Archive for May, 2009

Raising the Earth’s Albedo to Combat Warming?

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

By David L. Brown

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has stated that if we were to paint all flat roofs white it would reflect solar rays back into space and help reduce global warming. Well, maybe. Let’s take a look at what might be called the “albedo” solution.

The term “albedo” refers to the reflectivity of an object. It is most often used in astronomy to denote  the percentage of the Sun’s light that is normally reflected by a particular planet or other object. For example, the Moon reflects a paltry 12 percent on average, yielding an albedo index of 0.12. Venus, the brightest planet, reflects 65 percent for an albedo of 0.65. The Earth has an albedo of 0.37. These figures are averages for the entire surface of each object, so reflectivity could vary widely from place to place. For example on the Earth solar rays will strike bright white clouds in some locations and dark volcanic rock in others.

Albedo already plays an important role in the Earth’s ability to maintain temperature levels. Snow and ice in the Arctic and Antarctic reflect a lot of heat back into space. A serious concern about the ongoing loss of Arctic Ocean sea ice is the fact that dark open water will absorb a lot of heat that would previously have reflected off of the white snow and ice. Summer ice coverage has been shrinking, causing the Arctic to warm faster than any other region on the planet. This is called a feedback effect, since the more ice melts, the warmer the area will become, causing even more melting and so on.

Sec. Chu’s proposal to paint rooftops white is presumed to cool the Earth by raising the average albedo of the planet. He also noted that roads and sidewalks should also be made “lighter colored” to enhance the effect.

Dr. Chu is a Nobel Prize winning physicist and his ideas should not be discarded out of hand. Not surprisingly, FoxNews.com contributor Steven Milloy, known for his commentary on so-called “Junk Science” (www.junkscience.com) does exactly that. “It’s past simplistic — it’s ridiculous,” FoxNews.com quotes the avowed climate-change skeptic in this article. “Imagine the glare on roads, in urban areas, imagine the UV radiation bouncing around. Snow blindness would be replaced by road blindness.”

(more…)

Posted in Astronomy, Climate Change, Melting Planet | Comments Off

An Efficient ‘Hobbit House’ In Wales

Saturday, May 23rd, 2009

By David L. Brown

I recently included in a post about a demonstration solar house in Michigan (“Bumps Along the Way to Clean Energy,” May 15) some discussion of my long-time interest in the concept of underground dwellings. A major advantage is that building below the frost line would require little energy to keep the house warm in winter and cool in summer.

Now the house pictured below isn’t exactly what I had in mind, but it’s in the right ballpark. It shows a “Hobbit house” built in Wales by British nature photographer Simon Dale.

ba-hobbit_front_0500170559

You can imagine that Bilbo Baggins would feel right at home here. You can read more about this project and admire his photography on Simon’s web site, here. As you can see, his newhouse, which he terms a “low impact woodland home,” is not entirely underground as I have envisioned, but built into a hillside. It is heavily insulated with straw bales and a layer of sod on the roof. It features all-natural materials, a wood burning stove for heat and solar panels for lighting and electronics. Even the floor and walls are layered with straw bales, making it remarkably energy efficient. Virtually all the materials used to build the house are natural, with a total investment of about £3000, or around $4500.

Explaining why he chose to build this energy efficient house using natural materials, Simon writes on his web site:

Our society is almost entirely dependent on the availability of increasing amounts of fossil fuel energy. This has brought us to the point at which our supplies are dwindling and our planet is in ecological catastrophe. We have no viable alternative energy source and no choice but to reduce our energy consumption. The sooner this change can be begun, the more comfortable it will be.

Below is an elevation cross-section drawing showing how the house was constructed. The structural rafters and beams were all made using limbs and wood trimmings from the surrounding forest. The house features a skylight and an interior composting toilet.

ba-hobbit_-_draw_0500170540Simon’s house is probably more, well, basic than most people would prefer, but the underlying ideas concerning energy efficiency and the use of low-impact materials are important. Concepts like these must be developed as quickly as possible as resources continue to dwindle. I think it is particularly interesting to note the modest cost of Simon’s new house compared with the demonstration house in Michigan, which was built for a reported $900,000 (£600,000). That’s about 200 times what Simon paid for the materials used in his Hobbit house, most of which probably went for the solar panels.

Simon estimated that construction required approximately 1000-1500 man hours by himself, his father-in-law, and “passers by and visiting friends.” Incidentally, he said that essentially the only tools used in the project were a chain saw, a hammer and a one-inch chisel.

In the long run, only if humans can learn to live with a far smaller “footprint” on Mother Earth can we expect to continue to exist. I hope to see more examples of innovative thinking such as this. Let’s hope Simon and his family enjoy many happy years of living in tune with nature.

Here’s one more view of Simon’s amazing house, a wide angle interior shot. Nice, eh?

ba-hobbit_roof_s_0500170576

Posted in Energy Technology | Comments Off

Why Americans Want Their Big Cars

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

By David L. Brown

Earlier today I posted a piece about the new CAFE standards. Although I raised some questions about the scale of the promised benefits and analyzed some of the reasons why it will not result in a sudden near-term reversal of our energy and transportation problems, all in all I am strongly in favor of reducing our use of non-replaceable petroleum on the roads and highways. My only objection to the new standards, if it could even be called a complaint, is that these changes should have been made decades ago.

But we Americans fell in love with the automobile  a long time back, and more than that, we fell for BIG cars. (Unless, of course, they are FAST cars in which case all is forgiven as long as they’re also sexy looking chick magnets.)

The infectious car bug is hard to kick and it’s not going to be easy for Americans to change. Heck, even third world countries have caught the disease as we see from the fact that China has recently become the world’s No. 1 market for new automobiles and Tata Nanos are selling like hot currycakes in India. It looks like it’s almost become a universal human right to own and drive an automobile.

But only we Americans have been so focused on the questionable idea that bigger-is-always-better.

One sign of the resistance by Americans to give up their big iron is illustrated through the use of photos such as the one below, which are intended to demonstrate that small cars are death traps. In fact, I found this image on a blog site where that very point was being made.

truck_vs_car_crash

This picture, it should be pointed out, is from Europe, not America. In Europe people have been driving small cars since Allah was a pup—the BIG car craze never caught on there. (But FAST did, in the home of the Ferrari, the Lamborghini, the Porsche and the Aston Martin.)

(more…)

Posted in Essays and Opinion, Transportation | Comments Off

A New Era for Automobile Efficiency?

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

By David L. Brown

The government today announced new fuel economy and pollution standards for automobiles and light trucks. This is excellent if somewhat tardy news, but should be viewed with some reservations. Let’s take a look.

First, I note that according to this report on FoxNews.com, a “senior administration official said the changes (when compared to current pollution and vehicle use totals) will have the effect of removing 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air, taking 177 million cars off the road, and shutting down 194 coal-fired power plants.”

This sounds too good to be true, and usually when that is the case one should prepare to apply some common logic. Some of these claims are hard to pin down, but the “177 million cars” figure is something we can work with.

According to the Department of Transportation, there are presently about 250 million cars and light trucks in service in the U.S. The 177 million figure mentioned by the administration spokesperson is equal to about 70 percent of the total number of vehicles presently on the road. Thus, to achieve the stated goal would require the outright elimination of 70 percent of all present CO² emissions from cars and trucks. A very optimistic claim indeed.

Let us assume that the new standards ultimately yield new vehicles that produce 50 percent less CO² than the average present cars. That seems pretty generous, but let’s go with that figure. Let’s say we trash 177 million present vehicles and replace them with new, cleaner vehicles yielding 50 percent less CO². Well, even that won’t achieve the stated target, since the new vehicles will still be producing half the emissions of the older cars they replaced. We will have only done away with the pollution equivalent of 88.5 million vehicles.

Now one might argue that the 177 million vehicle figure must be based on replacing the present fleet with completely clean electric vehicles If that were the case (and ignoring the greenhouse gas emissions from power production with the further assumption that it would come from clean solar or wind, which raises still more questions), we would still need to completely eliminate the emissions from 177 million passenger vehicles. (In fact, according to the news report, the targets “will be achieved with only minor modifications to vehicle and engine design,” so a complete switch to electric isn’t what they have in mind.)

It appears that to even come close to achieving the claimed target we would need to completely replace our present fleet—and unless the new vehicles were 100 percent “clean,” that still wouldn’t do the job. With 250 million vehicles emitting one-half the present levels of greenhouse gas, it would have only have replaced the equivalent of the output of 125 million present cars, not 177. This just doesn’t add up unless we make the further assumption that the actual total number of vehicles is significantly reduced. Only then does it start to make sense.

Herbert Hoover ran on the slogan “A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot.” Now it seems the plan is to empty out at least some of those garages. Will chickens be next to go? Well, that’s a subject for another day.

Today’s announcement seems to hint that these marvelous improvements will take place by 2016, or certainly in such a near future as to make a big difference in our present situation vis a vis energy use and pollution. In fact, the changes would be significantly longer-term. At recent rates of auto sales, it would take more than 20 years to replace the present fleet. Since the projections seem to be based on the assumption that everything would remain the same except with better fuel efficiency and lower emissions, we must ask what changes might occur in our nation’s economic, ecological and social future that would make these assumptions invalid. I will leave that to you to ponder, perhaps keeping in mind the failure of Soviet Five Year Plans to ever work out as hoped. Has anyone even tried to project an economic plan 20 or 25 years into the future?

(more…)

Posted in Age of Oil, Energy Technology, Fossil Fuels, Pollution, Transportation | Comments Off

Bumps Along the Way to Clean Energy

Friday, May 15th, 2009

By David L. Brown

According to a story today on the Detroit News website, a $900,000 demonstration house built by the city of Troy, MI with support from the local power company is closed until further notice. The house was designed without electrical and gas connections, relying entirely on solar energy. The house was dedicated with a ribbon cutting ceremony late last year.

The people in charge must have taken the global warming threat a bit too literally, because they failed to reckon on the fact that it still gets pretty cold in Michigan during the winter. Maybe they forgot that global warming means climate change, not overall warming, which resulted in an unusually cold winter this past season in many areas.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, the batteries ran down, the pipes froze and burst, and a flood of water caused thousands of dollars of damage to the house.

Well, that was a demonstration all right—a demonstration that we have a lot of learning to do before we can sail into a new world of energy independence. In fact, let’s cue Homer Simpson for what is truly a Doh! moment.

I have to wonder whether the power company, DTE, might have expected something like that to happen. If so, they might be doing Mr. Burns impressions about now, rubbing their hands together and muttering “Ex-cell-ent!” Like them, Mr. Burns is a seller of energy, but at least he uses only clean nuclear generation. DTE does do nuclear, but it also seems to be heavily invested in coal and gas.

Here is a picture of the demonstration house, which has 800 square feet and was supposed to be able to provide a living environment year-around plus enough electricity to support a home-based business and an electric car. All from solar power. In Michigan. In the winter. Double Doh!

bilde

Well, for $900K, I have to say this doesn’t look too impressive. Not the kind of place over which Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae would be fighting each other for the chance to guarantee a jumbo loan. In fact, I’ve seen people in Mexico living in old boxcars that had more eye appeal than this thing, thanks to some bright paint and a few flower pots.

Does this represent the grim future for humanity?

Well, not necessarily. As I have written before, the concept of living above ground needs to be reconsidered for a number of reasons. It’s just too subject to the ambient temperature. Down below the frost line things don’t freeze in the winter. That’s why the water pipes to your house are buried below the ground.

In my opinion, only by going underground can a truly practical solar house become a reality. Such a house would remain naturally cool in summer and warm in winter with very little power needed for ventilation and supplemental heating. The entire above-ground lot would be available for gardens, a small orchard, chicken and rabbit coops, a greenhouse, and of course solar panels and possibly even a windmill. Such a dwelling could be almost entirely self-sufficient in food as well as energy, and could even sell energy back to the grid. We need to think outside of the box (i.e., the boxy houses we are accustomed to living in).

Every reader of this blog knows that I favor a move toward energy self-sufficiency and clean, renewable power. Please do not interpret my playful scoffing as criticism of the basic idea behind this demonstration. In fact, demonstration phases of any new technology are needed exactly so that things can go all pear-shaped. Only by making mistakes, then failing to repeat them, can progress be made. And, who knows? perhaps the house will eventually be modified to be able to survive a Michigan winter. Let’s hope so.

Meanwhile, I’ve been dreaming about the concept of underground construction since I was a teenager in the 1950s, and it’s an idea whose time has come. Let’s hope someone notices. I’m not holding my breath.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Technology, Solar Power | Comments Off