My grandmother could never have made this connection in a million lifetimes. But she would have cursed me for suggesting that the menacing elephants that occasionally come to our dusty village somewhere in remote Africa to pillage on our crops and the geckos that roam the village paths could have a connection with her lying on her death bed and needing the knife of a surgeon for her perennial ulcers.

But two separate scientific studies and discoveries in very different settings in Africa and the US can easily make the connection, if you may.

Connecting the Elephant and the Gecko
The pounding feet of the 15,000 pound African Bush Elephant make protective crevices in the savanna grasslands that help the geckos hide from their predators and the hot, penetrating African sun, according to Robert Pringle, an ecologist and conservation biologist at Stanford University in California, who conducted his research at the Mpala Research Center in Kenya. Significant numbers of geckos have been reported in the aftermath of an elephant’s feeding - the vertebrates often finding breeding space and security in fallen tree limbs and stripped barks. This makes the Elephant a change agent of habitat creation at the patch scale for small species that seem insignificant.

Connecting You and the Gecko
The gecko is a small to average sized lizard belonging to the family Gekkonidae that come in 1,196 different species and which are found in warm climates throughout the world.

Many species have specialized toe pads that enable them to climb smooth vertical surfaces and even cross indoor ceilings with ease. Some species like the house lizard are entirely harmless and feed on irritant house insects, which is good. But that is not all.

Read more of this story »

Link 1:  http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/

More recently there has been a flurry of activity in the media, spurred on by a comment or two from James Hansen, (GISS), alleging recent alarming increase in the rate of melting, but most of it being in vague terms, with some saying double the rate and some triple, relative to something not elucidated.

One of the sources of this seems to be the following November 2007 release from NASA:

Link 2: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/greenland_recordhigh.html

Here is the Intro’ for that release:    “A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire [sic] Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average…”

This seems a very strange way of putting it….for instance in 2002; a declared record high; it was simply stated as the highest since 1991 ….simple! (Later, and similarly, 2005 became legend as higher than 2002, but the data says no!)

“Tragically” though, 2007 was a notably LOWER melt, than in seven major previous years over two prior decades, depending on source thus: {1987}, {1991}, 1997, 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2005; {for 1987 & 1991, see link1 graph}; for the other years, see link 2 graph.

In other words, the 2007 “alarming” recent melting, although more than that in 2006, was actually typical of 1987, twenty years ago!

Of course, the “disappointing” number for 2007 does not make exciting news, so rather than say it was a flop, they found that it was better to say it was higher than the average from 1988 to 2006.

(Why average from1988!? Uh? Maybe because there was a statistical “benefit” in choosing 1998 - 2006, i.e. 1987 was avoided as a high melt year and 2006 was a low melt year?…. very convenient!)

They also failed to mention that there was a well instrumented warmer period in Greenland, especially 1920-1930, that should be compared with today, concerning melt potential. However melt data in those warmer times is not available; find more at:

http://bobfj.greenoptions.com/

Funny business this; why don’t they talk straight to us mortals!

For instance, the respected journal; Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006, has published this  paper by Chylek et al: 

ABSTRACT:
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930)
Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 - 2005.

For more information:  http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html 

A 2002 paper by a lead author in the 2007 IPCC report on this topic; J BOX and colleagues studied a longer time series of Greenland temperatures and also show the same 1920’s -1930’s highs.    http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/jbox/BOX_2002_Greenland_Temperature_Analysis.pdf 

Polyakov and Johnson 2000, discusses relevant  natural climatic cycles, including primarily the Arctic Oscillation (AO) which is apparently described by others as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO = basically that of regional natural atmospheric pressure cycles) http://denali.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdf

It is interesting that figure 1 in that paper showing the NAO cycle record, has an impressive correlation with theGreenland temperatures.

It should be noted that most of the temperatures evaluated in
Greenland were necessarily on the coastal fringes away from the prime ice sheet. However, Johannessen et al 2006, in the only comprehensive study (45 million of data) of the prime Greenland ice sheet show that the ice sheet is growing significantly.  They also identify the NAO as a key factor, and higher air temperatures resulting in increased snow precipitation.  (Others argue, based on modelling, that coastal melting exceeds this growth, but in reality, such modelling is immensely complicated, and arguably controversial)   http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1115356 

Finally, here is a brief extract from a recent release by NASA’s JPL:  

“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.” 

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html 

Is anyone interested in discussing some GOOD NEWS? 

The first innovative step towards stacking cars was the parking structure, where layers of cars could be stacked upon each other. The next innovative step is to actually stack cars up against each other to reduce the absurd amount of space we require for vehicular parking. The concept is a hybrid of car sharing systems, spatial planning, alternative fueling systems, and personal convenience.

Developed by MIT Media Lab students from the Concept Car Design Workshop sponsored by GM, the key behind this concept is the redesign of the wheel and axel. Rather than having a rigid axel, it will actually fold in a way that will allow the car to rotate upwards 90 degrees. In this, the long dimension of the vehicle is perpendicular to the ground while parked. Since each car has the same form and design, they perfectly nest together to reduce surface space consumption. The stackable car will be able to reduce required curbside parking space by about a third to a half. This allows for more sidewalk space, biking lanes, and comfortable city conditions.

Due to the small dimensions, the stacks of cars will be conveniently placed in locations all over the city- where you would normally come out of a building and hail a cab; you can jump in an electric city car and advance to your next desired location. The concept City Car system includes solar paneling on the rooftops of buildings adjacent to the stackable parking depositories. These panels will be the power supply to charge the electric cars while parked.

This car-sharing concept is a solution to the missing link between public transportation and the front door. Often people don’t use public transit due to the time necessary to switch from the subway to the bus to the next bus. Now people can commute into the city, get off the train, jump in a city car, and drive that extra three to ten miles to the office. This is a reasonable solution to a very prevalent problem. Instead of unnecessarily consuming a parking space while in the office all day long, you can use a city car in the morning and evening, while others use it all afternoon; and the convenience of hopping in a city car is what will make this work. In addition, since these cars aren’t personal vehicles and people will be in them on an average of five to thirty minutes, hopefully the new system will encourage people to share rides across town thus influencing our sense of community, status, and ownership.

Note: For the latest on Algae Biodiesel, head over to Gas 2.0 (http://gas2.org).

Looking to buy your own algae biodiesel manufacturing plant?
You may be in luck.

AlgaeLink has developed the first made-to-order industrial algae production facility in the world.

Sure, we’ve all read 50 stories about algae biodiesel the panacea—the only biofuel that will make a serious dent in petroleum usage—but none of those stories have materialized yet. But the fact that commercially harvesting algae could produce yields of 10,000 gallons of oil per acre on agriculturally poor land has not been lost on green entrepreneurs. See my other posts on the topic here. While most of my coverage on algae biofuel research has focused on the United States, AlgaeLink N.V., based in the Netherlands, is the first company to market industrial algae production systems. The 5-year old company began selling units in the third quarter of 2007, after 4 years of investment and research.

How are AlgaeLink systems different?

Industry trend has primarily focused on development of closed bioreactors, most commonly an array of clear tubing that maximizes light and nutrient flow. In this model, algae is grown inside this transparent tubing with a constantly circulating supply of carbon dioxide and food. AlgaeLink’s design doesn’t seem much different than some of the other proposed systems I’ve already discussed: it’s based on 118 feet of 25 inch diameter tube fed by a water pump.

But several improvements make AlgaeLink unique, most notably the claim that they’ve solved the high-yield photoefficieny problem. As algae growth increases, the photobioreactor tubes get clogged with biomass, thereby reducing light that can penetrate into the center and reducing overall yield. AlgaeLink is currently patenting some mysterious technology that allows them to get around this.

Economically speaking, the company has also improved efficiency of transport and assembly of plant materials, along with creating proprietary sensing technology that can monitor algal growth from anywhere in the world. Such a sensing system would ostensibly allow the company to provide tech support from half a world away. The system is also self-cleaning, so no disassembly interrupts production.

AlgaeLink requires a demonstration plant for each potential site in order to optimize algal strain and test local climate conditions. Since AlgaeLink ships the reactors with 10 species of algae, there’s plenty room for experimentation.

How Much Does it Cost?

About $98,000 for the demonstration plant, which is required, and $821,000 to $14 million for different sized models.
You can also take a two-day algae production course in the Netherlands for $2,547.

Does it work?

Apparently, a demonstration plant is already running, producing about 2-4 kg of dry weight biomass per day. AlgaeLink claims yields of 10-100 TONS per day after 4-6 months of site monitoring to optimize algae strain based on local climate and water conditions. 10 tons is a lot more than 2-4 kg, so the scalability of the system must be incredible.

How much biodiesel is that?

I’m not really sure about that, but AlgaeLink has conducted an analysis on the suitability of producing algae biodiesel.

How much does the oil cost?

Cost of production varies by climate, but AlgaeLink claims their demonstration plant in the Netherlands is currently producing oil for 50 cents per gallon.

So why hasn’t anyone else made this technology available?

I’ll let the company’s president and CEO, Hans van de Ven, speak for himself:

We have a unique system and that’s the reason nobody else can offer it. They don’t know how to do it.

Someone needed to be first. We have put at least four years of work into our system. We have put a great deal of money into it and have had engineers and biologists working on it all over the world. We are ready to sell commercial plants. A lot of people over the Internet have been ripped off by people who promised a lot and nothing happened. We have a very good name in the industry and we would like to keep it like that.

See the original article from the Nov. 2007 Biodiesel Magazine here.

Photo Credit: AlgaeLink.com

Digg this story.

"Research Finds That Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point."

It is certainly scary stuff, to learn that the West Antarctic ice sheet is vanishing so quickly!   However, a rational person might dare to enquire what is happening in East Antarctica, which is not at all mentioned by Hansen.  Such checking reveals that he appears to be selecting the data he likes best, to make things seem much worse than they actually are.  For instance, not only is there a great deal more land-based ice in “the absent” East Antarctica, but it appears to be growing from snowfall at about double the RATE of the localized thinning that Hansen seizes upon.  The European Space Agency provides a fuller picture, and here is a partial quote:

The team used data from the European Space Agency’s radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, which measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica’s interior - more than 8.5 million square kilometres, roughly the same size as the United States.East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered. The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica’s total land area - but as its ice is thicker, it carries about 85% of the total ice volume. "It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it," says Davis.In contrast, smaller West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year. "It’s amazing that they can measure such small changes," says Vaughan.

Does anyone think that it is OK for Hansen to deceptively give us all "the terrors" like that?   Is he not referred to as one of the leading climate SCIENTISTS in the world?

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) denied permits to two large, 700-megawatt plants proposed by Sunflower Electric Power. The plants would have cost about $3.6 billion and spewed 11 million tons of CO2 into the air each year. That’s almost the same amount of CO2 that the Northeastern states planned to have saved by 2020 with their cap-and-trade program. The attorneys general of those states had petitioned Kansas officials to deny the coal plants that would have effectively negated their efforts.

