I have to post in order to remind everyone to enter the Rib Mountain snowmelt contest (if you haven’t already). The deadline is Tuesday night at midnight. You can’t win and brag to all your friends about what a brilliant forecaster you are unless you enter. It is easy to do, just enter here: http://www.waow.com/story/21963495/2013/04/12/take-your-guess-in-the-annual-snowmelt-contest Don’t pass up such an easy chance at winning a $250 gift card for the R-store!

There is still a lot of snow out there on the slopes but it started to melt a little over the weekend and the warm weather has finally given me the chance to get out in my garden. Although, I still found some chunks of frozen ground yesterday when I was digging. This is the latest I can ever remember the ground being frozen. We finally also saw some crocus bloom over the weekend. This is the latest I can ever remember the crocus blooming as well. One would think we would have set some sort-of record for cold or snow, but we haven’t (unless there is some obscure record for fewest 40 degree days in March, or fewest 50 degree days in April). We had been close to setting the record for the coldest April ever until the warm-up hit over the weekend. The coldest April ever in Wausau occurred in 1950 when the average high temperature was just 34.0. Through yesterday, our average high temperature for April of 2013 has now risen up to 36.3. With warm weather continuing today and tomorrow, that average might yet climb up close to 38. At an average of 38.0 we would still be in the top ten for coldest Aprils. The last time we had such cold weather in April was in 1995 (10th coldest) and in 1996 (18th coldest). 1996 was the last time I can remember so much ice being on the lakes so late in the Spring. I talked to some folks from Boulder Junction over the weekend and they said there was close to 30 inches of ice on some of the lakes yet.

Getting out into the country and working on my garden gave me a chance to curse the ethanol mandate (and artificially high price of corn) again. I saw yet another farm (I drive by often) where the trees are being cut down in order to grow corn for someone’s fuel tank, and I am not talking about their stomach. Maybe I am just and “old-timer” now and resisting progress, but I don’t think so. The landscape used to be so much more scenic when I was growing up because there were many more rows of trees lining driveways and dividing fields. Now it is much more open, and this trend has accelerated in the last few years. Through the 1990s and 2000s it seemed that the natural landscape was holding up. Some areas were growing back into forests. With the advent of the ethanol mandate and the artificially high price of corn, that trend has rapidly reversed recently. I lament the habitat that is being lost for birds and other small animals. Trees take a long time to grow back. Does anyone else lament the clearing of so many trees recently? Like I have mentioned before, it is hard to fault farmers or ethanol producers for taking advantage of the market (artificial or not) and making a buck. I can’t say for sure what I would do if I needed extra money and the corn price was artificially high. I might chop down a few trees (but it would be one of the last things on my list). The real fault lies with policy makers in Washington. I doubt anything will change soon unless there is another drought this year and people start to go without food. In that case, I think the ethanol mandate would be dropped pretty quick, like it should have been years ago.

Have a fine Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Records, Seasonal Items, Snowmelt 2013

An odd thing happened the other day. The name “Hansen” and “nuclear” appeared in the same article and it was on a fairly positive note. The “Hansen” is James Hansen, who has been one of the most vocal AGW theorists since the late 1980s. “Nuclear” comes into play because it has been estimated (by Hansen and Pushker Kharecha) that the use of nuclear power has saved 1.84 million lives because these power plants do not produce much air pollution, whereas coal-fired power plants do. Thus, it is unfortunate that nuclear power has not been pursued more in the U.S. over the last few decades. No new nuclear plants have been built. Hardly any new nuclear technology has entered the marketplace. We could have more AND safer nuclear power here in the U.S. leading to cleaner air and potentially a lot less carbon dioxide emissions if it were not for the Three Mile Island accident and subsequent efforts to eliminate nuclear power. The devastation from Chernobyl and potential future problems from Fukushima do not help either. Then there is the little thing about storing the waste….

The benefits of nuclear power are not as widely touted as the potential downsides, even to this day, but that has not stopped progress. U.S. nuclear power plants are Cold War relics but in other countries, nuclear is a still viable option and new reactors have been built. Small and safer nuclear power plants are being designed and at least four are on schedule to go online in the U.S. by the 2016/2017 timeline. The not so good news is that the new power plants, while being safer and more efficient, will still produce normal radioactive waste. Storing the waste is still a problem. Thorium nuclear plants could be better on many levels – including waste that degrades on much shorter time scales - but the only place thorium reactors are planned on being tested are in India. Something that might make traditional nuclear power plants a little more attractive is the use of molten salts instead of water for cooling. This practice/design could cut the cost of nuclear power in half.

The site of new nuclear plants under development in Georgia

Given the risks associated with nuclear power, even the smaller risks with newer designs, some countries like France and Germany are backing away from nuclear. Japan shut down all of their nuclear plants after the earthquake and tsunami but are considering firing them back up due to the difficulty of generating power from other sources. If there is a renaissance in nuclear power coming our way it will probably have to come from China, the U.S., or a different non-traditional nuclear power producing country.

I am on the fence regarding nuclear power. I know the risks are substantial, but so are the benefits. If the U.S. ended up building more traditional nuclear plants and perhaps even some thorium plants in the future, our carbon emissions would likely continue to go down, in contrast to all the predictions that they would soar. Less pollution (except for the waste) is a big plus. However, I am still a bigger fan of solar power because the risks are lower and the benefits are just as good. We have millions of rooftops just waiting to be used for this purpose.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Pollution

An interesting projection of arctic vegetation changes was published recently. As you can imagine, if the arctic continues to warm, more trees will grow. The study expects up to 50% more trees in arctic regions by 2050. This would most likely lead to significant changes for the arctic climate and other areas of the world. One would tend to think that if more trees grow, then more sunlight will be absorbed (as compared to snow-covered tundra) and that this would lead to a positive feedback, leading to more warming. However, nature and the climate are complex and rarely follow a human script.

Could there be some negative consequences from more tree growth in the arctic over the next 4 decades? Yes. Could this lead to continued warming? Yes. Should we try hard to reduce our impact on the envrionment? Yes. However, we know that more warmth and “bad consequences” not a certainty because there was more vegetation, more warmth, and much less ice as little as 1600 years ago. Researchers studying the retreating ice in the Canadian arctic have found plant material under the ice which dates to as little as 1600 years ago. If wildlife, plant life, and the biosphere in general was able to survive much less ice in the arctic as little as 1600 years ago, maybe it will not be the “end of the world” this time around either, as more melting is expected.

Also, the proposed feedback mechanisms might not be as strong as some suspect. One of the commonly repeated themes of the arctic thaw is that “huge” amounts of carbon dioxide are going to be released from the permafrost and accelerate warming across the globe. This theme does have some scientific backing and makes intuitive sense, but nature doesn’t operate by human intuition. A recent paper claims that fungus in the soil around tree roots are what hold the most carbon in arctic regions. So not only would more trees be a carbon sink (as they grow) the fungus in the soil around the roots might sequester more carbon. I cannot say with any certainty how much carbon we are talking about here, or if there would be a significant effect on future theorized warming, but this finding once again challenges the thought that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and positive feedback loops are fait accompli.

Of course, discussing past climate events as a comparison with the current situation is a little like comparing apples to oranges. Well maybe not that much different, more like comparing a Granny Smith apple to a Fuji apple. Humans have changed the atmosphere to a degree so that adds an extra variable to the mix. A lot of AGW theorists expect a lot more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere in coming decades – often discussing it as fait accompli. But even here, as I have mentioned in the past, perhaps there is room for less negativity.

Drilling Into Shale For Nat Gas

The U.S. in the last few years is a great example. If you had looked at carbon dioxide emmission projections from 10 years ago, you would find most experts, in fact almost all experts, predicting a steep rise. What happened? Just the opposite. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions sank dramatically after 2007 and are now as low as back in the early 1990s. Can this trend continue? Sure it can, but it will take continued effort and continued use of less carbon intensive fuels like natural gas. Natural gas development and “fracking” have had a lot of negative press lately, but it has been a great bridge fuel. I am glad a few other people are now recognizing the environmental benefits as well.

The idea here is that natural gas can begin a trend of cleaner energy, while development of solar or other alternatives continue to develop. It is a slow process but more solar power is installed every year, solar panels have gotten cheaper, and solar panels continue to get more efficient. The solar industry has come far enough that some claim it is now a net energy producing industry! Here are some of the latest develoments:

In specialized solar cells there have been a couple of news records for efficiency. Swiss researchers have generated a world record 10.7% efficiency with a single junction polycrystalline solar cell. Yale scientists created a record 11% efficiency with carbon-nanotube-film-over-silicon cells. In the lab, materials science continues to produce possible future breakthroughs. The Neils Bohr Institute has shown that nanowires can concentrate sunilght up to 15 times normal intensity. Computer simulations at the University of Vienna have shown that single layer oxides could be used to make more effcient and ultra-thin solar panels in the future. Lastly, Uconn researchers are trying to develop what are called “solar rectennas”. These tiny devices could in theory harvest up to 70% of the incedent solar energy.

Of course, not all breakthroughs in the lab make it to commercial production, or they might not be a commercial success. That is the story with a lot of thin film solar businesses. About 10 years ago, these businesses were “hot” and proposed to make less efficient but cheaper solar panels. Unfortunately, business realities have forced many of them into bankruptcy. Crystalline silicon solar panels have dropped in price so much that thin films are not very cost competitive. The low solar panel prices have also forced one the world’s biggest producers  – Suntech - to go bankrupt. It is a story of over-supply. Subsidies from the Chinese government allowed Suntech to expand production – so much so that a glut developed and prices fell to a point where they couldn’t turn a profit. Some people are a bit concerned that cost pressures will slow down innovation in the industry while companies focus on cutting costs, but finding ways to cut cost and remain profitable is a form of innovation. Where real innovation is needed is in regulations and installation costs. The majority of the cost of going solar is in regulations and installation. The actual solar panels are dirt cheap as compared to a few years back. Cheap panels should be good news for developers of big solar projects and it seems like Brightsource is taking advantage – moving forward with building another plant (a solar thermal plant) in southern California.

Even in the event that alternatives a slow to come online, and theorized warming comes to pass, there is always the possibility of sequestering carbon dioxide or even taking  itout of the air. I have heard some people say it is a nearly impossible task, but some people are working on it. Here are a couple of recent articles on the subject: Scientists explore the miriad ways of removing carbon dioxide from the air. New fuel production process could use carbon dioxide from the air.

Have a fine Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

Good news from the month of February! Precipitation was above normal and that makes 3 months in a row with above normal precipitation. Snowfall was almost 6 inches above normal (in Wausau). We had 15.5 inches of snow but we never did have any big blizzard. The snowstorms were lighter but they were more frequent coming 3 to 4 inches at a time.

Combined with below normal temps and we had some of best snow conditions in long time. Snowmobilers rejoiced! Skiers and snowshoers (is that a word?) loved it as well. Temperatures were below normal for the first time in three months. Last year was very warm with most months above normal, but now 3 out of the last 6 months have been below normal (September, October, February). The coldest temp of the month was -16 which will probably end up being the coldest temperature of the Winter. Here are the official stats (for Wausau):

Average High: 25.6  (normal 28.1)

Average Low: 9.1  (normal 10.0)

Precipitation: 1.47 inches  (normal 0.92 inches)

Snowfall: 15.5 inches (normal 9.6 inches)

Highest Temperature: 38 on the 10th

Lowest Temperature: -16 on the 17th

____________________________________________

And now on to some of the most recent news about the transformation of transportation in the U.S. New technology promises to make driving more efficient, quiet and clean. It is starting with self-driving cars and electric vehicles. Self-driving cars!? If you haven’t been reading the weather blog recently or some of the more popular tech-news sites out there, you might be surprised that self-driving cars have logged millions of accident free miles on real highways in tests over the last couple of years. The “prevailing wisdom” is that there is no way a computer(software) can drive a car. The reality is much different. The ONLY thing preventing people from buying and safely using self-driving cars is cost, legal concerns, and attitudes. The “attitude” comes from the “free open road” part of the American psyche. Owning an automobile gives a person a degree of freedom, or at least it used to. In the modern day, owning a car can actually be a liability more than an asset. For people living in many urban areas, having a normal car might actually reduce freedom. Taxes, insurance, licenses, fees, maintenance, are growing every year and are a real pain in the you-know-what. If you could share a self-driving electric car with a few of your neighbors to make trips around town, you could be substantially more free. You would be lowering your impact on the environment as well – in a voluntary and peaceful manner (while avoiding traditional taxes/fees and arbitrary speeding tickets).

So what is the latest news? The Nissan Leaf is the latest car to get in on the action. Oxford University out-fitted the Leaf with some cameras and other sensors and it “went out for a spin”. Also, another reporter took a ride in a self-driving car and found the experience a lot better than the ”soul-crushing” effort most people put into their daily urban commute.

Another interesting electric vehicle story involved Tesla. A New York Times “reporter” tried to take the Tesla Model S on a long raod trip in an effort to test the stated range. The “reporter” ran out of juice before the end of the journey and basically and smeared Tesla about it. Tesla fired back, defending the performance of the auto. Tesla checked the data recorder on the car and it turns out that the “reporter” did not follow the instructions about saving electricity during the journey. The moral of the story is that EVs still cannot match the distance of fossil fuel vehicles (although they are getting close), but they are great cars – especially the Model S. There is not much reason, other than cost, that most urban commuters could not be using electric cars right now.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Technology

I almost pulled my hair out the other day. I know, there isn’t much left to pull out, but what little is left was close to removal. In a world full of many things you could pull-your-hair-out over, what could possibly trip my emotional trigger? A National Climate Summit of course.

• It is not that people do not have good intentions
• It is not that some reasonable plans could not be developed
• It is not that there are no environmental issues address

It is that climate summits are a waste of time, money, and most importantly – ENERGY. As I highlighted in a couple previous blog posts, international climate treaties and meetings have a very poor track record of success. The Kyoto Accord did not reduce carbon emissions. The only thing that has worked to reduce carbon emissions on a large scale in the last 2 decades is newer power plants (in eastern Europe) and fracking (in the U.S.) Even some climate meeting attendees are getting frustrated with the bureaucracy of it all.

So why have a National Climate Summit? Why have people travel from long distance to sit around at a fancy hotel and listen to speeches? I know what the “stated” reason is, but given the track record of climate meetings, isn’t it time to try something different – something that could produce direct tangible results. Instead of spending all of that money and wasting all of that energy, the climate summit could be held online. The carbon footprint of a Skype call or Google Hangout is much smaller than a flight across the country. The virtual attendees could still pay all of the normal money they would have spent on a flight, the hotel, conference registration, food, drinks, pamphlets, etc… but the money could be used to buy solar panels instead of being wasted. Maybe it would be the first carbon negative national conference in the world (after factoring in the new solar power). Just think how much more alternative energy could already be installed if climate conference attendees were not running around the world destroying the environment with their enormous carbon footprint over the last couple of decades. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars! Just think how many solar panels that money could buy – how many poor countries feeling the effects of climate change could power up with clean energy.

I don’t expect the idea to take off, but it would go a long way to achieve one of the stated objectives of the proposed National Climate Summit – which is to reduce carbon emissions. Isn’t it ironic that climate meetings increase carbon emissions so much, one of the first agreements (Kyoto) was not in effect in the U.S., yet the U.S has led the world recently in reducing carbon emissions. How did  we do it? With natural gas (while exporting our coal). How do we get most of the natural gas? Through the recently disparaged practice of fracking. Fracking is not a 100% benign practice but the side effects so far do not warrant the recent hail of Hollywood and environmental criticism, in my view. Just think if more countries around the world switched to natural gas and lowered their carbon emissions as dramatically as in the U.S.! It seems like the nearly perfect solution to bridge society and the economy into a cleaner energy future. We could reduce pollution and carbon emissions and not have to sacrifice our freedoms or standard of living. The good news is that some countries, like Germany (which is dropping its nuclear program), are investigating fracking for the development of natural gas. The bad news is that extremely wealthy hollywood celebrities are generally aligning against fracking.

Have a fine Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

Can I dust off the LED lighting topic once again? I am still using one of my LED bulbs I received 5 years ago so they do seem to stand the test of time. There has not been a revolution in lighting that I had hoped for a few years back, but that does not mean there has been no progress. LED lights are much more efficient than incandescents and could help the world to save a lot of energy, but engineering challenges and cost have gotten in the way.

What about that cost? When the first screw-in type LED bulbs were produced they retailed for $50. If you were going to light your house with these expensive bulbs, you were going to make a financial sacrifice and be an early adopter. Now I see this same type of light retailing for $20 to $40 on various websites. That is better, but it will still not tip the consumer scale. Not when you can get compact fluorescents for a couple of bucks (on sale) or incandescents for less than a dollar. Like most technologies, I suspect the price will continue to fall. I think I might start purchasing a few once they drop down closer to $10.

What about the engineering? It has proven tough to generate a more broad spectrum of light from LEDs. In their most fundamental state, LEDs produce just one wavelength (color) of light. Typically, one has to coat the LED with a different material in order to make the light look more natural, or one has to combine many different colored LEDs  in order to produce something similar to incandescents. Of course, covering the LEDs can reduce the brightness, so engineers have now looked toward fireflies for solutions to make LEDs brighter. It turns out that the specific pattern on the abdomen of fireflies enables a better transmission of light. If used with LEDs, we will be able to get more light with less energy. The engineers have shown 55% increased light extraction with the firefly pattern.

LED Light Bulb

On the cost side of things, a couple items of note. A Kickstarter campaign has begun to bring a new LED light design to market. A “Kickstarter campaign” is one where you can contribute/donate to the success of the project. This particular project claims to have created the most efficient LED bulbs. Now they need to raise more money to bring the bulb into wider production. No word on the cost yet. Efficiency is great, but the cost will be the key to its success. What usually helps to bring down cost is to reduce the number of components it takes to build something. That is what Ikon Semiconductor corporation hopes to do with LED bulbs. They showed off a chip at the Strategies in Light Conference that will combine several power components typically found in LED bulbs and provide a method of dimming.

Progress continues.

Have a pleasant Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Technology

Time to rag on bio-fuels again. Take a look at past blog posts here, here, here, and here for more in-depth “ragging”. What is the problem this time? The U.S. ethanol mandate is destroying natural grasslands in the Great Plains. Because of the mandate creating artificial price and demand support for corn, farmers are plowing up every little nook and cranny of former grassland in order to grow corn. I can’t blame the farmers for wanting to earn a living or make money, but I do blame politicians in Washington D.C. for creating such perverse incentives to destroy the natural landscape. I have seen this a little in Wisconsin as well. During the 1980′s and 90′s, as small family farms shrank in number, forests and natural grassland reclaimed a good portion of the landscape. In the last 2 or 3 years, I have seen some of this being plowed under again in order to make way for corn – to be burned as ethanol in our cars.

One of the main problems with destroying natural grasslands in the prairies is that it reduces habitat for ground dwelling birds and potentially even breeding grounds for ducks. But even if the birds were not being assaulted by the ethanol mandate, they would still be under increasing threat by another alternative energy subsidy – for wind turbines. The greatest implementation of wind turbines in the U.S. is in the Great Plains. So after the birds are chased out of their grassland home on the ground, they can fly up into the air and have their lungs exploded or be clobbered to death by wind turbines. What a life.

Turning grassland into corn-land

At least there is some energy logic for wind turbines. They do produce a higher EROI and are the cheapest form of alternative energy. However, they (and other forms of alternative energy) are still not as economical as fossil fuels as Germany and Spain have found out. Both of these countries which were first to build out greater alternative energy infrastructure with a significant percentage of their national tax money, are the first to potentially pull the plug on further development. The lesson to be learned here, once again, as we have learned over and over again throughout human history, is that “money does not grow on trees”, or “you can’t get something for nothing”. I am a big fan of alternative energy and have looked into getting solar panels for my house, but I realize it is an expensive form of energy. I understand that I will have to make a financial sacrifice in order lessen my reliance on fossil fuels and (hopefully) get off the grid. Printing and or borrowing money in order to fund alternative energy development is bound to lead to outcomes with negative side effects – whether it is entire national economies going broke or killing birds.

Have a swell Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy

A couple of really bad “science” stories have hit the media recently. One involves liability and the other dishes out mostly propaganda.

Perhaps you already heard about this one involving the liability of scientists. Seismologists in Italy were found guily of manslaughter for inaccurately predicting when an eartquake would strike. They were found guilty even though there was credible evidence that these scientists were pressured by superiors to produce a specific forecast and thousands of scientists around the world wrote letters of support on their behalf. First of all, earthquake forecasting is just that – it is forecasting – much like weather forecasting. Scientists look at the data, calculate what might happen, and issue a forecast that represents or indicates some level of confidence. This is a terrible legal precedent and going forward I would not want to be involved in any forecasting of anything in Italy.

Lawsuits of this nature have been tried a couple of times in regards to weather forecasting – a couple of times here in the U.S. and in some foreign countries. In those cases, the lawsuits were thrown out, thankfully, because it was understood that there is no guarantee that comes with the forecast. It reminds me of the snarky comment I sometimes hear that meteorologists are the only people who “can be wrong 50% of the time” (some people say “most of the time”) and still have a job. First of all, broadcast meteorologists do get fired if they do a poor job. It is just an old wives tale that meteorologists can be “wrong most of the time” and still keep their job. Secondly, everyone is wrong some of the time. Whether in our daily lives or any job one might be doing, we have to deal with uncertainty. We all make little “forecasts” everyday in order to plan for the future, whether it be figuring the best route to work through heavy traffic or deciding the direction a business might take. We are all wrong some of the time and every errant forecast has some sort-of negative side effect, yet we are not fired for every little misstep. If we were all right all the time, we would all be billionaires or would be ruling the world. The IPCC is not held criminally accountable for poor climate forecasts. Military planners are sent to the Brigg for every error on the battlefield. These Italian seismologists should not be guilty of manslaughter.

Drilling For Oil

The other ”media release” was centered around the oil and gas industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists (although maybe this time around they should be called political scientists), produced a puff piece about how 66% of the money you pay at the pump “goes into the pockets of the oil companies”. They rely upon the economic ignorance and natural envy of people in order to try to make some environmental point. You are supposed to read their press release study and be hopping mad at the oil companies. I think they deliberately did not talk about the difference between profits and revenue in order to confuse people and make them angry. In the oil business, Exxon might be the most valuable company in the world right now (essentially, because they produce the most valuable product in the world…right now), but they are not the most profitable. Their profit margin was only a little over 7% in 2012. Most of Exxon’s profits come from refining and making specialized petroleum products. It is typical that the big oil companies only make 2 to 4 cents PROFIT per gallon of gas. It costs a lot of money to get your gas from the ground to the pump. If it was easy and cheap, we would all just drill for our own oil. So 66% of what you pay at the pump goes into the “pockets of the oil companies” but Exxon only makes a profit of 1% or less on gas and a bit over 7% overall (last year)

Compare Exxon to Apple. Apple had a HUGE profit margin between 25 and 30% during 2012. Apple’s products are over-priced yet people willingly pay. Apple uses sophisticated methods to avoid paying U.S. taxes, yet they are not considered “evil” like the oil companies. Apple could cut the price of their (very high quality) products by 25% and still make a profit. Wouldn’t that be nice. Complaining about paying money for gas is like complaining about paying money for your phone, or for your car, or a refrigerator. All of the companies that make the products we use to live, charge money for their products and they need to make a profit. This basic economic fact seems to have escaped the Union of Concerned Scientists.

If you don’t want to pay the high price of gas, either go drill your own oil (and refine it), or don’t buy it. After hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast in 2005, the price of gas shot up to $4 per gallon (as commodities generally should during times of shortage). Many people I know started to complain loudly. I didn’t. I bought a bike. I have been riding my bike to work for 6 or 7 (warm) months out of the year for 7 years and been saving money the whole time. Don’t live close to work? Move closer. As I have pointed out before, there are tens of millions of empty homes in the U.S. right now just waiting for a buyer. I am suspect that most people could find one near their work. By moving, you can save money and “stick it to the oil companies” at the same time! Complaining about the fact that oil companies charge money for their product is probably counter productive. Besides that, in order implement cleaner alternatives at scale, we might need the expertise of some of the world’s largest energy companies. Maybe the Union of Concerned Scientists should focus more on developing such partnerships or work harder at educating people on ways to save more (which they only touched upon in their recent press release).

 Before anyone chimes in with a comment, yes, I am aware that different companies have been involved in illegal activities in the past, and I definitely agree that they should be prosecuted for those crimes.  The economic issues presented here are mostly distinct from the legal issues.

While I am on the subject of bad science, how about a couple studies that are less bad, but still leave something to be desired.

Coal Power Plant

The first one is a wind power study out of Australia. It is really good news. Using wind power in Australia is now cheaper than building new coal or natural gas fired power plants (and another take on the study). So what happened in the last few years? Were new more efficient wind turbines invented? Not really. Did coal become a lot more expensive? Yes. Is Australia running out of coal? No. The price of coal has gone up because of a new carbon tax. That is part of the reason why wind power is calculated to now be cheaper than coal power. The other reasons are also not related so much to the science of energy production but on political considerations. According to the article, many banks who might help fund new coal power plants in Australia would include a risk premium that would jack up the price. The risk premium would have to be built in to the up front costs because the carbon tax could go up in future years and coal power plants might get sued by various, people, environmental organizations, or even entire nations in future years. It is also important to note that current coal and gas plants do produce electricity more cheaply than wind turbines. This study only calculates prices for future construction. I can’t help but wonder if there are some other flaws in this study such as not including new transmission line costs, battery back-up costs, or de-comissioning costs associated with wind turbine power. If wind power was cheaper that coal or gas on a stand alone basis (without political manipulation), it wouldn’t need to be promoted. Companies would be putting them up everywhere in order to save money. (Aside: I am neutral on wind power, it is a nice option for clean energy, but turbines do come with a handful of downsides).

