Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

We like this characterization of thermal solar concentrators, “thermalvoltaic,” because it calls to mind the fact that thermal energy can be concentrated and turned into electricity just like light can – “photovoltaic.” And as we review solar thermal here, it is important to note that the sun is only one source of thermal voltaic power – geothermal energy is another prime example.

A parabolic trough array glows in the sunlight Photo: Schott Solar

Unlike the emerging photovoltaic concentrators, thermalvoltaic concentrators, more commonly referred to as solar concentrators or solar thermal arrays, have been around a long time.

There are three primary designs of solar concentrators, all of which use mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto a heat transfer fluid which collects enough energy to drive a turbine which turns an electric generator:

The “power tower” design consists of a field of mirrors which track the sun all day, each of them moving in a pattern that precisely bounces the sunlight onto a centrally located boiler that sits on a tower in the middle of the field. The combined heat from hundreds of these mirrors causes the fluid running through the tower to super-heat, driving a turbine.

A variation on this design consists of a field of parabolic mirrors, similar in shape to satellite dishes, with individual boilers heating fluids on each individual mirror instead of pointing to a central tower. Each unit independently tracks the sun across the sky all day, pointing precisely at the sun so the entire surface of the parabolic mirror reflects sunlight onto the heating fluids.

The third, and apparently most cost-effective version of solar thermal concentrators is referred to as the “parabolic trough” design. This design consists of a field of parallel mirrored troughs, each one of which can be hundreds of feet in length. In the center of each trough, at the focal point of the mirrored surface, runs a tube that absorbs the concentrated solar rays and heats a transfer fluid.

Because the parabolic trough design only rotates on an east-west axis, it is not quite as efficient as the other two designs which rotate on an east-west and a north-south axis in order to point directly at the sun all day. But because the rotation is only on one axis, combined with the fact that parabolic trough units can be hundreds of feet long each, appears to give this design a cost advantage over other designs.

Late last year, when we caught up with Alex Marker, a Research Fellow with Schott Solar, our first question was “why aren’t there more of these thermal voltaic installations in the sunny spots around the world?” Marker noted that the biggest – and until recent years one of the only – commercial scale complex of thermal voltaic arrays are in California’s Mohave Desert, built between 1984 and 1992. (There are nine solar thermal power stations in California’s Mohave Desert, operated by Florida Power and Light, with a combined output of 354 megawatts.) Marker claims, probably correctly, that until now “there wasn’t a compelling need for utilities to change their thinking on how to produce electricity.”

This is clearly true, since – aside from a hybrid solar thermal plant using parabolic trough design constructed about five years ago in Rajasthan, India, producing 140 megawatts – only now are solar thermal, utility scale generating plants being constructed again. Currently they are mostly being built in Spain and the southwest of the USA. Schott Solar has been involved, along with partner Solargenix, in the construction of a 64 megawatt parabolic trough array in Boulder City, Nevada, which broke ground early in 2006 and went online on March 2nd of this year.

According to Marker, the costs for solar thermal electricity could come down to around $.07 per kilowatt-hour, which is definitely a competitive price. To get there, said Marker, the installed base in the world would need to more than quadruple, to around 4 gigawatts, so the expertise would be in place to basically start “cookie cutter” production of the stations.

One of the most interesting things about solar thermal power is that the necessary additions to the balance of plant in order to store some of the accumulated heat is not significant. This means that the thermal energy generated during the day can be stored and used to continue generating power through the night. This is a significant advantage.

Marker stated the power output per acre of solar thermal arrays was about five acres per megawatt. Photovoltaic power, based on 10 watts per square foot, requires about half that much space, as 2.5 acres per megawatt. And as we have demonstrated in “Power the World with Photovoltaics,” there is plenty of land available to pursue the solar electricity option, whether it is with photovoltaic, or thermalvoltaic technologies.

Our original intention is posting “Stossel’s Myths” about global warming was to agree with him in principle, but question one of his outlandish claims. In his ABC News post of April 20th entitled “Global Warming Myths,” citing sources, Stossel believes it would take 1,000 acres of photovoltaic array to power the daily operations at Epcot Center at Disneyland Florida, when if fact it would only require 100 acres of photovotaic arrays, even at a paltry output of 10 watts per square foot and an average 8 hour (full sun equivalent) day. Florida is sunnier than average, last time I checked.

Stossel based his PV bashing on calculations that we find completely valid except for the fact he dropped a digit somewhere, therefore decreasing the cost-effectiveness of photovoltaics by one order of magnitude. Certainly an order of magnitude is worth revisiting data on photovoltaic output, wouldn’t you say?

Here’s an inconvenient question:
Stossel says the 395,000 kilowatt-hours consumed each day by the 300 acre center would require 1,000 acres of land. This understates photovoltaic output by about 10x.

Here’s why:
At a mere 10 watts per square foot of output in full time, at a mere 8 hours of full sun (or full sun equivalent) solar input, you will get 80 watt hours per day from every square foot of PV array.

That is a safe assumption. If there are 44,000 square feet in an acre then an acre can produce 3,520,000 watt-hours per acre per day, or 3,520 kilowatt-hours. This means it would only take 112 acres of photovoltaics to power Epcot, not 1,000.

One big assumption we make is that the photovolataic output can be saved. But by using concentrator technology and battery or thermal storage, 100 acres of solar array is probably plenty to power Epcot through the night.

So every claim and counterclaim should be debunked if it is debunkable. It is excessive to suggest any free thinking American would be expected to turn their thinking apparatus off in a selective manner, whether they are alarmed or skeptical. And without verifying the numerical logic of any scientifically or financially based claims, any consumer or regurgitator of vital information is only repeating plausible sounding arguments that may lack all sense of proportion.

Why isn’t anyone who is interested in photovolaic returns on investment develop an IRR analysis based on this: one cubic meter of fresh, desalinated seawater only requires 2.0 kilowatt-hours of energy input. That a mere 1.0 gigawatts of power could provide – from the ocean – residential drinking water for 20 million people is an astonishing statistic. Build desalinization plants using photovoltaic and thermalvoltaic solar arrays. