Could Nanomaterials Revolutionize Solar Energy?

One of the problems with producing energy from the sun is that the harvest is inefficient. The most common solar cells, which are silicon based, have an average of 15% efficiency. They also only gather energy from a limited amount of wavelengths, although different types of photovoltaics can absorb different parts of the spectrum of light. Despite these and other problems, , which speaks to its usefulness as a primary energy source in the future. However, in order to support mankind’s growing demand for energy, solar systems will have to continue to innovate– and nanomaterials could be the perfect solution.

Nanomaterials can be used to create small-scale versions of existing technologies. Molybdenum disulfide is one of these materials, with some particularly interesting properties. A thin film of MoS2 is transparent, and can be layered onto a wide variety of other materials. Imagine, as an example, a glass table that also functions as a touch-screen display. These properties mean that MoS2, in conjunction with other nanomaterials, could be used to create ultra-thin solar panels. The reduction in size of the circuitry also means that the energy doesn’t have to travel as far, decreasing line loss.

The real value of MoS2 is in another theoretical application. Some students believe that a microscopic needle could poke tiny holes into a thin film of MoS2, creating a funnel.

The strain would vary on different parts of the funnel, which would allow the funnel to absorb light from a wider portion of the spectrum. Although this has not yet been tested outside of computer simulations, the efficient collection of the funnel combined with the infinitesimal size should result in relatively low-cost and low-weight panels.

Turtles and Ta-Ta’s: Negative Effects of Light Pollution

Light Pollution:

In 2003, a blackout swept through the Northeast and emergency services from New York to Delaware received calls from citizens all over concerned about a suspicious “milky cloud” in the sky.¹ While it may sound ridiculous, an estimated 5 million people living in big cities in the United States will never see the night sky unless visiting a planetarium or during a blackout.¹ Upon its conception, light pollution in industrialized nations was seen as a way to increase productivity, extend the hours we can both work and recreate. Today, much of our society functions at night. Lights, on every street corner, every porch, every empty parking lot and the sides of buildings chase back the night, allowing us to feel secure, to see what would otherwise be hidden in the darkness.

It is estimated that publicly funded nighttime lighting in the United States uses 30 million barrels of oil and 8.2 million tons of coal each year, generating a staggering 14.1 million tons of CO₂.³ Along with the negative environmental externalities caused by the production of so much unnecessary light, the industrialized world pays a hefty price to provide ourselves with artificial daylight 24-hours a day. Right now the European Union is phasing out incandescent light bulbs in an effort to cut energy waste. With predicted savings of 40TWh, $11 million dollars will be saved in their budget while cutting 15 million tons of CO2 emissions per year.³ Domestically, cities are starting to see the value in reducing light pollution. In 2011 Ridgetown, CT proposed to reduce lighting around some school lots, at the old abandoned high school, and at their Parks and Recreation Center.³ Even with the $12,000 onetime charge for shutting off the unused poles, the city aims to save $7,000 the first year of light reduction.³ The savings will continue as each year after are able to spend $19,000 saved on inappropriate illumination for the betterment of their community.³

Safety:

But don’t we need well lit communities to keep our children safe and deter criminals? No; while light at night has the psychological effect of making people feel safe, light in and of itself does not deter criminal activity according to a long term FBI study.² Were darkness required for criminal activity, on average 50% of all break-ins reported should have occurred at midnight, not midday, as seen below.² Additionally, despite the fact that night polluting lighting has increased in the study area since it began in 2004, there has been no significant reduction in break-ins committed at night.²

Additionally, researchers have found that due to the false sense of security provided by excessive night lighting, citizens take more unnecessary risks after dark.² While running down the street at midnight may not look that different from running at midday, more muggings and physical assaults occur in well-lit areas, as they create strategic pockets of darkness as vantage points.² Consider the picture below, this type of “Glare-Bomb” is popular in suburban neighborhoods. It is a strong light that, while it harshly illuminates the target area, it blinds those in its radius, hiding those standing in plain sight on the fringe of darkness created. Can you give an accurate description of the intruder in the shot?

Turtles and Tata’s

The nighttime glow of Los Angles can be seen from an airplane up to 200 miles away.1 Research on insects, turtles, birds, fish, reptiles, and other wildlife show that light pollution can alter behaviors, foraging areas, and breeding cycles of animals in both urban and rural areas.1 Animals can be disoriented by the lights and wonder into nearby roadways, when beaches are brightly lit, it may discourage sea turtles from nesting.1 During nesting season on the National Sea Shore on the Outer Banks, all lighting within 100 yards is banned as park service found that hatchlings, traditionally crawling toward the moonlight reflecting off the ocean, were crawling toward city centers and beach properties. The light disruption to migrating birds can also cause severe disorientation, confused by the excessive lighting, the number of birds dying from collisions with light poles and other obstructions at night annually ranges from 98 million to 1 billion.1  Many of the species affected are endangered, and the externalities of night light pollution can potentially severely undermine efforts to support their populations.

Animals aren’t the only ones being negatively affected by excessive night light pollution. There have been several studies linking the increased prevalence of diabetes, behavioral disorders, and certain cancers to those working third shift, and alternating night-day shifts.⁴ The focus of several studies have been college students, who use excessive lighting and caffeine to extend their productive day, sleeping and exercising less regularly.⁴ Deemed ‘Delayed Sleep-Phase Syndrome,’ the bodies of students and those working third shift are less able to complete the correct processes during sleep which is interrupted by variable amounts of light. These people tend to fall asleep very late and have difficulty waking up, this also leads to several behavioral disorders and has been linked to attention and academically related disorders.⁴

A more fatal association by far is the increased prevalence of breast cancer in well-lit areas. A study of women in Israel found that women living in a neighborhood where it is bright enough to read a book outside at midnight had a 73% higher risk of developing breast cancer than those in areas with minute amounts of outdoor lighting.⁴ In the developed world, 1 in 7 women are diagnosed with breast cancer during her life.⁴ According to the American Medical Society, only ½ of the breast cancer cases can be attributed to known risk factors, such as genetic predisposition.⁴ In the United States, incidence of breast cancer diagnosis increased by more than 45% between 1973 and 2010.⁴ Female nurses working 3^rd shift were found to be at a higher risk, a 1 in 5 change, of being diagnosed with breast cancer.⁴ Additionally, women working third shift 15 years or more were found to have a 35% increased risk of colorectal cancer.⁴ The cause of this increase is suspected to be the interruption of circadian rhythms that allow the body to produce melatonin, a natural hormone, only produced at night, which has been found to prevent and suppress the growth of tumors.⁴ A wattage as low as .7 has been found to have the potential to disrupt the circadian rhythm, the strength of most exterior lights, flooding in through your bedroom window is between 100 and 500 kW. ⁴

As the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in women in the developed world, the cost of fighting for your life is high. In 2012, just over $13.9 billion was spent by U.S. women on breast cancer treatments.⁴ Even with the maximum insurance the cost of a single reconstructive surgery is around $20,000.⁴ With the costs of constant chemotherapy, medications, doctors’ visits and other treatments, a women diagnosed with breast cancer can easily accumulate $100,000 in debt in a year’s time. Consequently, 11% of those who are diagnosed with breast cancer file for bankruptcy.⁴

Considering all the negative associations established with excessive night lighting, we must ask, is creating an artificial day during night hours’ worth the costs imposed on taxpayers and society as a whole. While shutting off all the lights is also not an option, better design, as seen in the example below, could help reduce the negative effects of night light pollution, effectively reducing the harm done to turtles and ta-tas, while cutting off less of the night sky and cutting out less of our collective wallets.

 

1-     Chepesiuk, Ron. “Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution.” Environmental Health Prospective, January 2009. 117(1) A20-27. Web http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/

2-     Florida Atlantic University, “Light Pollution Endangers Our Security and Our Safety.” Department of Physics. 2011. Web http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-security.html

3-     Florida Atlantic University, “Light Pollution Hurts Our Economy and Our Reserves.” Department of Physics. 2011. Web http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-econ.html

4-     Nance-Nash, Sheryl. “Breast Cancer’s Financial Toll: The High Cost of Fighting for Your Life.” Daily Finance. Oct 2011. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/05/breast-cancers-financial-toll-the-high-cost-of-fighting-for-yo/

YouTube Videos that relate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2JQFyFcbRU

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413142n

Climate Change Adaptation

The primary focus of United States energy policy in recent years has been reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.  North Carolina’s adoption of the  Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard in 2007 is a local attempt to reduce emissions through transition to renewable substitutes, “mandating investor-owned utilities to meet at least 12.5% of their energy needs from renewable energy or energy efficiency measure by the year 2021.” [1]  A national example would be the fuel efficiency standards set by the federal government in 2012, “requiring automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks by 2025 (54.5 average mpg.).” [2]  These efficiency standards are an effective policy to reduce the emissions output of our current generation, however, they also extend our dependence on conventional sources.  Mitigation efforts are vital in cracking down on the sources of climate change, but measures of adaptation must also be taken because a certain degree of climate change is guaranteed.

A 2009 study, done by researchers of the journal Nature, reported that if world CO2 emissions could be reduced by half of their 1990 levels by 2050- then the effects of global warming could be kept below a two degree Shift. [3]  Even a change below two degrees will have devastating effects on unequipped infrastructure, therefore climate adaptation strategies should be implemented as quickly as possible.  A 2011 United Kingdom’s Secretary of State report details the challenges of, and a plan for, nation-wide climate adaptation.  This report was drafted after it was discovered that the Central England average temperature had risen by one degree celsius since 1970- “as a response to calls from industry – infrastructure owners, investors and insurers – for a Government vision and policy on adapting infrastructure to climate change.” [4]  The report indicates that of the largest challenges of adapting to climate change is determining the differences between short term weather changes and long term climate shifts.  Determining this difference allows governments to prioritize certain areas for infrastructure reinforcement.  Such reinforcement could include the development of climate resilient infrastructure that can withstand weather extremes and be easily modified.

    Climate change adaptation is important for developed nations like the U.K. and U.S., but it is essential for developing nations.  The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs states that the strategy behind climate change adaptation must be founded on meeting the needs of developing nations first and foremost, “ They are the ones with the most to lose from climate change and the least capacity to adapt to its effects, despite having contributed the least to causing the problem in the first place.” [5]  Effective management of water resources and irrigation is one adaptive strategy that is being utilized in developing countries, another is relocation of crops and retrofitting of agricultural practices -such as building terraces to retain water. Rainwater harvesting, improved water storage structure infrastructure, and adjustment of crop planting schedules are other strategies. Although concerns about drought and water supplies are a big part of the climate change issue, the U.N. shines a spotlight on Small Island Developing States, as major targets for climate resilient infrastructure improvements.  Coastal communities will be affected by sea level rises, beach erosion, and have the most severe weather events as a result of climate change. Climate change adaptation strategies for coastal communities include: shoreline protection, elevation of structures, relocation of structures, and emergency response planning.

Efforts to adapt developing and developed nations to the impending effects of climate change will continue to grow as it becomes more and more apparent that vulnerable communities are in danger. What is most needed by developing nations at this point is access to funds so that they can adapt to climate change while there is still time to develop things like emergency response plans,water management strategies, and climate change resilient infrastructure. The Pilot Program for Climate Resilience is a U.N. initiative to raise funds to provide for climate change adaptation investments in developing countries.   The PPCR gives priority to countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, like small island nations- and provides near-zero interest grants and financing.  Developing nations can invest these funds, “improving agricultural practices and food security, building climate-resilient water supply and sanitation infrastructure, monitoring and analyzing weather data, and conducting feasibility studies for climate-resilient housing in coastal areas.” [6]

 

#1- General Assembly of North Carolina. Session Law 2007-397: Senate Bill 3. No known publisher: August 20, 2007. Web. 02/25/2013.

#2- Vlasic, Bill. U.S. Sets Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards. The New York Times: August 28, 2012. Web. 04/20/2013.

#3- Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize Global Warming. Sciencedaily: May 4, 2009. Web. 04/20/2013.

#4- Spelman, Caroline. Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate. Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited: May, 2011. Web. 04/14/2013.

#5- Adaptation: from vulnerability to resilience. New York: UN Publications. Web. 04/20/2013

#6- Pilot Program for Climate Resilience. Climate Investment Funds. Web. 04/14/2013

Solar Natural Gas

Amongst all the debate over depletable versus renewable energy sources, there may be a conjoining solution that involves both fossil fuels and alternative energy. A new system is being developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of Washington state that can combine the use of natural gas and solar energy into a more efficient energy source. Through this process they are able to convert solar power and natural gas into a fuel known as syngas. Syngas, also known as synthesis gas is a gas mixture of primarily hydrogen, carbon monoxide and usually some carbon dioxide. It can be used in the process of synthetic petroleum production and it often used as a fuel of internal combustion engines (PNNL). However, through this new solar infused system, power plants can burn syngas in order to produce electricity. The syngas has a much higher energy content which allows plants to consume less natural gas. When the sun is shining, natural gas plants can use up to 20 percent less fuel by injecting solar energy into their gas.  PNNL engineer Bob Wegeng, the leader of the syngas project says the “system will enable power plants to use less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity they already make…at the same time, the system lower’s a power plant’s greenhouse gas emissions at a cost that’s competitive with traditional fossil fuel power.”

            If this new system of energy is implemented it could significantly reduce the carbon footprint of power generation. The U.S. has an increasing dependency on natural gas as an energy source partially due to its low cost. The Department of Energy estimates that natural gas will make up 27 percent of United States electricity by 2020. However, the use of syngas in power plants could lead to an even lower-cost power source. When installed in front of natural gas plants, the PNNL’s new system transforms them into hybrid solar-gas power plants.

PNNL’s concentrating solar power dish

            This is all made possible by the retention of the solar power. Assisted by a reflecting surface, the sun’s rays are concentrated like a magnifying glass. A mirrored parabolic dish directs the rays to a central point where another mechanism absorbs the sun’s heat. This device contains a chemical reactor and multiple heat exchangers with narrow channels. Natural gas is heated by the sun as it flows through the reactor’s channels which hold a catalyst that assists in the production and conversion into syngas. The generated heat drives thermochemical reactions that split carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and make hydrogen. Due the narrowness of the reactor’s channels, leftover heat from the reactions is recycled and then reused.

PNNL’s thermochemical conversion device is installed in front of a concentrating solar power dish

With the development of this PNNL system natural gas than can be used as a raw material in a facility that incorporates solar power with a plant fueled by natural gas that is enhanced by synthesis gas. By reusing excess heat, solar energy is an extremely more efficient way to convert natural gas into syngas. Tests have shown that more than 60 percent of the sunlight that hit’s the mirrored dish was converted into chemical energy in the syngas. Due to its sun-driven nature, the system is best suited for power plants located in sunshine-drenched areas such as the American Southwest (Wegeng).

Implementation of the PNNL system could seriously lower the price of electricity to the public. By 2020 the PNNL project aims to keep costs low enough to where the average cost of electricity produced would be no more than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity right now is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour meaning the solar powered method could be competitive in the current market. It goes without saying that the price and efficiency of using this solar powered system is certainly superior to the traditional fossil fuel-burning technique most power plants use today. Not only is it more cost-effective and a higher yield of energy, but it can reduce greenhouse emissions and provide a much cleaner alternative energy source for electricity. Wegeng’s vision does not stop at electricity production either. The hopeful engineer believes one day PNNL’s solar-driven system could be used to produce transportation fuels as syngas can be used to make synthetic crude oil which than can be refined into gasoline. There is so much talk about finding alternative energy sources that are renewable as well as non-harmful to the Earth. While it may not be the solution, this system could be a step in the right direction of green energy. 

PNNL’s concentrating solar power system for natural gas power plants, installed on a mirrored parabolic dish

Water Privatization: An Economic Solution or Disaster?

The privatization of water supplies has received more attention in the last couple of decades.  There are three main models of water privatization which are outsourcing; design, build, and operate (DBO); and asset sale.  Outsourcing involves the private contracting for water utility plant operation and maintenance and private provision of various services such as meter reading.  DBO means negotiating a contract with a private firm for the construction services of new or upgraded facilities. An asset sale means the sale of government-owned water assets to private water companies (SERC online).

Many urban areas in developed and developing countries are faced with crumbling water supply systems and the financial burden from water subsidies, so these areas are starting to privatize their water systems.  This is usually accomplished by selling the publicly owned water supply and distribution assets to a private company (Tietenberg).  The intuition behind this decision is the hope that private companies can more efficiently operate the water system, thereby lowering costs and therefore prices, and at the same time improving water quality to customers.  The issue with this is that many companies act as a monopoly after the privatization of water occurs, using their influence to raise water rates (Citizen).

Figure one above shows the number of jobs lost to privatization as a percentage of the total number of jobs.  Certain cities such as Atlanta and New Orleans lost a lot of jobs while Indianapolis did not lose as many jobs.  The amount of jobs lost depends on the company who privatized as well as the location of the water supplies.

The economic impacts of water privatization include job losses, corruption, reduced public rights and local control, potential rate increases, and decreased water quality.   Usually after water supplies become privatized, massive layoffs tend to follow to minimize costs and increase profits to the company but this leads to at risk service and water quality as well as devastated workers and consumers (Citizen).  Moreover, reduced public rights and local control means that decisions are made but not always with the community’s needs up front and center.  These impacts can be negative or positive towards the economy depending on the scheme of the impact as well as the size of the economy (local, regional, national) but in general water privatization leads to negative economic impacts because private financing ends up costing more than public financing (SERC online).  The positive economic impact of privatizing water utilities is that it will hopefully reduce the demand for water and make people conserve water so that they are just wastefully using it because the prices of water will go up.  At the same time, it will make it much harder for poor people to buy water if the prices go up.

In Figure two above, the graph shows private owned utilities versus local government owned utilities for some of the fifty states.  All show that the typical annual household water bill is higher for private owned utility than for municipal or publicly owned utilities.

Works Cited

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Top10-ReasonsToOpposeWaterPrivatization.pdf

http://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/government/privatisation/pricesWater.html

http://www.serconline.org/waterPrivatization/fact.html

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis.  Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Ninth Edition, Boston: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2011.

The Dirty Side of a “Clean” Industry

In the 1800s, British economist Thomas Malthus birthed the notion of “The Self-Extinction Premise”- a hypothesis ahead of its time that is now drifting (or perhaps more accurately, hurling) into the very immediate realm of possibilities for those of us currently inhabiting this spaceship known as Earth. The Self-Extinction Premise determines that the human population will eventually exhaust all available resources; essentially, we will be the reason we are extinct one day. (*Note: This is not a phenomenon that occurs in nature – it is distinctly unique to us as a species. This is not “good”…) We have seen this premise fulfilled in civilizations such as the Mayans and that of Easter Island, and many involved with &/or aware of the current state of affairs admit it might not be too far off for us.

“Necessity is the mother of invention.” The necessity of our time is for a dramatic shift from the so aptly-deemed “fossil fuels”, to a cleaner energy source. This necessity has birthed alternative energy sources that focus and rely heavily on renewable resources such as wind, sun, and water. This shift has been slower to pick up than most of its enthusiasts  might prefer, but its proponents eagerly & willingly bear the burden of coaxing the world up & out of its slumber, and into a new, more aware, mindful, & regenerative paradigm. These enthusiasts, in accordance with human nature, tend to also carry with them quite strong opinions regarding the superiority of these technologies. As these industries expand, we begin to see what they are capable of- which, as it turns out, isn’t all  “good”.

In 2011, Chinese authorities ordered the shutdown of solar panel manufacturing plant Jinko Solar after days-long protests powered by over 500 residents of the surrounding area. These residents were the witnesses to the dirtier side of this “clean” energy industry – claiming pollution from the plant as the cause of contaminated water, poisoned pigs, & dead fish. Tests went on to reveal that the plant was responsible for high amounts of fluoride and had been failing pollution tests for nearly six months prior.

Chinese villagers protest Jinko Solar Plant pollution

As the world wakes, it becomes aware of all aspects of all sides – even, and perhaps now especially, the shadows of what has been highly glorified as a “pure” industry. In economics, we acknowledge the existence of the first-best scenario (ideal) and the second-best (reality). As one could determine from the former sentence, the second-best scenario is more often the reality of a situation. In my eyes, the ideal, or first-best, scenario in the energy realms would allow for us to use a totally “clean” renewable resource to the end of our lifetimes, while providing for generations to come. This resource would be pure and free of any adverse effects manifest in the form of pollution or cost. This scenario can be interpreted subjectively, however, which brings us to the current second-best scenario. We must realize that some players in this game currently benefit from “dirtier” sources of energy, hence resistance and a slower shift beyond these dinosaur technologies. In regard to Jinko’s particular situation, the lax regulations that allowed this pollution the first place have allowed consumers to benefit from lower costs on solar panels. With stiffer regulations, manufacturing costs are likely to increase, which will reverberate out through every part of the process, landing with the consumer.

More recently, in February of this year, the Associated Press wrote a report regarding the sludge and wastewaster products of the solar industry:

“While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.

To dispose of the material, the companies must transport it by truck or rail far from their own plants to waste facilities hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of miles away.

The fossil fuels used to transport that waste, experts say, is not typically considered in calculating solar’s carbon footprint, giving scientists and consumers who use the measurement to gauge a product’s impact on global warming the impression that solar is cleaner than it is.”

Grist came in with a follow-up article noting that the 11 million pounds of sludge and wastewater/year of the solar industry might be better understood in comparison with the 584 trillion pounds of waste/year that comes of the fracking industry. AP also noted that pollution in the solar industry might be unusually high because of the industry’s rapid growth. AP’s editorial concluded with the recognition of the lifespan of solar panels as another redeeming factor in its efforts to lead the green, clean revolution.

In the editorial “No Such Thing as Free Energy”, the Times Colonist addresses the less-obvious, and thus often ignored, consequences of what is commonly pronounced “clean” or “free” energy:

“The easiest way to solve the energy dilemma is to use less of it. We have become energy spendthrifts, lavishly lighting our homes, public places and streets. We drive more than we need to.

We spend too much heating and cooling buildings, when relatively inexpensive design changes could significantly reduce energy consumption. Homes built to R2000 standards, says Natural Resources Canada, will add two to four per cent to construction costs, but will use 30 per cent less energy than conventional homes.

Simply siting a house to take advantage of the sun’s position can bring measurable energy savings, as can the judicious use of trees, shrubbery and other landscaping.

Energy research holds much promise, but we shouldn’t count on future technological advances to continue supporting our wasteful energy habits when there’s so much we can be doing in the present.”

This prescription nails it on the head for me. It is important to see all sides of the situation, as I have begun to touch upon. This does not mean, however, that we may simply compare solar to coal and call it a day. It also does not mean that we abandon the quest for betterment due to this one discrepancy. The Times Colonist truly articulates the responsibility of our times – to be more mindful. The responsibility, in this day and age more than possibly ever before, lies with the individual, to “be the change” – because this is one shift we can choose the acceleration rate of.

Works Cited

Bump, Philip. “Are Solar Panels the Worst Thing for the Environment Ever? Um, No.” Grist. N.p., 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Dearen, Jason. “Solar Energy: Dirtier Than We Think.” Ideas Changing the World. National Center for Policy Analysis, 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

“No Such Thing as Free Energy.” Times Colonist. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

Vranicar, David. “Chinese Solar Panel Plant Shut down Due to Pollution, Protests.” The Earth Times. N.p., 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/asia/china-shuts-solar-panel-factory-after-anti-pollution-protests.html?_r=0

Climate Change Adaptations of Nigerian Agriculturists

Agriculture is a large part of the livelihood of inhabitants of Nigeria, and Sub-Saharan Africa more broadly. According to T.G. Apata et. al., 75.9% of Nigerians derive livelihood from agriculture. Climate change will have a more magnified effect on these areas. Adaptation is critical in order to support crop yields for this area of the world. Because these farming operations are generally low-input, they rely more heavily on climate and rain qualities. A 2010 study was used to measure the effects of climate change adaptation methods used by Nigerian farmers. The study found that farmers who had begun adapting for climate change in their agricultural practices actually had higher yields in their crops than those who had not yet adapted. This study was conducted using the Ricardian method is a cross-section method compares a farmer’s net revenue or farm income with farming activities, which shows the relationship between actual adaptation (rather than from a controlled experiment) and the results. The Ricardian method directly measures farm revenue as a function of market price, crop output, purchased inputs, climate variables, water flow, soil variables, market access, and input prices. The sampling included 800 households from 20 different villages for a total of 800 households, with only 650 of which providing “useful data.” Only around 0.6% of Nigerian agriculturists use irrigation, while the rest depend on rainfall cycles. Due to the “agro ecological diversity,” the study was able to include a wide array of agricultural products. The study accounted for agro ecological zone, land percentage cultivation, degree of irrigation activity, and average annual rainfall/variability. The study involved asking the farmers of the study about their understanding of climate change and how they adapted. The most frequent issues recognized among farmers were as follows: 83% of the farmers involved in the study had noticed increased temperature. 85% reported noticing that ground water evaporated more quickly than it should. 76% reported an increase in pests and weeds on cropland. 72% reported violent rain and hailstorms. 74% reported delayed rainfall. 77% reported irregularities in rain season. The most frequent adaptation method used among farmers was the switch to using multiple crops in dry lands. The least frequent was the use of specialized livestock under irrigation. More details can be found from Table 2: The conclusion drawn from analyzing the Ricardian model’s results was  that “households with climate change adaptation measures tended to produce about 87 kg more of food per hectare than those who did not take such measures.” Those who did not take adaptation measures choose to do so due to lack of information, lack of money and credit, and lack of labor.” The results suggest that when these farmers have access to accurate information about irrigation and climate change, along with access to institutional support, including credit, they are more likely to adapt- and therefore more likely to experience net gains in productivity and revenue. Overall, the conclusion of this article points out that adaptations combined with the shifting climate may actually have a net positive impact on agriculture in Nigeria if the government can come through with policies that support education, institutional support, and conservation methods (i.e. organic farming strategies) for the farmers. In a nation so dependent on agriculture for livelihood, there is perhaps no other choice. As we have discussed in class, lands can be evaluated for categories of use by different evaluation models. This article demonstrates the ability for Nigerian farmers to manipulate the use value of their land by adapting to climate change.

– Josh Fernandez, Climate Group

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=49c417ed-6fca-4122-800c-c81a9ffb889c%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=5

 

Apata, T. G., Agboola, T. O., Kehinde, A. L., & Sanusi, R. A. (2011). Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Nigerian Agriculture and Adaptation Strategies Response among Farming Households in Nigeria. Journal Of Agricultural Science & Technology (19391250), 5(2), 202-214.

Increasing Efficiency in Solar Energy Storage

This past month, Huffington Post put out an article describing a way to increase the efficiency of renewable energy sources. They provide a frighteningly accurate statement that essentially sums up the reason renewable energy is not used more widespread: “Solar energy is virtually limitless, generates no planet-warming greenhouse gases — and is useless between sunset and sunrise. Wind energy is also plentiful and emits no carbon, and it can be harvested day or night, but not when the air is calm”

The current method of renewable energy production usually operates so the solar or wind creates electricity which then charges a battery. Some other models have the electricity pumping water uphill and letting it flow back down or using the electricity to compress air to run generators. All of these methods are extremely inefficient.

The article suggests, to instead, use the electricity generated by solar panels or wind turbines to create hydrogen, which itself can be used a fuel and has no emissions other than water vapor. Until recently, storing the energy in hydrogen was just as inefficient as the other models. The way this all works is an electric current is run through water, which splits the H2O into oxygen and hydrogen. This process takes a lot of energy, and could be sped up, but the catalysts that used to be required were made from rare metals, which made this a very expensive process. But, the chemists at the University of Calgary have discovered a way to make the catalyst using iron oxide, i.e. rust. This means, not only is it more energy efficient to store electricity in hydrogen, it is also more economically efficient as well.

This can be seen further when you look at the energy density of hydrogen, how much energy it can hold per pound of material. It’s about 100x more than batteries or compressed air, or really any other model for renewable energy storage.

The most impressive thing about this hydrogen model is its potential. Current solar models are only able to convert 1%-3% of the energy captured into electricity, which is another reason the adoption of renewable energy sources is going so slow. This new catalyst method has the potential to increase the yield to 16%. Which is still incredibly low compared to fossil fuels, but is impressive for solar or wind.

While this is not the answer to the energy and emission problems we’re facing today, it may be a good indicator of a movement to developing ways to increase the efficiency of these renewable energy sources. The simple fact that this increases the efficiency while also decreasing the cost shows great promise for the future. 

Lemonick, Michael. “Storing Renewable Energy in Hydrogen Could Help Stabilize Output, Researchers Find.” Huffington Post 03 38 2013, n. pag. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.

Pousaz, Lionel. “Using Rust and Water to Store Solar Energy as Hydrogen.” Mediacom 11 11 2012, n. pag. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.

Potential Environmental Disaster in Bristol Bay

 

The Bristol Bay watershed is located about 250 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. What makes this area so special is that these streams, rivers, and wetlands house the most abundant sockeye salmon population on the planet. The total ecological resources in the area are valued at around $ 300 million.

 

The Pebble Partnership has proposed building one of the worlds largest mines in the minimum area including a 1,358-acre pit, 3,686-acre tailings impoundment, and many acres of rock piles, roads, and dams.  Pebble argues that their mine would help reduce pollution because this area supposedly holds the world’s largest copper reserve. Copper is often used in many green technologies such as electric cars, solar panels, and wind farms. In the best-case scenario where there is no dam failure there would be many blocked streams and increased sedimentation runoff into streams and wetlands, which would limit the breeding area for local fish populations. The sedimentation upstream would impact down stream environments as well lowering the quality of water and decreasing the nutrient flow.

Some non point source pollutants would come from the construction of roads, currently there are no roads in the Bristol Bay region, and this would all change if a mine were developed. Not only would roads cross tributary streams road runoff would include sediments from erosion around the road, heavy metal and pesticide runoff, organic debris leading to eutrophication, and road salts. Road salts are of a particular concern in this region because the roads in Alaska are particularly prone to freezing.

If there was a failure in the tailings dam, which is possible seeing as Alaska sits upon a fault line, more than 30 km of salmon habitat would be completely destroyed and many other habitats would be severely harmed for many years to come. The failure of a tailings dam is unlikely but failures in water collection and treatment operation during operation and after the plant has shut down has been listed as ‘high’ by the EPA. If there were a failure in the water treatment lechates would flow anywhere from hours to months.

There is also the question of who maintains the tailings dam after the plant closes down. Would the Pebble Partnership continue monitoring or would the risk and cost be put upon the state? The tailings pond is suspected to be large due to the fact that the ore being mind is of a very low grade.

There is a high risk of both point source and non point source pollution if a dam was built in the Bristol Bay watershed. A failure could harshly impact the only remaining healthy salmon population in the world and the native tribes who have relied on their presence for 4,000 years.

 

 

 

Sources:

United States. Environmental Protection Agency. About Bristol Bay. 2013. Web.

 

United States. Environmental Protection Agency. About Bristol Bay. 2013. Web

“Pebble Partnership.” Why Mine?. N.p.. Web. 17 Apr 2013.

 

United States. Environmental Protection Agency.Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. 2012. Web.

 

 

Methods to Measure the Impacts of Climate Change

With climate change becoming a more accepted phenomenon, we must begin to assess how it may affect our still recovering economy.  Generally, the environment itself is not given any value until a resource is extracted from it.  To look at how the nation will be affected economically, we must first look at the potential value the environment has in and of itself including the value of the resources that could be extracted from it.  Second, lost commerce must be measured as disruptions in weather patterns and geography will affect how people act and interact.

There are several ways to value the seemingly valueless environment, and these are by using non-market valuation and measuring how much revenue resources and institutions that profit from the environment generate.  There are several ways to go about using non-market valuation.  One method is called the Travel-Cost Method.  By using this approach, one can determine how much a person or a group of people value the environment by assessing the total cost of a trip to an environmentally-themed place such as a national park.  Had the park not existed, then the money that would have been spent at places like a gas station and restaurants would have gone elsewhere.

Another way to measure how much people value the environment is to have them reveal it to you.  This can be done two ways.  One is ask them directly how much one would pay for something or set a benchmark and see if people would be willing to pay that.  An example of using this method is asking a person questions like “How much would you be willing to pay to reduce soil erosion from heavy rain?”  This method uses the direct method in which a person states their willingness to pay.  The other method, by setting a benchmark, reveals a preference that can be used as a minimum value.  The question would then become “Would you be willing to pay ten dollars to reduce soil erosion?”  When large groups of people are interviewed in this way, a value for a valueless environment can be determined.

It is easier to measure the money generated from resources, for one can look at the revenue that a particular resource allows to generate.  For example, one can measure how much a copper mine is worth by measuring how much money companies that use that copper generate.  If the copper mine did not exist, then that money would not have gone to the company; therefore, that would be what the land was worth.  This method can also be used to determine how much a fishery is, and even very small establishments like a family garden.

Climate change will cause people to spend money differently than today, and the loss of money going to one area can be viewed as an economic cost of climate change.  For example, ocean levels are predicted to rise and flood areas like the North Carolina Outer Banks.  To determine how much a location like the Outer Banks is worth, both non-market valuation and revenues generated should be used.  Using techniques like described earlier, one can determine how much people value the Outer Banks just for being there.  Next, by looking at revenues generated by institutions located on the Outer Banks one can determine how much money would be lost if they were to no longer be accessible.  Other costs that need to be taken into account are the costs incurred by displaced people, for that is money that could be spent elsewhere.  The money that could be lost due to the change in spending habits alone will be staggering.  Lost resources will compound that cost even more, and potentially put an external strain on the current economic system that it may not be able to handle.  With the  estimated annual value of the coastal and marine ecosystems to the global economy is roughly 20 trillion dollars, the possible implications of climate change to the economy of the world are staggering.

References:

“Green.view: Environmental values | The Economist.” The Economist – World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. <http://www.economist.com/node/13474652&gt;.

Tietenberg, Thomas H.. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. 9th ed. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 20111. Print.