Search

While there are still clearly many skeptics out there who doubt that electric vehicles will catch on with mainstream motorists, a recent survey by Ford Motor Co. proves that existing owners of electrified vehicles are nonetheless overwhelmingly pleased with their choices.

Ford's survey, conducted in conjunction with EV research entity PlugInsights, found that 92 percent of battery electric vehicle (BEV) owners and 94 percent of plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle (PHEV) owners plan to purchase another electric vehicle in the future. Clearly drivers that have made the switch to electrified vehicles love them, and in most cases, any limitations such as BEV range-anxiety have not proved to be sufficiently troublesome that owners feel inclined to revert to a gasoline-only vehicle.

I spoke to Ford's manger of electric vehicle and technology deployment, Stephanie Janczak, about the survey, and she told me one of the reasons the automaker conducted it was to find out how to get people into an electric vehicle in the first place, as well as gain an understanding of the needs and aspirations of EV drivers.

This is important to Ford, as it currently offers both a pure electric version of its Focus hatchback, as well as plug-in hybrid versions of its Fusion end C-Max models. Although the company could have simply surveyed its existing customer base, by partnering with PlugInsights, it was able to reach a panel of 10,000 EV motorists who drive cars from multiple manufacturers. This allowed Ford to survey a much larger sample size than it would have been able to get from just its own customers -- not to mention gain a greater understanding of EV driver habits across a wider range of vehicle brands. So, what did the company discover?

As well as discovering EV owners are a devoted bunch, Ford found that EVs are perhaps no longer just viewed as "the second car" in the family. So, while it's true that most electric vehicle drivers currently have a gasoline-only car in the family, 73 percent of respondents said that they would probably replace that gasoline-only vehicle with another BEV or PHEV vehicle when it came time for replacement.

Additionally, the survey found a strong correlation between EV ownership and the adoption of solar power by households. Eighty-three percent of electric vehicle drivers will consider, or have already installed, solar panels to charge their vehicles at home. Ford's Janczak told me that although the decisions to install solar and to get an electric vehicle are separate, many drivers end up doing both for environmental reasons and to save on energy costs.

Interestingly though, the use of home fast-chargers is not as widespread as might be expected. Almost half of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle drivers and over a quarter of battery electric vehicle drivers are still using conventional 120-volt outlets at home; that's despite the finding that 88 percent of EV drivers actually want home fast-charging. I asked Janczak if she had any insight as to why more owners were not installing fast charges. She said this is probably due to the installation costs of fast-charging equipment remaining quite high and also suggested that, as many drivers are leasing their vehicles, they might be holding off on investing in fast chargers until they are sure they are satisfied with an electric vehicle for the long term.

Janczak told me that incentives still play a huge role in the adoption of electric vehicles, and leasing remains a preferred way of getting behind the wheel of an EV. She suggested that with the rapid rate of change in technology, leasing allows people to move to the the next generation EV technology more easily.

And it has to be said, electric vehicle owners are a very technology-centric crowd. An overwhelming finding was that electric vehicle ownership is intrinsically linked with the use of mobile technologies. EV owners use smartphone apps to check battery-charge status, start climate-control functions and to find public charging stations. The most requested smartphone features include vehicle health alerts, charging time indicators, and the ability to reserve and pay for charging functions.

Still, despite the fact that existing EV owners are delighted with their experience, most drivers today still aren't opting for electrified vehicles. But a takeaway from the survey might be that since most drivers who have gone electric seem to have no plans to go back, maybe at some stage we'll see a tipping point. In the meantime, Ford will use the findings of this survey to inform its decisions for future products and features in the vehicles it brings to market.

Image courtesy of Ford Motor Co.

The Great Northern Grasslands comprises more than 180 million acres of rich agricultural land smack in the middle of the U.S. and Northern Canada. More than 70 percent of the hilly grasslands that stretch across the states of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming make up America's breadbasket that not only feed farmers and consumers, but the Midwest's rich and diverse ecology of buffalo, birds, ferrets and many other species.

But it wasn't always that way.

Some 70 years ago, dust storms rolled through the entire Midwest, stripping the land of its top soils, turning fields to desert and homes to devastation. Animals died in large numbers; wildlife starved. Entire communities, suddenly destitute, migrated west in search of a new place to live. The lands that had made up North America's valuable grasslands had been stripped barren, and while it was climate that levied the devastation, it was the farming and land-management techniques that were ultimately blamed for the losses.

These days, the Great Plains live in a precarious balance. More than 97 percent of America's native grasslands have disappeared or are in jeopardy of being lost, according to the National Wildlife Federation. Species that depend on that vegetation are also in threatened by the loss of terrain, much of which has been assumed for agricultural production.

But two companies think they have come up with at least a partial answer. It's a concept that harkens back to the early days of North America, when the Great Plains thrived from a vibrant, self-sustaining ecology with one key ingredient: buffalo.

Wild Idea Buffalo and Patagonia Provisions have joined together to repopulate free-roaming buffalo herds on two ranches comprising 60,000 acres in South Dakota.

"Grazing naturally and roaming freely, the buffalo help nurture the prairie back to health by recycling nutrients and tilling the soil as they roam," says Patagonia, which notes the buffalo are slaughtered humanely in the prairie, "avoiding the need for crowded, stressful slaughterhouses."

Recent reports of buffalo slaughtered in holding pens tethered through the snout has garnered a fair amount of concern about the buffalo industry recently. Wild Idea maintains that the meat it produces is antibiotic free and humanely harvested.

Of course, the new endeavor doesn't solve all of the problems that are plaguing the Great Northern Plains these days.  It doesn't answer how to ensure that those species of songbirds and the black-footed ferrets that live on the brink of existence will be protected if other areas of the grasslands disappear, either due to climate change or continuing development.

And truth be told, they aren't the only ranches that have committed themselves to raising free-range bison and who maintain that the process is a lot more beneficial for the environment (and the consumer). And when it comes to the longevity of places like the Northern Great Grasslands and Canada's prairies, I guess that proliferation of thought is a good thing.

The return and nurturing of buffalo herds on the Northern Great Plains is, however tenuous its ecology remains, a positive development. Hopefully Wild Idea Buffalo and Patagonia's endeavor, and those who support such endeavors, will sow a new education about the importance of protecting not just the topsoil of this rich land, but the many species that actually ensure its sustainable existence.

Image credit: Jon Levitt/Patagonia

By Joseph O'Brien
Every Valentine’s Day, millions of couples self-consciously organize a romantic outing of some kind or another. And you don’t have to be a cold-hearted cynic to wonder whether many people would be better off with a ‘little-and-often’ approach – fewer grand gestures (at least those committed under the pressure of huge marketing campaigns), and more in the way of little acts of tenderness. Just like the ones UA Fanthorpe wrote about in her wonderful poem, "Atlas."

In a funny way, it’s the same with offices. Managers might think that an annual field trip or company meal should keep up morale, but it’s important not to lose sight of the smaller, day-to-day tokens of support and encouragement for an office team, reminding them of their value to the organization. Here’s a list of four that could make a small-scale – but significant – difference.

1. Regular mini-updates

Most people don’t resent working hard, being challenged or having to solve problems. They’re more likely to feel negative about being ill-informed and cut off from the context of a particular task.

At a junior level especially, employees appreciate being kept in the loop. How did that big pitch go? Did the company have a good quarter? Regular bulletins from team leaders and managers, maybe even a three-line email, can get the message across that you’re all in the same boat.

2. So fresh and so green!

It’s no great revelation that plants and flowers have numerous benefits to an office environment. But they don’t have to just act as a pleasant distraction; why not get members of the team to actively look after them? It might sound extreme, but even a light-hearted competition for the ‘best-kept’ office plant helps to ensure that people pay attention to the office environment – and it puts their competitive streak to good use, too!

3. Get everyone involved in recruiting

Just as regular updates will remind staff that they’re an important part of what your organization is currently achieving, involving a broad range of staff members in the recruiting process signals that you value their long-term contributions.

This can range from a quick meeting about how to design a job advertisement, all the way to participation in the actual interview. (Seeing how an interviewee responds to questions from someone junior to them can be very revealing.) The risks are minor, and the advantages are considerable.

4. The crap-busting hour

Everyone appreciates a clear work space. But as you know, there’s only so much that office cleaners can actually achieve, as they navigate stacks of unwanted correspondence and old equipment. A crap-busting hour puts the onus back on the people using the office, and gives them the opportunity to clear out cupboards and sort through useless clutter.

Remember, staff members may often want to do this sort of thing (for their own sanity!), but it’s not always clear whether this is a ‘proper’ use of their time. Make it official. Turn off the computers, turn on some music, and maybe even order in some pizza – it’ll be fun, cathartic and incredibly productive.

Image credits: 1) iStock Photo

Joseph O’Brien writes about office culture for Glen Cleaning.

By Sandra Lambert

The advanced communication tools that have become available over the past few decades have made it possible for people to be far more productive in their professional lives than ever before. For instance, it is now possible to call a meeting within a matter of minutes with the help of Web conference tools or to take your work on the road with a VoIP phone system.

It is important to remember, however, that it is vital to find a semblance of a work-life balance so that everyone can continue to be as productive as possible. Web-based conferencing can go a long way in achieving that goal. In fact, it allows people to work from anywhere they feel like, which is definitely something that can significantly boost the morale of any professional.

Not necessary to go to the office every day

The daily commute to work is often a large strain on people who are in jobs that can be performed with equal efficiency from home. For instance, the job of a writer or an accountant can be accomplished from home during certain days of the week as long as he can get in touch with his colleagues by using a Web conferencing app at any point of the day.

There used to be a time when people may have wanted to stay at home for some unavoidable reason but could not get on with their work due to the unavailability of any communication tool that could help them in accomplishing their duties without leaving home. Nowadays, it is possible to be at home for whatever reason one has to and continue to work due to the gifts that modern technology has provided everyone.

Participating in a meeting is no longer an energy-sapping task

Businesses need to have regular meetings with clients or colleagues based in other cities, but this does not mean that a person has to travel in order have a fruitful meeting; they can now participate in a meeting without actually having to travel or even be at the office physically. Due to the presence of many web conference tools available nowadays, an individual can participate in a meeting from the comfort of his home or for that matter from anywhere he feels like as long as he can be productive to the meeting in question.

Additionally, if the person has to participate in more than one meeting, he can do so as well due to the excellent features which are available with most web conference tools. So, you can carry on with your job at any time of the day and speak to your business partners without affecting your domestic life in any way. Now that is certainly one of the big perks of modern web conference tools and it is expected that they would allow people to maintain the healthy work-life balance they all crave.

Job satisfaction

At the end of the day, it needs to be mentioned that an employee who enjoys a healthy work-life balance is also more likely to be far more productive for the organization simply because he would be a happier employee. This is one of the largest reasons why plenty of modern companies are now using the latest web conference tools. Some of the biggest companies in the world have realized the fact that it is absolutely vital for employees to feel at ease with their jobs so that they can function to the best of their abilities at all times. The best way to encourage that is by allowing them to maintain a healthy work-life balance that would encourage them to give their best every day at work.

On the other hand, an employee who uses web conference tools would also be in a position to be refreshed every time they work. This could eliminate the stress they feel every time they go to a meeting with a client or a colleague. In the end such a work environment would only make the job a more rewarding one for the employee concerned and in the long run he would be a huge asset for the company. The prospect of growth within the organization would also rise as he would be able to deliver consistently every day.

Web conferencing is a modern tool that has not only made life easier for plenty of organizations but also for employees who keep these organizations running smoothly. This advancement of technology has led to employees enjoying their home comforts to a higher degree than they have ever been able to in the past. Additionally, it is also important to point out that the presence of those applications has also led to higher productivity among most employees.

Image credit: Flickr/John Swords

Sandra is a computer networking and security specialist. She is a CISCO certified professional having a flair and expertise in writing about varied topics related to the same. Sandra has written several actionable contents that are extremely handy in addressing cyber security-related concerns.

The UK government is attempting to fast-track fracking applications through the planning system.

It says the plans that will ensure local people have a strong say over the development of shale exploration in their area – but will ensure communities and the industry benefit from a swift process for developing safe and suitable new sites.

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd said: “As a One Nation Government, we are backing the safe development of shale gas because it’s good for jobs giving hardworking people and their families more financial security, good for our energy security and part of our plan to decarbonise the economy. We need more secure, home grown energy supplies – and shale gas must play a part in that.”

The news was greeted with dismay by shale gas protesters. Friends of the Earth planning adviser Naomi Luhde-Thompson said: “Bulldozing fracking applications through the planning system, against the wishes of local people and councils, will simply fan the flames of mistrust and opposition.

“Local authorities have been following the rules. These changes are being made because the Government doesn’t agree with the democratic decisions councils have been making.

“It’s no wonder fracking’s unpopular when even the frackers admit that it is unlikely to cut energy prices. It also threatens house prices and the environment of local communities and will cause more climate change.

“Rather than riding roughshod over local democracy to suit the interests of a dirty industry, ministers should champion real solutions to the energy challenges we face, such as boosting the UK’s huge renewable power potential and cutting energy waste.”

 

Picture credit: Dreamstime.com
 

When it comes to ethical claims made by food and drink companies, new research from Mintel finds that concerns over animal welfare top the list, trumping environmental concerns and concerns over tax avoidance.

In a study of 1500 UK consumers, three quarters (74%) say that meat coming from animals which are looked after well is among the top issues that make a food company ethical, followed by a company that guarantees the ingredients used in its products are responsibly sourced (60%) and a company that guarantees good worker welfare (57%).

Falling lower down the list for consumers is a company that guarantees to improve the environment (42%), a company that guarantees to limit its carbon footprint (32%) and a company that guarantees it has not avoided payment of its taxes (30%).

While there is an expectation amongst a majority of consumers that food companies should act ethically, with almost three quarters (72%) agreeing they expect food products to meet adequate ethical standards without having to pay more for them, it seems consumers aren’t afraid to boycott brands that do not act ethically. Indeed, half (52%) of consumers say they would stop buying products from a company if they found out it was acting unethically.

Richard Ford, senior food analyst at Mintel, said: “The fact that animal welfare ranks as the top ethical concern adds credence to the suggestion that Britain is a nation of animal lovers.

“Ethics is becoming ever more ingrained into food and drink operators’ sourcing policies but it is a complex area which is important to get right. That so many consumers would stop buying from a company acting unethically highlights that operators must ensure their operating standards are not just legally, but also ethically robust, or risk boycotts and reputational damage. Social media means that any accusation of unethical practice can spread fast.”
 

Local food is all the rage these days. People love to buy local. If you put up a sign over a bin of produce, eggs or dairy products, saying they are locally grown, and the price isn’t too bad, that bin will sell out fast. Local meat is popular too, as is seafood, provided you live near the ocean.

But what if you live in the mountains, hundreds of miles from the ocean, and not necessarily on a high speed-truck route? Is it possible that you could purchase high-quality, local seafood there, too?

Folks at the Conservation Fund’s Freshwater Institute, nestled in the mountains of West Virginia, say you can. They should know -- they’ve been raising delicious and nutritious trout and salmon there for over 20 years. And they’ve been doing it in a manner that’s about as sustainable as you can get, other than catching it in the wild, something that’s become increasingly rare and expensive. I took a drive down to see what they were up to.

Aquaculture in the U.S.

The seafood industry, here in the U.S., as we’ve noted before, is in a rather strange state. Though we manage some of the highest quality wild fisheries in the world, we export nearly 70 percent of all the fish we catch and import 93 percent of what we eat.

Says Joe Hankins, the Freshwater Institute’s director: “The seafood counter historically is the only place in the grocery store where we have been hunting and gathering, and that is rapidly changing to a farmed environment. And with the interest in local and domestic production, sustainability, and carbon footprint, the emphasis is now on producing more seafood here in the U.S.”

As interest in nutrition has grown, salmon and trout have swum to the forefront because of their very high levels of Omega-3 oils.

Since wild stocks will need a long time to replenish, and pressure is on to keep hauling them in, not to mention growing concerns over mercury and other toxins, it seems likely that if the supply is going to grow, it is going to have to be farmed, as two-thirds of our seafood already is. But what method is best?

