Saturday, December 22, 2007
Food, Ethanol, and Energy
While Iowa, Bush, Congress, and the campaigning Presidential candidates are pressing ethanol as our energy security panacea, those of us who don't have to win Iowa know better, including the Wall Street Journal in this article, which spells out the disillusionment with ethanol. Corn is a crop that is hungry for water and fertilizer, and therefore not very efficient, as fertilizer production is one of the dirtiest industries in the world in terms of GHG production. According to various estimates, it takes between 0.78 and 2.2 units of energy from oil to get 1 unit of energy in ethanol. Even according to the optimistic estimate, we aren't doing very well. Worse yet, every dollar we spend to subsidize ethanol is a dollar that can't be spent to develop a more promising technology.
Ethanol, in competing with food as a use of corn, is driving food prices up, which hurts the poor most. According to one estimate, modest ethanol substitution for gasoline will cost the US $1 billion per year. Even if we use all corn production for ethanol, it will only displace 12% of our gasoline usage. At the same time, current Congressional funding for ethanol results in subsidies for oil refineries--is this the industry we should be subsidizing in our pursuit of renewable energy?
I have been in dozens of energy conferences, and I have yet to hear a scientist say a good word about corn based ethanol. The production of ethanol from corn is an inefficient process. A scientist from Eastman went so far as to say that we'd be better off from a carbon-sink standpoint if we grew the corn and buried it rather than turned it into ethanol. Switchgrass and hybrid poplars are popular plants for carbon sinks because they grow quickly and with very few inputs. But corn is way down the list of something we ought to be growing on a global scale to solve our climate change problems. Before we overhaul our farm system and energy economy, oughtn't we consider the options and pick a rational one?
Join me in telling Congress and the Presidential candidates to refuse pandering to Iowa, especially now that their caucus is over.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Ice is Melting
Luckily, the Arctic ice floats on water, so the melting ice doesn't raise our sea levels. However, when Greenland melts like the Arctic is melting, watch out.
Energy intensity
I can only account for this because of our horrible leadership. Bush is probably the most backwards leader on the planet regarding energy. None of the candidates for 2008 are anywhere near as bad as he has been. We have stood in the way of climate change agreements (ref 2), and our standards for efficiency are lower than even China's (ref 3, p. 9). At least China and India have the excuse that they have hundreds of millions of people living without access to electricity, and they should be able to expand their infrastructure enough to get those people the bare minimum. Our excuse is that, as the richest economy in the world, we can't afford to adapt? That we developed the Hummer, and aren't about to stop driving it?
Furthermore, I have a philosophical disagreement with the concept of energy intensity. As we learn in high school econ, GDP is made up of government expenditures + investment + net exports + consumption, with consumption being the majority. Why then should we be allowed more emissions since we consume more than other countries? Our standard of living is the highest, our consumption is the highest, why should this give us the right to pollute more?
Finally, the common argument that we can't afford to adapt our economy to be more energy efficient is backwards. Many conservation measures, for example green buildings, will have a net positive effect on our economy. They pay for themselves within a year or two, and then save money for their entire lifetime after that, which, for a building, could be 100 years. Second, developing the skills and technologies to conserve and use renewable energy will be a huge growth factor in whatever economy takes on the challenge. If we let Germany or Japan build the best solar cells, then we are sacrificing a market that is potentially worth trillions of dollars. Shouldn't we try to be the world leader in these new industries? We have seen what happens to our auto industry when they fail to innovate--they become overtaken by more efficient Japanese cars. Let's not let this happen to the rest of our economy.
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Energy_Intensity.png
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17mon1.html?ex=1355634000&en=890e7680d210f8c4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
3. http://theicct.org/documents/ICCT_GlobalStandards_20071.pdf page 9
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Time for Solar
Thomas Friedman published another wonderful article in the NY Times explaining why we need to do something about energy. To illustrate how far we are behind other countries in our fuel effiency, here is a figure showing the current emissions standards in California and the US as a whole compared to other countries.
