Climate Change

Google and EGS – This press release from Google, Google.org invests more than $10 million in breakthrough geothermal energy technology, describes their participation in fostering a new approach:  Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).  Working with two companies and SMU’s Geothermal Lab, they hope to bring EGS into full flower soon.

As I have pointed out before, you don’t have to be sitting on top of Yellowstone National Park or the volcanoes in Iceland to use geothermal.  There’s a landmark geothermal project in downtown Manhattan for instance.  I’ve mentioned geothermal here a number of times, including in this post from March that references the landmark M.I.T. study that puts geothermal in the forefront.

AltaRock is one of the companies with whom Google is working.  They’re pioneering the approach which utilizes a heat-exchange process to deliver scads of power.  Here’s a good graphic of their scheme.

British Wind Farm – A new 500-megawatt wind farm is going up offshore of northwest England.  See this from Reuters.  The article also reports UK government approval for another 150MW farm nearby.  The 500MW development is being led by ScottishPower.  Their press release notes that they have now “… over 600MW in operation and a pipeline of 1,800MW to be developed by 2012.”   

Hopefully, the US offshore wind outlook will progress soon.  It’s been terribly slow to date.  That’s the kind way to put it.  (See Cape Wind from June.) 

Solar Throughout the World – A new report from Greenpeace and the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) claims “Solar Energy can bring clean energy to over 4 billion people by 2030.”  According to a Greenpeace analyst, Sven Teske, “Solar electricity could help cut up to 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2030, equivalent to the emissions of 450 coal-fired power plants.”  You can find the full report here.  See also this article from CarbonFree.

Much of this power can be deployed, because of the nature of the technology, in remote and undeveloped lands.  By the way, what do many of the undeveloped countries in the Global South have in abundance?  The sun!  (No points for getting that right.)  See also Black Carbon and Solar Cookers. 

Investment – An important information resource, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), has an article of interest:  Renewable Energy Wows World Investors.  The story is that “The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) reports a new record in sustainable energy investments in 2007 with more than $148 billion invested globally.”  More precisely, it is UNEP’s Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative (SEFI) that has issued the Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008 Report.  See also “Trillions for Renewables” at my post here from February.

Wind Surpassing Expectations – That’s the message in this terrific and comprehensive article from RenewableEnergyWorld.com.  The report on which this article was based came out in May, but the article here summarizes much of the startling and hopeful news on wind that’s been coming out.  See this graphic for instance for just a sense of how pervasive the penetration of the windpower deployments are becoming. 

I wrote recently about some truly exciting developments in soil reclamation with enormous potential for agriculture.  (See The Earth.)  There is great news in much of this if we pay attention and give these low-tech, largely low-energy-intensive approaches the focus they deserve. 

The (really) bad news is that although fertilizers have increased agricultural output over the years, they have also caused devastating environmental impacts.  I have been remiss here in not addressing the harm that the increasingly pervasive use of fertilizers has had, not only on exacerbating global warming, but on creating “dead zones” in key marine areas.

Here is an important article today from the “NY Times” - Beyond Carbon: Scientists Worry About Nitrogen’s Effects.  It points out that public perception of the climate change crisis is mainly focused on the impacts from carbon dioxide and not on other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, both listed under the Kyoto Protocol as regulated GHGs.  I would guess that the general public’s lack of understanding of the impacts of these other GHGs is true.  However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and scientists and policy analysts all over the world, fully recognize the dangers.  The IPCC notes “Agriculture accounted for an estimated emission of 5.1 to 6.1 Gt carbon dioxide-eq/yr in 2005 (10-12% of total global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases). Methane contributes 3.3 Gt carbon dioxide-eq/yr and nitrous oxide 2.8 Gt carbon dioxide-eq/yr. Of global anthropogenic emissions in 2005, agriculture accounts for about 60% of nitrous oxide and about 50% of methane.”  (See the chapter on Agriculture from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III.)

Notice that the IPCC, as others do, uses the measure “carbon dioxide-equivalent.”  The IPCC says carbon dioxide “… is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured…”  So, in any event, methane and nitrous oxide are very much under scrutiny along with carbon dioxide, and three others, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, used in refrigeration and for other heavy industrial purposes.  These last three are being phased out under Kyoto and the Montreal Protocol because they are potent ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) as well.

The “NY Times” points out that there is another potent GHG, nitrogen trifluoride, which is not regulated.  It has been used in relatively small quantities but its use is increasing significantly.  For what purpose is it used primarily?  For making LCD panels. 

Let’s return to nitrogen fertilizers and nitrous oxide, with an output of nearly three billion tons a year of carbon dioxide equivalent.  Greenpeace International had an excellent report out earlier this year - Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential.  As they put it:  “Nitrous oxide emissions are mainly associated with nitrogen fertilisers and manure applied to soils. Fertilisers are often applied in excess and not fully used by the crop plants, so that some of the surplus is lost as nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.”  This is a good, comprehensive report with some lucid explanations and some worthwhile graphics.  They also have a good bit to say here about mitigation options, as does the IPCC, of course, in the document cited above.  See also the International Nitrogen Initiative which is “… dedicated to optimizing the use of nitrogen in food production, while minimizing the negative effects of nitrogen on human health and the environment as a result of food and energy production.”   

The “NY Times” article is careful to note that there are other concerns in play aside from the radiative forcing from nitrous oxide, not to mention the carbon dioxide and methane from agriculture.  One of the most dire of these are the ocean dead zones that result from the pooling of millions of tons of nitrogen fertilizer runoff.  NASA explains it this way:  “The apparent cause of the creeping dead zones is agriculture, specifically fertilizer. While fertilizer is necessary to foster bumper agricultural crops, it also runs off the fields into the streams and rivers of a watershed. When the fertilizer reaches the ocean, it just becomes more nutrients for the phytoplankton, so they do what they do best: they grow and multiply. Which leads to more organic matter reaching the bottom, more bacterial respiration, and more anoxic bottom water.”  For some good graphic explanations of the phenomenon, try this from the Science Museum of Minnesota.