In my past two blogs, I’ve outlined Google’s Clean Energy 2030 proposal for reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy production in the US, and added my personal comments. Here’s a few more…let us know what you think.

• I like the fuel efficiency standard of 45mpg by 2030, although from a technology standpoint I think it can go a bit higher, considering that Europe has set the same standards for 3 years from now.  Obviously this is a behavior issue though, as Americans like large inefficient cars.  Perhaps that will change in the next 20 years though, where we will find we can eclipse this mark. (Read more…)

In my previous blog I outlined Google’s Clean Energy 2030 proposal for reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy production in the US. As promised, I have gone through the proposal in detail and now offer my thoughts on what I like and dislike about it. As always, these issues are open to debate, and I encourage everyone to get involved, or at least to educate themselves on the subject. I will try to provide links for external sources of information where applicable. The first half of  my comments are as follows, in no particular order:

• I like that the renewable energy goals are being achieved through three main areas: wind, solar, and geothermal. Nathan Lewis at the California Institute of Technology outlines the total energy that can be potentially captured from natural resources in a series of talks and papers. Of these, wind, solar, and geothermal comprise the three largest, although solar by far is greater than the other two. With that in mind, I think the goal with respect to wind is reasonable in that the technology is currently close to maturity and is cost effective. In my opinion however, the geothermal goals seem a bit inflated considering the level of investment that will be needed for widespread implementation of enhanced geothermal systems. Globally speaking, I think solar (thermal and photovoltaic) will be the best solution, but utilizing all of our mix of resources for a near-term national solution is advisable. (Read more…)

Those interested in the science, economics, and policy of clean energy initiatives do not have far to look these days.  Besides the government’s Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which maps out a plan for investment in clean energy technologies, many private sector institutions are getting their feet wet as well.  And I don’t mean with investments alone.  Many institutions are taking the time to make internal company policies as well as external proposals for the United States as a whole with regards to reducing our carbon footprint.

One notable participant, and leader in my opinion, is Google, whose “Clean Energy 2030” proposal for reducing US dependence on fossil fuel was first presented in October of 2008.  The proposal is organized to address three main areas of action: energy efficiency, renewable (carbon-free) electricity, and personal vehicles.  By addressing these areas in combination, their analysis concludes that by the year 2030 the following reductions can be made from the predicted EIA baseline numbers: fossil fuel-based electricity down 88%, vehicle oil consumption down 44%, and overall US CO₂ emissions down 49%.

Google is unique in that they have used their resources to not only hire staff to take the time to develop such proposals, but they also have started to implement these solutions within Google and throughout the community.  (Read more…)

A news story broke a few weeks ago (courtesy of a study by McAfee, the virus protection software company) pertaining to the global energy costs of email spam. The study outlined a very thorough breakdown of the life-cycle of spam, from creation and dissemination to filtering and viewing. The energy usage per year for each step was analyzed for each major country and also generalized over the global scale. The conclusion: over 33 billion kilowatt-hours (KWh) of electricity are used globally each year as a result of spam. According to McAfee’s numbers, this is equivalent to the electricity usage of 2.4 million homes in the U.S., and equals the GHG emissions of 3.1 million passenger cars. Not a small amount.

This story reflects a burgeoning trend by companies to spin their products in a way that shines favorably on the environment. We probably never thought about the impact of spam on CO2 emissions, but thanks to McAfee, we can now feel good about buying their product. This is all well and good, and simply reflects the very positive cultural and societal movement towards cleaner and more efficient energy production and usage in order to reduce our environmental imprint. However, as with all science, it is necessary to analyze studies like this in detail, and to be cognizant of any conflicts of interest that may exist. In the case of corporate advertising, the vested interest of the company in producing data which leads to more sales is glaring.

The most interesting part of the McAfee study is that about 80% of the energy associated with spam comes from the user end: viewing and deleting spam, manually filtering, and searching for false positives (scanning the spam folder for valuable emails accidentally filtered from the inbox). The energy associated with each of these categories is defined as “user hours,” calculated by multiplying the time spent for these acts by the average power required by the computer.

It is in the application of these “user hours” that McAfee confuses and distorts the issue, and inflates the environmentally deleterious impact of spam presumably for its own economic benefit. The energy associated with user hours is only a factor if, in lieu of viewing and filtering spam, the computer would have been off. It is the difference in energy between normal non-spam behavior and behavior with spam, the opportunity cost (to use a business term), that should be used in the analysis. The only scenario where the McAfee analysis is correct would be where the computer is on an extra amount of time due to the user time spent dealing with spam. If you spend 15 minutes a day dealing with spam, do you stay an extra 15 minutes at work, or at home on the computer, AND do you turn your computer on and off each time you use it? It is safe to say that most people’s computing behavior does not follow this pattern. (Read more…)

What is “peak energy”, and does it exist? What effect does it have on the global community’s drive to develop sustainable energy technologies?

