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 few years ago, I highlighted the seemingly conflicting predictions that the “world-was-going-to-end” because of increasing use of fossil fuels and resultant anthropogenic global warming (AGW) vs the “world-was-going-to-end” because we were running out of fossil fuels. I contacted some people from both sides, and they both essentially said they were right but the other side was kind-of right too. You can reference this interview with Dr. Hirsch for some background. At that point, nearly three years ago, Dr. Hirsch put the time frame for negative repercussions from “Peak Oil” at 2 to 5 years. It hasn’t happened yet, and I doubt it will happen in the next 2 years. It seems we have a pretty balanced confluence of new sources of oil keeping production at necessary levels while at the same time deriving a greater percent of energy needs from renewables. The price of oil is high, and similar to the prediction of many Peak Oil theorists, I think it will remain high and go higher during the short term. I think it will remain fairly high (within a few percent of its current price) even if the world economy dips further than it already has. Hirsch and others are correct that new sources of oil (and other hydrocarbons) are harder (expensive) to produce, but they are more plentiful than most thought. Natural gas supply continue to rise as well which should help to blunt and shock from traditional oil source shortages. So it would seem the AGW theorists have won the argument for the time being. I would say they were more correct than peak oil theorists, however, I still am not

This topic came into my mind once again because of the recent night image of the earth released by NASA. Check it out here. Scroll down the page and you will find a map you can zoom in on. Curiously, there seems to be a huge new city that popped up in western North Dakota. Without actually contacting NASA or the Energy Department to find out with more certainty, I am going to confidently speculate that the “huge city” is just the thousands of oil and gas rigs that have been built up in that part of the country. (as an aside, Egypt is one of the more interesting features on the nighttime map, you can easily see that nearly the entire population of the country lives along the Nile river).

So it would seem the AGW theorists have won the argument for the time being. I would say they were more correct than Peak Oil theorists, however, I still am not convinced that human society as a whole will continue to use increasingly more fossil fuels for decades into the future. From what I can see, the increasingly expensive fossil fuels are allowing more renewables to be deployed. Technological progress continues to allow us more GDP per unit energy. These trends should continue into the future. Also, even if we do use more fossil fuels 50 years from now, they will be used/burned in ways that impact the environment less. In addition, there are more and more companies devising ways to take carbon dioxide out of the air. As I have mentioned in the past, there is nothing stopping us from taking carbon dioxide out of the air except the lack of determination. Reversing the process will not be easy, but if carbon dioxide is going to destroy the environment (doubtful), sequestration will happen. Newscientist recently ran an article about a few of the companies that are already developing cabon negative liquid fuel (registration required). I doubt these things will scale (economically) very well, but at least it is evidence that it can be done and that we are not doomed and ”past the point of no return” as so many climate theorists claim.

Besides carbon negative fuels and sequestration, the outlook for renewables and electrification of the economy looks quite promising (in my opinion). I know there are significant technological and economic hurdles to overcome but the main problems I have seen are “institutional”. People have a hard time imagining a world without the very successful and useful internal combustion engine. The benefits of electric motors are numerous, which will help convince some people, but the bigger change that is coming is generational. Younger generations swim in a world of information. We are becoming experts at moving electrons and data, and moving these things around is much easier and more efficient than moving liquid fuel and massive objects. My feeling is that things (self-driving electric vehicles, immersive virtual reality, solar power, etc…) will fall into place more rapidly than people expect.

Don’t think renewables could power the grid within a decade or two? Think again. A University of Delaware study has shown that it could be done by 2030 at a comparable cost to what we pay for maintaing and powering our current power grid. The technology already exists. The key is to pair renewable sources with proper storage to eliminate the problem of intermediate power outpout from solar panels and wind turbines. Of course, if technological progress continues, maybe it (renewable power grid) could be done before 2030.

As you know, I am not a big fan of covering the earth with millions of wind turbines, but solar panels are a different story. There is plenty of “already used” space (rooftops) for solar panel deployment. SolarCity is one company aiming to secure that productive real estate. In a positive sign for the solar business, they are expected to offer an IPO this week. Now even though I a proponent of solar power, and I missed a good opportunity to invest in FirstSolar in the beginning, I am not so sure I would perosnally buy stock in SolarCity. They have not turned a profit thus far and they are somwhat dependent upon government subsidies. If you were thinking about installing solar panels, maybe give them a ring. I am unsure if SolarCity installs here in Wisconsin (if not now, then maybe after the IPO), but they do really bring down the cost of panel installation – and solar panel prices are currently the lowest in years. It might be a good opportunity to get off the grid.

Even though the market for solar power has been rough over the last couple of years (due to the ongoing recession), science continues to advance and panels should continue to improve. The tough market is not stopping Silevo from ramping up production of their more cost-conscious solar panels. Just last week, Sharp announced a new efficiency record for triple junction compound solar cells at 37.7%. Wow! Princeton researchers have used the properties of plasmonic cavities to triple the efficiency of typical organic solar cells (the process reduces reflections off the surface). In more speculative research, computer simulations show that integrating nano-sized semiconducting funnels into solar panels could allow them to more easily absorb light from more of the electro-magnectic spectrum. In a more here-and-now story, Google has thus far been able to fend off rather extreme environmental regulations in order to build the giant Ivanpah solar “farm” in southern California (cool pictures). I could go on. We might have some troubling things going on in the world and economy right now but there are good things happening as well. Progress continues.

Have a fine Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Peak Oil, Technology

I have been following the developing ethanol story for a few years now and it has certainly come back into focus with the drought and heat of 2012. In the beginning, about a decade ago, I was supportive of ethanol research and production in order to see if it made sense in the alternative energy picture. After a couple of years, it became clear to me, that ethanol (particularly grain/corn ethanol) was not worth it. Biodiesel from waste materials or algae make better sense, even if they are not perfect long term solutions.

So lately I have been discussing the increasing downsides of grain ethanol here in the U.S., which are many and growing bigger by the day (literally), but I know there are many steadfast supporters, including some friends and aquaintances who work in the industry, so here is an article discussing the ethanol debate from the economic perspective of the grain-growers and the ethanol producers. Several small ethanol producers have been forced to close down due to the high price of the feed stock. Corn growers are starting to battle animal and food producers over the ethanol mandate. One thing I cannot get my head around is how ethanol producers can go out of business when the government mandates the product. Even if the corn price goes up, the ethanol blenders still have to buy it? Right? I suppose there is still some competition between ethanol plants. Maybe the big operators produce enough to meet the mandate and the weakest players are now being weeded out.

It will only get worse in coming months and I predict the ethanol producers will lose out in the end if food prices continue to rise. If the ethanol mandate is taken away, most of them will shut down because there isn’t a large free market for their product (mainly booze, I guess, but I always figured distillers made their own). It is one of the inevitable side effects when the government tries to pick losers and winners in energy or almost any other aspect of life. Did you hear? Not only is the U.S. government NOT relaxing the ethanol mandate, they (already 16 trillion in debt) are going to start buying meat in order to help the market for livestock producers. To me, it seems they are just going to make a bad situation worse. Just like biofuel mandates (around the world) have had unintended consequences such as the destruction of a lot of forests,, buying up the meat on the market (I am worried) might lead to further disruptions in the market down the road. What ever happened to the America where people saved money for a rainy day and were resourceful enough to solve their own problems? I am not sure, but I blogged about such a time over 100 years ago.

In any case, I predict food will win out over fuel in the end – if it comes to that. It would be terrible if people end up starving because of the U.S. ethanol mandate. Some people have already been predicting unrest and riots over the rising food prices. I feel for the grain producers and the ethanol plant workers, but mother nature and rationality would seem to be against them. What do you think?

In a somewhat related matter (ethanol production takes a lot of water), the U.S. has been experiencing disruptions in electricity production due to the hot and dry weather. It makes one consider the fragility of “the grid”. The one massive energy grid of the U.S. is probably not the most robust system. It would probably be better if more regions were energy independent and if there were more off-grid businesses and domiciles. If the grid goes down for an extended period of time, we would be in a heap of trouble.

Wind energy has been making strides in recent years for off-grid and on-grid applications but growth might slow in coming years because the future of the wind energy credit is in doubt. I wouldn’t mind a slowing of wind mill projects because I am not a big fan. I would rather see more solar panels – on rooftops. 

What I find strange is that the wind credit is needed while oil is still near $100 a barrel. Many years ago, one of the arguments for wind (and other alternative energy credits) was that it was more expensive than oil, so people needed an incentive to adopt it. The price of wind power hasn’t changed much in the intervening time, but the price of oil has skyrocketed from $20 a barrel back in the late 1990s. Shouldn’t wind power be more attractive now? I have often thought the the true economic and scientific test of whether an alternative energy source is viable, is if it can power its own production (with excess to spare). That is, if a solar panel manufacturing plant can produce solar panels using only power from its own solar panels AND make a profit, then it is a viable technology. So far there is no real world test of this nature for wind and solar, as far as I am aware. At least solar power has more efficiency upside in the future. Grain ethanol fails the test and there is little hope for it to get much better.

Have a swell Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Ag Weather, Alternative Energy

One of the reasons for the recent spike in gas prices across our area is the rise in the price of ethanol (some refinery maintenance and the pipeline spill also contributed). So why would the price of ethanol be rising? It is the drought, of course. The price of corn has risen dramatically in anticipation of a worse than expected crop. There will also likely be a rise in the price of many foods, including meat. For consumers, it could be a double dose of expenses hitting American walllets, and, it doesn’t have to be that way. Grain ethanol (made primarily from corn), is mandated to be mixed with gasoline. The government forces gas distributors/companies to sell fuel with ethanol, and thus food (whether for animals or people) is burned in car engines. This policy kind-of made sense a decade ago, at least to try it out, but times have changed. I wonder how high food (or gas) prices will have to go before people decide to bring and end to “burning food”. If ethanol prices add another 10 cents to the price of gas will people start to get more upset? What about 20 cents? If the price of corn flakes jumps from about $3 per box to $5 per box, will people start writing their government representatives about the ethanol mandate? What do you think?

The problems with (grain) ethanol are many and a few of those problems affect other alternative energies as well. Wind and solar power receive quite a few subsidies from the government (not only in the U.S. but around the world). The putative reason for the generous subsidies is that it will be good for the environment, bring pollution levels down, and help stave off some of the theoretical future AGW. Without government subsidies, the alternative energy industry would be much smaller. I was surprised to find out that even wind power, which has the best EROI out of all the current technologies, receives massive subsidies from the government. There are multiple reasons why wind power is not as good as it is claimed to be, but one of the main reasons for me is that they spoil the natural landscape. I am amazed at how so many rich environmental advocates of wind power are “advocates” for turbines everywhere except in their backyard. When some people in wind turbine areas complain about the noise or the spoiled scenery, the generic reaction is “stop whining, it is good for you”. If you are not on the wind power bandwagon, like me, it is not looking good for the future. Massive wind farms are being fast-tracked for the Great Lakes. Some people are speculating we could get 80% of our power from alternative sources by 2050 if we install 2500 new wind turbines every year.  2500!

Wind Turbines Everywhere

I can’t imagine where all of those turbines would go. If the government is going to spend the money and I can’t stop them, then I would rather see them buy solar panels. If the government was actually installing solar panels, maybe we wouldn’t continue to see bankruptcies like this one: Abound Solar. With solar panels, there is no need to spoil the natural landscape. We already have plenty of space for them – the space is called rooftops. Not only do we have plenty of space, but the power is generated exactly where it is needed, meaning there is not as much need for new transmission lines and all the headaches (environmental or otherwise) that go along with installing them. Don’t forget that solar power still has a good potential for improvement. Wind power is about the same as it was in the past and will not improve much (efficiency-wise) in the future.

Of course, the argument for subsidies is that no one would build alternative energy infrastructure if it wasn’t for government support. To that point, I would alternatively wonder how strong the environmentalist support actually is? There are plenty of very rich outspoken supporters of alternative energy. Maybe they should start making some real financial sacrifices for the future of the planet and put money up for all of the solar and wind power build-out. Billions of dollars of private wealth are certainly available from rich celebrities to obscenely wealthy environmentalist politicians. I would say a person is not much of an environmental activist if they only support new alternative energy infrastructure if it is paid for by someone else (through taxation or money printing).

On a more positive note, there is finally an entire country that is going to attempt going (nearly) fully solar. It is Tokelau. Population: about 1,700. The cost to outfit the island nation with enough solar capacity to meet its needs is about $7 million. Subsidized or not, this will be an important test bed to see how solar holds up through the years.

