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

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

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

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

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

Solar Installation at Nellis AFB

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

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

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

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Technology

Yesterday I detailed how economic considerations usually trump environmentalism (and AGW concerns) because of the near-term immediate impact of “economics”. When people are more worried about the next paycheck, they are less concerned with how much the climate might warm up 90 years from now, or how much the ocean might rise 1,000 years from now.

Despite the current economic recession, there are still many people concerned about what might happen to the environment and climate, as am I. Given the sometimes hyperbolic pronouncements of how nearly everything in the biosphere is going to die due to AGW, I am surprised more people don’t at least follow more of the headlines (whether a person is skeptical or not). Even as I am concerned about future pollution, I am not fatalistic. I know that fossil fuel usage is unlikely to continue the same upward trend into the future as it did in the past. I know that technological progress continues and this should help us be more efficient in the future as well as clean up some “messes”. I also know that life has a tremendous ability to adapt.

In the case of adaptability, many people are quite fatalistic about the fate of the oceans as the water warms up, even in the bottom water around Antarctica. Warmer and more acidic oceans are expected to be more hostile to life, including corals. Thankfully, at least in the near term, it appears that corals are not going to all die off. Recently scientists have found corals that can thrive in warmer than normal water and some that can adapt to higher acidity. Still, there might be some limit to which adaptation fails and some sort-of mass extinction occurs in the oceans, as seemed to have happened in the distant past.

If ocean acidification does become a major problem, it will potentially be a harder problem to crack/fix than just plain old warming of a couple of degrees. If heat would get to be too much of a problem, it could be fixed fairly easily with some sort-of sunshade technology. A recent study suggested that sunshade geoengineering would not affect crops too much. But cooling by blocking the sun would not help reduce the acidity of the ocean. Also, as far as future energy sources go, biofuels would once again be the worst choice because they still result in carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere (as well as bunch of other reasons - I have covered before). In addition we also need to keep a close eye on all of the synthetic biology that is being developed in the pursuit of biofuels. Solar, nuclear, geothermal, and wind would probably be our best bets to not only reduce pollution but to reduce the acidification of the oceans. Otherwise, we might end up doing some grand antacid experiments in the future.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Oceans, Pollution

As more air pollution has developed in Wisconsin over the last few years, I have become more of an advocate of electric cars. (Aside: on average pollution of all forms in the U.S. is much less than the middle of last century). One of the main criticism of electric vehicles (EVs) is that they are just “coal cars” since most of the electricity that fuels them will come from coal-fired power plants. I have argued that even though the electricity might come from a coal-fired power plant, the delivery mechanism and pollution control measures inherent in the operation of EVs are much more efficient than with comparable fossil fuel transportation infrastructure. It is much easier to control pollution from one smoke stack at a power plant than from millions of tiny “smoke stacks” (tail pipes) attached to internal combustion engines. Of course, I haven’t had the time or resources to do an official study.

Pollution Problems in China

The headline from a recent study claiming that EV’s DO NOT reduce pollution had me a little worried. After I read a little more into it, I found that the study was in China and that makes a huge difference. What happens in China is probably not applicable to EV operation in other parts of the world. First of all, they probably do not have as good of pollution control at their power plants. They have “official” regulations of course, but many observers report that these regulations are rarely followed. Judging by the air pollution pictures out of China, I would say they are correct. Also, China gets most of its power from coal. This is not the case in many other countries. The U.S. does have a heavy reliance on coal but the use of natural gas is increasing. Natural gas power plants have much less pollution, so on average, the EV/pollution study would probably turn out much better here.

Then of course there are people who charge their EVs with wind and solar power which causes even less pollution. I would be negligent if I didn’t also mention that EVs require much less maintenance and do not create as much noise pollution. So EVs might not be the perfect solution – right now – but there is certainly promise for the future. I would like to buy one but the price is still too far out of my range.

The Tesla Model X

Price is the hurdle that is keeping Tesla motors on edge in recent months. Is the luxury electric car market big enough to keep them solvent. This recent article looks into the question. Tesla was of course one of the companies that benefited from the boom in clean energy investment that occurred during the first decade of this century. That boom has now went bust and here is a long article about the rise and fall. One thing I noticed is that when the U.S. government got heavily involved after 2008 is when things started falling apart for many companies. It is often said that government money in the form of loans and grants distorts the economics of the situation, creates bad incentives, and drowns out the signals from the free market. It seems it happened with much of the “green” investment as well.

The biggest losers, as I expected are biofuel companies. It is not that they didn’t have unique ideas or wonderful products, it is just that they could not scale up and compete with cheap natural gas, government supported grain ethanol, or the motivation of the solar/EV crowd. Biofuels could still have a place during our transition to cleaner energy future, but it probably is not a good long-term solution.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Technology

I am very positive on alternative energy for the future. Fossil fuels have been a great energy source for humans for centuries, but it is dirty. It does cause a lot of pollution. It would be great to develop cleaner sources of energy. As I have mentioned in the past, I try to follow developments of many different alternative energy sources but I do play favorites. Biofuels are at the bottom of my list, wind power is in the middle, and solar power is near the top. Solar power is near the top not because it is the cheapest but because it has the greatest potential upside (leaving nuclear power out of the equation for the moment).

Solar power had seen quite a resurgence during the early part of this century. The housing bubble in the U.S. also fueled some investment in new solar technology and manufacturing capacity. As we learned recently, it also fueled profligate spending by governments to support the industry. Many of the government supported solar companies in the U.S. have gone bankrupt.

So is the growth in solar power over? Investors sure have punished solar stocks, which could be a hint of the future. Recall this past blog post about the meteoric rise of First Solar (FSLR). I pointed out how good of an investment the company would have been if you had gotten in at the IPO. After rising to over $160 per share a couple years ago, it is now back down in the $30 to 40 range. In fact, I have blogged about most of the new solar companies over the last few years and thankfully a few of them are still going. I can’t vouch for the revenue or profits, but at least their websites are still up, as is the case for Nanosolar (past blog post about Nanosolar). The latest company to make waves (yes there is still some investment in the industry), is Stion. They have a manufacturing plant in Mississippi and is planning on expanding into Korea with a new $130 million investment.

In addition to some companies surviving, if not thriving, research continues to point to a positive future for solar energy. At the University of Texas, researchers have found new ways to capture more electrons in solar panels (another good review of this research at eetimes). If this process can be commercialized, it could cause a big jump in the efficiency of solar panels. Also 3D solar panel designs (a concept I blogged about in the past) from MIT point toward methods to collect more sunlight per unit of surface area. This is a big development because one of the drawbacks to solar panel deployment is that they take up a lot of space.

Now some bad news. According to this article from James Delingpole, the German solar industry has lost 5,000 companies and 20,000 employees in just the last year. Germany was once one of the leading alternative energy economies in the world. With the onset of the recession and increased competition from China, their internal solar economy has collapse to a great degree. When you hear that 5,000 solar “companies” have gone bust, remember that many of these are “support” businesses like solar panel installers which probably include teams of a small handful of people. These are not 5,000 First Solar’s going bankrupt. Still it is sad to see, but as Delingpole points out, it should not be too surprising. The longer an new industry category (like alternative energy) has to live off of the support of government, the higher the odds that it will collapse. I agree with Delingpole in that I don’t think government subsidies are the best way forward. If the green energy companies cannot survive in the market place, then the support should come from private sources. There are plenty of obscenely rich green energy supporters (like Al Gore) who could make a real sacrifice and pony up some millions to at least keep solar companies and installation crawling along until cost competitiveness improves. Some are probably already doing this, but it could be bigger and more publicized. Couple this German solar story with the fact that Germany wants to ban all nuclear power in the next 10 years, and you come to the realization that Germany will go from a green energy leader to a laggard very soon (unless some of the big solar breakthroughs make it to market soon).

