The Japanese vessel Chikyu is part of research efforts to extract methane hydrates from the sea floor. Credit: IODP/JAMSTEC

Several days ago I finished reading Charles C. Mann’s article in The Atlantic titled “What If We Never Run Out Of Oil?”, a long-form discussion of the history and technology of established sources of energy like oil and natural gas, as well as relative newcomers from hydraulic fracturing or methane hydrates.

If you haven’t read it yet, please do so. It’s hard to sum up the article (which is quite lengthy – in the good way), but here are several main takeaways:

• Fossil fuels will continue to be an important and dominant fuel source for the foreseeable future.
• As history shows,  previously unattainable sources (oil in shale layers) or new sources (like methane hydrates) become more economical to extract and use or new technologies are developed allowing for extraction (which affect the economics).
• Unconventional fuels are a Big Deal. The influx of relatively inexpensive shale oil and gas is influencing the global dynamics of energy supply, and we should expect more unconventional hydrocarbons.

The third point above deserves more attention.

In reading the criticism of Mann’s post, I get the sense of well-intentioned folks confronting an inconvenient truth: we are an energy-hungry society and there will be demand for more and more energy and we’ll find new ways of meeting that demand, likely with unconventional hydrocarbon resources. Technological advances and economics will make previously untapped resources available, as we have seen with hydraulic fracturing and (as Mann believes) we will see with methane hydrates (methane frozen in ice).

What really complicates matters is that energy sources are not isolated to one country or another. The criticisms I have read seem to downplay the global systems aspect of energy. Similar to a game of whack-a-mole, one cannot simply stomp out a carbon-intensive fuel in one part of the planet without having it appear halfway around the world.

This is apparent in Mann’s discussion of coal in light of cheap natural gas:

The U.S. coal industry has taken to complaining of a “war on coal.” But the economic hit has been less than one would expect; U.S. coal exports, mainly to Europe, almost doubled from 2009 to 2011. In the sort of development that irresistibly attracts descriptors like ironic, Germany, often touted as an environmental model for its commitment to solar and wind power, has expanded its use of coal, and as a result is steadily increasing its carbon-dioxide output.

I wrote about this in November 2012. The coal that the United States is not burning is not staying in the country. More and more of it is destined for Europe and Asia for both thermal power generation and metallurgical processes. Both are carbon-intensive (you are still burning coal). To say that “it doesn’t matter if we run out of oil, we won’t want to burn it anymore”, as one criticism of Mann’s article says (the same can be said for coal), misses the global systems aspect: the United States might not want to burn it, but someone else will.

To further emphasize the global energy system, I direct your attention to a recent article in Foreign Policy about the reversal of Russia’s “gas weapon”.

After years of bullying and strong-arming its neighbors, the Russian-controlled gas monopoly is now on the receiving end of the “gas weapon”. The gas weapon refers to Russia’s ability as an “energy superpower” to bend foes to its will by cutting off supplies of natural gas. Gazprom flexed its muscles in 2006, 2008 and again 2009, when it shut of natural gas to millions of Europeans during winter to make a point to middlemen in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova.

But Russia’s gas weapon is weakening, or even being turned on Russia with the influx of cheap, North American shale gas. Alexandros Petersen writes:

But in just the last two years, the tide has started to turn. Low energy prices across the globe are allowing consumers to use Russia’s “reverse dependence” on European markets against Gazprom. Russia’s export options outside Europe are increasingly limited, allowing European consumer to demand better terms. Meanwhile, Central Asia is no longer Moscow’s vassal, but has finally emerged as competition for cheap energy, with producers such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan not only willing to give consumers (still largely in East and South Asia) a better deal, but without treating them as former colonies to be manipulated.

The point is: unconventional energy sources are affecting the global energy system.

Mann is inclined to believe that methane hydrates will be a Big Deal in the coming years, and I agree. The pace of research and development, and what we know from the history of hydraulic fracturing, suggests that methane hydrates and other unconventional fuels warrant our attention. In an article for this blog, Melissa Lott wrote about the potential methane hydrate reserves – by some estimates about “15 times the amount of gas as the world’s shale deposits”. Throw in oil sands in Alberta, shale oil in Utah, and other unconventional sources all over the world, and the potential to disrupt global energy systems is a possibility. Many more years of carbon emissions is also a strong possibility.

Transitions to low-carbon fuels will likely need a global approach to externalities associated with burning the fuels. If carbon is the rationale, then a price on carbon (through a fee or an emissions trading scheme) is the most straightforward way to address this. That is one way to account for the economics of producers and consumers, technology investments, and global trade all in one go.

Image: IODP/JAMSTEC

Joseph Fourier: bane of countless physics and engineering students.

Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.

Fourier’s answer to these questions is formalized in what we now call the greenhouse gas effect. From the American Institute of Physics history of climate change page:

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box’s interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape. This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that’s less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called “the greenhouse effect.

First Edition of Fourier's observations of the greenhouse effect

Fourier’s work was instrumental in understanding climate change. Years after Fourier’s death on May 16, 1830, scientists continued to ask questions about the greenhouse gas effect. In 1862, John Tyndall discovered that certain gases (water and carbon dioxide) help trap heat from escaping the atmosphere. Later, in 1895, Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius observed the infrared-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide and water molecules.

We still see the impact of Fourier’s answer today, with the recent news that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements surpassed 400 parts per million, and the ongoing debates of how to limit and adapt to a changing climate. It is, you might say, a hot topic.

I remember last summer as the summer of the mosquito. I wasn’t prepared. Those buzzing, itching, carbon dioxide-seeking missiles chased my family out of the backyard. The long anticipated lazy days laying in the backyard turned into short backdoor jaunts of necessity. No one wanted to take the chance. Mosquitoes were everywhere. So were warnings about West Nile Virus.

I didn’t know what to do. Should we spray the yard, or ourselves? Buy a mosquito trap, or redirect our drains? Would it best to accept that these disease-ridden pests are one of summer’s least desirable side effects?

While hesitating, the mosquitos stung my kids. Still, I stalled. Our cats came inside with bumpy ears. Again, I waited. Pamphlets about West Nile showed up in our mailbox. But, indecision prevented my call to arms. Why? Loathe to sending a cloud of chemicals into the air, ground, or our own epidermises, I was searching for an alternative solution – one natural, effective and affordable.

After calling in a “green” pest management company, hunting for water pockets, talking with neighbors and friends, and scouring the web for advice, I put my newfound knowledge to work. And for the first time since spring, my family finally enjoyed a peaceful hour on our back porch. Yes, there was the faint smell of garlic in the air, but you won’t hear me complaining about it.

Now we’re ready for this year. Temperatures here in the South are heating up, and I’ve already spotted a few mosquitos. Here are some suggestions for reclaiming your outdoor spaces…if you’re into that sort of thing.

• Get rid of stagnant H2O: Female mosquitoes love water. It’s their nursery. Think puddles, pots, wheelbarrows, or drains. Mosquito-moms lay about 200 eggs at a time and as frequently as every three to four days. When conditions are right, these babies can reproduce in as little as 7 days, making one mosquito capable of spawning thousands of offspring in one season. Eliminating these wet nurseries is the first step in mosquito control.

• Cut the grass: It’s not rocket science, but keeping the grass short all summer and removing dead leaves and other green waste will help keep mosquito breeding grounds at a minimum since these tend to hold water.

• Spraying doesn’t have to be scary: After much research about a variety of natural insecticidal sprays, like those derived from chrysanthemum flowers or cedar oil, I found one I liked with the forgettable name of Essential-1 PHE Organic Pesticide Concentrate. The active ingredients are garlic, castor and cedar oil. This product has made our backyard enjoyable again. It’s just one of the many effective products out there, so look around. If you’re a DIYer, you can always make your own no-mosquito tea.

• Not all skin repellants are created equal: If it’s unwanted chemicals you fear, look for natural mosquito repellents. The types of ingredients that work well include cinnamon, citronella, castor and lemon eucalyptus oil. In fact, the CDC recommends using lemon eucalyptus. Just remember to apply them frequently since they don’t have the staying power of DEET.

• A little help from citronella : Placing citronella-scented candles around the porch, or any outdoor gathering area, can help repel mosquitoes, though the effect is limited.

• Adopt a fish: For water that cannot be emptied or tossed, such as in a pond, try introducing “mosquitofish,” which eat mosquito larvae, explains the Dirt Doctor‘s website. He advocates for safe, non-toxic mosquito control. Another option is to buy products that release Bti, a bacteria that kills mosquito larvae. This bacteria will also kill gnats and black flies.

• Make your garden it place for beneficial organisms: Bats, dragonflies and birds all munch on mosquitoes, so garden with them in mind. Try adding a birdfeeder, create a dragonfly-friendly habitat, or build bat house. According to those at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, bats do consume mosquitos, but since they don’t comprise the largest portion of their diet, these should not be your main source of mosquito control.

Image: the Culex quinquefasciatus mosquito on a person’s finger. Credit: James Gathany, CDC

Google’s Earth Engine project lets us see these changes happening over time. Google highlights changes on the planet’s surface in eight spots around the world: the booming city of Las Vegas, coal mines spreading across Wyoming , irrigation in Saudi Arabia, Lake Urmia, Iran drying up, Amazon deforestation, the Columbia Glacier retreating, coastal expansion in Dubai, and the Aral Sea drying up.

Sadly, I can’t embed the map view, but I did find animated GIFs of the timelapses:

Each 30-meter resolution timelapse frame is a 1.7-terapixel composite built from global, annual Landsat images captured between 1984 and 2012.

The coolest part is the timelapses are interactive, so you can zoom and pan around the planet. I checked out Austin, TX, and watched the massive expansion of roads and neighborhoods. You can see it, too, if you click this link.

I want to know: what cool things are you finding?

Image credits: Google, U.S. Geological Survey

Hey, North Carolina, we’re raising the ante on claim to the title of State Most Shamefully Committed to the Stupid Political Ruination of Science – except we’re not that shameful about it. Instead, we’re putting our boisterous Texas spin on it.

We’ve been most impressive with your attempt to legislate away sea level rise and stop counting votes and removing scientists from scientific commissions. But, we the Lone Star State, are not giving up without a fight.

You’re well aware of Representative Lamar Smith’s efforts to introduce the long lost step of the scientific method: passing political muster. But, that’s not all. Texas oil man Jeff Sanderfer and our Dear Leader (pictured bove) want to do away with the more trivial functions of first-class universities like, you know, research and writing books.

Because, really, what do research and books offer society?

The reform efforts (air quotes) would turn universities into what Wade Goodwin of NPR calls “superstar community colleges” that are paid by how much money they bring into the university and how many students they serve. That’s a great idea, because that 500-person chemistry class I took freshmen year of college was awesome.

The reform started at Governor Perry’s alma mater, Texas A&M, by ranking faculty on how much money they bring in. The torches and pitchforks are now at UT Austin’s doorstep, where faculty have again been rated and binned into categories such as “coasters, dodgers, sherpas, pioneers, and stars”. It’s the higher education equivalent of The Bobs coming into Inetech to clean house and asking: “so what is it exactly that you do here? Research? Umm, yeahhhh.”

Nevermind that universities like The University of Texas at Austin are home to some of the biggest innovators of modern times, folks like John Goodenough (inventor of the lithium-ion battery, seen here receiving the National Medal of Science from the President) and Bob Metcalfe (inventor of Ethernet), among many others.

Making higher education more effective and efficient is a noble goal, but doing so at the expense of research is misguided, as Paul Begala (UT Austin alum and Democratic politico) writes for The Daily Beast:

“The main cause of rising tuition costs is not research—research was vibrant when I was a student at the University of Texas in the 1980s and tuition was $4 a credit. Rather, tuition has gone up as state support has gone down. Where once the great state of Texas paid for more than half the cost of its children’s college educations, today the level of support has dropped to just 13 percent. And even with a state surplus of $8.8 billion, the genius politicians in Austin are calling for another $300 million in cuts to Texas higher education. No wonder tuition has gone up—it’s the only way a supposedly state-supported university can continue to keep the doors open.”

Anyways, we’ll probably continue touting how great our state is because we’re attracting businesses left and right. The jokes on us all, though, because at this rate, there won’t be an educated and trained workforce in the coming decades.

If you think this is a crappy idea, you can visit WakeUpLonghorns and all of that.

Photo credit: Texas Tribune

In the “Renewable Power” data visualization, one can look at the historic trends in worldwide renewable power development or zoom in to see the trends for specific countries over time. And, this pictures shows what current trends will lead to (not enough generation, if one wishes to meet sustainability goals).

The “Fuel Economy Readiness Index” visualization takes a more geographic-focus, overlaying a world map with transportation sector characteristics.The “Biofuels” visualization plots countrywide per capita biofuel consumption and % of fuel consumption. The five other visualizations paint pictures of coal and gas power, carbon dioxide capture, electric vehicles, building energy intensity, and the IEA’s carbon intensity metric. And, for those who want to take it a step further, all of the data behind these visualizations are available for free online.

Credit: Nestle Nespresso

In recent years, disposable coffee pods have grown increasingly popular among coffee enthusiasts. The coffee pod fully encapsulates pre-portioned coffee grounds and flavoring inside a disposable capsule. This unique design allows casual coffee brewers to consistently reproduce their favorite café beverage at home with minimal preparation and effort. But the ease of the ubiquitous pod has a downside. Pod-based coffee machines produce much more waste on a per-cup basis than the conventional drip coffee maker, and their waste is far more troublesome than simply paper and coffee grounds: Nestlé’s Nespresso coffee pods, for example, encase coffee in an aluminum capsule. The additional packaging required for pod-based coffees has triggered criticism from the environmental community.

In response to environmental concerns, some coffee pod manufacturers have made efforts to recycle used pods. In 2009, Nestlé launched its AluCycle initiative, which aims to put thousands of dedicated coffee capsule collection points in place to recycle 75% of used Nespresso capsules by 2013. The focus of these collection points is aluminum recycling, which produces enormous energy and greenhouse gas savings compared to aluminum from virgin sources.

Nestlé’s aluminum recycling leaves them with an abundance of leftover coffee grounds. Presently, Nestlé mixes spent coffee grounds with organic matter to produce compost. Recent work published by researchers at Spain’s Instituto Nacional del Carbón shows that Nestlé could potentially further increase the climate benefit of its recycling efforts by repurposing used coffee grounds into carbon capture and storage material.

Carbon capture and storage materials are a vital part of overcoming climate change. The International Energy Agency estimates that about one fifth of required greenhouse gas reductions will come from carbon capture and storage by 2050. An attractive solution is capturing carbon dioxide from a power plant’s exhaust, so that existing facilities can be retrofitted and brought up to modern carbon standards. The Spanish researchers are hoping that their work with spent coffee pods will help develop an inexpensive carbon capture solution that is appealing to the energy industry.

So, how does one turn old coffee grounds into a carbon dioxide scrubber? The key is transforming the plentiful carbon in coffee grounds into activated carbon. Activated carbon is used in a number of filtration applications. It holds onto contaminants via its enormous surface area; small micropores on its surface attract and lock in molecules. If engineered correctly, activated carbon can remove much of the carbon dioxide from the hot gases exiting a coal power plant’s smoke stack.

