<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2><IMG style="WIDTH: 888px; HEIGHT: 643px" height=628
src="cid:470253415@27122007-1386" width=1019><BR></FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Apologies for the size of this
email, but I thought this might be interesting. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Here's a similar graph to what
Harvey is talking about that I extrapolated from the EIA database.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>The interesting thing is that
if you look at what they are doing in Germany (slides below are reproduced with
permission from Gerhardt Stryi-Hipp) the feed-in tariffs have obviously done
wonders there. They expect to reach grid parity for PV by 2018.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><IMG style="WIDTH: 891px; HEIGHT: 639px" height=733
src="cid:470253415@27122007-138D" width=1160></DIV>
<P><IMG style="WIDTH: 892px; HEIGHT: 613px" height=840
src="cid:470253415@27122007-1394" width=1161><BR><BR>Vikram Sami, LEED
AP<BR>Direct Phone 404-253-1466 | Direct Fax 404-253-1366<BR><BR>LORD, AECK
& SARGENT ARCHITECTURE<BR>1201 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA
30361<BR>Responsive Design * Technological Expertise * Exceptional
Service<BR>www.lordaecksargent.com<BR><BR>Please don't print this email unless
you really have to.<BR>In the United States, we use enough office paper each
year to build a 10-foot high wall that’s 6,815 miles long or two and a half
times the distance from New York to Los Angeles.<BR>~ Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, “Recycling Facts and Figures,” PUBL CE-163,
2002.<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Harvey Bryan [<A
href="mailto:Harvey.Bryan@asu.edu">mailto:Harvey.Bryan@asu.edu</A>]<BR>Sent:
Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:53 PM<BR>To: Ade Dosunmu; Vikram Sami; Ramana
Koti; BLDG-SIM@ONEBUILDING.ORG<BR>Cc: sbse@uidaho.edu<BR>Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim]
Grim projection of renewable energy use<BR><BR>All,<BR><BR>I believe Amory
Lovins has plotted the AEO trend estimates for the last thirty years, which
shows that it has been consistently wrong. If I can find that plot I will send
it to everyone. Perhaps Aalok can ask Amory for that famous
plot.<BR><BR>Harvey<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From:
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org on behalf of Ade Dosunmu<BR>Sent: Wed
12/26/2007 8:04 PM<BR>To: Vikram Sami; Ramana Koti;
BLDG-SIM@ONEBUILDING.ORG<BR>Cc: sbse@uidaho.edu<BR>Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Grim
projection of renewable energy use<BR><BR><BR><BR>Don't put too much stock in
the AEO. The AEO is just a long term, steady state projection under current
policy conditions, and the modelled macro-economic variables in the AEO iteslf,
i.e. a putatative "most likely" case.<BR><BR>In this case, it is almost a
foregone conclusion that the policy conditions will be different from what the
AEO modelled. After the conclusion of the "Bali" post-Kyoto round in 2 to 4
years, there will be some sort of worldwide agreement to limit Carbon emissions,
and that will feedback into future AEO's before 2030.<BR><BR>The other thing the
AEO, and other long-term models are not good at modelling is technology
discontinuity. Because of the large interest that has been generated in this
topic, the odds are very high is that some technologies will come along that
change some of the economic assumptions (relative costs of energy from various
sources) within the AEO model well before 2030. <BR><BR><BR>------
Original Message ------<BR>Received: 09:02 AM PST, 12/26/2007<BR>From: "Vikram
Sami" <VSami@lasarchitect.com><BR>To: "Ramana Koti"
<ramana.koti@gmail.com>, <BLDG-SIM@ONEBUILDING.ORG><BR>Cc:
sbse@uidaho.edu<BR>Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Grim projection of renewable energy
use<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>I think we are in flux right now, and as such its going
to be hard to make a prediction based on trends. For example, if the federal RPS
had passed, the outlook would have been very different. Ultimately its not
entirely an issue of percentages, but also absolute numbers. For example in the
1940s - 1950s, there was a 30% renewable mix. Today we produce more renewable
energy, but the overall percentage is far below.<BR>Initiatives like
architecture 2030 work towards reducing the overall consumption levels. We need
policy makers to step in and encourage the other side of the equation. One of
the items removed from the recently passed bill was a motion to transfer 13.5
billion dollars in subsidies (billion with a B) from the top 5 oil corporations
to fund renewable energy production.<BR>To quote Al Gore in his Nobel
speech:<BR>We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political
will, but political will is a renewable resource.<BR><BR>So let us renew it, and
say together: "We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise,
and we will act."<BR><BR>Vikram Sami, LEED AP<BR>Direct Phone 404-253-1466 |
Direct Fax 404-253-1366<BR><BR>LORD, AECK & SARGENT ARCHITECTURE<BR>1201
Peachtree Street NE, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30361 Responsive Design *
Technological Expertise * Exceptional Service
www.lordaecksargent.com<BR><BR>Please don't print this email unless you really
have to.<BR>In the United States, we use enough office paper each year to build
a 10-foot high wall that's 6,815 miles long or two and a half times the distance
from New York to Los Angeles.<BR><BR>~ Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, "Recycling Facts and Figures," PUBL CE-163,
2002.<BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From:
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org [<A
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Ramana Koti<BR>Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:31 AM<BR>To:
BLDG-SIM@ONEBUILDING.ORG<BR>Cc: sbse@uidaho.edu<BR>Subject: [Bldg-sim] Grim
projection of renewable energy use<BR><BR><BR>Dear all,<BR><BR>The Annual Energy
Outlook 2008 by the DOE EIA (<A
href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/trends.html">http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/trends.html</A>)
predicts that in 2030, 83% US primary energy supply requirements would still be
met by traditional fossil fuels, compared to 85% in 2006. I find this in direct
contrast with goals set by initiatives like Architecture 2030...<BR><BR>Does
anybody know more about how realistic these predictions are and if there are
better opportunities for renewable energy?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Ramana Koti,
LEED AP<BR>Sustainable Building Analyst<BR><BR>ELEMENTS division of BNIM
architects<BR>106 W. 14th Street Suite 200<BR>Kansas City, Missouri
64105<BR><BR>p 816.783.1635 f 816.783.1501<BR>www.bnim.com| elements.bnim.com
<<A href="http://elements.bnim.com/">http://elements.bnim.com/</A>>
_______________________________________________<BR>Bldg-sim mailing
list<BR>Bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><A
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR></P></FONT></BODY></HTML>