Is micropower the future? 20 March 06

Government is keen on micropower, but industry may not have got the message. Last week, Npower wrote to me saying it was reducing the price paid for the electricity generated by the solar panels on my roof. The effect of the reduction is to cut these small payments by about 40%.

Industry is always heard demanding ‘consistency’ in the incentives to invest in renewables. Householders need the same, but Npower has just made investment in micro solar far less attractive – and far less certain.

I found this very interesting ..

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Micro-generationreport.pdf

Energy/Climate Consulting

This is a very important industry in itself and I would love to participate in its development with anyone here, in the UK, or elsewhere. I am eager, ready, and willing in this manner and have spent considerable time thinking about how to best achieve it.

“Good” energy evaluations are difficult and can be very complex in my opinion when one wants to take it to the higher levels which are required. I think personally that the idea of “quickly” must be sacrificed for the sake of a greater quality service which includes education.

Not only must a decision be based on the best technology available but an assessment of conservation techniques must be communicated clearly to the client. The average person must invest some time in this but I have a better idea which to me would facilitate this process for both the non-technical people and the professionals providing the service. I believe strongly in instrumentation.

My main idea is that all humans need feedback to change behaviors and to “know” precisely how any idea is working. I think everyone needs to have daily input on their personal environmental impact just like we get information on the weather each day. I should know precisely how much energy I am consuming and how much greenhouse gases I am contributing on a daily basis. I should know precisely my use of energy for heating, cooling, refrigeration, transportation, hot water, and all my purchases of manufactured goods.

This feedback can be so helpful for making decisions on the economic evaluation of a new system or just how to save on hot water through a change in habits. This idea alone if fully implemented would empower people everywhere on the planet to change everything in society based simply on how they invest their time and money. As energy prices go up, the motivation to make prudent decisions increases. As awareness about climate increases, then many people will have direct and precise information on their personal impact and the power to change the world by the daily decisions they make.

My own personal experience has shown me (as I monitor my own energy) that people will easily reduce energy when enough feedback is provided. It is natural to save when we have this information. Instrumentation can help make this easier and enable an energy professional to provide a more thorough assessment.

An instrumentation approach can also lead to “less time” for the professional trying to communicate to certain clients ideas which can enhance their comfort and reduce energy use. The home owner can only go so far but the true professional can take the same information and provide more insight explaining what the occupants can do.

Not only must the assessment be done in a thorough manner, but the economic considerations should be evaluated for the best possible return on investment. For example do I invest in 450 dollars in solar panels to create 45 watts at 10 dollars per peak watt or do I first buy a ONE compact fluorescent light bulb for 5 dollars which reduces my energy use by 45 watts instead. For 5 dollars, I can get the same effect for 450 dollars. Maybe I should change all my bulbs out first and then see what I need in terms of renewable energy. Maybe the assessment done from installing the instrumentation can help evaluate the options for sizing considerations. If both the efficiency and personal use habits change then smaller systems can be installed.

Lynn on Mark’s blog has over time articulated her approach to her own family’s energy use and if a person’s house is wired properly for energy measurement, then even a moron can know as much as Lynn or the best energy professional from the constant feedback. This feedback can include greenhouse gases. With feedback comes instant awareness and complete education not possible with any other approach.

I think using an instrumentation approach can facilitate financing options whereby the consumer can pay nothing and all energy improvements are financed from the daily calculated energy savings which the consumer can experience on a daily basis. Not only can the consumer be empowered to make their own decisions on large purchases but also determine where all their energy goes and how to best conserve.

With this focus also comes superior information in an aggregate sense when larger scale projects are considered. Micro power cannot be done without large scale infrastructure at some level. It seems that we need an approach from the “bottoms up” rather then the top down approach whereby the end user of energy is nothing more than a “user” and not a participant in the production and management of their own share of planetary resources.

The reason this has not been done or considered is that it is actually very difficult to do. In fact, a weather station of sorts is required as part of the instrumentation. Energy use in a home is a function of weather including temperature, humidity, and wind. With this information and other aspects of a home’s geometry entered, then the evaluation can be more thorough. Home Energy usage which is more sensitive to wind means that the home needs better sealing in some areas because of the infiltration of cold air. Maybe someone left a door open too long allowing the air in. Instrumentation can provide this level of feedback.

Even when renewable energy is used, it should not be wasted just like fossil fuel. The renewable energy is less in quantity and the energy, emissions, and cost of erecting just one wind turbine is an energy investment in itself. If one less turbine is erected because of the higher efficient use of energy, then this enables less of earth’s resources to be required.

Another side benefit of having weather instruments installed everywhere is that it creates the potential for to be used by climate modelers. As computing technology improves, this collective weather data may become a valuable resource. If it can determine the affect of the heat islands more precisely, then the benefits from introducing reflective pavement can be more easily evaluated as a macro project to reduce global temperatures and reduce summertime mechanical cooling energy.

Instrumentation may appear costly and unnecessary but I am working on ideas which can reduce this expense. There are techniques which can reduce costs. Electronics and information technologies can enhance the feedback and presentation format from any sensors installed based on the imagination of this sector which knows no boundaries.

I believe in this instrumentation concept so strongly that it is a part of my own vision and philosophy for what is required in any successful plan. In fact, I place the evaluation process at the top of the list. I think we need to know our utility bills in advance based on our current energy use and the extended weather forecast. This can be done along with the additional benefits I have shared. This benefit alone may justify the use of instrumentation and may even benefit the management and operation of renewable systems even more than our fossil fuel systems!

In order to have a greater vision, we need to be able to see! We cannot even see our own personal energy use or our own personal carbon emissions which will affect our future. If we could only have the instruments to experience tomorrow’s pain today. Is there an instrument for that?

All the best,

Dan

I just posted Energy/Climate Consulting which I wrote yesterday morning and I found similar ideas articulated in the site you posted in “Seeing the Light”.

The idea of empowering people with constant feedback on their use of planetary resources and their impact on the climate is a very powerful idea. In my mind, it is the most powerful idea I know of. If fully implemented, it would enable a collective effort beyond our current imagination that I believe would solve the problem and restore natural balance. I could write many pages about the many benefits of doing this alone.

My main faith in our species is in our ability to solve a problem. When we know enough information and when we are sufficiently motivated to take action, then we seem to do what appears to be impossible. When we do this, then the great Pyramids happen, Panama Canals happen, trips to the moon and back happen, and the Internet happens.

Despite all the bad news, anxieties, and despair we can feel about tomorrow (BTW, I do feel it as much as anyone else does), I still hold on to the idea that when humans collectively become focused on survival and use the best of what we are, then only the laws of physics can stand in our way. We have already proven our worthiness as toolmakers and problem solvers so the true problem then becomes how we create this condition whereby a billion people are working together in harmony solving the most difficult problem of modern civilization.

In your posted site, it was evident that this “energy and environmental awareness” was a natural outcome from going to a renewable base. The difference in the 2 strategies between awareness “after” renewable and awareness which “leads to” renewable may be similar to the “Is it the chicken or the egg?” paradox.

For the USA, I think the instrumentation approach has a better chance to enable us to improve. If Americans only had enough information and understanding, then they would naturally make prudent decisions. Even if renewable energy is not installed directly, I believe that the wasteful habits would be eliminated immediately and the current fossil fuels used cut down in double digits with the fossil-fuel systems already being used. I have observed improved behaviors in myself and in my household when energy-usage feedback is provided. It works. This approach makes everyone an “energy expert” without them having to become an engineer. Direct feedback cuts down on the time needed to create the required awareness through other channels.

I think the awareness problem is the most important. Mark Lynas who has created this blog is using most of his “life energy” to help us with this awareness first with High Tide, and later with Six Degrees. It seems necessary to me to eliminate ambiguity altogether and create a system whereby everyone is connected through information in a most personable way like the biological cells of an organism. We can become our own collective “Human Gaia”. What if the “Human Gaia” and the “Earthly Gaia” became equal partners in being co-creators for the sake of the planet? Can we have the wisdom of nature? It is a cherished assumption that we cannot do this. I believe we can!

We can never escape that we are a product of nature and maybe our technology is a product of nature since without nature we would have no humans and therefore no technology. Nature enabled us to survive the last ice age so we carry with us the wisdom of nature already in our DNA. I think nature provided us a powerful creativity and imagination. In that light, both nature and humankind know no boundaries.

All the best,

Dan

PS Your good intentions and kind demeanor in the personal letter you posted on your Parish involvement is very evident and moving. It is an honor to know you through this blog. I wish you the very best in your business pursuits.

Micropower, alt. macropower, energy/resource efficiency & conservation. It’s a slippery slope to utopia (& averting world destruction). Why are people afraid to take the first step?

There are such businesses out there that do energy/resource audits & make suggestions, showing how much a household or business can saved.

When my church was remodeling, I found one in Chicago. But Rocky Mt Institute advised me against it (I guess they were just in it for a very high fee & didn’t really help with efficiency/conservation very much).

You’d be doing people & the world a great service—they’d save money & save the environment. You just need one person (yourself), a business listing in the phone book, a website, business cards, some advertisement & networking with environmental groups, local businesses, etc….Then you’d have a clipboard & form, maybe a monogrammed shirt & jacket with your logo, do an audit re costs & benefits, give suggestions re products, contractors to do the work, etc. Start out with low fees, then increase modestly as demand for your services increase (but not so much as to deter people).

I think about this all the time but I am still evaluating my own energy use and how to create a special evaluation process which may involve instrumentation. I take measurements each day on energy consumption and the weather. I seek to quantify energy savings as much as possible. I talked about the benefits of instrumentation in my recent response to Peter.

I do appreciate your suggestions and all of them are great ideas.

Best Wishes,

Dan

I listened to Mark’s speech on posted on IT conversations and can honestly say it changed my view of the world. I guess we are all aware of climate change at some level but the impact and immediacy of the changes was a revelation.

At the moment, the burning question is not whether climate change will occur but whether the human race will get our collective act together in time to avert catastrophe. When reading the predictions, two glaring omissions stand out. One is that people are not going to stand idly by while large swaths of the plant slip under water. Apathy is a real problem in climate change but people WILL act once they are directly affected. This raises the question of at what point will matters be bad enough to galvanise large polluters like the US into action and will that point be too late?

The second major omission is accelerating technology. I am no apologist for those to say we should carry on emitting high levels of green-house gases and trust technology to pull us out of the fire (or water, as the case may be). What I am pointing out is that once people do get serious about climate change, the tools at our disposal will be radically different from today. This is not cyber-euphoria. Ray Kurzweil posted a fascinating speech on IT Conversations exploring the exponential nature of technological advancement (see links below). According to the models, we appear to be close (20-40 years) to a very very sudden explosion in technological development.

Therefore, when addressing our collective survival profile, I ask you to consider the following: 1. At what point does mainstream collective response to climate change become inevitable? What temperature rise will cause a tipping-point in the popular-mind (e.g. a tsunami in New York, Florida under water)? 2. What climate changes are inevitable with little or no additional emissions after the tipping-point? 3. What technology will be available at the tipping-point to address climatic problems?

Links: www.itconversations.com/shows/detail712.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

My best guess at the moment for the USA is this summer and that it will be mostly the media and the American people. I say that because I think we will have a repeat of last year’s hurricane season.

I hope I am wrong but that is my belief. Evidence of accelerated polar ice melt in the north plus a cold winter in Europe suggests that we have plenty of tropical heat to influence more hurricanes and more intense ones. If we have storms like Katrina 2 years in a row and more hurricane records are broken, then this should be sufficient.

Predicting what our government does is more difficult. I have more faith in the people and market economics. Local and State Government is more progressive for us at the moment and is slowly moving in the correct direction.

On technology. I do not see an explosion in anything very transforming. Only a breakthrough in clean nuclear fusion would create an “explosion”. I do not think this is likely any time soon. No one knows precisely how it can be done.

The real problem is the time it takes to change infrastructure from old systems to new systems. For me, it is the total use of our current technology in many diverse sectors which can make the difference. People can make a difference in using less energy as well as increasing efficiency.

There is no “silver bullet” as Martin once said in a post of his. The correct answer is employing nearly all the technology we have available plus having less children, and embracing a more conserving lifestyle and embrace a value system which is more altruistic and respectful of nature.

Macro projects are required. Projects to convert to more energy efficient systems, making road and rooftops more reflective, planting more trees, and all other measures humans can think of. Eliminating war would help. The Iraq conflict requires 400,000 barrels of oil a day to keep coalition troops operative. Fighter aircraft and armored vehicles are not very fuel efficient.

Technology is very important and can help but this problem goes way beyond merely requiring a simple breakthrough in a particular area. It does require some sacrifice on our part in reducing our need for non-essential modern amenities. This problem requires a revamping of our value systems, political systems, and economic systems.

It can help to think in more than one dimension and to define the problem in broader terms. Mark posted a concept call the Earth’s Heat Imbalance long ago. In my mind or most technical professionals, the correct way to define the problem is how do we bring the earth’s heat imbalance to zero? In other words, the earth is taking in more energy then it is letting out. Carbon dioxide is the main focus but it is not the only factor. We also have methane which has different climate dynamics. We also affect the heat imbalance by creating dark surfaces which increase warming and a cooling effect from plane vapor trails and the sulfate pollution from coal power plants.

With respect to the protest against airports in the UK, I wonder if this is thinking only in one dimension. When 911 happened, the planes were grounded and scientists measured a net increase in the average temperature of the USA. The lack of vapor trails reduced the cooling effect they had and so the temperature increased. So, if all planes are grounded we do have a reduction in current carbon emissions, but the carbon buildup from over a century takes over and actually increases warming. Since the carbon buildup is the main problem, then we have to look at this more carefully. Reducing current emissions is the long-term solution but if we make the planet more reflective then this can offset the current carbon buildup.

Based on my current understanding, I think we need to keep the planes flying and reduce carbon elsewhere. I think we may need to expand airports if more vapor trails inhibit the current carbon buildup by making the atmosphere more reflective. This is an area which should be given more study as part of the solution focus. By defining the problem in terms of the earth’s heat imbalance, we think of more ideas like this. We cannot afford to miss an opportunity which can lead to our success. That would be tragic.

At some point in the future, a new fleet of aircraft which utilizes liquid hydrogen or a non-carbon compound as a fuel would create the vapor trails without the carbon emissions. In this way, we keep the earth in a proper heat balance as the oceans and plants absorb the excess carbon which may take centuries.

It is not so much a technical breakthrough but in addressing the problem in a manner which leads to a definite series of projects implemented in the correct order to insure our success. We cannot have enough imagination and understanding of natural systems in order to facilitate the best use of our tool-making capacity as a species.

I hope my comments have helped provided some insights to the thoughtful questions you posed. Continue to ask questions. Sometimes we are looking for the correct answer when we have not even asked the right question yet. This is a critical part of how to use our imaginative skills. Seek to find the correct question. When you find it, then a breakthrough can happen.

Best Wishes,

Dan

I’m afraid that I’m deeply pessimistic about people’s willingness to face up to this problem. It’s like smokers and cigarettes. The smoker knows that each cigarette is bad for them and that one day the habit will kill them. But most people continue anyway because they like it and the day of reckoning seems a long way away. Smokers are known to continue with the habit even once serious health problems have emerged.

Furthermore, there are vested interests at stake. Big Oil makes Big Money out from the current state of affairs. The same goes for the car and aeronautics industries. These are interests that fund political campaigns, right-wing lobby groups and control the media through either direct ownership or advertising contracts. They are blinded by large profits, short-term thinking and their current business models. Everyone is too busy thinking about the next quarterly result to worry about the impact on the environment 20+ years from now. Even if the Americans did get serious about green-house gases, which is unlikely with George Bush in the White House, then there is still China and India to consider. They are not about to curtail their economic development just as they’re finally getting somewhere.

This being the case, I think that climate change will have to be real, immediate and massive before everyone shakes off their collective denial.

All the macro projects you talk about will only happen when there is a genuine desire to address climate change. Before then, all we can expect is lip-service.

So much for motivation. Regards technology, this is an unusual comment in the climate change debate so I appreciate that people may not understand the first time around. Several leading thinkers have pointed out that technological advancement is exponential. You may have heard of Moore’s Law that the number of transistors doubles every 18 months. If turns out that similar laws apply across all areas of human endeavour (except willingness to change but, as I’ve already comments, that is more of a psychological problem). Our knowledge and capabilities are expanding at an ever increasing rate. Exponential growth is very slow in its early stages. Consider that a human embryo takes several weeks to reach a few hundred cells. However, exponential growth is extremely fast in its later stages. To continue the example, the same child will be adding millions of cells in the final weeks of development. What’s particularly interesting is that we appear to be converging on a period of extremely rapid advancement.

This is significant because it will change the rules of the game in profound ways. If fuel-cell cars are cheaper than petrol-based ones then that is what people will drive. If information and media occupy 95% of the economy then old industries like energy and manufacturing will loose their influence. Moreover, when mainstream opinion gets seriously and urgently behind the idea of reversing climate change, as it will, then the tools will be radically different. Imagine if all the roads could be made reflective by an army of automated robots, bio-engineered algae that converts CO2 thousands of times more efficiently that natural organisms, trees that grow to full height in a year. I know this sounds like science fiction but if you read some of the reports it seems ever more likely.

At this point, please allow me to clarify my position. I am not saying we should wait for technology. Quite the reverse, I urge everyone to take action now to reduce climate change. I think it is simply immoral to damage the planet because we lack the imagination and will to do otherwise. However, for me this is a matter of survival. As such we don’t have the luxury of ignoring factors that don’t fit into our present world-view. Everyone agrees that climate change is complex. I am simply pointing out that you need to take an even broader view to develop a realistic model.

Technology created the very problem we are talking about by enabling industrial societies with high levels of pollution. If it is sufficiently influential to create the problem then isn’t it plausible that technology will be a significant factor in the solution?

In fact, I could be reading one of my own posts in that regard. Remember, I am an engineer and I know more about technology than most anyone you could ever meet. I have been studying these problems for decades. I am a person who is capable of creating technology so you are not only preaching to the choir, you are preaching to the preacher!

The problem in using your mathematical analogies is that they become irrelevant when it comes to energy solutions as compared to say information technology or computer chips. The reason technology has triumphed is in no small part due to the energy density of oil. We have created almost everything we have based on this cheap concentrated liquid energy source.

Technology is critical and our best asset to help us. However, we still cannot violate the laws of physics. My comments are a reflection of my technical acumen in understanding the laws of thermodynamics and heat transfer. We have limitations and problems associated with implementing technology in a manner that can enable our success. That is mostly our problem and we have allowed matters to become much worse making everything extremely difficult to solve.

If the problems were easy, then the USA would not be going to war over this liquid source of energy? There is a reason why the oil companies are so powerful and why other energy options have had a difficult time competing. But this is changing and Peak Oil (which I studied back in 1980 when most people never knew of the concept) is going to add another element to motivate changes. We are running out of cheap oil in the world. The oil companies will invest trillions of dollars to find and distribute more fossil fuel resources. In this way, the price goes up and allows for other alternatives including good ideas on energy efficiency to flourish.

Peak Oil is are best friend in pushing us to solve the climate problem because it forces compliance to change us away from oil regardless of how anyone feels about the climate. Yet, we still have to promote this transformation to create less carbon. The extended use of coal as a resource troubles me since coal creates twice the amount of carbon as natural gas for the same heating value. In fact, I favor nuclear energy over coal if those are my only two options. With nuclear, you have risk which can be contained. With coal, you have a guaranteed climate disaster unless the carbon is sequestered.

I see an “explosion” of technology as the price of oil increases but most of it is based on simple ideas and not major breakthroughs (in my mind). It is just that we did not care enough to save a resource devalued with current economic concepts. Mark Lynas has eloquently articulated on his blog how we tend to discount the future with our current economic focus. In that way, we built centralized power plants which waste over 60 percent of the fossil-fuel energy it uses. There is more energy in the waste heat of centralized power plants then the electricity they produce. We could have used micro power concepts all along instead. Using the waste heat from micro power for space heating or heating water is a major improvement. We had energy to burn and waste and that is why we built centralized plants. We did not know about the climate problem. Now we have to switch everything over and it cannot be done quickly and without expense. This is part of the problem.

BTW, on waste heat, I suggested on this blog an idea which has merit. I suggested that the waste heat of a centralized plant be placed in a city’s water system to increase the temperature of the cold water slightly.

In this way people would use less energy to heat the water to operating temperatures. Since I monitor my own energy, I discovered that we use 30 percent more fuel to heat water in the winter from the decrease in water temperature supplied to us. I measured the temperature. The idea I suggest has merit and if feasible, it would combine 2 infrastructures to take advantage of a stranded waste-heat resource. It is one of my ideas but it is a way to create the benefits of micro power using an existing centralized power plant.

This is not a breakthrough in technology but applying creativity with the technology we already know. It does require a lot of work designing how to implement this idea and it is merely an idea which needs to be scrutinized more. It may be unfeasible for other reasons. If it can be made to work, it still would not win a Nobel Prize in physics. This idea could have been implemented decades ago which is why I said the explosion is more from economics rather than from technological breakthroughs. Breakthroughs will happen and the turbines of today are superior to the windmills of centuries past. But it is still a basic concept.

I favor eliminating the need of power plants through micro power and increased energy efficiency and that can work for the UK and the USA. With India, I favor what Bush did in promoting nuclear power there. I am not a Bush fan at all but I acknowledge this was a good idea. I would rather see nuclear power in India versus the creation of a lot of coal power plants. I feel the same way about China. Despite the debate on nuclear on this blog, it is the lesser of the two climate evils when compared to the use of coal.

I promote conservation and for healthy people to ride bicycles. I use a bicycle instead of a car to buy groceries when portable with a backpack. I need the exercise.

On feeling pessimistic, I do understand your anxiety and I have it too my friend. I could feel pessimistic too and that is very easy to do but I discourage you and others to give in to your fears. The only thing we can do is our very best and pessimism can destroy our creative ability. I cannot feel innovative if I do not believe I can succeed. Even if we fail, we have to know that we gave it our own best effort.

During the Great Depression we had a great leader named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The UK had a chap named Winston Churchill. Their leadership was legendary because they encouraged others to believe when it seemed all hope was lost.

Franklin Roosevelt said in the darkest moments of the Great Depression that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. I think you can see the wisdom in applying these words today. Pessimism did not get us to the moon and back. Pessimism is the one idea we can never embrace. It is a destroyer and by itself can destroy the planet. I suggest you get rid of it. Instead, be bold and speak your truth defiantly.

You cannot control what anyone else does in this life. You can only control what you do and how you think. In that light, what you do with your life matters most. You have to always ask the questions: What can I do? What can I say? How can I help? The burden and responsibility is on the shoulders of the people most aware of the problem. I feel it and the more I learn, then the more responsible I feel.

It is a noble quest and responsibility to be a part of saving the planet for a millennium. What we do in the next 20 years is critical and I seek to be involved the best way I can. I feel very responsible to post positive messages on this blog, to inspire, to encourage, suggest ideas, and challenge cherished assumptions. I think my time in our dialogue has great merit not only to both you and I but to others reading it.

If you take the challenge on yourself in this way, then your life has a noble purpose. It will not get rid of the anxiety and therefore you must develop strength of character greater than the climate problem itself. Eliminate fear and pessimism and become an inspiration to others. Make them believe that we can do it and show them how to do it. But first, we have to do it ourselves and set an example. What other way do we have but to embrace the challenge and have faith that our own efforts have value.

The late Mother Theresa had a poem she wrote which may inspire you. She said “Do it anyway!”. I did a Google on it and found a site. You can read it at the site below. It is very short and I think it has value no matter what a person’s beliefs are. I think it is just a good attitude to have regarding life.

http://home.att.net/~hillcrestbaptist/anyway.html

I recommend her philosophy in remaining defiant in the face of discouragement. No one said saving the planet was an easy thing to do. It is not for the timid. It takes courage my friend to be optimistic. You already have the required desire and passion and I believe that you will do great things in your life. I believe you will make a tremendous difference. The prospect of success and failure can hang in the balance of one extra person out of billions on the planet which added something of merit. That person may as well be you. I believe in you Bryce and I am glad you care so much. I think you have much to offer and I say that sincerely because I see a lot of myself in you.

I do recommend a good book suggested by Peter Winters long ago on this blog which would be very good for you to buy and read. I think it will help. It is:

“The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts

You will not regret this investment of your time. I did not. You will understand more than I shared in my response.

I like you Bryce because you are a passionate person. We are in agreement. What I am trying to figure out is how we can get out of this mess (if we can). So we both are asking the same question. If you reread my earlier comments again then you may discover that I promote technology all the time to solve our problems and suggest ideas on this blog that no one else may consider as important or relevant. Everything I post on this blog is based on reality and any technological ideas are based on the limitations imposed by the laws of physics. Reading the End of Oil may help you understand energy issues and the technical challenges we face in a better perspective.

We need you Bryce! One day, all those who want to “quit the habit” and who sincerely care about their children’s future will be asking you for help. You have to know what to tell them. Paradigm shifts do happen and you already know that all people will have the fear and anxiety “we”, who are enlightened, experience today. I think this will come much sooner than you believe it well. When it comes; you will be shocked at how quickly people will be catching up to your current understanding. You are on the right track in my opinion. I hope my comments on this blog have helped.

If I did not believe in you, I would not have written so much here. I think I invested my time wisely. I expect to see great things from you Bryce!

Best Regards and Kind Wishes,

Dan

Dan,

I thought water vapour is a significant, but short duration GHG.

My understanding of the aeroplane effect was that the soot particles in the exhaust absorbed the heat before it made it to earth. (Hence the cooling effect)

If I recall, it’s included somewhere in the transcript of this Horizon documentary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchill.shtml

Either way, the vapour trails have a short term influence and the CO2 has a long term influence.

I recall another study which found that all other industries in the UK would have to be carbon neutral by 2050 for the UK to meet its CO2 targets with the projected air travel emissions.

I don’t think the answer is to encourage more air traffic. Far from it.

All the best Martin

Many times I post an idea which I have partial knowledge about but with unresolved questions. I always want (and expect) to hear from you especially Martin and others as well in order to stir debate so I can learn from it. My purpose is to know the truth.

It is nice to know that the water vapor from the planes have a very short life as compared to CO2 but the planes fly continuously to keep an extra amount always in the air. After 911, the temperature did rise within days proving your point valid but because the vapor trails were not replenished, we still had a net warming effect that I think can remain if the planes are grounded permanently.

You and I both know as engineers the importance of making sure our assumptions are valid. That is why I like your input. This is a very important discussion and I appreciate your help with it.

This assumption about flying or not to fly cannot be a matter of debate. We need to know precisely and if we have any uncertainty at all, then we need to find a way to be sure.

If the temperatures went up with the planes grounded during 911, then this adds evidence to suggest the cooling effect from the planes is an important factor which cannot be ignored. If the soot particles offset the cooling effect, then it was not evident with the measured temperature rise.

Your point about the carbon is noted and my thinking suggests that the current carbon buildup is more the problem than even the current emission rates. It may depend on what the computer models tell us. If these models account precisely for the overall effects from the planes, then a change in the parameters with or without planes should prove revealing.

The idea would be to run the models exploring the contribution of the vapor trails with carbon or eliminating the vapor trails without the carbon. If this has not been done, then maybe such an analysis should be done to test this important assumption more rigorously. If the computer models are not set up this way to answer this question, then they need to be or what good are they to help us on solution matters.

Let’s keep this dialogue going and others feel free to join in. I ask very important questions about planes and their effect on climate. My questions are still not resolved at the moment.

Best Regards to you Martin and everyone on this blog,

Dan

Dan,

You might like to read this report on the global warming effect of aviation: www.rcep.org.uk/aviation/av05-s3.pdf (Royal Society on Environmental Pollution).

You seem to think that, besides emitting the warming CO2, other effects of aviation are a short-term cooling. In fact, the overall warming effect of aviation is estimated as being between 2.5 and 3 times that of its CO2 emissions.

Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas of all – adding it to the troposphere won’t matter much because there is becomes part of the water cycle and quickly goes into rain. Many planes, particularly those flying above or near the polar regions, fly in the satrosphere and there the water vapour remains for quite some time (2-3 years??).

Then you have the warming emissions from NOx which help ozone formation.

I understand that contrails are widelly understood to have a net warming effect, but there is no consensus at all how significant it is. They do increase the albedo effect, but this is understood to be offset by the amount of thermal radiation they absorb. By the way, the story about 9/11 was about cooler nights and warmer days, not any net-cooling at the time.

So, overall, reducing aviation seems to be one of the best things we can do to reduce global warming – not just the long-lasting CO2 emissions, but also the shorter-lived radiative forcings. We either stop the growth in aviation or we have virtually no chance of preventing the worst of global warming!

I wonder if you might be thinking of the worrying effects of sulphour aerosols being reduced, since those provide a lot of cooling in the short term. If you worry about loosing the cooling factors then SO2 would be the main one. And I don’t think aviation is a major source of SO2 (mind you, Lovelock says we should start adding lots of SO2 to plane engines…).

Almuth

Almuth, I read the Royal Society report and studied it at depth and it was very helpful to me in understanding the science and the effect of planes. After I read the report, I went back to search for the 911 information which seemed contradictory and I guess I must have read the original information too fast. You are totally correct. I found the link to the original article I read below:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/

In my mind, I remembered the “temperature increase” as an overall temperature increase of about 1 degree and not as an increase in the “temperature difference” which is completely different. I read it wrong. This is what the article actually said:

“During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.”

The idea that the contrails help or hurt the climate was inconclusive to a few scientists mentioned in this same article but I became “biased” toward the idea contrails reduced warming. Excerpt below:

“Contrails are denser and block sunlight much more than natural cirrus clouds,” said Travis, who conducted the study with Andrew Carleton of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania. They reported the findings this week in the journal Nature.

“And contrails are much more prevalent when the sun is out,” he said. “When this is factored in, there is a possibility that they offset global warming, and this is what we are trying to determine now.”

This issue has been a source of confusion for me when I read about the evils of air flights on the blog. I wonder if others like me have also been confused. Most people in the USA know little about GW/CC. I have never heard anyone talk about planes and their effect here in the USA and this includes passionate members of environmental groups. This has been changing lately as more information appears in the news about GW/CC.

The only place I have learned that planes affect the climate is from this blog site which is why I had to bring it up. When I tell “informed people” here that UK citizens protest at airports, they are amazed. The effect of planes on the climate is not common knowledge here at all even among environmentalists.

The Royal Society report indicates a complex and sensitive relationship between air flights and the atmosphere. Even my suggestion of using hydrogen fuel was addressed in the report and suspect in that the extra water vapor minus the carbon would help little if the water vapor entered the stratosphere where it would remain longer.

It also seems important to err on the side of caution as the uncertainties (like the glacier melt) tend to be underestimated and this is dangerous. In engineering, we have a term called “safety factor”. Everything designed by engineers has to have a measure of safety above the need. In other words, a bridge is designed significantly stronger than the expected worst load under the worst conditions. Even with 911, it was the intense heat rather than the impact which eventually brought the buildings down. Even the 3-Mile Island reactor building contained the melt-down. It was “designed” to do that. When I tell “informed people” here that UK citizens protest at airports, they are amazed. The effect of planes on the climate is not common knowledge here at all even among environmentalists. The link I shared in this post “suggests” the opposite effect of contrails.

If we are to solve this climate problem, we have to err on the side of uncertainty which contains the problem with a safety factor. In this light, the climatic impact of planes may have to be increased rather than decreased.

Andrew Carleton of Penn State University did say in the article I shared that “… there is a possibility that they [contrails] offset global warming, and this is what we are trying to determine now.” I intend to email him and include the Royal Society’s link and ask him what his current position on contrails is today and if it reflects the Royal Society’s report. For others who have an interest, he can be found at this site.

http://www.geog.psu.edu/people/carleton/

My new understanding is that flying is not helpful and may have an even greater warming effect when flying over the north-polar regions which is the last place on earth which needs any more warming. It appears we may be underestimating this as well.

We still need to know more information about the effects of planes because alterations of flight patterns may be helpful as suggested in the Royal Society’s report. Keeping the polar stratosphere free of water vapor is a good idea. The effect at the poles should be the most important focus and maybe this is directly contributing to localized effects which are melting Greenland faster, slowing the currents, retaining the tropical heat, and then creating more hurricanes for us! A recent report I read suggests that a large hurricane may hit the New England area of the USA this summer and I live close enough to this area to be concerned.

On the technical side, if only exhaust recirculation systems or a catalytic converter could be possible on jet engines to take the NOx out. Exhaust recirculation is the way automakers do it. They design engines to direct a percentage of the exhaust stream back into the intake manifold diluting the fuel-air mixture resulting in reduced engine temperatures. By reducing the temperature below the threshold where NOx forms, they eliminate most of it. The catalytic converter takes care of the remaining NOx to comply with pollution standards here. I do not believe this is feasible with jet engines and it seems likely it would reduce the thrust of the engine which requires the exhaust to leave at high velocity.

Maybe we need to bring back more fuel efficient propeller-driven flight and fly them at lower speeds in the troposphere. A reduction in speed should not be a major inconvenience for those who fly or when transporting cargo. Propeller aircraft have engines which are similar to those used in automobiles so they can definitely be designed to have lower NOx emissions. They can even run on hydrogen, and if NOx and carbon are eliminated, then adding sulfates or another compound more environmentally benign could be an additional measure to consider.

All the best,

Dan

Alright – I’ll stop evangelising technology and go back to evaluating the problem.

Thanks for your comments, Dan. I try to keep things in perspective. I can’t expect to halt climate change all by myself. However, the least I can do is set a good example by consuming less energy and encourage others to do likewise. Beyond that, we’re really into the political realm.

What’s interesting about climate change is that all other concerns are literally swept aside. No one’s going to care much about gay marriage or abortion or tax cuts if Washington DC is 5 meters under water. Unfortunately, there is powerful short-termism at work. Most the decision makers are focused on the next quarterly results or election. Insurance companies are about the only ones paying attention but even their solution is just to eliminate storm and flood damage from their coverage.

I am reasonably familiar with the Peak Oil discussion. David Fleming has written several articles on the subject. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem likely that the oil will run out soon enough. Furthermore, there’s loads of coal left to burn. This is why I tend to assume that emissions will continue until matters are bad enough to force a change in public attitudes.

About myself, I originally trained in maths and computer science though now I’m a business analyst working in IT. I did study physics to first year at university and so have a vague understanding of thermo-dynamics. Most recently, I’ve studied finance, which provided an understanding of economics and modelling. I’ve never studied it formally but have a long time interest in politics. Until now, I’ve been firmly in the centre-right camp with little time for politically-correct lefties. Nevertheless, if the weather’s changing then so is my position. The potential of climate changes is too serious to ignore. This isn’t one of those issues you can sweep under the carpet.

Anyway, thanks again and be seeing you round.

Regards, Bryce

also included the average temp for that month. I think the gas bill did, too. You suggest people kept records over a year & see their savings as they practice more & more efficiency & conservation. I did develop a form, but it needs improving. See: http://www.aocn.aurora.edu/interfaithccc/form.html

I kept track of KWHs for several years, and noticed them really nosedive when we bought our Sunfrost frig, and steadily go down with smaller conservation & efficiency measures. Since we went on 100% wind energy (& are 100% electric – no gas), I’ve stopped keeping track as much.

For our showerhead, I measured the amount of water going into a bucket with the old one for 15 seconds, then with the new one (it was half & we didn’t even notice a difference).

There are infered (I believe) gadgets to measure heat loss through windows, door, etc.

I know there are companies that do energy audits, but yours can be more complete, and include water & other resources, as well (since these also have GHG & other environmental components).

since I responded to you last time. Almuth gave me a very useful link explaining the effect of planes in more detail. The thread is very interesting and I hope you read it.

BTW, I believe in technology very much to help us. I was only referring to the mathematical analogies you used as being mostly irrelevant to quick-fix breakthroughs in technology. Those math analogies apply more to computer chips and information technology. Making that comparison with energy technology may provide a false sense of security as to how quickly we can change things.

One point on technology you may find interesting is that we survived for millions of years before we used fossil fuels and many of our advances have come from using more fossil-fuel energy. This includes the Internet I am afraid which requires lots of electricity to run it. In that light, some older technologies may be more useful now and the return of sailing ships could be a possibility (but using advanced technology). In the discussion about the effects of planes, I suggested that maybe we need to look at returning to propeller driven aircraft. I will let you read that thread for why I suggested that.

I think we need to enhance reflectivity on the ground and in space if necessary. It seems we need something more than carbon reductions to deal with the carbon buildup. Reflective pavement is a no brainier to me.

On the futuristic end of technology, I am going back to thinking that space mirrors may still be a viable possibility again since contrails do not work and sulfates create their own set of problems.

With the mirror concept, you have total control over positioning from the ground. This one feature of control is a very valuable asset in my opinion. No other macro project has the ability to be controlled like an array of mirrors in space. The orbit can be changed and the mirrors oriented to provide the required effect at any location over the entire planet. It is not polluting other than getting them into orbit, but once there, they can remain for a very long time.

Of course, climate science must be much better than it is today and simulations must be run on computer models to insure the idea has enough merit to justify the expense of even an experiment. It remains a backburner idea which cannot be discounted yet. In fact, no idea with merit can be discounted too quickly. We need all the help we can get.

On conservation, our efforts are very important as we do not need nearly the energy we use to live. We can at least turn out the lights. A value system to use less energy and invest in efficiency is at the heart of something everyone can do. Every year, we should be working to have less of an impact on both energy resources and the climate than the year before. As prices rise, we will have no choice. And no technology will permit us not to reduce our need for energy. I just cannot see how we can avoid this responsibility. The best and first priority is to eliminate our wasteful habits.

As always, we are really in agreement. Everybody on this blog is focused on some aspect of the problem and what we should do about it. This blog is more of a dialogue than a debate. I think we all learn from each other something of value.

Best Wishes,

Dan

including the temperature and humidity inside and outside plus the highs and lows for the day using weather instruments I purchased. I record electric and gas meter readings twice daily and I devised a means to know how much natural gas was used by the furnace each day. I have a separate meter for the furnace pump to measure its electrical usage.

I have went into more detail than most and even analyzed the dishwasher by “cycle” on its use of hot water and how much natural gas was used to heat it (by cycle). I compared it to specifications on water usage in the owner’s manual. I could calculate the precise energy use of this machine on both natural gas and water except the seasonal change in water temperature affects hot water energy use. So now I record the temperature of the cold water using a digital thermometer in the morning when hot water is being used.

Conservation of hot water in the winter time has a greater benefit as I posted before. The temperature dropped from 68 F to 43 F based on seasonal changes alone. This can add 30 percent to a fuel bill in additional water heating. I am sure you read my earlier posts about this and the idea of transferring power plant waste heat into the water supply to lower everyone’s fuel bills. I think this idea has merit and can be made to work. I would have never thought of the impact of seasonal changes to water temperature if I had not measured it or ever thought of a way to utilize the stranded waste heat of a power plant in a unique way.

I do have special techniques which I am trying to improve and desire to develop instrumentation which is affordable and helpful as I discussed in a previous post. I have many forms I made to record information on home energy use. It is still a work in progress at the moment. I want to advance the state of the art of an audit to include feedback to help people on conservation efforts plus create a way to finance the home owner’s investments through energy savings.

If projects can be financed without using the home owner’s money as capital, then not only will the audit be helpful but the prospect of real change be more easily implemented. The energy savings can finance the projects. The instrumentation helps people conserve easier providing feedback and it documents the use of energy to make the energy-savings financing possible. It has a visionary appeal to me as I discussed in an earlier post.

So, I work on the measurement focus believing it has great potential for future use. With it, one can know more quickly what took you many years to acquire and enact changes which you had to finance yourself. This is one of the potential benefits.

In this way, I enable people to be just like you Lynn. If I could do that, then I think we have more of a chance to win the day. I envision it even providing feedback about our planetary impact along with feedback on energy savings along with personal guidance. I think it may be more useful in the audit and evaluation process to focus on what the best mix of energy investments a person has. This has become my dream. It is not an easy one to design and implement.

Best Wishes,

Dan

Ray Kurzweil’s ideas are certainly interesting, but I’m not entirely convinced by his arguments. John Horgan’s book The End of Science paints a slightly different picture.

At least in Europe and the US, the numbers of students signing up for science or engineering courses has been falling steadily for years now. It seems our youth prefer media studies to mathematics, and an MBA is more desirable than an MSc.

I suspect that technological advances in the near future will be driven increasingly by profit motives – if you can demonstrate that your research can make someone more wealthy, then (and only then) will you get funding for it.

I could be wrong, but we shouldn’t sit back in the hope that technology will save us (and I appreciate that you’re not saying that we should).

As to your question “At what point does mainstream collective response to climate change become inevitable?” – I don’t know. Last year’s extreme weather had an impact, especially the Atlantic Hurricane season – but patently not enough. Maybe another couple of bad years would do the trick, or maybe we do have to wait until Miami is under water – which would be too late, as the Greenland ice cap would be in terminal decline by then.