust, successful economic development.

From The Chronicle-Telgram this morning comes this news:

“Lorain County’s manufacturing past elevated it to the No. 2 spot on a list of counties with the most potential to benefit from a push for renewable energy technology.

“Only Cuyahoga County ranked above it in a report by the Renewable Energy Policy Project that was released Wednesday.”

You can argue about the meaning of independence in an increasingly interdependent world, but in this case you’d be missing the point: Northeast Ohio is incredibly well-positioned, precisely because of our manufacturing history to make the transition–and it is a true transition, not just a retreat into our past or a reliance on our existing industries–to being a leader in renewable energy.

Click here to read the complete report for yourself.

In a previous post, I discussed some of the similarities between Chattanooga, TN, and Cleveland, OH.  (Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, I can’t fix the formatting problems with that post–something to do with the way WordPress handles Word.  Sorry).  One fellow blogger, Jim Russell, expressed concern over cities trying to copy one another.  Jim is right, and I said as much in my reply to him.  I also fessed up to falling behind in getting “part two” of that original post–dealing specifically with what we can learn from our differences–written.  Today I’ll try to correct at least part of that.

The similarities between Chattanooga and Cleveland are reasonably well known by now: both are river-dependent manufacturing communities that have suffered greatly with the decline of manufacturing in the US.  Both cities were cited in 1969 for their heavily polluted environments–Cleveland for the Cuyahoga River catching fire and Chattanooga for air so polluted drivers had to have their lights on during the day.  In fact, many in Chattanooga consider the city to be a “rust belt city in the south” rather than a traditional southern city. 

But it is in the differences between the two cities that we can learn the most about what might or might not work here in Northeast Ohio.  Some lessons could apply directly.  Others, by highlighting the differences between the two cities, also highlight the need for slightly different aproaches toward the same overall goal: a healthy place with a thriving economy.

A key unavoidable difference is geography.  Chattanooga, much like Pittsburgh, is bounded by mountains and hills that create a concentrated downtown area.  Northeast Ohio has a very different geography, and must deal with it accordingly.  We will always be more “spread out” and this will demand a different approach to both design and physical development. 

A bounded space can create a sense of intensity with respect to the activities occurring there.  Similarly, an unbounded space dissipates the energy in ways that make people feel “nothing is happening here” even when quite a lot is going on.  Stick your hand in a 200 degree oven and you’ll say it feels warm; plunge your hand into 200 degree water and, even though the temperature is the same–you’ll get burned.  Concentrated economic activity is no different from concentrated molecules in that respect.

In my first post on Chattanooga, I mentioned that the city has not seen explosive job growth as a result of its downtown development efforts.  Chattanooga has pursued the path of environmental restoration as economic development, one I think has great merit.  Environmental restoration as economic development works on two levels: it creates a more attractive physical space, elevating optimism, pride, and commitment to the area in the process.  It also creates an environment that can support growing businesses that serve the global demand for green or sustainable products and energy sources.

So if environmental resoration as economic development is such a good idea, why hasn’t Chattanooga seen more job growth?

Chattanooga definitely got the first part of the equation right–they made the city a better place with a heavy emphasis on cleaning up their river front and focusing on aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly design.  But city leaders and economic development specialists are only now recognizing and beginning to act on the other half of the equation: positioning Chattanooga as a place for businesses that make green/sustainable environmental products and services to call home.  Chattanooga initially focused on attracting tourists, and anchored downtown with an aquarium.  It has worked well in terms of driving tourism–downtown has seen significant growth in restaurants–but not in terms of building new industries.

Chattanooga cleaned up its river and made downtown an attractive place to visit by creating The River City Company, a not-for-profit development company focused on acquiring and building public spaces.  The River Walk and Aquarium were two of its first projects.  This model worked well for Chattanooga, but would it work here?  Probably not, although I do think Chattanooga’s experiences help point the way toward what would work here…

There is a way in which Northeast Ohio can learn from what Chattanooga has done and successfully apply environmental restoration as economic development in our region–it will just look and feel a little different here.  In my next installment, I’ll explain how.  (Hint: it involves water)

What will a new presidential administration mean for NASA and the space program?  More parochially, what will the impact be on NASA Glenn Research Center?

www.SpaceRef.com reports that “Some of the most influential leaders of the space community are quietly working to offer the next U.S. president an alternative to President Bush’s ‘vision for space exploration’–one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft…

“There would be some different ‘winners and losers’ compared with the Bush vision. If the lunar base is deleted, the Kennedy Space Center could lose additional personnel because there would be fewer Ares V launches and no lunar base infrastructure work that had been assigned to KSC. On the other hand, the Goddard Space Flight Center and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration near Washington, along with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, would gain with the increased space environmental-monitoring goal.”

NASA Glenn does have a role in the current Bush vision, but the Center’s history has focused on aeronautics, “spaceflight systems, propulsion, power, communication, microgravity science and human research.”  The Center has also played a pivotal role in the development of fuel cells and in icing studies.  A shift in focus away from the current vision will inevitably impact NASA Glenn–the question is, how can we best adapt to that shift outside the NASA gates? 

A renewed emphasis on space-environmental monitoring could open up new opportunities for NASA Glenn to interact more closely with community efforts to develop a sustainability roadmap, establish a fresh water institute, and other environmental R&D and technology development efforts.

It’s far too early to say with any certainty–the election is still months away–but clearly there will be changes coming down the road (yet again) for NASA Glenn.  Those involved in sustainablity and environmental technology impacts should pay close attention to opportunites  that might emerge for closer ties with NASA in 2009.

From Energy Central News:

Without a flicker of interruption, some 280,000 people in northeastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota will join the wind energy generation this month.

Crews are finishing construction and conducting final testing at the Langdon (N.D.) Wind Energy Center. The 106-turbine, 159- megawatt wind farm is expected to be fully operational within a week or two, according to Scott Scovill, project manager for FPL Energy, the Florida-based company that is building the facility.

 Click here for the rest of the story…