Earthzine: Widening the scope

Time to introduce to another web portal launched this month, this one called Earthzine. It’s a webzine created by dedicated volunteers involved in Earth observation offering fresh perspective on the state of the planet. Fostering Earth observation & global awareness

My contribution to the launch is an interview with Rob Adam, who emerged from political incarceration during Apartheid to help lead South Africa’s scientific and technological renaissance. I spoke to Adam primarily about his role in GEO, an international collaboration to foster global sharing of oceanic, terrestrial and satellite-based Earth observations. Among other things, GEO could be a critical step towards better modeling of climate change.

Adam made two noteworthy observations on the energy challenge. One was the fact that coal has lost some of its shine even in South Africa, which needs energy to meet its development goals. Some of the many new coal-fired power projects in the offing there are being converted to nuclear projects (which he oversees as CEO of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation). Adam explains that South Africa wants to pull its weight in the fight against climate change, but also that its leadership recognized that at some point in the future even this developing nation would have to pay the full price of coal — including its environmental costs. The net result, says Adam, is “a profound effect on the thinking on energy production and energy generation in South Africa.”

More profound to me was another comment by Adam, this time on the value of better modeling of weather and climate for renewable energy. Why? Because most renewable energy, as he points out, depends on the weather. How do you project where to put a wind farm or how much energy a solar park will produce if historic patterns of wind flow and cloud cover no longer hold? “The biggest challenge for renewables,” says Adam, “is climate change.”

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank

Who Killed the EV Part II: Can California’s ZEV rules deliver an energy revolution?

The award-winning 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? chronicles the controversial history of California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate. As the movie tells it, the rules prompted major automakers to produce pathbreaking EVs until 2003, when the automakers got the upper hand and crushed both the EVs and the ZEV mandate itself.

In fact, as I show in the November issue of IEEE Spectrum, the program is back and entrepreneurs, car companies and interest groups are scrambling to exploit its incentives to favor their respective automotive visions (see “California to Rule On Fate of EVs”). Far from a failure, the ZEV program’s prodding exposed automakers to the potential of electric propulsion — insights that Toyota applied in its market-leading Prius hybrid — and it may well accelerate the arrival of further innovations.

The ZEV program shows that mandating innovation is a messy process full of unintended consequences. But it may be just what we need to drive adoption of the technologies currently available to slow the growth of greenhouse gases. In his provocatively titled book Sustainable Fossil Fuels Canadian energy economist Mark Jaccard identifies the ZEV program as the forerunner of the renewable portfolio standards adopted by the EU and many U.S. states that are helping to drive installation of wind turbines, large-scale experimentation with new forms of solar power, small-scale hydropower and other renewable sources of electricity. (This summer Congress rejected a proposal to require 10% renewable energy across the U.S. by 2020.)

Jaccard believes that “niche market regulations” such as the ZEV mandate and renewable portfolio standards will be key policy tools to force real change, second only to a cap-and-trade program regulating CO2 emissions (Jaccard would prefer energy taxes to both, but believes they are not politically feasible). In other words, targeted programs like the ZEV mandate that force major industries to try new approaches may be just the thing to deliver meaningful change in the way we use energy.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank

Buckle Down: Climate solutions won’t come at the push of a button

The message of the day seems to be Get real: Reversing, stopping or even just slowing climate change is going to take a little more effort than some newcomers to the problem hoped.

Kicking it off was the report one week ago that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 grew 35% faster than expected since 2000. Climate trackers at the University of East Anglia estimate that Earth’s plants and oceans scrubbed 18% less CO2 from the air, largely due to stronger winds in Antarctica’s Southern Ocean that bring deep CO2 up and thus prevent more CO2 from being absorbed. Greater than expected CO2 releases from the boom in coal-fired power generation and a dearth of technological advances contributed the balance of the CO2 speed-up.

I’m throwing a little more warm water on our melting optimism today with a story on the newly relaunched web portal MSN Green. “Does Daylight Saving Time Really Save Money?” is really an accounting of the energy savings Congress promised when it extended DST by three weeks in March and one week in the fall (this week in fact). When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it predicted that springing forward earlier and falling back later would trim the use of lighting, saving the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil per day. Extending DST probably did just the opposite, boosting energy use by giving us all more time to consume.

The shortfall is grave given that extended DST was one of the only energy efficiency measures in the 2005 law, which focused mostly on boosting fossil fuel production and nuclear power. Remember Vice President Dick Cheney’s famous comment dissing energy efficiency as a “lifestyle choice”? Well, Congress went along for the ride.