It seems there are no easy answers for our energy needs, or are there? One neglected energy source is thorium nuclear power. Of course, many people immediately shriek in horror at the mention of anything nuclear, but thorium nuclear power is much different then uranium nuclear power. It is cleaner. It is more efficient. It is cheaper. Is is safer. The waste material degrade much faster. I could go on. An interesting historical note is that thorium nuclear power was preferred by many scientists a few decades ago when nuclear power first got its start, but the likely reason it did not take off is because governments could not make nuclear weapons from the waste material. Thus we are currently stuck with uranium reactors. Here is the website of one of thorium’s chief supporters. I have blogged about it before as well. It would be a shame if this energy source was not exploited or at least tested.

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Environment, Wind

One of the themes I touch upon often in the blog is the contrast between apocalyptic environmental trends/predictions and the promise of technological progress/prosperity (check out “Information as Cheap Commodity” and “The Promise and Peril” for some good past content).

As people in the manufacturing industry know all to well, automation produces a cornucopia of products we need and want, all the while requiring less labor and less energy. The “green energy sector” is also feeling the encroachment of automation. When several governments across the globe promised thousands (maybe even millions in aggregate) of new jobs through green energy investment. Spain was the first country to find out that government investment in green energy didn’t produce net jobs. The U.S. made the same promises and got about the same result (detailed in the second half of this blog post). The trend is especially acute in the solar industry. The process of making the panels is highly automated and once the panels are installed, there isn’t a whole lot of labor required to keep a large solar array running. The price of installing the panels could come down even more by eliminating more labor through the use of robots. Check out this story about a German designed robot that installs large panels. What used to take 35 people now only takes 3 with the help of the robot. Even more spectacular is that the robot can install a large field of ground-mounted solar panels in one-eighth the time. To some, this might seem like bad news, because less people will have jobs installing solar panels, but if the ultimate goal is to switch the economies of the world over to cleaner energy sources, then it should not matter. Installation is now the biggest cost associated with solar. The cheaper and more efficiently we can install more solar capacity the better.

Self-driving cars in Spain

Another automation trend I have been following lately is the self-driving car. The latest achievement was a convoy of autonomous cars rolling down a freeway in Spain. I know some people might scoff at the idea of computers driving cars, but computers already fly commercial jet airplanes and drive most of the passenger trains in the world (human “pilots” are mainly there for emergency situations). These forms of travel are extremely safe as compared to driving a car. I have no doubt computers (self-driving cars) will make our highways much less of a human slaughterhouse (35,000 to 40,000 dead per year in the U.S. alone!) in the near future. This of course means that professional drivers will probably suffer some degree of unemployment.

Another thought dawned on me the other day in regards to development of self-driving cars. It could spell the end of traditional radio. Think about it. I mainly listen to the radio in my car as do millions of other people who commute and/or get stuck in traffic on a daily basis. Most other things you could do in a car are officially illegal. So we are a captive audience. It is one of the last profitable captive audiences left for radio stations. Once we have self-driving cars, then you will be able to do pretty much whatever you want while riding around. Sure, you could just sit there and listen to the radio for entertainment, but I think most people would rather watch TV, surf the Internet, eat, play games with friends, what-not. If I had a self-driving car I would certainly take longer trips by car instead of flying. A 20 hours trip would not be so bad if you could sleep, play, and work while the car drove. It sure beats standing around in security lines at the airport, getting held-up by the TSA, and paying ever more expensive and numerous fees to get on a plane with luggage.

Have a good Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Technology

Last week I mentioned how strange it is that some self-declared environmentalists need to be convinced that science and technology offer some of the best hope for lessening our impact on the “natural world”. This should not be a controversial subject since humans are known as the “tool-maker” species on the planet. We have always used our brains and creative talent to improve our lot in life and to clean up some of the messes we have left behind. There is a danger in our technology getting to powerful and out of control, but it is a chance we should take, in my opinion, because the benefits are also quite great.

