Get 40% off solar, but only if you can type fast!

I had my sheet of paper all filled out and ready to go. I was logged into the site.

Check the clock...7:28am. Click refresh. Nothing

7:29, click refresh. Nothing.

7:30, click refresh. Short delay, this must be it! C'mon internet connection, hurry up!

I'm in, now start typing...

Welcome to the world of applying for a solar panel rebate from Florida Power & Light. The website opens at 7:30am, and it's first come first serve. You have to have your personal and contractor information, the size of your solar panel system, number of inverters, expected cost, and expected KWH production from your system.

I was smart. I pre-typed the information into a document, so all I had to do was copy-paste into the form, and I would surely get in right away.

The prize? $2 per watt rebate from FP&L after a completed solar panel installation. That's a great deal! At less than $5 per watt for most systems, that's at least 40% off the full price. The catch is that you have to compete with everyone else online at the same time to get the rebate, and there are no guarantees.

If it wasn't for the huge discount, I probably wouldn't have even tried. Why not a lottery system, so we don't have to all hover over our computers typing away as fast as we can? Maybe a system that picks a few from each county, to spread it out evenly across contractors and demand needs? I wonder what other states do in this situation. But I digress...

Done! I felt good, no way I didn't get in. I submitted the form at 7:33am...

Not Accepting Applications

Sorry! Due to strong customer interest, all of the rebate funds for this program have been reserved at this time. Please watch www.FPL.com/solarrebates for information about possible future rounds of rebate opportunities.

Please note that any system components installed prior to FPL's issuance of a rebate reservation will not qualify for a rebate.

No!!  3 minutes! That's all it took to run out of money? How much was in there to begin with? How many people submitted? Now I'm thinking back on what I did wrong. Was it the short delay setting up a dual page view between the website and my document? Maybe that ended up costing me too much time. Ughh!

Now what? Good thing I had a backup plan. I won't be installing the 8.8 kW (37 module) system I planned, but a smaller 6.6 kW instead. I still get a 30% rebate from the federal government, but it's still frustrating to not get the larger rebate.

I keep telling myself that someone who did get the rebate was only going to install solar if they got the rebate, so in the big scheme of things, maybe this worked out better for the planet. I am still going forward with my installation, and someone else can proceed with their project as well.  Two projects are moving forward, instead of only one. At least that makes me feel better...

Raise the price of carbon, then send everyone a check in the mail?

I recently attended a presentation from the Citizens Climate Lobby group. They are a group that helps citizens organize around climate change through politics. Marc Reynolds, Executive Director of Citizens Climate Lobby, gave a great speech about how citizens can get involved and make a difference.

He talked about the CCL's Carbon Fee and Dividend Proposal, which is actually very simple. If we increase (tax) carbon, that will make it easier for people to choose renewable or clean energy, or conserve what they use. He used smoking as a successful example of how increasing the tax on cigarettes has led to a reduction in smokers. Reducing carbon is no different. If we want to reduce the impact of climate change, we need to reduce our carbon usage. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to accurately price carbon, based upon its impact on the environment. Today, no one has to pay for the impact of carbon, so it gets treated equally in the open market as other sources of energy that are less damaging to the environment. All this would make it a fair playing field.

Here is an overview video:


But won't this increase the cost of electricity and gasoline for everyone? Yes it will. That is why they are proposing to take the taxed income, and send it back to the people to offset their increased utility and gas costs. Then over time, that amount would be less and less, as we replace carbon energy with better sources of energy.

The other good approach is that the tax will increase steadily over time, so that there is a clear path in the future that shows what the price will be, and it eases people into the additional cost. Businesses can invest in different energy with some confidence, and the price impact to all of us is more gradual. After 10 years, they feel it would be priced more appropriately.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea. It actually appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, whereas other climate bills and legislation have been proposed by one side or the other. If I hear any updates, I'll post them here.

My life as a "vegetarian" - mid-year update

As a followup to the blog posted in February this year, called "2011 - Year of the Vegetarian," I thought people might be interested in how things have been going at the half-way point of 2011.

As of June 30th, I have recorded 40 times where I ate meat. Just for clarification, meat means seafood, chicken, pork, and red meat. Basically, if it came from a living animal, then I count it. I don't count eggs, since the chicken didn't sacrifice it's life for my meal.

Since I regularly eat three meals a day, that is 181 days x 3 meals per day = 543 opportunities to eat meat. 40/543 = 7.3% of the time I ate meat. Less than 10%, which is much better than I anticipated at the beginning of the year.

As I stated in my last blog about how I counted these meals, I actually ate more meat than the 40 meals, but I didn't count meals where I didn't have much of a choice in what was served.

That being said, in hindsight, I should probably keep track of those meals, and remove them from the denominator, to give a more accurate percentage of how often I avoid meat (when it is my choice). My guess would be closer to 10% of the time, if I took out those meals. Not bad, but I wouldn't call myself a vegetarian quite yet.


If you recall, I also penalized myself $5 for each meat "violation" so I've dished out $200 so far this year to organizations like EDF, CarbonFund, WWF, and Ocean Conservancy. I think next year I'm really consider picking organizations I DON'T like, so it really hurts to donate that money. Right now, I don't feel bad eating meat, because I know I'm helping these organizations. I go back and forth on this, so if anyone has some advice, let me know.

Overall, I am pleased with my progress so far. It has been difficult, and I have some reliable meals I usually fall back on, such as Cheba Hut's Majic Mushroom sub, cheese or spinach pizza or breadsticks, egg and cheese breakfast biscuit from McDonald's, lemon poppy seed or blueberry muffin, black bean burger and fries, spinach and mushroom enchilada from El Banditos, and macaroni and cheese with bread and veggies.

The most difficult item to give up has been Quiznos' toasted subs, partly because it's located near my work. Unfortunately, they are actually doing a really good job with their compostable cups and wrappers, but I'm not a big fan of just eating a veggie sub, so I've been avoiding them quite a bit. If they would make a portabella mushroom sub, I'd be there almost every day!

Look for my end of year update next January, along with my new plan for 2012!

2011 - Year of the Vegetarian

I've finally made up my mind. I'm going to cut out meat from my diet in order to reduce my environmental impact. This is coming from someone who loves meat, and didn't really start eating fruits or vegetables until a couple years ago.

OK, so maybe I don't expect to never eat meat again, but here is the system that I've developed for myself, that I feel I can stick with over the long term.

1) If I have a choice between meat and no meat, I will choose no meat. If I choose meat, I will make a donation of $5 to an environmental cause. I haven't decided which one yet, but I think it should be related to forest restoration or water quality, since those areas are affected by large-scale cattle producers. This should help me feel the pinch if I do have a breakdown, but not make me feel as guilty. More of a "stick" approach than a "carrot", but we'll see how it goes...

2) If I don't have a choice, and the food will go to waste, then I will still eat meat, and not feel obligated to donate money. For example, I was teaching a class for work (in a different city than I live) where the food was provided for us. It was catered in from a BBQ restaurant. There was no on-site cafeteria, so I felt that I didn't have another option than to eat the BBQ. I also did not have a rental car (used public transportation), so I couldn't have easily left and gone somewhere else. In addition, if I didn't eat, the food would have been consumed by someone else. At a different location under similar circumstances at work, I was actually near a cafeteria, so I stepped out and got something to eat without meat, since they provided the lunch meat sandwiches for free. So when there are no other options, the consequences of producing and delivering the meat have already been realized, so I might as well enjoy it. Since my actions would not directly impact the re-ordering of more meat to replace what I consumed, I didn't penalize myself for eating the meat. If I go to a restaurant and order a steak, then that action directly causes the restaurant to order more meat to replace what I ordered. If I don't eat the catered BBQ, then I doubt the person is going to see the leftover meat and conclude that BBQ is not a good option for catering in the future. One could argue that, but to keep things simple in my mind, I'm going to allow myself to eat the meat in those situations.

As I said earlier, this is a complete turn around from how I grew up my whole life. I have said numerous times while growing up, the following phrase: "I don't like any fruits or vegetables, except I will eat a banana."

That didn't change until I met my wife, and I learned that most vegetarians don't avoid meat because they don't like it, but because they have a strong dedication to reducing the impact of eating meat (I'm guessing animal cruelty or environmental impact). That changed my perspective completely. The next step involved the preparation of meals that didn't involve meat. Since she is a wonderful cook, and I am pretty busy, she makes all the meals, and doesn't put any meat in them. Therefore, if I want to eat, I'm going to have to be a vegetarian while at home. She did a great job of easing me into it, using some fake meat products, so my body didn't go into shock. If I was on my own, I don't think I would be making this kind of dramatic change in my diet. I have that common disease of "male refrigerator blindness" and struggle to figure out what to make when I get home. Bottom line, without her, I would probably stop and eat fast food way more often than I do now, which would probably mean more burgers and chicken. My wife, however, is the female version of MacGyver with what she can find in the fridge and turn into a delicious and healthy meal.

In summary, this decision was not a dramatic change, but has been taking place over the past couple years. Although I am proud of myself for making this change, I am concerned that if it takes an environmentalist like myself 2-3 years to eliminate meat from their diet, how long will it take the rest of the world to do the same, if they don't have the same "carrot" or motivation of reducing their environmental impact? I don't know if we can wait that long...

If you also want to take credit for eating little or no meat, read more on our website at HelpSaveEarth.org under "Eat Less Meat"

Why do I get the most junk mail from environmental groups??

Over the past couple years, I have been joining more environmental groups. Not a lot, just a couple. I've also been using some websites to reduce the amount of junk mail I'm receiving, and opting out of any paper copies.

However, since that time, I have been bombarded by mailings from these environmental organizations, and many other environmental groups I have never heard of.

Most of them send along free gifts as well. Usually it's return address mailing labels, or postcards, or greeting cards. Others offer incentive gifts in order to signup, such as animal plush toys, winter blankets, t-shirts, umbrellas, calendars, canvas tote bags and water bottles.

I have posted a few green actions related to these issues:

Turn down free gifts: http://www.helpsaveearth.org/view.asp?cat=Air&effect=1&effect2=1&action=188

Stop receiving unwanted junk mail: http://www.helpsaveearth.org/view.asp?cat=Air&effect=2&effect2=1&action=160

I find it a bit ironic that these groups are sending very heavy letters each month filled with paper and flyers and 4-5 page letters about their cause. I would be happy to receive their emails, but make the junk mail stop!

Planet Earth gets a "beat-down" this month!

This was suppose to be the 40th anniversary of Earth Day this month, however, there were three major tragedies this month related to environmental issues.

1) Coal miners killed in West Virginia explosion - tragic explosion thought to be brought about by a methane leak in a West Virginia coal mine has left 29 dead.

2) Oil rig fire and subsequent spill in Gulf of Mexico - Still ongoing, as a fire erupted on the oil rig, killing 11 workers, and is now spilling 5,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf, which is headed towards nearby coasts.

3) Coal-carrying ship damages Great Barrier Reef coral - coal-carrying ship ran aground on Douglas Shoals in the Great Barrier Reef. The ship was inside a marine protected area. It then rammed into the reef, and leaked about 4 tons of heavy fuel causing a roughly 3 km oil slick, and the damage it did to the reef will take 20 years to repair.

Forget about climate change for a minute. If you don't care about the planet, or are opposed to clean energy, the events of the last month should make you change your mind. If you can't see that these are dangerous occupations for those who work in them, cause pollution, and the risk to national security and increase in terrorism we take on while accessing these fuels, then you are a lost cause.

Maybe if we take away all the gasoline, and shut off the electricity to your house, will you start to think differently. Don't change your mind for the planet, change your mind because it's the right thing to do for humanity.

Are the skeptics correct that global warming is a hoax?

My education is in statistics and Six Sigma, so when I saw this article, I had to check it out...

Surface Temperature Data Quality Suspect – Casts Doubt on “Global Warming” Hypothesis

Essentially, the article contests that the data being used to justify an increase in temperatures could be lacking. The author, Thomas Pyzdek (a well-respected Six Sigma guru), points to the location of the temperature monitors as a source of error, due to their surrounding conditions.



"The bottom line is that 89% of the sites examined to date are in categories 3, 4, or 5. In other words, they fail to meet established NOAA requirements."

In Six Sigma, it is critical to make sure (with good solid analysis) that the data you are looking at is valid. This is a VERY common error that people make. More often than not, I usually find a problem with the measurements when I'm working on a project. People naturally assume that the data is valid, therefore we should accept it as is. Since this website is very data-focused, any actual or perceived issues related to data collection and reporting of temperature changes needs to be understood and addressed right away.

This leads me to my original reason for the post. Is global warming real?

At first, I thought it was a hands-down decision from the scientific community that it was real, but the more I've opened up my eyes, I can't discredit the nay-sayers (as evidenced by the article above). If I've learned anything over the past few years, it is to never assume or take for granted something, even if it seems right to you, and even if the majority of people think it is right. That alone doesn't make it true. Science and evidence is what will eventually win out, whether we like the results or not.

So let's assume that the jury is still out on global warming. Does my website go away? No! When I look at the reasons for why we need to make these changes and take these actions to be more green, the reduction of CO2 is not the only reason.

Even if we can live with CO2 emissions, we still have the following issues to address:

1) Water quality and scarcity
2) Pesticides in our food
3) Dependence on foreign oil
4) Destruction of our lands (for coal, livestock, urban sprawl, etc)
5) Landfill overflow
6) Animal extinction

Just to name a few...

Bottom line: If carbon emissions actually has no impact on global warming, then all we have lost is just the fear factor of potential natural disasters and harmful living conditions in the future. I would expect that this is not the main reason people are going green, instead it is the impact on their local environment and their pocketbooks that will have the biggest impact, and that is not affected by global warming.

Trouble with reducing your coffee cup waste

Change is difficult. If you've never tried to make change happen, it can be frustrating, annoying, and at times, hopeless. You keep doing it, in hopes that the reward of seeing the change actually happen will make it worthwhile. The times it has worked, it has been very rewarding. So if you're trying to drive change, keep plugging away. It will happen eventually...

Here's an example of how frustrating it can be. I have been working a lot lately, and staying up late. I need a caffeine fix the next morning, so I go to McDonald's for their caramel iced coffee. I brought in my refillable coffee cup and asked that it be used, instead of a plastic cup (and lid and straw). I hate having a stack of plastic cups in my car, to show me how much coffee I've drank, and how much waste I've generated. I take them home to recycle them, but I'd rather not use them in the first place. The problem I ran into is that the way McDonald's coffee system is setup, the cup defines the right amount of coffee, sugar and caramel (or mocha) mixture. If you remove the cup out of the process, you lose the recipe and consistency.



The manager offered to take my cup and pour the coffee into it (after using their cup to mix it), but I suspected that their cup would have been discarded after use, so would I have gained anything? I guess I could have avoided the use of a straw (they needed the lid to shake and mix the coffee). Frustrating!

I guess my point for this blog is that it takes everyone involved in the whole process to think green and environmentally-friendly in order for change to occur. We as consumers can help drive it, but you will really start to see major changes when the people designing the processes are thinking that way from the beginning. It takes the cup suppliers to provide more compostable materials for their cups, and it takes the "coffee process engineer" (someone must have that title, right?) to develop a process that does not require the cups, and can handle any size cup. Dunkin Donuts has a process that is not dependent on cup size, so it definitely is possible.

I'm not trying to pick on McDonald's. They are an easy target, and to their credit, they have been making an attempt to do the right thing. The problem exists in every business we frequent.

Keep pushing. Keep asking for more eco-friendly solutions. You may inspire the coffee process engineer behind you in line without even realizing it!

Why do we need placemats??

My wife and I sat down at IHOP today, to enjoy a delicious breakfast. After a few minutes, the waitress came over and slide a paper placement underneath our menus.



At first, I didn't think much about it, but then I started to wonder why we NEEDED a placemat. What is it's purpose? If there is no real purpose for them anymore, why are they (and all other restaurants) killing trees and wasting money to use them?

1) To keep the table clean? I don't think so. You have to wipe the table off anyways, so what is this thin piece of paper going to improve?

2) To keep hot plates from damaging the table? Well, if it's too hot, the waiter/waitress will probably put a 2nd plate underneath (since they have to carry them). Even if heat was an issue, I don't think the flimsy paper will stop much.

3) To protect the table from scratches? Maybe, but again, it is really thin paper, so I don't think it will do much to prevent damage of any sorts.

4) Sanitary purposes? I guess if some food fell off your plate, and landed on the placemat, you might be more inclined to eat it from there, rather than if it fell on the table. That wouldn't appear to be a very sound reason (from the restaurants perspective) to justify the expense.

5) Children's coloring book? Of course, but I don't think that was the original intent. With that line of thinking, only children should get them, not adults, and that's not what I've observed.

5) Advertising? That is the only logical explanation I can think of. Maybe the sight of a steak and eggs breakfast on their placemat will persuade someone to order it? It didn't for me, by the way.

I think the placemat used to have some more significance, when it was really a mat, and could protect the table, or looked nice in a formal dining setting. However, just setting a piece of paper under my plate seems to be a complete waste of a tree, and I think we should start refusing them, just like the stacks of napkins they give you at the drive-thru, or using paper towels to dry your hands in the restroom (I prefer the pants method!).

Training people on Going Green

I work at a large company that has 20,000 employees worldwide, however, there has not been any environmental training on what they can do to 'go green' while at work. It seems like such an obvious thing to do: train your employees to take simple steps to reduce their impact on the environment. The training is pretty simple, and the potential business impact is enormous.

What we concluded was that there wasn't any off-the-shelf training that could be easily and quickly deployed, so we decided to make one available, for free, on our website.

http://www.helpsaveearth.org/free_going_green_work_training.asp

We feel that if people are trained at work (where they have a captive audience and reporting hierarchy), we can make a bigger impact on communicating these simple steps, rather than trying to communicate to the masses using numerous methods, with varying amounts of detail and explanation. The viral effect within a work environment are much stronger than in real life. For example, it just takes one manager of 100 people to email a green presentation, and require that their direct reports watch it. They are essentially being paid to watch it, and they will because their boss asked them to. In the real world, your friend might email you the same presentation, but what motivation is there to watch it?

We also feel that once people start taking simple steps at work, it will quickly transfer to the home, and they will look for ways to save at home.

Tough decisions about mulch?

The last major decision I had to make about my house remodeling project was the decision about landscaping mulch.

Eucalyptus?
Traditional?
Recycled Tires?

I had quite a bit of area to cover, so cost was definitely going to be a factor in the decision.

The traditional mulch was by far the cheapest, even with a delivery charge, but I was concerned about termites.

The eucalyptus bags at Lowe's seemed to be more environmentally-friendly, but I don't think there are any real answers out there yet as to whether the mulch is better than traditional cypress trees (are they harvested, or just the invasive trees).

The last option was recycled rubber mulch, made from old tires. The idea was by far the best option, but the price was 10x what a traditional bag cost. I think it's too much to ask that someone pay that much more just to go green. However, my goal with my house remodel was to make it stand out from the rest of the numerous houses on the market. As my project was winding down, I decided that I needed just one more "green" differentiator, and so I did some more research to find a local rubber mulch company, who could get me a cheaper price for a larger order.

The local company did not give me the price I wanted. I was able to find a company in Orlando (about an hour and a half away), that saved me 30% from the price at Lowe's. They routinely made shipments to South Florida, so shipping to my house was on the way, so I didn't feel as bad about the transportation impact.

Installation was relatively easy. The bags were 50-lbs each, but once emptied, the material was easy to spread, and much less messy that traditional mulch. When we finished, we were very impressed with how it turned out.

Again, it was a more expensive decision, but the aesthetic results and environmental benefits we obtained made it well worth the extra cost.