In an earlier post I discussed Brazil’s current woes over biofuels and the big bet the country made on them.  One of the big complaints against ethanol has been that it has driven up food prices around the world.  So scientists are working on ways to convert the inedible portions of common biofuel crops (corn, sugarcane, etc)–such as corn husks.

here is a taste:

Chemical engineer Rajai Atalla of the University of Wisconsin is attacking another fibrous plant component, cellulose. His aim is to convert it into useful glucose, which can then be fermented into ethanol. Atalla finds that briefly soaking corn stover (the leftover parts of the plant, such as husks) in a solution of sodium hydroxide, ethanol, and water changes the molecular structure of the cellulose, allowing him to convert nearly twice as much of it as is possible with existing methods.

Two clever articles in the Economist here and here (i confess, one is a bit old, the other is REALLY old) discuss the need to (and possibility of) building electric engines that do not rely on minerals like dyprosium and neodymium.  Right now, as the newspaper reports, China is the sole global source for such materials, and through its own machinations has managed to ensure it will remain that way for the foreseeable future.  Thus, let us do without.

Many people interested in the potential of green energy solutions may not consider the fact that many of the materials needed to make electric engines or wind turbines may be rare or hazardous to mine from the earth.  Neurosis is never a sound basis for purchasing decisions, but some have compellingly suggested that hybrid cars do not result in a net benefit to the environment.

I offer this (courtesy of the Economist):

A decade ago, America was the world’s leading producer of the rare-earth metals. But its huge open-cast mine at Mountain Pass, California, closed in 2002—a victim of China’s much lower labour costs, America’s increasingly stringent environment rules, and delays in renewing the mine’s operating licence. Today, China produces 97% of the world’s supply of rare-earth metals—a by-product of the country’s vast iron-ore mining operations in Inner Mongolia.

This no doubt means that China controls this market, and that the plethora of cleantech products which rely on these minerals must factor into account the ever-rising prices on that material

(for, example, the price of neodymium has quadrupled in the past year.)

The article does note that the Tesla roadster does not rely on any of these materials for it’s engine, so building these things is possible.

The key, in Tesla’s case (and BMW’s and potentially Toyota’s) is called the Induction motor.

Here is a short but sweet video on it from Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWrNzUCjbkk

Hey all

Popular Mechanics has provided the world with this helpful little graphic tutorial on how shale gas extraction works.  We all have seen the billboards insisting that hydrofracturing is dangerous, now you can actually understand why (or why not):

Infografrack

I have thought a bit about economics as a subject this semester, as I am currently struggling through a class on macroeconomics.  I have heard it observed that the fact that most people (including myself) are woefully undereducated in economics, we still feel perfectly entitled to our (often vehement) opinions on the subject.  It is almost as though we cannot afford to allow ignorance to get in the way of having an opinion on matters that so profoundly affect our lives.

Though I may regret admitting this, I must concede that there is a similarly steep learning curve (and a similarly daunting degree of ignorance) that plagues my thinking on matters of energy and climate change.  Is hydrofracturing dangerous?  Sometimes, it appears to be, but perhaps sometimes not.

So it is with nuclear.  Fukushimas and Chernobyls are mind-bogglingly horrifying, but some countries (such as France) have also relied on nuclear power to a great extent without serious incident.

In any event, I hope that the above may serve to narrow the gap a little more.

Here is another link to some of the Hurricane Sandy coverage I did on Coney Island.  Enjoy

Earlier this year an American businessman named Russell George had an idea: dump about a hundred tons of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean. Why?

He wanted to watch the plankton bloom, of course. it almost sounds like a joke, and yet a lot of people aren’t laughing.

Michael Specter, a writer for the New Yorker, wrote a post that makes George seem like a nutty vigilante willing to endanger the entire planet in his hopes of finding a way to manufacture carbon credits.

Specter wrote:

“George’s unilateral action was deplorable, premature, and violated several international laws and United Nations covenants. (Well, unilateral may be harsh. He apparently convinced the council of an indigenous village to approve the project.)”

Iron sulfate is a kind of fertilizer for plankton, which in turn has a tendency to suck carbon out of the atmosphere and drag it down to the depths of the ocean.

George was testing the hypothesis that by spurring a vast plankton bloom he could hammer a dent in atmospheric carbon. Some people allege that he is doing this purely for economic reasons: removing carbon from the atmosphere could earn him carbon credits he could sell to others.  He could, in theory, even trade the credits on markets.

Carbon credit auctions made their debut in California a little less than a month ago, and showed there may be a market for the contracts among some businesses.

Under California’s AB 32, a packet of regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions in the state, companies are allotted a certain number of “credits” equal to a certain number of units of carbon emission.  They must remain within these limits; if they fall short of them, they can sell the balance to other companies who may be greater polluters.

While meant to be a way to knit market forces with environmental concerns, the carbon credits program has seemingly opened the door to a new market of businessmen looking to profit from the program by running a negative carbon emissions balance.  A company whose sole activity consists of removing carbon from the atmosphere could be eligible for just that.

Enter Russ George.  He headed a company called Planktos, Inc. and started another with the Haida people of Canada.  It was the Haida with whom he worked on the iron sulfate dump in the Pacific Ocean.

The Haida are what the government of Canada calls a “First People”, an elegant name the Canadians use to describe the peoples who lived on the North American continent before European settlers began arriving.

The Haida took and interest in and ultimately supported George’s project in the hope that the boost in the plankton supply would correspondingly boost the salmon population.  Salmon numbers have dwindled from their former abundance along much of the North American coast.

George stated emphatically in an interview with Scientific American that the project is first about the Haida.

Some doubt this assertion and choose to emphasize instead that George violated UN conventions against “geo-engineering”.

An article in the Guardian (UK) by Martin Lukacs, dated October 15, 2012, included this, among other things,

“It appears to be a blatant violation of two international resolutions,” said Kristina M Gjerde, a senior high seas adviser for the International Union for Conservation of Nature. “Even the placement of iron particles into the ocean, whether for carbon sequestration or fish replenishment, should not take place, unless it is assessed and found to be legitimate scientific research without commercial motivation. This does not appear to even have had the guise of legitimate scientific research.”

Typhoon Bopho Makes Landfall in Philippines (Photo: NASA Goddard)

FT.com: Manila links typhoon to climate change

Weeks after Hurricane Sandy hit the eastern coast of the United States, a catastrophic typhoon has struck the Philippines, leaving over 450 people dead and 530 still missing.  The Philippine government is blaming the storm on climate change.

This also comes days after 200 member states of the United Nations voted to extend the Kyoto Accord, and, as the Financial Times reports elsewhere, the debate over climate change in Doha reached some tense heights.

Pilita Clark reports,

“Witness US Senator James Inhofe, a self-described leading critic of the talks, who appeared via video-link at the Doha talks to say the negotiations were part of a “far left green agenda” that was “about one thing: spreading the wealth around”.

His comrade, Britain’s Lord Monckton, went one better by posing as the representative from Myanmar and telling the surprised conference that global warming had actually stopped.”

Media have also reported that discussions emerged over if and how rich countries should compensate poor countries for damages due to climate change. Link to FT here and Telegraph (UK) here.

How on Earth people will be able to assess the value, cause and culpability for such damages  is beyond me.

But it is quite possible that the Philippines may be among the first countries seeking compensation.