• U.S. Solar Manufacturer to U.S. Taxpayers: Drop Dead (Forbes‘ Clean Beta blog): In light of the decent decision by a Massachusetts’ solar company to move a factory to China, why New York State shouldn’t expect to fare any better.
• Mark Ruffalo’s Crusade Against Fracking: “The World is Leaving Us Behind” (Huffington Post): Some star power in the case again hydrofracking.
• In New N.Y.U. Plant, a Collateral Carbon Benefit (The New York Times‘ Green blog): The plant is nearly three times as efficient as a traditional plant, and releases 23 percent less carbon dioxide.
• New York City Invests in Urban Green Tech (CNET): The Urban Technology Center will create  a testing ground for green building techniques.
• Program Promotes New York Small-Scale Wind Energy (NYLCV’s Eco Politics Daily blog): In the past four months, NYSERDA received 17 applications for wind turbines – how many do we think are in NYC?

Phase 1 of the project operated between 2006 and 2008 and involved just six turbines that supplied 70 megawatt hours of power to two NYC businesses. In that experiment, the tips of some of the turbine blades broke off in the strong East River currents, but Verdant claims its next-generation turbine model should be more durable and also cheaper. An analysis of the environmental effects of the turbines (Phase 2) showed no significant impact on fish in the area.

The new 30-turbine system would provide 1 MW of power to the grid, although eventually Verdant hopes to output up to 500 MW. In comparison, the proposed offshore wind project in Long Island Sound would produce 350 MW of power, and a tidal project in the works in Scotland will total 200 MW. Scotland is a world leader in offshore tidal power, which could meet up to 20 percent of the UK’s electricity needs.

The East River project isn’t the only thing Verdant is working on. Notably, the company signed an agreement with China last May about developing tidal there. Given China’s excellent track record on incentives for businesses involved in renewable energy (and the U.S.’s poor one), it only makes sense for Verdant to explore those opportunities.

For the RITE Project and development of its new turbine design, Verdant obtained funding from the Department of Energy, NYSERDA, and the NYC Economic Development Council. If Verdant can clear the remaining regulatory hurdles, it is set to start installing the new turbines in late 2011.

That is about to change for 2011. There’s a full post coming later this week, but until then here is some recent news in the world of renewable energy in NYC:

• Gold Standard for Green Buildings Under Fire (Crain’s New York): The LEED guidelines are questioned; NYC commercial buildings will have to report on their energy usage.
• NYC Gets World’s First Hydrogen Ferry (AltTransport): The smoke pouring out of the diesel ferries is disgusting.
• Green Mountain Energy to Light Up American Icon (Austin American-Statesman): The Empire State Building plans to purchase all its electricity needs from wind power sources.
• State Governors Aim for More Solar Power in 2011 and Beyond (getsolar.com): Governor Cuomo campaigned on a green energy plan involving more incentives and increased use of solar thermal.
• Groups Issue Green ‘To-Do’ List for NY Governor and Lawmakers (Public News Service): What else Cuomo can be doing to help the environment, including investment in green energy.

• MTA, NYPA roll out solar panels at Coney Island station to help reduce fossil fuel (Daily News): They’re actually solar thermal panels used to heat water for cleaning subway cars.
• Perhaps New York Wants Solar Too Much (Huffington Post): An interesting take on the tangled web of PV incentives and paperwork.
• NYC Creates ‘Solar Empowerment Zones’ (Environmental Leader): The city will help residents of certain areas of Brooklyn and Staten Island with technical assessments and navigating the incentives process.
• Urge New York State Legislators to Pass Solar Jobs Act (Treehugger): An op-ed I can get behind!

• New York Power Authority Advances Plan for Massive Solar PV Increase (Sunpluggers.com): NYC is one of the places NYPA says it will install PV.
• Verdant Power, China sign MOU (Environmental Leader): The company that runs the tidal power experiment in the East River will share its technology with China – for once NYC (and the U.S.) leads China on alternative power!
• Condo Owners Go for Green With Suit (Wall Street Journal): Tenants of a Battery Park City building say their building’s green claims were exaggerated.

• $3.8B Canada-NYC Transmission Line Proposed for Renewable Power (SustainbleBusiness.com): An update on the plan to pump in wind and hydro power from Canada.
• NYC office buildings pricey, not green (Crain’s New York Business): An IBM study show’s the city’s buildings are horribly energy inefficient (surprise, surprise).
• Atop the Ocean, a Sea of Untapped Energy (The New York Times): Gauges that measure wind can help predict how much energy NYC could get from offshore turbines (click on the link about the dog – hilarious!).
• Laser Scanning Flyovers of NYC Will Yield Most Accurate 3-D Map (Popular Science): The images will also give a better idea of which roofs would be good for solar panels.

• Brooklyn Children’s Museum Declared New York’s First ‘Green’ Museum on 4/23 (Broadwayworld.com): A press release (?) on the museum’s LEED Silver status, 27 kW solar panels, and eco-education programs.
• Earth Day at 40: Four more steps eco-friendly NYC can take (am New York‘s Urbanite blog): Step 4 – update the energy grid.
• NYC Gets Its “Green” On In Celebration Of Earth Day (NYLCV’s ecopolitics daily): A PlaNYC progress report claims over half of the plan’s objectives have been “achieved or mostly achieved.”

Kevin Bone, director of the Cooper Union Institute for Sustainable Design, called the drilling “the Love Canal of our time,” stating that it posed the most serious threat to New York City’s drinking water supply ever (90 percent of the city’s water supply comes from the region where gas companies want to drill).

On top of that, Bone said, “the aesthetic impact on the landscape is extreme.” (Bone noted the irony that wind farms are considered an eyesore yet giant drill sites would be acceptable to some.) Farming, tourism, and second home values would all be negatively affected. Perhaps most importantly, Bone said that if government subsidies for natural gas continue, we won’t have the funds necessary to invest in real alternative energy sources. He suggested that it has become unpatriotic to question the nation’s domestic energy agenda and thus no one does.

Keynote speaker Dr. Theo Colburn, director of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange in Colorado, has seen firsthand how hydro-fracking has affected her home state in her studies of the drill sites there. Colburn explained that natural gas drilling is largely exempted from federal regulatory laws, and even the EPA has a “hands off” policy.

Starting from the initial drilling and going through fracturing (“fracking”), gas treatment, and waste handling, Colburn outlined each step of the gas extraction process and what neighbors of these drill sites can expect. First off, depending on the type of well, drilling can go on continuously for three to four weeks, with the drill site illuminated at night like it was daytime. Then, fracking will go on for another 36 hours, non-stop. Colburn likened fracking blasts to “mini earthquakes” and said nearby houses might shake. The extracting pipe, once under the surface, might reach out as far as a mile.

Colburn said that only 30 to 70 percent of the harmful chemicals used in the fracking process are recovered, meaning the rest seep into the ground. What’s more, fracking releases nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds, both of which lead to ozone production in the atmosphere. Ozone at ground level can burn holes in the alveoli in the lungs, leading to asthma and other respiratory disorders. Children are especially susceptible, Colburn said. Ozone also harms trees and other vegetation that are necessary for maintaining the water supply by slowing runoff and snow melt. Areas that fail to meet federal standards for acceptable ozone levels lose out on federal funding.

More noxious chemicals are used to strip out water and impurities from the natural gas that is extracted, and then all the waste water must be disposed of. The way the system works now, Colburn explained, gas companies never have to report exactly what is in their waste. Even when they obtained a sampling Colburn and her team were unable to identify all the contents.

The chemicals they did determine, however, were highly likely to cause eye and skin irritations, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal ailments, and even brain and nerve damage. Colburn said these ailments might not turn up until months or even years later. Moreover, most government safety regulations are based on whether or not the practice in question is cancer causing, with little regard to other health issues. While cancer may not be high on the list when it comes to the harmful effects of chemicals used in hydro-fracking, there are plenty of other serious health risks to take into account. How can we be sure gas companies are properly disposing of their waste if they won’t even tell us what’s in it?

This is not just a NIMBY issue – there are serious effects to consider when it comes to hydro-fracking in the Marcellus shale. Basically, it should not be allowed to happen here. It’s heartening that Mayor Bloomberg and NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo have come out against the drilling, but there are still plenty of people who only see this as an economic issue rather than an environmental and health issue. Here’s hoping the environmentalists win out on this one.

• Early Steps — and Bumps — on the Road to a Greener City Economy (Gotham Gazette): Solar PV installers are not really new, and neither is over-regulation or high prices for PV in NYC, so I’m not sure how that qualifies as “early.”
• Cake & Shake bringing cupcakes and milkshakes a la cart to streets (Daily News): Solar-powered cupcake carts? I’m so there!
• The Upside of Cutting Saturday Mail Delivery (Fast Company): It will cut carbon emissions by hundreds of tons. Also the USPS has the largest green roof in the City. Who knew?
• Europe Finds Green Energy in Trash but US Lags Behind (The New York Times): While Bloomberg says he supports waste incinerators he’s afraid of the opposition.

Solar thermal is by no means a new technology. It’s also not new to New York. One of the PV installers I interviewed for my journalism thesis on solar energy in the City has also been installing solar thermal systems in the five boroughs since the late 1990s. According to him, solar thermal is actually a better value than PV because of how efficient it is – such systems are able to retain 65 to 70 percent of the sun’s energy they absorb, versus just 20 percent for solar panels (at the time).

So why has solar thermal been so slow to catch on here? As the NYEDC notes, “there remains a lack of awareness, financing incentives, and regulatory clarity in regard to solar thermal technology.” Like all building projects in NYC, installing solar thermal systems is very costly. It’s a much more complex job than PV panels because it involves installing new pipes, rather than new wiring. The solar thermal installer I interviewed claimed it would be twice as expensive to put in a system in New York as it would be in a small town in say, Colorado.

Aside from the NYEDC pilot program, it may soon be easier for individuals to finance thermal installations. The recent announcement from the NY Public Service Commission on the extension of the Renewable Portfolio Standard for funding small-scale green energy projects includes solar thermal for the first time. Of the $279 million for RPS, solar thermal was allotted a paltry $24.7 million – less than 1 percent of the overall pool, but that figure could change depending on demand.

One thing that is sure to change with this official funding is the amount of paperwork that must be filled out to install a solar thermal system. This was my solar installer source’s biggest fear when describing his experiences with both PV and thermal. He said that because PV is so highly regulated by the state and by the city (and because it’s so much less efficient than solar thermal) the return-on-investment for a solar thermal system is about the same as that of a comparable PV system without any incentives funding. It will be interesting to see how installers deal with this added paperwork and how it affects costs for consumers – and how demand for solar thermal will change with these two recent developments.