News: Biofuels STILL not the answer

Recent research supports what tech-savvy enviros have known for awhile now: biofuels have alot going for them -- they're cool, easy to understand, easy to engineer and easily integrated into our current car-addiction -- but they are not particularly green. I'll concede that biofuels might be a necessary stop-gap solution, and might at least help decouple the US from the middle east. Unfortunately, the biofuels bandwagon has all the makings of a great political initiative, for the reasons listed above, and is certainly acting to decrease the sense of urgency around the clean energy issue.

The great thing about the research community, though, is that it consists partly of people who like to optimize current solutions (marginally better biofuels, solar power, etc.) and partly of people who like to invent brand-new solutions that will take decades to be ready for scale-up. From a distance, this transition (from re-engineering old energy sources to adopting all new ones) will probably look very neat, the way things do in history texts, but personally I wouldn't mind sitting out the next 30 years or so, which won't look so smooth up close.

Two oddly interesting green sites

Here are two things I found more interesting than I expected to:

Latter-Day Sustainability: What it sounds like, environmentalism with a Mormon twist. (via Gristmill.) In the interests of comparison, I went looking for other religiously-tuned enviro blogs, and turned up one Jewish one which seems to be focused on living the sustainable lifestyle. Others?

Greenwashing Index: A site for viewing and rating (and occasioanlly debunking) ads making positive environmental claims on behalf of companies or products. A couple of examples:



(Currently rated 4.41 out of a possible 5 demerits)



(Currently a 4.2)

Most important thing I read today:

"We have no shortage of energy. The sun casts more energy onto the planet than we could ever use. The trick is learning to tap into the energy flows around us in a way that's smarter and less destructive."

A carbon-neutral oasis in the desert

I guess someone had to be first:

It may seem strange that the emirate of Abu Dhabi, one of the planet's largest suppliers of oil, is planning to build the world's first carbon-neutral city.

But in fact, it makes a lot of financial sense. The 3.7-square-mile city, called Masdar, will cut its electricity bill by harnessing wind, solar, and geothermal energy, while a total ban on cars within city walls should reduce the long-term health costs associated with smog.

Masdar will be filled with shaded streets to encourage walking. A solar-powered transit system will take you to the airport.

(HT: Gristmill)

That darned scientific consensus again...

From Rob Day's Always On post: 'Update on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... it still applies.'

What's clear is that all the hyperbole surrounding "free energy" and the like isn't helping the adoption of any such efficiency-improvement technologies. It's making potential customers even more skeptical, and holding back adoption for these and any other similar-sounding approaches. And thus, VCs are forced to consider the Steorns of the world when they see a new electric motor concept promising significant gains...

[The examples mentioned in the post] serve as good illustrations of the kinds of reputation-endangering activities out there in the broader world of cleantech that VCs are having to pay attention to. Because serious or not, when such overly-aggressive claims are put out there it competes with more sober claims being made by VC-backed startups. And if and when these companies fall flat on their face, it could hurt overall market adoption of next generation technologies, making it that much more difficult for VC-backed startups to get traction in the marketplace.

I get that companies working on alternative energy don't want to be embarrassed or discredited by companies doing work in 'silly' areas, and zero-point energy is almost universally accepted as a silly area, except by those who think it will solve our energy problems forever. What's the big deal, though? There have been snake-oil salesmen before, and there have been inventions that, by respected scientific consensus, were completely impossible until they turned out to work. Why not let the market sort things out here, since scientific consensus invariably operates as a repressive force where inventions are concerned?

Exploding the energy myths of the 20th century

From a Gristmill guest blog from the Policy Director at Climate Solutions, on assumptions about energy that are (finally) being blown out of the water:

"Cheap" gas: The gig is already up. But c'mon, it was a lie anyway. The price at the pump is a small fraction of the true cost of gas -- in dollars, blood, and climate disruption. Expensive gas is just the ugly truth about fossil fuel addiction: it's unaffordable.