Today, there are three primary types of fish aquaculture.

There are ponds, which are primarily located in the South, where warm-water fish like catfish and tilapia are raised. This has traditionally been the largest source of farmed fish in the U.S. But recently the supply has shrunk by half, due to a combination of competition from overseas and the rising cost of commodities like corn used in fish feed. When feed prices shoot up, fish farmers may just choose to drain their ponds and use that land to grow feed instead. While waste and disease are contained within the ponds, these must be managed. The ponds also take up a large amount of land.

The second method, is the use of flow-through raceways. These are primarily situated in the Snake River Valley, in Idaho, where 75 percent of the trout are produced. Spring fed, the water flows into the river. Production is limited by the daily amount of pollution that can enter the river. Fish farms have water rights which have become increasingly valuable, especially in times of drought.

Salmon is generally raised using net pens along the coastline. Some are released when they smolt, since they will return by nature. Issues include pollution, disease transmission in both directions, and fish escapes which can lead to undesirable interbreeding. Offspring of domesticated fish are less likely to survive in the wild.

The Freshwater Institute solution

The land-based production technology developed at the Freshwater Institute is really something altogether different. The fish are raised indoors in giant tanks. Electronically-controlled pumps and filters maintain healthful conditions. Waste is removed and provided to local farmers for fertilizer.

As a result, the process avoids just about all of the problems described above. It doesn’t allow escapes, captures the waste, internalizes the waste treatment cost, and prevents disease from entering or leaving the farm. Freshwater Institute researchers used certified, pathogen-free eggs, for 15 years with no antibiotics, pesticides or vaccines, and no GMO salmon. All of these things lower their production costs. And it yields anywhere from 100 to 200 times more fish per acre than the ponds do.

Says Steven Summerfelt, the Institute’s director of aquaculture systems research: “Water treatment is why this works. It’s really just a huge aquarium.”

It sounds almost too simple, but it’s far from it. The team has spent 20 years testing, calculating and testing some more — figuring out the best flow rates, filtration methods, water temperatures, fish varieties, feed compositions and so on, largely with USDA funding. Many publications later, this nonprofit operation is spinning off satellites that raise and sell fish.

The beauty of it is, they can put it anywhere, which brings us back to the way the market loves local product. Says Summerfelt, “We can put it outside the metro areas on the East Coast; we can put it outside of Vegas or LA, and in fact, people have been doing that.”

But don’t salmon spend part of their lives in the ocean? Yes, they do.

“Salmon grow really slowly the first year, until the first winter when they smoltify. Then when they are ready to osmoregulate (maintain salt and water balance in the ocean) they grow really fast. We can do the same thing in fresh water. We trick them with lights so that they switch into the fast growth mode. Once they hit one pound, they start to grow a pound a month, until they’re nine or 10 pounds.” Summerfelt says.

Salmon are highly efficient at converting feed to food at a ratio of about 1.1 to 1. Compare that with beef, which is somewhere around 8 to 1. According to Summerfelt, salmon are the most efficient animals on the planet to raise for food.

The water footprint of the system is modest and improving. Currently, 99.5 percent of the water is recycled; new innovations are expected to improve that to 99.95 percent.

The biggest overall footprint is growing the feed, which continues to be a subject of study. But there are even brighter spots on the horizon. North Country Clear Water in Wisconsin has a project in development, designed by Freshwater Institute, which will raise Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout and then feed the effluent into a decoupled aqua-/hydroponic operation. The runoff will fertilize organic lettuce and other fresh leafy greens. The water can then be returned to the fish operation, making the overall system zero discharge. In a symbiotic relationship like this, the feed to food ratio completely flips. Instead of getting almost a ton of fish for a ton of feed, now, as much as 10 tons of food can produced from a single ton of feed.

Images by RP Siegel

IBM’s 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report talks about how “purpose-driven transformation” embraces a culture of service that dates to the company’s founding more than 100 years ago. This includes working to improve education, revitalize cities, address the challenges of economic growth, respond to disasters, and develop sustainable strategies for energy use and environmental protection.

