Quantum mechanics and Foosball? Credit: RickyDavid.

When I began this story, it seemed pretty simple. I'd heard that scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab were working to mimic photosynthesis and create a man-made version of the process that could supply us with renewable energy.

The premise is to create a "closed-loop" energy system. Artificial leaves would use water, sunlight and carbon dioxide as inputs to create fuels like butane. Those fuels would be used for transportation or fuel cells. And by burning those fuels, we would produce carbon dioxide. The cycle goes on from there.

I never thought that quantum mechanics would enter the picture. That's what I discovered at the UC Berkeley lab of Graham Fleming. He says we have a lot to thank photosynthesis for. It produces the oxygen we breathe and is the basis for the entire food chain on the planet.

Fleming's lab is dedicated to understanding how photosynthesis works so well. And one of the things they've found is that plants are somehow tapping into quantum mechanics to improve their efficiency. It's pretty complicated – but with the help of the folks in Fleming's lab, they helped me understand it through, of all things, Foosball. Here's an audio version of it to help you out.

Listen to the Building an Artificial Leaf radio report online, and listen to our Web Extra: Photosynthesis and Foosball.

A technician checks the combustion efficiency and safety of a water heater—an important part of any home energy audit.

I hope I’m certifiable. I’ll find out in about a year when I’ve completed all the training and taken the written and field exams to become a Building Performance Institute (BPI) certified Building Analyst. The certification would allow me to perform energy audits on homes and maybe even get paid for it if I started an auditing business or joined an existing company. The certification would not prepare me to perform energy upgrade measures, such as air sealing and insulating an attic, only recommend the most cost effective ones. Many energy auditors work with a team of trusted contractors who can do the work the homeowner chooses.

My publisher Tom White and I decided that going through the kind of training that we have been pushing in our magazine will give me a more realistic view of the home performance industry, and the people who are just entering it now—the new weatherization workers, and newly minted technicians, contractors, and small business owners who will help build the new green economy. And it’s an excuse to get off my butt and out of the office more often. If I get certified, I’ll need to continue taking classes and have hands-on experience in the field to stay certified.

There are three kinds of certifications for a wannabe energy auditor to consider: certification as a Building Analyst through BPI; certification as a HERS (Home Energy Rating System) rater through the Residential Energy Services Network; or one of many “green builder” certifications that exist nationwide. I think the Building Analyst is the most basic. The training follows closely that of a HERS rater, but HERS raters need to become expert at rating software; it’s a bit more involved. I thought about being certified through Build It Green California as a Green Building Professional. But once I’m certified through BPI, I think it would be a small step to being certified by the other organizations.

Now I am asking what many people in the midst of career decisions are asking. Where do I go for the training and how much will it cost? BPI is in Malta, New York. (Might as well be Malta, the country.) Fortunately, BPI has hundreds of affiliates and approved trainers all over the country. There is also online training, and trainers who will travel to your hometown, as long as you have several people interested in the training. My plan so far is to complete an online training course through well-respected training organization, Saturn Online. That will prepare me for the Building Analyst written exam. I can even take the exam online. The course costs $595, plus about $70 for a book and field manual. Once you start the online course, you have about 8 weeks to complete it, so I can study and take the quizzes and final exam in my spare time—maybe over the holidays. The written exam fee is $225.

But you can’t get all the training you need online, nor would I want to. (Remember me wanting to get off my butt more often?) Saturn also offers three day intensive hands-on field seminars in locations in several locations around the country that culminate in the Building Analyst field exam. I have friends in Portland I haven’t seen in a while; maybe I’ll go there for my field training. The field seminar costs $950. If you want to take the exam at the end of the seminar, there is an additional $350 charge for proctoring. Total costs of going for BPI Building Analyst certification: $2,190. The value of certification: priceless.

The Large Hadron Collider, if located in the Bay Area, would encompass a sizable piece of San Francisco. Image Credit: NASA.

She’s Electric: To power a standard light bulb you need 60 Watts (or 15 watts for an equivalent CFL). To power a small house you need an average of about a thousand watts. To run the LHC at full power researchers will need 120 million watts. Alternatively, you could run the LHC, supply electricity to a population the size of Berkeley, or simultaneously bake 60,000 Thanksgiving turkeys. You could only fly three 747 airplanes, though.

Life in the Fast Lane: A fundamental axiom of physics states that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. The LHC’s proton beams are no exception, but their speeds do approach light speed to within a fraction of a millionth of 1 percent. Such velocities defy comprehension. Suffice it to say that if we ever managed to accelerate a person to this velocity, time would warp so much that we could expect her to live for half a million years.

The Long and Winding Road: The LHC’s 17-mile circumference could make it a nice racetrack for a half-marathon, but don’t try racing the beam. When operational, protons will shoot around the LHC more than 11,000 times per second. Even more mind-boggling is the length of wire used in the construction of the LHC’s thousands of superconducting magnets. CERN claims there is enough wire wrapped up in these magnets to trace out more than six trips to the Sun and back.

OK Computer: When operational, the LHC is expected to generate 15 petabytes of data and simulations per year, which amounts to the hard drive space of about 30,000 high-end personal computers. At CERN in 1989, Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau revolutionized the world with their development of key pieces in the framework of the World Wide Web. The networks being developed to manage the LHC’s expected data have inspired talk of a similar revolution to come.

A Whole New World?: All of these wonders of physics and engineering have been developed for the purpose of one thing: to create a particle smasher with the capability of knocking two protons together with an energy of 14 TeV (trillions of electron volts). This is about the same energy that it takes to pick a grain of salt up off the floor. Compressed into such an acute space, however, it just might lend us insight into the most fundamental properties of our universe.

Now, if they can only get those wires hooked up correctly…

Is corn ethanol a poor fit for future U.S. liquid fuel needs?

The timing, then, was quite appropriate for a panel discussion last week organized by the Friends of Berkeley Lab at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre. Titled “Hope or Hype: What’s Next For Biofuels?” the event, hosted by KTVU’s John Fowler, featured a panel with Jay Keasling, Susanna Green Tringe, and Jim Bristow, three scientists exploring the role that synthetic biology might play in fabricating a better fuel for tomorrow’s autos. The evening consisted mainly of two themes: the relative limits of both crude oil and corn-based ethanol, and an outline of research being pursued to make new ideas practical.

Fossil fuels are unsustainable, a point that saturates public rhetoric each election cycle to the point of ad nauseum. It might be slightly more surprising to learn, however, that fuel based on ethanol (the alcohol found in all common beers, wines, and liquors) may be as bad for global warming as gasoline, perhaps even be worse. When extracted from corn, considerable energy is lost on fertilizers. If that energy was generated using a coal plant, global warming is still a problem. Additionally, ethanol is an unwieldy fuel. It is corrosive, for example, and therefore must be trucked, rather than piped, from one location to another. “I like to say that ethanol is for drinking, not for driving,” Keasling joked as he explained these faults.

The push in the American science community, then, tends to be away from corn-based ethanol and toward something called cellulosic biomass (Editor's Note: see our QUEST video "Beyond Biofuels" for more information). The idea is to make fuels not from corn, but rather from corn stover—plant leftovers after the crop has already been harvested. Alternatively, almost any other organic material ranging from wheat stover to sorghum to garbage could be used if the proper techniques are developed.

There are considerable scientific challenges. Much of the material we might like to use as fuel is tough and woody. Scientists have yet to figure out a satisfactory method for breaking this down, and a great deal of gene-sequencing effort is currently underway with the aim figuring this out. There are also challenges in terms of deciding what product will be generated from these woody materials. At least one idea is to genetically engineer an organism that can transform organic matter not into ethanol, but rather into something more amenable to transport and carbon neutrality.

What should we make of these new efforts? My own feelings are mixed. I enjoy my car, and I love road trips. As Bristow said during the panel, “The reality in the U.S. is that people are going to drive cars. We need liquid fuel.” The current push in biofuels research is tremendously important. The vast majority of energy sources are simply inadequate for powering cars to the extent that the public is accustomed to. The maximum power one could ever expect to obtain from a solar-powered car, for example, is less than 10 horsepower. Even the Geo Metro gets 55 horsepower. The new Volkswagen Beetle gets over 100 horsepower. Electric cars might hold some promise, but at this point it is impossible to tell whether batteries or biofuels will ultimately make a better alternative. These two fronts are also not necessarily exclusive, as the hybrid explosion of recent years has shown.

And yet, for all the excitement, selling the American public on biofuels feels a little like feeding methadone to a heroin addict. We believe that a shift to biofuels will assuage the continued seeping of carbon into the atmosphere. But there are a lot of side effects. The controlled production of biomass requires land, and with that allocation comes a host of ecological concerns. When it comes down to it, there will never be a substitute for good old fashioned belt-tightening.

Recycling graywater from sinks, showers, and washing machines to irrigate your garden is the latest in green living—but until recently, was against the law.

The Department of Labor has received hundreds of millions of dollars to support training programs for home performance professionals—from weatherization technicians to high-end builders and remodelers—and workers for the new renewable energy economy. Community colleges across the nation are gearing up for crowded classrooms full of future green jobbers. Groups such as Green for All are serving as the conscience of the movement, and remind us that the new economy has to include those who stand to benefit the most, since the old economy hasn’t served them well. Labs such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and private companies are working at a fevered pace to assist the push for greener housing with advanced modeling tools, statistical data, some of the best minds and hearts, and new technology.

There is also more energy in water, so to speak. In late July, the California Department of Housing and Community Development made a proposal for a new graywater standard to the California Building Standards Commission. The new standard was almost immediately accepted. Graywater is shower, sink, and laundry water used for gardening and for toilet flushing that would otherwise be wasted. It’s taken a while for the state to figure out how to let its citizens use this water legally. Thousands have been using it illegally until now. The standards don’t address using graywater to flush toilets, and there are restrictions. For example, graywater from washing diapers cannot be used, and graywater cannot be used to water edible roots or edible plants with the edible parts in contact with soil.

California uses up to 10% of its energy treating, moving, or heating water, so saving water saves energy as well.

get tac redits and rebates for doing the right thing? What could be better? Image source: Mark_W

Top Five Federal Tax Credits (for improvements made from January 1, 2009 through December 31^st, 2010)

1.      Adding qualifying insulation to an existing home-30% of cost, up to $1,500 for all upgrades other than renewable energy systems.

2.      Energy Star-qualified metal roofs or asphalt roof replacements-30% of cost, up to $1,500 for all upgrades other than renewable energy systems.

3.      Efficient gas, oil, propane, and electric heat pump water heater replacements-30% of cost, up to $1,500 for all upgrades other than renewable energy systems.

4.      Solar water heating systems in new or existing homes-30% of cost.

5.      Photovoltaic (PV) systems in new and existing homes-30% of cost.

The feds are also giving money to the states for appliance rebates and is offering tax credits for certain window and door upgrades for new and existing homes, small wind energy systems, biomass stoves, geothermal heat pumps, fuel cells, efficient cars, and other equipment. For more detailed information about the federal tax credits, go to the California Building Performance Contactors Association.

*Top Five State Rebates (not time limited but rebates usually last until the money for rebates in each category runs out)

1. Adding qualifying insulation to an existing home-PG&E offers $0.15 per square foot in rebates.

2. Qualifying "Cool Roofs" replacement roofs-PG&E offers $0.10 or $0.20 per square foot depending on roof type.

3. Efficient gas and electric storage water heater replacements: PG&E offers $30 rebates.

4. Energy- and water-efficient clothes washers-PG&E offers $35 or $75 rebates depending on efficiency level and East Bay Municipal Utility District offers $125 rebates.

5. Irrigation systems and high-efficiency toilets-East Bay Municipal Utility District offers up to $1,000 rebate for qualifying water saving irrigation hardware and landscape material costs; up to $500 for WaterSmart replacement irrigation timers; and up to $150 for high-efficiency toilets (HET).

*This only lists rebates offered through PG&E and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, since these are the utilities that I know best. But most utilities offer similar rebates. For more detailed information about these and other California rebates for efficiency upgrades and water and energy efficient appliances, see Flex Your Power.

And old, 19th Century windmill in contrast to wind turbines today.

Last summer I visited the Netherlands, the original home of the windmill. Surprisingly, I saw hardly any of the quaint structures we associate with Dutch wind power. One hundred years ago Holland had about 10,000 wooden windmills dotting its landscape. Today, barely 10% remain. What I saw instead were high tech wind turbines, white and spare and gracefully generating electricity with wind from the North Sea. Many view these modern day towers as an eyesore, but I see them as a sign of hope. Like giant flowers across a landscape, they symbolize for me a clean energy future. But wind power, and solar, have a handicap that fuels claims that renewables will never be more than a small percentage of U.S. power. These energy sources can't be counted on when night falls or the wind subsides. Their inconsistent and therefore unreliable nature poses a problem for a world with an enormous appetite for electricity. If only excess power could be stored on a grand scale, it might solve many of our energy problems.

It isn't that electrical energy isn't currently storable, but as Andrew Tang, Senior Director of PG&E’s Smart Meter program points out, the current generation of batteries can’t store electricity at a price that's cost effective. But both he and Steve Berberich from California System Operators were optimistic about future storage possibilities. Tang described an experimental project that uses a sodium sulfur battery the size of an 18-wheeler trailer. The battery would be located next to a substation, or somewhere in the network, and its stored power would be used during times of peak demand. He also talked about the future of plug-in electric cars whose batteries could both store energy and in theory put it back onto the grid when the car's not in use. Steve Berberich envisioned several possibilities for storing excess power. He proposed converting it to hydrogen, which could be burned in a gas plant or could be used in a fuel cell. And he suggested using power to compress air, which could be injected into the ground and called upon when the wind's not blowing and the sun’s not shining.

Whatever the final solution to storage, you can guarantee it will be a game changer in the renewable power industry. No longer will wind and solar be looked upon as unreliable. Hopefully this missing puzzle piece will go a long way towards helping us detach from our dependence on fossil fuels. But we’ll still be left with the challenge of getting all that clean, green energy onto the power grid. And you can be sure that environmental concerns, zoning, aesthetics, and cost will undoubtedly be cantankerous issues for years to come.

Watch the Climate Watch: Unlocking The Grid television story online.

Abengoa's solar power tower, PS10, near Seville, Spain. It is capable of supplying 11 megawatts, or approximately 5,500 households worth of power.Photo: afloresm

Comprised of one or two tall narrow towers surrounded by an enormous field of shimmering mirrors beaming sunlight back up from ground level, these power plants work by essentially the same principle you might have exploited as a child in using a magnifying glass and a hot sunny day to burn holes in the leaves of a backyard playground. A magnifying glass focuses sunlight from a round disk into a single bright dot. A solar power tower's field of mirrors focuses light onto a single water tank high in the air. The concentrated light boils the water, and the steam is used to generate electricity.

In other parts of the world the concept of the solar power tower has gained dazzling momentum as well. Last April, the Spanish company Abengoa commenced operation of a new power tower of its own, dubbed PS20. The power output is still a pittance compared to some of the largest fossil fuel or nuclear plants, but at 20 MW it is currently the largest power tower in existence.

The surge of excitement recently in solar power towers may be grounded on more than hype. Other solar technologies tend to be limited in their promise by cost. Caitlin Cieslik-Miskimena, an eSolar press contact, said that many of the components employed in the company are relatively cheap. She noted, for example, that the mirrors used to collect the Sierra Sun Tower's light are "just a step above a bathroom mirror" in quality. Because they are relatively small, they can also be manufactured to be flat, which is considerably less expensive than the parabolic mirrors used in some other designs.

Nevertheless, solar power towers are just one design in a rich assortment of ideas that people have had for harnessing solar energy. Photovoltaic cells are already used ubiquitously to energize calculators, solar-powered cars, and many satellites, and rapid advances continue to be made in this area. A less flashy form of solar thermal power known as SEGS (Solar Energy Generating Systems) uses curved mirrors to heat long troughs of water. The largest solar power plants in the world today are based on this method. Some companies are even proposing that we exploit solar energy by heating air beneath what amounts to a gigantic clear skirt. (Visit this link for a wild virtual tour of one such proposed plant.)

Time will ultimately tell which (if any) of these will turn out to be commercially viable options as the future marches toward us. Still, we are certain to have a wide array of ideas to explore.

The Public Policy Institute of California has been tracking public support for expanded nuclear power over the past several years. Survey participants are offered a menu of four potential energy options, one at a time.

The question posed is: "Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals?" Then the four options are offered, including: "How about building more nuclear power plants at this time."

As recently as 2002, adults surveyed in California opposed the idea by a margin of 59% to 33%. But that gap has been closing steadily in the years since and by this July, Californians were split just about down the middle on the question, with 46% in favor and 48% opposed. The poll has a margin of error of about 2%, making it a virtual tie.

When you dig into the numbers a little deeper, some demographic preferences emerge: support increases with both age and education. Californians 55 and older support more nuclear by a wide margin (58% to 36%) as do college graduates (50%-43%).

Many people use cost as an argument against nuclear but just as the PPIC was phoning around for opinions on the matter, the Palo Alto-based Electric Power Research Institute was finishing up its own report , concluding that trying to reach greenhouse gas reduction goals without baseload technologies like nuclear power, could end up costing much more. Dan Kammen, who runs an energy lab at U.C. Berkeley, would appear to agree. He said in a recent interview for Climate Watch that "Without knowing exactly where things will come down on nuclear, I think that it absolutely has to be part of the equation in a way that it has not been in the past. Energy costs from fossil fuels are rising at almost 5% a year now, and the damage we are doing and are going to do more of, if we don’t stop our fossil fuel expansion, in terms of greenhouse warming, is so large an issue that these technologies have to be back on the table.

But there's a serious question of whether the nation– let alone the state– is in a position to embrace nuclear as it did in the 1960s. Kammen is also a professor of nuclear engineering, and noted with some alarm the rate at which the industry is "graying." Now in his mid-forties, he told me that when he attends technical meetings for nuclear engineers, he's often "the youngest guy in the room–by 20 years." Since the U.S. more or less abandoned its nuclear hopes following the Three Mile Island debacle, the nation has ceded most of its nuclear industrial capacity to other nations, and few young people have chosen to enter the field.

The effective ban on new nuclear plants that California has had in place since 1976 could be reconsidered. But ultimately electric utilities will have to want it and I sense a certain "nuclear fatigue" in that arena.

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) shut down its only reactor in 1989, after a thumbs-down referendum. When I called to ask for an interview on the prospects for a nuclear revival, they declined. They didn't even want to talk about it. Managers at PG&E, whose twin reactors at Diablo Canyon produce nearly a quarter of the utility's output, still claim an interest in nuclear. But when I asked CEO Peter Darbee about it recently, he said he had the sense that most people in California would prefer to look elsewhere for energy solutions. Of course, that was before the latest PPIC poll.

Listen to the New Nuclear radio report online.

Check out an interactive "atomic timeline," marking some of the milestones in nuclear power history in the U.S. By former Climate Watch intern Amanda Dyer.

This attic hatch insulation kit install is making the author use some choice language.

I promised Michele that I will practice the Yoga of home improvement projects and keep the cursing down to a minimum. My home improvement projects usually involve some cursing. I worked part time as a janitor when I was in high school and that's when I learned some pretty spicy language. I didn't intend to write about cursing here, but since I am in this so deep now, then damn it, I may as well connect the topic to some cutting edge scientific research. You got a problem with that?

British scientists found that cursing takes away pain. When people put their hands in a tub of cold water and cursed, they could hold their hands in longer than if they said things like, "butterscotch." If you don't want to take my word for it, you no-good so-and-sos, the research results were published in the online journal NeuroReport.

The attic hatch insulation kit will save us some energy losses and utility bill pain in the long run. According to the DOE Weatherization Assistance program, a gosh darn uninsulated 10 square foot attic hatch in a 100 square foot insulated attic can decrease the overall R-value of the attic floor by more than 50%! For example, an attic with R-38 insulation everywhere but on top of a stinking quarter-inch plywood hatch-with an R-value of approximately 0.3-will have an overall R-value of only R-17. What a freaking waste! Bloody hell!
You can find out more about insulating attic hatches at the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Web site. Do it now!