A couple of really bad “science” stories have hit the media recently. One involves liability and the other dishes out mostly propaganda.

Perhaps you already heard about this one involving the liability of scientists. Seismologists in Italy were found guily of manslaughter for inaccurately predicting when an eartquake would strike. They were found guilty even though there was credible evidence that these scientists were pressured by superiors to produce a specific forecast and thousands of scientists around the world wrote letters of support on their behalf. First of all, earthquake forecasting is just that – it is forecasting – much like weather forecasting. Scientists look at the data, calculate what might happen, and issue a forecast that represents or indicates some level of confidence. This is a terrible legal precedent and going forward I would not want to be involved in any forecasting of anything in Italy.

Lawsuits of this nature have been tried a couple of times in regards to weather forecasting – a couple of times here in the U.S. and in some foreign countries. In those cases, the lawsuits were thrown out, thankfully, because it was understood that there is no guarantee that comes with the forecast. It reminds me of the snarky comment I sometimes hear that meteorologists are the only people who “can be wrong 50% of the time” (some people say “most of the time”) and still have a job. First of all, broadcast meteorologists do get fired if they do a poor job. It is just an old wives tale that meteorologists can be “wrong most of the time” and still keep their job. Secondly, everyone is wrong some of the time. Whether in our daily lives or any job one might be doing, we have to deal with uncertainty. We all make little “forecasts” everyday in order to plan for the future, whether it be figuring the best route to work through heavy traffic or deciding the direction a business might take. We are all wrong some of the time and every errant forecast has some sort-of negative side effect, yet we are not fired for every little misstep. If we were all right all the time, we would all be billionaires or would be ruling the world. The IPCC is not held criminally accountable for poor climate forecasts. Military planners are sent to the Brigg for every error on the battlefield. These Italian seismologists should not be guilty of manslaughter.

Drilling For Oil

The other ”media release” was centered around the oil and gas industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists (although maybe this time around they should be called political scientists), produced a puff piece about how 66% of the money you pay at the pump “goes into the pockets of the oil companies”. They rely upon the economic ignorance and natural envy of people in order to try to make some environmental point. You are supposed to read their press release study and be hopping mad at the oil companies. I think they deliberately did not talk about the difference between profits and revenue in order to confuse people and make them angry. In the oil business, Exxon might be the most valuable company in the world right now (essentially, because they produce the most valuable product in the world…right now), but they are not the most profitable. Their profit margin was only a little over 7% in 2012. Most of Exxon’s profits come from refining and making specialized petroleum products. It is typical that the big oil companies only make 2 to 4 cents PROFIT per gallon of gas. It costs a lot of money to get your gas from the ground to the pump. If it was easy and cheap, we would all just drill for our own oil. So 66% of what you pay at the pump goes into the “pockets of the oil companies” but Exxon only makes a profit of 1% or less on gas and a bit over 7% overall (last year)

Compare Exxon to Apple. Apple had a HUGE profit margin between 25 and 30% during 2012. Apple’s products are over-priced yet people willingly pay. Apple uses sophisticated methods to avoid paying U.S. taxes, yet they are not considered “evil” like the oil companies. Apple could cut the price of their (very high quality) products by 25% and still make a profit. Wouldn’t that be nice. Complaining about paying money for gas is like complaining about paying money for your phone, or for your car, or a refrigerator. All of the companies that make the products we use to live, charge money for their products and they need to make a profit. This basic economic fact seems to have escaped the Union of Concerned Scientists.

If you don’t want to pay the high price of gas, either go drill your own oil (and refine it), or don’t buy it. After hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast in 2005, the price of gas shot up to $4 per gallon (as commodities generally should during times of shortage). Many people I know started to complain loudly. I didn’t. I bought a bike. I have been riding my bike to work for 6 or 7 (warm) months out of the year for 7 years and been saving money the whole time. Don’t live close to work? Move closer. As I have pointed out before, there are tens of millions of empty homes in the U.S. right now just waiting for a buyer. I am suspect that most people could find one near their work. By moving, you can save money and “stick it to the oil companies” at the same time! Complaining about the fact that oil companies charge money for their product is probably counter productive. Besides that, in order implement cleaner alternatives at scale, we might need the expertise of some of the world’s largest energy companies. Maybe the Union of Concerned Scientists should focus more on developing such partnerships or work harder at educating people on ways to save more (which they only touched upon in their recent press release).