Please, check my sources:
Iraq: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm
nuclear R&D www.ne.doe.gov/budget/neBudgetfY07CongRequest.html
other energy R&D: www.ncseonline.org/Affiliates/Handbook/cms.cfm?id=904#9-2
CAFE standards by country: theicct.org/documents/ICCT_GlobalStandards_20071.pdf
Monday, July 16, 2007
China: general impressions
Friday, June 15, 2007
What I used to be listening to
Lady Genius
Sparklehorse
'07 Spring picks:
Volunteer Pioneer
My Morning Jacket
Seu Jorge
Wolf Parade
'06 Winter Picks:
The New Pornographers
Neutral Milk Hotel
The Mars Volta
The Magnetic Fields
Devotchka
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Climate Change Primer
CiHjOk + (−k/2 + i + j/4)O2(g) → iCO2(g) + j/2 H2O(g)
As we burn increasing amounts of fuel, we are making changes to our environment on an unprecedented level. Measurements of the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) since 1000 AD are well known, an example is shown in the figure to the left. Since the industrial revolution, the levels of GHG in our atmosphere have been exponentially increasing along with our fuel consumption.
While it is clear that we are impacting our climate on an enormous scale, the consequences are not all known or universally accepted; the global warming debate is much more complicated than the climate change debate. Global mean temperature records in figure 2 show a striking correlation–increasing temperatures over the same period of increasing GHG concentrations, though including a dip in temperatures in the 1970’s due to global cooling from particulate emissions. The temperature increase of about 1°C over the last 100 years may not sound like much, but only about 8°C separates the hottest recorded years in history with the depths of the coldest ice ages.
Global temperatures fluctuate periodically, and the next figure shows that the correlation between GHG concentrations and temperatures holds remarkably well for the last 400,000 years. The figure also shows that the earth is now hotter than it has been for the last 100,000 years and near the hottest temperatures recorded on earth for the last 400,000 years. Current greenhouse gas concentrations are higher than ever recorded, with methane, a particularly important greenhouse gas,at more than twice its record high.
The climate models cannot explain the recorded temperatures without including the effects of human activity, as shown in the next figure.The vital questions are: 1) as we continue to emit GHGs, what are the effects to our climate? 2) How can we adapt to or mitigate the consequences of projected increasing GHG emissions?
Some consequences of GHG concentrations are known to have an effect on the environment, but it is not known if the feedback loop is positive (reinforcing the trend of warming) or negative (pushing back, and cooling the climate). Examples include clouds: warming increases evaporation and thus cloudiness; it is not known whether clouds will increase temperatures by blocking in heat (water vapor is also a GHG) or decrease temperatures by increasing albedo.
The unintended and unknown consequences of climate change could potentially become the worst. Until several years ago, the major heat flows around the world were not understood, and the importance of the slowing of the vital Thermohaline Circulation was not understood. We now know that this ocean current keeps Northern Europe 20 °C warmer than other locations at the same latitude, and as a warming earth shuts down the THC, Northern Europe may quickly resemble Newfoundland. Before literally watching a glacial ice shelf melt in weeks in 2002, we didn't understand how quickly the ice could melt.
A prudent policy would take into consideration major threats due to climate change. What are the consequences of a Katrina every decade or every year? If global sea levels rise quickly, major population centers will be displaced and buildings will be lost.
Market-based solutions such as cap-and-trade systems or taxes on negative externalities have solved similar problems. To deal with acid rain, a cap-and-trade system was implemented for SOx and NOx emissions at less than one quarter the projected cost.
Increased funding for research may lead to the much talked about "technological fix.'' Rather than lag behind, if the US takes the lead on global initiatives on GHG emissions, we can create incentives for R&D to solve major problems in the field, and US firms can become leaders in the industry. If we continue to elect leaders who not only drop the ball but kick it farther away, we will fall further behind in important future industries, just as US car makers fell behind Japanese firms as fuel efficiency became more of a factor in the last several years.