The take home message is not that a smarter, climate-friendly energy system is impossible. Rather, we need to get beyond hopeful quick fixes such as DST and begin implement the real solutions that those East Anglia researchers found to be under-exploited — from true energy efficiency measures such as hybrid vehicles to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and even smarter use of fossil fuels whereby CO2 is captured and stored away underground. Let’s get real.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank

European Wind Power Meets European Humour

Time for Carbon-Nation to take a walk on the wilder side. In all seriousness, I’m curious what you make of this ad for German wind farm and solar power developer Epuron. What does it say about the image of wind power? To my mind it speaks to a greater awareness of renewable energy in Europe, since its deadpan delivery would seem to assume that European audiences need no introduction to the technology.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank

Cleaner Coal Rises from China’s Central Committee

He Guoqiang. Credit: People’s DailyThis weekend the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee swapped added some new faces to the 9-man Politburo that actually runs what is or will soon be the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. Among the four new members is a chemical engineer named He Guoqiang. As the New York Times reported, Mr. He is tasked with running the party’s corruption-fighting Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. He is less well known as the innovator behind China’s adoption of advanced coal gasification technology to turn coal into chemicals and, increasingly, fuels.

I discovered He Guoqiang while visiting coal mines and chemical plants last fall. One of my stops was at the Lunan Chemical Fertilizer Plant in Shandong Province, about halfway between Shanghai and Beijing, where He got his first job in 1967 and oversaw China’s first application of advanced gasification in the 1980s.

When He arrived Lunan was producing ammonia fertilizer from coal using a gasifier little evolved from the coal-gas plants that lit up Western cities in the 19th C, and almost as dirty, yielding a partially-burned char leftover packed with poisons and a choking sulfurous gas. (More than 8000 such small gasifiers still operate in China, including six at Lunan.) He cut through red tape and restrictions on spending hard-currency (remember that China was still dirt poor 20 years ago) to import China’s first modern gasifiers. These Texaco-designed gasifiers, still running today, break down coal at higher pressures and temperatures that preclude the formation of char and captured the sulfur. 

Lunan’s success set off what has become exponential growth in the use of such advanced gasifiers. There are now over 40 plants using advanced gasifiers from GE (which bought the Texaco technology in 2004) and Shell and more players entering the market, including Siemens, South Africa’s Sasol, and Chinese groups such as East China University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Clean Coal Technology. According to the U.S.-based Gasification Technologies Council, an industry group, China will add 29 large gasifiers between 2004 and 2010.

It was such domestic innovation that brought me to Lunan last October. In what many considered a sign of He’s continued influence, the Yankuang Group that runs Lunan gained Beijing’s support to build a new plant adjacent to Lunan that is China’s first significant coal-fired power project using gasification technology — a development with significant environmental implications. Let’s hope He continues to support R&D to take coal gasification to the next level: capturing CO2 to help slow China’s ballooning greenhouse gas emissions. 

For details on He’s latest good deeds, see “Syn City” — my profile of Yankuang’s combined power and chemicals plant in IEEE Spectrum. For the broader story on China’s increasing adoption of coal gasification see “China’s Coal Future” in MIT Technology Review.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank

Fixing Power to Power Grids — Today’s Batteries Mean More Wind Power Tomorrow

It was probably my greatest embarrassement as a journalist. Within weeks of publishing a major feature on energy storage in Technology Review (see “Recharging the Power Grid”), the half-completed demonstration project we profiled as the start of something big — a giant battery to stabilize the power grid in eastern Mississippi — was scrapped by its developer. The corporate parent of the battery developer, Regenesys, was bought up and the new buyer simply decided to pursue different opportunities.

Disappointments such as this are a perennial risk for the technology journalist who tries to peer into the future, given the vagaries of the R&D process. In this case, however, the risk was higher than normal due to the high cost of energy storage technology and the large size of the facility. Four years later energy storage is finally going commercial as utilities exploit of batteries that are less than one-fifth the size, as my story this morning on TechReview.com and ABCNews.com attests (see “Fixing the Power Grid”). 

These portable batteries will be the power grids’ rapid-response teams, ready to ship out for duty to stabilize overloaded power lines and substations. Why should we care? Commercialization of small batteries is likely to bring down the cost of such technology, enabling them to take on a more transformative role: providing the buffering grids will need if renewable energy sources such as solar panels and wind farms grow to large scale. It already appears to be happening in Japan and Europe, thanks to higher energy prices and forward-looking government policies.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank

Could a Nuclear Renaissance Be its Own Worst Enemy?

With coal’s environmental profile under fire and natural gas prices well above historic levels, nuclear is surging forward. That’s because it provides baseload power — unlike the shifting output from most renewable energy sources* — and because Washington is providing lucrative tax breaks and loan guarantees under the 2005 energy bill masterminded by Dick Cheney. But could the nuclear industry become its own worst enemy if its surge overwelms the regulators charged with keeping it safe?

That’s the question being asked after the filing late last month of the first licensing applications for new nuclear reactors in 29 years. The construction and operating application filed by NRG Energy is the first of 19 expected to hit the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 2008. Combine that with an anticipated spike in uranium fuel production, certification of new nuclear plant designs and the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain waste repository, and ongoing safety incidents at aging reactors across the U.S. and you’ve got a perfect storm that will severely test the NRC. See “Nuclear Energy Revs Up” for my coverage this morning on MIT’s TechReview.com.

*Large hydropower projects have long provided renewable baseload power because while the rain is intermittent, a large high reservoir can release its potential energy gradually to track energy demand. Last month Carbon-Nation presented another renewable energy source with baseload potential — solar thermal energy — which stores solar energy in the form of superhot water.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank