Save and Conserve

Class five focused on solar PV system components. We discussed charge controllers, mounting options, inverters, combiners and batteries.

Although the solar modules (or panels) are the most expensive and most visible piece of any solar system, they would be worthless without the various components they connect with and feed power to.

Charge controllers regulate the amount of energy distributed to batteries so that the batteries do not overcharge, which is critical to the long term health and operability of the batteries. There are, of course, various types of charge controllers available:

• Pulse with Modulation (PWM) controllers are the most simplistic controllers available. They are switch-based and send power to charge the battery when the switch closes the circuit.
• Diversion controllers are smarter than PWM. When the battery is charged, these controllers have the ability to send the power to another place.
• 3 Stage controllers are even better - they can switch into 3 modes. In bulk mode, the controller will send all available current to the battery (like PWM0. In absorption mode, the voltage being delivered remains constant while the current is decreased. In float mode, the battery can be trickle charged.
• Maximum Power Point Tracking controllers are the best option and what most people use today on battery-tied systems. These controllers track the module IR curve and send the right amount of voltage to the battery. These controllers make it easier to match a high voltage array with a lower voltage bank of batteries (which is typical).

After controllers, we discussed the different module mounting options. This boils down to roof mount, ground mount and pole mount. There are various pros and cons for each type of mount. For example, roof mount typically looks better, but the panels can get very hot in the summer time up there. Heat creates resistance in the circuit, so the hotter panels get, the fewer volts they produce. The ground mount will not be as hot, but it is more susceptible to damage or theft. A pole mount can offer easy access for repairs or maintenance, but it can also be an eye sore. Like most things in this world, there is no best single best option. The site and personal preference will play into the equation.

We wrapped up with info on inverters, combiners and batteries. My take-away from this (pretty boring) class was that the devil is in the details. You can see from the notes above that there are a lot of different options available, at different power points and at different price points. As a solar installer, if you don't nail down the system components and deliver the customer a solid quote, you won't be in business for too long. Obvious, yet a good dose of reality.

Posted by tom c. at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sarah Silverman discusses the upside to global comforting ...

Posted by tom c. at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Excellent tips from SolarWrights, a Rhode Island-based Solar Installation company, for anyone thinking about building sustainable and energy-efficient homes.

1. Site new homes so that you maximize the South wall. Minimize any roof protrusions such as pipes or dormers on the South roof to allow for the solar PV modules or solar thermal collectors. It is generally preferable to utilize a Gable roof design as opposed to a Hip roof.

2. Keep the heated area of the home under 3,000 sq. ft. Use isolated solar sunspaces attached to the south wall of the heated portion of the home. See below for more information on passive solar sunspaces. Use air-lock entries to minimize heat loss when entering and exiting the home. Attach the garage to the North side of the home to provide a buffer against the cold North winds in the winter.

3. Maximize the utilization of direct gain passive solar energy through South-facing windows and glass doors by using South-facing windows and doors that have a SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient) of at least .50. A typical window with Insulated, Low-E coating has a SHGC of .30 meaning that only 30% of the solar energy makes it into home. Use moveable window insulation to boost the insulation value at night.

4. Utilize isolated solar sunspaces to maximize passive solar energy during sunny periods and to reduce heat loss from the adjoining house walls during cloudy days and nights. (For more information, see below)

5. Utilize solar energy or geothermal heat for heating your home and hot water needs. For space heating, collectors need to be tilted at 60 degrees to maximize winter solar gain and minimize summer overheating. For solar hot water systems only, tilt the collectors at 45 degrees.

6. Utilize photovoltaics or wind turbines to generate clean electricity for your home's electric needs. For grid-connected photovoltaic systems, mount the array at around 35 degrees to maximize annual electric production.

7. Purchase energy star appliances and lights for your home. Never install recessed lights in cathedral ceilings.

8. Minimize heat loss from the building envelop by maximizing the insulation of foundation walls, outside walls and attics and cathedral ceilings. Consider pre-cast foundations or ICF foundations for maximum insulation. Consider using ICF's or SIPS for upper walls. Timber framed homes with Stress-skin panels are also an excellent way to build. Don't use unhealthy insulation such as fiberglass in your home; consider blown-in icynene or cellulose insulation.

9. Utilize green building materials in the construction of your home.

10. Landscape your property with plants and lawns that are drought resistant and don't require the use of dangerous pesticides or chemicals such as dandelion killers.

Posted by tom c. at 6:15 PM | Permalink

Previous entries detailing week 1 available at these links: Class 1 | Class 2

Week 2 was all about digging deep as we rolled up our sleeves and began to get our hands dirty, applying our rudimentary understanding of basic electricity and learned more about how solar PV actually produces power.

We wired up some small solar panels in series and parallel circuits. Solar systems consist of solar modules wired together in an array. Depending on how the modules are connected to each other (whether in series, parallel or a combination of the 2), total array voltage and current will shift. When wired together in a series circuit, the voltage of each module adds together while the amps (current) remain unchanged. So if you have 2 17 volt, 3 amp modules wired in series, together they produce 34 volts at 3 amps. Parallel circuits work the other way; volts remain unchanged while amps are additive. Using our example, the same 2 modules wired in parallel will produce 17 volts at 6 amps.

Sidebar: Mike, one of the instructors, had asked the class to bring in their most recent electric bill at the end of class 2. At the tail end of class 3, we each read out the number of kilowatt hours (kWh) used in the most recent ~30 day period. My GF and I live in a 2 bedroom apartment that is probably 850 square feet. Our most recent bill told us we used about 160 kWh. I was stunned as I listened to the usage stats from my classmates. 900 kWh ... 1,100 kWh ... the "winner" used about 1,400 kWh! That last guy is spending roughly $375 per month. Way to go! Now, admittedly, we walk around in the dark a little bit and we don't have a dishwasher - but that's a pretty big spread. Most of the other classmates own homes, so they have a much bigger AC load to power, but I was amazed to say the least. It actually makes me feel a bit better about our energy predicament - conservation and reduced use can obivously make a huge impact on the amount of electricity we consume in this country. If price continues to rise, expect people to start switching to CFL bulbs and turning the TV off when the room is empty.

We conducted a mock shading analysis. The "perfect" solar site is a rarity - trees and weird roof features or dormers cast shade, especially in winter when the sun is lower on the horizon. If one section of the array is shaded, it effectively reduces output of the entire array to near zero. Essentially, shade shuts down the electric circuit - and electrons stop flowing. No electrons, no power. The solar installer must know how much shade the panels will take at each daylight hour throughout the year. If you don't calculate the percentage loss in power resulting from shading, you end up with an undersized system and an unhappy home owner.

We delved into solar cell fundamentals. Most people know that cells are (for the most part) made from silicon, which is one of the most abundant elements on earth. Most people know that solar cells convert sunlight into electricity. But how that process actually works is a mystery to most, including myself prior to Tuesday night. The link above contains more details than I could ever hope to include here, but suffice it to say that most solar cells are "doped" in order to create a permanent electrical field. When sunlight hits the cell, it liberates electrons and those electrons are attracted to the positive side of the electrical field. The cell is wired with conductors and - as the freed electrons build pressure - they flow to the wire and ultimately power the load the circuit is connected to.

As you might imagine, there were a lot of questions about this process and the class bogged down quite a bit on this subject. Eventually, we began to discuss maximum power points, voltage open circuit amount and short circuit amounts (measured in amps). It's critical to know the boundaries of any circuit, in order to properly size inverters and wires.

Next up is a solar tour of homes on Saturday morning, which should be pretty neat. I'll be sure to take some photos.

Posted by tom c. at 1:27 PM | Permalink

In a rather bold move for an American ski resort, the operators of Jiminy Peak Ski Resort in western Massachusetts have decided to install a massive wind turbine in summer 2007. The picture here to your left shows the massive concrete base that Jiminy poured last fall for the 1.5 megawatt (MW) turbine, which will stand 375 feet tall (including blade span). As far as I know, this is an unprecedented plunge into alternative, renewable energy by an American ski resort. Although ski resorts are used to investing massive amounts of up-front capital for lifts and snowmaking systems, I was still fairly shocked to see a ski resort willing to invest so much in renewable energy.

Jiminy Peak has been kind enough to post many details about the turbine project on their website - two pages are available at their Media page with information on project costs and progress. Those pages contain the information I refer to in this post.

Jiminy Peak has decided to throw a lot of money at renewable energy for one primary reason: rising energy costs. From the Jiminy website:

By August of 2005 Jiminy management was searching for energy options due to the dramatic increases in energy cost on multiple fronts. For the season ending 2004 Jiminy had spent $782,766 on energy, for the 2005 season the amount was $948,421. In just 4 months oil prices had gone up 50% by mid-summer and predications for winter electricity rates indicated there would be a 50% increase. The combined impact of these energy costs were predicated to total $1,451,000. This was prior to the impacts of hurricane Katrina. (Energy costs exceeded 1.5 million dollars in 2005-2006.)

People respond to incentives. They also respond to skyrocketing costs. It's reasonable to assume that Jiminy management are environmentally conscious people who support clean, renewable sources of energy. And surely management also sees the PR value inherent in a massive wind turbine project. However, it becomes quite clear when you read the website (and when you consider that energy costs increased 58% from 2005 to 2006) that this is a management team that is primarily driven by the belief that energy costs are going to continue to rise in the future and, therefore, eat away at the resort's future profit margins.

Rising energy costs are a concern, as passing those costs onto our guests by raising lift ticket prices, could materially jeopardize the health of our industry into the future.

In case you didn't already know, it turns out that 1.5MW wind turbines are really expensive. This price tag on this project: a cool $3.9 million. The good news is Jiminy is receiving some help from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative - details on the grant at MTC's website available here. From the Jiminy website:

In July 2005, Jiminy was notified by Massachusetts Technology Collaborative that a grant for $582,000 had been approved. The grant provided for continued engineering and consulting work, plus purchasing and installation of a turbine ranging from a .75MW to 1.5MW wind turbine.

That puts Jiminy's investment at $3.318 million. The GE turbine is expected to produce 4.6 million kWh of electricity per year. Jiminy plans to consume half that amount on site and the other half will be fed back to the grid, providing Jiminy with a substantial credit on their utility bill. Once the turbine is up and producing electricity, Jiminy - which uses about 7 million kWh of electricity per year, will only have to purchase 4.7 million kWh/year from the utility. At their current cost of $0.12 per killowatt hour (kWh), Jiminy expects to achieve a return on their $3.318 million investment in about 7 years.

The screensheet below of an Excel spreadsheet shows some back of the envelope calculations I did regarding this project.

In column B, row 21 the spreadsheet shows the amount Jiminy expects to save each year at the current cost of electricity ($0.12 per kWh). Yearly savings of $446k definitely looks pretty sweet.

In column C, I changed the cost per kWh to $0.08; yearly savings decline dramatically in this scenario and ROI is not achieved for 12 years. You can see why businesses are reluctant to invest in renewable systems. While it's wonderful to fix a large percentage of your electricity bill for 25 years into the future, you can't help but wonder "What if?" What if energy prices don't continue to rise? What if they fall in the future?

The point I am trying to make is that this project is really quite risky in my opinion. Even with a substantial subsidy in the form of a grant worth nearly $600k, this project will only turn out to be a financial homerun if energy prices maintain or rise from current price levels.

When you combine the horrific winter season Jiminy is dealing with right now with an energy complex that has seen oil prices fall from $75/barrel to $53/barrel in two or three months - indicating a significant drop in demand or even a slowing US economy - you have to wonder if Jiminy chose wisely. It is, of course, easy to armchair quarterback with the benefit of hindsight.

In any case, kudos to Jiminy Peak for taking the plunge and going big on wind energy. I, for one, applaud the project and wish them nothing but success with the turbine. I live close by, so when the turbine goes up this summer I'll try and get over there to snap some pictures and do a follow-up.

Posted by tom c. at 8:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Notes from class 2 of Introduction to Solar Energy Systems. With introductions and other requisite class 1 dealings behind us, the class last Thursday (1/18) switched the course into a new gear and we covered ground focused on solar energy fundamentals and basic electricity.

Solar Fundamentals
When you start to think about solar energy, you have to think about units of measure, because you are ultimately trying to figure out how much power a system has the potential to produce. The class discussed radiant energy, irradiance and irradiation. Irradiance basically refers to the measure of the rate of solar radiation falling on an area. Measured in watts per square meter, this is - for lack of a better phrase - intensity of the sun. Irradiation is subtly different from irradiance, in that it measures the amount of solar energy impacting an area over time. This is measured in kilowatt hours per square meter.