Currently, one of the least controversial technologies is computing. Everyone uses it. It makes our lives better. The impact on the environment is probably less than many other “things” we use, although it is not negligible because computing and moving data does take some energy. It should be a no-brainer to turn computation loose on some of our most pressing environmental concerns and the National Research Council agrees – stating that computing advances are vital. Entrepreneur Bill Gross also agrees, pointing to how the decreasing cost of computing will assist in the adoption of more expensive alternative energy.

the Kraken Super Computer

One would think that even bigger computational power at our disposal would in the near future would be even better, and it would be, but we cannot forget the power-usage aspect of computers and data. That is the point from a recent Intel conference on super computing. They are projecting that an exascale super computer will be built by the year 2018. The main impediment to such a development is power consumption. If current computer technology was used to create an exascale super-computer, they would have to build a nuclear power plant right next to it in order to make sure it had enough power. The challenge is to keep the power requirement under 20 MW (yes, that is megawatts!). This is still a lot of energy, but it would be manageable.

Thusly, it is a good thing that computer components such as chips and transistors ontinue to see gradual improvement in power and performace metrics. One potential dramatic breakthrough could come from emitter-coupled spin-transistor logic which has the potential to be 1 million times more power efficient at high computing speeds than traditional computer circuitry.

One company that you would think to be well positioned to leverage computing power toward alternative energy solutions would be Google. After all, they do have their campus in Mountain View littered with solar panels. The idea of transforming the energy landscape was not lost on Google and they tried their best to create their own alternative energy division/project but unfortunately it didn’t quite pan out. I am still heartened to read that they spend around a billion dollars a year on alternative energy for their operations. I hate to say it, but that is a lot better than Apple, a company that has plenty of money to spare for alternative energy.

Have a fine Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Environment, Technology

Here is an interesting story that I have been too busy to discuss in recent days, and it is something that regular blog readers were well aware of over the last couple of years – and that is - wind turbines cause local warming in their places of operation. A recent study of large wind farms in Texas has shown that the farms cause warmer temperatures, particularly at night. The wind turbines keep the air “mixed” and thus the air cannot “settle down” overnight and allow temperatures to drop as much as they otherwise would. This of course has caused some snickers of irony from some AGW skeptics. It should be understood that the wind turbines don’t cause “global warming” (directly), but the warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere will affect local microclimates. Average annual temperatures for people in the “business end of the atmosphere” (the boundary layer) will go up around large wind farms.

Notice the word “directly” used just above. I say directly because wind power, while touted as the most viable alternative energy solution based on EROI, is certainly not perfect. I have mentioned many of the quandaries and problems with large scale wind power before but I also wonder about the lifetime costs of a large turbine. I am unsure if the total cost is accurately accounted for. Cement production is one of the largest contributors to fossil fuel emissions around the world and every large turbine sits on a mammoth block of cement. Many of the parts of a wind turbine require rare metals and minerals which need to be mined. Large wind farms require new high power transmission lines to be installed which adds to the total cost. There is also the issue of back-up power plants that need to be in operation or built for the times the wind is not blowing. Also, what is probably left out of the life-cycle cost is the decommissioning expense. Much of the wind turbine installation and operation is also subsidized, so the true costs are hidden in that manner as well.

One of the more unfortunate facets of wind farm operation is the effect on flying animals. It is now estimated (by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) that up to a half million birds, bats, and other flying animals die in the blades of wind turbines every year in the U.S., a total which might be higher because it is hard to count all the dead birds because predators eat them and or drag them off before they can be counted.

Bird Killed by a Wind Turbine in Germany

This number of birds and bats is a lot lower than deaths from other known sources, but it is still concerning. A half million birds per year might seem like a good trade-off to avoid theoretical catastrophic global warming, but I am not sure. Solar panels are a lot more friendly toward animals and birds. There are many other methods of conserving or producing energy that could lower the need for installing even more wind farms. One thing is for sure, the concern over the loss of animal life due to wind turbines pales in comparison to pressure on the fossil fuel industry. If a refinery or shipping mishap leads to the death of even one bird or fish, the companies responsible are fined, executives are often jailed or forced to appear before congressional hearings, and they are berated endlessly in the mainstream media.

There are many arguments against wind power, but I am still a general supporter of the industry at small scales, not too much bigger than what has been installed thus far. The negative aspects of large scale wind turbine operation will only become more aparent in years to come if construction continues unabated. It just seems like there has to be a better technological solution for the long term – something that scales up better with less negative side effects.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

Yesterday I made the case that natural gas is by far the best choice for a bridge fuel during the next few years while we continue to invent a cleaner energy future, after lamenting the fact of the solar industry’s current swoon. It is interesting to note that even though the economic foundation for widescale solar power adoption is shaky (propped up to a big degree by government subsidies) the solar story is still a bright on. Research into improving the efficiency and output of solar panels continues at a fast pace and it is likely that the price of panels will continue to fall in coming years. Even if natural gas is plentiful and cheaper than dirt, there are many reasons for the continued adoption of solar power for our increasingly electrified economic and transportation infrastructure.

