Is spectacle Copenhagen's only lasting legacy?

Between the aquarium of drowning-delegate sea-level rise protesters, the chicken flock of animal rights protesters, and the cocktail party of fur-coated protest protesters, there will certainly have been a lot to see these past two weeks in Copenhagen during the latest United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Unfortunately, however, spectacle may be the talks’ only lasting legacy. Rainforest advocates and tropical countries alike may have won a small victory with a deal to pay countries to keep their forests intact, and the U.S.’s pledge to raise $100 billion to help poor countries combat climate change is encouraging. Still, a binding resolution anywhere near the scope of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol seems a pipe dream as the talks come to a close by the 18th. It really makes you wish for the all-encompassing silver bullet solution that everybody can agree upon and painlessly enact.

The original silver bullet, of course, is exactly that: a bullet made of silver. An invaluable part of the standard monster-fighting arsenal, it can be used as needed against werewolves, vampires, and all manner of other ghouls. Ironically, however, society seems too sophisticated to accept even this original folkloric incarnation. Contrary to what you might remember from childhood, Twilight’s Edward says that vampires can only be killed by being shredded into pieces and burned. In Bram Stoker’s Dracula the protagonists decide that the only satisfactory way of killing one particular vampire is by driving a stake through its heart, followed by cutting off its head, followed by stuffing the dead mouth full of garlic.

Still, even if the silver bullet remains elusive, the alternative energy industry has no shortage of good ideas, many of which even come close to the ideal.

Nuclear power is closer to a silver bullet than perhaps any other single technology. Cold war memories of the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reactor failures have dramatically colored American opinion on nuclear energy, and there may be legitimate global concerns about China’s exploding reactor industry. Nevertheless, nuclear fuel contains more than a million times more energy than gasoline gram-for-gram, a statistic that is hard to ignore, particularly if the proper safety measures are taken. France took note of this and now derives as much as 40 percent of its energy needs from nuclear plants. This is at least partly the reason why France emits only about one fourth as much carbon dioxide per capita as does the U.S.

Solar power may still need some breakthroughs in terms of cost and efficiency, but new ideas of plants are springing up all the time and there is no shortage of new ideas or research in the field. Gasoline alternatives such as ethanol suffer at present from the side effects of coming from food crops such as corn, but major efforts are underway at Berkeley and elsewhere to develop useful automobile fuels from plant material that would otherwise be wasted, such as corn stover. Research leading to more cost and energy efficient batteries (see Jim Gunshinan’s recent post) has the potential to revolutionize the automobile industry as well.

Perhaps I shouldn’t mince my words about cutting emissions. Even with technological advances it will be hard and painful and will rest upon a lot of belt-tightening. But technology can help, and perhaps make it slightly easier for the world’s leaders to commit to some new kind of binding resolution in future global talks. Here’s to the UNFCCC in 2010.

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.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

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

To go solar or not to go solar? Homeowners looking to save money on their energy bills have a number of factor to consider.

It's easy to get excited about installing solar panels on your house – particularly when you find out that state and federal rebates can cut the price almost in half.

But, as we've reported before, you might get more bang for your buck from far cheaper (and yes, far less exciting) fixes. Small things like weather stripping your doors, turning down the thermostat or upgrading your refrigerator, can put a dent in your utility bills.

Even if you've done all that, solar panels still might not pencil out. That's because of something called "tiered pricing", which is how most utilities calculate your monthly energy bills. The idea is that energy is relatively cheap as long as you stay within a certain amount. Exceed that, and you're in the next "tier," where the rate increases. At the next tier, the rate is even higher. The difference between top tier and bottom pier can be as much as 44 cents versus 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

That's why solar panels tend to make more sense for people with substantial energy needs – the big, air-conditioned houses, the heated pools, the multiple flat-screen TVs.

The higher your monthly utility bills without solar panels, the faster those panels will pay for themselves once they're installed. Plus, even if those panels don't meet the complete energy needs of your house, they may be enough to bring you down to a lower tier, where the rate is much better.

If you're interested in making your home more energy efficient, this handy and comprehensive online audit from the people at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs is a good place to start.

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: afloresmSouthern California's Antelope Valley is famous for its poppies, luring prospective residents with fiery-orange photographs of the State's most celebrated flower and drawing as many as 60 thousand people each spring to the California Poppy Festival. The region also encompasses the western tip of the sun-scorched Mojave Desert and as a result has recently become the home of one of the most aesthetically striking new designs in alternative energy. On August 5th, the company eSolar flipped the switch on the Sierra Sun Tower, the newest example of what have come to be known as solar "power towers."

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.

California's wind power. Credit: Elizabeth Pepin.

When it comes to renewable power, California has had one main message: bring on the solar power, bring on the wind turbines! California and the country are heading fast towards a clean energy future. But renewables aren't perfect. As wind, solar, and other nature-dependent technologies start to make up a bigger and bigger part of our electricity mix, power providers are thinking about how to deal with a very real problem: you can't tell nature when to produce.

The issue with these variable, intermittent sources of power is that electricity is a "just in time" commodity: you use it as soon you make it. When you flip on the light switch in your house or push start on your electric dryer, a power plant somewhere is whirring away right at that moment, creating those electrons for you to use.

In most of California, that complicated balance is coordinated by the California Independent System Operator, or ISO, a nonprofit that serves as a link between power generators and the utility, such as PG&E. Every four seconds, the ISO "takes the pulse" of the grid to make sure that the supply of electrons flowing out of the power plants matches the demand for electricity. If there's a mismatch, the ISO can tell plants to cut back or ask other ones to turn on.

That's not an instantaneous process, though. What makes the ISO's job complicated is that power plants have different levels of responsiveness. Nuclear plants, for example, are slow to turn on or off, so they usually just hum away at a relatively constant rate, providing "baseload" power – the minimum amount of electricity we always need. Other plants, including hydroelectric and natural gas, can ramp up and down quickly throughout the course of a day, as factories switch on their machinery and air conditioners rev up.

Unfortunately, renewables such as wind and solar are even less accommodating. The wind blows when it blows – often at night, when demand for electricity is low. The sun is more predictable, but passing clouds can change a solar panel's output, and just because we know when the sun will be high doesn't give us any control over it. Put too much of this kind of energy on the grid, and the system stops being reliable (though researchers disagree about how much exactly is "too much").

According to California's policies, more solar and wind is what's in store. The state has an ambitious goal of getting 33% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. So how can power providers make sure the right amount of juice is flowing through the grid when more of those electrons come from sources you can't "dispatch" on-demand? One answer might be energy storage. Stayed tuned for an upcoming post on that.

Since people seem to nod off a bit when I say I'm working on a story about energy efficiency, I've had to re-tool my pitch. "It's a story about how installing solar panels or a wind turbine is the last thing you should do to green your house," I say, perhaps a little over-dramatically.

I have nothing against solar panels, but they do seem to illustrate our collective love of gadgetry. Why else would we leap (or at least dream of leaping) to spend $5,000-$10,000 on solar panels when many of us could make a significant dent in our utility bills with a trip to Home Depot? Small things, like weather-stripping your doors, or making sure you have a well-insulated attic, can make a big difference in how much heat or AC your house consumes.

If you qualify as low-income (in this case, that's less than $44,000 for a family of four) you can get help with this project. If you live in California, you'll find your local participating agency here (or by calling 1-866-675-6623). Elsewhere, begin by contacting your state agency, found here. The Weatherization Assistance Program has received a 10-fold budget increase under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, so now's a great time to apply.

WAP won't replace your TV, but you might consider doing so yourself. Televisions tend to be the third biggest electricity user in the house (after heating/AC and refrigerators). But they don't have to be. All the new features — plasma screens, HD, widescreen — can be (and are, in some models) achieved using less electricity. The California Energy Commission is proposing new TV standards that would cut electricity use by a third.

James Sweeney, who heads the Stanford University Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, calculates that collectively – with current, affordable technologies, and without sacrificing our quality of life – Americans could cut our energy use by 30 percent.

Here's the kicker: To produce that same amount of electricity, we'd have to increase solar and wind by 60-fold. That means, for every solar panel and wind turbine in the country, we'd have to build 59 new ones, plus all the power lines and roads they'd entail. Or, to consider another non-fossil fuels alternative, that's four new nuclear power plants for every existing one.

Listen to the Let's Weatherize! radio report online, and watch our Weatherization Slideshow.

Our Sun has a well-observed cycle of rising and falling magnetic activity that runs its course about every 11 years. But as cycles in nature teach us time and time again, you usually can’t set your watch or your calendar by them.

The Sun seems to be unusually quiet these last few years– and solar scientists are excited by this long, deep slumber of activity because it is the first of its kind that has occurred since modern (space-based) solar observation began back in the 1960s.

The Sun is a huge ball of hot, electrically charged gas (plasma– mostly hydrogen and helium ions and electrons). Its constant internal motions of plasma– the rising and falling of convection cells, the non-uniform rotation of the Sun that involves a lot of twisting and sheering– generate magnetic fields, as any kid who has built an electromagnet might guess. In an electromagnetic, an electric current (moving electrons) generates the magnetic field.

The Sun’s magnetic fields can grow quite strong in areas, generated beneath the Sun’s visible surface (photosphere) and rising up through that surface and into the Sun’s enveloping atmosphere. At the photosphere, the magnetic fields tend to suppress the rising convection of plasma, choking the flow of heat from the interior to the surface and making spots that are less hot than the general surface (4000 degrees as opposed to 6000 degrees). The cooler spots are less bright, and we call them sunspots.

The same magnetic fields that leave their mark on the photosphere as sunspots rise into the solar atmosphere, where their sometimes violent twisting and interaction heats the gases there, and can power violent explosions such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, both of which can affect the Earth.
So, sunspots are a visible sign of magnetic activity, and over the last 400 years of regular observations and counts of sunspots, a distinct 11-year cycle from one peak of activity to the next has been identified. Between peaks of activity (called solar maxima) are periods of relative "quiet," magnetically speaking, when there are few if any sunspots observed, and events like solar flares and such are not common.

We are currently in the midst of a solar minimum– the last solar maximum that occurred was around 2000/2001. But what has scientists buzzing right now is just how "deep" a sleep the Sun seems to be in. 2008 was the quietest year for the Sun on record since the beginning of the space age. Out of the 366 days last year, on 266 of them the Sun was completely spotless, which is well below "normal" for a solar minimum year.

What does it mean? Well– that’s difficult to say right now. Scientists are still trying to understand why the Sun experiences its 11–year cycle at all. And it’s not unprecedented; the Sun has experienced "deep minima" before. In 1913 there were 311 spotless days. Other deep minima have been seen in the sunspot record, and in almost every case normal solar activity returned; the next solar maximum is expected to peak in 2011 or 2012– perhaps 2013.

There is no indication that the Sun will remain quite and mostly spot free for an extended period– such as it did in the 17th Century, when the Sun remained quite for about 70 years!

Proposition 7 is one of the green propositions – in more ways than one.

The amount of cash that's being spent on this so-called Big Solar initiative is prodigious. It is one of the most expensive measures on the ballot. On one side you have a little more than $5 million to pass the proposition, all from Peter Sperling, the son of the man who created the online college, The University of Phoenix. And on the other side, three utility companies have pitched in well over $27 million to defeat it.

Interestingly, the companies that stand to profit from this initiative – the many small companies that make up most of the solar and wind energy industry – are actually against the bill.

PG&E and Southern California Edison are the two biggest donors, chipping in more than $13 million apiece. To see a list of spenders, for and against proposition 7, click here.

For more on the debate, check out this discussion from KQED's Forum.

Listen to the Big Solar on the Ballot radio report online.

Depiction of a major alignment of
the five visible planets in 1059 BCE.

Photo By Ben Burress

There are some pretty good "lineups" coming soon to skies above you.

First of all, "lineups," or alignments, go on in the heavens all the time, though most often they are alignments of objects too faint to easily notice, if at all. With that said, this summer holds some significant alignments of some of the brightest objects in the sky.

First on my hit list is the upcoming Saturn-Mars "near-miss". Though these two planets are not coming physically close to each other (the closest actual distance they come to each other is about 750 million miles), they will align so closely along the same line of sight that on July 11^th they will appear only ¾ of a degree apart-that's not much greater than the width of a Full Moon. The best time to see this pairing is after sunset on the evenings of July 10, 11, and 12, over the western horizon.

The next big ticket alignment is on August 1^st, when the Moon and the Sun occupy the same spot in the sky-the event we call a Total Solar Eclipse. As it happens, we won't be able to see this eclipse directly from the United States, as it will only be visible in Asia. However, NASA will be broadcasting live coverage of the eclipse from Northern China. We'll be showing NASA's broadcast in our planetarium at Chabot Space and Science Center, in case you'd care to come up and enjoy the spectacle. Don't let the fact that the live event goes on around 4:00 AM keep you away…it's worth getting up for!

A bit further out on the calendar is the September alignment of three planets: Venus, Mars, and Mercury. In the dusky twilight of mid-September evenings the three will be gathering. The closest grouping of the trio is on September 11^th, when they will be within about three degrees of each other-close enough that you can just about cover all three with your thumb. Mercury and Mars won't be very bright in the twilight-but Venus, bright enough to spot easily, can help guide your eye to the other two. Using a pair of binoculars will help a lot-but make sure you don't point them that way until after the Sun sets….

In ancient times (and in some cases not so ancient times), different cultures around the world have viewed alignments like these in different ways. Eclipses-both solar and lunar-were regarded by many cultures as bad omens, or bad occurrences (such as the Sun being devoured by a celestial animal-dragon, dog or other-in the case of a solar eclipse).

Planetary alignments were also given special consideration, sometimes being regarded as auspicious (for good or bad-usually the latter). One major alignment of the five visible planets (February 26, 1953 BCE) was believed to have "mandated" the creation of the Hsia Dynasty in China-the first great Chinese Dynasty. (Then, four centuries later, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn apparently conspired to bring down that same dynasty-at least, their alignment on December 20, 1576 BCE was interpreted as an indicator of the dynasty's corruption, and it was overthrown by a revolt of believers…).

However you regard the lining up of celestial bodies (astronomically, astrologically, or aesthetically), these alignments are pleasing to watch, and times to reflect upon the constant and cyclic movement among the heavens. Enjoy….

Low winter light over the town of Iqaluit,
the capitol of Nunavut,Canada. Photo by Bill Semple,
architect and senior researcher at the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation.I recently heard Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist, speak at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab about his soon to be published new book, Green: The New Red, White and Blue. I can't say much about his book because it hasn't yet been published, and he only offered an outline. He did conclude his talk by emphasizing the need to take a systematic approach to solving our energy problems. "We need clean electrons traveling though an efficient distribution system into smart homes." Amen to that! By the way, I'll probably be shelling out some cash for Tom's book, even though I hardly ever buy the hardback version.

Among home performance professionals, we also call the systemic approach, the whole house approach. For example, we think it is best to retrofit your home to make it more energy efficient before you invest in an expensive solar electric, or PV, system. You can buy a smaller PV system that way, and draw less energy from the electric grid. We think you should switch to CFL bulbs right now, buy Energy Star appliances when you need new appliances, and before the next hot summer have a home performance professional air seal your attic and add insulation. Make sure the contractor checks to see if you have proper ventilation in your home after air sealing-otherwise your gas appliances may back draft nasty things like carbon monoxide into your living spaces. Don't go out and buy new windows, no matter what the advertisers tell you, until your old windows are worn out. In other words, do it all, but when the time is right.

There is a debate going on in our country about how to solve our energy and environmental problems. Some say corn ethanol is the answer; others say it's cellulosic ethanol. Some say wind energy and some say solar energy; some say more government regulation is the answer and some say let the free market decide. These either/or approaches are wrong in my book. The more we are divided in our passion to solve our problems, the less likely we are able to solve them. The best-built homes are the ones in which all the parts-building site, building envelope, walls, foundation, attic, roof, HVAC system, appliances, lighting, and people-work in harmony and are most adaptable to change.

Tom Friedman also said in his talk at Berkeley Lab that writing in blogs about solving our energy problems is not enough. In our March/April 2008 issue of Home Energy we will publish a story about home building in the far north of Canada, within the Arctic Circle. The Inuit people who live there are already building to adapt to the climate change that is already occurring, as well as preparing for more climate change in the future. They are building homes that are culturally appropriate. They are also building in a way that will reduce as much as possible the emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing climate change. Amen to that! Amen to the systematic approach!

Jim Gunshinan is Managing Editor of Home Energy Magazine. He holds an M.S. in Bioengineering from Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, and a Master of Divinity (MDiv) degree from University of Notre Dame.