An interesting projection of arctic vegetation changes was published recently. As you can imagine, if the arctic continues to warm, more trees will grow. The study expects up to 50% more trees in arctic regions by 2050. This would most likely lead to significant changes for the arctic climate and other areas of the world. One would tend to think that if more trees grow, then more sunlight will be absorbed (as compared to snow-covered tundra) and that this would lead to a positive feedback, leading to more warming. However, nature and the climate are complex and rarely follow a human script.

Could there be some negative consequences from more tree growth in the arctic over the next 4 decades? Yes. Could this lead to continued warming? Yes. Should we try hard to reduce our impact on the envrionment? Yes. However, we know that more warmth and “bad consequences” not a certainty because there was more vegetation, more warmth, and much less ice as little as 1600 years ago. Researchers studying the retreating ice in the Canadian arctic have found plant material under the ice which dates to as little as 1600 years ago. If wildlife, plant life, and the biosphere in general was able to survive much less ice in the arctic as little as 1600 years ago, maybe it will not be the “end of the world” this time around either, as more melting is expected.

Also, the proposed feedback mechanisms might not be as strong as some suspect. One of the commonly repeated themes of the arctic thaw is that “huge” amounts of carbon dioxide are going to be released from the permafrost and accelerate warming across the globe. This theme does have some scientific backing and makes intuitive sense, but nature doesn’t operate by human intuition. A recent paper claims that fungus in the soil around tree roots are what hold the most carbon in arctic regions. So not only would more trees be a carbon sink (as they grow) the fungus in the soil around the roots might sequester more carbon. I cannot say with any certainty how much carbon we are talking about here, or if there would be a significant effect on future theorized warming, but this finding once again challenges the thought that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and positive feedback loops are fait accompli.

Of course, discussing past climate events as a comparison with the current situation is a little like comparing apples to oranges. Well maybe not that much different, more like comparing a Granny Smith apple to a Fuji apple. Humans have changed the atmosphere to a degree so that adds an extra variable to the mix. A lot of AGW theorists expect a lot more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere in coming decades – often discussing it as fait accompli. But even here, as I have mentioned in the past, perhaps there is room for less negativity.

Drilling Into Shale For Nat Gas

The U.S. in the last few years is a great example. If you had looked at carbon dioxide emmission projections from 10 years ago, you would find most experts, in fact almost all experts, predicting a steep rise. What happened? Just the opposite. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions sank dramatically after 2007 and are now as low as back in the early 1990s. Can this trend continue? Sure it can, but it will take continued effort and continued use of less carbon intensive fuels like natural gas. Natural gas development and “fracking” have had a lot of negative press lately, but it has been a great bridge fuel. I am glad a few other people are now recognizing the environmental benefits as well.

The idea here is that natural gas can begin a trend of cleaner energy, while development of solar or other alternatives continue to develop. It is a slow process but more solar power is installed every year, solar panels have gotten cheaper, and solar panels continue to get more efficient. The solar industry has come far enough that some claim it is now a net energy producing industry! Here are some of the latest develoments:

In specialized solar cells there have been a couple of news records for efficiency. Swiss researchers have generated a world record 10.7% efficiency with a single junction polycrystalline solar cell. Yale scientists created a record 11% efficiency with carbon-nanotube-film-over-silicon cells. In the lab, materials science continues to produce possible future breakthroughs. The Neils Bohr Institute has shown that nanowires can concentrate sunilght up to 15 times normal intensity. Computer simulations at the University of Vienna have shown that single layer oxides could be used to make more effcient and ultra-thin solar panels in the future. Lastly, Uconn researchers are trying to develop what are called “solar rectennas”. These tiny devices could in theory harvest up to 70% of the incedent solar energy.

Of course, not all breakthroughs in the lab make it to commercial production, or they might not be a commercial success. That is the story with a lot of thin film solar businesses. About 10 years ago, these businesses were “hot” and proposed to make less efficient but cheaper solar panels. Unfortunately, business realities have forced many of them into bankruptcy. Crystalline silicon solar panels have dropped in price so much that thin films are not very cost competitive. The low solar panel prices have also forced one the world’s biggest producers  – Suntech - to go bankrupt. It is a story of over-supply. Subsidies from the Chinese government allowed Suntech to expand production – so much so that a glut developed and prices fell to a point where they couldn’t turn a profit. Some people are a bit concerned that cost pressures will slow down innovation in the industry while companies focus on cutting costs, but finding ways to cut cost and remain profitable is a form of innovation. Where real innovation is needed is in regulations and installation costs. The majority of the cost of going solar is in regulations and installation. The actual solar panels are dirt cheap as compared to a few years back. Cheap panels should be good news for developers of big solar projects and it seems like Brightsource is taking advantage – moving forward with building another plant (a solar thermal plant) in southern California.

Even in the event that alternatives a slow to come online, and theorized warming comes to pass, there is always the possibility of sequestering carbon dioxide or even taking  itout of the air. I have heard some people say it is a nearly impossible task, but some people are working on it. Here are a couple of recent articles on the subject: Scientists explore the miriad ways of removing carbon dioxide from the air. New fuel production process could use carbon dioxide from the air.

Have a fine Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

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 some of the downsides of biofuels and grain ethanol once again, while alluding to some possible better options that might help “electrify” our economy and society in the near future. This topic also ties in with hurricane/superstorm Sandy in a way that you might expect. Whether you are using biodiesel or solar panels, having your own off-grid power is essential if you want to avoid some of the worst effects of a major disaster. Many large buildings, Universities, hospitals, and businesses along the eastern seaboard continued operation after hurricane Sandy. They were not at the whim of the grid, and whenever it might be repaired. I often blog about the ailing and sprawling infrastructure in the U.S. and Sandy once again exposed the problems.

• More hurricane Sandy content: The storm surge had been modeled previously. The devastation could be foreseen.
• Slide show from EETimes showing New York the day after.
• Slide show of damage along the coast
• More information on how the power outages happened.
• 16 Fisker Karma electric cars burned after being submerged in sea water.

Perhaps it also exposed the problem of having a highly centralized power grid. Diverse systems are more robust systems. The centralized power grid is like putting all of our eggs in one basket. One point of failure can bring the whole system down for days. Power engineers and power companies have done a marvelous job keeping the grid going and the power flowing for decades but there could be some improvement.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, burying power lines would be one way to possibly reduce widespread power outages during a storm. I contacted WPS (our local utility) and found out that they are testing out such a system. The WPS representative I talked to mentioned the very frequent power outages in “the northwoods” in the past couple of years. It seems every time a thunderstorm rolls through the tree-covered north, the power goes out to thousands of customers. WPS decided to test out something new and it is the burying of distribution lines. Emily Neubauer filed this recent report about the test in northern Wisconsin. The distribution lines are the ones that snake down the alley way or follow the streets through town and in the country. They are not yet to the point of burying transmission lines, and that might not be necessary (but here is a pdf if you want to read about the technical challenges of underground transmission lines).

The greatest number of lines that are most vulnerable are the distribution lines. Here is a very in depth paper that contains analysis of several major power outages in the past decade along with the cost and benefit of using underground (UG) cables. As you can imagine, the study found that people like UG power lines and they are more reliable during storms, however, they are much more costly to install and repair. The WPS spokesperson I spoke with said that the utility would charge customers more in order to recoup the development of UG distribution. This should be expected. How much more is the question. If the cost can be spread out over several years of bills, then it might be palatable to many people. It might be better than having your power go out in the Northwoods every time a thunderstorm rolls through.

The one interesting thing that the WPS spokesperson noted is that many new subdivisions built in recent years have opted for UG power lines. It mostly boils down to aesthetics. People who want a nice house on a couple acres in a quiet subdivision do not want their view spoiled by power lines. I completely understand that desire. And now, there is at least one good thing I can say about sprawling subdivisions in this country. At least some of them have UG power lines, thus being less likely to be a burden upon the power company when the power goes out after a storm. Now if there was a small solar power plant in each subdivision, we would really be talking!

Of course, solar power takes up space and costs a lot of money and thus even though a solar-powered subdivision could go substantially off grid, I doubt you will see too many of them in the near future. This is not the case in less developed countries. In past blog posts I mentioned how it was unlikely for developing countries to follow the same auto-centered economic path we have. In power generation there are also some differences. It makes sense for far flung communities in less developed countries to develop micro grids for power. It makes economic sense for them to use solar power. Using a micro-grid and living mostly free of fossil fuels might help developing countries leap frog more developed countries in some areas of progress. Not only is solar power cleaner, but it is getting cheaper and more efficient year after year. Developments in the lab seem to point toward more progress in the future.  Here in the U.S. we have a lot of sunk costs in the auto-centered infrastructure. It is very hard to change. In some developed countries they are even going backwards in a manner of speaking. In Germany, because they are shutting down all of their nuclear reactors they need to supplement their electrical grid with a different source of energy. Wind and solar are too expensive (anyway, to replace ALL of the former nuclear power), so they are planning on building numerous new coal fired power plants. New coal plants are certainly much cleaner than the old ones, and they might be able to sequester some of the carbon dioxide, but it just seems like a step in the wrong direction. Too bad they are not looking into thorium nuclear power, which could potentially be much safer, but also depleted uranium reactors, like that being promoted and developed by Terra power.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Storms, Technology

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

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

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

Looking out the hotel window: cars and pavement

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

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

Typical scenery in Phoenix

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

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

More typical Phoenix scenery

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

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

Kudos to the owner of this building with solar panels

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Environment, Pollution, Travel

I mentioned in my “Downsizing the House” article that I would be traveling to Arizona soon. Since FirstSolar is headquartered in Phoenix, and I am a big promoter of solar power, I thought it would a great opportunity to visit the company, take a tour of the factory/headquarters, maybe see a big solar farm built with FirstSolar panels, or interview someone from the company. I was hoping that at the very least I could get a few pictures and post them here in the blog.

None of that is going to happen. And, I am now kind-of pessimistic about the company. And it really isn’t their fault, so it is kind-of unfair that I am writing about it. But here it goes anyway,

I couldn’t get a tour of the headquarters because they really don’t have a “headquarters”. All they do is rent some office space in Phoenix. While it would be nice for the premier solar panel manufacturer in the U.S. to have a nice building “for show”, the reality in today’s world is that a website is probably more useful and more of an asset for “touring” a company, and they do have a nice website: http://www.firstsolar.com/ In the very thin margin business of solar panels, owning beautiful office buildings is a luxury that even shareholders might not agree with.

What about getting some information about the current market for solar panels? Unfortunately, FirstSolar will be reporting earnings soon and they are in a “quiet period”. There are probably some legal/regulatory reasons for this. Since I won’t be interviewing anyone, I won’t be able to ask about what new technology FirstSolar is working on either. Sad.

What about visiting one of their big solar farms in the southwest? Nope. Gaining access to the nearest solar farm requires special security clearance which they were not willing to provide/set-up for a small-time media person such as myself. I understand. The fellow I talked to was nice. He wasn’t talking down to me. It is just the reality. If an ABC network reporter showed up, they would probably open the gates. Maybe.

The other thing I found out is that FirstSolar only manufactures panels for large solar farms (photovoltaic power plants). They don’t do roof top panels. They don’t do anything else. This was probably a smart move when they first started out and most government’s were not bankrupt, but now I am starting to wonder. Government subsidy’s for solar power, whether direct or indirect, have been drying up. Simplifying your product line/offerings is a way to keep costs low (like Southwest has done in the airline industry), but it also puts all your eggs in one basket. FirstSolar will have to continue to find ways to shave pennies off their cost of production and continue to eek out more gains in efficiency, in order to have any hope for growth in the future. One would think if they offered single use sales/applications they might be able to add a few dollars of profit. Their panels are a little less efficient than silicon panels, coming in at about 14 to 15%, but one would think they could still make a few sales considering the low cost of their panels.

I have covered the solar news for a few years now. I don’t know all the details about the government subsidies in China that are supposedly allowing Chinese solar manufacturers to sell below cost and crowd others out of the market. That could be true. It is an unfair business practice. I would like to see more panel manufacturing here in the U.S. but I’ll bet you this, if I was in Shanghai and wanted to tour a Chinese solar plant, I suspect they would roll out the red carpet, with a smiling tour guide, speaking his or her best broken English, promoting how awesome their solar panels are. Even for a small-time media person like me.

_______________________________

On the technology side, one thing that might really give solar panels a boost is nanotechnology. Different type of nano-structured surfaces doped with different elements could boost efficiency a tremendous amount.

Black Silison (in the middle) from NREL

Even in the present day, the so-called “black silicon” I have been writing about continues to make headlines. The NREL recently claimed a new efficiency record of 18.2% with a type of silicon with tiny nano-sized holes patterned into it.

Bandgap, a solar research company, is making even bolder claims about the far off future. Bandgap is already working on technology that can boost the typical silicon solar cell from 15% up to 20%. They plan to create a new type of PV cell with precisely aligned silicon nanowires that could achieve 38% efficiency at the low end and a whopping 60% at the high end. It is a lot of physics theory at this point and not much hope for a product in the near term. There are a lot of manufacturing and engineering hurdles to overcome before Bandgap even gets close to those efficiency numbers.

Have a fine Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a swell Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Ag Weather, Alternative Energy

Here in the weather blog, when I am not discussing the latest weather theory, news, or forecast, I am usually talking about the future – specifically technological progress. I think it is an under appreciated topic and concern for our future prosperity and happiness. I am always glad to share news of breakthroughs and new engineering marvels, but I also feel a need to periodically remind everyone that there is great peril that comes with technological progress. Almost every new technology could be weaponized in some manner. We also run the risk of being dependent and eventually controlled (against our will) by our technology. Check out this past blog post for a unique look at the situation.

If you are concerned, be heartened, as am I, that some people are now focusing more effort on making sure that humanity survives our increasingly powerful technology. I have mentioned the LifeBoat Foundation in the past (of which I am on the advisory board). Now there is a new effort coming from Cambridge Univeristy entitled “The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk”. I am not sure why they didn’t just join forces with the LifeBoat Foundation, but I am hopeful they can effectively foresee the trouble ahead nonetheless.

Typical Cement Plant

Speaking of technology, AGW is one of those threats (which I don’t think is an existential threat) that can be solved through technology. The latest news is of a company Skyonic which claims to have an economically feasible method of taking CO2 out of industrial exhaust gases (like cement factories and power plants). They recently raised $9 million in private financing to test out their method on a cement plant in Texas. The process takes the flue gas and makes sodium bi-carbonate as well as a few other marketable industrial chemicals. Another possibility of using-up carbon and keeping it from getting into the atmosphere is the creation of bio-char, which I have discussed before.

It would be better would be if cement factories could operate without creating any emissions at all, and that is what some scientists from the University of Virginia are proposing with a new solar powered cement making process.

If AGW is going to be a big problem, then it would be better yet if we didn’t need so much cement to support our sprawling unsustainable infrastructure.

Even better would be a continued transition away from the polluted industrial age and fossil fuels. Coal, oil, and gas are still necessary and economical, but solar power (and a few other alternatives) and an electrified economy have many benefits. Here’s to technology!

Have a nice weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

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

Good news! The price of solar panels continues to fall. Although I would temper this news with the acknowledgement that most solar panel producers around the world are supported by government subsidies. Remember what we found out during the Solyndra Scandal. They were selling their solar “panels” for half the cost it took to make them. No wonder they went bankrupt and taxpayers lost their loan money. So the true price of the panels remains unknown, but the trend is good.

This report about India claims that solar panels in that country are now cheaper than running a diesel generator. In fact, the solar panels are typically half the cost of diesel power, not to mention much cleaner. If this trend continues, it will be a no-brainer for Indians to buy solar panels over fossil fuel, and this could perhaps help maintain the fragile (subsidy-supported) industry. This article about solar panel adoption in Africa also hints at the positive trend. The combination of cheap solar panels and one of my other favorite subjects – LED lighting – has made solar electric powered lighting (and gadget re-charging) more feasible than using fossil fuel such a kerosene. Here is an older article about some of the various solar lighting tech employed in remote and poor areas of Africa. Solar/LED is not as cheap as using old plastic soda bottles for lighting, but it is becoming a better option in developing countries.

Remember too, that the efficiency of solar panels continues to increase incrementally year-over-year. Along with the lower manufacturing cost, efficiency gains will make solar even more attractive in coming years. The panel prices here in the U.S. have dropped dramatically as well. The main problem that remains is the installation cost. That is what prevents me from getting solar panels on my roof just yet. For anyone who can figure out a way to reduce the cost of installation there is some money to be made.

So what has driven the cost of solar panels down so much? More efficient manufacturing for the most part (and the aforementioned subsidies). Every day I hear or read about another incremental improvement in solar panel production. Recently, Astrowatt has developed a new method for creating silicon wafers which involves peeling the silicon off the inguts instead of sawing it off. This wastes less material and since polysilicon is one of the more expensive pieces of the solar puzzle, it should reduce the cost by a small percentage. On the power electronics side of things, Arraypower has invented a new type of DC to AC inverter that could cut the cost of big solar installations by 10%.

_____________________________________________

Now a follow-up on a developing technology that seems to be flying under radar of popular culture but not under the radar of this blog. It is cloaking. The latest engineering feat comes from the University of Texas at Austin. They have created the world’s first 3D cloak to hide an object in free space. They have used surface plasmons on metamaterials to achieve this feat, which is a little too complicated to explain here. But don’t expect to wear a Harry Potter invisibility cloak anytime soon, this cloaking was again in the microwave range of the electro-magnetic spectrum, not in the visible range, but it is amazing none-the-less.

In a year or two I expect more cloaking developments in the visible range. Perhaps some large scale cloaking might be demonstrated in a decade. I don’t know if people appreciate how much this technology would change society. In the movies, it is usually just the protagonist or villain who has the invisibility cloak, which makes for simple drama. What if everyone had access to this? The ramifications would be immense and unsettling. It would certainly affect the power relationship between oppressive government and the people. It would affect warfare and crime. Like most disruptive technology it would likely be feared at first but accepted eventually.

___________________________________

Lastly, another report about the attempt to drill into Lake Vostok. In this article, the Russian scientists are quoted as not being certain whether they will be able to complete the drilling before Winter sets in and might have to wait until next Summer (Summer in Antarctica, that is).

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Technology