In their paper published in the journal Applied Energy, Plaza, González, Pevida, Pis, and Rubiera from Spain’s Instituto Nacional del Carbón develop two methods to transform grounds from spent Nespresso coffee pods into valuable activated carbon. The first method uses just carbon dioxide and heat. Spent coffee grounds are heated at 600 in the presence of nitrogen gas until they resemble charcoal. Then, the temperature is cranked up to 700 and carbon dioxide is introduced to activate the surface of the charred coffee grounds. Doing so creates micropores that are attractive to errant carbon dioxide molecules.

The second method developed by Plaza and colleagues uses basic potassium hydroxide to create a more intricate surface on the spent coffee grounds. The grounds are heated at 100 to remove excess moisture, and then soaked with potassium hydroxide. The mixture is gradually heated up to 400 with nitrogen gas until the potassium hydroxide melts off and chars with the spent coffee. Finally, the whole charred mixture is heated one last time at 600 and then thoroughly washed and dried. This chemically driven process creates an elaborate pore structure on the charred coffee grounds that is attractive to carbon dioxide.

To test the effectiveness of their low-cost activated carbons, Plaza and colleagues exposed them to both pure carbon dioxide gas and a mix of gases that resembles the flue gas from a coal power plant. With their intricate pore structure, the coffee grounds activated with potassium hydroxide stored more carbon dioxide in the presence of pure carbon dioxide gas. However, the grounds treated with just heat and carbon dioxide filtered the mix of gases resembling coal emissions more selectively. Nitrogen and other elements tended to clog the available pores on the potassium-activated coffee grounds. Thus, Plaza and colleagues have shown that coffee grounds treated with just heat and carbon dioxide could effectively scrub some of the carbon dioxide from coal power plant emissions.

The work by Plaza and others at Spain’s Instituto Nacional del Carbón shows that uniform forms of waste like spent coffee grounds from pod-based coffees could become an inexpensive method of stemming climate change in the future. Both waste heat and carbon dioxide are abundant at any coal power plant. Plaza and colleagues predict that carbon dioxide captured from a coal plant could be repurposed to produce activated carbon from spent coffee on site. If such a process is developed at an industrial scale, three forms of waste (heat, carbon dioxide, and used coffee) could be combined and repurposed to form carbon capture and storage material, a technology vital to the climate and humanity’s future.

Photo Credit: Nestle Nespresso.

Robert Fares is Ph.D. student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. As part of Pecan Street Inc.’s ongoing smart grid demonstration project, Robert’s research looks at how energy storage models can be used with large-scale data and optimization for economic operational management of battery energy storage. Robert hopes to develop novel operational methods and business models that help to integrate distributed energy generation and energy storage technologies with restructured electricity markets and retail electric tariffs. Through his research, he hopes to demonstrate the marketability and technical compatibility of these new technologies.

Witness congressperson Lamar Smith, who has floated a bill for the U.S. House of Representatives that would require scientific research to pass political litmus tests. Smith gained notoriety a week before the bill when he sent a letter to the NSF demanding explanation of some science that didn’t seem to live up to his exacting standards.

I don’t know what Smith majored in in college, but he has admitted he couldn’t hang in freshman physics and has expressed his doubts on climate change, too. He graduated from Yale — which it seems to me has some explaining to do.

I’m not sure whether I’m telling you this as a warning, as a way to comfort myself that North Carolina legislators aren’t the craziest in the country every second of every day, or just as a way to keep away from the scotch for as long as it took to write this post. Anyhow, I’ve told you.

With the U.S. Department of State currently reviewing TransCanada’s application for a presidential permit of the Keystone XL pipeline, protests from environmental groups opposing the pipeline have been heating up. The main reason for the opposition to the pipeline is that environmentalists generally consider oil sands to be “dirty” – partially because mining oil sands results in a lot of surface disruption and water pollution concerns, but also because it takes a lot of energy (in the form of burning natural gas) to produce and upgrade oil sands. Therefore, the carbon footprint, and the energy required to produce oil sands, may be higher when compared to conventional oil. I recently spoke at the 2013 Connecting the Dots energy conference at Stanford University, and one anti-Keystone attendee raised an interesting point. He said, “Because you burn so much natural gas upgrading oil sands, you actually use more energy than you get from the oil. The only reason they are doing it is because oil is so valuable and natural gas is so cheap! The energy return is negative!”

That claim was quite alarming. Would Canadians really put more energy into producing oil sands than they would get out? After all, a low energy return on energy invested is one argument against corn ethanol (actually, for every unit of energy you put into growing, harvesting, refining and transporting corn ethanol, you get about 1.3 units of energy out. So it is borderline but slightly positive.).

As it turns out, researchers have been investigating the answer to the oil sands energy return question. That is, how much energy goes into oil sands compared to how much energy we get out? This relationship is generally known as the Energy Return on Investment (EROI), but it can go by many names (net energy return – NER, energy return ratio – ERR, and so on). For conventional oil, this number can range from around 5 to around 30, depending on where you are and how you are producing the oil. The average EROI for oil these days is about 18. That means for every 1 unit of energy you put into locating, drilling, and producing that oil, you get 18 units of energy out. For ‘easy conventional oil’ in places like Saudi Arabia, the EROI is likely much higher than the average, but for ‘hard unconventional oil’, like oil sands, tight oil, or deepwater offshore, the EROI is often lower than the average.

However, a disturbing trend has been uncovered by researchers at the State College of New York. According to their analysis, our global energy return on investment has been getting worse over time. Much worse.

Why is this trend happening? Well as you can imagine in the early days of oil production, we didn’t really know what we were doing. We didn’t really understand geology. In fact, the theory of plate tectonics had not even been conceived yet. However, there was a lot of easy oil around. In many places, it just bubbled out of the ground, and you could literally dig it up with a shovel. Over time, as we learned more about geology and technology, we got more and more efficient at extracting oil, and our EROI kept going up. But then something happened. The rate at which we were producing easy oil outpaced the rate at which we were becoming more efficient. According to the study at the State College of New York, oil produced in 1992 had an EROI of 26, and in 1999, the EROI had increased to 35. But since then, the EROI has been declining dramatically. In 2006, the average EROI was 18 – about half of what it was less than a decade earlier. Now these numbers come from just one study, and while they may not be perfect, they highlight an important trend. Today, we have to go farther, work harder, drill deeper, spend more energy, and turn to unconventional sources like oil sands to satisfy our demand for oil.

So how bad is the Energy Return on Investment for oil sands?

From a societal perspective, surprisingly, it may actually be good. Just in the province of Alberta, Canada, there is about 1.7 trillion barrels of oil. How much oil is that? It is a little bit more than the total amount of oil that humankind has used so far. That’s right; Alberta has more oil than all humans have used to date. In addition, because oil sands tend to be in remote locations, the extraction process has become energy self-sufficient. Energy independent, if you will. In the process of extracting oil sands, you can use some of what you produce to fuel the production process. Therefore, you don’t need to use much external energy at all. You don’t need to pipe in natural gas, use electricity from a power plant, or even take diesel from a refinery to fuel your trucks. According to a recent study at Stanford University, from an external perspective, the EROI for oil sands is a whopping 30, almost twice as good as the current conventional average.

However, from an internal EROI perspective, oil sands are not so good. Even though you are using energy that was internally produced, you are still using energy. If you include this energy in the total, the EROI for oil sands is around 5. And because you have to use more energy to fuel the process, this could mean more carbon emissions per barrel of oil produced.

But – oil sands emissions do not have to be so high. When oil sands are ‘upgraded’, they are actually converted from a heavy tar into three things: a synthetic natural gas, a light, low carbon oil, and petroleum coke. (petroleum coke is a black powdery substance that is mostly made up of carbon. It is very similar to coal.) Much of the natural gas goes back to fuel the process, and the light oil is sold (or blended with heavier oil, and then sold, like in the case with Keystone XL). The natural gas and light oil produced from oil sands have a lower carbon footprint than conventional oil because so much of the carbon goes into the coke. Thus, the total carbon footprint of oil sands all depends on what you do with the coke. If you burn the coke, or sell it to someone that burns it (coal plants often buy coke – it is a good substitute for coal), the carbon emissions will be high. But in some oil sands production fields, the coke is actually sequestered (buried) back in the mine. If this is the case, the oil sands will have a smaller carbon footprint, but will also have a lower EROI, since coke contains energy.

Now, how bad or good you think oil sands are is all a matter of perspective. If you want to reduce oil imports from the Middle East, become North American Energy Independent, and produce more oil to fuel society, than oil sands have a clear benefit. If you are primarily concerned about carbon emissions, we should really get off oil – including oil sands – altogether.

Scott McNally holds a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He is pursuing dual master’s degrees in energy resources engineering at Stanford University and in public policy at Harvard University. Scott has previously worked as a renewable energy project administrator at Austin Energy, a project development engineer at Shell Oil Co., an energy and climate research intern at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education fellow at the U.S. Department of Energy. He was originally invited to submit guest posts by Plugged In’s Melissa C. Lott.

Photo Credit:

1. Graphic of oil barrel © by Amiralis and used under this creative commons license.

The video has been making the rounds on Facebook and Twitter. I’ve seen posts from friends in New York City who can’t believe something like this could happen. I mean, “an explosion… in the West Village?” because of not just any natural gas, but fracked gas that is “laced with radon” and prone to explode AT ANY MINUTE.

But natural gas from a hydraulic fracturing process doesn’t equal exploding pipelines, and this one is hardly the first one in the New York metropolitan area. According to the U.S. EIA (link), there are several natural gas pipelines running beneath the streets. Here are a few:

“The Algonquin Gas Transmission Company system (1,100 miles) has the capability to move 1.5 Bcf per day of its 3.3 Bcf per day system capacity from New Jersey into the New York metropolitan area.”

And: “In late 2008, the long-delayed 0.5 Bcf per day Millennium Pipeline was finally completed. This 182-mile natural gas pipeline system begins at an interconnect with the Empire Pipeline system in southwest central New York State and terminates in the New York City metropolitan area. It is part of an overall regional effort involving expansion of the existing Empire, Algonquin and Iroquois Pipelines, which will be among its major supply sources.”

And another: “The Iroquois Gas Transmission Company system, completed in 1991, draws just over one Bcf per day off the TransCanada Pipeline Ltd system in Ontario, Canada, a large portion of which is delivered to the New York City metropolitan area.”

And here is a handy map that shows the northeastern United States natural gas pipeline network:

The northeastern natural gas pipeline network. Credit: U.S. EIA

You get the point.

The “seriously scary thing” is scaring people in to thinking their favorite coffee shop is going to go up in flames the next time they boil a pot of ramen through misinformation and fear campaigns.

Edited for clarity – David.

Except here goes.

North Carolina? You remember: the state against science regarding sea level rise? The state with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources head who doubts climate change science and believes oil is a renewable resource? The state that tried to appoint a head of early childhood education who believed the Fukushima earthquake might have been caused by ultrasonic waves from North Korea? That North Carolina?

Folks, that’s nothing. We have a new record.

The scientific method the Republican-run legislature is against now is … counting. Yep — in its desperate attempts to get rid of North Carolina’s renewable energy program, the legislature has given up the radical, liberal, lamestream, obviously subjective “science” of, um, actually counting votes. You see, when the votes were actually counted, the bill that would have removed the renewables program (and said that wind, among other things, was not renewable) died in the state house, failing to emerge from committee by an 18-13 vote.

Okay, hmm … you’re Republican legislator Mike Hager, you hate the renewables program, and your bill has just been defeated by an indisputable margin of five votes. What to do … what to do? Easy. You reintroduce the bill. And when it next comes up in committee, this time in the state senate? You have a voice vote — and have your finance committee chair, Republican Bill Rabon, refuse to count the actual votes. In a voice vote so close that both sides claim they would have won if the votes had been counted, Rabon declares that the bill has passed and runs off.

No, I wish I were, but I am not making this up. We have given up counting votes in North Carolina. The Reign of Error rules supreme here.

There’s still more committee blah blah to go through, and the whole senate, and all that kind of “I’m Just a Bill” stuff. But the facts are hideously simple. Despite the cries of Democratic state Sen. Josh Stein (“North Carolina is not a banana republic”), um … Josh? Yes it is. You can tell when a polity has become a banana republic: once it ignores the voices of the people and their representatives, it’s made the switch. And let me tell you. I’m one of the people of North Carolina, and if there’s one thing I know about the people of North Carolina it’s what our state senate just proved, scientifically or otherwise:

We. Don’t. Count.

Total energy consumption is projected to follow a similar pattern. By 2040, cumulative energy savings are projected to reach 55 quadrillion BTUs (1 quad = a thousand trillion British Thermal Units), or over half the energy consumption for any given year in the United States.

The Extended Policies scenario makes the following assumptions:

• Continuation of production tax credits for wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable resources will be extended past their specified sunset dates.
• Federal equipment efficiency standards will be updated at periodic intervals, consistent with ENERGY STAR^® specifications
• Federal energy codes for residential and commercial buildings will be updated beyond the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 codes
• CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles will increase by 1.4 percent above 2025 standards
• Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is expected to cover systems of all sizes (instead of being limited to systems under 50 MW), while the ITC cap will be raised from 25 MW, up from 15 MW

More information can be found in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (link).

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013.

Regardless of the regulatory hoops AquAdvantage salmon must bound, it’s the social hurdles that, in the end, may prove whether this fish will swim or sink.

The small, scaly fish has polarized people, sending fear, indifference and admiration throughout scientific and environmental communities, as well as the general public.

All this, even after a draft Environmental Assessment was done in the early months of 2012. The finding’s of which reaffirmed the FDA’s previous conclusions that the genetically engineered (GE) salmon is as safe to eat as conventional farm-raised Atlantic salmon. The Assessment also says that it’s very unlikely the GE salmon could escape into the environment, and even if by some odd chance it did, the salmon would be incapable of reproducing since they will be “effectively sterile.”

The FDA’s findings have not quelled the concerns of opponents. Food safety critics believe it’s a Mad-Max test that could go disastrously wrong.

One of these, the Center for Food Safety, is concerned that even if 99% percent of the triploid GE fish are infertile, the remaining 1%, or 150,000 salmon, are fertile if the facility is producing 15 million eggs/year, would not be, says J.D. Hanson, a Food Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety. If released into the environment, these virile salmon could reproduce and compete with wild salmon populations.

Instead of proceeding with approval, he wants the FDA to undertake a full environmental impact statement. He would also like to see AquAdvantage salmon regulated as a food additive, rather than as an animal drug, so that its health effects on humans can be fully determined.

In direct response to the FDA approval process, a new bill, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, is circulating through congress. It would mandate any GM food ingredient be labelled. Also, the supermarkets Whole Foods, Trader Joes and Aldi, are a few on a list of food providers refusing to stock their shelves with transgenic food product.

AquaBounty’s answer to naysayers is that the production of AquAdvantage salmon is in the interest of both the environment and consumers. On the company’s website, it says that their objective is to use the technology of genetic engineering to “contribute to increasing aquaculture productivity in an efficient, safe and sustainable manner to meet the demand for high quality seafood from a growing world population.” And demand is growing.

