http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/images/18OutrageOceanWaves520x334.jpeg

Probably the least known form of alt-energy, wave/tidal technology uses the potential energy constantly sloshing around every day in the ocean.

Wave and tidal energy are really two different technologies. Tidal energies and wave energies are similar in that they both utilize the potential energy of the ocean, but each operates based on distinct principles. Wave energy is created by generating electricity from ocean waves, which is created by winds passing over the water.

Tidal energy, on the other hand, is derived from the rising and sinking of sea levels to generate electricity, and is considered the only form of energy to come from the gravitational relationship between the sun and the moon.

The technology has only been recently explored; the last significant development was Salter’s Duck in the 1970s. Funding of Dr. Salter’s project was shut down in the early 1980s under curious circumstances.

Tidal Energies

Barrage / Dam

Tidal Barrage

As neatly summarized by the U.S. Department of Energy,

A barrage or dam is typically used to convert tidal energy into electricity by forcing the water through turbines, activating a generator. Gates and turbines are installed along the dam. When the tides produce an adequate difference in the level of the water on opposite sides of the dam, the gates are opened. The water then flows through the turbines. The turbines turn an electric generator to produce electricity.

Tidal Turbine

Similar to wind turbines, tidal turbines are installed on the ocean floor in rows like wind farms. Again quoting the U.S. Department of Energy,

The turbines function best where coastal currents run at between 3.6 and 4.9 knots (4 and 5.5 mph)… Ideal locations for tidal turbine farms are close to shore in water depths of 20–30 meters (65.5–98.5 feet).

A fancypants new design brought to you by Tidal Energy, Ltd.

Wave Energy

First, a link to a great History Channel video on hydropower (which I suppose is the correct general term) that covers both barrages and turbines, and also the invention below.

The Pelamis Wave Energy Converter

Each individual Pelamis is an interconnected series of metal tubes. When swayed by ocean waves, rams in the hinges pump oil at a high-pressure through hydraulic motors. Electricity is sent ashore via a subsea cable.

According to the Pelamis website, each machine is 180 meters long, 4 meters in diameter and is rated at 750 kW. Each machine can power approximately 500 homes.

–> A nifty interactive video on the Pelamis.

The Aquabuoy, the Powerbuoy

Aquabuoy. It's so cool

These are two very similar inventions that function around a partly submerged buoy that bobs up and down. As it bobs and bobs, water pressurizes a piston which generates electricity.

–> A 1 minute video on the Aquabuoy. Very tiny.

–> A 3 min. video on the Powerbuoy by some Philly CBS station.

Oyster

This one is pretty cool.

The Oyster is a massive underwater metal “flap” that opens and shuts by wave movement. As the Oyster shuts, seawater is pumped at high-pressure to an onshore generator. Each oyster can generate 600 kW each. What’s smart about the Oyster is it keeps the sensitive bits onshore, with only the most robust mechanical elements in the harsh cold seawater.

To give you an idea of the size of one of these suckers:

There is also an Oyster prototype that is designed to power an onshore desalinization plant, which will provide fresh drinking water.

The Limpet

The Limpet is a large chamber installed by the coast, where waves crashing into/onto the chamber’s exterior force air up through the chamber, driving a turbine. As the water recedes, air is sucked back into the chamber, driving the turbine even further.

Diagram of the Limpet at Isley island in Scotland

The Limpet provides 500 kW of electricity to the island.

There’s also a “wavecam” with four different views at the Limpet website. It’s a little wonky though.

So what gives?

The advantages to tidal and wave energies are the generally low visual and ecological impact, although this depends on the technology. In addition, the “fuel” for wave energy is free and virtually unlimited. On top of that, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates there is 2 terawatts’ worth of power in wave energy—a considerable amount when put into the context of a 16TW global power consumption. In fact, hydropower is often seen as a good way to power local desalinization plants (such as the Oyster.)

The ocean has a lotta energica.

The disadvantages to tidal/wave energies are amplified by the fact the technology is still young. For one, the cost of construction is very high and increases the time it takes for investors to receive their money back. Secondly, there is little infrastructure in place to transport such energy. Thirdly, the vessels needed to install equipment are generally booked by oil companies, and as such are often expensive. In addition to these obstacles, the stressful conditions that tidal/wave energy equipment is placed under are considerable — seawater is a tad corrosive. Lastly, the number of sites suitable for tidal energies is limited.

So, I say we all git hopping and start making some waves.

The bigger the belly, the better you bloat.

You know the drill about prophets and homeworlds...

Alright, I guess that’s not very funny.

♦

To be sure, biofuels are not “the” answer to our dependence on fossil fuels. (No alt-energy is, for that matter.) And even though it cannot be implemented on a wide-scale basis, it is a good solution for many individual needs.

“Magic Fuel Buses”

Biofuels are any fuel derived from organic matter. Generally the first thing that comes to mind is cars that smell of french fries because, well, they run on french-fry oil. There’s the story of the “magic fuel bus” from North Carolina, where a high school teacher powers one of the school’s buses with used vegetable oil from local restaurants and the school’s cafeteria.

“But once you break down the grease from the local restaurant, the odor is gone because chemically you have made a different compound called biodiesel,” [science teacher Bob] Smith says.

The classroom isn’t equipped to make large batches of fuel and the entire process can take up to three days, so the district buses can’t run on processed cooking oil alone.  But Mr. Smith and his students have whipped up enough biodiesel to be able to study the effects on the bus engines and the positive effects on the environment.  So far, they say, the news is good.

“There are benefits from it.  There is less odor, less pollution, less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, less global warming and it improves the mileage for the buses,”  [student Mucheng] Yang said.

There’s also the story (provided by a commenter in the introductory “Wilkommen!” post) where one Connecticut man runs his vehicle on all sorts of biomasses. Strapped to the back of his 1989 Ford F150 is a mini-reactor that runs on “wood, leaves, [and] cardboard.”

The technology is called gasification, and it’s been around since the 1800s, when it was used for street lamps and cooking. It even powered some vehicles during World War II, but faded away under oil’s dominance…

Gasification works by heating organic materials to high temperatures without flames. The resulting chemical reactions produce a hydrogen-hydrocarbon gas mixture in vapor form that is almost as potent as gasoline, [inventor Dave] Nichols said…

His pickup truck appears to run like any other and easily reached 40 mph and above on local roads on a recent day, but it has no gas tanks. Nichols says he can get it up to more than 80 mph. The only noticeable difference is a contraption, right behind the cab’s rear window, that takes up some of the back and looks somewhat like a wood stove.

A metal barrel, where the heating occurs, extends just above the cab’s roof. The gas is captured from the barrel and a vacuum system sucks it through piping that runs under the truck to the engine.

Nichols reports his vehicle has gone 10,000 miles gasoline-free, and claims his invention leaves “little or no” carbon footprint.

Big Biofuel

Now, these last two examples are only the small-scale implementations of biofuels. What’s being done on a bigger scale?

One company that specializes in biofuels, Syntroleum, has partnered with Tyson Foods (provider of many a chicken dinner) to build a plant in Louisiana that will utilize 2.3 billion pounds of animal fat as feedstock to produce 75 million gallons of synthetic fuel every year. A great way to reuse so much organic waste, the plant is to be situated near the “Barksdale Air Force base”, so as to provide fuel for various aircraft such as three squadrons of B-52s.

“The B-52 has been the first Air Force jet that has been certified for synthetic fuels,” said Jeff Webster, Sr. VP of renewable products at Tyson, in a conference call.

Funny, I didn’t know they still flew B-52s. At any rate, the construction is still on schedule and the plant is expected to open early next year.

Behold, MS Paint.

Syntroleum is part of the larger ‘rendering’ industry, which puts animal by-products to good use.

With 273 facilities in the United States, the rendering industry processes 60 billion pounds of raw materials a year and generates billions of dollars in revenue. The raw materials include offal, bones and fat, blood and fallen animals… which are the animals that die on the farm or in transport before they can be slaughtered… Collecting expired animals is essential to public health and, at the same time, provides a revenue source by adding value to a waste product.

Nearly half the live weight of the 35 million cattle produced in the united states every year, as well as a large percetage of hog, turkey and chicken production, is used for something other than human food. If the material that doesn’t go into food processing isn’t used somehow, animal production would be extremely wasteful. Rendered products, including edible tallow, lard, refined greases and poultry fat are used to manufacture a myriad of products ranging from pet food to paints and varnishes to biodiesel.

It doesn’t hurt that such materials are cheap.

“It’s real easy,” says Nova Biosource President J.D. McGraw. “The cost of animal fats is about 10 cents a pound cheaper than your virgin soybean and other vegetable oils.”

I’m guessing the dead cattle are even cheaper.

The article mentions Nova Biosource Fuels, Inc., which has its own nifty biofuel-conversion process that utilizes 25+ feedstocks. The company has five or so plants throughout the U.S., and was a candidate for this writer’s mini-investment. Sadly, the company filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.  :’(

Biofuels vs. Agrofuels

Of course, it is important to make the distinction between biofuels and ‘agrofuels’. Biofuels are typically produced from organic wastes. Agrofuel, on the other hand, are produced from crops cultivated specifically for use as fuel–a practice which has generated a bit of controversy. An example would be corn grown to be converted into ethanol. It is probably fair to say it is unethical to use large amounts of land to grow fuel that could otherwise be used to provide food. (One also has to wonder how cost-effective it would be.)

Jatropha seeds

But what about soil that is otherwise unsuitable for food crops? One of the more interesting “agrofuels” would be the jatropha seed, a plant which can grow in all sorts of climates (including dry arid regions), and can provide high oil yields that can be converted into biodiesel.

Jatropha saplings

That 2007 BBC article claims that “once dried out and crushed, these poisonous seeds yield oil which can be burned in almost any diesel engine – with no modification.”

Other interesting factoids:

- Grows well on low fertility soils. However increased yields can be obtained using a fertilizer containing small amounts of magnesium, sulphur, and calcium.

- Can be intercropped with many cash crops such as coffee, sugar, fruits and vegetables with the Jatropha offering both fertilizer and protection against livestock. (The jatropha plant is toxic.)

- Needs at least 600mm of rain annually to thrive. However it can survive three years of drought by dropping its leaves.

- Is excellent at preventing soil erosion, and the leaves it drops act as a wonderful soil enriching mulch.

- Yields seeds in the first year after plantation.

- Jatropha trees are productive for 30-40 years.

Jatropha seeds.

A couple other nuggets:

- It can grow almost on any type of soil whether gravelly, sandy or saline and thrives even on the poorest stony soils and rock crevices.

- The tree grows up to a height of 3 meters, which means harvesting is an easy task.

One really interesting part about the jatropha seed is that, according to the BBC article,

jatropha [plants] absorb carbon-dioxide while they are growing, effectively cancelling out the carbon dioxide they release when they burn.

The plant is seen as a way for countries like India to become self-sufficient and less dependent on foreign oil. (Sounds familiar.)

Similarly, some have viewed the jatropha plant as a hot investment for Africa, where “over 50% of [the] land has the right climate for growing Jatropha.”

On the map of Africa the dark areas represent prime Jatropha growing regions in Africa. These areas, comprising over 1,080 million hectares, or 10.8 million square kilometers, are ideal because the average annual rainfall exceeds 800 mm, and the minimum temperature of the coldest month is greater than 2 degrees centigrade.

Unfortunately, the same article points out the fact that:

1) Land in many countries in Africa is not owned but leased. This effectively eliminates land being used as collateral by funders.

2) Start up agriculture projects are generally among the most difficult projects for which to obtain funding.

So… that pretty much kills it for  African jatropha.

It appears I’ve gone way, way over my proposed length of 300-500 words, all in the name of thoroughness. I feel like I’m just not going into enough depth, but 1,475 words is just going to have to cut it.

Er, fruits, that is.

Geothermal technology works by taking advantage of the heat trapped in the Earth’s core. By drilling deep into the Earth, this trapped heat can rise to the surface and be used similar to how steam engines work. Basically the heat (or sometimes superheated liquid) creates steam, which is used to spin a turbine which in turn activates a generator, similar to the principles of solar and wind energy.

—> A nifty video on the process.

Unfortunately, as is the tiring custom with all alternative energies, the resistance to geothermal technology is a result of the hefty investment.. Drilling costs alone make up 50% of the investment.

Usually geothermal technology is only useful in areas where there are ‘hotspots’, or weaknesses in the crust that allow heat to pass through. But the U.S. is host to a decent number of potential hotspots. The following map provides temperatures of the U.S.’s layers at a depth of 6km:

However, like solar and wind energy, geothermal energy can be utilized on an individual basis. According to Renewable Energies, LLC,

Below the frost line – usually about six feet deep – the earth is a constant temperature of about 50 degrees Fahrenheit all year long. During the winter, a heat pump absorbs heat from the ground and uses it to warm the air in your home or business. In the warmer summer months, the processed is reversed, taking heat from your home or business, transferring it back into the ground.

Geothermal energy is used for a wide variety of purposes. A 2005 report:

While geothermal is hot and all, there are reports that heat pumps used on an individual basis, while money-saving, also produces 1.5 times as much carbon dioxide as a conventional gas furnace. In terms of geothermal plants, however,

Modelling calculations are presented for two hypothetical geothermal plants (based on real-world examples) which show that gas discharge rates (tonnes of CO² / MWe.s) are between 0.5 and 50% of emission rates from fossil-fuelled power plants.

What’s even better is that the CO2 generated by geothermal plants could possibly be put to good use and be kept out of the atmosphere. According to a November 2009 Technology Review article,

Carbon dioxide that’s cycled through hot regions kilometers underground can efficiently bring heat to the surface, where it can be used to generate electricity. The likelihood is that the process would leave lots of carbon dioxide underground, and thus out of the atmosphere, according to Symyx project leader and materials scientist Miroslav Petro. “You’re sequestering CO₂ and at the same time generating power from it.”

That’s neato and all, but there’s still another big catch. The process of harvesting heat from the Earth’s core is potentially damaging to the landscape (since those deep layers are basically being fractured), and in terms of subterranean layers the damage may be irreversible. Drilling might also contaminate local water sources.

And that’s not all. The process of finding suitable spots for plants involves a land survey which is, again, costly but also time-consuming. Additionally hotspots are often located next to volcanoes, which are not the most suitable spot for any installation. As well, a site might unexpectedly stop producing steam for an unknown length of time.

So, while geothermal is a neat alternative to fossil fuels, it is unfortunately fraught with a lot of issues, not least among them is cost.

Geothermal plant at the southern end of the Salton Sea in Cali.

Certainly not a bad use by any means...

Wind energy is probably a close second  to solar energy in terms of cultural recognition. It’s difficult to say which one folks think first upon hearing “alternative energy”.

The kinetic energy of the wind has long been put to use by man. What school-child doesn’t know the story of Donkey Ho-Tei charging at the wind mills? (Thank you, Wishbone.)

However, in recent times “wind farms” are beginning to crop up all over, to the cheers of some and the chagrin of others.

Though some cry foul in that wind turbines deface the landscape, in general wind power is seen as a good clean way to harvest electricity. A quick run-through:

Pictures say a thousand words, and this one explains the technology in fewer words than I can. What’s great about wind energy is the source fuel is free, environmentally-hospitable, and renewable. What’s not so cool is the cost of installation and the whims of the weather gods.

Part of the issue with wind farms is the need for existing infrastructure — often times the places most suitable for wind farms (remote, rocky coastlines) don’t have the best access to power grids or a large user base. Consequently, wind turbines are often used on an individual basis to partly power an individual’s home (similar to solar roof-paneling). In fact, one website even gives tips on how to build one’s own 700-1000 watt turbine.

But the larger issue is again, cost. For turbines to be effective they must be intalled en masse in “wind farms”, which is of course (initially) very expensive.  Yet the prospect are looking good. For one thing,

Wind power available in the atmosphere is much greater than current world energy consumption. The most comprehensive study as of 2005 found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW, equivalent to 54,000 MToE (million tons of oil equivalent) per year, or over five times the world’s current energy use in all forms. (Stanford University)

Additionally, the cost of electricity from wind energy has dropped 80%, often at less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate competitive with conventionally-generated electricity. However, the cost of wind energy does depend on the location. (To be fair, this competitive price is often made possible by government subsidies.)

According to a March 2009 article,  the future looks bright (or should I say gusty?) for wind energy. While wind power’s current market penetration is at 1.3%, “it is expected to reach 3.35 % by 2013 and 8 % by 2018.”

Sweetness. Now for my irregularly scheduled bedtime.

——> Oh fail!

So the turbine is stuck??? Someone smack me in the head.

www.asap-highlea.co.uk/ solar.html

Most people understand the basic concept behind solar power: panels facing the sun convert sunlight into electricity. But what is actually going on?

Most solar power technologies involve these panels made up of grids and grids of “photovoltaic cells”, which when exposed to sunlight generate an electrical current. According to SolarPanelInfo.com,

The energy generated from photons striking the surface of the solar panel allows electrons to be knocked out of their orbits and released, and electric fields in the solar cells pull these free electrons in a directional current, from which metal contacts in the solar cell can generate electricity.

The amount of electricity generated is based on the amount of solar insolation, or radiation, the panels receive; factors that effect the output include angle of the sun, time of the year, weather, and whether the panel is shaded. Often solar panels are built to adjust themselves throughout the day, so as to continuously keep at maximum exposure. Sometimes solar panels are custom-fitted to cover a rooftop.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/06/01/pvt-solar-panels-generate-heat-and-electricity-at-the-same-time/

The electricity generated by solar panels are then stored in batteries. When electricity is drawn from the battery, it must be converted from direct current to alternating current.

http://sun-energy.co.za/solar-power-calculator.htm

Photovoltaic cells, usually made of cystalline silicon and gallium arsenide (the latter used only in solar panels, can produce a current of about 2 amps at 2 volts. This is at direct sunlight at the equator, with a cell of 1/5m in diameter. Count any number of factors that limit insolation, and this peak capacity is only reached by satellites (which are built with higher-quality materials to boot).

The major reason that solar power hasn’t been widely implemented is the cost, partly due to silicon shortages throughout the last decade. According to a December 2008 Christian Science Monitor article by Mark Clayton,  current costs of solar-powered energy is 32 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to conventional sources of energy which cost 5 to 18 cents per kilo-watt hour. Mark Clayton reports:

Whether using mirrors that focus desert sunlight to harvest heat and spin turbines or rooftop photovoltaic panels that turn sunshine directly into current, solar is on track to deliver electricity to residential users at a cost on par with natural gas and perhaps even coal within the next four to seven years, industry experts say.

“We’re confident that we’re not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be competitive with fossil fuels,” said Ray Kurzweil, a National Academy of Engineers panel member after the panel reported on the future of solar power in February. “I personally believe that we’re within five years of that tipping point.”

The article reports on the current landscape of solar technology, and mentions one company invested in by Google, Nanosolar, which has created a “solar coating” that “[is] as thin as a layer of paint and can transfer sunlight to power at amazing efficiency.” Another company, 1366 Technologies, has the goal of

[producing] a 3 percentage point gain in cell efficiency. While boosting a solar cell’s efficiency from 15 percent to 18 percent may sound trivial, it would mean a huge cut in production costs, from $2.20 cents per watt today to $1 a watt – without federal or state subsidies, van Mierlo says.

At that $1-a-watt level, 1366 Technologies claims it could produce solar panels with cells delivering electricity to a home as cheaply as the delivered cost of coal power – about 10 cents per kwh.

Another technology that creates sun-derived energy is the solar thermal power plant, which

consists of approximately 184,000 mirrors arranged in long, parabolic arrays that focus the sun’s energy on a receiver–a metal tube filled with oil that’s encased in specialized glass–from German conglomerate Schott.

Sunlight heats the oil to 400 degrees Celsius (about 750 degrees Fahrenheit). The oil gets transferred to a heat exchanger where it makes steam, which then cranks a turbine to produce electricity. If the heat can’t be used right away, it gets transferred to vats of molten salt which retain the heat for later use.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11392_3-6166085-3.html?tag=mncol

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11392_3-6166085-9.html?tag=mncol

Again, the resistance to such technology is cost. According to a 2007 CNET article,

Conventionally generated electricity ranges between 5 and 18 cents per kilowatt hour (the amount of money to get a kilowatt of power for an hour) but in most places it’s below 10 cents, according to the Energy Information Agency. Solar thermal costs around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour…

The article refers to how solar thermal plants can be cost-effective, which require a pre-existing infrastructure for energy transportation, a large energy storage system, and be located near a significant base of users. (The above pictures are of an actual solar thermal plant that delivers electricity to Las Vegas.)

There are other inhibitors to solar power, such as location–the tech requires clear skies and frequently favorable weather. As well, solar power is more fruitful as the proximity to the equator increases, where the sun hits the earth’s surface the strongest.

But the thing about cost is, there must be some point at which solar power is more useful, even if more expensive — it might be slightly more costly in dollars and cents, but the environmental costs are incredibly low (i.e., nil) compared to coal-derived electricity. Trivia time:

A typical 500 megawatt coal power plant produces 3.5 billion kWh per year. That is enough energy for 4 million of our light bulbs to operate year round. To produce this amount of electrical energy, the plant burns 1.43 million tons of coal. It also produces:

Enjoy the cursor caught in my screenshot.

Solar energy, of course, produces no GHGs.

www.byronenvironmentcentre.asn.au/climate.htm

I. Solar radiation that makes it through the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth’s surface.

II.  As a result, the earth’s surface emits heat as infrared radiation.

III.  This longwave infrared radiation wafts up into the atmosphere, and is absorbed by a number of gases dubbed greenhouse gases.

IV.  The absorption of radiation by GHGs causes the atmosphere to warm up.

The greenhouse effect is not bad in itself; we can thank this force of nature for the fact our bums are not frozen through and through. But the concern is that in recent years human contribution to levels of atmospheric gases is on the rise – significantly, meaning the earth is beginning to warm up. To be sure, the difference seems minimal, but the effects are wide-ranging.

According to the EIA,  ”Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 40% since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago.” Additionally, the same article goes on to cite the IPCC in that over the last century global mean temperatures have risen between 1.1° and 1.6°F. Quoting the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (Summary for Policymakers):

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

So, that’s that. I don’t want this blog to delve too deeply off the intended topic, but I’d also like to briefly cover the basic GHGs.

CO2:  Produced naturally in animal respiration, but is also released in the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. It accounts for 60% of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Methane: Methane (CH4), though not as readily occuring as CO2, is much more potent. Produced by some kinds of bacteria, it is also created in rice farms, and burped by cows and other cattle. One cow emits a ½ lb. of CH4 a day.

NO2: Nitrous oxide (NO2) is emitted by bacteria in the soils, but atmospheric levels have risen primarily due to the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers, and also, sewage treatment.

CFCs: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were used as refrigerants, but were found to wreak havoc in the earth’s ozone layer by breaking down O3. CFCs were replaced by safer hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which while not damaging the ozone layer, do trap heat and are thus considered a GHG.

Various effects of increased GHGs are:

Watery

- As water can expand at warmer temperatures, sea levels will continue to rise. Sea levels are currently rising at 1/10 in/yr.

-  Rising sea levels can result in increased flooding, including cities and even entire islands. The Majuro Atoll , part of the Marshall Islands, is expected to lose 80% of its land with a 20-inch rise in sea level.

- A rise in sea levels will also have an impact on coastal ecosystems; in the U.S., a one-foot rise will mean a 17-43% loss in wetlands.

- Other problems created by rising sea levels include coastal erosion, intensified storms, an increase in coral bleaching due to such storms, and also a loss of available fresh water to coastal cities.

-  Similarly, water resources in general will be diminished due to melting mountain glaciers, which provide fresh water to wide area. For example, the Colorado River waters much of the western U.S. and is fed by mountain glaciers.

- Glaciers in general are melting, which can pose a number of problems but namely a rise in sea levels.

- Disappearing ice packs will also affect the folks who rely on them to hunt seals and walruses. Seals also use ice packs to raise their young.

Wild

- A rise in temperatures will mean warmer winters and hotter summers. Winter can usually be relied upon to slow the growth of germs and diseases; warmer, wetter winters will allow such organisms to spread like never before. Hotter summers would be a bummer in general, but combined with increased flooding they would also allow diseases to spread more quickly. Warmer weather year-round would mean mosquitoes and other disease-packing pests to spread like wildfire.

Nasty

- Higher levels of C02 can spur growth of weeds such as ragweed, the pollen of which is an allergen.

- Heat waves can claim lives; in 2003, extreme heat waves across Europe cost 52,000 lives.

Animals die

– An increase in CO2 means more of it gets absorbed by the oceans, leading to increased acidification. An estimated 500 billion tons has been ocean-absorbed since the start of the Industrial revolution…

Pteropod (water column snail)

- …which results in the deaths of marine life, such as pteropods (sea snails), which are important part of the polar food chain.

- Acidification can also kill off planktonic plants and animals, the bottom of many food chains. It also been predicted that populations of shellfish may die out from the increased CO2 . Acidification also weakens coral reefs, which may be too be brittle to withstand the ocean waves.

- Phytoplankton, which provide much of the earth’s oxygen, thrive in cooler oceans; warmer seawater may result in a decrease in phytoplankton. Algae is also disappearing, as it is more difficult for nutrients to rise in warmer water.

- Trout and salmon are adapted to streams 50-65o C. The predicted rise in temperatures in those streams is estimated to lead to a habitat loss as high as 17% by 2030, 34% by 2060 and 42% percent by 2090.

examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/artistic_smoking_tailpipe_s(1).jpg

We all know burning gas, oil and fossil fuels in general releases C02 into the air. But do we realize our exhaust pipes are a smoking gun?

According to the Energy Information Administration,

energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from the combustion of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, represented 81% of total U.S. human-caused (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions in 2007.

I’ll get into greenhouse gases and how the greenhouse effect works in my next post, but clearly the GHGs we emit are a result of our need for energy.

Where, specifically, is man-emitted CO2  coming from?

Transportation and electricity generation are by far the top two producers of CO2. Isn’t it fitting that alternative energies mostly target these two industries? Wave, tidal, solar, wind, and thermal technologies are all sources of renewable, clean energy. “Clean coal” and biofuels are also a step in the right direction, though not a complete solution. (One should note the U.S. has a ton of domestic coal reserves, larger than any other country.)

Part of the problem is that fossil fuel reserves have been sinks for CO2 for eons; while burning wood does release carbon dioxide as well, what it’s releasing has been (relatively) recently captured and doesn’t effect the atmospheric balance as do fossil fuel-derived CO2.

Interesting factoid:  The Union of Concerned Scientists states that “the US transportation sector emits more CO2 than all but three other countries’ emissions from all sources combined.” Yikes!

As part of the Leadership course “Leadership in Biology”*, this here blog is my Service Learning Project. Through about ten posts I will guide readers through the world of alternative energies, detailing the major ones (solar, wind) but also giving some lesser known technologies a little exposure.

While this blog is intended for all, in theory it targets non-biology students and even more specifically those students majoring in English, who need to be on top of their game to remain competitive in the literary realm. Sci-fi aficionados, take note. In the name of targeting the studenti inglesi, we might also see a short story, or a nice discursive poetic piece. This is, of course, if I feel up to it.

This “bio-blog” will at some point directly address material covered in the course, namely the need for alternative energies in response to pollution and global warming. While I do not wish to use to fear as a motivator, especially in light of recent events (see here, a good NY Times summary, an opinion piece w/ juicy quotes, and also interesting), global warming, anthropogenic or not, is undoubtedly occurring to some degree and anything to check it (and pollution) is worthy of awareness.

One of the links I included suggested that if global warming was not a danger as supposed, then there is little place for alternative energies. To this I argue that there are other very strong and equally valid reasons to develop and seek out such technologies. I’ll cover three.

For one, efficiency. With the oil crises of the 1970s we saw an uptick in more efficient, high-mileage vehicles, but as gas prices decreased gas-guzzlers began to reappear. In the last decade there have been the hybrids, but to date they have been expensive and most importantly are still dependent on gasoline, and thus foreign oil. (Not to mention concerns that such vehicles are dangerously quiet — literally.) Efficiency saves money (green=green), and while some technologies are certainly not as efficient as oil-driven engines, they have not yet been developed to their full potential and still hold promise as viable sources of energy.

A second reason in favor of alternative energies is their relative friendliness to the environment. It is no secret that burning fossil fuels releases pollutants into the air every day, and while progress has been it is still undoubtably an issue. (While, again, it may be debatable how significantly manmade pollution contributes to global warming, pollution is still pollution, and who wants that? See Los Angeles.) Solar power and wind power, for example, have their disadvantages but pollution is not one of them.

A third reason in favor of alternative energies is renewability. In my opinion, this is probably the strongest reason we as a people have to invest in alternative energies; investing in such technologies is effectively investing in our future. The world’s supply of oil is not indefinite. At some point we will run out, and with it our economy will collapse.  Our supply of alternative energies such as solar, wind, and wave power, on the other hand, is virtually endless.

(Granted, I highly doubt the oil companies will let themselves die off so easily. I have a sneaky suspicion they will have some other product up their sleeves soon enough. For example, hydrogen fuel cells which require the purchase of hydrogen tanks, or electric cars the advent of which will probably cause a rise in “recharge stops”.)

Anyhow, I think alternative energies are cool, and so should you.

*Officially  ”Leadership in Biological Issues & Inquiry”.