Judging by the latest review of blackouts in the US, those improvements can’t come fast enough.

Despite the growing number of smart-metering and smart-grid projects rolling out across the country, electricity failures in the US last year affected more than twice as many people as in 2010, according to Eaton Corporation’s annual Blackout Tracker report. While the total number of outages dropped slightly — from 3,149 in 2010 to 3,071 in 2011 — the number of people left in the dark at some point shot up to 41.8 million, compared to 17.5 million the year before. That’s an increase of 139 percent.

Hurricane Irene, which cut a swath of destruction from North Carolina to Maine from Aug. 26 to 29, can be blamed for part of that increase: more than six million people experienced power outages related to the storm. Other major blackout events last year included a possible human error that left some four million people across southern California and parts of Arizona without power in September, a late October snowstorm that affected around 1.75 million people along the East Coast, a damaging outbreak of thunderstorms in the Chicago area that affected some 700,000 people and a January winter storm that knocked out power for more than 400,000 electricity customers in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia.

Those five events caused outages for around 12.85 million people. Not counting that handful of massive failures, though, you still end up with 11.45 million more people experiencing power losses in 2011 than in 2010. Why such an increase?

Smart-grid expert Massoud Amin, professor of electrical & computer engineering at the University of Minnesota and director of the university’s Technological Leadership Institute, points to a steady decline in grid-related research-and-development spending in the US.

“The US electrical grid has been plagued by ever more and ever worse blackouts over the past 15 years,” Amin writes in a recent article. “What happened? Starting in 1995, the amortization and depreciation rate has exceeded utility construction expenditures. In other words, for the past 15 years, utilities have harvested more than they have planted.”

Bringing transmission systems to where they need to be and eventually building a smart, self-healing grid that could stem the tide of blackouts won’t be cheap, Amin acknowledges — we’re looking at a bill of at least $165 billion for the smart grid alone. But he says such improvements would more than pay for themselves over a few years by dramatically reducing business and other losses related to power failures.

Will decision-makers listen? At a time when budget cuts and austerity measures are de rigueur, there’s not much cause for optimism. In other words, if you live in the US, keep a flashlight and spare batteries handy.

Whether it’s our unsustainable energy path, out-of-control financial systems or climate change, the facts keep telling us in ever-stronger terms that we need to change, and quickly. The louder the facts speak, though, the more stubbornly many people dig in their heels and refuse to listen.

The old-fashioned way of describing that problem is, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” A more academic way to put it is “motivated reasoning” … the tendency to sift through evidence not to establish the real facts, but to reach a conclusion one already believes.

“This tendency toward so-called ‘motivated reasoning’ helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, ‘death panels,’ the birthplace and religion of the president, and much else,” notes science writer Chris Mooney. “It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.”

In light of that, what are we to do with yet another loud alarm raised by some of the world’s top scientists about the unsustainable course we’re on?

“(H)umanity’s behavior remains utterly inappropriate for dealing with the potentially lethal fallout from a combination of increasingly rapid technological evolution matched with very slow ethical-social evolution,” writes a team of 20 leading scientists, all past winners of the Blue Planet Prize, considered to be the Nobel Prize of the environment. “The human ability to do has vastly outstripped the ability to understand.”

As a result, the team writes, our civilization is faced with “a perfect storm of problems driven by overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich, the use of environmentally malign technologies, and gross inequalities.”

In theory, we have the knowledge and tools at hand for solving all these problems. The obstacle, though, is motivated reasoning … in this case, global society’s addiction to “the irrational belief that physical economies can grow forever.”

“(T)he perpetual growth myth is enthusiastically embraced by politicians and economists as an excuse to avoid tough decisions facing humanity,” write the Blue Panel Prize laureates. “This myth promotes the impossible idea that indiscriminate economic growth is the cure for all the world’s problems, while it is actually (as currently practiced) the disease that is at the root cause of our unsustainable global practices.”

The scientists behind this new paper — including NASA climate scientist James Hansen, Gaia Hypothesis originator James Lovelock, UK government science adviser Sir Bob Watson and International Union for the Conservation of Nature director-general Julia Marton-Lefevre — offer a variety of recommendations for moving beyond the myth of perpetual growth. In addition to the usual suspects of carbon capture and storage, better pricing of goods and services to account for environmental costs, improved planning to fight biodiversity loss, etc., they call for better governance that’s more inclusive, and allows for greater decision-making power at lower levels where knowledge about local problems is best.

That last part includes listening more to the world’s poor, particularly women, who are finding many innovative grassroots solutions to the problems of poverty, food security, energy, water and more. Not surprisingly, considering Lovelock’s participation, the team’s recommendations go beyond science alone to deliver a Gaia-inspired message:

“Without devaluing the tremendous contribution of such grass root action and while showing them the respect and recognition they deserve there is an urgency now to bring them into mainstream thinking, convey the belief all is not lost, and the planet can still be saved. New ideas have been put into practice as a result of collective grass root action that have lessons we can learn from if only we have the humility and ability to listen.”

Based on present known resources, we have enough uranium available to keep reactors productive for about 80 years, the association says.

Following are some more facts and figures related to the world’s nuclear-energy picture:

• Proportion of world’s electricity supplied by nuclear power: 13 percent (Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) 2011 World Energy Outlook)
• Number of countries using nuclear power: 29 (Source: World Nuclear Association)
  Total number of nuclear reactors around the world as of Feb. 2012: 434 (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Total generating capacity of world’s nuclear plants: 373 gigawatts (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Country with the largest share of electricity coming from nuclear power: France, with 74.1 percent (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Country producing the greatest amount of uranium in 2010: Kazakhstan, 17,803 tonnes (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Country with the greatest recoverable resources of uranium: Australia, with 1.67 million tonnes (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Average age of world’s nuclear power plants: 26 years (Source: IEA 2011 World Energy Outlook)
• Number of new reactors under construction: 61 (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Number of new reactors proposed to be built as of Feb. 2012: 335 (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Total generating capacity of all new reactors proposed to be built as of Feb. 2012: 380 megawatts (Source: World Nuclear Association)
• Percentage of the world’s new reactors under construction being built in China: 63 percent (Source: IEA 2011 World Energy Outlook)
• Percentage of the world’s new under construction being built in Russia: 13 percent (Source: IEA 2011 World Energy Outlook)
• Uranium required for global nuclear power in 2012: 67,990 tonnes (Source: World Nuclear Association)

While citizens in disaster-stressed Japan overwhelmingly support a phaseout of nuclear power, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu welcomed the approval of the first nuclear reactors to be built in the US in 30 years as a vital part of President Obama’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, and the UK is preparing to invest £50 billion to develop 16 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity.

Fukushima-based fears haven’t dampened the enthusiasm for nuclear power in fast-developing economies like China, India, Russia and Korea, either.

With that kind of growth in mind, the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects global energy from nuclear sources to grow by more than 70 percent through 2035. However, it also considers it possible that other countries will cut back on development, prompting it to lay out a “Low Nuclear Case” scenario in its latest World Energy Outlook. In such a case, demand for gas and coal would increase more than currently projected, the IEA predicts, leading to increased carbon emissions, higher energy costs and increased strain especially on nations that currently rely on nuclear to make up for their lack of other home-grown power resources (which includes not only Japan but Belgium, France and South Korea).

James Lovelock, the scientist behind the “Gaia” theory, has famously said that more nuclear energy is modern society’s only reasonable strategy to prevent disastrous climate change while ensuring energy security. Wind, sun and other renewable sources, he says, can’t provide the round-the-clock reliability we need to continue living as we do.

That pronouncement has annoyed more than a few environmentalists, but others have found different reasons — economic ones, in particular — to give the thumbs-down to nuclear energy. Many peak-oilists, for example, point out that nuclear isn’t low-carbon. Nor, they add, does it make sense from an energy-returned-on-energy-invested (EROEI) perspective. (One analysis ranks nuclear power as only slightly better than tar sands on a carbon-to-EROEI scale.)

So when it comes to nuclear power, only two thing are certain right now. One, it remains a controversial way of generating energy. And, two, that’s not likely to change anytime soon.

It’s not just a matter of taking action to minimize climate change. The 92 institutional investors with a net worth of $10 trillion that have signed on to the Carbon Disclosure Project’s Carbon Action program also worry that companies that aren’t committed to curbing greenhouse gas emissions are taking needless financial risks.

European businesses, for example, could take a hit from rising carbon prices imposed under the EU’s emissions trading scheme.

That’s why investors backing the Carbon Action program have added their names to letters sent to CEOs of 415 of the world’s largest public companies. The letters ask for different actions depending upon each company’s circumstances, but in general are looking for signs of a commitment to cut carbon emissions and improve sustainability.

“(W)e believe that the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions will become internalized into company cash flows and profitability,” said Paul Abberley, CEO of Aviva Investors London, a founding signatory to the Carbon Action initiative that was launched in 2011. “Managing greenhouse gas emissions is therefore essential to delivering sustainable shareholder returns. There still remains huge potential in companies for achieving cost-effective emissions reductions …”

The Carbon Disclosure Project isn’t naming names just yet, but the companies whose CEOs are receiving letters include those in sectors with typically high carbon emissions — an average of 4 million tonnes per year: oil and gas companies, electric utilities, airlines, freight companies, mining companies and more. Letters also went out to companies with the potential to cut emissions across large supply chains: retailers, internet and catalog sellers, food and beverage firms, electronics and computer businesses, and so on.

If CEOs on the receiving end are agreeable, the Carbon Action project will have achieved its objective. If not? Their responses will be made available to the 92 investors backing the initiative, who can then pursue what the Carbon Disclosure Project calls “engagement activities.”

“Some investors,” the Carbon Disclosure Project adds, “may want to extend beyond engagement on the basis of the responses over time, to voting against companies who don’t comply and potentially to divestment.”

In other words, “Nice multinational energy company you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it … like our deciding to take our money somewhere else.”

So what do you think might happen when a different reality — in the form of wildly undervalued eco-services and energy-related externalities — comes crashing down on the illusion that there’s no need to steer away from business as usual in an increasingly resource-strained world?

The fallout could be severe, considering there are a lot of wildly undervalued eco-services and energy-related externalities that many businesses today aren’t considering, according to Generation Investment Management, the sustainable investment partnership founded in 2004 by former Vice President Al Gore and David Blood.

In a new report titled “Sustainable Capitalism,” the Blood-and-Gore-led research team warns that such businesses, and even entire business sectors, could quickly find themselves unprofitable if it suddenly became clear just how valuable those undervalued services and externalities are. The risk, the paper states, lies in “stranded assets” … business assets that could dramatically lose value if, say, the true price of carbon dioxide emissions were taken into account on a company’s bottom line.

“Scenario analysis done by (human resources consulting firm) Mercer’s responsible investment team has shown that climate risk poses fundamental challenges to strategic asset allocation by investment funds and that by 2030 climate change related risk that is currently not diversified away could cost investment funds US$8 trillion,” the report notes. “Not pricing in material risks to an investment — government regulated or not — is simply unwise.”

The same logic also applies to the potential impact of peak oil and/or skyrocketing oil prices … not that they’re cheap at the moment. We’ve seen once that a dramatic upswing in the price of crude has the power to nudge an already-troubled economy over the edge. Businesses that don’t take a potential repeat into account are, to put it mildly, playing with fire.

The “Sustainable Capitalism” report also blames the business-as-usual approach to stranded investments for the overt (and covert) pushback against sustainability by companies with the most to lose:

“Stranded assets also have the potential to result in significant reductions to the long-term value of entire sectors as business models could be made obsolete if wholesale transitions to sustainability were implemented,” the paper states. “As a result, there are many people currently in those businesses who feel that they have an interest in maintaining the status quo or, at a minimum, advocating that any transition to more sustainable models be pursued as gradually as possible through slow, incremental changes.”

(Hmm, any reason we’re suddenly reminded of the Heartland Institute’s recently leaked climate memo package, which reveals — among other things — that the organization’s anti-climate strategies have received financial or material support from a number of global corporations and one major anonymous donor with very deep pockets?)

The Generation Investment Management paper lays out several recommendations for making the transition to sustainable capitalism by 2020, concluding, “The barriers to mainstreaming Sustainable Capitalism are formidable but not insurmountable … Incremental change will prove insufficient to mainstream Sustainable Capitalism by 2020. So, like an artist at the easel, our goal is not to make superficial touch-ups that conceal deep structural flaws beneath. We are calling for a fresh canvas on which, together, we can paint a new picture of our future.”

Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) says the project will deliver something like a local economic stimulus to Chicago, generating up to 2,400 full-time equivalents jobs at the construction peak.

ComEd led a hard-fought battle to get its Infrastructure Investment Plan approved by the state, finally winning legislative approval last October despite vehement opposition from some, including Gov. Pat Quinn. The utility is now getting ready to roll out smart-grid improvements to nearly 4 million homes and businesses.

While ComEd awaits a final go-ahead from the Illinois Commerce Commission, the project is already generating new economic activity in Chicago. Smart-grid firm Silver Spring Networks, which will deploy its Smart Energy Platform to create a connected network of homes, businesses and distribution automation devices as part of the improvements, has announced plans to open a new office in the city. It also expects to establish a local network operations center to support the buildout.

ComEd is planning to open at least two new training facilities in the region as the program gets under way. It will also establish a smart-grid “test bed” to give innovative entrepreneurs a place to test their technologies and services in a utility-scale environment. The test bed is expected to be located along ComEd’s “Smart Grid Innovation Corridor,” which extends across parts of Chicago and nine suburbs.

ComEd president and COO Anne Pramaggiore calls the massive project a “road map for improved system reliability, enhanced customer service and a 21st century electric distribution system that will support the digital economy and the greener economy of the future.”

It’s a well-established transition pattern that moves toward greater economies of scale, and it’s one we’re increasingly seeing in the smart-grid sector.

The latest company to climb up the consolidation ladder is the smart-metering firm Itron, which has just announced plans to buy SmartSynch for $100 million.

The deal makes sense from a smart-grid industry perspective: where Itron provides the meters and modules for measuring electricity, gas and water use, SmartSynch provides the IP-based cellular communications foundation that can help connect those meters and modules into an “internet of things.”

Plus, the companies have already proven they play well together, having partnered on various projects for more than a decade.

“Utility customers are demanding more options and this is a combination that just makes sense,” says SmartSynch CEO Stephen Johnston. “Our companies share existing customer relationships, integrated technologies and a common culture that will enable us to pursue new opportunities.”

The acquisition puts Itron in good company, with several big names — including Toshiba, IBM and Siemens — having rounded out their smart-grid offerings by buying up other firms over the past year. Will all these developments help the grid get smarter more quickly and easily, though? Time will tell.

It seems as though the uncertainties surrounding the safety, sustainability and wisdom of extracting as much natural gas as we can from every imaginable formation keep on growing. Besides the already-familiar concerns about hydrofracturing — including the risk of earthquakes –  questions remain about whether natural gas really qualifies as a “clean” energy source.

(Given current low gas prices and rising annual decline rates from shale sources, it’s also questionable how financially sustainable it is.)

One thing to remember is that, when we talk about natural gas, what we’re really talking about is methane. According to the industry site NaturalGas.org, natural gas is typically 70 to 90 percent methane … which, while it doesn’t linger in the atmosphere nearly as long as carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas that’s 25 times as powerful as CO2.

Gases are also harder to contain than liquids or solids, and that raises the problem of potential methane leaks during drilling and hydrofracturing. Research published last year found that anywhere from 3.6 to 7.9 percent of the methane produced during shale-gas extraction leaks into the atmosphere. And, while they’ve been challenged by the natural gas industry, those figures now appear to have additional backing from a new study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder.

That new research, which looked at a natural-gas production region near Denver, concludes that about 4 percent of the methane from operations there is leaking into the air.

An article about the study published in Nature notes that natural gas might still prove cleaner than coal for electricity generation, if for no other reason that gas-fired power plants are newer and more efficient than coal plants. However, the article adds, that doesn’t apply to the bulk of US natural gas consumption, 70 percent of which goes toward heating.

So how “clean” an energy source is natural gas? In one of the few areas where science and the gas industry agree, both acknowledge more research is needed.

Completed in January 2012, the 122.4-kilowatt photovoltaic (PV) array covering the south- and east-facing slopes of the 60 Wall rooftop stands 737 feet above street level. That makes the installation the “highest elevated solar PV flat panel array in the world,” says Deutsche Bank.

The electricity generated by the sky-high solar panels are expected to cut the building’s carbon emissions by 100 metric tons a year. Two other solar installations at US facilities are also helping to reduce Deutsche Bank’s carbon footprint, and a fourth one is currently in development.

One array, a 1.27-megawatt installation in Piscataway, New Jersey, has helped transform the bank’s office there into a net-zero electric building.

Globally, Deutsche Bank now gets 65 percent of its electricity from renewables.