Another positive feedback loop?

New study warns damage to forests from climate change could cost the planet its major keeper of greenhouse gases

This is not good.

Forests are one of our biggest, best carbon sinks. Deforestation is damaging that, yes, but that can be prevented, slowed down, or at least ameliorated by planting new trees in place of ones that are cut down. But this new study shows that 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming -- meaning droughts, pest invasions, and other such secondary effects that are bad for trees -- could seriously damage the ability of forests to absorb and sequester carbon.

Add this to other positive feedback loops -- effects of increased water vapor in the air, loss of reflective surfaces as ice melts, reduced ocean absorption, and Arctic methane release, just to name a few -- and we're looking at a problem that could turn into an avalanche before we even have time to react.

And considering that reducing greenhouse gas emissions does not have an immediate effect... carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not instantaneously vanish from the atmosphere just because we built a wind farm or reduced emissions from a power plant... How much time do we actually have?

And now for something completely different

Well, this just makes me laugh.

Apparently, scientists have discovered that adding fish oils to cow diets reduces... flatulence.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, apparently cow gas is one of the major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas. And unlike, say, methane from a landfill, you can't really collect and use that methane for fuel (if nothing else, I imagine that animal rights groups would have something to say about it).

In addition to the well-documented health effects of omega-3 fatty acids, they apparently have some effect on the natural bacteria in the cow's gut, reducing the amount of methane generated. This is good news for the cow and the atmosphere.

In related news, it would seem that alfalfa and clover are also great for reducing methane production. This is great news for opponents of factory farms, where by definition the cows don't exactly have access to fields of clover. So non-vegetarians of the world, hold your heads high the next time you buy free-range, grass-fed beef. You're helping animal rights AND saving the planet.

About time!

U.S. cuts red tape on offshore renewable energy

Maybe now Bluewater and similar projects will actually be able to see progress.

If I'm recalling correctly, one of the hardest parts for these projects was the fact that there was simply no legislation in place detailing how to get a permit for, say, an offshore wind farm. Now, finally, that problem is being addressed.

The article also mentions Cape Wind, although it suggest that the controversial project's future is still in doubt. Tourism in the area is still a powerful force, as well as other ecological considerations, and may override the call for more renewable energy. Still, just because Cape Wind is struggling doesn't mean that there's no hope for less... vigorously defended seascapes, shall we say? Personally, I have my doubts that Cape Wind will ever make it, but I've been wrong before, many times. And certainly, if all we've been learning about Bluewater is any indication, wind power has some serious potential even in our area.

I just have one reservation about this: one of the unexpected advantages of the slowness of developing wind farms is that project members have had to work hard to justify themselves, ecologically speaking. They've put a lot of effort into making sure the wind farm will do as little harm as possible. I'm not saying that federal standards for permits will be lax -- and certainly, reducing arbitrary red tape is good for everyone, including the environment -- but expediting the process means less time spent deliberating. With offshore wind still untested in U.S. waters, I find myself wondering if maybe, just for a little while, it's better to go slow.

Clean coal -- fact or fiction?

As we move into the fossil fuel unit, I want to take a few minutes to address a phrase that's been thrown around a lot lately: "clean coal." The idea inspires a lot of controversy: some say it's not only possible but necessary, others say it's a fallacy.

But what's it actually mean? The big advantage of coal is that it is abundant and cheap. We have our own coal, so we don't have to import large quantities. However, coal also has a reputation for being the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. According to the US Department of Energy, clean coal is "a new generation of energy processes that sharply reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants." Major problems with coal emissions include mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. The effects of mercury poisoning are well-documented; sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are lung irritants that can harm people with asthma and other breathing problems, and also contribute to acid rain. Technology exists to reduce these emissions, but with climate change a major concern, the big issue is what to do with carbon dioxide. The only real option with carbon dioxide emissions, with current technology at least, is to capture them and store them somewhere.

FactCheck.org examines the pros and cons, and this point in particular stood out: coal is cheap, clean coal is not. The expenses associated with carbon dioxide capturing technology are huge, running from $1 billion to $2.5 billion for a 300 megawatt plant. FactCheck points out that the Reality Coalition, one of the main opponents of clean coal, doesn't have a lot of facts backing up its ads. Then again, this may be because there are no commercial "clean coal" plants in the US at this time. Makes it hard to get data on something that doesn't exist. A German plant exists, providing power to about 1000 homes, but that's far from extensive testing.

Of the possible carbon capture methods outlined by FactCheck, I was aware of IGCC -- integrated gasification combined cycle. Coal gasification shows a lot of promise, if coal companies can be convinced to actually do it, and do it cleanly. However, the article's mention of oxyfuel was new to me. I also wasn't aware of the dangers of storing carbon dioxide underground: obviously, there is a risk that the carbon will simply leak back into the air, but I had always figured it was a toss-up -- the carbon would have gone into the air anyway if it wasn't stored underground, so no harm except wasted energy. The story of a Cameroon village suffocated by massive carbon dioxide release, therefore, was a shock to me. True, this was from natural rather than artificial sources... But if we're artificially creating carbon dioxide pockets underground, this could spell trouble for anyone unfortunate enough to live in the area later down the road.

One last observation: a Washington Post writer points out that for our coal to truly be clean, we have to clean up our methods of mining it first. As long as the Appalachians are still in danger from mountaintop removal, as long as waterways are being contaminated by mercury and strip-mining waste, and as long as coal miners are dying in alarming numbers... Coal isn't clean.

Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy is another one of those renewables that seems like a no-brainer. Cut your heating bill in half or more? Sure, sign me up. True, the mess and expense of installation is a major hassle. But if you can afford the initial costs and don't mind your yard looking like a nightmare for a little while, it's cheap, efficient, and environmentally friendly.

My family lives on a fairly large property -- ten acres, mostly paddock for horses. So if I can ever pitch the idea successfully to my parents (maybe when the economy improves a bit) geothermal's certainly a viable option for us. As the speaker from Earth River Geothermal said, essentially if they can get the drilling rig into your yard, you're probably a candidate. But in urban and suburban areas, this may be less of an option. Rows of townhouses with little postage-stamp yards could certainly benefit from geothermal just as much as houses on larger plots -- probably even more so, given effects of population density -- so I wanted to take a look at the options for them.

A Canadian company claims that they can get a direct exchange geothermal pump even into small lots. They use copper pipe rather than plastic for better energy transfer, and drill only down to 30 meters; the article doesn't say specifically, but I would guess that this is how they can deal with smaller lots, perhaps the drilling machine and area needed aren't as large as they would be for a deeper hole? However, I wonder about how long these systems last. The speaker mentioned that the material for the pipes was selected for durability, so that the system would last for decades once installed. Copper's fairly durable as well, but this seems to indicate that it works better under some conditions than others. So they have the potential to be as durable, but soil conditions are important to consider to reduce risk of corrosion.

Landfill Energy

According to the EPA, "As of December 2007, approximately 445 landfill gas (LFG) energy projects were operational in the United States. These 445 projects generate approximately 11 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year."

11 billion. And that's only 445 projects out of the 3,091 active landfills and 10,000 older landfills in the US. Well, we have to keep in mind that not all of the landfills are going to be ideal methane producers -- some of the older ones are dead, and conditions may be wrong in the newer ones. The EPA estimates another 535 "present attractive opportunities" -- but that's still doubling the number currently in existence. And if that's only counting the attractive opportunities, as the technology improves less attractive ones may become usable as well.

What's more, since methane (the gas that is collected and used for landfill energy) is a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide, burning it not only provides an energy source but also reduces climate impact of landfills.

However, there are a few technical difficulties with landfill energy. For instance, overestimating the rate of landfill gas recovery can lead to economic problems later, especially with operating costs and the issue of how long the new facility will take to pay for itself. There are also problems with level of demand for power and how well the system interconnects with the existing grid. Overall, however, landfill energy looks like a way to get some environmental and energy return on what would otherwise be just a bunch of trash.

More on electric cars

Some more thoughts on electric cars...

I posted last week that creating "recharge stations" would extend the distance an electric car can travel. But now that I think about it, I'm not so sure. The difference isn't just swapping out gas for electric -- charging a battery takes more time than filling a tank. How much time? Well, it depends on the battery. But think about how long it takes to charge your computer, or your iPod, or your phone -- several hours. It's possible to "speed charge" a battery, but it will ultimately decrease the battery life, damaging the battery. So unless electric car owners are prepared to spend three hours at a rest stop or similar waiting for their car to charge, road trips are out of the question.

Perhaps a solution would be for electric car owners to carry a spare battery and exchange it out when one gets low, the way that some people swap out laptop batteries or similar. However, then we run into the problem of size and weight. Where are you going to fit that spare battery? The Roadster has a system of 6800 cells, each about the size of a AA battery, all adding up to about 450kg. That's not the sort of thing you can cart around in your trunk and swap out at will.

Not to mention that all rechargeable batteries gradually wear out over time, their life slowly decreasing until ultimately they will no longer hold a charge and must be replaced.

It makes sense, if you think about it. Consider: my laptop (a relatively new machine) has a lithium-ion battery rated at 85WHr. It's about the general size of my forearm, and rather heavy. Compare that to 53kWh -- that's KILOwatts, a thousand times greater -- on the Tesla Roadster. Now, obviously we're comparing apples and oranges a bit here, but if the technology existed to make large batteries tiny safely and at an affordable price, wouldn't that have expanded into the field of portable electronics? You can't get more bang for your buck, so to speak, not with current technology.

And lithium-ion batteries, while they offer good performance, run the risk of thermal runaway. Remember on the news a while ago, that recall on Dell batteries? Because they were CATCHING FIRE?

(image from geekologie.com)

Yeah. That.

Obviously not going to happen with electric cars -- we hope. Tesla Motors, at least, has considered the problem and acted pre-emptively to make sure they're safe. But it goes to show you. Nothing's free when it comes to energy: try to make a smaller, more powerful battery, and you produce more heat. Faster charging may mean you have to replace the battery sooner. New technology costs money, and that cost will carry on to the consumer. But if we don't switch to an alternate fuel for our vehicles, we'll just keep burning through gasoline until there's none left. There is no solution that does not require a trade.

The question is, what are we willing to trade?