“Between 2000-2004, Americans alone ate an average of about 284,000 metric tons of salmon annually, of which two-thirds was farmed,” states the FDA’s Environmental Assessment.

Despite all the hubbub, the FDA is the final authority who will make the decision whether or not the first genetically engineered food animal will arrive in supermarkets across the country. According to AquaBounty’s CEO Ronald Stotish, as quoted in the Guardian, the company should receive approval by the end of the year.

If  Stotish’s prediction is correct, what I want to know is would you eat the salmon?

Correction: An earlier version of this blog misstated that, “Between 2000-2004, Americans alone ate an average of about 284,000 million tons of salmon annually, of which two-thirds was farmed.” It has been corrected to 284,000 metric tons.

Thanks to Carin Bondar and her team for putting these videos together each month!

The Nest thermostat learns your behavior to help save energy. Now, demand response features allow electric utilities to adjust your thermostat during peak times to improve grid stability and shift energy demand. Credit: Nest Labs.

Two new features for the Nest thermostat could help customers and utilities reduce energy consumption. At the Bloomberg Energy Finance conference held on Earth Day 2013 in New York City, Nest Labs introduced a set of energy services that will allow electric utilities across the country to manage electricity demand. This concept, known as demand response, allows utilities to manage how much energy its customers are consuming at any given time.

“It’s always been our vision to not just be a thermostat company,” CEO Tony Fadell, former Apple engineer and iPod creator, said during the conference. “It’s always been our vision to be a provider of energy control solutions.”

Nest Labs calls its demand response features Rush Hour Reward and Seasonal Savings. Much like how GPS navigation in a car helps you travel efficiently, Rush Hour Rewards will raise your thermostat by up to 4 degrees during peak times (between 2-7PM, and usually between 4-6PM) roughly a dozen times during the summer. For customers who sign up for the voluntary features, Nest will send a notification a day before a thermostat will be raised. Customers can choose to override the thermostat at any time.

The Seasonal Savings feature tweaks your thermostat settings by a few degrees before each heating and cooling season. Nest Labs expects the feature to reduce energy consumption an additional 5-10% (on top of the existing Nest savings).

Electricity consumption typically reaches a peak in summer afternoons, when air conditioners are working hard to cool off homes and buildings. Grid operators are constantly reaching a balance between load (keeping power plants running) and demand (how much energy is being consumed). Power plants are kept at idle, or not run at full capacity, in order to meet spikes in demand. Too much electricity demand can result in grid failures and higher energy costs for customers and the utilities alike.

Demand response programs can have a large impact on how much a utility spends to deliver electricity each year. In Texas, the statewide grid is overseen by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), a council tasked with making sure the grid stays up and running – even when it is put under strain in the hot summer months.

Utilities under ERCOT’s jurisdiction pay costs based on their highest peak load – an industry term called 4CP, or four coincident peak. This means that ERCOT allocates costs to all the utilities based on their four highest demand days. It’s in the interest of each utility to reduce their peak loads to receive a smaller share of the bill.

Several utilities are offering the Nest thermostat as part of voluntary demand response programs (link). Energy giant NRG, its subsidies Reliant Energy and Green Mountain, National Grid, Austin Energy, and Southern California Edison will offer rebates or other incentives for customers to participate in the demand response programs.

Austin, Texas’ municipally-owned utility has been offering demand response thermostats for years in an effort to improve the grid’s reliability and to avoid turning on additional power plants to meet additional demand. These thermostats rely on one-way radio communications to signal thermostats when to cycle on or off. In an email, Austin Energy spokesperson Carlos Cordova explained the existing thermostat program:

“With the one-way communicating free thermostats that we have in the old program and that we will still use, we send a radio signal that cycles the air conditioners off for no more than 10 minutes every half hour when we’re cycling. The areas are staggered so you might be cycled only a few times during the 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. peak period and often cycling ends when we get over that 5 p.m. peak or shortly thereafter.”

There are currently 90,000 one-way demand response thermostats in Austin Energy’s service territory, which helps the utility curtail up to 40 MW of power during peak load times.

The addition of Internet-connected, smart thermostats like the Nest is recognition by the utility of advancements in technology for energy conservation. Mr. Cordova again:

“Many of these products and applications are available directly from retailers, vendors and online. Mobile devices, apps, and the Web are putting more power about energy use in the hands of the consumers.”

Austin Energy will be offering an $85 rebate for customers who want to purchase a Nest thermostat and allow the utility to periodically raise their thermostats. The Filtrete by 3M Radio Thermostat and Ecobee Thermostat are also eligible for the rebate.

Reliant will pay customers $0.80/kWh during “rush hours”, while Southern California Edison customers will receive a credit of $1.25/kWh for participating. Green Mountain Energy is offering the Nest thermostat for free if customers sign up for its Pollution Free^TM Efficient with Nest plan, which sources all electricity from renewable sources. National Grid (of Massachusetts) is offering $100 of the Nest’s $249 list price.

Nest Labs hopes to roll out the features to more utilities in the future. Kate Brinks, spokesperson for Nest Labs writes, “we absolutely plan to add more energy companies as partners, and are in negotiations with a number now.”

To participate, visit the following links:

Reliant – www.nest.com/reliant

Green Mountain – www.nest.com/greenmountain (coming this summer)

Austin Energy – www.nest.com/ae

Southern California Edison – www.nest.com/sce

Albuquerque, New Mexico doesn’t have a subway system, but if it did, it might look like this:

Albuquerque may never have a subway system, but one can dream, right? Credit: Ben Byrne

Designer Ben Byrne created the map, imagining his city joining the ranks of world class cities like New York City, Paris, and Seoul. As is the norm these days, Byrne started a Kickstarter campaign to complete his fantasy subway map (link). Byrne’s subway system contains six lines connecting tourist destinations and commuter stops alike:

Painstakingly crafted with authentic details, this schematic map of the greater Albuquerque area includes six subway lines extending from Coronado Monument to the Hard Rock Pavilion, with clearly-labeled stations and transit hubs that mimic the look of some of the world’s most famous subway maps. Stops like the Sunport, Old Town, Nob Hill and the Tram provide convenient access for tourists, while others help the gainfully employed get to work and back.

Byrne’s map resembles another faux map that made the rounds online several years ago of my hometown: Austin, Texas. Famous for breakfast tacos and Willie Nelson, we are also known for having terrible traffic. Scott and I lamented this fact as we navigated a spaghetti bowl of highways and flyovers on our way to authentic Tex-Mex earlier this year.

Here is what Austin would look like with a tube system, courtesy of Massachusetts-based Transit Authority Figures:

Austin's imagined subway system resembles a giant beetle. Credit: Transit Authority Figures

The map prompts questions from citizens asking why Austin can’t build a subway system. In a metro area well over a million people, a transportation system designed with 1950′s era penchant for the automobile is out of date and out of touch. An article by KUT, our local NPR affiliate, asked our region’s metro authority this question (link):

KUT News: Why can’t we have an amazing subway system like this in Austin?

Todd Hemingson: I’d love to do this. Who wouldn’t want a world class transit system that is grade separated, which means it doesn’t have to fight traffic congestion, and runs very frequently and covers a good swath of the central city and beyond. Any transit planner would love to do something like this.

My first reaction was, one, it’s kind of clever. It’s a neat idea. But two, it’s frustrating in a sense because it’s going to get people thinking, “Well why can’t we do this?” when in my point of view it would be much more productive to focus on what I would term realistic possibilities and not fantasy land.