Flu Virus

Lastly, a study that smells of confirmation bias. Remember back when I kept the big list of bad things that are happening or were going to happen because of AGW. I finally had to stop because the list got too big and included everything from more obesity and more starvation on up to the destruction of the planet. Let us hearken back to those days. What about the flu? A recent study “proves” that severe flu outbreaks are linked with AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The study comes to the conclusion that flu outbreaks will be worse after a warm winter. People don’t get ill during a warm winter – it is theorized – and then they are more vulnerable to infection during the next winter. I am sure you are wondering, “what about a warm winter followed by another warm winter?” That is what is expected if AGW comes to pass as predicted by the IPCC. Less cold winters should mean less flu overall, not more severe flu outbreaks – as theorized by the study. Cold and flu viruses spread more effectively when here is cold dry air around. If the world warms up and continues to turn more humid, one would think just the opposite (of what this study proclaims) would happen. Another deficiency with this study is that it only used data since the winter of 1997-98. That is a rather short chunk of time on which to base a study of influenza. It is a unique time in earth’s climate history (very warm) which is not representative of the climate history through which the flu has affected humans. The study could draw more robust conclusions if they could find a way to include data from prior years. As of now, I am not worried that flu outbreaks are going to get worse because of AGW.

Have a pleasant Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Natural Disasters, Nature, Science

To all my bio-fuel supporting friends, sorry, but I still am not convinced that it is an effort we – as a society/economy – should pursue in a significant way (still good for niche areas though, as I have written before). A couple of recent studies have come to my attention which highlight some of the problems.

For those who support “big” biofuel for transportation needs in order to help blunt pollution & theoretical climate changes, solar power beats it out on a per-mile-driven basis. This is not too much of a surprise to me because the process of getting the sun’s energy into an electric vehicle is much simpler than the process of getting that same energy into a biofuel car.

Secondly, for those who are focused on health, the environment, and climate change, according to this study, producing large amounts of biofuels is probably bad for both. Theoretically, the best biofuels can do is make our existence carbon neutral. So even if we did convert 100% over to biofuels, negative health and environmental effects would still make it a bad strategy. Grain ethanol production in the U.S. also uses 40% percent of the corn crop that might otherwise be used to feed people. We have an obesity epidemic in the U.S. so maybe we do not need additional corn, but removing such a large chunk of the food supply does affect prices and limits what can be sent to areas of the world that do need emergency food supplies.

There is also the fact that solar power (and even wind power to a small extent) continues to make progress in efficiency gains. In essence, solar power has a much brighter future. By manipulating matter down the nanoscale, we can design solar panels with much higher efficiency in the future. It seems there is a new efficiency record about every other month. Just recently, researchers in Switzerland produced a thin film flexible polymer solar cell with a record efficiency of 20.4% (a record for that type of cell). On the more theoretical side of things, there are certain patterns of silicon or other solar cell material that will absorb more sunlight. A recent exercise in evolutionary computer algorithms produced some patterns that could be tried in the near future.

On the industrial/commercial side of things 1366 technologies (which I mentioned previously) is bucking the trend in the brutal solar panel market right now. They are scaling up their wafer-making process which uses molten silicon instead of silicon ingots. Their process could chop 50% off the cost of the silicon wafers that go into solar panels. This is great news, but it does not mean the price will come down that much for the end user. Remember that the biggest cost of getting solar power at your house is installation and regulations. The solar panels themselves are pretty cheap right now – historically speaking.

Solar Installation at Nellis AFB

As far as installed capacity is trending – is it still upward, thanks in part to the U.S. Military. Check out this solar array at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. This is the second big array the military has constructed. The other one is at Nellis Air Force base. Is the military preparing for energy disruptions or just helping the environment out and gaining some good PR? I am not sure, but it makes me want to pursue my own solar power as well. It would be nice to have back-up if the grid ever goes down.

At the “usage” end of alternative energy, batteries continue to improve and get bigger when needed, but there is some trouble with one big name company. Car makers Toyota and BMW collaborating to develop lithium air baterries (as IBM has been working on as well). Safe lithium air batteries could dramatically extend the range of electric viehicles as mentioned previously here. Seeing big auto names behind to pursuit gives me optimism – because they have deep pockets. In other good news for EV enthusiasts, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Scientists have developed a new solid electrolyte for lithium batteries that is less flammable and could potentially store 5 times the energy. Unfortunately we will have to wait a while to see if this breakthrough is something economical and makes it into mass production. For storing electricity from the alternative energy grid, a new mammoth battery is going into operation in Texas. One of the main problems with alternative energy it its intermittent nature. It is good to see some large batteries being tested. This one in Texas will store electricity from wind farms.

Now the distressing news from the alternative energy and EV scene – Project Better Place is scaling back its ambitous plans. They are pulling the plug on battery changing stations in the U.S. and Australia in order to focus on turning a profit in Denmark and Israel. I could see some people crying foul or “conspiracy” seeing two CEOs getting sacked in the past few months – including the founder of the company, but the fact is that in the U.S. and Australia, drivers have longer distances to cover. Denmark and Israel make more sense. Plus, a start-up company needs to eventually make money. The investors who pumped over 800 million into the company are not going to wait around forever.

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Technology

Through the years, I have  often mentioned some of the opportunities available to inventors and entrepreneurs in trying to reshape out energy usage and infrastructure. After my trip to Florida for the last few days, I am reminded of another industry that needs to be disrupted and changed, and that is the airline industry. Unfortunately, this is one that is tougher to crack because of a mountain of regulations and the massive - sunk - legacy costs in the current infrastructure. Congratulations to Southwest for doing what they can to make the flying experience a little cheaper and slightly more convenient, but for the average jane or joe, flying is a nightmare. It is an exercise in patience standing through the myriad of lines for hours (for security, for ticketing, for food, to board and un-board, to claim your bag, to get a rental car, etc…) It is an exercise in hidden costs that make every trip more expensive than you thought. It is an exercise in discomfort as you are crammed into seats, aisles, and bathrooms that don’t fit a lot of people. All this being said, flying is quite nice for anyone who can afford a private jet or to pay for first class – which is sadly just a tiny sliver of society. The rest of us wait for someone to shake up the industry. (side note: most of the people working in the industry are not really to blame, they generally do their best in a flawed system.)

NASA’s (Boeing built) blended wing airplane design

While musing about how horrible flying is, particularly in the U.S., my wife mentioned that we should have airplanes shaped more like “flying saucers”, then there would potentially be more room for people to sit. I have often thought about different aircraft designs, but it is hard to beat the “tube with wings” design for ease of manufacture and ease of flying. Thankfully, some people are working on new designs. Check out this new blended wing design from NASA. It could potentially shave 50% off of fuel costs if it had a state of the art engine. If such airplanes are ever developed, I hope there is some consideration for passenger comfort – a balance to be struck between efficiency and price. If airlines stuff new airplanes with as many seats as possible, we will just be back to square one.

Other than the unpleasantness of flying, my recent trip was enjoyable, and as usual I took note of how things look in a different part of the country – in a different city – from an environmental perspective. At first glance, Orlando does not seem as bad as LA, Phoenix, Miami, or Chicago because it is more spread out. There is plenty of sprawl but it is not as continuous as some other American cities. You will pass many small forests, swamps, and lakes moving from one side of the city to the other. Because the terrain has plenty of trees you cannot see how big the city is from ground level. You cannot see the downtown area from very many locations, so it seems like you might be in a smaller city. However, the problem with Orlando is that mass transit is almost non-existent. If you live in Orlando, you need a car. It is so spread out that it takes 30 minutes or more to complete almost any daily task. Forget about walking. Orlando was built for cars. Sidewalks are hard to find outside of a few select areas. Besides that, it would take you all day to walk to most destinations. Orlando had the distinction (at least as recent as a couple years ago) of having the highest vehicle-pedestrian accident rate in the nation. When there are hardly any sidewalks, that is bound to be a problem. Big cities in the south, like Orlando, also have a big energy budget for air conditioning. I was talking with friends about utility bills and they mentioned how electricity can run in the hundreds of dollars per month range. They asked me what my utility bill was like and I said I paid between $100 and $200 per month for gas and electricity combined. The gas being for heat of course. Heating a domicile, as it turns out, was a rather foreign concept to them. If the climate continues to warm, air conditioning will have to evolve and become more efficient, otherwise the big cities will continue to scorch in the Summer. Air conditioning, while cooling to interior of buildings, adds to the heat outdoors. When you have millions of air conditioning units operating is close quarters (in the city) it only adds to the urban heat island effect.

I didn’t happen to notice much alternative energy. I can’t say that I saw one solar panel or wind turbine. So Phoenix and Denver have Orlando beat in that regard.

Other than having to spend a lot of time driving from destination to destination, Orlando does offer some of the world’s best entertainment in the theme parks. It is also, of course, a nice destination to escape the cold of Winter if you are so inclined.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Environment, Travel