Here are some recent stories that caught my eye:

At the University of Tokyo scientists have developed extremely thin solar cells - thinner than spider silk. Such cells, while not being as efficient as their crystalline brethren, could fins their way into many of our small modern day gadgets and sensors.

Other thin solar cell research ongoing at Rice and Tsinghua Universities has created a dye-sensitized solar cell that could theoretically be mass-produced at a fraction of the cost of current cells. This is great news, but the efficiency of these cells is quite low. High efficiency AND low cost is of course the “holy grail”.

Theoretically boosting the efficiency up to a whopping 40% is what is claimed in this recent article about Australian Scientist’s efforts to get more out of every photon. The article is a bit light on details which usually means it is a breakthrough that is years away from mass-production – if ever (in some cases).

The University of California at Berkeley is a bit better at describing their recent developments in an effort to boost the efficiency of solar cells. The key to their finding is that solar cells should emit light as easily as they absorb light in order to reach peak efficiency.

Heliatek Flexible Panels

In the arena of coating plastic or glass with solar cell material, Heliatek in Germany has developed a new technique similar to the technique used to make OLED flat screen display panels. The panels, which could possibly be used to make tinted electricity-generating windows, are rather expensive but they think they can develop a market.

Twin Creeks Solar continues to steam ahead with their vapor deposition method of producing thin solar cells. Their equipment should lower the cost of manufacturing solar cells thus keeping downward pressure on the end-user price. Remember that you read about Twin Creeks solar previously here in the blog.

Japan continues to push hard into renewable energy in order to replace the power they lost after the earth-quake and Fukushima nuclear disaster. Maybe their increased demand will blunt the loss of subsidies out of Europe (at least a little). One of their projects includes a floating solar power plant. I know they do not have a lot of space on the islands, but a floating solar power plant seems to be begging for damage from wind and waves. Hopefully Japan will have better luck with their renewable investments than here in the U.S. It is interesting to note that the U.S. now leads the world in renewable energy investments, but I wonder if we lead in renewable energy installation or even production in recent years due to the bankruptcy of several major government sponsored projects to the tune of billions of dollars.

In a not so revolutionary but still interesting development, Naked Energy of the UK plans to offer a combined solar power and solar water heating device. Heating water with solar power is one of the projects I have been interested in for my own house.

Taken all together, there is certainly still some progress in the solar industry, even as the government funding dries up.

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

Follow-up: last week I mentioned the HumanBirdWings viral video in the blog and said I was rather skeptical about it. My skepticism was justified as the Dutch film-maker gave up the prank late last week, saying it was an exercise in storytelling. It was also a very good fake video. Read a little more about the fake here.

_______________________________________

Given the warm weather a lot of people have been asking me about the snowmelt contest. It will be starting a few days earlier this year but not until the middle of April. The entry period will be for a couple weeks in April, and then we will wait and watch to see when the snow finally melts. The entry period usually goes through the last day of April but this year, if more very warm weather hits in April, the snow could melt during the last couple days of the month. More than likely it will last into May or June. I will let you know all the details here in the blog when the time comes.

The warm weather also has people thinking about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a bit more as well, but not as much as you might think. Recent surveys have found that concern about AGW has waned as the economy has worsened. This should not be surprising. Most people are most concerned about their near-term situation. In the current recession, millions of people have lost jobs, food insecurity has increased, some have lost pensions or health-care coverage. These things affect how people will think/behave today or tomorrow. With respect to AGW, it is predicted to be environmental Armageddon, which would be very bad if it happens, but it is a slow-motion threat. It would evolve over the course of decades. The cost of damage to the ocean’s alone could be about $2 trillion according to one estimate, but $2 trillion spread out over decades, again, is not as dramatic. If people are hungry today, they will not focus too much on the prospect of the temperature rising by a few degrees 90 years from now. Now only if people would stop having as many kids (because of economic concerns), they might be able to solve near term problems and long term problems (AGW) at the same time. Whatever moves we make, more bureaucracy, as is suggested here, is probably the worst possible solution. 

This type of simple economic calculation also applies to alternative energy. A recent opinion article really does a good job stating the obvious, that alternative energy technology will not be widely adopted until we run out of fossil fuels. I am not that pessimistic but I know what the reality is. As long as fossil fuels are cheaper than the alternatives they will remain king. Even I declined to buy an electric car when I purchased a vehicle last year. The sticker price of electric car offerings were just too high. So it is left to upper income types to push fledgling technology forward. Most of the rest of us might not be choosing to go electric (or solar/wind for our house) but we are choosing more efficient vehicles. A recent study shows that the average mpg of the U.S. “fleet” is now at an all time high of 23. Good job U.S.! As long as the price of gas remains high, this number should continue to climb in coming years. Both of my cars get over 30 mpg and I hope I can afford one that achieves 40 mpg for the next purchase (if a cheap EV is not available).

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Oceans, Pollution, Weather NEws

You know I am generally thrilled to see advances in efficiency and I try to keep our faithful blog readers up to date on all the latest advances in technology and energy. Living more efficiently makes a lot of financial sense and allows us to lessen our impact on the environment. You would think that all the gains inf efficiency over past decades would have already helped lessen our impact, but that is not the case. Why? Something known as Jevons paradox. When energy and other items of modern convenience become cheaper we tend to use more of it (them). Clive Thompson does a good job explaining it in this article, mentioning the fact that when electricity became more efficient and cheaper, we didn’t just pocket the savings and continue living the same as before cheap electricity. No. Instead humans decided to light up the whole planet, which of course led us to burn megatons of fossil fuel – every day - for the last century at least.

But will this continue into the future? Perhaps, but I don’t think it will be in traditional ways. True, the developing world is gaining wealth and with that new-found wealth, many are purchasing modern conveniences like cars, better food, electronic gadgets, refrigerators, etc. Even though these items are sometimes orders of magnitude more efficient than the same items Americans purchased en masse during the 20th century, the total energy needed to support them will increase. The vast numbers of people rising out of poverty outweigh the efficiency gains, up to a certain point. Once more of the world, let us say over 50%, has a “comfortable” life and a reasonable amount of wealth, I would expect efficiency gains and new technology to start making a dent in our energy requirements and resultant pollution. After all, it is doubtful that everyone in the world is going to buy 2, 3, 4, or more houses, cars, and TVs and continue to outpace efficiency gains.

There are also two trends working against Jevons paradox. One is Peak Oil. Judging by how things have gone for the past decade, it looks like there is not going to be a crash in fossil fuel supplies (and oil) that sends us back to the stone age (as many Peak Oil theorists had predicted for many years). However, the price of fossil fuels will likely continue to remain high. The high price will force people to live more within their means. Also, the population growth of the world has slowed (hooray!). Most estimates put the number of humans on the planet at mid century around 9 billion. One study has shown that even if medical technology advances so fast so as to allow people to live well into the hundreds, the population will only rise to around 11 billion. Less people on the planet means less energy consumption in most scenarios.

So what could develop in the future that would keep Jevons paradox alive and well into the future. A new form of transportation? Flying cars or rocket ships? I doubt it. I think the main candidate for increased energy expenditure in the future will be virtual reality. Already in 2012 data centers (Internet server and computing ”farms”) are one of the fastest growing energy consuming sectors of the economy, and all we are doing it sharing pictures and playing video games. Spectacularly more immersive and addictive games, movies, and social experiences are coming. These applications for entertainment and the exploration of all things virtual will undoubtedly require mammoths amounts of computation and that means increased energy consumption. Even if we develop super cheap solar and nuclear energy, increased computational demands might continue to outpace our efforts to live more efficiently.

Now you might be thinking that it would be ok if we used more energy as long as it was from clean sources like solar and nuclear fusion. After all, we wouldn’t be emitting carbon dioxide, right? That is true, in regards to theoretical future greenhouse effects and pollution, things would be better, but the planet might still heat up. All the energy we use, no matter what the source, ends up as waste heat in the biosphere. Here is an interesting article looking at the long view of energy. While moving away from fossil fuels would be VASTLY better from a pollution standpoint, the future would not be hassle free with new forms of energy.

Have a nice Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Environment, Pollution