So I'm in Patagonia right now, doing the thing I love to do most: travel across my home planet, checking out its less explored corners. Chile and Argentina are my 20th and 21st countries to visit. It is my second trip to South America. I've also travelled twice to Africa, four times to Asia (including my stint in Peace Corps Mongolia), and extensive travels in North America. I've only hit North Atlantic island nations as far as Europe is concerned. I've been to Australia once. I have not been to Antarctica.

So why am I listing all of this?

Because I'm a freaking hypocrite. I'm very concerned about how humanity is altering atmospheric chemistry, and what that's going to do to our (shared) planet's natural systems. Because I am convinced that we are releasing carbon into the atmosphere at a faster rate than natural systems can remove it, we are endangering ourselves (or at least some of ourselves) and also endangering the ecosystems that we depend on. I recognize the role the individual can/might/should play in reducing their personal carbon emissions through efficiency and lifestyle choices. I drive a Prius, use energy efficient light bulbs, recycle my cans and bottles and paper, serve on the College's "Green Committee," and teach (and blog) about the science underlying environmental issues, like climate change. I'm spreading the word, see?

But I really love to travel, and travel is a high-carbon endeavor. The best thing I could do for the world would probably be to stay home, but home gets stale. The world is big and diverse and full of landscapes and people and food and culture and birds and all kinds of interesting things. And there is nothing like getting out there and experiencing it firsthand. My time on this planet is finite, maybe close to half used up (assuming an average lifespan). What am I going to do during my time here? I figure I should live morally, attempt to improve things a bit, and enjoy myself. And I enjoy travelling more than anything else. I don't have kids (or an interest in having them), I'm not a religious person, I'm not tied down to a garden or a dog or a network of people that can't live without me. There's little to keep me in town when the opportunity for travel arises. And I have a career which gives me three and a half weeks off each winter and three months off each summer, plus a week of spring break. I have chosen my career in no small part because of the tremendous amount of free time it grants me each year. (Having a third of the year "off" makes up for the fifteen hour days I work during the fall and spring semesters, I reckon.)

My philosophy of life is essentially to facilitate and accrue a suite of fond memories and cool experiences. My goal is to enjoy my limited time here. Secondary goals: be a good person, help others out, learn as much as possible about the world I will spend my life in, share this perspective by spreading an understanding of the natural world, be creative, be responsible (but not so responsible, CO2-wise, that it cripples Goal #1). I am aware that this is a fundamentally self-centered approach, and I accept it.

So I know that there is a tangible global negative to my jetsetting habits, but the personal positive is what sways me. I'm going to keep travelling, because although environmental concerns mean a lot to me, experiencing the world means even more.

So that's my philosophical postcard from the austral hemisphere. ...Wish you were here!

--Mr. Hypocrite

Labels: argentina, chile, climate change, CO2, energy, environmental, global warming, patagonia, science and society, south america, travel

Every two years, the U.S. Department of Energy sponsors a competition called the solar decathalon on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Teams from universities around the country and across the world design low-cost, low-emissions, low-energy-use, architecturally pleasing homes, then bring them to the Mall to assemble them. For two consecutive weekends, folks like you and me can go and tour the innovative shelters. It's really an inspiring experience, and quite popular for that reason.

Here's some photos from last weekend. If you're in the DC area, the homes are open again this Thursday (tomorrow) through Sunday. You should check it out.

Labels: dc, energy, environmental, sun

You should check this out. Nice images. Two and a half minutes in length.

Thanks to Kevin Mattingly for alerting me to this tidbit.

Labels: california, energy, igneous

Today, I present a guest post from my student Hope W., who described her experiences visiting the Chalk Point Generating Station in Maryland on our Environmental Geology field trip the weekend before last. The essay is posted here with her permission. Enjoy! -CB

The Chalk Point Generating Station is a coal burning power plant owned by the Mirant Corporation. Our guide during our tour was Greg Staggers, the plant manager. There were three main subject areas that Mr. Staggers talked to us about: power generation, the economic supply and demand, and environmental regulations and precautions.

Power Generation:
Mr. Staggers explained how the station has two different types of units. They have steam units and combustion units. Mr. Staggers described how the two different types of units are designed. He said that the steam units are like giant boilers, and that the combustion units are like jet engines. The plant has four steam units and seven combustion units, both types use fossil fuels to produce energy. Mr. Staggers explained how when power is first generated it is at too high of a voltage to be safely used by the public in homes or offices; and how the current has to be run through various lines to transformers and substations in order to be brought down from 20,000 volts (the level generated) to 110-220 volts (the level used in homes and offices.) Mr. Staggers pointed out the transformer field we drove past on the way in on the aerial photograph of the plant explaining that that’s where the process of conversion begins.

In response to Sophia's question about why the plant was built next to the water, Mr. Staggers explained the complex system for using water from the river to cool the equipment in the plant. As he talked in depth about this system he described how ideas improved through time and experience, as well as environmental regulations which lead the plant to finding more efficient and ecological ways of utilizing the river water. Later on when we took our tour through the plant we had the opportunity to see the some pipelines that the river water runs through. The water runs through the pipe-lines to cool the steam that is emitted during the power generation process. When the river water is released back into the river from the plant it has picked up no chemicals, and has only increased in temperature by approximately 20°F.

Mr. Staggers told us about four of the units that get run; units 1 and 2 which are combustion units and units 3 and 4 which are steam units. When running at full capacity units 1 and 2 operate at 90% efficiency, burn 2.5 million pounds of coal per hour, and use 14 megaWatts of the energy produced to operate; and when units 3 and 4 are running at full capacity the burn 650 gallons of oil per minute. Mr. Staggers informed us that the enormous pile of coal we saw on our way in would last for 45 days if the plant were running at full capacity.

Economic Supply and Demand:
In the 1990's the system was deregulated, which basically means that the power generation, wholesaling of the utility, and the supply distribution were all split up. So when the Chalk Point station produces energy they sell it to PJM a 'middleman' who will then sell it to the suppliers like Dominion Power etc. who then sell and distribute the supply to the public. I mentioned the transformer field earlier in this paper in reference to the generation process, but the transformer field has economic implications as well. The transformer field is also where the producers pass of the ownership of the energy to the middleman.

Mr. Staggers explained the bidding system for establishing the market value for each day. In the bidding system if you are over producing you get paid the difference in price from your morning bid in real time. During the tour we got to see the control rooms where the market price rates were being adjusted in real time. In response to Dustin's question about how they know when to produce Mr. Staggers explained how the middle men suppliers make that call based on the morning bids and the actual demand by the public, when the suppliers make the decision about production levels they call the plant to inform them of how much they need to be producing.

In terms of the national economy coal is the cheapest in explicit costs, in equivalent quantities the price for coal is 1/3 that of oil and natural gas prices, which is why more than 50% of the U.S.'s power is generated by coal. In terms of the local economy the Chalk Point station produces a 500 thousand volt ring around D.C. It is estimated that in the next five years 1 million homes will be added to the market that the Chalk Point station caters to.

The demand for coal is influenced by seasonal changes which gives it a cyclical demand. Callan asked if the increased attention on alternative methods of energy has affected the demand for coal in terms of reduction. Mr. Staggers said that no such change has been apparent and that the cyclical trend has followed a predictable pattern.

Environmental Regulations and Precautions:
Mr. Staggers told us about the regulations the plant has been mandated to conform to, as well as what the plant has done of their own accord for the sake of the environment. Some of the changes that the plant made in the past include setting up new stack facilities in 1982 because of environmental regulations. When the clean air act was passed in 1992 brought down their level of pollutants they were releasing into the atmosphere from 1.4 to .7 Further regulations such as; the separated overfire air controls in 2000, selective auto-catalystic reduction in 2007, and selective catalystic reduction in 2008 brought the pollutant rate down to .06. All of the methods above have dropped total output capacity by some amount.

The plant has also put up two boundary nets to protect fish from the areas where hot water is released and two more boundary nets as well as a fine mesh screen to prevent the fish from getting sucked up into the pumps for the cooling system. The plant has many systems in place to reclaim energy where they can to avoid waste, such as how they use residual heat from the coal burning process to heat the incoming air from its current temperature to be closer to the temperature required for being used as an infuser in the combustion process. The plant is in the process of building a "scrubber" which will reduce the sulfur emissions by 98%. The method this "scrubber" will use will allow the plant produce and collect gypsum which the plant will sell for its use in drywall. The plant also has a system set up to collect ash by a precipitation method; the ash collected is also sold for its use in drywall.

The plant has continuous emissions monitors which monitor emission levels of CO2, SO2, and NOx. The data from the monitors is sent quarterly to the State and the E.P.A. In the control room Callan asked a question about the plant's ppm output of CO2. Mr. Staggers said that measure by percentage and he did not know the output in ppm . This discussion lead to a very clear statement by Mr. Staggers that he wasn't convinced that it really made a difference. Mr. Staggers informed us that the plant's output of CO2 is 12% of flue gas volume, which Callan calculated to be 120,000 ppm. From Mr. Staggers' point of view as a producer of a commodity it is hard to see much else besides bottom line explicit costs. This was not his position out of greed, but out of responsibility to keep the company running so he has a job to provide for his family, and his employees as well. On the other hand, scientists cannot escape the implicit costs of CO2 emissions.

There needs to be a level headed discussion in a neutral setting were the two groups can learn to understand each other and start to cooperate. We as individuals and a nation must step up and set the example. When we start working together we will create the safe harbor necessary for understanding and cooperation to grow and flourish.

Labels: coal, energy, environmental, maryland, nova, oil, teaching

Nevada's Yucca Mountain site for a proposed nuclear waste repository has lost much of its funding in President Obama's proposed budget. Personally, I think this is a good call - I never thought that the Yucca Mountain site seemed viable for the geological long-term. For a facility being designed to outlast human civilization (warning signs are not written in English, but in sign language that's predicted to still be useful when potential meddlers show up 10,000 years from now), Yucca Mountain is located in too tectonically-active an area for my liking. Basin and Range extension, with associated earthquakes and volcanism, imperils the facility's security over the long-term.

But then where do we put this nuclear waste? We've got more and more of it every day. I'm a fan of nuclear energy because I feel that in spite of the risks associated with radioactive leaks, it's a proven technology that looks better all the time because it produces no carbon emissions. To me, the relatively short-term (local) risk of radiation leaks is outweighed by CO2's long-term (global) risk of climate change. Provided sufficient security, I think it's a great "halfway house" between fossil fuels and 'alternative' energies like solar, wind, and geothermal.

Yucca Mountain has several advantages in terms of its location: it's dry, and it's not in someone's backyard (far from large populations -- though Los Vegas residents might quibble with the definition of "far"). But Nevada's regular seismic shaking (3rd in rank among the U.S. states, after California and Alaska) and the proximity of some young volcanic extrusions make me think it's not so great a spot if you want the waste to stay put. I'm thinking that the best place for nuclear waste would be in the craton, the stable interior of the continent. I'm thinking: Canadian Shield, maybe in Minnesota or Michigan or Wisconsin. The issue there is water: you would be trading tectonic stability for saturation and precipitation.

I'll readily admit I'm not an expert here -- just a geologist speculating on an issue that's more complex than mere geology. What do you think? Where's the best place to store nuclear waste until radioactive decay makes it reasonably safe? Use 10,000 years as your hypothetical timeline, bearing in mind how different the world is today than it was 10,000 years ago.

Labels: CO2, earthquakes, energy, environmental, michigan, minnesota, nevada, volcano, wisconsin

Ha! The crazy things people do... Looks like LEEDS certification may hold the same moral high ground and real-life meaninglessness as the USDA "organic" label. Check out this gallery at Treehugger.com

Hat tip to the CCAN blog for alerting me to this.

Labels: blogs, energy, environmental

Good news!
Google's putting out a way for users to track their home electricity use from their computer. Check it out at the New York Times' "Bits" blog.
Thing is, you need a "smart grid" for it to work, so it's going to be a while before you actually get one in your house.
It's like the dashboard readout on the Prius: constantly giving you feedback about your energy use & efficiency.

Labels: energy, environmental, tech

"Solar Prius?" Gimme, gimme!

But it's a tease -- the roof's built-in solar panel only powers the A/C. (CNN)

Hey, that means the engine doesn't have to work as hard...
...but it's still a bit of a disappointment, eh?

Labels: energy, environmental, news, prius

President Obama is acting to (potentially) improve the fuel efficiency of cars manufactured in the United States. The official announcement will apparently come later today, but somehow the newspapers always find out first.

Meanwhile, Virginia's budget shortfall has led to the elimination of pollution inspectors, which means that instead of the usual inspection of 1400 sites in the Commonwealth this year, the reduced staff will likely get to 800 or so. In Maryland, by contrast, the article describes how the governor is actually increasing funding for the oversight of power plants. An interesting contrast from two Democratic governors (one of whom is now moonlighting as the head of the DNC).

PS - My Prius is less efficient in the cold. I've been hovering between 46.5 and 47.0 mpg for the past couple of weeks. Brrr.

Labels: energy, environmental, maryland, news, oil, prius, virginia

American Meteorological Society's Environmental Science Seminar Series

Coming to Grips with Sustainable Practices: Where Do We Go from Here?

What are the forces that shaped consumer culture in the U.S.? How does per capita consumption in the U.S. compare with that of other countries, especially in the realm of energy usage? What impact has consumerism had on resources and living standards in the U.S. and elsewhere? What are the implications of maintaining our present level of consumption? What are the implications of other countries aspiring to levels of per capita consumption on a par with ours? How might our society begin to identify and embrace more sustainable habits and practices, and what might such practices be? What policy steps might the new Administration and Congress consider codifying in the interest of promoting a more sustainable lifestyle and economy?

Public Invited

Monday, January 26, 2009
New Time: 12:00 noon - 2:00 pm
Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253 Washington, DC

Buffet Reception Following

Moderator:
Dr. Anthony Socci, Senior Science and Communication Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Speakers:
Dr. Juliet B. Schor, Professor of Sociology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA

Betsy Taylor, Consultant, Breakthrough Strategies & Solutions, Strategic & Philanthropic Consulting on Climate Solutions & Sustainable Development, Takoma Park, MD

Program Summary

Sustainability, Consumption and the Path Forward At the center of the US ecological dilemma lies consumption. We have been a consumer nation for more than a century, having made a directed choice in the 1930s toward that path. Today, in the midst of the simultaneous crises of the economy and the environment, we are again faced with choices about how to move forward. Although it has gotten far less attention, business-as-usual spending is as problematic as BAU energy use. The US ecological footprint, which is twice the level of comparably rich European countries, exceeds the equitable global sustainability level by a factor of 5. Rising per capita consumption underlies the ecological overshoot of the world economy, which now exceeds biological capacity by 40%. In the United States, inflated-adjusted personal consumption expenditures increased 88% from1973 to 2003, which resulted in a 37% rise in our ecological footprint. This is important because it has accompanied decades of attempts to save energy and de-materialize production, all of which have proved inadequate. Fortunately, there is increasing awareness of these issues, and a grassroots movement to transform consumer patterns and habits is underway. However, it has had virtually no legislative presence to date.

In Dr. Schor's presentation, the issue of consumption will be placed into its historical and comparative context. New data will be presented on the magnitude of the 'cheap import' boom in material (and therefore ecological terms) over the last 15 years. Underlying economic factors such as labor market policies and the distribution of income affect the path of consumption and ecological impact. A medium term consumption path will be sketched out, which yields high levels of human well-being, is becoming broadly popular, and is ecologically sustainable.

Ms. Taylor will discuss an array of policy instruments that could promote a more sustainable standard of living and more sustainable consumerism. In the lead-up to address climate change through cap & trade or carbon fees, it would serve our collective interests to simultaneously address the root causes of ecological degradation and collapse. Ms. Taylor will also call for a rekindled debate on policies and programs that might steer our economy and culture in a more sustainable and durable direction.

Labels: climate change, energy, environmental, meetings

According to a study by the Washington Post, our area's electricity consumption dropped by a small but perceptible amount in the first nine months of 2008, as compared to 2007. The article linked to above describes the sources of data as being a mix of home audits in Arlington County, Virginia (40 out of 89,000 total), government figures for the number of miles driven on local roads, and utility billing information. Overall, the Post estimates a 2% reduction for the study period in 2008 as compared to the previous year. Now, the question is, Why? By their reckoning, it's likely to be a mix of increased consciousness of "green" energy practices, increased use of compact fluorescent light bulbs, and perhaps most importantly: mild weather.

One thing I can say about that lattermost factor: this year, 2009, is so far not really of the "mild weather" variety. It's dang cold here!

Labels: dc, energy, environmental, maryland, news, virginia

This map was in this morning's Washington Post. The red dots are currently-existing coal-fired power plants. The black dots with the central stars are proposed future coal-fired power plants.

Labels: CO2, coal, dc, energy, environmental, nova

What would it look like if Napolean Dynamite designed a website to promote energy conservation by switching out lightbulbs? Maybe something like the "Unscrew America" website. The navigation is a bit of a head-spinner, though. Take your Dramamine before you start moving that mouse around.

Labels: energy, environmental, websites