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

The latest U.S. Drought Monitor has been issued and it still does not look good for much of the U.S. and half of the state of Wisconsin. Drought conditions have worsened in much of the country, however, a lot of the heavy rains that fell in the Ohio Valley, the Deep South, and the Gulf Coast states over the last few days has not been fully incorporated into the statistics so there might have been some significant improvement in spots – improvement that is not yet incorporated into the interactive map. With the expansion in drought over the last week, I think this is the most drought I have seen covering the U.S. since the inception of the weekly report.

In Wisconsin, there is no caveat to the most recent drought depiction because the southern part of the state has not received any appreciable rain in the past week. There has been very little rain in the northern half of the state either, but ample rain from earlier in the Summer means things are still green and growing around Marathon county and further north. In the south the crops are “almost done/dead” for the season and if rain doesn’t fall this weekend or early next week south of Marathon county, it will probably effectively be the end of the growing season for un-irrigated crops, because it looks like some dry weather for the area late next week and perhaps another couple hot days in the 90s around the 20th of July.

Considering that most of the country is experiencing some degree of drought, I am surprised by the latest USDA corn crop estimate. The latest estimate is for 146 bushels per acre harvest this year which is a significant drop from the previous estimate of 166 bushels per acre, but it is still higher than the average yield of a decade ago, which was around 129 bushels per acre. The last time drought was so widespread across the nation was 1988 and during that year the national corn yield was only about 85 bushels per acre. So why is the corn crop still expected to be so high this year even though it is the most widespread drought in many years? Technology. Here is a good article discussing the modern biotechnology and hybrid technology that helps corn grow in poor conditions. Not only has biotechnology helped corn yields, increased and smarter irrigation methods keep corn (and other grains) growing in dry areas of the country and areas that suffer from periodic lack of rain. I know quite a few people that do not like GMO foods (and for valid reasons) but you cannot deny how biotechnology at least keeps the food flowing. If grain yields were as low as 1988, we would be in much more of a world of hurt.

One industry that could be in a world of hurt if the drought continues and corn yields continue to drop is the ethanol industry. The economic (and AGW) case for using food (corn/grains) to make fuel for our polluting cars has been tenuous at best over the last few years. If the corn yield goes down anymore (and the price of corn continues to rise), it could make grain ethanol production grind to a halt. For which I would say – it is about time. Maybe if people start going hungry in this country, there will be more pressure to drop the ethanol mandate and any subsidies that go along with it. I hate to talk so negatively about an industry that is filled with a lot of honest and well-intentioned people, but grain ethanol just has to go. It had its test run. The numbers don’t add up in most scenarios. Some other people have mentioned the same thing.

Not only is the price of corn going up, but the price of oil is coming down, which means even other more potentially beneficial and economically sound biofuel production will get hurt. Even NASA’s investment in new biofuel production could get the axe, I suspect. I wonder if we would be much better off (if the government HAS to spend money) if the government just bought solar panels and installed them at various facilities across the entire nation. Instead of scandalous crony investments in businesses like Solyndra or new loans to money-losing ethanol and biofuel start-ups, why not spend those billions of dollars buying and installing solar panels. Several billion dollars could buy a lot of megawatts.

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Ag Weather, Alternative Energy, Drought

I suppose it could be said of every age in human history that there was “great promise and peril” involved with all we could imagine to do and build. I wonder if today’s dichotomy is more extreme. I have often heard it said that we are currently in a Schrodinger economy that seems both alive (growing) and dead (drowning in debt) at the same times. The Lifeboat Foundation has certainly found plenty of perils to worry about in the near future. In the case of the environment, as I mentioned yesterday, we are either headed for mass starvation, death, and world-wide calamity or an abundant future with clean energy, depending on which lens you are peering through on any particular day.