This realization might already be showing up in the angst of European environmentalists as they decried the “failure” of the EU carbon trading market recently. There is also trouble for solar brewing between the U.S. and China. Some are speculating that a new full-blown trade war over solar panel manufacturing will break out between the two countries. It is interesting to note that many people in the U.S. accuse China of heavily subsidizing their solar industry when the U.S. has been doing the same thing (with very poor results, Solyndra). Head of the Energy Department Steven Chu says that it is not so much because of subsidies, but because the Chinese solar plants are more technologically advanced and their labor costs are lower. Whatever the reasons, I think a trade war would be stupid because the economies of the world are so inter-linked nowadays. A trade war will only hurt consumers and often times lead to “real” war.

BP Solar Getting Out of the Biz

And finally on the list of negative trends, even big corporate support cannot keep all solar panel manufacturers up and running. BP solar, a stalwart in the industry for decades, is closing up shop.

Even though there is some bad news for the solar industry, at least it is still faring better than biofuel industry – in which some companies have stopped producing actual fuel (because it is a money losing endeavor) and have started making higher value chemical feed-stocks instead.

Overall, because of the pace of technological progress, I am still positive that we will see a stronger solar market in the near future. Panel prices are low now and should and should stay that way for a while. This means more solar capacity will continue to be installed around the world and every increase should lead to a cleaner planet in the future.

_________________________________________________

Later this week I will detail my top ten weather events of 2011 and detail the year in review. Given that above normal temps will continue for the rest of this week, we might end up above normal for the year. For those of you hoping for some significant cold and snow to get going out on the ice skating rinks and snowmobile trails, I have one picture to show you. It is the current 6 to 10 day outlook from the Climate Prediction Center. The only colder than normal air is expected to be in far southern Florida and in Alaska.

 Have a fine Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy

In the blog I often discuss the progress of alternative energy, but as regular readers know, I do not value all “green” energy sources as equal. At the top of my list are geo-thermal and solar, wind is in the muddled middle, and biofuels are near the bottom.

Wind turbines are the most cost-efficient but they have significant side effects. Most people, even those who are big promoters of alternative energy, do not want them near their property or community because they spoil the natural view and they create very annoying noise. There is also a limit to how much wind energy we can extract from the atmosphere before we reach diminishing returns, and we are not too far from reaching that scale. Besides affecting the wind energy in the atmosphere, large wind farms also affect the micro-climate around them and these affects will only increase with larger wind farms. Most disturbing is the affect that the wind turbines have on winged wildlife. Besides clobbering birds and bats to death, the wind turbines also cause the lungs and ear drums of winged animals to explode if they get too close.

Wind Farm

One could argue that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is such a grave threat that birds and bats should be sacrificed, however, that would be flawed logic if better options are available.

Biofuels are not the better option. Besides the fact that biofuels are theoretically carbon neutral, and have an EROI barely over 1 (in the best circumstances), they also have significant side effects. First of all, they still generate air pollution because they are a hydrocarbon fuel. Second of all, the indirect effects of producing many biofuels might be worse than AGW itself. Palm oil plantations (to produce biofuel) are expanding at a rapid rate in southeast Asia and destroying the habitat of many animals, some of which are under threat of extinction, like tigers. Some of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is for biofuel crops as well (most is for food). Here in the U.S. food (corn) is being used to create ethanol, which is a bad thing considering the high cost of oil and food. Some people predict food demand will double over the next few decades. Even though a doubling is highly doubtful (in my opinion), food demand will go up, so it brings into question why we are spending money (subsidies) to turn food into ethanol and carve up the tropical forests of the world.

One of the more cost-efficient alternatives people could be using is geo-thermal energy. While it is true that installation costs are currently quite high, the maintenance is quite low on these systems and people usually easily recoup their costs for systems installed in individual homes. Scaling up to commercial heating and electrical generation might be more practical in the future by using old oil and gas wells. Some of these could be retro-fitted for geo-thermal applications and the cost would be lower because no new drilling need be done. The best thing about geo-thermal is that is has a low impact on the environment.

