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

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

The site of new nuclear plants under development in Georgia

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

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

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Pollution

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

After marvelling at the progress in solar power last week, I think it is time for a wind power update. It is still there (wind power). It is still the cheapest form of alternative energy. Nothing new. The amount of wind energy produced climbs with the erection of each new mega-turbine.

The downsides to wind energy/turbines remain the same. Noisy. Kills flying animals. Disrupts the local weather (in the case of large wind farms). Ruins the beauty of the natural landscape. And now we can add one more downside risk for ocean based turbines – hurricanes. A recent study found that many ocean-based wind turbines would be destroyed by hurricanes during their 20 year lifetime. This should certainly factor into the lifetime cost of ocean-based wind farms – making them a little more expensive than what is currently estimated. Another part of the cost of wind turbines that not too many people seem to mention is de-commissioning cost.  Whether whacked by a hurricane or just worn out from a normal life-cycle (about 20 years), how much will it cost to take the turbines down? What about the huge blocks of cement left in the earth? Before we cover too much more of the earth with these huge turbines, maybe we should consider some of the lifetime costs.

Overall, I still support wind energy in general, but it is definitely not a panacea. It will not be too much longer before we reach the point of diminishing returns with wind turbines. Already, the average wind speed around the globe is decreasing. While it would take at least a doubling or tripling of current installation numbers to have a dramatic effect, each new turbine takes a little more momentum out of the air.

New Nuke Plant Construction

So maybe nuclear power is a better option? It could be, but there are safety concerns. Plus the production of nuclear fuel is still highly dependent on the availability of cheap fossil fuel energy, and Peak Oil is having an effect on prices, even if it hasn’t caused a total collapse of society. In any case, amazingly, the U.S. has approved the construction of 2 new nuclear reactors in Georgia. These new “third-generation” reactors are supposed to be safer than the one that melted down in Fukushima last year. But don’t expect these to come online until around 2020 or so. Just because they have been approved doesn’t mean they will not have to jump through another million bureaucratic hoops before the construction is finished.

And if you follow the cold fusion story, which I suppose is a future energy wild card, even if the chances it is real or economically viable are quite small, here is a recent video from NASA explaining a possible new cold fusion method. The video is scant on details. Is it just theory? Do they have a good grasp on what they are talking about? Is a super clean energy future right around the corner? I doubt it, but I am willing to learn more.

In the cold fusion realm, I have been following the Rossi E-cat story. Rossi is an Italian scientist that claims to have created a cold fusion machine (the E-cat) and is trying to sell it to different power companies around the world. Many people think it is a fraud. He has held demonstrations to convert skeptics but won’t allow anyone to “look under the hood”. Suspicious? Definitely. I hope it really works, but some other people and potential investors are starting to cry foul.

Have a good Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

Due to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, devastating tornadoes in the U.S. and various other disasters, 2011 is already the costliest year for weather disasters in recorded history. Through the first 6 months of 2011 natural disasters have resulted in $265 billion in losses. The second place year was 2005 when losses were about $220 billion. Surprisingly (and thankfully) this year is no where near close to being tops in human deaths from natural disasters. Tragically, 19,380 people have died from natural disasters this year. Last year the total was much higher due to the earthquake in Haiti which killed 225,000 people alone. Another deadly disaster last year was the heat wave  that struck Russia, killing about 50,000 people.

This year, the most deadly event was the Japan earthquake and deaths from that disaster might continue to rise due to lingering after effects. Not only have some strong aftershocks hit the island nation (one just a few days ago), unfortunately, the complete meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant spread a lot more radiation around that what was originally assumed and reported. Recently, radioactive particles have been found in the ash of waste incinerators. Contaminated meat has also been found from cows raised near Fukushima. So far, the radiation health risks have been contained, at least according to Japanese government officials, some of whom have not been very forthcoming throughout this ordeal. It makes me wonder how much radiation actually reached the United States. It is probably not much and I haven’t seen any reports about health risks, so hopefully we will be alright. What makes the tragedy even more tragic is the news that the Fukushima plant was built on a site that once had a 120 foot hill. TEPCO razed the hill so that the nuclear plant would be closer to sea level and bedrock. They calculated the odds of a tsunami as being so low that the plant would be ok. Sadly, it wasn’t. Mother Nature surprised us again.

Maybe we will not be so surprised in the future, by earthquakes anyway. geologists and seismologists have long been working on methods of predicting major earthquakes (including a new and better understanding of how plate tectonics work) and now they might get a new tool in their arsenal, courtesy of the weather. Preliminary analysis of the weather over northeastern Japan shortly before the big earthquake shows an increase in infrared emssions and an increase in total electron content in the ionosphere over the epicenter in the days leading up to the quake (another article here with graphics).

Because it is only one quake and one set of data, it is hard to draw any firm conclusions about the weather before an earthquake. I would say the electron content of the ionosphere holds more promise. The infrared emissions of the atmosphere change all the time for all kinds of different reasons, so it would be hard to know what increases in heat (infrared emissions) were presaging an earthquake and which ones were not. Still, given all the anecdotal reports of weird weather prior to earthquakes, it is an interesting field of study and something to keep an eye on in the future.

Have a fine Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Earthquake, Geology, Natural Disasters, Severe Weather

Remember the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan that got hit by the earthquake and tsunami. It turns out that the damage was much more significant than authorities let on in the beginning. Apparently there was a complete meltdown of three reactors and a partial meltdown of the fourth on the day of the tragedy. Much more radiation was released than was told the public and it was (and still is) a much greater health hazard than everyone was led to believe.

When it was thought that there was no meltdown (by most of the world except insiders at TEPCO), many opined that nuclear power was still a viable option for future power needs – a cleaner greener option with less carbon dioxide emissions. Since then, things have really soured. Not only is Japan thinking about scaling back nuclear power, Germany is beginning a plan to phase it out as well. The problem with phasing out such a significant source of energy is that it will make electricity much more expensive. At this point, Germany plans to make up for the lack of electricity from nuclear power with off shore winds farms which are more expensive and produce intermittent power. Also, wind turbines do not come without side effects. While they are currently the “greenest” alternative energy option, they do have adverse effects on the weather, flying animals, and perhaps fish. Some scientists suspect that the constant droning sound of the wind turbines might stress some aquatic life.

Back in Japan, ground zero of the meltdown, they are already feeling the effects of living without nuclear power and much of the rest of the world is mulling transitioning to other forms of “green energy”. Various countries are looking toward alternatives not only because of safety issues but because a recent study has shown that nuclear power is not as scalable as many people previously thought. The study indicates that we could probably triple our current nuclear power before the rising cost became unsustainable. If we wanted to power the world with nuclear (fission) we would need to increase our nuclear capacity by about 45 times. So it looks less and less likely that nuclear fission will be the energy of the future. It might even be rapidly phased out if the price of other energy options continues to decline (like solar). I am still holding out some hope for nuclear fusion. In the next couple of years, while wind and solar power gain traction, natural gas could become the cleaner, cheaper, and slightly “greener” fuel of choice to keep society afloat.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Earthquake, Tsunami

First up, a WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY is in effect for Monroe, Juneau, and Adams counties until 6pm today and for Waushara county until midnight. A LAKE EFFECT SNOW ADVISORY is in effect until 6am Friday for Iron and Ashland counties. The snow amounts in the south are turning out to be a little more than expected. Two to four inches looks likely around highway 21and farther south in the viewing area. Once you get down to Madison the totals could be 5 to 7 inches and closer to Lake Michigan totals might be around 10 inches as some lake effect snow enhances the precipitation. Expect travel delays on the road and in the skies if you plan on traveling to southern Wisconsin or northern Illinois through tonight. Closer to home it looks like a couple inches will fall in Wood, Portage, and Waupaca counties. An inch or so is likely around Marathon county. Just a dusting will fall in mostof the northwoods (outside of the lake effect areas). In the long term, it still looks like a milder El Nino driven weather pattern will commence on Sunday and perhaps last into the 4th week of January or longer. This could mean a lack of snowfall as well. Hopefully the snow that is falling today will be enough to keep the snowmobile trails in good shape because we might not have another significant storm until toward the end of the month or early February. This ALSO means that the drought conditions in the state will not improve much either, and might get a little worse in the north. This week’s US Drought Monitor indicates no improvement in the moderate to severe drought plaguing areas north of highway 8. No troubles in southern Wisconsin and with significant snow once again in the south today there is no reason to expect any drought to develop anytime soon.

Peak Oil:

No important new news on this topic except that it is 2010 and we haven’t experienced a “crash” in oil production yet. We aren’t living in the stone age. Oil production peaked in 2006-2007 around 85 million barrels a day. Production is lower today but this is mainly a function of demand. The price of oil could certainly spike again like in 2008 and this will introduce self-limiting market mechanisms causing conservation, but there just doesn’t seem to be a society-ending crash coming anytime soon. Estimates of recoverable oil have actually gone up a little in the last couple of years. Not only that, fossil fuels in general should be plentiful for the next couple of decades, during which time society will likely adopt evermore alternative energy and leave fossil fuels behind.

It was a couple years ago that I blogged about the contradiction that existed between the Peak Oil theorists and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theorists. One side (Peak Oil) claimed society was going to be destroyed within a couple decades because of the lack of oil. The other side (AGW) claimed society (and nearly all life on earth) was going to be destroyed because of all the oil and fossil fuels that were going to be used for decades on end, at least through 2100. One of them had to be wrong….right? After contacting representatives from each side, they both claimed they were correct but the other side was kind-of right as well. Basically…there was enough fossil fuel left to create catastrophic global warming and that oil shortages would harm society but there are still other fossil fuels to use. So, I like to come back to this topic once in a while. I think both theories are prone to exaggeration. You can read more about Peak Oil here and here. I noticed the Oil Decline site has some old info. It was a couple years ago that we were consuming 85 million barrels a day, and that amount has gone down since. Life-after-the-crash still begins its web page with “Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon”. The writer is correct but not in the way he thinks. Information technology is going help develop new clean energy solutions and wring much more efficiency out of existing infrastructure.

What type of new energy solutions besides wind and solar could change the energy landscape and save us from a Peak Oil crisis? What about thorium nuclear reactors. Here is a fascinating article about how thorium is a much better and cheaper fuel for nuclear reactors. It could usher in a new era of clean and abundant energy, if environmentalists jump on the bandwagon. Thorium was investigated as a nuclear fuel a few decades ago and it was known to be a superior fuel for nuclear power but politics got in the way. First of all, the waste product from Thorium reactors is not usable in nuclear bombs so governments did not invest in these reactors. Secondly, because of the radioactive waste from uranium reactors, environmentalists committed to stopping all nuclear power. The regulations in place from the anti-nuclear hysteria of the 1980s are preventing or at least slowing down the building of any new thorium-based nuclear reactors.

Have a good Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Drought, Peak Oil, Pollution, Winter Weather