I mentioned the great progress in battery and electric vehicle technology yesterday, but these will do no good unless we have a clean source of energy to “fill them up”. Wind power is an option, but it is limited, and comes with some drawbacks. Biofuels might be a good bridge fuel (to the future), but are they really that much better than natural gas (another “bridge” fuel) when everything is considered (land use, infrastructure development, etc). About the best biofuel story I have seen recently is this lab result which created liquid fuel from carbon dioxide and electricity supplied by solar panels. Who knows if this could be scaled up for industrial production, but if we could take carbon dioxide out of the air and make fuel out of it, that would be ideal from an AGW perspective – if we continue to use liquid hydrocarbons to power the economy many decades into the future.

Then there is nuclear energy, which has taken a beating since the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Japan has of course shut down nearly all of its reactors, Germany has promised to retire all of theirs, and funding is drying up for the construction of newer safer fission reactors. As far a pollution and AGW is concerned, the phasing out of nuclear power right now will probably lead to the use of more fossil fuels, not more renewable energy sources, because our Schrodinger economy is not good enough to pay for the expensive alternatives. Two new modular reactors are being considered in the U.S. but they are mired in regulatory approval and will not come online perhaps until 2020. There is still hope for nuclear fusion reactors as new computer simulations have shown some promise, but these will be quite expensive to build and are probably years away.

One of the cheaper and cleaner alternative options we have right now is solar power. The price has fallen dramatically in the last 5 years from about $4 per watt down to $1 per watt and there are many signs it will continue to get cheaper. The price drop is due in part to technological innovation but also due to an oversupply on the market. Chinese solar panel manufacturers are running full steam ahead flooding the market - with the help of government support. This has led to a burgeoning trade war between the U.S. and China and the implementation of tarrifs.

Blythe Solar Power Plant Goes Bankrupt

I know the reasoning behind tariffs, and perhaps this will help U.S. manufacturers survive, but the end result is usually bad. Tariffs (economic warfare) often lead to real physical war. They also raise the price on the taxed items. Perhaps we should just buy up all the cheap solar panels while they are on the market instead. Maybe our solar power plant projects in the U.S. would not be going bankrupt (after recieving billions in loans from the government) if we managed our purchases better. Solar would also likely benefit from a more intelligent power grid and the use of information technology to save on installation costs.

Outside of all the current technological “fixes” we could implement to the world from potential future peril (like AGW) there are also more mundane measures that would help. If it is too difficult to stop emitting carbon dioxide, maybe we could focus on methane instead, as less of the gas floating around the atmosphere would lead to a significant reduction in possible future warming of the atmosphere. Then there are more radical futuristic ideas like engineering our bodies to be less energy intensive. Although instead of re-engineering the human body, it would be much easier to stop having so many kids.

I’ll leave you with one last positive data point to consider for today: extreme poverty around the world has decreased dramatically in the last couple of decades. The percentage of people living on the equivalent of less than $1 per day has dropped from 42% in 1981 to just 14% today.  Now why would this be a positive thing for the environment? Becoming wealthier usually means increased usage of resources, doesn’t it? Typically, yes. However, wealthy people usually choose to reduce pollution as we have seen almost all metrics of pollution decline in recent decades in the developed nations of the world. When people have greater food and energy security, they do not focus as much on day-to-day living and instead on the future world where they will live. Most people choose an un-polluted future world. Also, with the price of traditional fossil fuels continuing to rise, it is likely the new prosperity will lead to the use of alternative energy sources.

Have a pleasant Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Technology

Yesterday I profiled a solar power company that is furthering progress in alternative energy as solar still looks to be one of the better options for cleaner energy production in the near future. What about biofuel? Has anything changed in the new year?

There are no doubt some great advances in chemistry and biology that are making the production of liquid hydrocarbons (like ethanol or biodiesel) more efficient and viable. Joule Unlimited has created a new process that uses genetically engineered bacteria to convert carbon dioxide and sunlight into fuel. Their process is potentially much better than current cellulosic ethanol schemes if they can scale it up. Another company, Virent, based in Madison Wisconsin, is supplementing their biofuel process with natural gas in order to more easily make the liquid hydrocarbon fuels that we use in present day transportation.