Peak energy is the theoretical proposition that at some point – past, current, or future – our capability to extract and process fossil fuels will reach a maximum, and then start to decrease until reserves are wholly depleted. Peak energy has become a widely discussed and disputed subject as carbon emissions and alternative energy have become ubiquitous topics in today’s society.

The idea was first introduced in the 1950s, when M. King Hubbert proposed that the production of a fuel roughly follows a bell curve, with a distinct maximum – and hence, a distinct total reserve of fuel that is known to exist and be economically feasible to extract. This idea has become widely accepted, despite that substantial historical evidence points to a more adaptive theory most notably defended by Morris Adelman at MIT. His proposal is that Hubbert’s peak energy theory posits two major flaws: (1) humans will never know, or be able to know, the entire supply of fuels that exists on earth, a value that is required or assumed in Hubbert’s model, and (2) the model neglects that development of technologies will continue to expand the reserves in a balance with demand and cost.

Proponents of both theories cite historical reserves and production data as evidence in support of their respective positions. (Read more…)

When reading about energy and climate science, I often come across very broad statements regarding the benefits of different technologies. While these statements are supported by competent science, the details of their origins are most often left out. Enter the do-it-yourself (DIY) part of science that people rarely realize is within their grasp.

I’ll give an example that I was thinking about last week, based on the statement “electric cars have lower overall emissions than gasoline cars.” A fairly intuitive, even obvious statement, but I found myself wondering “why is this so obvious?” I haven’t heard any quotes on how much less the emissions are. Being a scientist, it is best to not just take someone’s word for it, and to do a little digging. (Read more…)

Many times this winter, during the most bitterly cold days, I heard the sarcastic comment, “Where is this global warming everyone has been talking about?”

The truth is most of us will go on with our lives without experiencing noticeable differences due to climate change. This is especially true in the Midwest, where we generally live an extreme-free weather experience, sheltered from the effects of coastal sea-level changes, hurricanes, and water shortages seen in arid climates. It is hard to acknowledge and appreciate the large-scale effects global warming will have on the climates of different environments because “a few degrees warmer” when placed in the context of our personal lives does not hold much sway.

Historical minimum polar ice cap coverage.

The most noticeable changes in climate due to global warming are occurring on and around the polar ice cap. While far from our sight and minds, the polar ice cap serves as a beacon for melting of landmass ice that could be detrimental to coastal cities in the coming decades. The ice cap is changing rapidly because sea ice is particularly sensitive  to sun exposure and temperature changes. Ice normally reflects sunlight, but as the temperature warms and thin layers of water start to form, more sunlight is absorbed instead of reflected, and the warming cycle is accelerated. Under the same mechanism, as the polar ice cap shrinks and is replaced by open ocean, more sunlight is absorbed and the shrinkage rate is accelerated – so much so that, as can be seen in the diagram below, the minimum ice coverage has been cut in half over just a matter of a few decades.

John Huston moves through the ice rubble during day 13 on the polar ice cap.

Currently my friend and fellow Northwestern alum John Huston (Class of 1999) is attempting to be the first ever American team (with Minnesotan Tyler Fish) to ski unassisted to the North Pole. This means that they will not be re-supplied at any point during their trip as they navigate across the polar ice cap. They are skiing from the northerly most point of Canada, Ellesmere Island, to the North Pole, dragging behind them hundreds of pounds of food and gear on two sleds per person. They are currently two weeks into their journey that will total 55 days and over 400 miles. Their progress and daily updates can be tracked at www.forwardexpeditions.com/blog.html.

Expedition progress as of day 16.

One of the goals of their expedition is to promote climate change education, and there isn’t a better place for them to gain firsthand experience to share about this growing problem. Increased stretches of thin ice and open water must be crossed by swimming, wearing specialized dry suits. In addition, they must navigate through large boulders of ice, which form as a result of shifting currents that have caused ice plates to collide (much like the formation of mountains from tectonic plate collisions). As the ice cap shrinks, a larger proportion of it is made up of new sea ice. While new ice provides a much smoother surface for skiing, the continual shrinking of the polar ice cap could eventually make summer expeditions impossible. So, while they attempt to be the first American team to achieve this feat, the biggest effect of climate change on this expedition may be that it could also be the last time such a journey is even within the realm of possibility. Let’s just hope that they make it home safely.