Not everyone is so easily dissuaded. As a major subterranean stormwater project is proving in Austin, it turns out that the rock underneath Austin is well-suited to building tunnels (StateImpact Texas):

“During the tour, I overheard discussions of people saying, why don’t we have subways in Austin?” Galligan told me. “For a lot of us who have been following transportation, that’s a decade or two decade old discussion of why don’t we. Well, we don’t, because everybody believes it’s prohibitively expensive.”

Galligan isn’t convinced by that argument. He concedes that subway is more expensive than other transportation options on the table, but the Waller Creek Tunnel has come in around $147 million. “I thought what was really interesting was, a tunnel that size or a little larger could hold two tracks going two directions, for not much more.”

Galligan likes the idea of a subway running beneath downtown, connecting I-35 to Sixth and Lamar. That’s a slightly shorter tunnel than Waller Creek, and the construction would be more complicated.

“It gets complicated, you have to build out the tunnel, and ventilate it, and create access. But the idea we can’t build a mile or couple miles of subterranean transit because it’s going to cost billions of dollars, is wrong,” he said. “Don’t fool the public into thinking that it’s such a ginormous undertaking that it will never happen.”

In the meantime, I’ll be staring at my fake subway map.

In the case of Baltimore, Maryland, Chris Nelson imagined what a subway system would look like if every Subway sandwich shop was an actual transit station (how has someone not come up with this idea before? Brilliant!). Here is what he came up with:

Hop over to The Atlantic to read more about Nelson’s Baltimore map (link).

Have more imaginary subway maps? Send ‘em in.

Global electric vehicle (EV) sales more than doubled between 2011 and 2012, leading to a global stock topping 180,000. This represents just 0.02% of total passenger cars on the road. But, it is ahead of schedule to reach international goals of having 20 million EVs on the road by 2020.

According to Tali Trigg (@talitrigg), EV and sustainable mobility expert at the International Energy Agency (IEA), the GEO does not say that it is necessarily all sunny days ahead for EVs. Trigg cautions that “it is easier to more than double sales in the beginning of a market than in a more mature market… but we are getting to the interim steps that we need to get to 2020 targets.”

According to the numbers, EV market growth is ahead of schedule. Trigg says that “if you look at the growth rates you would need from 2011 to get to the 20 million by 2020 target, we surpassed them in 2012.” And, the marketplace appears to be preparing itself for continued growth, with significant infrastructure deployment throughout EVI countries.

Trigg points out that the report includes a discussion of the history of EVs, which provides context for today’s discussions. The original electric vehicle dates back to the the 1830s. The differences between found in today’s “third age” for EVs sheds light on future potential.

Both the “EV City Casebook” and the “Global EV Outlook” (GEO) report were authored by the Clean Energy Ministerial’s Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI). The EVI member group includes 15 governments from Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America as well as participation from the International Energy Agency. Included are 8 of the world’s 10 largest auto markets, representing 63% of the world’s vehicle demand. These markets are expected to account for 83% of EV sales between now and 2020. Data from these countries shows the distinct geographic distribution of EVs, and the fact sheet goes into detail on where and what type.

The GEO also discusses where EVs are with respect to the growth of hybrid electric vehicles in the market as it tries to answer the question of “where should we be today?” In 2012, hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) sales reached 1.2 million (43% growth rate), with Japan and the US representing 91% of global sales. EV sales more than doubled in 2012, with more than 100,000 in total sales. In order to meet 2DS target deployment rates, HEV and EV sales need to average 50% and 80% annual growth rates, respectively.

In order to achieve these growth rates, the report includes an “Opportunity Matrix,” which plots out pathways forward for the coming decade. These pathways identify where opportunities exist for public and private support in addition to key areas for collaboration.

Overall, the data presented today in the “Global EV Outlook” (GEO) illustrated a rapidly growing EV market that is on track to reach 20 million EVs on the road by 2020. But, there is still a long way to go. The GEO cautions that there is still a long way to go, with current market shares for EVs still sitting below 1% in major markets. Regardless, current sales are on track to meet or exceed the IEA’s 2DS scenario goals.

Today, at the Clean Energy Ministerial meeting in New Delhi, the International Energy Agency released two reports – “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013” and the “Global EV Outlook.” The latter includes landmark trending data for the global electric vehicle (EV) market, which was then used to determine the overall trajectory of a global clean-energy transition.

The Highlights

According to these two reports, despite significant gains in renewable power generation, coal technologies still dominate and nuclear power continues to struggle. But, a window of opportunity is opening in the transportation sector.

The tracking report reveals analysis shows that the world is not moving quickly enough to meet environmental targets. Key technologies are not being developed. Global research and development investments need to be dramatically increased. The clean-energy transition appears to have stalled.

The world is sitting on a sustainability precipice and, in the words of IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven, “we must change course before it is too late.”

Eleven Progress Areas – Two On Track

In this IEA “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013” report, the authors outline a set of eleven progress areas that their analysis has identified as being essential in moving the globe through a cost-effective clean-energy transition. These areas are:

1. Renewable power
2. Nuclear power
3. Gas-fired power
4. Coal-fired power
5. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
6. Industry
7. Fuel Economy
8. Electric and hybrid-electric vehicles
9. Biofuels
10. Buildings
11. Smart grids

Of these eleven interrelated areas, just two – renewable power and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles (EV and HEVs) – are on track according to IEA metrics. The other nine are all behind with gas-fired power, industry, fuel economy, and smart grids showing limited improvement. Progress for the remaining five (nuclear power, coal-fired power, CCS, biofuels, and buildings) hardly registered in 2012.

Defining Clean-Energy “Progress”

“Progress” is discussed in this IEA report in context with the 2^°C Scenario (2DS), as presented in the IEA’s “Energy Technology Perspectives” (ETP) publication.  The 2DS looks at the most cost-effective way to cut energy-related CO₂ emissions in half by 2050 (compared to a 2009 baseline). This level of emissions reduction is broadly consistent with the “450” scenario that climate scientists argue “would give an 80% chance of limiting average global temperature increase by 2^°C.”

For reference, the world today is estimated to be on track toward an average global temperature increase of 6^°C by 2050. This scenario is shown at the top line in the chart below.  This 6DS represents a doubling of energy-related emissions between 2012 and 2050.

ETP publications include the results of least-cost scenario analysis for a global clean-energy transition to meet the 2DS environmental constraints. Modeling was completed using MARKAL-TIMES and a series of independent Excel-based demand models for industry, buildings, and transportation.

With this modeling approach, the least-cost pathway for a 2DS was shown to include contributions from all sectors and a wide variety of technologies.  This lease cost pathway is what led to the set of eleven areas that the IEA uses in measuring global clean-energy progress.

Nine Progress Areas Are Struggling

Out of the eleven progress areas defined in the IEA’s 2DS, nine are not on track to meet 2020 targets. These technologies struggle with a host of challenges including high capital investment requirements and a lack of supporting policies.

Nuclear power, for example, costs relatively little to operate. But, these power plants require significant upfront investment.  Most world markets are not structured to reduce investment risks and so plants don’t get built. Further, the Fukushima incident in March 2013 shook public confidence.

Coal power continues to dominate in the electricity generation space. Without pricing and climate change policies it is unlikely that this trend will change. Further, the lack of government commitment to emissions reductions is preventing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) demonstration projects from getting off the ground.

But, perhaps the most frustrating to energy analysts is the off-track progress area of energy efficiency in buildings. Only three countries in the world have best-practice building codes. As a result, new construction is still dominated by less energy-efficient designs.

Transport – “A Window of Opportunity”

According to the IEA, transport is one of only two progress areas on track to meet 2DS targets. According to their tracking report, while biofuels production was static in 2012, advanced biofuels capacity grew by about 30%. Further, electric and hybrid-electric vehicles realized significant gains.

Hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) sales reached 1.2 million (43% growth rate) in 2012, with Japan and the US representing 91% of global sales. EV sales more than doubled in 2012, with more than 100,000 in total sales. In order to meet 2DS target deployment rates, HEV and EV sales need to average 50% and 80% annual growth rates, respectively.

This is the first time that these global data for EV sales have been published. Today, in conjunction with the New Delhi meetings, the first “Global EV Outlook” report was also released. Included are the results of two years of primary data gathering and analysis by the Clean Energy Ministerial’s Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI).

This initiative’s membership includes 15 governments and the IEA, with 8 of the 10 largest auto markets represented. The data that EVI has collected gives a baseline for measuring progress in this area. And, simultaneously, it demonstrates the importance of data access to measuring progress in global clean-energy efforts.

Data presented today in the “Global EV Outlook” (GEO) illustrated a rapidly growing EV market that is on track to reach 20 million EVs on the road by 2020. But, it also cautions that there is still a long way to go, with current market shares for EVs still sitting below 1% in major markets. Regardless, current sales are on track to meet or exceed the IEA’s 2DS scenario goals.

Renewable Power Going Strong

In order to meet the energy-related emissions goals, the IEA’s 2^°C Scenario shows renewable power generation growing from 20% to 57% of total generation between 2010 and 2050. Hydropower is the largest contributor, followed by wind, biomass, waste, and solar technologies. This scenario also shows renewables growing to 28% of total generation by 2020. And, these technologies appear to be on track to hit this midterm goal.

According to the IEA, renewables have shows steady market growth over the last decade. Renewable deployment is continuing to spread geographically, with countries including China, India, and Brazil increasing their use of renewables from 45% of total generation in 2010 to 53% in 2011.

Solar PV has seen “explosive growth” over the past year, almost doubling its total generation from 2010 to 2011. Further, new capacity installations continued, despite incentive cuts in markets including Germany and Italy. In fact, deployment seems to be spreading into Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Other renewables including onshore and offshore wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, and renewable municipal waste are on track to hitting 2DS 2020 targets. But, ocean power still remains a small contributor due to costly technology.

The Power is in the Data

One of the key findings in the IEA’s Clean Energy Tracking report was that poor quality and availability of data consistently constrains their ability to track and assess progress.  For example, the smart grids category has seen significant movement over the last few years. According to the IEA, demonstration and deployment of smart grid technologies are accelerating. But, data collection efforts on national and international levels are too limited to give a solid picture of the progress made.

The premier of the “Global EV Outlook” (GEO) at this year’s CEM meeting is one example of IEA’s facilitation of better data collection. Last year, its predecessor – the EV City Casebook – established a baseline for the global EV market. This year’s publication presents the results of two years of primary data gathering and analysis from 8 of the 10 largest auto markets in the world.

Put another way – this is the first time that global data on EV market growth has been published since the Clean Energy Ministerial was established. As IEA continues its work, improved collection of and access to data will be an important factor in measuring 1) how far the clean-energy transition has come and 2) how much further it has to go.

Photo Credit:

1. ETP 2012 graphs and charts by the IEA available here .
2. Energy systems model PPT slide by Uwe Remme, IEA. Presentation available here.

Many groups are taking this to heart, developing strategic plans designed to systematically increase energy access. Entrepreneurs like Dr. Laura Stachel are using solar power to bring light to clinics throughout Africa, Asia, and Central America. Other groups, like Empower Generation, are focusing on bringing light to homes throughout Nepal.

In Nepal, 60% of the population currently lives without access to electricity. For this more than 17 million people that means less hours to read, work, and study. It also means millions of people who regularly depend on dangerous lighting options including indoor kerosene lanterns.

Today, there are options available to replace these lanterns with solar lights, including one offered by social entrepreneurs at Empower Generation. This group is working to connect women in Nepal with technology suppliers. In doing so, they hope to build a sustainable network that will bring light to the 17 million Nepalese households that currently sit in the dark.

The company was founded by two indisputably passionate individuals, Anya and Bennett. According to the company, their story started like this:

“Anya was looking to offer sustainable employment to women otherwise vulnerable to slavery while Bennett was thinking about how to enable the widespread adoption of clean energy in developing countries.

Together, co-founders Anya and Bennett identified a tremendous opportunity to create gender and energy paradigm shifts by empowering women to become clean energy entrepreneurs.”

And, while their goal is to bring light to Nepal, their current primary fundraiser makes these lights available to anyone with access to their website. Through a give-one, get-one offer, those who give a solar light or light/charger combo to a family in Nepal will then get one for their own use as well. The company’s goal is to send 200 units to Nepal through this offer, laying the foundation for millions more.

For more information on Empower Generation’s Give One, Get One offer – website.

Photo Credit: Photos used in this post by empowergeneration.

Innovation in the LED lighting industry is generally measured in terms of two categories – cost reductions and efficiency improvements. The former is reflected in the final price tag. The latter is measured in terms of “lumens per watt,” describing the amount of visible light that a source emits at a certain rate of energy consumption.

According to a Philips, their new prototype tube lighting produces 200 lumens per watt (200 lm/W). And it is expected to cost only slightly more than the equivalent strip lighting set-up (at 100 lm/W). Traditional bulbs only produce 15 lm/W.

But, the arguably more significant accomplishment with Philip’s new TLED is that it produces warm white (~2700K) light, the type of light prehat most people prefer for indoor lighting. An easy way to increase the efficiency of a bulb design is to increase the color temperature. So, the fact that Phillips managed to keep the temperature in this lower range, while still hitting the 200 lm/W rating, is even more impressive.

Globally, building lighting represents 15-19% of total energy consumption and florescent tube lighting accounts for more than half of the lighting market. In the context of Thursday’s announcement – if Philips’s new bulb makes it to market by the summer of 2015, it will have the potential to reduce worldwide energy use by more than 7%.

Photo Credit:
1. Photo of Coen Liedenbaum at Philips Research shows the first prototype TLED, providing 200 lumens per watt with high quality of light courtesy of Philips.

The UT Energy Poll was developed by the McCombs School of Business and launched in October 2011 to provide an objective, authoritative look at consumer attitudes and perspectives on key energy issues. The latest wave of the poll surveyed a representative group of 2,000 Americans, weighted using U.S. Census Bureau figures, as well as propensity scores, to ensure the sample’s composition reflects the actual U.S. population.

On hydraulic fracturing:

Overall, , 45 percent of respondents familiar with hydraulic fracturing say they support its use for fossil fuel extraction, down from 48 percent a year ago, while 41 percent say they oppose the practice.

However, of this group, only 22 percent of Democrats support fracking, while 60 percent oppose it, and 71 percent of Republicans support fracking, while 20 percent oppose it.

Consumers continued to express concern about possible harm to the environment from the use of hydraulic fracturing, with the potential for water contamination again topping the list of specific concerns.

Hydraulic fracturing remains a divisive issue. Graph from UT Energy Poll, Spring 2013.

On climate change, nearly three-quarters of respondents answered that climate change is occurring, with deforestation, oil, coal listed as significant contributors.

When asked where the government should spend tax dollars, respondents listed job creation, social security, and military as priority items. Infrastructure, energy, and the environment rounded out the bottom of the priorities list (while infrastructure is listed as the least desirable use of tax dollars).

From the UT Energy Poll, Spring 2013.

You can read more about the UT Energy Poll by going to their website (link) and dig in to the top level results for yourself (PDF).

Watch my short video to see how.

Video: Shannon Alderman: Producer/Editor. Robynne Boyd: Writer/Editor

Climate Reality Project hopes to counter climate change misinformation campaigns with its grassroots online presence.