Joule Unlimited Biofuel "Reactors"

Both of these companies are trail-blazers with truly impressive science and engineering feats under their belt, but the question remains, is biofuel the best way forward to reduce pollution and theoretical future climate warming. I still say no. In the case of Joule Unlimited, why use sunlight, bacteria, and CO2 to create a liquid fuel when you could just use solar panels to convert light into electricity. It would seem to be a simpler choice and solar-electric “fueled” EVs are tremendously cleaner than biofuel vehicles. A recent study has shown that electric fleet vehicles already are at a point where they make financial sense for companies operating in big cities. It might be more efficient/cheaper to make the biofuel for the time being but solar prices continue to decline every year.

In the case of Virent, you know how much I love to promote Wisconsin-based companies, but I have to wonder, why not just use natural gas as a fuel instead of using nat gas and biomass to create liquid hydrocarbons. Biofuel’s most likely purpose will be as a bridge fuel from now through the next few years when electric cars are not yet mainstream, practical for the masses, and affordable all the while fossil fuel (mainly oil) supplies become more scarce. Another possible bridge fuel is natural gas. It would be much simpler and cheaper. There is already a small nat gas infrastructure in the U.S. and in many other countries as well. The risks of exploiting natural gas reserves are quite low. The danger of frakquakes has mostly been overblown. Natural gas has been gaining political traction the U.S. but I would rather see the free market decide whether it makes greater sense for transportation. As we have seen lately, government “support” has not turned out so well.

Of course we will still need a lot of hydrocarbons for materials/plastic production and this is where many new biofuel processes will likely find their home. Virent is already making product for Coca Cola to use in their plastic bottles.

__________________________________________

An update on the Vostok drilling operation by the Russians in Antarctica: At least one news agency in Russia reported on February 5th  (and another article) that the scientists had indeed reached the surface of the lake. It is only one report, and I have not heard anything more official since. In any case, they will probably not be able to explore the lake or return samples to the surface until next Summer in Antarctica (our late Fall and Winter of 2012).

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Arctic climate, Pollution

Through the years I have become more and more amazed at the number of people who hate Winter. I am unsure as to the exact reason but it is interesting. Many people I meet actually use the word “hate” when talking about Winter. I would say the percent of people who at a minimum loathe winter, has risen from about 50% two decades ago to around 80% today. This is based on a small sampling of the people I run into on a day-to-day basis. If there is one place where you would think people would enjoy Winter it is Wisconsin. We have one of the more cold and snowy climates in the continental U.S. It Winter was such a problem, you would think the population of the state would be declining rather rapidly, as people move to warmer states or countries.

So what is behind this trend. I can only speculate. I suspect that some of it has to do with the population getting older on average. It becomes harder to deal with extremes in temperature (and humidity) as the human body grows older. I think part of it might be a shift in lifestyles as well. Around the area there are still a lot of people who enjoy skiing, ice fishing, and snowmobiling, but as a percentage of the population, the numbers are probably down. Younger folks spend more time on the Internet or playing video games than running around outside. Also, most people work in office buildings and spend a lot of their time in climate controlled houses. Therefore, they are probably not as adaptable to the changes in weather as people in the past. The commuting lifestyle probably plays a part as well. When more people have to drive a long distance to work , Winter brings a many more reasons to grumble.

Well, for all of you who dream of tropical locations this time of year. For all of you who “hate” Winter and snow. I have some good news for you. No, it is not that “real” Winter conditions are gone from the forecast for the next few days. It is that we have now passed our earliest sunset of the year. If you suffer from cabin fever (or SAD), this is one of the first turning points in the season that give you hope of a brighter Spring to come. Yesterday the sunset was 4:17pm. Today you get a few extra seconds of sunlight (if the sun makes and appearance late this afternoon). The sunset today is 4:18pm. The sunset will now get later every day as we head into mid Winter and eventually into Spring. Yes, it is true that the shortest day of the year is the 21st, but already our sunset time has turned the corner.

