Many blog readers know that I promote conservation and alternative energy in order to reduce pollution and other negative effects on the environment. Throughout the decades of covering this theme, I discovered that many policies pursued for economic growth are diametrically opposed to the goal of limiting our impact on the environment. Take a look at “Housing Starts Are Negative“, “Housing Starts are Positive?”,  or “FED says-build more houses” for more discussion of the topic.

This topic reared its ugly head once again in some housing data released recently. Make sure you are sitting down before continuing on. The supposed “good” economic news in this report is that in Las Vegas, housing building permits are up 57% since last year. Set aside the “building-for-growth’s-sake” detriment for a minute and focus on a couple other items from Las Vegas. According to a University Of Nevada Las Vegas study, the city currently has over 40,000 vacant homes! Even more amazing is that lower and middle income people cannot find houses to buy. Why? Many financial analysts say large investment groups/banks/hedge funds are busy buying up property and building new property using cheap money coming from central banks around the world. See here. This has put upward pressure on homes prices and locked many of modest income out of the market.

So rich investors are buying (and building) to rent even though there is still an ENORMOUS glut of houses on the market in the U.S. Does this strike anyone as environmentally unsound? Does the country really need more sprawl when it already has millions of empty homes and strip malls littering the landscape? Some people are speculating that these investor groups hoping to rent property (a wealth preservation strategy) are going to have a tough go of it because rents will probably fall with so much property available. Renters have thousands of choices, even in small cities. They can pick and choose, and with falling real incomes in the U.S. they are going to be choosing value-priced housing. Which has more than a few people wondering:

Does the country really need another housing bubble and crash?

If the new housing “investors” (including some banks and some federal agencies) lose money AGAIN, will they need a bail out with taxpayer money AGAIN?!!

Shouldn’t we learn from our past mistake(s) and try to build more sustainable infrastructure (including hardening such infrastructure against severe weather). Here is a recent article that is obvious on its face, suburbs should be combining housing, shopping areas, public/government buildings together in order to save space and save energy. This must not be as obvious to some, since building for “economic growth” is the dominant paradigm.

Which brings me back to the thoughts detailed in “Housing Starts Are Negative” and related to some futuristic themes I detailed in “The Faster Changing Future” and “Information as Cheap Commodity“. The world is changing. The population growth rate is declining. Automation is really starting to affect large traditional job markets for humans. Knowing these things, we should be changing our economic way of thinking. Societies should probably focus a bit more on the people that are already here instead of looking to population growth, building more ”houses and roads”, and “consuming” large quantities of stuff as a way out of the morass. Maybe a little population decline would be a good thing. Our economic models would go bust, but the environment would be a lot better off. Maybe people would be better off as well. Maybe the world is crowded enough.

Have a pleasant Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Environment

If you read the blog, you know that I try hard to save energy. Wasting energy is bad for one’s pocketbook and creates extra pollution that we don’t need. I didn’t plan to turn off my lights this weekend for “Earth Hour“, but I was already in bed by 8:30 p.m. so my lights were not on anyway. One thing I have done for the last 7 years in order to save energy (and stay healthy, and save money, and to give me good energy for the morning shift) is ride my bike to work. If more people moved closer to work and either walked or rode bikes, the nation would be a lot healthier and wealthier. I know it is not possible for everyone, but I like to encourage people to give it a try at least.

One would think that state and Federal governments would promote riding bikes, again based health considerations of not only the environment but for individuals. One would think this would be especially true in the state of Washington given that it is the seat of many environmentalist organizations and because state government leaders like to loudly proclaim how environmentally conscious they are. This is not the case. In fact, Washington has now decided to actively discourage the use of bicycles. The newest budget has a proposed bicycle tax of $25 for any bike that costs over $500. At least they are not targeting poor people, but why punish people who are saving the environment (and probably saving the government a lot of money in reduced sick-care bills). If the state government in Washington was serious about pollution, “climate change”, and such things, they would be PAYING people $25 to ride bikes, instead of driving cars.

California Freeway

Unfortunately, many times politicians are known to think short term, plus as a country we have a lot of sunk costs in old infrastructure built to support the automobile. That means there are a lot of jobs and tax revenue to be handed out supporting the “sprawl”. So on the one hand, we have a lot of people proclaiming to be “environmentalists”, while on the other hand supporting huge sums of money to support urban sprawl. In California, they are planning on taxing driving in order to support the humongous and ailing auto-mobile infrastructure, while they are also trying to build a high speed rail. If they really wanted to change the state of affairs they should use the driving tax to support the high speed rail. If they were REAL environmentalists, they would tear up I-5 and lay down train tracks in the same spot. I know, quite a radical idea.

Another place where priorities collide is in the automobile itself. You have probably heard a lot of talk about raising the CAFE standards for autos in the U.S. The current planned regulation is to raise the average fuel efficiency up to 54.5 mpg by 2025. Whatever you think about the government forcing manufacturers to produce cars and trucks in a certain way, 54.5 mpg might seem like a lot. It isn’t. I grew up with many cars that achieved 50 mpg on the highway – 30 years ago! Little diesel VW Rabbits would easily achieve 50 mpg on the highway and with a little practice at hypermiling, probably closer to 60 mpg. I remember the GEO metro easily hitting 50 mpg. So what happened? How come you can’t find a good small cheap car with great gas mileage right now? One of the smallest cars available, the “Smart” cars only get a pathetic 38 mpg on the highway. My 96 Mazda Protege got 38 mpg and it was bigger. And cheaper. So how did even the smallest cars become more expensive and less fuel efficient than 20 or 30 years ago? A lot of it has to do with safety and environmental regulations. It is a trade-off. Airbags, anti-lock brakes, pollution control systems, etc. all add to the weight and the expense of a car. Most people wouldn’t give up the safety features, but it invariably has led to less fuel economy, which adds up to more pollution over the past 10 to 15 years (and might make it tougher to achieve carbon emission goals in the future). Thankfully, technology is helping us out. Newer composite materials are making their way into more automobiles. Manufacturers are also dropping some things that used to be standard, like the spare tire. Wireless systems might also be coming to a car near you. All the electric cables in a vehicle add a bit of weight. If different components of the car communicated wirelessly, no need for so many wires.

Another way in which technology is helping is with the advent of electric cars and driver-less (robot-driven) cars. Government programs to assist with the purchase of electric vehicles are at least not in conflict with environmental concerns (such as with the bike tax).

The latest in driverless autos comes from Japan where they are testing long-haul trucks with the technology.

Also, Audi is testing out their auto-park system. In the article it is stated that real self-driving cars are still ten years away. I doubt it. The cars have already been tested on roads in full traffic and have a stellar record of safety, which shouldn’t come as a surprise. The bots running these cars can sense, act, and react faster than any human. The only remaining hurdles are cost and legal concerns. Unfortunately, these sometimes to take a decade to sort out.

The most interesting EV news comes from BMW. They are going to test out a program where a person who buys an electric vehicle will be able to loan out a gas powered model when they need to take a long trip. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Environment, Pollution

You might have seen some of the scenes of recent pollution in China. The air quality was so bad in Bejing a couple of weeks ago that they could not even “chart” it. The pollution was so bad that it was literally “off the charts”. They need a chart with higher numbers. What’s worse is that the smog blew across the sea of China into Japan. The pollution was still very thick and poisonous. While Japan is busy building the world’s largest offshore wind farm in order to help keep the air clean, China is exporting some nasty pollution. . You might recall that a couple years ago I highlighted the fact that at least 15% of the particulate pollution along the U.S. west coast originates in China.

It is no secret as well that China is now the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide – by a large margin. U.S. carbon emissions are at a couple decade low and continue to decline. I don’t want this to be a screed against the Chinese people who are making a living the best they can. Bravo to the many who are also actively  working to clean up the environment, live efficiently, or find solutions to the pollution. However, I have to wonder why environmentalists are not protesting China. For years, citizens of the U.S. have had to endure withering criticism about their standard of living, their reliance on fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide emissions. Where is the pressure on China?

Very recently the very outspoken and political climate researcher James Hansen was arrested for protesting the Keystone pipeline plans here in the U.S. Did he even consider protesting at the site (China) of the world’s worst pollution and carbon emissions? Maybe he stayed in the U.S. as a matter of convenience.

There is a new group called 50 over 50 which recruits baby-boomers to engage in climate-related protests. I wonder if they have planned any protests in China? If not, why not?

The UN is still pressuring the U.S. government to do more about climate change. I have a hard time finding any kind-of strongly worded statements or “pressure” being publicly applied to the Chinese government.

Lawsuits are a burgeoning topic in the AGW story. Lawyers/plaintiffs are suing businesses like Exxon and there are even rumblings of countries suing other countries. However, I have yet to read about any lawsuits be leveraged against the Chinese government or Chinese companies. Does anyone have any idea why? Leave a comment if you have some insight.

Greenpeace is still protesting around the world. They recently tried to block some oil drilling development in the Arctic and sat on top of the parliment building in England. I am unaware of any plans Greenpeace has to disrupt the government of the world’s biggest carbon and pollution emitting nation. What could be the reason? Someone who is reading this blog must know.

Maybe China is just tackling it on their own, like many other nations, after seeing how the Kyoto accord was a waste of time on money. Rapidly increasing pollution and carbon emissions would argue otherwise, but it is a possibility.

If you are worried about climate change and pollution, you might not be able to do much about the problems half way around the world, but there is no reason to despair. Yes, there could be some climate fluctuations and associated problems, but we (as humans) always seem to figure a way to adapt or clean things up (especially here in the U.S.) While many climatologists and activists are fatalistic, often saying that “extreme global warming is unavoidable” or that we are “already past the tipping point”, I beg to differ. Years ago people laughed at the idea that carbon dioxide (to the extent that it directly affects the climate) could be taken out of the atmosphere. It is a tough problem, no doubt, but it is not impervious to science and engineering. Not only is there new and improving technologies for burning coal with hardly any carbon emissions, but new catalysts are being developed that will more efficiently take carbon dioxide out of the air. Even in the theoretically worst case scenario where heat builds to dangerous levels, there are cheap methods that could block out sunlight and cool things down again. I don’t like the thought of blocking out sunlight because of potential negative side effects, but it is an option.

Have a pleasant Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Environment

I spend quite a bit of time analyzing how our economy and lifestyle here in the U.S. affects our ability to protect the environment and develop a cleaner energy future. One of the biggest problems we have is that we are an automobile-based society. Most all of the infrastructure you see around the nation is meant for supporting automobiles. Most of our cities are not built for people – they are built for cars (check out this past blog post - the concrete life). Not only is the infrastructure causing environmental problems, it is also getting very expensive to maintain. In Divorcing the Car, I mentioned a plan in California to tax driving in order to pay for infrastructure upkeep and improvements. I predicted that the plan would back-fire (slowly). Instead of getting more money to fix the freeways and bridges, people will just figure out ways to drive less, and the state will not collect as much as they figure. The up-side side-effect is that less driving would reduce pollution. 

Recently, I see the idea of taxing driving has spread. It was part of a proposal here in Wisconsin to figure out a way to increase the transportation budget. I am not sure if that part of the proposal is still in the works, but higher car taxes and higher gas taxes are almost certain. It is getting to the point where I am considering getting rid of one of my cars. Maintenance, gas, insurance, and taxes are getting up there. Owning a car is getting to be a pain in the you-know-what. That being said, I do not mind the theory of having people who drive pay for the highways. That is the way it should be. That is the most ethical way. That is the way many toll roads operate in the U.S. Florida – the state that is probably most “married” auto lifestyle – has a great system of toll roads that are in great shape. People who drive on those roads pay for the maintenance. They like it. It works.

Freeway Sprawl in California

Taxing driving in general is very similar (to tolls) but this whole trend explodes the myth of roads being a “common good”. At times in the past when I might complain a little about taxes, some friends or acquaintances speak up and say things like “but taxes pay for roads, and schools, and a whole lot of other things”. They wonder how these things could happen without “general” taxes. Easy. The toll roads in Florida are a successful shining example. What I see in this push to tax driving is a kind-of “tragedy of the commons”. It strikes again. Because people do not directly pay for the roads they drive on (in most cases), it seems that they are “free” or nearly so. In the U.S., because of the dissociation between use and cost, we built way too many sprawling cities and freeways. Now that the cost of maintenance and improvements of this “common good” (infrastructure) is spiraling out of control in a ponzi-like fashion, we are back to proposing user fees/taxes, which would have been better in the first place.

Have a fine Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Environment, Pollution

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

I have complained more than a few times about how the natural landscape in the U.S. has succumbed to sprawl and industrialization in support of our “car culture”, so I was surprised to read an article about how the U.S. has NOT changed all that much since 1960. Bill Steigerwald recently took a trip around the country along the “Steinbeck highway” to see for himself whether or not things have changed. He claims that the country is still “America the mostly beautiful”. I would have to agree that one can see similar things that were seen back in 1960. Qualitatively, the freeways out in fly-over country (outside of the mega cities) are still four lanes like they were back in 1960. The National Parks are the same. You can still find regional differences in cuisine and lifestyle. However, quantitatively, things have definitely changed. The cities are much larger. You have to drive much farther and look harder to find wide open landscapes and unique things. Almost all of this expansion has been of the cookie-cutter-subdivision-strip mall-gas station variety. Chain restaurants and big box stores are everywhere. You have to search and go out of your way to find unique restaurants and shops. Back in 1960, the “uniqueness” was apparent. Today it is not. Not only that, but the traffic is much worse. Unless you are driving through the Great Plains or Desert Southwest, you will encounter traffic all times of the day on freeways all the way down to the smallest town road. There are other things that are much worse nowadays (trash, food insecurity) but we do a good job of hiding them.

Everyday in the USA

It is my opinion that things have changed significantly since 1960 and for the worse – from the perspective of a farm kid growing up in the Wisconsin countryside. I am amazed at all the people who don’t mind being in debt, living in an over-sized house, and spending most of their lives stuck in traffic commuting 50 miles or more on a mega (polluted) freeway. Even more amazing is that influential people in our society have been demanding more and more of the same in order to stimulate economic “growth”. (See this past blog post about the Federal Reserve imploring people to buy and build more houses). Someone else who has been a big proponent of building more ”stuff” in order to stimulate” growth” is nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman. His general theme/suggestion for many years has been to just print and borrow money to build new stuff and we will get ”growth”. If “growth” means a perpetuation of the environmentally unsustainable car-culture we have, then we have gotten ”growth” in spades – and it is crumbling. So it was a breath of fresh air to see such an influential economist to retract a bit. He has finally noticed that “things have changed”. Apparently he is now noticing the technological progress I have been blogging about for years and hopefully you – dear reader – are better prepared for (better than world-leading economists, anyway). The essential Krugman epiphany is that GDP is no longer a good metric of the well-being of the workforce. When everything is automated, creating more “industrial age” stuff, does not create any more “industrial age” jobs. Even worse, using printed or borrowed money to build more “stuff” only leaves us with more to maintain, a mountain of debt (16 trillion and counting in the U.S. alone), and a devalued currency. (For a more scathing critique of Krugman, see here). I am sure economists who have been advocating debt-fueled industrial age growth policies for the last couple of decades were well-intentioned but the results have been horrible (IMO), especially from and environmental perspective, and even from a traditional human social-fabric perspective.

At least the word is getting out. Automation, technological progress, and software advances will affect almost every “job” on the planet and sooner than most people think. I am certainly not immune and I blogged about it here (a very good read, IMO). Another good read is this recent in depth article from Wired about how robotics are going to change the world. It is a fairly optimistic read about how people will still find jobs even as robots come to fill our factories, hospitals, and homes. I am not so optimistic about people finding rewarding future careers in a manner that has occurred in past economic revolutions. The new jobs will require greater creative problem solving skills and a deeper knowledge of science that most of the labor force does not possess – not even me. But that dos not mean I am pessimistic about the future of the world in general. There is a good chance the near future world will have an overabundance of material wealth. I am optimistic about the welfare of individuals but apprehensive about how our technology will change us. In sci-fi terms, the future looks less like Star Fleet and more like the Borg.

Have a swell Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Environment, Pollution, Technology

In the last few years I am continually and increasingly amazed at the antagonistic themes of environmental protection and economic growth. Both can happen at the same time, just not in the traditional industrial sense. Unfortunately, it seems leaders of the developed world continue to speak out of both sides of their mouth. They claim to be concerned about the environment, but at the same time continue to push for economic “growth” in the 20th century industrial sense of the word.

I was particularly appalled at the recent Federal Reserve statement pushing people to buy more homes, complaining that they (The FED) could only do so much to re-invigorate the housing market, and that banks, non-profit organizations, and private citizens needed to do their part. Set aside the fact that demographic and income trends make it very difficult for the housing markt to “recover”, a booming housing market would be terible for the environmnt. Why would we want to build millions of new homes, when by some estimates we already have well over 10 million vacant homes in the country and possibly as many as 20 million. Building new single family homes can only be done by developing more subdivisions and increasing sprawl. If all the new houses were zero net energy houses like this demonstration house,

NIST zero net energy house

then maybe the FED’s desperate attempt to recreate a housing bubble would make a little environmntal sense, but that is not what is hapenning. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against people saving money and building a new house (living in their “dream house”), I just don’t think it is wise (economically or environmntally) for the government and Federal Reserve to push people to buy and build new houses.

But that is a dilema in a consumer dominated/defined economy. People need to buy “stuff” in order for the traditional metrics of economic “growth” or economic ”health” to be positive. How many times have you heard financial reporters talk about retail sales and Black Friday shopping? More is better, right? How many times have you heard DC politicians speak about propping up the housing market or building new manufacturing and office facilities? A lot of building space that we don’t really need considering the fact that many companies from IBM to First Solar are reducing their reliance on taditional office space. If the world is really soon approaching an environmental catastrophe, then the last thing the government should be encouraging people to do is build more, buy more, travel more, etc… As I have mentioned before, I think focusing on things like health, happiness, and efficiency would be better for individuals and better for the environment. Much better than the buy stuff, build stuff, pave-over-the-land economic model foisterd upon us by our “leaders”.

But then maybe I am an old codger, an old stick-in-the-mud, caught in the developing world of abundance. I grew up in a setting of hard work, saving, honesty, and self-reliance. Things have changed. Despite the ongoing recession in the U.S., we still have a wealth of material abundance and obesity rates continue to climb. Debt and bailouts continue to climb as saving recedes.  Many futurists expect that because of our growing technological prowess we will have even more abundance in the future – getting more GDP with less energy input. Is over-consumption (instead of creating, conserving, or producing) the wave of the future? Am I “missing the boat” being frugal, saving for the future, and living efficiently to help protect the environment?

Judging by the dire predictions from anthropogenic global warming theorists, the consumption-based economy may be headed for (or helping to create) a disaster. If the consumer economy did go off the rails, if technological progress cannot keep up with over-consumption, I would not be surprised. Many past societies have crashed very near the time it was thought everything was great and getting better. What do you think? Is it a bad thing that there is such a focus on consumption (and building more) for economic gowth? Or, will we be able to quickly solve environmental and other problems as soon as they pop-up and continue living blissfully in a world of vast material abundance?

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Environment, Technology

Does biofuel have a future? I cover the many different angles of alternative energy, pollution, and climate here in the blog and you probably remember that in the last few years I have soured on most of the biofuel industry – especially grain ethanol.

I have nothing against the actual people who work in the industry or the farmers that grow the crops. It just isn’t turning out to be a productive activity for the economy and society as a whole. From an environmental perspective, even under the most ideal set-ups, grain ethanol here in the U.S. has an EROI barely over 1. Using up 40% of the corn crop (food) and barely getting anything for it, doesn’t seem like the best way to go. Food prices are already surging this Fall. Can you imagine if another dry period strikes the U.S. next growing season? U.S. grain exports to the rest of the world are falling dramatically because we are burning so much of the food in our cars (as ethanol). Wouldn’t it better if the corn was shipped around the world for people to eat?

From an economic perspective, most new biofuel companies haven’t been able scale their processes up and make a profit. If there wasn’t a mandate and subsidies for grain ethanol – those types of producers would mostly fail as well. I have reported on quite a few biofuel companies through the years and an increasing number of them are now going bankrupt. Even oil giant BP is giving up on their large biofuel investment, saying that withhout government support, is will not be economically feasible for them. Another sign that biofuel companies are having major trouble is that many of them are now turning to natural gas instead of other feedstock material. Natural gas is so cheap that it is easier for them to make heavy liquid fuels out of nat gas than say corn, or wood chips, or other plants material. That’s fine from a technical perspective, but it makes no sense from an environmental perspective. Biofuels were supposed to be CARBON NEUTRAL! By using nat gas, they are just pumping more carbon into the air. Making biofuel from waste material is at least more rational from an economic perspective. Joule and Cool Planet Biofuels have been working on the waste-stream angle which is good. If the material is going to waste then why not turn it into fuel (as long as it can be done at a profit). One of the concerns I have is about the amount of waste material that is available. There are only so many wood chips and agricultural waste to go around. Most of these companies say they will be profitable when they are producing millions of gallons per year. If they are all trying to use waste material, then they might find ”shortages” or that the price of “waste materials” will go up. A second concern is that if the material was going to be recycled anyway (perhaps as compost or landscaping material) then why make fuel out of it? Making fuel out of it requires that the waste material be shipped to the biofuel plant, converted to liquid hydrocarbon fuel and then shipped out again. Sapphire Energy has one of the best demostrations of biofuel thus far. They use algae and carbon from the air to create oil. This is probably the most neutral out of all the carbon “neutral” biofuel schemes, but Sapphire is still producing liquid hydrocarbons supporting a liquid hydrocarbon economy. (Aside: Cool Planet Biofuel’s process is not really carbon negative because they plan on using/selling the biochar by-product. It would only potentially be carbon negative if they buried/sequestered the biochar).

Also, hanging over all of this is an efficiency question. Why convert various carbon sources into liquid fuel when we could be transitioning more over to electric. Electricity can be produced in situ (solar panels, wind, and geothermal) and delivered more efficiently. Yes, liquids currently pack a lot more energy into a particular volume (than batteries), but there are many other advantages of using electricity, and batteries get better every year. Solar panels get more efficient and cheaper every year. Besides solar, thorium nuclear power is another possible safe source of electric energy in the future. India looks like it is finally getting around to building a thorium nuclear power plant. Good for them. The world needs a demonstration of the technology and the U.S. is apparently uninterested.

Of course, the reason for all the focus on alternative fuels and carbon sources is the theory that the earth will be destroyed by anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Whether you accept the theory/sceince or not, an electrified economy still seems like the way to go in the short to medium term (say…the next couple decades). Not only is electricity more efficient, it fits better with our evolving information revolution. Our most important tools in the modern day are now electronic tools. Cell phones, computers, and the Internet are driving the bus now. The information economy is less reliant on “moving mass” and “building things”. It is becoming more valuable to move bits and ideas, and build algorithms. Besides fitting better with our information society, electricity (from solar power or developing nuclear technologies) is just more futuristic. We used to dream big about the future in America. We used to dream about traveling to the stars. The internal combustion engine is so “last century”. Wind mills/turbines are so “the century before last”. Hydrocarbons are so “last millenium”.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Environment

As promised, today I will share some thoughts and pictures from my recent trip to the desert – Phoenix. I would talk a little more about hurricane Sandy, but Rob already did a great job in yesterday’s blog entry and it is dominating all media coverage already on TV, cable, radio, Internet, newspapers, so maybe this will be a little reprieve. The most interesting aspect of Sandy on our weather is that it will prevent many changes here in Wisconsin. The big storm along the east coast is clogging up the flow of weather across the U.S. and that means what we have now will linger for a few more days. High will be in the 40s, low will be in the 20s, and we will have partly or mostly sunny skies.

Phoenix at night, a river of light (traffic) stretches out miles into the distance

What about Phoenix? I have been there three times and unfortunately I am less impressed every time, because it gets bigger, hotter, more polluted, and less distinct every time. It is a classic “sprawling environmental disaster” – a term I use more frequently nowadays to describe cities in the U.S. It seems in the past there was some consideration as to the aesthetic of the cities we live in. People wanted buildings to look unique. Citizens were more involved in the planning process to make sure the city had a heart. Downtowns were dynamic,  alive, and vibrant and the neighborhoods were cleaner and quieter. During the last couple of decades and especially during the housing boom after 2001, planning took a back seat to laying as much pavement, building as many subdivisions, and erecting as many stripmalls as possible. In the sense that people end up with what they really want, then sprawling environmental disasters must have some purpose.

Looking out the hotel window: cars and pavement

Maybe I am just an old stick in the mud, proposing that denser, smarter, more aesthetic cities (and conversely, a less developed countryside with more open natural space or room for farming) would be a better way to go.

Before anyone jumps in to defend Phoenix, realize that I have used the term “sprawling environmental disaster” for most of the cities I have visited. Cities in flyover country (including here in Wisconsin) have spread far out into the farmland and forestland. L.A. is probably worse than Phoenix, and they would probably admit to it, having the traffic and pollution numbers to back it up. The Chicago metropolis is bigger than Phoenix but it does have a more unique and traditional downtown area. The knock on Phoenix is that there isn’t much of a downtown. There isn’t much structure to the city.

Typical scenery in Phoenix

An endless repetition of small office centers, stripmalls, gas stations, freeways, and subdivisions stretch out into the horizon, no matter what direction you are traveling. In some ways, the layout does make sense. Phoenix is a big retirement area. People move there and want to live in a quiet clean neighborhood, not a bustling downtown.

Because of the nature of the community (a lot of retirees), there are some great golf courses, some wealthy enclaves with beautiful houses, and some upscale shopping. You will find some pockets of art as well. Another positive of the city is that they do grow a lot of urban trees. There are not a lot of parks but the city and region does maintain a good number of trees, which does take some effort in the desert. I might talk negative about Phoenix from an environmental perspective, but I would definitely consider it an option for “snow-bird” type retirement.

More typical Phoenix scenery

Of course it is hot down there. Residents around Phoenix say the Summer in the valley of the sun is similar to Winter in Wisconsin – everyone just stays indoors for about 4 months. If you do not have access to air conditioning, you could die – literally. And here is where the sprawl comes into play. A smarter city with less pavement, traffic, and sprawl, would reduce the heat island effect. Instead of baking in 110 to 120 during the peak of Summer, Phoenix residents would more routinely have 105 to 110 degree high temps during the hottest time of year. It would make a big difference.

What would also make a big difference is more alternative energy and this is another positive aspect about the Phoenix area. They do have more solar installation than the rest of the nation, but it is still a very small portion of their energy picture.

Kudos to the owner of this building with solar panels

I saw about one or two buildings with solar panels about  every large city block. I asked a resident of Phoenix why more people don’t have solar panels, since it is such a sunny place. He gave the same answer as most people – it is too expensive. I told him that the payback on solar powered exhaust fans and solar heated water are much quicker than for solar panel installations designed to power the house. He said he would look into it because the third floor of his house was always uncomfortably hot even with the AC running full blast.

Many thanks to all the people who left comments in the blog a while back about some of the most value-oriented options for solar power! I am looking into some of these options. Spreading the word is good!

A cool picture of clouds and the airplane engine looking out the window.

Like many other cities, Phoenix is in an infrastructure trap. The infrastructure cost of maintaining the sprawl is getting to be a large burden. The tax base has shrunk because housing prices have gone down dramatically. I am sure they would love to redesign some things, maybe put in some more passenger rail or have more efficient dense living space downtown, but that costs a lot of money as well. Contraction or re-design might only come after bankruptcy or default. That is what is happening in Spain. Like the U.S., Spain had a housing and infrastructure boom/bust. They built some of the best highways in Europe. They intended to help pay for the highways through tolls, which is usually a very smart (and fair) move. Unfortunately, the economy in Spain has crashed so far that the “highways” are now bankrupt. No one is driving the new roads and paying tolls. Spain did build some high speed train lines during the boom, and I think they should keep those open and try to save them. The trains are new and more efficient. They should just tear up the highways when they fall into disrepair.

Many demographic and social trends are pointing away from “the car” anyway. It would be a waste of money to continue building up more expensive highways. I even wonder about the wisdom of expanding the roads here in Wausau. If the history of other cities in the U.S. is any guide, building more highways only increases traffic, congestion, and pollution. Interesting to note, our news department has an feature story coming up about how younger generations are not as enthused about getting a car as older generations were. I have written about this in the blog before (rentership society). The reasons have to do with cost and connections. Cars (and their operating expenses) get more expensive every year. Younger generations are also more connected because of the Internet. They can see each other, talk, work, earn a living, and play games, all without leaving the house.

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Environment, Pollution, Travel

It is almost that time of year to do something really dumb! No, not dress up as Gumbi, have too many adult beverages, and fall flat on your face at a Halloween party. It is nearly that time of year for Daylight Savings Time! (DST) Check out this past blog post to read about the myriad of ways DST is bad for people, bad for the economy, and bad for the environment (Check out Standard Time or this facebook page for more opinions). Yes, it is really a dumb thing to do – something that was devised to help with energy conservation back when people lit their homes with whale blubber oil. I got news for everyone – we have electricity and light bulbs now. It is the 21st century.

I used to be like everyone else, just mindlessly changing my clock every Fall and every Spring because the government said so (and everyone else is doing it, so not changing your clocks would be a pain). Not everything the government says is correct or well-reasoned, and this is one of those cases. I used to believe the old idea that DST saves energy – that it made sense. It doesn’t. Despite loads of evidence about the negative outcomes of DST, pretty much everyone will go along with it again this year. In fact some people defend it quite vigorously, even without knowing the facts (such as - it WASTES energy!)

Defending DST on the fact that it is nice during the warm/Summer season in the northern part of the country to have an extra hour of daylight after work – is at least a defense based in reality. I understand. Keeping the “Summer” time all year long would be better than doing nothing. However, in the countries that have dropped DST (because it is stupid), and the states (part of Indiana and Arizona) that do not change their clocks, everything is fine. No one complains. I should know, I just got back from Arizona. Everyone was enjoying life and they don’t have to deal with all the negative side effects of DST.

Have a nice Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Education, Environment, Seasonal Items