Blatant Reality

A California wastewater treatment plant is looking to biogas and algae to help cut down on the costs of a $15 million unfunded mandate recently imposed that requires the installation of a new ultraviolet light system. The biogas and algae will be used to produce electricity help cut down on the costs of their annual $800,000 energy bill.

The plan he’s now proposing involves using the plant’s existing infrastructure and high-strength waste streams, which naturally produce biogas. Those gases can be captured in a fuel cell system, combusted and the energy captured to generate electricity.

There are two main concerns VVWRA still needs to address to move the plan forward: resolving some issues with the county tax assessor and securing a reliable source of high-strength waste to produce the needed biogases. And that last point is where pond scum comes into play.

VVWRA has been working with Dr. Patrick Hatcher of Old Dominion University in Virginia for some time on a plan to grow particular strains of algae on the plant’s percolation ponds. The algae feeds off of leftover nitrates and phosphorus, helping remove these contaminants from the waste stream. But it also boosts biogas production and can be converted into fuel.

This is the second wastewater plant in the past month that has announced looking into algae as a way to cut down costs, with the first one being a Virginia treatment plant announcing a partnership with Algae Wheel.

A recent study was conducted to see how environmentally friendly is growing algae for fuel. The study found that, when compared to crops like corn and switchgrass, algae actually has a larger environmental footprint.

However, before people begin to take this to mean that we shouldn’t use algae as a fuel source, people should read the study (which can be found here) and see that algae isn’t all that bad. First off, the study only takes into account the growth aspects of the crops, not the actual conversion into fuel. If the conversion process is taken into consideration, thing might look differently for algae.

For example, if the energy associated with converting switchgrass to ethanol is quite a bit higher than the energy required to convert algae to biodiesel, then the high cultivation impacts of algae may be acceptable. It would also be reasonable to expect that transportation logistics and the temporal elements of biomass production and fuel conversion could influence the impacts of the overall fuel cycle… The authors anticipate that such analysis will find algae to be easier to convert into liquid fuels than some of the other biomass sources studies here because of their inherently high lipid content, semi-steady-state production, and suitability in a variety of climates.

Additionally, the study shows that combining algae growth with wastewater treatment can significantly reduce the environmental impacts and costs of growing algae.

These data demonstrate that algae’s life cycle burdens can be substantially reduced via use of partially treated wastewater to supplant chemical fertilizers.

(…)

Use of wastewater effluent as pond medium could significantly reduce not only the need for chemical fertilizers and their associated life cycle burdens but also the use of freshwater during algae cultivation.

Lastly, and probably the most important thing to remember whenever a study compares algae with more traditional crops is that fact that growing algae as a crop is a fairly new thing.

While it seems unlikely that dramatic improvements in corn, canola, or switchgrass cultivation will occur in the near future, significant improvements in algae cultivation could increase the favorability of energy production from algae over the next several decades.

Since algae cultivation is new, there is a lot of room for improvements. These improvements over the next couple of years can potentially allow algae to continue to gain the upper hand over the more traditional biofuel crops.

Therefore, while studies likes these are important and definitely point out the current problems in the field, one shouldn’t take it to heart since the field is constantly developing new methods of cultivation. Who knows, the problems listed in this study could all be addressed in the next year or two.

Today, I published my first energy article for American Solutions. I am looking to write for them roughly once a week about various energy issues facing our nation. To check out my article about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, click the link above or just read on below.

*****

This past week, a disagreement occurred between the Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House Budget Director Peter Orszag over how much money should be cut from funding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. This disagreement once again brings up the question of what are the United States’ plans for long-term storage of nuclear waste since support for expanding nuclear energy is growing within the public and with policymakers.

Nuclear energy has seen a resurgence in popularity in the past couple years, as evidenced by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission receiving roughly 20 applications to build over 30 reactors in just the past 4 years.

In June 2008, the Yucca Mountain facility submitted a much-anticipated application to build a deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste, and the goal of increasing our nuclear energy production levels looked to be achievable.

However, over the past year of the new administration, we have seen conflicting statements and actions concerning increasing nuclear energy production within the United States.

For example, not even a month after the inauguration, the Obama administration announced that it will cut off almost all funding to the Yucca Mountain Facility and instead wants to look into finding a “better solution for management of our nuclear waste.”

With the Yucca Mountain solution taking over 25 years to get to the point where they can even apply to start building the facility, how much longer will the American people have to wait for the Obama administration’s “better solution” to come to fruition?

Of course, their proposed solution has not yet been announced, one year after halting funding for Yucca Mountain. This haphazard discontinuation by the administration of a project that has received previous endorsements from all three branches of the U.S. government contradicts their pro-nuclear energy stance and statements.

Even though recycling the spent nuclear fuel for further use in nuclear reactors should be the ultimate goal, there are those that feel that a long-term nuclear waste repository must first be demonstrated before these reprocessing efforts will be expanded.

That is why this facility, which Congress passed legislation to create in 1982 and was meant to safely store nuclear material from across the country for thousands of years, is necessary if we are to expand the nuclear energy production capacity of the United States

After decades of work and roughly $10 billion spent on research, the country needs a place like Yucca Mountain that is authorized to store 70,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel, and has been rated by the Electric Power Research Institute to safely and securely store up to 570,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.

While this may seem like a lot of waste, critics must consider that 0.0007 pounds of nuclear material can produce the same amount of energy as 1,780 pounds of coal. In fact, over the past 50 years of nuclear energy production, only 60,000 metric tons of waste has been produced.

Currently, nuclear power plants are forced to store their nuclear waste on-site. While many argue that the fuel is safely stored at the reactor sites, it is surely less than ideal since these measures were to be a temporary fix rather than a long-term solution like the one Yucca Mountain can offer.

The on-site storage of nuclear waste is very expensive, both for the companies operating the plants and the American taxpayer. Since 1998, the government has been on the hook for paying for many of these on-site storage capabilities, the product of a partial breach of contract signed two decades ago whereby the government would construct a permanent federal facility for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

The DOE has estimated that the cost to the government of on-site storage litigation will be roughly $11 billion by 2020, the year when the Yucca Mountain repository would be complete if positive actions were taken today.

Overall, this recent disagreement between the White House and Secretary Chu highlights the fact that the administration has not upheld its end of the deal. With the cut in funds to the Yucca Mountain repository, the administration promised to quickly set up a panel to find alternatives solutions to our nuclear waste problem, but in the year since the initial cuts, no steps have been taken to do so.

As the months go by and funding is slowly but surely eliminated from this project without any sign of an alternative solution, one has to wonder if the White House truly is serious about expanding our nuclear energy capacity. Regretfully, the administration’s recent actions seem to point to the contrary.

In a recent article in the Guardian, James Hansen “rails” against the cap-and-trade system being proposed in the United States. Now, he isn’t against the idea of placing a price on carbon, he just doesn’t like the idea that businesses could end up profiting from it.

Instead, he prefers something he calls a “fee-and-dividend” approach which is essentially a green redistribution of wealth scheme. Here is Hansen advocating this method at the University of South Carolina last spring:

As stated in the video, the rebate would be a set number so the less carbon you emit the bigger the rebate. Potentially, your rebate could exceed your tax so you would make money. Basically, the greener you are the more green($) you will receive.

However, while this method may sound better, it will still have negative affects, particularly on the poor. For example, Hansen mentions that companies may have incentives to invent better more efficient technologies. However, many may not be able to afford purchasing these new high efficiency items. Therefore, those that are well off may be more able to make the changes and reap the benefits, leaving the poor at best breaking even and at worst ending up in the red (paying more in carbon taxes then receiving in rebates).

Overall, the cap-and-trade or the fee-and-dividend system are unnecessary. Natural cycles constitute the majority of the climate changes with human contributions negligible at best.

To watch the entire presentation by Hansen and my rebuttals to some of his claims, click here.

I wrote an article the other day for Celsias.com about a zoo installing a vertical farming system to help offset the costs of food. This isn’t a normal topic for my but the idea of vertical farms is pretty interesting and if it proves economically feasible, may totally revolutionize the way we view farming.

Anyways, here is my article on Valcent Products’ Verticrop system being installed at the Paignton Zoo.

When you go to the zoo, it can be fascinating to see the zookeeper feed the zoo’s many inhabitants. However, I doubt many have ever considered just how expensive it is to feed all the zoo’s residents on a daily basis. One zoo located in the UK has considered their £200,000/year food bill and have opted for a new economically and environmentally friendly solution.

 

Valcent Products has partnered with the UK’s Paignton Zoo to install their Verticrop growing system. Verticrop is a vertical farming system that offers both economical and environmental incentives which will help to cut back the zoo’s overall food costs.

 

These growth systems consist of trays that are connected to overhead tracks that rotate on a closed loop conveyor. During the rotation, the trays pass through feeding stations that provide the necessary water and minerals. The rotations also allow for even airflow and equal exposure to light for all the plants.

 

These systems have the potential to save the zoo a good deal of money. With the zoo’s inhabitants consuming almost 800 carrots a day and almost £8,000 of fruit a month, the zoo benefits from the ability to grow food on the premises. For example, a Verticrop system can produce 20 times more food and use only 5-10% of water and nutrient requirements of traditional crops. Increased production and reduced consumption should save the zoo money especially when you add in transportation costs of traditional crops.

 

In the partnership with the Paignton Zoo, Valcent Products is providing the vertical farming system and the zoo is providing the land. However, neither is looking for this partnership to be a money making venture. Rather, this pilot program will help Valcent showcase its technology while Paignton Zoo reaps the benefits of a lower grocery bill.

 

These systems have a much wider application than just the zoo food industry. A recent Cleantech article pointed out that these systems are perfect for harsh climates like the Middle East where they don’t have the right soil or enough water to grow certain crops traditionally. However, with vertical farming technologies like Verticrop that use extremely small amounts of water and nutrients, increased farming could be brought to these regions. Chris Bradford, Managing Director of Valcent Products, verifies that nearly half of his customer inquiries are coming from people in these areas.

 

Valcent Products isn’t the only group looking into the vertical farming idea. The Vertical Farm Project is devoted to helping bring about skyscraper farms. The organizations founder, Dickson Despommier, is recognized as having first developed the concept of vertical farms.

 

The ability to grow crops locally and in the heart of major cities should appeal to almost everyone. Tthe ability of these farms to rely on very small amounts of nutrients and water and still produce more food per acre than traditional methods makes these farms cost affective. However, vertical farming is still in its infancy and more pilot programs like Valcent’s at the Paignton Zoo will be needed before we see overall industry adoption.

In my most recent Celsias.com article, I review Mark Edwards’ book Crash! The Demise of Fossil Foods and the Rise of Abundance. Here is the review in its entirety:

A month ago, I wrote a review on Mark Edwards’ book Green Algae Strategy which discusses the potential of algae as a fuel and food source. Recently, I finished reading Edwards’ most recent book Crash! The Demise of Fossil Foods and the Rise of Abundance which looks at the sustainability of our current food production system and offers algaculture as an alternative.

 

Crash! is comprised of two distinct parts. The first half of the book deals with why our current farming practices are not going to be sustainable in the long run or possibly even in the short run. Edwards makes the argument that many of the resources that help make farming affordable today will soon become too expensive/inaccessible for many farmers to continue.

 

One critical resource for farmers that may soon become inaccessible/unusable are aquifers, natural underground reservoirs. For example, Edwards takes a looks at several US aquifers that have experienced massive withdrawals well over the natural replenishment rate. In particular, he discussed the Ogallala Aquifer located in the US that has in some places collapsed due to low levels of water and left many farms without a water source.

 

Edwards also points to many important natural resources that may have only a few decades left of reserves in the world. He argues that many mineral resources like potassium and phosphorus which farmers rely on as fertilizers are running low in known reserves. As the supply of these minerals becomes more and more constricted, countries that export them may decide to horde instead of selling them which will send the price of the remaining mineral stocks skyrocketing.

 

The consumption of these fertilizers has also increased over the years, which has helped attribute to the rise in prices. Edwards stated that fertilizer consumption over the past decade has increased by roughly 30% worldwide and by 56% in developing countries alone over the same time period.  Edwards continues by stating that this increasing consumption trend isn’t good news for an industry that has seen the price of fertilizer rise in the past year from $400/ton to $1,000/ton, a 250% increase that has attracted the attention of Congress.  He argues that these prices could eventually force many farmers out of business.

 

Leading into the second half of the book, Edwards illustrates how algae and SAFE (Sustainable and Affordable Food and Energy) production can ensure that agriculture as we know it will continue and not, well, crash.  He discusses the many applications of algae such as using it as a very nutritious feed stock for animals, using the oil to create green diesel for tractors, and using the remaining biomass as fertilizer for traditional crops.

 

Since the threat of depletion of important fertilizer minerals is one of Edwards’ arguments for changing the way crops are grown, he argues that algae can be used to help recapture these minerals in farmland runoff. This reuse of the minerals will lessen the burden of continually mining new resources and potentially help shrink “dead zones” by lessening the mineral waste in rivers going to the Gulf and other areas.

 

From a conservative standpoint, there are several things that worth highlighting. One is that he states a lot of “gloom-and-doom” facts about how our current agriculture practices will lead to a collapse in food worldwide, but he never argues that we can’t overcome this threat. Instead he poses that while the current production practices are unsustainable, the world will be able to sustain the food supply and avert an agricultural crash by switching to the SAFE solution.

 

Crash! presents many solutions to help prevent the agricultural calamity Edwards warns about, solutions that both conservatives and liberals can support. For example, Edwards argues against many government farming subsidies. Conservatives and liberals would both support the end of subsidies for inefficient programs like ethanol that waste natural resources and taxpayer money. It is arguments like these that I feel will help to bridge the gap between conservatives and liberals on some of these environmental issues.

 

Overall Edwards combines some gloomy scenarios with enough upbeat solutions to give Crash! an even keel about it. He does a good job of pointing out what will happen without becoming too depressingly Malthusian in his predictions and arguably presents SAFE production as the next potential agricultural revolution.

 

If you want to view the book before you buy it, Mark Edwards has generously placed the complete book in PDF form on his website, GreenIndependence.org . You can view the book online here (FYI: This PDF file is over 3 MB in size so it may take awhile to download).

Oh how I love the New Media. It offers so many creative minds the ability to share with the world their labors of love. But that isn’t what this post is about; this post concerns the recent “Earth Hour” protest thingy that took place this past Saturday.

For those of you who might have participated without knowing, here is a video to elaborate:

Yea, my thoughts exactly, what a waste of time and effort (what little effort there was, at least). Plus it was taking place on a Saturday at 8:30pm around the world. Honestly, a Saturday? How many people are going to be home at that time anyways which automatically makes them participants, knowingly or not.

But this “protest” wasn’t without its ups. Without it, we wouldn’t get such creative spin-offs like the video below via IMAO. Enjoy:

I really don’t know why I thought it was that funny. I don’t know, maybe it was the soundtrack or perhaps it was the part when it stated “Because global warming…waits for no one” that finally got me. Whatever the case, it gave me a good chuckle and I think we all deserve one considering our country’s current political circumstances.

I don’t know why people seem to be surprised that Alarmist James Hansen actually argued that the “democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working” with regards to climate change matters.

Well duh he is going to say this. What really surprises me is that the Guardian found his statement to be something profound enough to run a whole article based off of it. Honestly folks, this is the same guy who basically advocates eco-terrorism and establishing a carbon czar to make sure we never have cheap oil again.

If you forgot those things, take a look at these two videos to refresh your memory (eco-terrorist first, carbon czar second):

See? His whole “democracy isn’t working” statement isn’t so outrageous now is it?

H/T Drudge Report

So I just got back from seeing the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still” and I was far from impressed. In fact, I was downright disappointed. I mean, I thought it would be a better choice than “Role Models” but now I feel that I might have been wrong.

Anyways, before I get into the main point of the article, let me explain the movie a bit to you. The whole premise of this flick is that aliens have come to earth to exterminate the human race in order to save the place from us. So apart from being a massively environmental propaganda piece, it also took the time to take jabs at the Iraq war and the US military in general (no pun intended). In fact, the only bright spot in the whole movie was the fact that Keanu Reeves got a role where his emotionless acting style was actually put to good use.

Alright, so before I explain the economic lessons we may be able to learn from this horrible movie, let me set up the scene. At about halfway through the movie, the alien (Keanu Reeves) ends up at a Nobel Prize winner’s house and they are discussing the impending doom of the human race. Reeves’ character mentions that his own race had to band together in order to save their planet when it was on the brink of destruction. To this, the Nobel Prize winner replies that the human race should have the same right to change and save their planet (not from the aliens, mind you, but from ourselves). If the aliens destroy the human race, they will never have the chance to excel and save themselves.

Obviously, I’m paraphrasing but the basic gist of this whole conversation is that the most innovation, change, and action take place when a civilization is on the brink of destruction (Pop Culture Reference: This is why people like Al Gore are saying we only have five years to fix things).

So what’s the economic lesson? Think about it this way. If we look at the recent mortgage crisis, and the economy as the whole, one could compare it to the earth in the movie: there’s been some bad decisions made that have been detrimental to its health so something needs to be done. Obviously, the stock market tumble and business bankruptcies are comparable to the tipping point the aliens mention in the movie: choices need to be made now that will affect how things play out in the end.

Now the next comparison is where I will probably get some people mad at me. I think that the US Federal Government is like the aliens in the movie. These aliens come to earth wanting to save it just like the federal government did with its bailouts. And just like the aliens want to destroy the human race in an effort to save the world, the government bailouts greatly damaged our country’s free market and principles.

So instead of letting the threat of impending financial disaster beget innovation and change that would ultimately be beneficial, the government, just like the aliens in the movie, wanted a quick fix to the problem. By bailing out the market, the government has removed any need for businesses to innovate and change in order to stay alive. Instead, all will be able to continue their old (failing) practices which will most likely lead to market stagnation (Case in point: Just watch and see how much the Big Three actually change).

Now does Neo… err…I mean Keanu Reeves’ character decide to save the human race or just the world? Well this isn’t a spoiler blog so I guess you will just have to suffer through the movie to find out. However, I will say that, in relationship with my elaborate comparison above, I did like his choice a lot better than the US government’s.

Today, the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee Minority (aka Republicans) posted a full list of 650 International Scientists who have spoken out against the Man-Made Global Warming Theory. I didn’t take the time to go through and read about every single scientist in the 231 page report but I did skim through it and recognized several names.

For those of you who may be wondering why this is such a big deal, proponents of anthropological global warming state that there is a “consensus” of scientists out there. This list seems to shatter the whole “consensus” theory unless by “consensus” they mean that except the many dissenting scientist, all scientists agree that global warming is caused by man. If that is their definition of “consensus” then they are correct. However, whenever I have seen the whole consensus argument used, it seems like they mean that there is no legitimate dissenters among us “deniers.” Obviously, from the extensive list above, they are wrong.

Oh and one other thing, science isn’t ruled by consensus. Remember Copernicus?  Galileo? Yea, they were considered “deniers” in their own time.