Interestingly, while the KDHE staff recommended that the plants be permitted, state law also allows the KDHE secretary to deny a permit if there is an unregulated emission that threatens public health or the environment. And that’s what happened here: Secretary Roderick L. Bremby disagreed with his staff because of the unregulated CO2 emissions that pose a threat to global warming. He wrote in his news release: "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing."

Kansas also has a goal of getting 10 percent of its electricity at peak period from wind power. The electric cooperatives will meet that goal by the end of the year — two years ahead of the deadline.

A Sunflower Electric Power spokesman pointed out that the company could build natural gas plants that emit half the amount of CO2, but they also have a much higher fuel cost than coal. So once again we’re back to the business problem of not having a price on CO2 emissions (such as through a cap-and-trade or carbon tax policy). Without a price on CO2, there is no "common yardstick" for determining whether the additional fuel cost of natural gas is offset by the less CO2 emitted. While the Kansas decision may set a precedent for other regulatory bodies around the country, the federal government also needs to spell out the CO2 rules for businesses and utilities.

Kansas City Star
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
New York Times
Washington Post

Recent energy policies, combined with pre-existing crop subsidies, tax policies, global market conditions and trade barriers all provide economic incentives for conversion of retired and other cropland to corn production for use in ethanol production. Such conversions could lead to corn production on an additional 16 million acres…

The Dead Zone, an area in which there isn’t enough dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life, has been measured in the Gulf of Mexico since 1985. It’s caused by agricultural runoff overenriching the waters at the end of the Mississippi River - the downstream effect of millions of acres of intensely fertilized crops. Nitrogen and phosphorous, intended for corn but ending up in the river, make their way to the Gulf causing excessive phytoplankton production. In the process, all available oxygen is used up (hypoxia), and marine life has to move out or suffocate.

It turns out that the greater Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin (MARB) drains a grand total of 40% of the contiguous United States. The cumulative effect of all this runnoff creates a Dead Zone approximatly 20,500 sq. km. - roughly the size of the state of New Jersey.

To address this issue, the Science Advisory board recommends a 45% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous fluxes from farmland. Unfortunately, recent trends pushing corn-based biofuels are not exactly aligned with this strategy:

Certain aspects of the nation’s current agricultural and energy policies are at odds with the goals of hypoxia reduction and improving water quality. . .[A]n emerging national strategy on renewable fuels has granted economic incentives to corn-based ethanol production.

Without some change to the current structure of economic incentives favoring corn-based ethanol, N[itrogen] loadings to the MARB from increased corn production could increase dramatically in coming years, rather than decreasing, as needed…

The alternative is cellulosic ethanol and avoiding corn-based fuels altogether:

Alternatively, the use of perennial crops and other feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol requires a more complex refining process that produces more net energy and results in lower fertilization and thus less nutrient runoff than corn-based ethanol.

The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico is a symptom our farming practices, and converting cropland to grow fuel will only exacerbate the problem. This is just another chapter in the corn-based ethanol saga. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board will vote on approval of the draft report in December.

Green Car Congress: EPA Science Advisory Board Suggests Revisions to Ethanol Incentives Necessary to Reduce Gulf of Mexico “Dead Zone”
Science Advisory Board (SAB) Hypoxia Panel Draft Advisory Report

Photo Credit

While the idea of sending giant solar panels into orbit around the Earth is nothing new — the idea has been kicked around with varying degrees of seriousness since the ’60s and 70s — changing times have made the concept a lot more feasible today, according to a study released Oct. 10 by the National Security Space Office (NSSO). Fossil fuels are a lot more expensive, and getting harder to access, than they were in past decades. And technology advances are making possible today projects that were all but inconceivable in years past.

"The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago," the report’s executive summary states.

Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a decade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now under threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition by emerging global economies.

By collecting solar energy before it passes through the Earth’s atmosphere, losing much of its power, a space-based solar power could provide the planet with all the energy it needs and then some, the NSSO report said. The output of a single one-kilometer-wide band of solar panels at geosynchronous orbit would equal the energy in all the world’s remaining recoverable oil: an esimated 1.28 trillion barrels.

Because it didn’t have the time or funds to study the feasibility of space-based solar power the traditional way, the NSSO’s Advanced Concepts Office (known as "Dreamworks") developed its report through a unique strategy: an open-source, Internet-based forum inviting worldwide experts in the field to collaborate online. More than 170 contributors joined into the discussion, with the mission to answer one question:

Can the United States and partners enable the development and deployment of a space-based solar power system within the first half of the 21st Century such that if constructed could provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, and expandable energy for its consumers?

Their answer, delivered in the form of the Oct. 10 report: it’s possible, but a lot remains to be done.

The study group ended up making four major recommendations. First, it said, the U.S. government should move to resolve the remaining unknowns regarding space-based solar power and act effectively to allow for the technology’s development. Second, the government should also reduce as much as possible the technical risks faced by businesses working on the technology. Third, the government should set up the environment — policy, regulatory and legal — needed to develop space-based solar power. And, fourth, the U.S. should commit to becoming an early demonstrator, adopter and customer of space-based solar power and set up incentives for the technology’s development.

"Considering the development timescales that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that this work for ‘drilling up’ vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately," the NSSO report stated.