There are, of course, different types of solar radiation. These include direct, diffused (through clouds, for example) and reflected (off water or snow). Further, there are a variety of factors that affect solar radiation, including the angle of incident, cloud cover, snow, rain, fog, air pollution, reflective materials and more.

When you begin to consider the amount of power a solar system will produce, you have to calculate the number of peak sun hours available in a day at a given location at a given time of the year. Because of earth's orbit, the sun is not always located at the same altitude year round. In summer, the sun is much higher above the horizon - around 70 degrees above horizon. In the winter, however, the sun is only around 30 degrees above horizon. The difference in altitude angle is important because a lower sun will often create more potential shading at the solar site. In addition, the height of the sun is important in order to properly pitch the solar panels and increase irradiance.

The instructors use a handy device called a solar pathfinder to analyze the sun's position and path at a site. The pathfinder helps to identify potential shading spots on the roof throughout the year.

We also discussed magnetic declination, which is somewhat confusing to a navigational newbie like myself. In short, the "true north" pole is not the same as the magnetic north pole (which a compass will point to). In order to properly align solar panels (they should ideally face due south), the solar installer must identify true south prior to using the solar pathfinder or reading charts. In Albany, true south is 14 degrees west of compass south.

Basic Electricity
I know next to nothing about electricity, so I was listening with rapt attention to this part of class 2. We discussed power, voltage, amps, current, resistance and Ohm's law.

I'll spare the gory details here, because I'm not 100% sure I would be telling the truth. For more info, just head to Wikipedia.

We also discussed parallel versus series circuits. We did some wiring of small solar panels to test changes in volts and amps. All in all, it was a good intro to basic electricity.

Notes on Class 1 available here

Posted by tom c. at 11:45 AM | Permalink

I don't know a whole lot about Bill Richardson other than the titles he has held, but I saw him interviewed today on This Week and I was stunned to hear him talking about the need for Americans to conserve energy. Video available at This Week's website - check it out for yourself.

While energy is certainly going to be a top issue in the 2008 election, this is the first time I have heard any of the candidates talking about reducing our use of energy. Since I see conservation as a critical component in any plan calling for transition away from fossil fuel energy, I welcome Richardson to the arena and I plan to find out more about his ideas. This guy might be the only candidate willing to face our energy reality ... interesting development in presidential politics.

Posted by tom c. at 11:42 PM | Permalink

If you are pro-renewable energy and anti-fossil fuel energy, you have to be encouraged by the Dems pushing through new legislation that repeals a corporate tax break for oil & gas companies instituted in 2004 and plans to allocate the projected tax revenues to renewable energy. Should be interesting to see if Bush vetos the bill.

Speaker Pelosi also announced a new House of Reps committee designed to look at the global warming and energy independence issues. As I wrote last week, this whole energy independence thing is a complete red herring. We're simply never going to run our transportation fleet the way we run it today on 100% domestic sources of gas or biofuel or anything else. If we changed the way we use the stuff, maybe one day we could seriously talk energy independence. Until then, this is headline news at its worst.

Speaking of global warming, some dude thinks it is a total hoax perpetrated by socialists in order to oppress developing nations. Wow! In his post, he shows a chart showing co2 concentration levels in the atmosphere over the past 400k years. He shows this chart to make the point that co2 levels are not currently out of the ordinary. Unfortunately, he is only showing us data through 1950. In fact, co2 concentration is out of control. According to this page, co2 concentration was around 375 parts per million in 2004 - well outside of the normal range. I think this is purely an effort at getting links to point into his site. Really sad to see someone willing to misrepresent the data in order to get a better Google ranking.

And finally, a story about a totally solar/hydrogen residence. Now that is energy independence, but it don't come cheap!

Hat tip: Dave Greten

Posted by tom c. at 12:26 PM | Permalink

Last night, I attended the first class of the solar energy course I am taking at Hudson Valley Community College. I plan to chronicle progress of the 6 week course here at Save and Conserve.

The course instructors are the two principals who own Renewable Power Systems, an Albany-area PV design and installation company. There are about a dozen people taking the course and many of them are currently working as contractors/electricians.

Having run Renewable Power Systems for over 3 years, it goes without saying that the owners know their stuff; it looks like I'll learn a tremendous amount about how to size, design and install a residential solar energy system.

Some interesting notes from class 1 last night:

• Beginning in 2011 in California, home builders will be required by law to offer solar power as an option to buyers of new homes in developments of 50 homes or more.
• The most attractive thing about solar energy is that it fixes the future cost of electricity production.
• Most of the silicon supply is in the US, but most silicon-based solar panels ship overseas (especially to Germany and Japan, which both heavily subsidize solar).
• The average size of a residential solar system in California is 2 - 3kw compared to 4 - 6kw in New York. This is due mainly to the number of peak sunlight hours available per day.
• In New York, the legislature has provided virtually zero incentive for businesses to install commercial solar energy systems. New York only allows Net Metering (or feeding unused electricity on site back into the grid) for solar systems that are 10kw or less in size. This is insanity and, as another class member asked last night, makes you wonder if the utilities and associated lobbyists have undermined commercial solar in NY state.

Posted by tom c. at 2:35 PM | Permalink

I've never heard of MapMuse before today, but it looks like a pretty cool site. They have an interactive map that shows the locations of US solar contractors. If you're thinking about starting a solar installation company, this is a great way to identify areas that are underserved.

Looks like the only state in the lower 48 that has zero solar installers is South Dakota, ironic because South Dakota actually gets a really healthy amount of sun, on par with parts of California like Fresno.

Posted by tom c. at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

George Bush's position on Iraq hasn't changed much in the past 3 years; stay the course, refuse to deal with the reality on the ground and spend an incredible amount of money while you're at it.

Will Bush change his position on climate change and global warming?

The Washington Post is reporting that Bush might be ready to signal a change of position in his upcoming State of the Union. I'll be watching and listening eagerly for some leadership. As the op-ed says:

The key thing to watch is whether Bush talks only about energy security or whether he emphasizes climate. Energy security is mostly a dumb objective, but climate policy is crucial.

While a change in position around climate change appears to be a possibility, there is probably no chance that Bush will change policy towards Saudi Arabia - as Raymond Learsy calls for in this HuffingtonPost blog.

Learsy is essentially calling for the globalization of the oil resource the Saudis currently oversee. While he makes a valid point or two - especially with regard to the lack of data transparency with respect to oil reserves - most of the comments have it right when they say this is the definition of hypocrisy. The American system has raped and pillaged the world's resources in the name of growth and profit - not in the name of global stewardship.

Learsy has the balls to ask:

Perhaps the time is past where Sovereign Rights are sacrosanct and that this issue be opened to scrutiny and public debate.

This thinking must represent the deepest, darkest worry in the minds of the Saudi royals. Deep down they must know that - were it clear that peak oil was real and oil became scarce - the Americans will flip policy quick and claim the time of Sovereign Rights past. A chilly thought ...

Posted by tom c. at 9:43 AM | Permalink

I'm currently reading the novel Pompeii about the eruption in 79AD of Mount Vesuvius. As everyone knows, this famous eruption was catastrophic; life and society in Pompeii completely ended on one August day.

What is striking about the tale is how people ignored warning signs. Pompeii had experienced a major earthquake about a dozen years before the eruption. Tremors and minor shocks were very common in the years between the big earthquake and the eruption, leading to complacency. Tremors in the days immediately prior to the eruption, however, were much more significant because the magma was pushing the earth's crust as it rose and pressure built.

The writing was on the fresco, so to speak. And yet no viable action was taken to deal with the lurking crisis. Can you imagine walking around Pompeii and feeling a massive shock - a tremor more powerful than any other you had felt before - and just putting it out of mind? Wouldn't you be curious about that tremor and wondering what caused it to be so powerful?

Are we living in the modern day Pompeii? Evidence of global warming surrounds us. And yet we pour more CO2 into the air every year.

Global production of oil is in a 2 year plateau even though prices have been at historical highs (which should encourage producers to increase production). US oil production has been in decline since the early 70s and we have become increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of black gold. And yet we hear about how the US needs to become energy independent from the politicians.

How can we move away from oil when we don't subsidize alternative sources of energy, Mr. Politician? This new Congress needs to come up to speed NOW about these critical issues. I'm encouraged when I read that the Senate is getting good information, but that is not enough. It's not enough to hear:

After closing the hearing, Senator Bingaman was surrounded by reporters. Did he think that Congress was now ready to raise fuel efficiency standards? Bingaman said he did not know, and walked away.

Choosing not to act will be akin to pretending everything was normal in Pompeii the night before the eruption. History teaches us how that choice turned out.

Posted by tom c. at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The New York Times recently ran an article about the current rise of solar energy and solar power installations in the US. For anyone interested in solar or PV, it's worth a read. My own thoughts follow.

Compelled by the dovetail between dramatically rising energy prices and favorable financial incentives, Americans are turning to residentail solar systems in record numbers. It doesn't hurt that, as the article states, "solar power is also emerging as a kind of status symbol, a glamorous mark of personal responsibility."

For the most part, I think Americans are a reasonable, conservative lot who also want to do the right thing when it makes common (financial) sense. Solar makes a lot of sense in many ways. It's clean energy. It is renewable energy. A solar system adds value to the home. A grid-tied system provides distributed energy production for utilities.

Unfortunately, most state legislatures are behind the curve and have not supported the move to more solar energy by underwriting residential installations. The up-front cost of solar is the primary barrier to mass adoption. (Other barriers relate to geographic location, quality and age of roof and problematic aspects for panels.) California has gotten out in front of other states and now provides substantial rebates and other tax breaks for the public. And the results are obvious:

As the rebate program has made it less expensive to install a home solar system — and as banks, which consider a solar system to be an improvement that increases a house’s value, have made financing readily available — the solar industry has grown. There are now 434 companies registered to install solar systems by the state energy commission, which together installed just under 50 megawatts of solar electric generating capacity in 2006, the most in a single year.

One of the consumers profiled in the article - who apparently is very wealthy - responded to the California incentives. Here's how most Americans - even the rich - think when it comes to big financial decisions:

Mr. Felton, 67, said that a solar system did not make sense when he built his house in 2000, but that the rebate, as well as rising electricity prices, persuaded him to install the system last year.

In only one respect did I think this article mis-stepped. Attempting to tie solar energy to a reduction in foreign oil dependence does not make a lot of sense, in my opinion. Electric utilities use natural gas and coal to generate electricity - not oil (though there are a few oil-burning utilities). Our oil dependence is tied to our utter reliance on the automobile and truck for transportation and shipping.

Solar energy is a beautiful thing that makes a ton of sense, but it won't help us get off the oil.

Posted by tom c. at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

In June of 2006, my GF and I caught An Inconvenient Truth in the theater and walked away very moved and impressed by the film's message of warning and wake-up. While Christmas shopping in late December, I spied the DVD copy of An Inconvenient Truth and ended up throwing it in the cart (I rarely buy DVDs, preferring to rent). The DVD contains an update from Gore on the global warming situation in the year since the film was completed.

To sum, in the year since the movie wrapped, more evidence of rising global temperatures has come to light, as have additional studies linking weather events to global warming. In the 30 minute update, which is well worth anyone's time, Gore touches on the following:

Hurricanes
Also known as cyclones (Australia) and typhoons (Asia), studies have been released linking the growing intensity of hurricanes to rising sea surface temperatures. Although the 2006 hurricane season in the Atlantic was a big zero, Australia had a very active season and China had Saomai - the strongest "super typhoon" it has seen in the past 50 years. The takeaway: expect to see more highly amped hurricanes in the near future.

Global Temperatures
The 12 month period from July 2005 to June 2006 was the warmest period in US history. In July, 2006, South Dakota hit 120 degrees. In July, 2005, the temperature reached a mind-boggling 125.6 degrees in Pakistan - which may or may not be an all-time record. Honey, cancel the Pakistan trip next summer, will ya?

Ocean Acidification
An enormous amount of CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere each day - Gore tells us it is 70 million tons per day. Of that, 25 million tons per day is absorbed by the ocean. All of that CO2 reduces the pH level of the ocean and makes it more acidic. More acidic water makes it difficult for organisms like coral and shell fish to calcify. You may have seen alarming reports about bleached-out coral reefs, which are considered to be the rain forests of the ocean. Ocean acidification is caused by CO2 emissions and it has the potential to negatively impact the entire ocean food chain. Nice.

Glacial Earthquakes
Greenland has the second most ice on the planet, after Antarctica. For now. Ice melt on Greenland is accelerating; last year Greenland lost about 50 cubic miles of ice to melt. As the ice has begun to melt faster, the incidence of glacial earthquakes has picked up. From 1993 to 1999, the number of glacial quakes exceeding 4.5 on the Richter scale increased from 7 to 15. From 1999 to 2005, the number increased from 15 to 32. This is evidence of destabilized ice and, as Gore says, is another clear warning sign that global warming is real.

Major Wildfires
A study was released that linked warming temperatures with more frequent and more intense fires in the western US. Higher temps, incidentally, also dry out the Earth's soil (soil moisture evaporation), creating a breeding ground for lightning induced wildfires. Unfortunately, more wildfires means more CO2 released into the Earth's atmosphere. This appears to be one of those positive feedback loops.

Permafrost
Frozen in soil in places like Siberia and Alaska is a lot of CO2 and methane. The permafrost in Siberia, for example, contains something like 70 billion metric tons of methane. For those of you who haven't made the jump to the metric system that is 1.54323584 × 10^14 pounds. Lot of LBs there. A Russian scientist has bad news: a Siberian peat bog the size of Germany and France has begun to thaw. Not good.

All in all, a sobering update from the former VP Gore.

Update: Calendar year 2006 was the warmest year on record in US history.

Posted by tom c. at 8:02 AM | Permalink

My father used to work for the Mt. Mansfield Company ... also known as Stowe. Stowe is owned by the massive insurance company AIG, which essentially writes off the operations there as an annual loss. If I recall correctly, Stowe did not turn a profit during my father's tenure there, which would have been about 1990 - 1996. The northeastern US ski industry has been in contraction for the past 25 years. The number of ski areas in America has plummeted since the 1960s and the industry has had a lot of trouble attracting new participants. The high cost of equipment and daily ticket rates are likely culprits. If snowboarding had not come along when it did, the industry would likely be in much worse shape than it is.

Then again, the industry is not in good shape - especially this year with lack of snow and very warm temperatures.

Were I the owner of an eastern US ski area, I probably would have sold out of the business already. I think the future looks very grim for low elevation eastern ski resorts given the temperature rises we are now experiencing due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Not only will there be less natural snow, but costs will rise as these areas have to make snow any chance they get. Making artificial snow is very energy intensive and very costly. I love to ski and ride, but the business model doesn't make any sense in the global warming world. Plus, the customer experience at these resorts will be less than ideal, meaning it will be that much more difficult to attract new and repeat business.

Any industry that relies on snow or consistently cold temperatures for the bulk of its revenue is obviously treading on thin ice in 2007 and years beyond. This season may be the final nail in the coffin for several more American ski areas. I wonder what other industries will be negatively impacted by global warming. I wonder what will happen to states like Vermont, where tourism drives the local economy.

Posted by tom c. at 9:28 AM | Permalink

It may be a new year on the calendar, but man, the story hasn't changed much, has it?

While the ethanol debate continues to unfold (and continues to look tragic), and supplies of crude oil keep falling (down 1.2% compared to same period last year - even in the absence of winter in most of the US), and Norway sets expectations for lower oil production (this is what depletion looks like, folks), and while we view images like the one below that shows an epic traffic jam in China ...

... the price of oil continues to oscillate like a Cuisinart and we read news that sales of hybrids are on the downslope.

Refreshing stuff, eh?

The energy complex appears to be floating aimlessly in no-man's land. Global warming appears to be settling in like a fat man at the all-you-can-eat buffet. The slow-motion energy crisis marches forward at the pace of a snail. Although I feel like I could have "skipped" 2006 and not missed much of anything, I can't wait to see what happens next week!

Posted by tom c. at 4:40 PM | Permalink

I stumbled across an article discussing how Russia should spend oil revenues.

Then I came across the following photos, which show a washed out Russian highway to Siberia. Makes that article seem pretty silly, doesn't it?

Posted by tom c. at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)