Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several news stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention last week:

Big chunks of the state of Louisiana are destined to sink underwater as land subsides and sea levels rise, according to a new study co-authored by a scientist at Exxon. Human causes include not only global warming but thousands of dams and levees that block sediment deposits from the Mississippi that used to build up low-lying lands near the coast. "We conclude that significant drowning is inevitable," the authors write in a paper published in Nature Geoscience.

Meanwhile, ExxonMobile is drawing heat from the British and Australian media for apparently reneging on its promise last year to "discontinue contributions" to climate-change skeptics. The conservative Daily Telegraph reported that the world's largest oil company made several hundred thousand dollars in grants in 2008 to such groups, including the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, the Heritage Foundation in Washington, and the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. ExxonMobile also contributes to some environmental groups, the paper noted. "We are funding people on all sides of that debate," a company spokesman told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Germany, UK and France are taking the most aggressive steps to fight global warming among G8 countries, according to a new report sponsored by WWF and the German insurer Allianz SE. Only Canada and Russia rank worse than the United States. However, President Obama plans to meet next week with Russian leaders to promote collective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

After last Friday's close vote in the House of Representatives to pass the Waxman-Markey climate change bill--a tribute to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "arm-twisting" in the words of Politico--attention now moves to the Senate. One of the biggest threats to passage comes from opposition by agricultural interests, despite major concessions they extracted in the House. The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes the bill partly because it may raise the cost of fertilizer and fuel.

It will be interesting to see whether supporters succeed in making farm-state Senators aware of how much their constituents have at stake as the earth warms. The recent report of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, commissioned by President Bush and based on the expert findings of 13 federal departments and agencies, has this to say about the projected impact of warming on the farm belt:

• Midwest:  "While the longer growing season provides the potential for increased crop yields, increases in heat waves, floods, droughts, insects, and weeds will present increasing challenges to managing crops, livestock, and forests. Spring flooding is likely to delay planting. An increase in disease-causing pathogens, insect pests, and weeds cause additional challenges for agriculture. Livestock production is expected to become more costly as higher temperatures stress livestock, decreasing productivity and increasing costs associated with the needed ventilation and cooling equipment."
• Great Plains: "Agriculture, ranching, and natural lands, already under pressure due to an increasingly limited water supply, are very likely to also be stressed by rising temperatures. . . . Pests will spread northward and milder winters and earlier springs will encourage greater numbers and earlier emergence of insects."
• Southeast:  "Effects of increased heat include more heat-related illness; declines in forest growth and agricultural crop production due to the combined effects of heat stress and declining soil moisture; declines in cattle production; increased buckling of pavement and railways; and reduced oxygen levels in streams and lakes, leading to fish kills and declines in aquatic species diversity. Decreased water availability is very likely to affect the region's economy as well as its natural systems. . . . Sea-level rise and the likely increase in hurricane intensity and associated storm surge will be among the most serious consequences of climate change. . . . a large portion of the Southeast coastal zone could be threatened. Ecological thresholds are likely to be crossed throughout the region, causing major disruptions to ecosystems and to the benefits they provide to people."

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• Alaska is considering building small nuclear reactors to power some of its cities and reduce energy prices. A Fairbanks developer is proposing a 25-megawatt reactor designed by Hyperion Power Generation Inc. of New Mexico. The village of Galena has been working with Toshiba Corp. to build a 10-MW reactor. Both reactors would be buried underground. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin supports the concept.
• Canada's Ontario province has dropped a $22.4 billion plan to build a nuclear power plant that would have been the first nuclear reactor constructed in North America in three decades. The province cited rising costs and uncertainty over the financial health of government-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Ontario gets more than half of its electricity from nuclear power.
• SunPower Corp. and Wells Fargo Bank will partner to fund $100 million of solar electricity in businesses and public buildings, beginning with projects at the University of California-Merced and a waste water agency in Riverside County. Wells Fargo will finance and own the systems and SunPower will build, operate and maintain them. Customers will buy the electricity from SunPower.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

China and Texas have at least one trait in common, besides the five-pointed star in their flags: a belief that bigger is better.

Latest case in point: After leading the United States in oil production, Texas is now home to the world's biggest wind farm. Meanwhile, after leading the world in new coal-plant construction, China is now boasting of wind-energy projects that will leave even Texas in the dust.

China last week announced plans to build seven giant new wind farms by 2020 at a cost of $140 billion. Their combined capacity will total 120 GW--gigawatts, not megawatts--representing about eight percent of China's power capacity by the time they come online a decade from now. (Sadly for GE and the U.S. balance of trade, China has no plans to tap foreign turbine manufacturers to meet its wind power needs; the central government has imposed a "buy Chinese" policy.)

The largest wind farm in the world today is Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Texas, spread over 47,000 acres near Abilene. Owned and operated by a subsidiary of FPL Energy, it consists of 421 giant GE and Siemens turbines with a total rated capacity of 735 megawatts,  less than seven percent of the capacity of each of China's proposed new projects.

(By comparison, the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in PG&E's service area has a total capacity of about 576 MW.)

Two years ago, before the global financial crisis struck, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens floated plans to develop up to 4,000 MW of power from a giant wind farm in West Texas.  A year ago, his Mesa Power LLP ordered 667 turbines from GE with a total rated capacity of 1,000 MW. More recently, in the wake of the economic downturn, the company laid off some employees and said it has significantly slowed its development schedule, while remaining committed to the project.

Meantime, just last month a Spanish group devoted to renewable energy, Guascor,  announced plans to build what it believes will be the world's largest wind farm--a project of up to 900 MW in Argentina's wind-swept Patagonia. The estimated cost is $2.4 billion, and work could begin in as little as 12 months after environmental reviews.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Just as I had finished glugging a glass of OJ this morning, a new report from the University of Rochester Medical Center caught my eye: orange juice decreases tooth enamel hardness by 84 percent. "The acid is so strong that the tooth is literally washed away," said the lead researcher.

After I overcame a brief bout of acid indigestion, I started wondering. If I and millions like me decide to get our daily vitamin C instead from rose hip pills, what will happen to all those California and Florida oranges piled high in our supermarkets?

Not to worry. Turns out orange peel oil makes a great additive to car tires, improving their performance and making them more environmentally friendly.

Japanese tire manufacturer Yokahama says its new Super E-spec tire, 80 percent composed of non-petroleum materials (including orange peel extracts), has 20 percent less rolling resistance than standard tires, increasing its fuel economy. It's also easier to recycle than synthetic products. Yokahama is targeting the new tires for use by the Toyota Prius and other high-mileage cars.

(As noted recently in NEXT100, a 10 percent improvement in the rolling resistance of older tires used in California could reduce the state's consumption of oil by more than 250 million gallons, save about $750 million and reduce CO2 emissions by 2.7 million metric tons annually, according to the California Energy Commission.)

But Yokahama's orange-infused tires aren't just for sedate sedans. Porsche outfitted its racing cars on the Sebring International Speedway during the Patron GT3 Challenge with tires using the same technology.

Mark Chung, Yokahama's director of corporate strategy and planning, told Wired.com that Yokahama has been experimenting with orange oils since the 1980s, and was prompted to go commercial with the technology because of environmental imperatives.

"It is used to soften the natural rubber and increase grip on the tire," he said. "We've tested a lot of natural products including spider silk, and we found that orange oil works best because it has a molecular structure similar to natural rubber."

Now if they could just figure out how to turn the orange pips into biofuels, we could have the seeds of a real automotive revolution.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

More than a few venture investors would consider giving up their first born if they could identify for sure the Next Big Thing.

Last week, however, a senior energy technology guru gave them some free advice. His message: don't just look at obvious items like batteries and solar cells, but also at the "game-changing materials" that underly key advances in those technologies. (Shameless plug: see NEXT100's earlier take on some of the amazing developments in materials science.)

Speaking at the annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute in San Francisco, Mike Howard, senior vice president of R&D at the Electric Power Research Institute, emphasized that "materials are critically important to everything we do," from generation to lighting to storage.

As an example, he pointed to the current limits on steam generation efficiency set by steels that degrade at temperatures above 1000F. If operating temperatures of boilers and turbines could be raised to 1400F, their efficiency could be increased dramatically from 37 percent to 47 percent.

Finding new materials to work at such temperature extremes without cracking requires understanding what is happening at the atomic level. "Working with atomic probe microscopes, we are uncovering some fundamental properties of materials and why failures occur," he said.

Materials science is also having a revolutionary impact on lighting, which consumes about 17 percent of all electricity in the United States. Applying surface-mount technology to assemble LEDs with different spectra to produce the desired light output is opening up great room for potential further improvements in efficiency and usability. "LEDs are on a strong upward trajectory with regard to efficiency," Howard said. "It's a game changer."

Last but not least he addressed storage, where the Holy Grail is maximizing the amount of energy stored per kilogram (energy density). For electrochemical batteries, the critical factor is the amount of reactive surface area available.

By inserting nanowires into lithium ion batteries, their energy density can be increased four times, Howard said. That means a laptop computer could be powered for 16 hours instead of only four, with batteries of the same weight and size. Or it means a Chevy Volt could drive 160 miles instead of 40 on a single charge. "That's where we are headed," Howard promised.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Slow, loud and smoky, brought to you by General Motors.

