Xarissa is a great name. Very sci-fi, hi tech.
Mick,
I have some material below that I thought might be useful for your efforts at Unity, as well as good fodder for your blog.
Starting next week, we're launching the first of three national initiatives this winter and spring that will collectively mobilize an estimated 300,000 students, young people and community leaders in addressing the global warming crisis in positive ways that will help create a clean energy economy and new jobs:
We will begin with the historic "First 100 Days, A National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions," involving more than 700 colleges, universities and faith organizations all across the U.S. starting on February 5. An on-line educational kick-off to the Teach-In produced by National Wildlife Federation's Sara Prohaska, Bill Dion and others will be viewed by an estimated 250,000 students, faculty, staff and community leaders followed by activities ranging from speakers, films and live interfaces with Congress at host sites. Featuring such environmental luminaries as our own, Larry Schweiger, as well as David Orr, Hunter Lovins, Betsy Taylor, Ray Anderson, Dianne Dillon-Ridgely, Jessy Tolkan, and others, the on-line broadcast focuses on policy recommendations for the new administration detailed in the President's Climate Action Plan. It is not too late to register and receive instructions for viewing "The First 100 Days" program.
All the instructions you'll need to participate can be found at: www.nationalteachin.org
Next, on February 28-March 2, 2009, we will converge on Capitol Hill with thousands of student leaders from all across the country seeking clean energy solutions and green jobs at Powershift 2009. (www.powershift09.org)
A student reporter press teleconference will place on Feb 4th, with information on the event. Please respond if you are interested in participating, or if you know anyone who writes for your university newspaper that might like to get in on the call.
Finally, on April 15, 2009 - We will celebrate our peers' cutting-edge innovations for the 21st Century by hosting the acclaimed program Chill Out: Campus Solutions to Global Warming (www.nwf.org/chillout ) at our campuses, homes and offices. Showcasing the winners of a year-long competition, the on-line program features initiatives that dramatically curb the carbon footprint, tap clean energy, create new green jobs and save money. The campus that registers the most people for this program will win a free concert by the Steps!
For more information on any of these events, let me know!
thanks,
Xarissa
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wait for the buzz to begin
NOAA scientists just published a paper in PNAS relating to questions of how quickly temperature drops if GHG emissions drop. It doesn't, they found.
Not really big news. We've suspected this for years. This update from Susan Solomon and her team is a nice confirmation and recalibration for modelers.
What is novel is the buzz that this thing will inspire. You see, the NOAA press release, not exactly a work of PR excellence, was written is such a way as to allow journalists to easily choose the oversimplified tag-line "climate change irreversible" for a headline. And they will. They can't resist that tag-line even if it's not true. I bet hundreds of papers all around the country will reproduce it with nary a serious thought about the trouble they're causing or whether they're telling the truth.
Which of course is a nice boon to the anti-GHG emissions control lobby. If climate change is irreversible, then why bother reducing emissions? We're all doomed anyway! Let's have a big ole fossil fueled party and burn it all up!
Oy.
And of course, the original paper means nothing of the kind. It's just some slightly newer information about the longevity of GHGs in the atmosphere and the time taken to remove them. The paper suggests that there's a flat spot in the AAT curve because of GHG removal, but it says that if we keep releasing GHGs right now, the flat spot can still get higher and things will still be much worse than if we stop as soon as we can.
Bottom line for short-attention span readers: we still need to stop putting GHGs into the atmosphere.
Journalists are crap. Let's just say it out loud. Apart from a few decent types like Revkin of the NYT, or a couple Guardian writers I like, as a profession they can't seem to get anything right about climate change. Worse, I guess, is the gullible section of the public that demands the stuff they write. Can we please all begin to learn to think more complex thoughts and stretch out that attention span a bit?
Another example of how ridiculous journalism is right now, is the flurry of Google-inspired Jimmy Carter solar panel articles asking for Obama to put them back on the White House roof.
There are solar panels on the White House, you morons. They've been there since 2003. The Park Service put them up.
If this keeps up, I'm going to become the Lewis Black of sustainability bloggers. But honestly, whatever happened to research, getting the facts right, journalistic integrity? Did it ever exist?
Not really big news. We've suspected this for years. This update from Susan Solomon and her team is a nice confirmation and recalibration for modelers.
What is novel is the buzz that this thing will inspire. You see, the NOAA press release, not exactly a work of PR excellence, was written is such a way as to allow journalists to easily choose the oversimplified tag-line "climate change irreversible" for a headline. And they will. They can't resist that tag-line even if it's not true. I bet hundreds of papers all around the country will reproduce it with nary a serious thought about the trouble they're causing or whether they're telling the truth.
Which of course is a nice boon to the anti-GHG emissions control lobby. If climate change is irreversible, then why bother reducing emissions? We're all doomed anyway! Let's have a big ole fossil fueled party and burn it all up!
Oy.
And of course, the original paper means nothing of the kind. It's just some slightly newer information about the longevity of GHGs in the atmosphere and the time taken to remove them. The paper suggests that there's a flat spot in the AAT curve because of GHG removal, but it says that if we keep releasing GHGs right now, the flat spot can still get higher and things will still be much worse than if we stop as soon as we can.
Bottom line for short-attention span readers: we still need to stop putting GHGs into the atmosphere.
Journalists are crap. Let's just say it out loud. Apart from a few decent types like Revkin of the NYT, or a couple Guardian writers I like, as a profession they can't seem to get anything right about climate change. Worse, I guess, is the gullible section of the public that demands the stuff they write. Can we please all begin to learn to think more complex thoughts and stretch out that attention span a bit?
Another example of how ridiculous journalism is right now, is the flurry of Google-inspired Jimmy Carter solar panel articles asking for Obama to put them back on the White House roof.
There are solar panels on the White House, you morons. They've been there since 2003. The Park Service put them up.
If this keeps up, I'm going to become the Lewis Black of sustainability bloggers. But honestly, whatever happened to research, getting the facts right, journalistic integrity? Did it ever exist?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Iron fertilization experiment to go ahead
This one is for those students of marine biology that think marine biology is all about playing with the dolphins, and that climate change (and genetics, physiology, cell bio, calculus and all the other difficult subjects) is nothing to do with them.
My wife lovely Aimee, a serious marine biologist, evolutionary ecologist, conservation biologist, and all-around nerd (just like me) calls these less serious starter members of her profession "dolphin girls."
The Guardian reports that the first large scale ocean geo-engineering experiment designed to provide test-of-concept for one possible way to limit climate change is to go ahead.
It's interesting to think of the knock-on effects on the marine food chain. Marine ecosystems, I learned from my wife, are more like food webs than terrestrial systems, which tend to be closer to the traditionally linear food chain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/28/iron-carbon-oceans
My wife lovely Aimee, a serious marine biologist, evolutionary ecologist, conservation biologist, and all-around nerd (just like me) calls these less serious starter members of her profession "dolphin girls."
The Guardian reports that the first large scale ocean geo-engineering experiment designed to provide test-of-concept for one possible way to limit climate change is to go ahead.
It's interesting to think of the knock-on effects on the marine food chain. Marine ecosystems, I learned from my wife, are more like food webs than terrestrial systems, which tend to be closer to the traditionally linear food chain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/28/iron-carbon-oceans
Monday, January 26, 2009
First move, knights pawn to G3
The first Obama administration move in the tactical and strategic chess game of US climate policy has been made. And it's a interesting tactical choice. The administration told the EPA to reconsider its denial of California's request to begin to control climate emissions from cars.
Why is this interesting tactics?
Because everyone who knows anything about climate policy knows that California is a sideshow and that we need federal-level policy. The outcome of the EPA process in California may be mooted in as little as six months to a year. (Or it could be nationalised.)
But the US public has not been prepared for climate policies. Few actually understand even the basics of the science. California is further down the public awareness road, is a bi-partisan playing field, with popular Republican governor, one of few who supports climate emissions reductions, and is thus a relatively safe pool in which to dip one's toe.
I'm not a great chess player, but I do admire good tactics in public debate.
Why is this interesting tactics?
Because everyone who knows anything about climate policy knows that California is a sideshow and that we need federal-level policy. The outcome of the EPA process in California may be mooted in as little as six months to a year. (Or it could be nationalised.)
But the US public has not been prepared for climate policies. Few actually understand even the basics of the science. California is further down the public awareness road, is a bi-partisan playing field, with popular Republican governor, one of few who supports climate emissions reductions, and is thus a relatively safe pool in which to dip one's toe.
I'm not a great chess player, but I do admire good tactics in public debate.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
How much power do wind turbines make? and other questions
With a new wind turbine siting process looming for Waldo and Penobscot Counties (the same proposed wind farm straddling the county line), I'm getting numerous technical questions about wind power. The following is my response to one such question. A previous response, also germane, is at this post here.
(I often get asked the same question or much the same question several times by members of the public so I like to post the answers.)
Another question I got asked recently is, "why can't the State/Federal government do more comprehensive land planning for wind turbines so we can minimize the clashes with other important land uses such as tourism? Why do we always have to do it piecemeal?"
The answer to that one is, you don't have comprehensive state or federal-level planning regime in this country, in the same way you do in, say, most European countries. Since a key court case, Lucas vs, South Carolina Coastal Commission, and other confirming judgements, the only planning system with teeth is municipal or county zoning. If the zoning regime permits a turbine, the landowner or developer with a lease is going to be able to build it. So the impetus is on developers to propose sites. You can see a paper relating how we got in this particular fix in my chapter in Matthias Ruth's edited anthology Smart Growth and Climate Change, if you're serious about getting a full, reasoned answer to the question.
Dear Mick:
Several of us Thorndikeans [Thorndike: local town] have decided to form a citizens committee to research potential risks -vs- benefits of wind turbines. I thought since you are involved in the Mount View project you would be interested to know this is happening as the decisions made could impact that project and second, to ask you for some sources of information. I am seeking information about the economics of wind power. I know that wind is the most cost effective per watt, but I am looking for the larger picture. How much power can a wind project of this scale (say 30 turbines) provide? Would it be a drop in the bucket compared to what our community is currently using power wise or could they make a significant difference?
My goal is to gather enough sound informationto make an understandable presentation and then let people choose for them selves wether or not wind power is a good- albeit sometimes noisy, sometimes flickery- way to generate energy.
Dear XXXX:
The question you ask is fairly straightforward, but the details get technical fast.
First up, the costs and benefits. I'm going to direct you to a letter I sent XXXX, a former student of mine who was working with your neighbor, XXXX, to form some kind of wind power group. I got the impression, although I could be wrong, that XXXX were mostly worried about the negative impacts, so I wrote this letter to point out that there are benefits as well as costs. Very rational, I'm afraid, but that's what environmental scientists do.
You can get to it at http://ucsustainability.blogspot.com/2008/11/wind-turbine-advice.html
Let me know if you have trouble getting to it.
The main thing I would add is, since then, I studied up on some of the negative impacts of [another Maine wind power installation], and particularly questioning why their local noise level was higher than advertised. I think I know why, and how it can be avoided. It's most likely to do with the increase in noise when one turbine's noise is added to anothers, as well as the neighbor's buildings being downwind perhaps more often than was thought.
With better planning you'd likely be able to avoid these problems.
I would be happy to explain the noise characteristics of turbines and the aspect of site planning related to adding one turbines noise to anothers in abstract terms should you or your neighbors be interested.
As to benefits, wind power can be profitable, which is why private financiers are interested. Most essentially, the economics of wind power are not that different from the economics of any other industrial plant installation, where the primary factor is the interest on borrowed capital. Towns and municipalities can issue bonds with good interest rates, and so community-owned wind can be profitable.
The second factor is the site assessment work, which we are learning to do at Unity College, having just completed our first for Mt. View. The data you need is the frequency distribution of wind speed, not just the mean or average, and the power curve of a given manufacturer's make and model of turbine. There's a major increase in power produced per dollar of installation costs as the size of the turbines increases. The "square-cube law" applies. The power of a turbine increases relative to the square of the diameter of the swept area, and the cube of the windspeed, up to the cut-out speed of the turbine. This provides for a major economy of scale. Put simply, as turbine height and blade area increases, so KWH produced increases much, much more.
So, for instance, on the Mt. View site, using a medium-sized Northwind 100 KWH-rated turbine, the power produced according to our assessment would be 120-130 megawatt hours/year. Your house probably uses 6-10 MWH per year, so that's enough power for 10-14 houses. The turbine has a hub height of 32 meters and a 21 meter rotor diameter.
The GE 1.5 MWH turbines at XXXX have a hub height of 60-70 meters and a 77 meter rotor diameter. I would guess that they will produce each enough power for several hundred houses. Two orders of magnitude greater.
As you can see, the benefits increase greatly with larger turbines. Assuming the owners make 2 cents a KWH for their power, the 3 turbines at XXXX might bring in a million dollars gross per year. Likely they make more than 2 cents some of the time, with some kind of green rate. So, for instance, I pay 12.5/KWH cents to my power production company for hydropower because I want to use renewable power at home. That would be a lot more money.
A thirty turbine project would produce ten times the energy of a three turbine project, assuming it employed the 1.5 MWH models or similar.
So, in general, taking into account the effects on birds and bats, which have to be compared against negative effects from coal and oil and nuclear power, wind power is quite effective. There is, however, what's called the "base-load problem," which is just that the wind doesn't blow all the time in all the places where there are wind turbines. Generally, a good site is active 70% of the time, and up to 90%.
This means we'll still need to have up to 80% of our power from other sources. Hydropower is, however, a good base load supply in Maine.
The theoretical maximum load of regional or national electrical supply that could be met by wind turbines is usually given as 20%. We're nowhere near that yet in the US. The Danes, however, are set to exceed that this year for the first time, and plan to get up to 30% or more, so we'll see if they can do it. By the time they get to 30%, we'll be at 10% or less, so we don't need to try that particular experiment when they will do it for us.
I hope this helps. If you'd like more information, or you want me to explain any of this in person, I'd be happy to do so.
I hope you don't mind if I publish this reply on my blog too. It saves me writing it all out again when someone asks next time, as with the letter to XXXX above. I will make sure your name isn't on there.
Regards,
Mick
Mick Womersley, PhD
Associate Professor of Human Ecology
Unity College
www.unity.edu/facultypages/womersley
www.unity.edu/sustainability
www.ucsustainability.blogspot.com
(I often get asked the same question or much the same question several times by members of the public so I like to post the answers.)
Another question I got asked recently is, "why can't the State/Federal government do more comprehensive land planning for wind turbines so we can minimize the clashes with other important land uses such as tourism? Why do we always have to do it piecemeal?"
The answer to that one is, you don't have comprehensive state or federal-level planning regime in this country, in the same way you do in, say, most European countries. Since a key court case, Lucas vs, South Carolina Coastal Commission, and other confirming judgements, the only planning system with teeth is municipal or county zoning. If the zoning regime permits a turbine, the landowner or developer with a lease is going to be able to build it. So the impetus is on developers to propose sites. You can see a paper relating how we got in this particular fix in my chapter in Matthias Ruth's edited anthology Smart Growth and Climate Change, if you're serious about getting a full, reasoned answer to the question.
Dear Mick:
Several of us Thorndikeans [Thorndike: local town] have decided to form a citizens committee to research potential risks -vs- benefits of wind turbines. I thought since you are involved in the Mount View project you would be interested to know this is happening as the decisions made could impact that project and second, to ask you for some sources of information. I am seeking information about the economics of wind power. I know that wind is the most cost effective per watt, but I am looking for the larger picture. How much power can a wind project of this scale (say 30 turbines) provide? Would it be a drop in the bucket compared to what our community is currently using power wise or could they make a significant difference?
My goal is to gather enough sound informationto make an understandable presentation and then let people choose for them selves wether or not wind power is a good- albeit sometimes noisy, sometimes flickery- way to generate energy.
Dear XXXX:
The question you ask is fairly straightforward, but the details get technical fast.
First up, the costs and benefits. I'm going to direct you to a letter I sent XXXX, a former student of mine who was working with your neighbor, XXXX, to form some kind of wind power group. I got the impression, although I could be wrong, that XXXX were mostly worried about the negative impacts, so I wrote this letter to point out that there are benefits as well as costs. Very rational, I'm afraid, but that's what environmental scientists do.
You can get to it at http://ucsustainability.blogspot.com/2008/11/wind-turbine-advice.html
Let me know if you have trouble getting to it.
The main thing I would add is, since then, I studied up on some of the negative impacts of [another Maine wind power installation], and particularly questioning why their local noise level was higher than advertised. I think I know why, and how it can be avoided. It's most likely to do with the increase in noise when one turbine's noise is added to anothers, as well as the neighbor's buildings being downwind perhaps more often than was thought.
With better planning you'd likely be able to avoid these problems.
I would be happy to explain the noise characteristics of turbines and the aspect of site planning related to adding one turbines noise to anothers in abstract terms should you or your neighbors be interested.
As to benefits, wind power can be profitable, which is why private financiers are interested. Most essentially, the economics of wind power are not that different from the economics of any other industrial plant installation, where the primary factor is the interest on borrowed capital. Towns and municipalities can issue bonds with good interest rates, and so community-owned wind can be profitable.
The second factor is the site assessment work, which we are learning to do at Unity College, having just completed our first for Mt. View. The data you need is the frequency distribution of wind speed, not just the mean or average, and the power curve of a given manufacturer's make and model of turbine. There's a major increase in power produced per dollar of installation costs as the size of the turbines increases. The "square-cube law" applies. The power of a turbine increases relative to the square of the diameter of the swept area, and the cube of the windspeed, up to the cut-out speed of the turbine. This provides for a major economy of scale. Put simply, as turbine height and blade area increases, so KWH produced increases much, much more.
So, for instance, on the Mt. View site, using a medium-sized Northwind 100 KWH-rated turbine, the power produced according to our assessment would be 120-130 megawatt hours/year. Your house probably uses 6-10 MWH per year, so that's enough power for 10-14 houses. The turbine has a hub height of 32 meters and a 21 meter rotor diameter.
The GE 1.5 MWH turbines at XXXX have a hub height of 60-70 meters and a 77 meter rotor diameter. I would guess that they will produce each enough power for several hundred houses. Two orders of magnitude greater.
As you can see, the benefits increase greatly with larger turbines. Assuming the owners make 2 cents a KWH for their power, the 3 turbines at XXXX might bring in a million dollars gross per year. Likely they make more than 2 cents some of the time, with some kind of green rate. So, for instance, I pay 12.5/KWH cents to my power production company for hydropower because I want to use renewable power at home. That would be a lot more money.
A thirty turbine project would produce ten times the energy of a three turbine project, assuming it employed the 1.5 MWH models or similar.
So, in general, taking into account the effects on birds and bats, which have to be compared against negative effects from coal and oil and nuclear power, wind power is quite effective. There is, however, what's called the "base-load problem," which is just that the wind doesn't blow all the time in all the places where there are wind turbines. Generally, a good site is active 70% of the time, and up to 90%.
This means we'll still need to have up to 80% of our power from other sources. Hydropower is, however, a good base load supply in Maine.
The theoretical maximum load of regional or national electrical supply that could be met by wind turbines is usually given as 20%. We're nowhere near that yet in the US. The Danes, however, are set to exceed that this year for the first time, and plan to get up to 30% or more, so we'll see if they can do it. By the time they get to 30%, we'll be at 10% or less, so we don't need to try that particular experiment when they will do it for us.
I hope this helps. If you'd like more information, or you want me to explain any of this in person, I'd be happy to do so.
I hope you don't mind if I publish this reply on my blog too. It saves me writing it all out again when someone asks next time, as with the letter to XXXX above. I will make sure your name isn't on there.
Regards,
Mick
Mick Womersley, PhD
Associate Professor of Human Ecology
Unity College
www.unity.edu/facultypages/womersley
www.unity.edu/sustainability
www.ucsustainability.blogspot.com
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A road not taken
Here's a link to the Official Google Blog with news of our Jimmy Carter solar panel that we shipped to DC just last week. Google is putting the panel on display at it's DC office.
Here's a link too to the blog post just before Christmas of the panel cleaning process. It took more than a little elbow grease on the part of Aaron and myself and the Maintenance staff to get it shipshape.
Also posted is a Youtube clip of Roman Keller and Christina Hamaeur's movie, The Road Not Taken, featured our students taking the first panel that we shipped, to the Carter Library.
I have good memories of the movie-making process, and the clip brings it all back.
This might be a good moment to thank Google itself, particularly for the Google Blogger software, which I put to dozens of good teaching and outreach uses every single work week.
Here's a link too to the blog post just before Christmas of the panel cleaning process. It took more than a little elbow grease on the part of Aaron and myself and the Maintenance staff to get it shipshape.
Also posted is a Youtube clip of Roman Keller and Christina Hamaeur's movie, The Road Not Taken, featured our students taking the first panel that we shipped, to the Carter Library.
I have good memories of the movie-making process, and the clip brings it all back.
This might be a good moment to thank Google itself, particularly for the Google Blogger software, which I put to dozens of good teaching and outreach uses every single work week.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
'One million jobs in wind power' by 2010
(Unity students and Steve Cole of CEI work on our NRG Sytems 60 meter wind assessment tower.)
That was The Guardian's headline today. I've been studying up on these jobs: where they are, what qualifications, and so on.
The average American wind power employee seems to be a wind turbine technician, lives in Illinois or Iowa and travels quite a bit. Her salary is bigger than mine, and she is a recycled engineer or technician from some other industry. Degree or associate degree programs to train wind power folks are few and far between but increasing, and some spanking new facilities are being built to train students.
Frankly, I'd like to build one myself, or at least a combined physics/sustainability lab. But while we wait for Unity College planning gears to grind away, we do have reasonably effective facilities for some of this work right now, in particular wind assessment and planning.
Wind assessment is a fairly technical business, requiring math and computer skills a cut above technician-level training. So far the best wind assessment programs are graduate-level, which is reasonable because wind assessment is one kind of basic science research. We're just finishing our first wind assessment report for a client here at Unity College, involving students a good deal in the tower work, but not so far the data collection and analysis, which is something I want to correct quickly, and so I've put in to teach a seminar this fall in the topic to add the more brianiac component.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)