Tag Archives: ricigliano

Are Smart Buildings Really Smart? by Anthony Ricigliano

Posted on by
Reply

News and Articles by Anthony Ricigliano: It’s actually surprising that the United States has the third largest ecological footprint per capita, behind the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. While we try to do the right thing we still face huge challenges in overcoming our environmental deficit. Sustainability comes in many forms with one of them being “smart buildings.”

What we need to do to truly make positive changes in terms of how we treat our environment is to consider the big picture of our actions to see whether we’re actually headed in the right direction. Let’s take a look at smart buildings and their role in reducing their inhabitants’ carbon footprint. Unfortunately, smart buildings may sound great in theory but could be falling short in a number of areas. In terms of sustainability and shrinking carbon footprints smart buildings fail the test under the following circumstances, according to TED.com, a non-profit organization devoted to "Ideas worth spreading”:

  • Employees are required to commute over long distances.
  • The energy they consume is carbon-intensive.
  • Their technology is too complicated to use or too difficult to maintain.
  • Their impact stops at the property line.
  • They deny the use of pre-existing infrastructure or building fabric.
  • They are conceived in isolation from larger, systemic environmental change.

By looking at the big picture, a smart building could actually do more harm than good simply by moving further away from the people that work there. Even a building that is self sufficient to the point of being off the grid will have a higher carbon footprint than a dilapidated old building if it encourages or requires dependence on an automobile to get there. To wit, shortening the daily commute of a typical person by six miles can save as much carbon as a 50 percent reduction in energy use for home heating.

"Green" buildings and green initiatives in a vacuum are not enough to make a material difference. What is required is a big picture approach to avoid the common practice of doing some good and then undoing it with an action that cancels out the position actions which preceded it.

In short, we must make the most of what we already have and be aware that all of our actions can have an impact. We have to get over the feel-good perception that going "green" and leaving it at that is the answer to all of our problems. By analogy, (also from TED.com) “the electric hybrid Toyota Prius is an energy-efficient car. However, when accounting for the energy used to manufacture a new Prius, one would actually save more energy by continuing to drive a mid-'90s Geo Metro.” This probably isn’t what Prius owners want hear but you get the picture.

Going green must become a behavior or a lifestyle as opposed to a series of isolated actions. It’s not going to easy and, by the way, this isn’t meant to diminish isolated actions. It’s often these very actions that act as the seed of change in our overall behavior.

By Anthony Ricigliano

Investing In Pre-1933 U.S. Gold Coins

Posted on by
Reply

By Anthony Ricigliano: Collecting and investing in gold coins, also known as numismatics, got its start in the late 16th and early 17th century when British royalty and nobles began assembling catalogues of precious coins, predominantly from the Roman Empire. The collectors of the time were driven by the quality and rarity of the coins, as well as their history.

Like the Roman pieces which went into collections over 400 years ago, gold coins minted in the U.S. prior to 1933 offer the same characteristics of quality, rarity, and history. The craftsmanship of these coins, which were first minted in the United States in the late 1700’s, lends to level of quality that ranks them as some of the most beautiful coins in world.

There is also quite a bit of the nation’s history depicted in these coins. Both designs of the 1907-1933 Eagle and the 1908-1929 Half-Eagle coins present profiles of tribal chieftains in full headdress and regalia while the series of Carson City gold coins owes its existence to the Gold Rush in California which started in 1849.

The rarity of the coins is the result of two factors; the first being that gold coin production levels dropped to extremely low levels at times, particularly in the late 1800’s. For instance, many $20.00 gold coins issued in the 1880’s had mintages which ranged in quantities from the high hundreds to a few thousand pieces. The second factor relates to President Franklin Roosevelt’s demand during the Great Depression that all U.S. citizens surrender their gold to the Treasury. The surrendered gold coins were then melted down and turned into gold bars.

One of the most popular gold coins for collectors and investors is the $20 St. Gaudens Double Eagle. The Double Eagle coin, minted from 1907-1933 is considered to be one of the most beautiful coins ever minted. The beauty of the coin is further emphasized by its large shape and heft. Investment value aside, many collectors and investors enjoy collecting this coin just for its beauty and uniqueness. The design includes images of Lady Liberty, the Capitol building, and 46 stars which represented the number of states in the Union in 1907. Of historical significance and irony is that the coin was commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt and then called in for melting by his cousin, FDR, twenty six years later.

The history, beauty, and rarity these pre-1933 gold coins combine to make them an excellent investment for portfolio diversity and as a hedge against inflation. The coins carry additional value due to the fact that they trade at a small percentage above their bullion value. This small premium contrasts favorably against silver numismatics, which often trade at double their bullion value.

About Anthony Ricigliano

Going Mainstream with Solar

Posted on by
2

Cost and efficiency issues continue to make solar power a tough investment to sell against power generated by fossil fuels. At the present price levels for oil it could still take another ten years of research and development to get solar prices down to the point where they can compete with petroleum, according to some experts. Despite the long path ahead for solar, there is conviction that solar power can become a mainstream source of power.

The biggest challenge is reducing the cost of photo voltaic (PV) panels to the point where interest shifts away from coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other non-renewable sources of electricity. In other words, it has to make economic sense combined with providing other benefits for buyers to choose solar over the other options. Buying is now done with acknowledgement that the cost will be higher but that there are other benefits such as personal energy independence and environmental issues. The tiny size of that market sector will keep a lid on solar sales, even with government incentives such as rebates and tax credits. The math of equation works this way; PV generated energy costs about 35 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour. The complex of fossil fuel options provides electricity at approximately 5-6 cents per kilowatt-hour, making solar energy six to eight times as expensive. Other challenges include developing cost-effective and longer lasting solar cells as well as reducing the amounts of toxic materials used in the production of the cells.

Experts in the field insist that solar energy doesn’t need to be equal to or less than the cost of electricity produced by traditional methods. Solar’s benefits as a renewable source of clean energy would make it a viable choice for many consumers if costs of photovoltaic energy can be reduced by technological and design advances to about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. With growing acceptance by consumers, higher production levels for PV panels and other equipment would reduce kW per hour costs even further due to economies of scale.

Beyond electricity produced by photo voltaics is the use of solar panels to power the development of clean burning chemical fuels, splitting hydrogen away from water to be used as fuel, and the development of fuel cells. The promise of solar power may not be a cost effective reality at this point but sunlight as fuel has two powerful characteristics; sunlight is free and more of it hits the surface of the Earth in an hour than could be consumed for the needs of the entire planet in a year.

By Anthony Ricigliano

Is the Other Hydrogen the Alternative Fuel Answer?

Posted on by
1

Advice by Anthony Ricigliano: Hydrogen has long been thought to have the potential to replace fossil fuels and ultimately eliminate carbon based emissions completely. With water as its only post-combustion byproduct, hydrogen could deliver an ideal solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions as a plentiful, environmentally friendly, and zero carbon emission fuel. High hopes aside, the promise of hydrogen has been stunted by challenges on multiple fronts. These challenges include:

  • Cost and availability – Hydrogen is a relatively expensive fuel alternative. Outside California, availability is extremely limited. Even there, access points are few and far between.
  • Prohibitive technology and vehicle costs – Fuel cells, and the vehicles which incorporate them, are extremely expensive. Additionally, the experience of user has not been great.
  • Onboard Storage - In volume comparisons, hydrogen delivers much less energy than gas and diesel which limits range. Another issue is that onboard hydrogen storage systems have yet to meet size, weight, and cost objectives for commercialization purposes.

A solution to some of these hydrogen related issues is provided by ammonia, known as “the other hydrogen”. A compound consisting of nitrogen and hydrogen, ammonia can be used today as fuel in internal combustion engines, diesel engines, and fuel cells. Internal combustion engines can be adapted to run on ammonia with only minor modifications. The byproducts of combustion are water and nitrogen, with no carbon emissions.

Ammonia, which serves essentially as the delivery system for hydrogen, solves a couple of problems that exist with using hydrogen on its own. The combination of nitrogen and hydrogen results in a more stable compound, which can be liquefied at ambient temperatures and moderate pressure. This eliminates the primary difficulty of storing and transporting hydrogen. Another solution provided by ammonia is that it is widely accessible due its use across the country in fertilizers.

The issue which ammonia has not yet solved is its cost. Synthesized from hydrogen and nitrogen via the Haber-Bosch process, the production of ammonia is an extremely energy intensive undertaking, requiring high temperatures and pressures. The energy requirements for ammonia production represent about 2% of the total energy consumption in the world.

Like other fossil fuel alternatives, the biggest challenge to ammonia’s use as a mainstream fuel lies in its cost of production. One possible solution comes from another alternative energy source; wind. There are currently several pilot programs around the country using wind power for the synthesis of ammonia. Using wind farms’ excess power generated during low times of demand such as night and early morning hours, the lower cost energy is used to power the production process for ammonia instead of being put out to the electrical grid. There is still much that needs to be accomplished but the other hydrogen could play an important future role in our search for clean fuel alternatives.

Author Anthony Ricigliano

Going Big in Tidal

Posted on by
1

Tidal power generation interests utilities as the most reliable of alternative energy categories. Occurring twice a day come rain or shine, the tides are consistent and completely predictable. Currently, the largest tidal power plant in the world is France’s 240 MW Rance plant, which was completed in 1967.

If either of the proposed tidal power projects in the pipeline gets final approval, the Rance plant’s days of being the biggest fish in the pond will be numbered. South Korea is planning a project more than five times larger than the Rance plant, rated for 1.34 gigawatts, in the Incheon Bay. Pending regulatory approval, the $3.4 billion project could be underway by the second half of next year with completion scheduled for 2017. The Incheon project employs a barrage, or an ocean dam, which traps water in a basin and uses turbines to make electricity from the water level differences created by the tides.

It’s possible that another tidal power project, the U.K.’s proposed Severn Barrage, could generate over five times as much energy as Incheon, depending on final decision on the plant’s power generating capacity. The government is considering five different proposals for the barrage, ranging in generating capacity from 1.05 to 8.6 GW. There are three alternate concepts as well.  The largest version of the project would build up to 10 miles of dams and sluice gates across the Severn Estuary, a topic of debate for almost 30 years.

Ironically, both the Incheon and Severn tidal projects face significant environmental opposition, not for emissions but for flooding and other concerns. Much like river dams, these tidal barrages can cause some unintended environmental consequences, making them unpopular with environmentalists. For one thing, the barrages disrupt the flow of water from the tides as well as the exchange of water from the basins. This changes the composition of the water which alters the surrounding wetlands and impacts the wildlife that lives there.

Underwater turbines that operate like those found in wind farms don’t get the same kind of environmental opposition, but the technology is still being developed. These turbines use ocean currents to generate electricity without needing a barrage, but being submerged in saltwater provides issues that are still unsolved. Still, there are several projects competing to be the first online and/or the largest of the tidal current plants. Each of the projects is rated at 200 MW with two proposed for Scotland and one in New Zealand.

By Anthony Ricigliano