 Before anyone chimes in with a comment, yes, I am aware that different companies have been involved in illegal activities in the past, and I definitely agree that they should be prosecuted for those crimes.  The economic issues presented here are mostly distinct from the legal issues.

While I am on the subject of bad science, how about a couple studies that are less bad, but still leave something to be desired.

Coal Power Plant

The first one is a wind power study out of Australia. It is really good news. Using wind power in Australia is now cheaper than building new coal or natural gas fired power plants (and another take on the study). So what happened in the last few years? Were new more efficient wind turbines invented? Not really. Did coal become a lot more expensive? Yes. Is Australia running out of coal? No. The price of coal has gone up because of a new carbon tax. That is part of the reason why wind power is calculated to now be cheaper than coal power. The other reasons are also not related so much to the science of energy production but on political considerations. According to the article, many banks who might help fund new coal power plants in Australia would include a risk premium that would jack up the price. The risk premium would have to be built in to the up front costs because the carbon tax could go up in future years and coal power plants might get sued by various, people, environmental organizations, or even entire nations in future years. It is also important to note that current coal and gas plants do produce electricity more cheaply than wind turbines. This study only calculates prices for future construction. I can’t help but wonder if there are some other flaws in this study such as not including new transmission line costs, battery back-up costs, or de-comissioning costs associated with wind turbine power. If wind power was cheaper that coal or gas on a stand alone basis (without political manipulation), it wouldn’t need to be promoted. Companies would be putting them up everywhere in order to save money. (Aside: I am neutral on wind power, it is a nice option for clean energy, but turbines do come with a handful of downsides).

Flu Virus

Lastly, a study that smells of confirmation bias. Remember back when I kept the big list of bad things that are happening or were going to happen because of AGW. I finally had to stop because the list got too big and included everything from more obesity and more starvation on up to the destruction of the planet. Let us hearken back to those days. What about the flu? A recent study “proves” that severe flu outbreaks are linked with AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The study comes to the conclusion that flu outbreaks will be worse after a warm winter. People don’t get ill during a warm winter – it is theorized – and then they are more vulnerable to infection during the next winter. I am sure you are wondering, “what about a warm winter followed by another warm winter?” That is what is expected if AGW comes to pass as predicted by the IPCC. Less cold winters should mean less flu overall, not more severe flu outbreaks – as theorized by the study. Cold and flu viruses spread more effectively when here is cold dry air around. If the world warms up and continues to turn more humid, one would think just the opposite (of what this study proclaims) would happen. Another deficiency with this study is that it only used data since the winter of 1997-98. That is a rather short chunk of time on which to base a study of influenza. It is a unique time in earth’s climate history (very warm) which is not representative of the climate history through which the flu has affected humans. The study could draw more robust conclusions if they could find a way to include data from prior years. As of now, I am not worried that flu outbreaks are going to get worse because of AGW.

Have a pleasant Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Natural Disasters, Nature, Science

I came across a rather caustic opinion about wind turbine “syndrome” the other day. The author claims wind turbine syndrome reports are almost all bunk – a position that has some truth to it. In case you are unaware, there is some resistance to wind turbines in a few corners of the world based upon health reasons. There is a growing list of disorders people are claiming. Many of them do sound outlandish and many are probably related to placebo-like effects or mass hysteria.

Some of the groups protesting wind turbine installations and filing health related lawsuits could be backed by interest groups and corporations in favor of fossil fuels, but this is not a reason to ignore and/or deride EVERY claim of ill-health. It is well known in the medical literature that repetitive visual and auditory signals (such as that coming from wind turbines) can cause serious ill-health effects. If these problems (however small the number of people with the real health issues) occurred with nuclear power or fossil fuels there would be hell (and a lot of money) to pay. There would be major lawsuits. There would be pontificating politicians. There would be new laws and regulations. New punitive taxes. You name it. Since it is wind turbines, apparently we should  just call most of the people crazy and tell them to move, I guess, according to some.

And remember, I am not anti-wind turbine. I am well aware of the positive aspects of their use. However, I am not a big proponent of increasingly more wind turbine usage in the future either. The “small” problems with wind turbines are numerous. Numerous enough that I would rather throw more of my support behind solar panels (that do not cause noise or flicker), geo-thermal, thorium nuclear power, 0r nuclear fusion. The money that might be spent putting up millions of more wind turbines around the world, would be better used in other alternatives and to pay for energy conservation and efficiency efforts.

Speaking of solar panels, I did get a call back from the city arborist who did not sound too positive about cutting down a couple of boulevard trees in order to make some “sunny” room for future solar panels. We are going to meet today to discuss it further. I’ll let you know how it goes. If I can’t cut down the front yard trees, maybe I will cut down the one’s in the back yard. I don’t really want to cut down the one’s in back because a couple of them are very old. They survived the massive logging in Wisconsin’s history. They are the biggest I have seen in the city. So it would be sad to cut them down. On the plus side, maybe the lumber within them would be valuable enough to help pay for a solar panel installation. There would also be more light in my back yard for a bigger garden. If all else fails, I might end up moving into a house with more available sunlight for solar panels (and a bigger garden), or maybe move out into the country.

Have a fine Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

In contrast to previous studies which I highlighted here in the weather blog (which I cannot find right now due to poor search functions in the blog software), a new study proclaims that the world could be powered many times over by wind turbines alone. I doubt it.

I don’t doubt the veracity or calculation behind the Stanford researcher’s computer simulation approach. I don’t doubt that we could increase our wind power generation a lot from where it stands right now. I do doubt that there wouldn’t be major limiting factors.

Adding millions of more turbines across the ocean and land will affect the wind. There might be plenty of wind to go around, but the weather would be affected to some degree. We already know that wind turbines keep night-time temperatures higher than they otherwise would be. They also tend to dry out nearby soil because they produce more turbulence in the air. More hidden and harder to predict is the “butterfly effect”. You have probably heard the saying about a butterfly flapping it wings in Mexico could later create a hurricane in Japan. This tale is told to illustrate the nature of non-linear (or chaotic) systems – like the atmosphere. Viewing the large scale picture of the atmosphere and total energy available does not capture the small effects that could manifest over time if large wind farms (on shore or offshore) with hundreds or thousands of turbines continue to be deployed. It is beyond our current capability to forecast or simulate local and regional weather changes due to removing terawatts of wind energy from the atmosphere. Most people think any effects will be manageable. I am sure they will be, given our advancing technological prowess, but maybe there are better options instead of going all in on wind power.

Besides the unknown effects on local or regional weather, there are a few other problems with large scale wind turbine deployment:

* Birds and flying mammals are killed in the turbine blades and turbulence they create. Flying animal’s lungs and ears explode due to the sudden changes in pressure. The numbers of animals getting killed right now is very small but will increase dramatically if millions of turbines go up around the world.

* Large turbines could cause more small aircraft crashes.

* Wind turbines cause ill health in some people. The humming noise and the sunrise/sunset flicker disrupts sleep patterns and can caused other mental issues. The linked article is from someone who is quite skeptical of AGW claims and the “business” of alternative energy, but the problem deserves at least a little attention.

* Wind turbines spoil the natural landscape and seascape. This is not an a- priori reason for rejecting wind power but it is something many people are concerned about. Are wind turbines better or worse for scenery than oil infrastructure? Probably a little better. Better than solar infrastructure? I would say no. There has been some talk about putting huge off-shore wind farms on the Great Lakes. I for one would not want the turbines spoiling the view, but once a wind farm is planned, it is almost always built. There is nothing common folks can do about it. Even rich folks like the Kennedy’s couldn’t stop the turbines from going up off the coast of Massachusetts – anyway – the latest word is that some turbines will be constructed there – eventually.

* They are an intermittent source of power. This problem can be solved with new storage technology, however, many people wonder if the life cycle cost of wind turbines has been adequately calculated. Wind turbines need a lot of cement and steel for support. They need new transmission lines, they need back-up power plants (at least until widespread storage is implemented). These are all significant costs. What about rare earth minerals? Will the price skyrocket or will supplies become more limited if more of the minerals are used for building millions of new wind turbines?

Old Wind Farm in California

What about maintenance, repair, and de-comissioning? I always brings up de-commissioning aspect because I saw first hand some of the old dilapidated wind farms in California that were built in the 1970s and 1980s. It was 2001. The wind farms were not operational, as far as I could tell, but the hundreds of turbines dotted the “golden hills”. It wasn’t a pretty sight. They didn’t spin anymore – none that I could see from the freeway anyway. Many had broken blades or had fallen over. No one was cleaning them up. It is not like they are toxic, but they made the area (Altamont Pass) look blighted. There is talk that someone will be cleaning the site up and/or replacing the old wind turbines with new models in the near future. It would be good to know the cost of the clean-up and replacement.

Looking at these wind turbine problems from the perspective of possible environmental Armageddon that is so often predicted as an after effect of using fossil fuels, they are quite minor. Looking at wind turbine problems from the perspective of what is available, from solar, to thorium nuclear plants, to even nuclear fusion, then it seems to me we have better options than building millions of new wind turbines. In particular, with solar power, we don’t have to use up much more of the landscape. We have already covered a good chunk of the earth with buildings, and all of those roof-tops are prime real estate for solar panels. Solar power has a lot more upside as well. There is very little efficiency or cost savings yet to be squeezed out of wind power.

Reading this, you might think I am completely against more wind power. That is not the case. I am more neutral. I realize the strengths and weaknesses.

Have a nice Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

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

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

Wind Turbines Everywhere

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

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

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

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

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Environment, Wind

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

Closing up the review of the state of alternative energy in 2011, I will summarize a few of the points and look at some of the positive things going on in the electrification of the economy.

One of the first points I touched on was how grain ethanol does not seem to be a greatoption for the future (but maybe a short term bridge fuel) because the EROI is barely over 1 even in the most ideal production scenarios and it reduces the available grain for feeding people. Biofuel/Biodiesel would be better because it is theoretically carbon neutral, however, it would still result in air pollution because we would still be burning liquid hydrocarbons. I was reminded of this fact today with the release of a new study detailing how mice suffer brain damage when exposed to freeway air (automobile pollution). While this study is not immediately or directly applicable to human health, the detrimental effects of air pollution on human health is well known and it is just another reason to try harder to clean up the air.

On the subject of wind power, the main point is that while it is probably currently the “greenest” form of alternative energy, there will be significant negative side effects if it is scaled up to provide a significant percentage of human energy needs. These include changes to the weather and climate from taking so much energy directly out of the wind to large numbers of deaths of winged animals. There are also the more aesthetic concerns of blighting the natural landscape and noise pollution.

So what is left that couldbe better? Geothermal could certainly continue to perform a niche role. The more domiciles that use geothermal devices for climate control, the less fossil fuel we need to use. Nuclear power probably does not sound all that great right now after the Fukishima (at least) partial meltdown, however, it still has potential and newer designs are more efficient and safe – so I wouldn’t rule it out.

Solar looks fairly promising at the moment. Even though it is currently not as “green” as wind power, there is a lot of room for improvement. Materials science is opening up a lot of new doors and we should continue to see gains in efficiency and cost for some time to come. The gains are coming from many different areas of research. The use of quantum dots to collect solar energy and convert it to electricity could possibly allow for easier production by roll-to-roll processes or even 3D printing.

Some other research that could bear fruit is mimicking photosynthesis. A new artificial “leaf” developed at MIT is 5 times more efficient that the real thing. Such a “leaf” would be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Adding black nanoparticles to the fluid used in solar-thermal energy production boosts the heat generation capacity of such power plants.

Small percentage gains such as these are happening every year in solar power production. In addition, solar voltaic energy production does not need to take up green space. Roof tops already provide plenty of real estate for their adoption. That is why I am a bit more positive on solar than many other alternative energy options.

_________________________

For the present weather, keep your eye on the sky on Sunday. The Storm Prediction Center is currently projecting a moderate risk of severe weather in parts of central and southern Wisconsin on Sunday afternoon and evening. A moderate risk means at least a slight chance of tornadoes. If we do get into the the “warm sector” of the storm system on Sunday, tornadoes are definitely a possibility. Tony and I will keep you up to date throughout the weekend on this emerging threat. Check waow.com, the Stormtrak9 facebook page, and the weather blog for updates. Also remember that we are on a few radio stations in central Wisconsin. If there would happen to be widespread severe weather on Sunday we will also be broadcasting on 106.5 WYTE, Big Cheese 107.9, Mix 96.7, and Classic Rock 103.3.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Severe Weather

Once again, not much time for a long blog post today because of some computer and technical work that needs to be done in the weather center and because I will be shooting a new promotion. This time it is for a ticket giveaway. Newsline 9 is giving away tickets to Grand Theatre shows this season. We will be giving away tickets every Tuesday on Wake Up Wisconsin. I think next week (the 14th) will be the first giveaway so stay tuned and find out how you can win tickets to some big shows this Fall.

The most interesting story I came across revolves around wind farms in Europe (my recent blog post about wind energy). Apparently the mafia (mobsters) are getting into wind energy. European governments are giving away a lot of money for alternative energy with loose oversight and this has apparently led to mafia members building and operating wind turbines and wind farms. There are accusations that some of the grant money is being skimmed off the top, that some of the operations are being used to launder money, and that some of the projects are getting money and never being built. Perhaps it is no surprise that a lot of these questionable wind energy developments are occurring in Sicily. Residents in Sicily not only grumble about the possibility that tax money is going to the mob, but also that the monstrous wind turbines are ruining the natural beauty of the island (we have heard that before).

Sounds similar to here in the U.S. except that it is usually not the mob that is bilking the government. It is usually politicians and their well-connected industries.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy

Warning: The following post contains frightening information for gardeners and florists. Ok, maybe I exaggerate. The concern is the threat of frost, and since it is now September, I suppose it is kind-of expected.For much of the area the average date of the first frost is later in September but most people know that September means fall weather and Fall weather means frost. So when might the ground end up with a touch of white. The highest chance will be on Sunday morning this weekend. Right now, I am forecasting a low of 43 in town (Wausau) and a touch of frost mainly in the northwoods.

Of course, if there is going to be frost this weekend, that means the weekend is going to be on the cool side. My forecast has been trimmed by a couple of degrees since yesterday. Get-away Friday is looking quite unpleasant (for this time of year) with high temps only in the low 60s, mostly cloudy skies, a strong northwest wind, and a few light showers. Saturday will be a little better with partly cloudy skies and only a slim chance of a sprinkle or shower. However, the conditions will still be more Fall-like than Summer-like with high temps in mid to upper 60s and a gusty northwest wind. Sunday might be the best day, although not the warmest of the 3-day weekend. High temps should be in the upper 60s to low 70s on Sunday with partly or mostly sunny skies. Monday will be warmer with highs in the 70s but there is a 30% chance of rain late in the day.

Month in Review:

Since we have now passed from August to September, it is time for the month in review. You can get a very detailed review at the NWS Green Bay climate page. Just select “monthly summary” and the city you want to view. Here is Wausau, August was about as warm as July. Normally, it is about 3 degrees cooler. August was above normal by about 3.5 degrees which makes it the 7thout of 8 months so far this year that have been above normal. June was the only below normal month (going by the mean temp). Rainfall was below normal but not so far below normal as to cause problems, plus many locations in the northwoods and south of Wausau ended up withabove normal rain for the third month in a row. The only record broken here in Wausau was 1.64 inches of rain that fell on the 9th. A couple spots broke the record for the record warm low temperature on the 30th, but that did not occur in Wausau. The high of 91 on the 9th was the second warmest temperature of the year. This means that the high temp of 92 on May 24th will likely stand as the warmest temp of the year. Here are the stats for Wausau:

Average High: 81.1  (normal: 78.3)

Average Low: 61.5  (normal: 57.4)

Precipitation: 3.88 inches  (normal 4.53 inches)

Highest Temp: 91 on the 9th

Lowest Temp: 46 on the 26th

Alternative Energy:

I have spent a little blog time recently giving my not-so-optimistic view of biofuels as a “clean fuel of the future”. What about wind power? This is another form of alternative energy with which I am not 100% positive. I realize the draw. I am familiar with the arguments for wind power, but I am also cognizant of the downsides. This opinion piece in WIRED reminds me of the downsides- essentially, mass adoption of wind power might require mass relinquishment of freedom. The author seems to want the best for the environment and economy but his solution to making wind power a “reality” in the U.S. is for the federal government to run roughshod over property rights, forcing people to give up their land and homes to make way for monstrous wind farms and transmission lines. This reminds me of the other day when my wife and I were walking down a country road and talking about how the weather and the scenery was perfect. My wife said that if we had a holodeck (ala Star Trek) this is the type of day/scene she would program in for a “virtual vacation”. I said it was perfect for me as well except that I would take out the power lines (and change the paved road to a dirt road).  Unfortunately with wind power, we will end up with more and more power lines. We will also end up with a lot more noise. Giant wind farms affect the weather and animal life in ways that are just coming to light. Granted, these are not HUGE issues (ok, maybe reducing liberty and stealing property is big) but they are there, and they make me less positive about the future of wind power. In contrast, solar power looks much more promising. I wouldn’t mind if my neighbor put a few solar panels on his roof, but I might if he constructed a large wind turbine. Because solar panels do not have moving parts, they do not make noise and they can be aesthetically incorporated into our existing urban infrastructure – close to where the electricity is needed. Back to the power line issue, mass adoption of solar might even reduce the need for power lines. There is also this fact: wind energy is a dead end. There is very little that can be done anymore to squeeze more energy out of a wind turbine or make it more efficient. I have reported on some new innovative designs over the last couple of years but the gains in efficiency and cost are minuscule compared to the upside potential of solar power.

Out of the three major alternative energy sources currently available (biofuels, wind, solar), it is solar that has the upper hand in my view. It has the greatest upside and the fewest drawbacks. I think it is time that we start shifting more of our resources into solar energy.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Freeze, Monthly Recap

We have been talking about the snow potential for the last couple of days and it still looks like the biggest snowfall since February ? is headed our way tonight. 2 to 4 inches of snow is possible in the northwoods tonight. Because of this, the NWS of Green Bay has issued a WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY for Lincoln, Langlade, Menominee, Vilas, Oneida, Forest, and Florence counties effective tonight through 7 am Saturday morning. Even in Marathon county and along highway 29 there could be an inch or so of slushy accumulation. The question is, will it be a record snowfall in Wausau? As discussed yesterday, this is unlikely. The record snowfall for May 7th in Wausau is 2.5 inches (set in 1960). Even if all the snow falls after midnight, it will be tough to break a record because the record for May 8th is 1.5 inches (set in 1906)

Alternative Energy News:

Just the other day I was expressing my low opinion of the future of wind turbine and then along comes this announcement “Blade-less wind turbine could generate power at a cost comparable to coal-fired plants“. My interest was piqued, but I did notice the word “comparable” in the announcement.  Relatively cheap wind power is great, but if it doesn’t beat fossil fuels on price, adoption will be quite slow. Still, this design is interesting. If it can do as good or better than the “big blades” then it should be used for most installations. The big bladed turbines are an eyesore, noisy, affect the local climate, interfere with radars, and kill flying animals. This Solar Aero turbine, while not all that revolutionary (it is still a mechanical thing that rotates), it does have a better form factor. Way to go Solar Aero! I wish them success. However, I still have my eye out for a more revolutionary energy development.

Have a nice weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Records

And another thing about the whole AGW situation (I am still riled up from yesterday), is the hypocrisy. Not only do the proposed solutions take a bite out of individual rights and freedom, they also require average people to sacrifice…a lot. Here is an article from earlier this week suggesting people not take “traveling” vacations in order to save the environment.  Carbon taxes, cap-n-trade, and the whole panoply of proposed regulation that descends from “on high” is squarely aimed at regular folks like you and me. And don’t fall for the propaganda that only the “evil corporations and power companies” are going to be taxed. I think we have all lived long enough to know those costs are almost always 100% distributed to end users (me and you). Sacrificing for the greater good is fine. The problem is that those who are going to force me and you to live more humbly are obscenely rich and/or in positions of power. They will never feel the negative effects of carbon taxes. Nearly all of the people travelling to the Copenhagen climate change conference are politicians, professors, environmentalists whose attendance is being paid for by taxpayers or an NGO. They don’t get hit by the taxes. I would be more accepting of carbon taxes or other regulatory schemes if they actually fell as hard on the rich and powerful (who are pushing these things) as they will on us. Do you think Al Gore would be affected by $5 or $10 per gallon of gas?Do you think Leonardo DeCaprio or Robert Redford will ever have to fret over paying an extra couple hundred worth of taxes for a plane ticket (if they ever need to buy a ticket, most of them ride in private jets)?  Not a chance. It is nice that they are concerned but for crying out loud, at they should at least think for a second about what these policies will do to average people. If the obscenely wealthy Al Gore agreed to pay $200 per gallon of gas while the rest of us paid $5, that would be more acceptable to me. If the filthy rich Kennedy’s paid $500,000 for a plane ticket while the rest of us paid $1,000, then ok. Don’t hold your breath. They will never advocate policies that truly endanger their privileged status or high standard of living. They won’t make any real sacrifices.

As I have mentioned before, we can solve this theorized problem like every other problem that has ever faced humanity – through voluntary cooperation and innovation. We have never cowered from problems. We have never regressed. We don’t have to give up our standard of living. We don’t have to give up our freedoms. Most importantly, we don’t have to give up our dreams and desires.

Unfortunately because of the hyperbolic fear-mongering, some people are giving up on their dreams and desires. I have seen multiple postings in online forums where someone laments the fact that we are doomed, and that their life and their children’s will be fraught with suffering. I recently reported here in the weather blog about attitudes of elementary school children. It was a poll, and I can’t remember the exact stats, but a full third or half of the respondents thought the earth would not “be around” when they grew up – because of AGW. It is getting out of control. Warnings are most useful when they are based on reality and increasingly the AGW “tales” are drifting into fantasy-land IMHO.

On the positive side of things, how about a tour of recent alternative energy developments? Electric cars will only become a reality if the price comes down. Thankfully, the recent popularity of hybrids and some EVs, is bringing down the price of batteries. This article points to trends that will cut the cost of the average lithium battery by half over the next decade or so. Some new research indicates that nanotube springs could hold as much energy as a typical battery. Project BetterPlace wants 100,000 EVs on the road by 2016. I think it will be more than that because of the rising price of oil. Jay Leno is also getting in on the act by having guests drive a “green car”. How about this electric motor that is lighter AND produces more torque? A lighter vehicle means more miles per charge! Not only are lithium-ion batteries getting cheaper but more powerful lithium-air batteries continue to be tested.

What about wind power? New morphing blade designs could lead to better performance and a longer working life. A recent analysis concluded that China has enough open land and wind to replace all of their coal fired electricity plants. I have to wonder if there really is that much available land, but at least this analysis points to the potential.

In nuclear power a new hot fusion technique is being tested here in the U.S. Don’t forget about cold fusion either. Even though it has experienced a rough ride so far and insiders say it is an extremely difficult problem to crack (anyway, nowhere near as easy as it seemed back in 1989), there could be some breakthroughs relatively soon. Here is an interview with one of the cold fusion pioneers about how cold fusion experimentation is gaining more acceptance.

I gathered all of these articles over the course of just the last few days. People are doing great things. The next millionaire and billionaire entrepreneurs are out there inventing the future and saving the environment. We will all be better off, if heavy-handed AGW regulations do not get in their way,

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change