In a thorough post for InsideClimate News, Katherine Bagley examines the influence that both climate change campaigners and skeptics are having online (link). The tactics are more organized than you might think. From the campaigner’s side:

The Climate Reality Project, a group overseen by Al Gore, is trying to win over public opinion by getting people to spread accurate global warming science in the comment sections of news stories online, where the battle rages with particular ferocity.

For example, a recent CNN article titled “Global Warming Is Epic, Long-Term Study Says” attracted nearly 12,600 comments. That’s more than 50 times what articles published the same day on technology and environmental health received.

Last month, Gore’s group launched a website that tips off users to climate news and encourages them to saturate readers’ comments with scientific facts. For years, skeptics have filled comments with dismissive views of climate science to sow doubts about the consensus that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming—dominating that space, according to the group.

“We realized the other side’s very aggressive, offensive strategy to foster skepticism was having a major impact,” said Maggie Fox, CEO of the Climate Reality Project. “Addressing the comment wars seemed like a good place to start fighting back.”

The Reality Drop site was created with pro bono help from advertising agency Arnold Worldwide and cost a few hundred thousand dollars to develop. An algorithm on the site generates a list of articles that have become overrun by skeptics or that contain misinformation. Scientific facts are displayed next to the articles, which people can cut and paste and “drop” into reader comments or social media accounts.

This effort is relatively new and is up against a better funded and organized opposition. Again from Bagley’s post:

According to research to be released this month by Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, organizations that cast doubt on climate science have received hundreds of millions of dollars from energy companies and sympathetic interests to combat action on climate change and other progressive causes—including $235 million in 2010 alone. The organizations include the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity, the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative groups at the forefront of climate skepticism.

“The money fueling these skeptic campaigns is more than environmental groups will ever be able to match,” Brulle told InsideClimate News. “I wouldn’t be surprised if their donations jump this year—as they did in 2008 and 2009.”

This tracks with other things I have read about organized climate resistance. In a story filed earlier this year, the Guardian UK exposed the coordinated effort to discredit climate change science (link):

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and [the] Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

For what it’s worth, I haven’t noticed any comment ‘drops’ – dozens of simultaneous comments for or against a post – on this site. But posts about climate change do attract strong opinions – not just on this blog, but the rest of the site (example, example, example), which is not necessarily a bad thing. My experience, though, is that most comments quickly go off topic and reinforce previously held beliefs.

According to the Guardian UK, conservative billionaires have funded anti-climate change campaigns. Above, David Koch. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

To me, the online climate ‘debate’, for lack of a better term, resembles urban warfare and happens in the streets and alleyways of comment sections. Entrenched interest groups fight with each other. Bystanders receive collateral damage. It’s an effective way to sow disinformation and confusion.

It’s encouraging to see an organized effort to spread scientific facts, but I wonder if it becomes noise – like talking heads in political debates – to the masses.

Also check out Andy Revkin’s thoughts on this topic at Dot Earth (link).

Each cherry-picked step looks flat

Masters goes into thorough detail, showing how volcanic eruptions, El Nino, La Nina, and other variations create short-term temperature trends that flatten or shift the graph for a while. But then the long-term trend reasserts itself and it’s up one more step. Skeptics are basically acting like North Carolina legislators and the sea level, measuring what they like and leaving the rest out. “I’ve measured from the lip to the back of the tread, and for more than a foot, this supposed ‘stairway’ is completely flat, not rising at all! Explain that away, stair alarmists!” Such a flat spot began in about 1998 with a strong El Nino heating things up, which was followed by many years of La Nina, keeping things comparatively cool. Despite the spate of hottest-years-on-record since then, the graph has remained flattish. This video explains the whole thing

But if you do a moment’s thinking you’ll recognize that if we’re having the hottest years on record during the weather patterns that keep us cool, uh-oh. And if you want to see what real science looks like, this update presents updated data that render the video as produced slightly inaccurate. It includes a new graph that very slightly weakens the force of the video, though not in a statistically significant way. But the creators wanted to make sure the best possible data was out there. Which is what scientists do.

Anyhow. Whenever, as the Economist did, a usually reasonably reliable publication produces work that makes me question a core scientific belief, I like to check it out to make sure new evidence hasn’t suddenly emerged to change that belief. So it hasn’t, and so I don’t need to change my belief. Skeptical Science, by the way, remains a great site to go to when the turkeys have got you down. Between them and Weather Underground, it’s pretty hard not to get the kind of data-based explanation for anything climate-based that’s worrying you.

UT Austin researchers Thomas Murphy (left) and Dr. Halil Berberoglu (right) have developed a novel approach to cultivating algal biofuels by designing synthetic trees. Photo credit: The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carol Grosvenor.

The idea is straightforward: grow algae in large quantities and harvest the energy dense byproducts as an alternative to fossil fuels. Like larger plants, microalgae use solar energy to fix carbon dioxide into energy dense molecules, which can then be used to synthesize transportation fuels, or produce bio-plastics and other materials.

But the current processes are largely inefficient, requiring large water and energy inputs. In order to scale up algal biofuel production, the end-to-end process must be made more efficient.

Dr. Halil Berberoglu and Thomas Murphy, researchers in the Mechanical Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Austin, are taking clues from natural processes to improve algae cultivation by designing synthetic “tree” structures. Their system, called the Surface Adhering Bioreactor (SABR), mimics the way trees deliver nutrients and transport sap while allowing for finer control over inputs and growing conditions than traditional cultivation methods (UT Austin):

In this concept, algae cells are grown as photosynthetic biofilms on porous surfaces that keep them hydrated and provide them with the nutrients they need for growing to maturity. Once the biofilm is matured, the supply of certain nutrients is stopped and the growth of cells is inhibited. At this point, the algae are provided with the necessary inputs to carry on photosynthesizing and secreting out energy dense molecules, such as free fatty acids. These are carried away from the cells in small channels mimicking the veins in plants and concentrated using evaporation-driven flows.

These concentrated energy-dense molecules can then be converted to a wide variety of biofuels. Once the algal biofilm reaches the end of its productive life over several months, it is removed, a new biofilm is grown to maturity, and the cycle continues. In this way, the available solar energy, water, and nutrients are directed more towards the production of fuel precursors and less towards growth, achieving a higher solar energy conversion and resource utilization efficiency.

A pulse amplified modulated (PAM) fluorometer is used to measure the photosynthetic productivity of the biofilms. Photo credit: The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carol Grosvenor.

In experiments, Dr. Berberoglu and Mr. Murphy have seen improved efficiency over traditional cultivation methods. Mr. Murphy explains in an email:

“In one experiment, we ran a SABR side by side with an identically sized suspended growth photobioreactor to compare their water and energy efficiencies. The working water volume of the SABR was 25 times less than that of the conventional reactor. Further, about 40 Watts per cubic meter of culture volume were required to mix the suspended growth reactor, whereas this power requirement was eliminated for SABR. In certain regions of the SABR, the growth rate was four times greater than that of the conventional reactor. Averaged over the entire SABR, the growth rate was about equal to that of the conventional reactor.”

Even with these improvements, maximizing productivity while minimizing water loss remains a significant challenge. Mr. Murphy again:

“Since evaporation provides the driving force for delivering nutrients and water to the organisms, faster nutrient delivery requires faster evaporation. Real trees face this challenge as well. When it gets hot, leaves close their stomata, thereby preventing excessive evaporation but also retarding delivery of nutrients from the soil. This is an effective water management strategy, but then again, trees don’t grow very quickly. Right now we are working on strategies for maximizing productivity while minimizing the water loss rate.”

The UT Austin research team intends to submit their methodology and results for peer review next month. For more information on Dr. Berberoglu’s research, visit his faculty page here.

Video credit: Faculty Innovation Center, Cockrell School of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin.