As noted here, another prominent global climate change denier shifted his position.
Again, I wouldn’t know how to hold a belief that runs counter to the almost unanimously accepted scientific position. I could no more convince myself that all these people are wrong than I could believe that my blood flow is controlled by tides, or that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Here’s a piece to which I’ve referred a few times: Harvard’s report suggesting the cost of externalities of burning coal in the U.S. is roughly half a trillion dollars annually. Of course, these are the easily quantifiable cost items, like dealing with the lung disease. And, though the report makes an attempt to estimate the cost of the long-term environmental damage, this is approximate at best.
How many extreme weather events will be caused by global climate change, and what will be their price in terms of property damage and human fatalities? What will be the cost of dealing with tens of millions of “climate refugees?” Droughts that cause food and water shortages? Loss of biodiversity? Ocean acidification?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the (hot, dry) wind.
The Writer’s Almanac reminds us that it’s the birthday of the French thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville whose visits to the fledgling U.S. in the early 19th Century culminated in his famous book, Democracy in America. According to the Almanac:
During his tour, the aristocratic Tocqueville was impressed by the fact that American Democracy actually worked. He wrote: “There is one thing which America demonstrates invincibly, and of which I had been in doubt up till now: it is that the middle classes can govern a state…They are adequate for the ordinary run of society. In spite of their petty passions, their incomplete education and their vulgar manners, they clearly can provide practical intelligence, and that is found to be enough.”
I’m not sure that he’d draw the same conclusion at this point. (more…)
As an extension to Faunhofer’s Center of Sustainable Development (CSE) already well established Albuquerque solar research annex, a new outdoor test field, OTF-1, will be opened to assess field performance and durability of new solar modules.
This will enable solar manufacturers to study their solar panels in greater detail, obtaining much needed experimental data, in order to meet performance standards and lifetime expectations, and eventually push them even further. Albuquerque has more than 310 sunny days on a typical year, so building the testing facility here makes good sense. (more…)
I’ve built these before, and they easily add at least 5 MPG to any engine I have installed them on. I did another today for my son’s car. No magic here, a couple of stainless bolts, some wire, a Mason jar, a fuse and switch, water and baking soda. He’ll probably get 7 to 10 MPG, but 5 is a whole lot of fuel over a month of driving for him. But there is a deeper question here. Why? If this is so simple, and the millions of gallons of gasoline that would be saved, why is this simple device not on every single engine on the planet? This thing works on diesel engines just as well. Can anybody give me an explanation that does not sound like some ridiculous conspiracy theory? I’ve used these for years with no engine problems, and it even reduced ping on the first car I used it on, a 79 Oldsmobile. Any answers here?
I urge our readers to check out this article that Glenn Doty, an extremely senior energy analyst and frequent commenter here at 2GreenEnergy, wrote on corn ethanol. Glenn asked me to respond, so here goes.
I totally agree. I’m not a fan of biofuels generally, based on the basic thermodynamics. Organisms did not evolve to store lots of chemical energy they don’t need, just so we could harvest it and put it in our gas tanks. This is why the efficiency of solar energy is orders of magnitude greater than biofuels; almost all of the sun’s energy that is absorbed by the plant goes into the organic processes required for survival and growth.
To the degree we still have a civilization here in 100 years, I believe that the people of that day will regard our efforts at biofuels with the same mixture of pity and contempt that we have for those who treated disease with leeches and bloodletting. Future generations will marvel: “The people of the early 21st Century lived in a time when their scientists were telling them three things: a) their population was in the process of quintupling in size to 10 billion in under 100 years, b) demands for energy were exploding far faster than the population growth alone would suggest, and c) climate change was bringing shortages of potable water and food. And they thought it would be a good idea to power their cars and trucks with their vegetables?” (more…)
One of the presenters at today’s practice session for the Clean Business Investment Summit has a cool idea with respect to fire suppression, the details of which I’m sure he’d rather that I not divulge. But that’s not the point anyway; rather it’s that he began with this blockbuster: In the United States, there have been more “megafires” (those burning more than 100,000 acres) in the last 10 years than in the 100 previous years.
I noticed that the three (previously vocal) climate change deniers in the room were struck mute at that.
I serve as a “mentor” to the presenters at the Clean Business Investment Summit. First up this morning was a portable solar PV/battery product, a concept that has merit in certain specific market segments. Principally I think of disaster relief, movie sets, events in off-grid locations, military, etc.
Most of the other panelists advised the presenter not to mention climate change and environmentalism, because it could “turn people off.” I completely (but respectfully) disagreed. Who’s going to buy this except those who see a problem with fossil fuels? The product doesn’t compete on a price/watt basis with gasoline generators. If you’re unconcerned with sustainability, you’re not a customer here.
I also told the young man, “The real task here is barrier to energy. No offense, but anyone with a solar panel, an old bicycle, and a blowtorch is a potential competitor. I suggest you figure out how you can offer something that provides a unique set of benefits. Then, make sure you brand the living hell out of it. I can help you with that.”
One of the real opportunities for our energy future lies in the fact that many of the technologies that consume huge amounts of energy are truly ancient. I often remark how strange it is that if Thomas Edison were around today and happened to look at our motors, generators, grid, etc., he’d recognize most of it as essentially unchanged from a century ago.
And let’s keep in mind that electricity is only one of many opportunities to rethink the way we’re doing things. I just became aware of the fact that the screw propeller that is used on almost all our power boats and ships was invented in 1827! That’s the year Chopin wrote the E minor nocturne.
I bring this up because, almost two centuries later, it appears that there has been a breakthrough in shipbuilding. Frequent commenter Tim Kingston just sent me this site on the Gamma Propulsion System, which claims to reduce energy consumption in these marine environments by 35%. That’s huge, considering the enormity of the fuel consumption in this space.
Here’s a group that takes an interesting approach to sustainability: the Germany-based Borderstep Institute. Their mission:
Through scientific and applied research, the Borderstep Institute contributes to future-oriented solutions and innovations that are economically successful, supportive to climate protection and the conservation of natural resources, and embody the societal responsibility of economic actors.
One of its key players, Dr. Severin Beucker, co-founder of the institute, has asked to interview me some time next month, to get my take on green investment opportunities. (more…)