If it could be done, space-based solar power would have incredible potential, the NSSO said: It could solve our energy problems, deliver "energy on demand" for troops in the field, provide a fast and sustainable source of energy during humanitarian disasters, and reduce the risk of future conflict over dwindling or risky energy supplies.

Considering that, over the past 30 years, both NASA and the Department of Energy have invested a meager $80 million in space-based solar power research (compared to $21 billion over the last half-century for nuclear fusion — which still remains out of reach as a feasible power source), maybe it’s time to directing our research energies — and dollars — upward.

GreenFuel Technologies has finally produced some results:

This summer, GreenFuel Technologies and Arizona Public Service Company (APS) were able to grow algae successfully at APS’ Redhawk natural gas power plant at levels 37 times higher than corn and 140 times higher than soybeans using CO2 from a natural gas-fired power plant as input to theGreenFuel system.

Algae cultivation has always promised exceptional yields for multiple end-use products: oils are processed into biodiesel, starches into ethanol, and the remaining protein components are used in animal feed. It’s a great idea, but no one has been able to do it in real life yet. GreenFuel Tech., in conjunction with APS, was the first to make commercially viable biodiesel and ethanol from algae cultivated at a commercial power plant in 2006, but these new results are the first indicator that commercially viable production levels are possible.

The comparison above is based on the amount of usable material grown per unit area, and GreenFuel’s tests (even with suboptimal weather conditions) blew away projected productivity goals.

A 2-week field-test was performed on GreenFuel’s proprietary algae propagation technology, called the 3D Matrix System (3DMS). 3DMS differs from the transparent tubing we’ve all seen in pictures (as depicted above), which are usually used to grow preparatory seed cultures. GreenFuel isn’t offering too many details about the 3DMS, but claims the matrix system boosts photosynthesis by increasing the surface-to-volume ratio of the algal culture.

The goal of this program was to assess the performance (areal productivity) of the 3DMS technology for at least two continuous weeks of growth. Based on the previous performance of a lab-scale system, target average areal productivity of 80 g/m2/d was set. Achieving this goal would allow a commercial algal system to significantly decrease its footprint, minimizing one of the main limiting factors of large-scale algal farming – land cost and availability.

The performance of the 3DMS system exceeded the target goal. Average areal productivity of 98g/m2/d (ash free, dry weight basis), with highs of over 170 g/m2/d, was achieved during a run time of 19 days. Thus, this is one of the most productive algal cultivation systems ever built.

The next step will be testing the system on a coal-fired plant, and ramping up the production scale. Algae produced from the waste of electrical-generation could offer another significant feedstock for biofuel production while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful pollutants.

Latest update on Algae Biodiesel: Algae Biodiesel: First Industrial Algae Plants Go Online

GreenCar Congress: GreenFuel Technologies and APS to Test 3DMS Algae System on Coal-Fired Plant
Performance Summary Report Evaluation of GreenFuel’s 3D Matrix Algae Growth Engineering Scale Unit

More by this author:
Algae Biodiesel May Soon Be Reality
Algae Biodiesel Startups Plan Large-Scale Algae Farms
Algae Biofuel May Be Future For Aviation

Photo Credit.

The utilities involved have more than 20 million customers and cover 22 states: Con Edison (ED), Edison International (EIX), Great Plains Energy (GXP), Duke Energy (DUK), Pepco Holdings (POM), PNM Resources (PNM), Sierra Pacific Resources (SRP), and Xcel Energy (XEL). Up until now, the only utilities that want to grow profits through energy efficiency investments have been in California.

The move by these utilities comes at a time when demand is growing, concerns and lawsuits about emissions abound, and global warming is a hot political and business issue.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut global warming emissions, and the utilities agree: ” …we share a common belief that energy efficiency is the greatest untapped resource in addressing global climate change in the near-term.” Here are the major elements of their plan:

• Boost investments in energy efficiency projects to $1.5 billion per year in the next 10 years.

• Create a national institute for electric efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Institute will work on regulatory policy models, notably how utilities can make money when customers use less energy rather than more. It will be formed within the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities.

Innovation and multi-party collaboration will be needed to craft policies that allow companies to profit from investing in efficiency. Utilities could profit from replacing inefficient air conditioners and light bulbs, for instance. Great Plains hopes to get legislation passed in Kansas and Missouri that would allow them to earn a higher return on efficiency investments than what would be made investing in traditional power plants. The utility could install smart electricity meters that tell customers when electricity prices are highest and even allows the utility to adjust the operations of appliances in customer homes. Michael Chesser, Chairman and CEO of Great Plains, said that energy efficiency, “with the right incentives,” could take care of all the growth in electricity demand between 2010 and 2017.

The business community was also interested by the announcement. The Dow Jones Wire commented:

It’s a sign of how quickly energy efficiency has taken center stage in the utility industry’s growth plans. Even in states where rates are low, power companies increasingly see efficiency investments as an inexpensive way to satisfy growing electricity demand and boost revenue without provoking the public opposition that usually dogs proposals for new power plants and transmission lines.

The utilities are working in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, backed by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

Kansas City Star
Dow Jones Wire
Yahoo Finance

The week began and ended with major international climate change conferences. The first was a United Nations meeting, prepping world leaders for the December talks in Bali that will be the first step to determining emissions goals after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The meeting that closed out this week was held by President Bush in Washington. Sixteen nations, the UN, and the European Union were invited.

At the start of the two-day “Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told delegates that the U.S. while being a major emitter of global warming pollution, the government is very serious about fighting climate change. In a soundbite gobbled up by the media, she said that global warming, like terrorism, needs the nations of the world to work together to fight it.

Like the meeting earlier in the week, the Washington meeting was billed as a starting point for negotiations beyond Kyoto. But while the U.N. meetings discuss measurable emissions cuts and targets, Bush prefers voluntary measures or “intensity targets,” that call for emission reductions per each unit of economic production.

The problem is that intensity targets don’t mean overall emission cuts, and that makes many at home and abroad suspicious of the real motives behind the Bush meeting.

Besides the expected protestors outside the conference, the delegates inside were wary as well. The EU’s Deputy Environment Minister Humberto Rosa explained:

“We have actually found many, many countries voicing our view that (a) voluntary approach may be useful but will not solve the issue. Voluntary goals so far have not got us to the level of ambition that we need.”

In fact, he went on to say that Europe will insist on a clearer picture of Bush’s emissions plan and how it will interlock with the Bali talks before they agree to any further meetings. Although the U.S.’s participation is welcome, they insist, officials want to ensure that the intentions of the Bali conference aren’t stalled.

Agence France-Presse
CNN
National Post

There have been some major wake-up calls in the fight against global warming, starting with the United Nations scolding the U.S. for not doing enough to mitigate its contributions to the problem.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press that it’s "very clear" the U.S. is not on the right track, despite the Bush administration’s recent openness to even discussing the problem and the series of meetings President Bush has scheduled with world leaders.

More U.N. meetings begin today to prepare for the Bali talks in December that will include negotiations of how to proceed after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On Thursday, President Bush convenes his own two-day meeting with 15 big-emitter nations. Some worry that his smaller, more limited round of negotiations will undercut the Bali discussions.

Our friends across the pond didn’t hear any good news on the climate change front, either. A representative of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the BBC that it’s unlikely the European Union will achieve their goal of keeping global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Martin Parry is the co-chair of the IPCC, the group that has brought us three reports so far this year on the science, impacts, and solutions of climate change. He told the BBC that the chances of humans keeping the average global temperature increase less than 2 degrees C is "quite little."

He went on to explain that the increase of more than 2 degrees will result in major consequences. Water shortages around the globe may occur (especially in areas with melting glaciers that depend on the freeze and thaw for water), heat waves may increase, and crops may be threatened.

Parry believes it is still possible to contain the rise in temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius, although, as always, our actions have to be swift. In the meantime, world leaders must discuss "very seriously" plans for significant adaptation measures.

Associated Press, via Kansas City Star
BBC
Terra Daily

In fact, the U.S.’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expecting 12 new applications to build nuclear power reactors at seven different sites, plus another 15 are in the pipeline for next year. These are the first full applications to build new nuclear plants in 30 years…what gives?

Oil located in unstable regions of the world and climate change concerns are some oft-sited reasons for the increased interest in nukes. Why try to work with unstable, corrupt governments that have oil when you can mine uranium in places where you’d vacation, like Australia and Canada? Why deal with CO2-spewing coal plants when you can take a deep breath next to a nuclear plant? Except for that huge hairy problem of the dangerous waste hanging around for thousands of years…

Additionally, the NRC has implemented some new processes to apparently make the approval process easier:

• Rather than require utilities to get two different licenses – one to build the plant and the other to start it up – utilities can apply for one license that covers both areas.
• Firms can get nuclear reactor designs cleared in advance. So if a reactor gets the green light, only the modifications unique to the site have to be reviewed.
• A utility can ask the NRC to approve a location before it even applies for a combined license.
• The NRC is hiring about 200 new staff every year and has set up a field office in George to deal with the particularly high number of southern utilities interested in nuclear plants.

Despite these changes, the NRC says it will still take over three years to review an application and conduct hearings.

The problem of what to do with nuclear waste is and should continue to be a serious and significant barrier, and Americans are still divided in their opinion of nuclear energy; in a March poll, about half of respondents favored expanding it. But a September 6th story in the Economist points out that nuclear may start to look more appealing as coal plants face a “regulatory risk” due to assumed future carbon regulation. Just as some energy watchers talk about a “coal rush” (the rush to build coal plants before carbon regulation takes effect), could we see a “nuclear rush” after federal carbon regulation is implemented?

The Economist
Wikipedia

Sony recently announced their current activity in developing a new bio-battery. The battery generates electricity from carbohydrates (currently sugar) and utilizes enzymes as the catalyst. The sample battery has proven to be able to output 50 mW, or enough to power a portable mp3 player. This is the world’s highest yet for a passive-type bio battery.

According to the Sony Press Release:

Sony developed a system of breaking down sugar to generate electricity that involves efficiently immobilizing enzymes and the mediator (electronic conduction materials) while retaining the activity of the enzymes at the anode. Sony also developed a new cathode structure which efficiently supplies oxygen to the electrode while ensuring that the appropriate water content is maintained. Optimizing the electrolyte for these two technologies has enabled these power output levels to be reached.

The newly developed bio battery incorporates an anode consisting of sugar-digesting enzymes and mediator, and a cathode comprising oxygen-reducing enzymes and mediator, either side of a cellophane separator. The anode extracts electrons and hydrogen ions from the sugar (glucose) through enzymatic oxidation as follows:
Glucose -> Gluconolactone + 2 H+ + 2 e-
The hydrogen ion migrates to the cathode through the separator. Once at the cathode, the hydrogen ions and electrons absorb oxygen from the air to produce water:
(1/2) O2 + 2 H+ + 2 e- -> H2O
Through this process of electrochemical reaction, the electrons pass through the outer circuit to generate electricity.

Since the battery does not require the user to do any mixing or formulating, the process is quite simple and it requires very little of the owner. But, each cm2 can only produce 1.5 mW in the first minute, so the battery has to be quite large. The current dimensions are 39×39x39mm- I don’t know how portable and functional it makes this object, but it is a step in an interesting direction.

The most applicable situation I see for this technology is for remote electrical generation necessities (which puts an interesting spin on neighborly sugar supply). For locations or trips that could not benefit from portable solar panels, sugar is a new alternative. As the design progresses and the technology is tuned, I am sure they will be able to come up with something on a more practical and portable scale.

Again, the question arises about genetically modified sugar due to increased demand of the material. Will we begin manufacturing it in the lab and what will this do to the sugar farmers across the world? These questions are always something to consider with the development of any technology using a finite, consumable resource.

It is although fun to imagine one day giving your cell phone a shot of liquid sugar when it starts beeping with low battery indication… Instead of cords, we will have IVs of liquid sugar lying about our apartment floor with a portal into our computer, our radio, our coffee maker…interesting.

The goal is the cumulative total of individual reductions goals for each state and province: for example, Washington has a more ambitious goal of reducing levels of the gases to 1990 levels by 2020.

California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Manitoba, and British Columbia have agreed to the cuts, which were conceptualized in February as a “Memorandum of Understanding” between five of the states.

The next step is for the WCI to propose a regional carbon emissions trading system with a year, complementing California’s Global Warming Solutions Act that calls for a cap-and-trade system of global warming pollution. Each state will determine its own method for cutting emissions; the agreement doesn’t require any states or provinces to do anything to which they aren’t already committed.

Janice Adair, Washington state’s representative to the WCI, doesn’t anticipate easy negotiations when eight entities come together to set up a market-based system for trading carbon credits: "How we do all that and come to the table — eight very different (states and provinces) — and try to negotiate the best deal we can, and not have anyone go away feeling they got rolled, is going to be very difficult.”

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had a brighter outlook: "Our collective commitment will build a successful regional system to be linked with other regional efforts across the nation and eventually the world.”

Other states like Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming are closely watching the proceedings, as are Ontario and Quebec in Canada and Sonora in Mexico. The potential – or at least the serious interest – is there for other states to get involved in a regional emissions compact and carbon trading agreement. With meaningful energy legislation not coming fast enough from federal governments, states and provinces are reaching across borders to make the real change we need on this side of the world.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Yuba Net

LS Power Group wants to build a 750-megawatt (MW) plant near Waterloo, and Alliant Energy wants a 630 MW coal plant near Marshalltown. A new MidAmerican Energy coal plant just began operation near Council Bluffs on June 1.

Local and regional supporters of clean and efficient energy will fight the plants. Besides the economic drain of having to import coal from Wyoming, supporters argue that powering the Iowa’s ethanol plants with coal power does not make environmental sense or economic sense. Cleaner methods of production – like using a biomass gasification system to produce ethanol – is a smarter choice, noted Carrie LaSeur of the Iowa law firm Plains Justice: “Biofuels are supposed to make us less dependent on fossil fuels and reduce CO2. Using coal to power a biofuels plant has the opposite effect…Coal is a thing of the past. Why keep falling back on this old technology, when clean alternatives are out there?”

The Iowa Utilities Board still has to approve construction of both plants, but this situation is duplicated across the U.S., where 150 new coal plants are proposed. Worries about imminent carbon regulation seem to have mixed results: while plans for about two dozen coal plants have been scrapped since 2006, other companies are rushing to build before new regulations take effect, with the assumption that their plants would be grandfathered in under any new emissions requirements.

While more than half of U.S. states have renewable energy standards that require a certain percentage of power to come from renewables, the construction of a coal plant or two can quickly unravel all the good intentions. The left hand has to pay attention to what the right hand is doing here, and we can’t have it both ways if we’re serious about creating a rich, clean energy economy while slowing global warming.

Associated Press, via Quad Cities Online
Iowa Environmental Council

"They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Worth, quoted early in the article. The key tactic? Creating doubt in the minds of both policymakers and the public by disputing the science behind global warming. As soon as then-senator Al Gore brought global warming to Washington’s attention in 1988, groups with benign names such as the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment, which were actually lobbyist groups from the petroleum, steel, auto, and utilities companies, began an all-out war to contradict the overwhelming body of science that supported global warming.

The rhetoric changed as the science supporting global warming grew more and more conclusive. It started with "the science behind global warming is wrong", moved to "global warming is happening, but it is not the fault of humans", and ended with the current denier mantra, "global warming is happening, and we may be causing it, but it’s effects are hardly anything to worry about."

Also impossible to ignore in the article is the amount of money and power changing hands between lobbying groups, policymakers, and scientists. One Exxon-Mobil-backed group has offered $10,000 to scientists willing to speak out against global warming. And that might be what’s so depressing about the "deniers": it seems that from day one, their motives were entirely based on the acquisition or preservation of money and power. As Gore demonstrated in a graphic in An Inconvenient Truth, what’s more important: bars of gold, or the entire planet?

The article is fascinating and puts a face (and clear strategy) on the campaign against the planet. This issue of Newsweek is on newsstands now, and the entire article can be found on Newsweek’s website.

The NH3car (NH3 is the chemical formula for ammonia) is a demonstration project of a University of Michigan graduate student in physics who is studying the use of ammonia as an alternative fuel. The test vehicle can be run either on 100% gasoline or on an 80% ammonia/20% gasoline mixture, and can be switched from one to the other at any time. According to a news story, the test vehicle gets 27 miles per gallon whether it is running on gasoline or the gas/ammonia mix. When gasoline is higher that $2.10/gallon, it becomes more economical to use the fuel mix.

More importantly, however, the vehicle produces much cleaner emissions than a fossil fuel burning vehicle. Moving to an ammonia fuel system would drastically cut transportation CO2 emissions. Because there is no carbon in ammonia (molecularly, ammonia is one nitrogen atom and three hydrogen atoms), there is no carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide in the emissions from the ammonia combustion. According to the vehicle team, the only by-products are water vapor and nitrogen gas.

"Onthe basis of either weight or volume, ammonia’s the next best thing when liquid petroleum fuels can’t be used,” said Grannell, a University of Michigan doctoral student of applied physics. "I believe this is the only economically viable … replacement for liquid petroleum fuels, especially for transportation use."

One drawback to the ammonia fueled vehicle is that commercial ammonia needs to be manufactured. Unlike fossil fuels, it is not a resource that can simply be mined or pumped from the ground. And most commercial processes for manufacturing ammonia rely on natural gas as a feedstock.

An interesting synergy might be in place here. Presently, ammonia is used extensively as a farm fertilizer. Using ammonia as a fuel, when its principal use is as fertilizer, would be a cause for concern about the food versus fuel dilemma this causes, much the same as people have concerns about food versus fuel regarding E85 ethanol being derrived from corn, and about food cropland being taken away to be used instead for fuel cropland. However, as more farms move to organic production, the need for ammonia fertilizer should decline, and rather than having to worry about a slumping market, the excess production could be diverted to direct fuel use instead.

Ammonia fueled transportation may be a viable possibility. The NH3car team has also stated that the conversion from gasoline to ammonia could cost consumers less than $1,000. An important question would be whether or not the price of ammonia would remain stable if it began to be widely used as a fuel, or if its price would rise to make it uneconomical to use. Distribution would be another issue. As with other alernative fuel scenarios, the storage and distribution infrastructure for ammonia is not widespread and readily available for transportation uses. Ammonia needs to be stored in pressurized tanks and at low temperatures in order to remain as a gas. Like liquid natural gas or hydrogen, a whole new range of storage and distribution equipment would be needed in order to have widespread use of ammonia as a fuel. But with all of the potential benefits it offers, it may be worth exploring the possibilities it offers.

via: Ann Arbor News

Cross-posted from EcoGeek.org

In my first exploration of the issue of by-catch in commercial fishing, I looked at the devastating effects of fishing not simply for the "target" species, but on those animals who are unlucky enough to be caught in the lines, traps, hooks, and nets not meant for them. In this second part, I further explore this issue and take a look at how the dolphins, sea turtles, and seals - animals for whom we have affection - fare in our pursuit of gastronomic pleasure.

DOLPHINS
The public became aware of the problems of by-catch in the 1980s when campaigns were led against tuna companies for harming and killing dolphins when tuna were the targets. The relationship between dolphins and tuna is that yellowfin tuna follow and school beneath dolphins, so fishing fleets would look for dolphins on the surface, herd them and encircle them and set out the nets to catch the tuna – ensnaring the dolphins at the same time. An estimated 5 to 7 million dolphins have been killed by this fishing method over the past four decades, the largest marine mammal kill in history.

In 1986, the International Marine Mammal Project organized a campaign, including a consumer boycott of tuna, in order to urge U.S. tuna companies to end the practice of intentionally chasing and netting dolphins, and to adopt "Dolphin Safe" fishing practices to prevent the drowning of dolphins in tuna nets. Dolphins are mammals and don’t have gills, so they drown while stuck in the nets underwater. There are other standards that a company must adhere to in order to label their tuna “dolphin-safe,” but it’s worth noting that just because it says “dolphin-safe” or “dolphin-friendly,” it doesn’t mean that dolphins were not killed in the production of a particular tin of tuna. It means that the fleet which caught the tuna did not specifically target a pod of dolphins.

Though the numbers are down since new techniques are used to catch tuna (400,000 dolphins killed annually in the 1960s and 100,000 in the 1980s), several thousand dolphins are still killed each year to satisfy our appetites for tuna. Dolphins — social, playful, intelligent animals — are also killed as by-catch in nets targeting trout. According to a 2003 BBC story by Alex Kirby called “Nets Kill 800 Cetaceans a Day,” more than 800 dolphins, porpoises, and whales die every day as they get tangled in fishing nets – that’s 300,000 every year.

TURTLES
Turtles are also common victims. Sea turtles are killed by the thousands. It’s estimated that more than 20,000 sea turtles die each year after getting hooked on longlines. Six of the seven species of marine turtles are listed as "Endangered" or "Critically Endangered," and the outlook is increasingly grim. In the Pacific, leatherbacks are heading for extinction, fast, and in the Mediterranean, green turtle numbers have plummeted. Though pollution and disease contribute to this, the nets and long-lines of fishing fleets play a major role in their demise.

According to Duke University, which recently conducted a global assessment of the problem, more than 250,000 loggerhead and 60,000 leatherback turtles are snared each year by commercial longline fishing, and tens of thousands die. The authors estimated that longline fleets from 40 different countries set about 1.4 billion hooks in the studied year of 2000, the equivalent of about 3.8 million hooks each day. Again, longlines are fishing lines that can stretch for 40 miles and dangle thousands of individually baited hooks. They are set at optimal depths and times to catch tuna and swordfish, shark, and other fish, and according to the data studied, the turtles most often die – not by drowning, by some kind of injury related to hooking or entangling.

SEALS
Another byproduct of the fishing industry is the brutal death of baby seals. Because of the overfishing of cod by the Canadian fishing industry in eastern Canada –- in the Atlantic Ocean for Newfoundland’s northeast coast — the cod population declined to such a degree that the government stepped in the late 1980s and imposed severe restrictions on commercial fishing. But it was too late. Because of overfishing, the fishery collapsed, never recovered, and the ecosystem changed such that it was no longer able to support cod fish.

What does all this have to do with the seals? Scapegoating the seals for the collapse of the cod fisheries, fishermen demanded a kill. In 2003, the Canadian government bowed to pressure from the fishing industry, and ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of seals, declaring war on the seals in hopes that massive seal kills will bring back the cod and keep their disgruntled fishermen working.

In fact, cod is not a major food source of the harp and hood seal diet. Further, recent evidence suggests that killing seals contributes to bacterial infestation on the ocean floor which leads to hypoxia, a condition in which patches of ocean lose all the dissolved oxygen and are unable to sustain cod or fish or marine life of any kind. However, these facts seem to have been brushed aside by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans in their efforts to justify and continue the slaughter.

During the 3-year period of 2003-2005, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) allowed a kill quota of 975,000 baby and adult harp seals and 30,000 adult hood seals. When the "struck and lost" seals are included (these are the animals who’ve been hit but lost in the icy waters), the total killed exceeds one million, making this the largest marine mammal slaughter in the world.

To find as many avenues as possible to profit from the annual, government-subsidized slaughter, Canada exports sealskins (furskins/pelts and leather), seal oil, and seal meat. Unfortunately, the demand for seal pelts has sky-rocketed, especially in Europe. Though seal meat isn’t doing so well, the Canadian government is trying to find markets for the bodies of the skinned seals. The kill continues to this day. The quota for the 2007 massacre was 270,000. Visit www.protectseals.org for more information.

TSUNAMI
Finally, while we’re talking about by-products/effects (not just "by-catch"), there is another by-product of consuming aquatic animals that went under the radar screen when an earthquake and subsequent tsunami in southeast Asia destroyed lives and communities at the end of 2004. Over 200,000 human lives were lost and an uncounted number of non-human lives. Experts agree that the destruction of coral reefs and mangrove trees played a significant role in the destruction caused by the tsunami. In many countries across Asia, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, mangroves stood all along the coasts in shallow waters. They offered protection against things like tsunamis. Over the last 20-30 years, they were cleared for shrimp or prawn farms. The shrimps and prawns are sold to Europeans and other foreigners at a price that does not take into account the environmental cost. The destruction of the coasts was also due to the building of large resorts where they should never have been built.

Of course, there are efforts to rebuild the shrimp farms, and we’ll see if we learn anything from the disaster. I’m a little skeptical, considering the fact that worldwide, shrimp farming has grown at an annual average of over 18% since 1970, and is the single most valuable internationally traded seafood product worldwide, valued at an estimated $50-60 billion at the point of retail.

BEYOND BY-CATCH
The cost of our consumption of aquatic animals is extremely high - not just to the target species who were living perfectly peaceful lives before we come along and snatch them out of their homes, but also to the non-target species and entire ecosystems. And this is just one aspect of this issue. We have yet to talk about all the others, including factory-farm raising fish; the pollution in the ocean; the fishing of smaller fish to feed to the larger fish we raise to eat; the toxins, such as mercury, in the fish that we consume when we eat their bodies; the research that supports the fact that fish feel pain; the human health concerns of eating fish; or the ethical considerations of “catch and release sport fishing."

We have yet to explore the many problems with consuming salmon – for instance, the problems with farm-raised Atlantic salmon, which is probably one of the worst choices we could make: the fish are raise in cramped pens in the ocean, and their waste pollutes the surrounding water and spreads disease to wild fish. In the Pacific, escaped farm-raised salmon also compete with wild fish for food, and interfere with spawning. Furthermore, salmon are fed a diet of fish meal (tinted to give their flesh that characteristic "salmon pink" color) which further depletes the ocean food chain. Wild Washington or Oregon salmon is a poor choice, since overfishing and habitat destruction have endangered many species. And remember: the fish have to consume Omega-3 fatty acids from phytoplankton, from algae. If they don’t consume it, they don’t have it in their flesh. If they don’t get it, we don’t get it. So again, go right to the source for your nutrients.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries magazine cited more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation, punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food." A wonderful U.K. Guardian story explores these notions, quoting Dr. Culum Brown, a specialist in fish behaviour at Macquarie University in Sydney, and co-author of Fish Cognition and Behaviour. He says, "I spend half my life telling people fish aren’t stupid. Fish are more intelligent than they appear. The trouble is that most aquaculture treats fish as if they are little robots. They are not."

My hope is that we begin to question the criteria we use to determine the value of an animal’s life, who deserves to be spared pain, and who has a right to live free from harm, free from suffering, free from premature and unnecessary death.

My hope is that our hearts are large enough to include not only those with whom we can identify, with whom we can communicate but also those who don’t look us, those who don’t sound like us. May we be as fascinated by our differences as we are consoled by our similarities. We don’t need to travel to other planets to find interesting, exotic, different life forms. They exist right here, right now, on the earth and in the sea.