The company makes a very valid point: Its long existence “speaks to the sustainability" of its business practices and to its "ability to transform [itself] as markets and industries change.” IBM employs nearly 400,000 people, does business in more than 170 countries and has a supply chain of more than 18,000 suppliers.

Such a huge and complex operation means that its definition of corporate responsibility includes environmen­tal responsibility; social responsibility to its workforce, clients and business partners; innovation to address critical societal needs in the communities in which it operates; and “a culture of ethics and integrity — guided by a rigorous system of corporate governance — that promotes transparency on a global basis.”

IBM’s responsibility portfolio is broad and innovative:

• The company collaborates with a group of entities in efforts to improve population health. Dr. Kyu Rhee represents IBM on the board of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and has worked closely with the foundation to build a “multi-stakeholder collaboration that focuses on public health in the communities where we live and work.”


• IBM continued its collaboration and partnership with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in several ways last year, including partnering with it to develop and refine a technology system aimed at helping to preserve the Amazon rainforest.


• IBM’s World Community Grid “played an essential role in the Chiba Cancer Center’s (Japan) breakthrough in childhood cancer research.”


• Through more than 500 IBM Impact Grants, IBM delivered service capabilities to nonprofit organizations around the world, an “effort to identify, engage and overcome thousands of discreet global challenges, while empowering large and small organizations with essential insights and expertise to serve their beneficiaries better.”


• The IBM Smarter Cities Challenge achieved results in cities in Australia (improving infrastructure and its effectiveness), Ireland (integrating municipally owned solar energy into the existing power grid), Mexico (planning for economic development), and the United States (reversing neighborhood decline and increasing tax revenue).

Energy conservation

Last year, IBM’s energy conservation projects delivered savings equal to 6.7 percent of the company’s total energy use, surpassing its annual goal of 3.5 percent. “These projects saved and avoided the consumption of 325,500 megawatt-hours of electricity and 267,200 million British thermal units (MMBtu) of fuel oil and natural gas, avoiding 142,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,” the report reads. Conservation measures in 2014 also saved $37.4 million in energy expenses; total savings amount to $550 million since 1990.

In February 2015, IBM established a new goal to procure 20 percent of its annual electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020. To achieve this goal, the company plans to contract for over 800,000 MWh per year of renewable electricity — enough to power a city of 100,000 people.

Also in February, IBM established its “third-generation” goal to reduce CO2 emissions associated with its energy consumption by 35 percent by year-end 2020 against a base year of 2005, adjusted for acquisitions and divestitures.

Supply chain

IBM buys from suppliers in nearly 100 countries, with global purchases totaling nearly $3 billion in 2014. IBM says in the report that it works with suppliers to “encourage them to achieve improvements within their operations and to cascade this mindset throughout their upstream supply chain, across various aspects of corporate responsibility.” It requires suppliers to implement and sustain a Social and Environ­mental Management System, to embrace the elements of the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) Code of Conduct, to set voluntary environmental performance goals, to measure performance, and to report publicly in order to increase the transparency of the IBM supply chain.

In 2014, IBM continued a 10-year assessment of supply chain activities by collaborating with suppliers on 107 full-scope audits and 69 re-audits in 21 countries. Also, IBM and other members of the Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative (CFSI) made “significant progress” toward achieving a supply chain with socially responsible sources of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold.

The 114-page report illustrates a comprehensive and refreshing commitment to people and the planet; it makes one look at Big Blue in a different way.

Image: CeBIT 2011 - IBM Logo by Patrick via Flickr CC

By Sara Thompson

As the Obama administration and EPA roll out the Clean Power Plan, many expect it to become a model and tipping point for other nations trying to cut carbon and generate more clean power in the future. But in some ways, America is late to the party by about 25 years.

While our country continues to squabble over every energy debate and infrastructure advancement, European countries have always been a few steps ahead. Some countries, like Germany, have made amazing strides in harnessing the free and clean energy provided by the sun -- despite not having such a sunny climate.

Breaking records in solar energy production

Back in June of 2014, Germany reached a significant milestone and national record by satisfying more than 50 percent of its electricity demand with 23.1 gigawatts of solar power-- which was half of the entire world’s production at the time. In fact, they broke three national solar records that week. With 35 GW of solar PV capacity, the country actually generated more solar energy the week before, hitting 24.24 GW, but because of demand variances they were able to achieve this impressive feat with less.

In addition to solar, more recently, Germany reportedly satisfied 78 percent of its electricity demand with renewable sources. Wind and solar generated 40.65 GW of power as of July 25. When combined with 4.85 GW from biomass and 2.4 GW from hydropower, their total renewable power production reached 47.9 GW, which occurred at a time when peak power demand was 61.1 GW.

It’s important to note, however, that Germany’s level of renewable energy production on that red-letter day isn’t constant or even common. In 2014 overall, renewable energy accounted for approximately 31 percent of Germany’s electricity consumption. Solar power in particular contributed about 6.9 percent, which is still nothing to shake a stick at.

How does the U.S. compare?

Near the end of last year, the U.S. had 18.3 GW of installed solar capacity with an extra 1.7 GW of concentrated solar power. With that, the latest reports say we’re generating just 0.54 percent of total electricity consumption. Renewable energy as a whole satisfies about 13 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

This disappointing comparison is understandable when you consider the fact that the U.S. consumes eight times more energy than Germany -- we consume 4,686.4 terawatt hours per year in the U.S. versus 582.5 in Germany. All things considered (politics, national support, and the ratio of rooftop to utility-scale production), it’s practically apples and oranges.

How is Germany doing this?

Germany isn’t exactly known for its year-round sunshine. Just for reference, the sunniest regions of Southern Germany typically get between 1,600 and 1,800 sunny hours per year, whereas Yuma, Arizona, (our sunniest region) usually gets 4,300 sunny hours a year.

So, how can you explain how Germany became the world leader in solar energy? It’s a combination of strong public support and political will to pass the necessary regulations to start on the path to solar domination.

At the risk of oversimplification, it started almost 25 years ago. In 1991, German politicians passed the Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, or Renewable Energy Sources Act.

One of the biggest challenges solar-proponents faced in those halcyon days was the cost barrier. This meant that politicians and the public had to accept some tough and aggressive actions in order to get the ball rolling. For one, the law guaranteed a market for solar energy, requiring utility companies to insert renewable energy producers into the national grid and to buy their power at a fixed rate that guaranteed a modest return over time. The fixed and slightly inflated price helped offset its high cost.

While guaranteeing a market for solar energy may have had its risks, there was a significant benefit as well. Knowing that the industry was being firmly backed by the German government, investors confidently dove in the market with long-term investments, which helped financially stabilize those companies.

Challenges remain

Germany faces plenty of challenges in the solar game. With the rise of China’s solar manufacturing base, German companies are having a difficult time competing with their lower costs.

But anything worth doing comes with challenges that need to be faced with creative solutions, not throwing hands in the air in surrender. When you look at the growth rate of solar energy in Germany, it has nearly tripled in the last 10 years. Even though the German government has been dialing back solar incentives, traditional power companies are scrambling as energy prices continue a downward trend. Utilities trying to recoup those losses through higher energy charges only encourages German consumers to seek clean energy alternatives.

Will the Clean Power Plan help the U.S. drive renewables as well or better than the Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz? Share your thoughts on Twitter!

Image Source: https://www.dollarphotoclub.com

Sara Thompson writes on behalf of SunModo in Vancouver, Washington. SunModo designs and manufactures innovative solar PV racking and mounting solutions for residential installers, commercial integrators, and other solar providers in North America. Connect with us on Twitter!

Cañon City, Colorado, sounds like a nice little place to live. According to the city website “a world of beauty and adventure awaits you.” Yes, a world of breathtaking scenery … and 13 prisons. Do you still want to vacation there?

For tourists there’s whitewater rafting, rocking climbing and canyons. When I was there I rode a bungee swing off a cliff. The benefits for prisoners, as you can imagine, are quite different. Their perks are much more modest: getting paid, mental stimulation and fresh air. While these benefits are limited, they beat  watching TV or lifting weights.

Inside a massive six-prison work complex, 4,000 prisoners perform a wide variety of jobs to maintain the facility like laundry, cooking food and mowing lawns. They also do labor for a variety of for-profit entities: Inmates create toys for kids, care for buffalo on feed lots and dairies, stitch sweatbands, carve zebra-wood fishing poles, break wild mustangs, give obedience lessons to dogs, pick blackberries, tend vineyards, harvest honey, create fiberglass, arrange flowers, and manage Hungarian partridges. While some might call this type of profiteering exploitative, prisoners seem to enjoy the more complex tasks these jobs provide.

James Scott, who served 23 years for murder, told Pacific Standard news: “In most prisons you don’t get this kind of freedom. And it helps us hold on to our humanity.”

Labor rights in the prison industrial complex are certainly a complex issue.

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world with about 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Over 2 million people were incarcerated as of 2013.

Leaving aside the strict sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenses that cause prison overcrowding, that’s a lot of people. And keeping them imprisoned costs taxpayers a lot of money. The national average annual cost to incarcerate someone in 2014 was $30,619 (or $83 per day). In some places, the local cost is much higher. In New York City it costs $167,731 to feed, house and guard each prisoner.

These worker programs, advocates argue, help pay the bills while providing workforce training to inmates.

This is where Cañon City’s work program comes into play. The program director, Steve Smith, said the goal is to make prisoners productive citizens by giving them work. This way they become taxpayers instead of tax burdens. The prison earns $63 million per year from inmate labor and does not receive any financial support from taxpayers.

Not only does it save taxpayers money, but it also provides inmates with job skills so they have the opportunity to engage in a legal occupation when they are released. At least, that’s the intention. Whether working in Hungarian partridge husbandry prepares inmates for the job opportunities they'll likely find upon release is another question. But the opportunity is there.

Sometimes the job skills taught do match up well with what a prisoner may do upon release. One inmate who worked on the prison’s vegetarian and hormone-free tilapia farm was released and now manages a fish farm.

These prisons' industry selection is intentional. Prisons are typically required to make sure they don’t crowd out local companies, so they typically chose work with low competition like husbandry or craft-making. This choice is also politically prudent: It helps business leaders avoid the scrutiny of companies, organized labor and consumers. Alex Friedmann, an activist who spent a decade in jail, says: “Prison officials don’t want to get into industries that will cause businesses on the outside to go to the media and raise hell.”

At the Cañon City prison complex, laborers earn about $125 per month (or $1.50 per hour). This is much higher than the typical 50 cents per hour paid in most prisons. However, most of that money is likely to be eaten up by high commissary prices. Inmates often purchase food like ramen noodles to supplement bland prison food and they also have to pay for any personal hygiene products like deodorant. When inmates are released from prison, they are unlikely to have much saved up for living expenses while they look for a job. If they were paid more, perhaps they would have an easier reentry into the world and be less likely to engage in illegal activities that bring more money but also the penalty of imprisonment.

Critics argue that prison-work programs are essentially corporations that use slave-like labor to make a profit. When prisoners create products for the state (think: infamous license plates and street signs), or in-state companies, regulations are low. But when these contracts go to out-of-state corporations, the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIE) states that laborers must receive at least $7.25 per hour. After taxes, fees, required saving and restitution payments are made, most prisoners make $3 per hour.

Do these programs really rehabilitate inmates and teach them useful job skills? A promising study from economist Robynn Cox found that inmates who worked in a PIE program got jobs faster and earned more money upon release.

However, incarcerated workers can’t join a union and are not covered by protective labor legislation, which means there may be room for them to be exploited.

Prisons can also avoid federal PIE regulations by only contracting with in-state companies. For example, Cañon City sells goat's milk to an in-state company that makes goat cheese, which it sells locally as well as outside the state.

Although labor abuses are a concern, it seems like the Cañon City program strikes a balance of economic benefit for the company and a smoother transition into regular life upon release.

Colorado prisons produce 1.2 million pounds of tilapia each year. The next time you buy tilapia at Whole Foods, you might be eating tilapia raised on the prison grounds.

Image credits: Barry Staver and Pacific Standard article