The whole post is worth reading, both for its nicely non-hysterical take on the (environmental and economic) necessity of moving away from fossil fuels, and for its discussion of why nuclear power ought to be back on the table as a potential renewable power source.

I'd like to think I'm more of a 'chartreuse.'

Reason Hit & Run gives a pointer to this article from the New York Times covering the 'light green' movement, middle- and upperclass shoppers who have transformed green consumerism from weird, hippie stuff into luxury status symbol. The article is filled with quotable soundbites, but here's my favorite, from environmentalist blogger Chip Giller:

“Over even the last couple of months, there is more concern growing within the traditional camp about the Cosmo-izing of the green movement — ‘55 great ways to look eco-sexy,’ ” he said. “Among traditional greens, there is concern that too much of the population thinks there’s an easy way out.”

I understand the concern being expressed in the article, at least insofar as it reflects a genuine worry that people will buy more and more stuff because it's eco-friendly, the way that some people eat more and more cookies because they're fat-free and thus 'healthy.' Buying more and more stuff, even if it's 'healthy' by comparison, can't be part of an overall plan to reduce waste and energy costs.

But in reality, buying green does make a difference (a very small one) and is often the beginning of a lifestyle transformation, so one would think that its increasing trendiness should be celebrated by all as a promising start. I get the impression here that the real gripe among hard-core environmentalists is that they don't want to lose their unique status. In many social circles, the movement created a 'green chic' for those who were insightful and educated enough to adopt early; these people do NOT want to be lumped in with the next-wave imitators.

Giller also mentions the 'culture of self-abnegation' that goes along with traditional environmentalism -- for this branch of the movement, if it doesn't hurt, you're not doing it right. If you've sacrificed a lot in the belief that it was required by environmental consciousness, you might very well want to exclude from the movement those who buy their way in via a $104,000 Lexus hybrid. What's going to be very frustrating for this latter group of 'give-till-it-hurts' environmentalists: the way of the future will almost certainly be ecologically responsible consumption without any appreciable decline in the standard of living we've come to know and love. Changes, yes, but barring a major environmental disaster, probably not of the belt-tightening, self-denying type glorified by the early green movement; most Americans will, in fact, get to take the 'easy way out': shifting gradually to an eco-friendly lifestyle as it becomes cheaper, simpler, and trendier to do so.

The usefulness of "Energy Independence"

TigerHawk offers a nice discussion of why politicians who talk about 'energy independence' are being disingenuous. The concept, of course, is popular because it provides a way to get hawkish types who want to quit playing nicely with the middle east on the same side with warm fuzzy enviros. The post offers a couple good arguments against it: focusing on "supporting" the declining American oil industry (subsidizing it) translates to a failure to focus on actual reduction of fossil fuel use, and American fossil fuels production will never be enough to make us 'energy independent' without dramatic changes in our energy habits. The post also wants to know how come, if we're so concerned about having economic ties to politically unstable regions, we don't hear politicians calling for 'diamond independence' or 'cheap electronics independence,' given that those products also come from countries with "dodgy" politics. The answer, I think, is that interruptions to our supply of oil are disruptive on a level way beyond what would happen if we suddenly couldn't import African diamonds or Korean electronics. Diamonds suitable for use in research applications and jewelry are already made in labs; electronics can be acquired from other countries for a tiny increase in cost. Oil flow, though, affects pretty much every aspect of daily life; the threat of cutting us off is a powerful threat.

The post concludes:

Anthropogenic global warming is a very good reason to cut fossil-fuel consumption, but that means grubby American coal as well as greasy foreign oil. It has nothing to do with “energy independence.”

True. But a lot depends on where the 'energy independence' talk leads to -- if it results in real action to address fossil fuel use and efficiency, I'm willing to go along with it for awhile, if only to get the U.S. acclimated to a new way of thinking about energy.

'Fugees from a third world, environmentally stressed country

(Apologies to Wyclef Jean.)

Jeff Sachs, head of Columbia University's Earth Institute, is all worked up over climate change, particularly the possibility of millions of 'climate change refugees,' those who are motivated to migrate because of environmental stress. Sachs catalogues his guesses about what will happen in India, Africa, and Asia in the next few decades (water stress, mainly) and calls for economists, hydrologists, agronomists, and climatologists to get on with it and figure out a solution. He notes:

Some hard-hit places will be salvaged by better infrastructure that protects against storm surges or economizes on water for agriculture. Others will shift successfully from agriculture to industry and services. Yet some places will be unable to adjust altogether, and populations are likely to suffer and to move.

Interesting description -- sounds like the history of human evolution and migration, dangerously accelerated. But okay: the world is different now. Smaller, fewer natural resources left, more full of people; there's no place left to absorb displaced populations. (Remember the US trying to absorb a million Katrina evacuees?) One could argue, though, that this is merely the speeding up of an inevitable process; we were bound to run out of space and/or stuff eventually.

Some possible outcomes:

1. Space colonization. Well, obviously. Will have to happen sooner or later, but not clear whether it can happen quickly enough to solve the 'climate refugee' problem.

2. Genetically modified crops. Despite the historical hostility of environmentalists to GM crops, they stand a good chance of mitigating the water problem -- crops that require lots of water (corn, rice, cotton, grass for pasturing) can be engineered to need less. This can't hold off Malthus forever, but will almost certainly be part of the solution.

3. Limited population growth. Not a bad idea (until aforementioned space colonization is feasible) but also not too likely, going by recent stories of Chinese women using fertility drugs to circumvent the government's one-birth policy.

4. More efficient food distribution. By most estimates, North America already has the production capability to feed the whole world; rotting grain in Iowa silos represents an alarming combination of market failure and government failure. There is surely some way to improve this.

5. Efficient clean energy. Another no-brainer -- we already knew that even running all our current alternative energy sources at max capacity, and continuing to burn fossil fuels at the same rate, we're on track to run out of energy by 2050 or so. A point about this, though: if climate change produces catastrophic drought in the middle east, coal and oil prices will likely plummet, making it easier to rationalize continuing reliance on these sources, at least until these economies collapse completely.

The carbon debate continues, but not here

Yesterday Marginal Revolution stepped into the current battle over carbon tax vs. carbon trading. It's tempting to get involved in comparisons here, but I tend to agree with one of the MR commenters: Americans have always been bad at doing things that are 'good for us' when they also interfere with our expected standard of living. The EU modeled its brand-new cap-and-trade program on the US program for limiting sulfur dioxide emissions, which worked okay, but mostly because it didn't have an immediate pocketbook impact on consumers (average utilities increase was about 1%). Carbon taxes and carbon trading, regardless of differences in feasibility, transparency, and potential for abuse, would both result in an immediate out-of-pocket expense. It’s challenging to calculate the economic impact of carbon cap-and-trade systems, which have only recently been implemented in other countries. Carbon taxes, on the other hand, have been in place in various European countries since the 1990’s, so some figures about that: The Carbon Tax Center advocates a ‘starter tax’ of $37/ton of CO2, and notes the importance of continuing to raise the tax annually. According to preliminary research on Wiki, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise US gasoline prices by 20-50%, natural gas prices by 60-150%. Politically, that dog just don't hunt.

At least, usually. Last year Boulder passed by referendum a $7/ton carbon tax; it was the first climate-protective tax ever in the US. By extension, I’m willing to entertain the idea of carbon taxing or trading schemes being implemented in California, Oregon and Washington someday, but doubt that these bastions of environmental consciousness are representative of the American electorate generally. Soon to come: a post about politically realistic ways to solve the carbon problem.