One of the other big alternative energy sources is of course solar power. While it is not “great” yet, it keeps getting better and it has the biggest upside. The main environmental downside is the land space that large solar farms take up. If more people install them on their houses then this would not be as much of an issue. The high cost of solar is one aspect that has prevented widespread adoption, but a recent analysis has shown that solar is currently cheaper than most people realize, in many areas of the world, you can install it for around $1 per watt or a little less. So the price of solar is reaching a tipping point, especially as the price of oil remains around $100 per barrel. Oerlikon Solar of Switzerland, has developed a turn-key manufacturing process for thin film solar panels that could reduce the cost to $0.47 per watt when it is commercially available and installed in 2014. This low cost is partially dependent on labor costs (people who will operate the manufacturing line), so China would be one place in the world where the thin films could be made that cheap. Even so, it would also help reduce costs in the developed world as well, as manufacturing becomes more automated.

Another incremental improvement in solar technology comes from North Carolina State University. Researchers there have designed a new dye for dye-sensitized solar cells that is 14% more efficient at absorbing light than previous dyes. Every little advance makes solar power more practical and more affordable for future generations.

Solar panels in use at Google

Sadly, one big company has ceased its investment and research into solar power. Google recently announced that it will focus more on its core competencies. I was excited for Google’s involvement in solar because they are creative and they have a lot of money to spend. Thankfully there are plenty of others also working on improving solar power.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy

When discussing recent weather and climate research, we are most often referencing labs and scientists in other parts of the country and other parts of the world. It is more interesting when some important research happens right here in our back yard. It is true that UW-Madison is a powerhouse of research in areas as diverse as agriculture and stem cells, but some investigations happen further north in the state as well.

The forestry research station in Rhinelander was recently involved in a long term anthropogenic global warming (AGW) study. The questions being answered revolve around how increased levels of carbon dioxide and ozone will affect forest growth. This is something important to study because, contrary to “common knowledge” it is NOT known exactly how much carbon dioxide is, or could potentially be, absorbed by forest growth. Many ecologists and climatologists have theorized that forest will not grow as well or absorb much carbon dioxide in the future. The Rhinelander study showed that this is not true. Over a period of 12 years when they exposed forest plots to increased carbon dioxide, they found the trees grew more than expected – 26% more than those exposed to regular levels of carbon dioxide. They also found that forest plots exposed to higher levels of ozone (a pollutant in the lower atmosphere) fared just as well as those exposed to lower levels. There were some plants that did not grow as well but the total mass of the forest was the same because ozone-tolerant plants grew a little better. Here ia another article about the research results.

Forest Research in Rhinelander

This is good news considering the fact that, at least in the short term, carbon dioxide levels and ozone levels will continue to increase. However, I would rather not have more pollution in the air, even if our forests can deal with it. As you know, I expect technological advances to greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels over the next couple of decades and thus reduce ozone pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

In contrast to the forests in Wisconsin, which seem to be well managed, stable, and useful for research, it seems forests in Borneo are getting cut down at an increasing rate for – you guessed it – biofuels. This is another reason why I am not “bulllish” on biofuels for the future. First of all, it is essentially a carbon neutral scenario for AGW. Second of all, biofuels can hardly be made at a profit – the EROI is barely over 1 in the best case scenarios. Thirdly, biofuels will still result in low level pollution when used for transportation. Fourth, current biofuel production uses up food (corn in the U.S.) and rain forests in southeast Asia (and elsewhere). Some people claim that 98% of the original forests in Malaysia will soon be gone.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Ecology

A couple weeks ago, I mentioned that Peak Oil theory might be more on the ropes than ever, not only because the world is using more alternative energy each year, but also because other forms of fossil fuel are becoming more accessible and profitable with the current high price of oil. This doesn’t mean that there will not be large price and supply volatility, just that it is increasingly unlikely that we are headed back to the stone age as was predicted so many times. This recent blog post at technology review displays fossil fuel use by major countries of the world through 2050. The Energy Information Administration indicates continual increases in the use of fossil fuels – despite the more difficult job of getting those fuels. The one thing I would quibble with is their statement that 10% of the world’s energy is now from renewable energy and that it will only grow to 15% by 2050.

This is in direct contradiction to the recent REN21 report that claims the world already receives 20% of its energy needs from renewables. The REN21 report includes biofuels – which are kind-of carbon based fuels like fossil fuels, so maybe that is where the contradiction arises. I am not 100% certain how REN21 and the EIA differ in their tabulations.

Even though I am not a big fan of biofuels in general, there is still some progress going on. Biofuels might not be a good replacement for transportation needs but could fill a big role for chemical feedstock. Everything made out of plastic begins as a barrel of oil. Take a look around at your office right now. Almost everything in it, from the computer to the desk to the carpet to the phone, is made from fossil fuel. If biofuels can replace oil for the production of plastics, it will be a win-win for the economy and environment because the production of biofuels could potentially be a bit cheaper certainly much cleaner. A start-up company in the Silicon Valley recently trumpeted a process to create ethylene (a major chemical feedstock) from methane. Seeing that we have so much natural gas here in the U.S. and it is very cheap, this could be a big breakthrough if it can be commercialized.

In the news lately we also have the potential for bacteria to create hydrazine (rocket fuel) from urine and some other folks talking about the beneifts of using biofuels as chemical feedstocks.

On the negative side, a recent European study suggests that the benefits of biofuels are often overstated, that they are not quite as renewable as everyone thinks because the “lifetime costs” are not always easy too define or calculate. In the longer term, for transportation purposes, it still looks like electric vehicles show the most promise.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

As regular readers know, I write about positive trends occurring in the environment and technology in order to remind people that it is not all doom and gloom in the present day. If you read apocalyptic AGW headlines too much without some perspective, you might think the world is ending tomorrow.

In the realm of alternative energy, I am quite enthusiastic about all the new research producing alternatives to fossil fuels, however, through the years it has come to my attention that some forms of alternative energy are better than others. One such alternative is grain ethanol and biofuels in general. Disclosure: I have friends in the industry and I have written about it before here.)

About 10 years ago when the big push for ethanol subsidies began, I was optimistic. Perhaps grain ethanol held some promise. It was never likely to be a blockbuster replacement and/or cost competitive with fossil fuels and it was hard to produce a positive energy return on invesment (EROI), but it was new and I was willing to wait and see how things developed. After 10 years, it seems the data is in, and it reflects poorly on grain ethanol. Mass production has not helped the economic bottom line and the side effects of ethanol policy are not good. The main problem is that using grain (food) to make fuel is that it makes food more scarce and expensive. I was astonished read that last year about 40% of the corn crop in the U.S. was used to make ethanol! It is no coincidence that food prices have hit record highs around the world. Some people have claimed that there is enough “extra” land to produce all the biofuels we need but then this land will no longer be in a natural state and could cause additional problems. A lot of grassland, swamp land, and forest land could be cleared for growing fuel but I don’t think that is what most of society would like to see. Also, ethanol is not as high of density fuel as gasoline, so fuel economy suffers quite a bit.

What about other biofuels? There are a lot of interesting new methods being developed with bacteria and algae and they do hold promise but I don’t think it these will be good long term solutions.

• Scientists overcome major obstacle to cellulosic biofuel production
• Scientists make butanol from algae
• Researchers produce butanol using bacteria

These methods of producing biofuels have advantages over using food, but they still don’t address the core issue of why there is so much focus on alternatives – AGW. If AGW is real and will be real bad in coming decades, then using biofuels is only a little better than using fossil fuels. Biofuels will still produce pollution and smog. Carbon emissions would theoretically be neutral (emissions out of the tail pipe would theoretically be recaptured and converted into fuel again), but an electrified economy would be better (reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere quicker). There is also the spectre of bio-engineered algae, bacteria, and yeast wreaking havoc in the “natural” world outside the lab/production plant.

If not biofuels, then what about wind turbines? I’ll put them under the microscope next week here in the blog. Stay tuned.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

I didn’t have time for the monthly recap yesterday so here it is today. November was another above normal month, which makes it 9 out of 11 months so far this year with above normal temperatures. It was not spectacularly warm, just about a degree and a half above normal. Precipitation was very close to normal but most of that fell as rain. In Wausau there was only 1.7 inches of snow whereas the normal snow is a little over 7 inches. The bad news for snow-lovers is that no major storms are projected in our area for the next few days. We will have to live with an inch here and an inch there, until perhaps the middle of the month.

As far as records go during the month of November, things were pretty calm. We tied a record high on the 10th hitting 61 degrees and we set a new record for daily precipitation on the 13th with 0.84 inches of rain. For all the numerologists out there, nothing too exciting to report during the month of November. The highs and lows were fairly random. Only slightly interesting is that we had a high of 40 degrees three days in a row to round out the month on the 28th, 29th, and 30th. We had a high of 40 a total of 4 times during the month. Here are the final stats for Wausau:

2010 Average High: 41.8  (normal: 40.1)

2010 Average Low: 25.7  (normal: 24.6)

2010 Precipitation: 2.0″  (normal: 2.2″)

2010 Snowfall: 1.7″  (normal: 7.1″)

Highest Temperature: 63 on the 8th

Lowest Temperature: 10 on the 25th and 28th

Now on to the story I teased yesterday. It has to do with ethanol production. Back in the late 1990s and most of the 2000s I reported on and evaluated all of the energy alternatives fairly equally. As of late it looks like some are looking better and others worse. Ethanol (and biofuels in general) is one alternative energy that I am down on lately. I think the time for pushing this as a growth area for the future is over. It could still find good use as an emergency back-up if there are oil disruptions, but I don’t think it has much chance of becoming a primary or even secondary fuel for society. Government (taxpayer) support is the main reason why (grain)ethanol plants continue to operate. “Growing” our own fuel here in the U.S. year-after-year is a positive aspect of grain ethanol production but it just doesn’t pan out in the grand scheme of food production, energy efficiency, pollution, and carbon emissions. To me, grain ethanol (and biofuels in general) just doesn’t seem to be something we should be building our future on. The internal combustion engine and liquid hydrocarbons have served us well for over a hundred years but when I think of the future, I think of something different, something new.

Other people have been coming around to this conclusion as well – some that you might not expect. Al Gore has recently stated that it was a mistake to pursue industrial scale grain ethanol back in the late 1990s (another article from the other side of the political spectrum). Say what you will about Al Gore, his politics and shenanigans, but at least he admitted what he thinks is a mistake. You don’t find many people willing to publicly admit mistakes – especially politicians.

Quick update on the Saturday snowstorm: It still looks like there could be an inch or two of accumulation in the south part of the area, south of Marathon county. Around La Crosse the total could reach 4 to 6 inches.

Have a fun Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, forecast, Monthly Recap

First an update on the California “missile” mystery. The Pentagon is now saying that it was a jet contrail. Before being completely convinced, I would like find out what airplanes were scheduled to fly in that space at that time. If it was an contrail-type illusion (not a missile launch), then there should be a record of some jet aircraft coming from the west (From Hawaii, Australia, or maybe even the west coast of Mexico) during that time. If no one can find details of scheduled flight then it leaves open the possibility of a missile launch. What is your opinion about the “missile”. Share your thoughts in the comment section.

In weather news, the storm we have been tracking all week is still projected to hit the area this weekend and as Brian mentioned over the last day or two, it is looking more like rain for central Wisconsin with a potential for a couple inches of snow in the northwoods.