Historical Odds of a White Christmas

For the small percentage of people who revel in real Wisconsin Winter weather, I don’t have much good news. The historical probability of a “White Christmas” here in Northcentral Wisconsin is over 90%. I can only remember 2 holiday seasons in the past 15 years that were not white. This year might be the third. There is a chance of a dusting of snow today and again Friday night into Saturday, but with temps remaining above normal (especially on Sunday), any snow that does fall will likely melt. The only spots that might retain the snow they have right now are north of Marathon county. Locations like Minocqua and Rhinelander might still have an inch or two on the ground by Christmas.

Of course, the weather pattern in and around Wisconsin can change quite fast, so even though there does not look to be much chance of heavy snow next week, I wouldn’t completely rule it out. There will be a couple of storm system traversing the mid-section of the country and if either one takes a turn a bit farther to the north, then we could end up with some accumulations of snow. We will keep you up to date on any changes.

While on the “White Christmas” topic, I wanted to ask about something I was musing about the other day. Where does the dominant “White Christmas” theme come from (besides just the Hollywood movie)? Judging by the map above, most of this country does not experience a white Christmas. The vast majority of the country has a brown Christmas every year. This is the case for most of the world as well. I would venture to guess that well less than 20% of the world’s population experiences a white Christmas every year. 

We did have a bit colder climate a hundred years ago which likely led to a bit more snow, but I can’t see that fully explaining the “White Christmas” expectation. I suppose some of the Christmas-time entertainment and mythology has something to do with it, or at least re-enforces the theme. Santa Claus is said to be from the north pole and frosty the snowman couldn’t live in a warmer climate. With respect to the religious side of the season, The bible says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and there is rarely any snow in that region of the world. Not back then. Not now.

My leading theory is that a large percentage of Christians ended up living in northern Europe over the last millenium or so and when they immigrated to the U.S. many of them first settled in the northeast and the Midwest where snow was more common, so snow and “white” just naturally came to be more associated with Christmas than brown and/or palm trees.

_______________________________________

Some odds and ends:

Paul Allen's Proposed Space Plane

In space news, Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft) has announced plans to build a new space launch system. It will essentially be one of the biggest planes ever built. It will look like the White Knight of Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites fame only be much bigger with 6 jet engines. The plane will carry a rocket (a SpaceX Falcon rocket most likely) to a high altitude before releasing it. The rocket will then ignite and propel itself the rest of the way into space.

From what I gather, this will be a bit more cost effective and efficient because the first 30,000 feet of the launch will be aided by atmospheric lift/aerodynamics. I don’t think the savings will be BIG, but incremental improvement is the name of the game nowadays. I am also excited to see more concrete plans within the commercial/private space industry. If man is ever going to physically walk on the moon or other celestial body, it will likely be accomplished by the private sector, not government agencies.

In other space news, a successful robotic NASA mission continues on Mars. The Opportunity rover continues to perform well and recently found more evidence of past water on Mars.

Outlasting the Mars rover by many years are the intrepid Voyager satellites. They are now starting to move into interstellar space - out of the influence of our solar system.

_________________________________

As a follow up to the good vs. bad “green” energy solutions, biofuel was dealt another blow recently. Range Fuels has gone bankrupt. They planned to make methanol from wood chips. They received hundreds of millions of government grants and loans to keep moving forward over the last 4 to 5 years but they were unable to turn a profit with their product. This is particularly troubling considering that the price of oil has been so high recently, around $100 a barrel. One would think that biofuel would become more competitive as the price of oil stays high.

_________________________________________

In climate news, the Durban meeting recently wrapped up with some small steps into the future. Climate “negotiators”, scientists, and activists agreed to develop a new climate treaty before 2020.

Even as the climate conference wraps up, recent polling shows people are not as worried about “climate change” as they were 4 or 5 years ago. Some of this probably has to do with the climategate emails and with the fact that the theorized changes in the climate will happen over a long time period. If the global temperature only goes up a degree or so by 2050, not many people will get too upset (right now).

Have a pleasant Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Seasonal Items, Space, Winter Weather

Yesterday I detailed what seems to be a slow demise of nuclear power and today I will touch upon the possibility of biofuels as a future source of “greener” energy. As you know, biofuels (particularly grain ethanol) have come under fire recently. I have even soured a bit on the prospects of grain ethanol, even though I know many people in the industry and know that they have good intentions. Now a bigger hitter than myself is weighing in – the World Bank. The World Bank has called for an end to biofuel subsidies in order to increase food security and lower the price of grains. I know that ethanol proponents can produce studies that show very little effect on the price of food, but if grains were not being used for ethanol they would certainly be available to feed animals or people.

It has also been found that biofuels are not as “green” as thought at first glance. A recent study that looked at the airline industry found that depending on what biofuel was used and where it came from, it could be up to 10 times worse for the environment than traditional fossil fuels. The simple fact is that oil is still very easily drawn from the ground sometimes refined very nearby AND these locations are often near major airports. When you factor in growing a biofuel crop, making the fuel, and all the transportation to get the fuel to the airplanes, many biofuels just aren’t as “green” as originally hoped.

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

I often blog about alternative energy issues and regular readers know that I have recently soured on the prospects of biofuel as a replacement for traditional fossil fuels (especially grain ethanol). The reasons are many and I have gone through it a few times, however, you might enjoy reading this article which does a good job detailing the history of the grain ethanol industry and the billions of subsidies that support it. In my mind, it is nice to know there is some ethanol or other biofuels being brewed in the U.S. for emergency purposes, but it isn’t a good option for the future – not good enough to justify so many subsidies.

Perhpas the money going toward biofuels should be shifted toward solar or nuclear power or toward energy research. The U.S is currently spending a lot of money on different alternative energy projects but some people worry that the money will run out before the projects become profitable. Perhaps the cleaner technologies could be sustained longer if support for grain ethanol was diminished. In my opinion, grain ethanol has had its day in the sun and it couldn’t reach profitability. Now it is time to move on. I would prefer it if the government didn’t exert so much influence over the energy industry, but if they are going to waste money they might as well move on to something that has a little more promise for the future and would fit better with electric vehicles.

Besides not being very profitable, biofuels will not help much with pollution and could even make things worse. Also, even if there is some tiny benefit in reducing carbon dioxide emmissions (and theoretically keep the planet cooler), biofuels use will not help much with the problem of acidic oceans.

Forecast:

For the big holiday weekend, the forecast is still looking about the same as yesterday. The highest chance of heavier precipitation will be today and Thursday. Friday is still looking very breezy cool with a few light showers or sprinkles. The weekend should be decent. On Saturday and Sunday I am expecting sunny to partly cloudy skies and high temps in the upper 60s on Saturday and in the low to mid 70s on Sunday. Monday should be a bit warmer – in the mid to upper 70s – and I am calling for a 30% chance of rain, mainly late in the day.

Have a nice Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, forecast

Following up on the storm surveys Brian first mentioned yesterday, the NWS out of Duluth has confirmed two brief tornado touchdowns. One in Ashland county and one in Iron county. In both instances their survey indicated a brief tornado touchdown followed by more widespread straight-line wind damage. As Brian mentioned yesterday, the storms were showing strong rotation which is generally a pre-requisite for tornado formation but does not always mean a tornado will form. What happens sometimes  (like west of Pittsville earlier in the month) is that a tornado forms but it is quickly over-run by a rear-flanking downdraft (another part of rotating/supercell storms). The rear-flanking downdraft is often quite strong. If I had to speculate, that is what I would say happened in Iron and Ashland counties. A tornado formed but then it was quickly blown-apart or over-run by the rear-flanking downdraft. This is of course just speculation because I have not seen the damage in person. What is most interesting about the tornado touchdowns in the northwoods is the relative infrequency at which they occur. According to this map, the tornado in Iron county was the first one since 1982 (although this list claims the last tornado in Iron county was in 1983). Once again, here is the link to the Green Bay damage survey, and to the Duluth survey.

The thunderstorms did produce some devastating wind damage but also produced more beneficial rainfall. Because the rain fell on Tuesday evening, it did not make it into this week’s US Drought Monitor tabulation. There was some improvement in the Wisconsin drought but not as much as one would expect, but any improvement is good. The amount of the state that is now drought-free increased from 75.5 percent last week to 76.9 percent this week. It should improve more next week because the heaviest rain from Tuesday’s storms fell in the areas that continue to experience drought.

Alternative Energy:

All week I have been focusing on positive news about the future (solar and battery technology keeps getting better, the Gulf Oil Spill is not as bad as originally portrayed) but you will notice I didn’t mention much about biofuels. It is not that there are no new developments in biofuel production (scientists decode switchgrass genome, microbes make fuel using energy from the sun), it is just that biofuels are not a great solution for the future – best used only as a bridge fuel to the future. Even though I know many hard-working positive people in the ethanol and biofuel industry, I still can’t jump on board. There is certainly some good reasons to keep producing biofuels on the small scale, but I can’t support a large scale societal switch. Solar-electric or nuclear-electric is much more efficient and there is much more room for improvement. Biofuels are carbon-based fuels. They create pollution and are at best neutral on carbon emissions. At worst - algal biofuels in particular – contibute to carbon emissions to a much greater extent that people realize. The floundering economy has forced the delay of many new biofuel plant building plans, and I would argue for that money (not being used to build new plants) to go toward research into other alternatives.

Have a good Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Drought, Severe Weather, Storms

AGW News:

Following up on yesterday’s theme, here are a couple more articles from people attending the Copenhagen Climate Conference, both are complaining, but from different perspectives. Ronald Bailey compares this conference to annual conferences from earlier this decade. Fred Pearce thinks a Copehagen agreement could be worse than doing nothing. It seems the biggest sticking point is the idea of “Climate Justice” which would be a policy where the U.S. and other developed nations would give billions or trillions of dollars to less-developed countries to help them deal with AGW effects and past pollution. I have written about this idea before and how it is always presented in a one-sided manner. People like to mention pollution, carbon dioxide, and hypothetical future disasters and say it is all the fault of developed nations. What about the other side of the coin? What about all the good things that have come from the industrial revolution? Shouldn’t developed nations get credit for things that have helped the human condition? All the technology that has raised the standard of living for so many millions and billions of people has got to count for something? Instead of fixating on revenge or “Climate Justice” shouldn’t we be focusing on progress? Wouldn’t it make more sense to put our resources into clean energy and new efficient technology?

Here is another article that follows closely with the “Climate Justice” theme in suggesting that people give up many of the material goods they are used to, instead focusing on “quality time, love, family, values, friendship…” These are great suggestions but who can say what will make a person happy? Why should climate scientists be deciding what the pursuit of happiness entails? Human desires are as diverse as the universe is wide. Some people desire material wealth and comfort. Throughout all of human history people have always invented and innovated their way to a more prosperous future. There is hardly a reason we should stop now.

Unfortunately the momentum to put the brakes on progress is growing. Last week the EPA stated it would start regulating carbon dioxide as a threat to human health. Since carbon dioxide is a proxy for our current level of economic activity, it is essentially saying our way of life and our current standard of living are threats to human health – which if you believe all the apocalyptic AGW scenario, I guess it makes sense on some level. However, I don’t like this trend of regulating our daily lives and economic activity because they are a “threat to human health”. Any human activity could be framed as a threat to human health and thus regulated.

As mentioned earlier, instead of turning back the clock, I think we should focus on progress. Here are a few items of “progress” I noticed in the news over the last week:

A new method of desalination could be more efficient. It uses ion gradients instead of osmosis or distillation to create potable water. The developing world needs fresh water and desalination could be one of the keys to providing enough for everyone.

Self-destructing bacteria could help produce bio-fuels more cheaply.So far, most biofuel production is rather expensive and not gaining much traction.

Individual climate control (at your desk or cubilce) could save significant amounts of energy. I do this at home. I keep the thermostat way down and use an electric heater at my desk. Designing an office building to allow “individual” climate control would require higher upfront capital costs, but the energy savings could pay for the set-up in a couple years.

On the electric car front, early reviews of the Chevy Volt indicate that it “drives well”. Now if they can only get the price down.

Using sodium ion batteries could lower the cost of storing energy from alternative variable sources such as wind and solar. Although sodium ion batteries are not as advanced as lithium, they are much cheaper and thus could find a home in energy storage.

Wind turbines could be made more efficient and cheaper by using friction instead of mechanical gears. Testing is underway.

Drought News:

Nothing has changed in Wisconsin. The big storm/blizzard dropped most of its precipitation in southern Wisconsin and thus this week’s Drought Monitor looks exactly like last week’s. A moderate to severe drought persists in the northern third of the state. In other parts of the country things are looking up. California, Arizona, and Texas have all seen small improvement in drought conditions and with El Nino continuing, they should continue to see wetter than normal weather at least for the next couple of months.

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

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

People who know me and read the blog know that I am partial to individual freedom and not so much toward government intervention. This is a lonely position to take in today’s world, and it seems more lonely every day as I follow the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and alternative energy themes out there in the wilds of the internet. Big government solutions to all our problems are certainly on the table. It is not that such programs cannot help solve some problems, just that the track record is fairly poor IMO.

I have blogged about the grain ethanol story a couple of times. It is not that it was not worth a try – making ethanol out of food crops – just that it did not need to become a big government behemoth program that is still draining billions from the federal budget despite being roundly criticized from many corners. I have nothing against the grain ethanol producers. I am personally acquainted with many people in the industry. They are fine people, have good intentions, and work hard, but the numbers do not add up for grain ethanol as an alternative to oil. Even under the best conditions the EROI is not much over 1. You would think we could do better (maybe by using waste products for bio-fuel production). Here is another article describing some of the drawbacks to grain ethanol. Don’t mention this to politicians who are handing out the billions of dollars, they aren’t listening too well.

Another big government project under consideration is solar in the Sahara. Here is an article about Desertec, a European effort to build large solar power plantsin northern Africa and then ship the electricity to Europe. The goal – clean energy – is laudable, but the drawbacks are numerous. Solar power plants need a lot of water to operate and this is a no-brainer: THERE ISN”T MUCH WATER IN THE SAHARA DESERT. Also, the goal of reducing the dependence on “foreign oil” produced by unstable or unfriendly countries by replacing it with solar energy produced in unstable or unfriendly countries doesn’t seem to get us (or Europe in this case) too far ahead. Large solar power plants might be more juicy targets for terrorists or rogue government take-overs. Alternatively, Europeans could continue installing roof-top solar panels as is already occurring and cut out most of the future worries. The only problem from a big government perspective is that Individuals freely installing alternative energy solutions on their property requires fewer bureaucrats and regulation (pardon me while I don’t shed a tear). Although government subsidies are certainly a part of small scale installation of alternative energy, there are many instances of companies rolling out their own strategies and solutions, like the Sunpods that are being deployed at select locations in the U.S. Perhaps smaller grants from governments with less restriction would work better to seed new energy technologies and this is being tried through ARPA-e in the U.S.

Even normally staunch supporters of big government solutions and regulations are coming to the conclusion that some things are best left in the hands of local people. It is no mystery why private property protections/laws produce and preserve wealth even when it comes to forest management. People take care of things they own, while they tend to exploit things that they do not. The tragedy of the commons is still alive and well in 2009. Here is an article promoting local (somewhat more privatized) control over sections of the Amazon rain forest in order to protect it.

Have a fine Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Environment