New Recommendations for Denver Greenhouse Emissions Open for Comment

Earlier this month the Greenprint Denver Advisory Council, a group created by Mayor Hickenlooper to figure out what Denver should do about its greenhouse gas emissions, released an inventory report asserting that by 2020, Denver should be able to cut its emissions of CO2 by 25 percent. The accompanying draft Action Plan makes a bunch of recommendations for Denver and Colorado. Some of of the Denver recommendations:

4Ask voters to approve a tiered rate structure for electricity/natural gas, similar to how water usage is currently handled; also, waste disposal rates tied to volume of non-recyclable trash to encourage recycling.

4Implement a voluntary travel offset program: a 'small, voluntary fee' paid when you register a car or buy an airline ticket, which would go into a fund used to support carbon neutral travel.

4Require 'green concrete' in all private and public construction projects.

A couple of the recommendations for statewide initiatives:

4Require 'pay-as-you-drive' auto insurance, where premiums are partially based on miles traveled, to discourage car travel.

4Implement a 'fee-bate' system, where fees charged on high-emission vehicles are used to provide rebates on low-emission vehicles.

4Implement a 'cap-and-trade' type program tying Xcel's increasing renewables portfolio to reduced greenhouse emissions.

Happily, the Greenprint Council is requesting public input via email or on its blog discussing the reports.

Let's Talk About Biofuels, Baby

Biofuels (a happening thing right now in Colorado) are undeniably sexy in a number of ways. The concept of using something clean and friendly like corn or sugarcane for energy is a warm fuzzy one, and makes city dwellers feel connected to their country cousins, farmers who’ve been using ethanol for tractor fuels for decades. Politically, biofuels are a win-win, making urban and rural populations happy, satisfying eco-types concerned about global warming and policy types concerned about dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are also cheap, from a funding perspective – it’s easy for federal sources to give biofuels research centers a few hundred million dollars and say they’re supporting clean energy. Even the big bad energy giants like BP are in on this, funding research centers, polishing their image at a bargain price, relatively speaking. And researchers like working on biofuels, because they’re manageable – the technology is sufficiently advanced that it represents mainly an engineering problem in scalability and efficiency. So SUV owners feel good about using E85, legislators and federal agencies feel good about doing their part, researchers feel good about solving real-world problems.

But here’s the discouraging math part: Right now the world burns energy at the rate of 13.5 terawatts. By 2050, assuming current birth rates, the world will need a minimum of 28-35 TW, assuming extreme energy conservation way beyond what we practice now. (If the whole world, in 2050, used energy at the rate of North America today, we would need 84 TW; US burn rates bring this number to 102 TW.) Some more math: if all the landmass in the world except for living space were transitioned to production of biomass (all crops harvested for energy, rather than food), and if biofuel technology improved from today’s ≤1% efficiency to, say, 10% efficiency, this would give another 7-10 TW. In other words, not nearly enough. (It also appears that maximizing biomass, clean nuclear, wind and hydro power, and continuing our current rates of fossil fuel consumption, bring us just about to the lower bound of 28 TW. For more on these numbers, see On the Future of Global Energy by Daniel Nocera, head of the MIT Energy Research Council.)

So biofuels and related technologies are a sexy, feel-good idea, but every dollar spent on them is a dollar not being spent on finding a new, viable alternative to make up that energy deficit (32 missing TW to get the world of 2050 up to the living standard of Western Europe). Add to this the fact that there’s about a 30-year germination period between a brand-new basic science idea and an efficient, scalable real-world power source.

Basic science research, of course, is frustrating from a real-world perspective, because there’s no way to know where to look; the answer could come from any direction. “Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I’m doing,” per German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun – not the best pickup line if you’re looking to get some action, funding-wise. Meanwhile, attractive, near-term options like biofuels are out there, giving the come-hither look to those who want to be seen as responsible global citizens. It’s hard to fault these types, who are trying to do the right thing, and who invariably argue that it’s “better than doing nothing.” But you sometimes want to shake them a little, tell them to play the field, keep their options open, and never go home with the first cute young thing they lay eyes on.