That was the how Americans came to perceive a variety of ill-designed diesel cars more than two decades ago, after giving the fuel-efficient technology a try in the wake of the two oil embargoes. Diesel was a bust here in the U.S. of A.

So what is it about diesel cars today that makes them account for about half of new car sales in Western Europe?  It turns out that engineers have quietly made them clean enough to pass the tightest air regulations, while retaining their famed accelerating power (torque) and fuel efficiency.

Diesel fuel has more energy than gasoline and diesel engines tend to have higher intrinsic efficiency than spark-ignition gasoline engines. Diesel fuels can also be manufactured from vegetable oils or animal fats--even recycled restaurant grease--making biodiesel an especially attractive "green" fuel.

There's more good news: after a nasty spike last year, diesel prices are back below gasoline. According to figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, diesel prices in California last week averaged $2.79 a gallon versus $3.01 for gasoline, a 22 cent spread. 

This confluence of improved technology and lower fuel prices is giving a big boost to Volkswagon, maker of the diesel Jetta TDI. Sales of the diesel-engined Jetta in the United States are running far ahead of the manufacturer's projections.

The $22,000 Jetta TDI was named Green Car of the Year last November by Green Car Journal, which said the vehicle "raises the bar significantly in environmental performance with its EPA estimated 41 mpg highway fuel economy, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and extremely low tailpipe emissions. This is all the more impressive when you consider the Jetta TDI is a clean diesel, achieving the kind of fuel efficiency offered by gasoline electric hybrids but in a more affordable way." 

Riding the diesel wave, Volkswagon recently unveiled its BlueSport roadster, with a top speed of 140 mph, 258 ft-lbs of torque, and 0-60 acceleration in less than 6 seconds. Its U.S. fuel economy is estimated at 42 mpg.

Like Volkswagon, Mazda is reportedly focusing on clean diesel engines ahead of more expensive hybrids. And Audi is launching a major marketing campaign for its new line of diesels.

The latest surveys suggest, however, that only a third of Americans would consider buying a diesel car. Maybe the Old Country still has something to teach us about new vehicle technology. 

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• San Francisco has passed a law requiring all homes and businesses to recycle and compost. Mayor Gavin Newsom says if everyone puts all the garbage, food scraps and other waste in the correct color-coded buckets, the city's recycling rate would rise to 90 percent from the current 72 percent. There's a cap of a $100 fine for homes and small businesses, but Newsom says the goal is to heighten public awareness.
• Smart Sewers? Yes, we will have them right here in San Francisco. The city's Public Utilities Commission and IBM Corp. have teamed up to install software to monitor maintenance of the city's 1,000-miles of sewer pipes and pinpoint potential water pollution, overflowing storm drains and other underground emergencies. 
• Chicago's 110-story Sears Tower, the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, will get a $350 million "green" retrofit that aims to reduce electricity use by 80 percent and water consumption by 40 percent. The makeover will include gas boilers with fuel cells to generate electricity, heat and cooling; solar panels to heat water; wind turbines, if possible; "green" roofs; new lighting systems; and water conservation in new restroom fixtures, among other energy-saving features.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several news stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

Global warming--and efforts to fight global warming--are both putting national wildlife refuges at risk, according to a new report from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Not surprisingly, climate change and rising sea levels threaten to destroy marshes and other critical habitats. But the report also warns that wind and solar farms and electric transmission lines can slice up wildlife habitats. The report calls for incentives for landowners to protect sensitive land and for better siting of power infrastructure. 

The Waxman-Markey climate bill comes to the House floor for a vote today, with strong backing from President Obama. Public opinion if divided on its central provision, cap-and-trade: 52 percent of those surveyed in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll support the approach, with 42 percent opposed. But three-quarters of Americans, including even a majority of Republicans, support federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

A group of 20 corporations, including PG&E, HP, Applied Materials, and Starbucks ran an ad supporting Waxman-Markey, declaring: "Putting a price on carbon will drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and will create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy." 

Opponents of the bill include the American Petroleum Institute, the National Pork Producers Council, Friends of the Earth and most Republican members of Congress. Said House Minority Leader John Boehner, "Americans know that this bill would have a disastrous impact on our economy and our constituents." However, studies by the Congressional Budget Office and EPA suggest the average cost per household would be somewhere between $80 per year and $175 per year to help prevent potentially grievous economic and environmental harm.

Even if the United States passes a climate change bill with teeth, getting other countries to go along will remain a challenge. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently said Russia might cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 10 to 15 per cent based on the 1990 base year used under the Kyoto deal. But because Russian emissions were so high that year, such a target could still allow the country to increase emissions by a third by 2020.

Posted by: Jennifer Zerwer

This week Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is hosting its annual convention and expo in San Francisco. The conference focuses on the major public policy challenges now facing the electric utility sector and features such thought leaders as U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu and Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp. Hot topics on this year's agenda include the smart grid, the future of electric vehicles, renewable energy standards, carbon trading and energy efficiency.

As the host utility, PG&E created a special demonstration for attendees simulating how customers will one day communicate with PG&E through SmartMeter's Home Area Network (HAN) gateway. This demonstrated how customers can utilize the HAN to better manage their energy use and participate in voluntary demand response programs.

In the demonstration booth, a variety of smart energy devices were connected to the HAN, including a thermostat, in-home display, smart plug, demand response enabled refrigerator and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). PG&E then initiated a demand response signal to the HAN to reflect an energy curtailment event. Based on settings preset by the customer, the smart energy devices, refrigerator and PHEV automatically adjusted to reduce energy consumption. For example the thermostat automatically increased its set point temperature by five degrees and the PHEV disabled its charge. The demonstration also showed how customers can easily override a demand response event if needed. Check out pictures of the demonstration below.

As my colleague Jonathan Marshall has written before, electric customers stand to benefit greatly from a smarter grid, including more control over energy bills and better, faster service.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

No one ever thought it possible, but an issue has finally emerged to unite the oddest of bedfellows: Senator Tom Coburn, the conservative Republican from Oklahoma who called global warming "just a lot of crap," and Greenpeace, one of the most zealous of environmental activist groups.

That issue is federal support for research on technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from coal-fired power plants, and store them underground (even under the ocean floor) where they can't contribute to greenhouse warming of the earth.

Both right and left are slamming a decision this month by the Department of Energy to resurrect a Bush-era proposal to fund FutureGen, an R&D project to demonstrate carbon capture and storage (CCS) at a new coal-fired power plant in Mattoon, Ill. Tens of billions of dollars more could be made available for CCS projects through the Waxman-Markey bill on global warming.

The controversy has all the ingredients that make national action on global warming so difficult: the specter of huge federal expenditures, major scientific and engineering uncertainty, and the clash of powerful political lobbies (especially coal-related interests) against partisan and ideological opponents (Coburn and Greenpeace).

Sen. Coburn this month put FutureGen--slated to receive $1 billion in stimulus funds--at second place on his list of 100 federal projects that he denounced as "wasteful spending."  

Meanwhile Michael Crocker, media director at Greenpeace USA, said, "The billions for CCS make a new fleet of helicopters for the president or Alaska's infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' look like a rummage sale bargain. At least we know helicopters and bridges actually work."

Ouch.

Skepticism about CCS isn't confined to the two extremes. The Economist magazine charged in March that "For the moment, at least, CCS is mostly hot air":

[T]here is not a single big power plant using CCS anywhere in the world. Utilities refuse to build any, since the technology is expensive and unproven. Advocates insist that the price will come down with time and experience, but it is hard to say by how much, or who should bear the extra cost in the meantime. Green pressure groups worry that captured carbon will eventually leak. In short, the world's leaders are counting on a fix for climate change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable. 

But the Department of Energy can make a good case for its subsidies. For one thing, several promising technologies already exist for grabbing CO2 out of the air (or, in this case, out of flue gases). And for years, oil companies have pumped compressed CO2 underground to displace and extract more crude. The challenge is to find cheaper ways to extract CO2 and safe underground storage caverns that won't leak for hundreds of years.

Hard, yes, but not impossible. Studies at MIT and elsewhere suggest it can be done for $50-$70 per ton of CO2, more expensive than many energy efficiency investments, natural gas-fired generation and some forms of renewable energy, but less than the cost of some policies now being adopted to fight global warming.

Many energy experts advocate funding a reasonable number of demonstration projects to help narrow the cost uncertainties and advance the technology before deciding the fate of coal and CCS. They are joined by mainstream national environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund.

Interestingly, Royal Dutch Shell has redirected its "clean energy" investments from solar and wind to place its bets instead on CCS demonstration projects. "We think carbon capture and storage is one of the few technologies which has the potential to become very big," said CEO Jeroen van der Veer in May. "And if it becomes very big, then you start to do something about greenhouse gases."

If nothing else, political realities suggest that with half of U.S. electric power coming from coal--and millions of jobs tied to it--coal will have to be part of the solution.

As Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said sagely, "Even if the United States turns its back on coal, China and India will not. Given the state of affairs, I would prefer to say let's try to develop technologies that can get large fractions of the carbon dioxide out of coal."