NAM Forecast for Saturday

If we do not end up with an inch of snow in Wausau, then the First Snowfall Contest will continue through at least Wednesday of next week when another storm system could bring some light snow. For this weekend, it looks like some rain will develop Friday afternoon and continue into Saturday. The rain will eventually mix with and change over to snow Saturday night and into Sunday morning. The highest chance for a couple inches accumulation will be north of highway 8 and west of highway 13. The embedded image shows the NAM computer model projections for Saturday evening, indicating a bit more westward track of the storm.

Someone asked about the hunting season forecast (opening weekend - the 20th) again yesterday and I have been trying to pin it down over the last few days.

GFS model indicates cold opening weekend of hunting

It looks like there will be a storm moving through the Midwest around that time frame. The timing of this storm will be key to the hunting conditions. If the storm moves through on Friday (the 19th), then the hunting weekend will be cold and breezy, much colder than recent years. If the storm slows down a bit, the the opening weekend could be fairly mild with a chance of some light precipitation (mainly drizzle or light showers). The colder weather would then hold off until late Sunday or Monday (the 23rd). It pains me to say that I cannot refine the forecast more at this time. Opening weekend is still 9 days away which limits the accuracy of the forecast.

Something else that has been in the forecast over the last few days is an Air Quality Advisory in central Wisconsin. A couple years ago when the Air Quality Advisories started appearing in central Wisconsin, I was incredulous. I didn’t think there was a big enough population in central Wisconsin to create troublesome smog and particulate pollution. It turns out that the area has grown and automobile pollution is a problem. Nowadays anytime we have a few days in a row without much wind, we end up with an Advisory. It is not as bad as Houston, Atlanta, LA, or a host of other US cities, but it concerns me quite a bit.

The advisory level has been at orange over the last couple of days which means people sensitive to particulate pollution (those with asthma, other lung issues, or the elderly) should take precaution. Even though this level of pollution is not immediately “bad” for healthy folks, a lifetime of exposure has been linked to increased mortality and ill health as we age. When it comes to doing something about the pollution, tough choices need to be made. California clamped down on car pollution by instituting emission standards. Every car in the state has to pass an emissions test – which I assure you is a pain in the rear end and expensive if you own a used car that doesn’t run as efficiently as when it was new. Air pollution did go down in the Golden State over the years but it is still some of the worst in the nation. Another solution is to attempt to limit urban sprawl and promote mass transit. This has not worked so well in the US because we have a lot of space to expand into and there is more of an independent spirit in the country. Even here is Wausau it is tough to stop sprawl. When the National Guard wanted a new facility they chose to move out into the country and pave over 40 acres of “green space” instead of building something new at their current location. Building at the current location would require that they have a 2 story building. When the city (and myself) suggested building at the current location they said go fly a kite (“we don’t do 2 story buildings”). So if we cannot reign in sprawl the next best option would be to use non-polluting cars. Thankfully, there is a burgeoning electric car industry in the US and around the world. The prices of the new electric vehicles (EVs) are a little steep right now, but hopefully will come down enough to allow mass adoption in the near future, otherwise I will have to move far out into the country, or even out of state. Some of the cleanest air is in the mountain states out west, although some locations are now being affected by particulate pollution from China. Some people estimate that up to 15% of this type of pollution along the west coast originates from China. Guess what the problem in China is? Too many cars, and car ownership in China is much less than in the US, so it could get worse.

One thing I should mention, in respect to air pollution, EVs are a much better option than biofuel cars. Biofuels might be slightly better for than the environment than traditional fossil fuels, but they still produce smog. Some studies have show increased levels of some types of pollution with the use of ethanol. Plus many biofuels are still much too expensive for mass adoption. Growing the material for biofuels also takes up a lot of space. From start to finish, electrification of transportation is much more efficient.

Have a fine Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, First Snowfall 2010, forecast, Pollution, Winter Weather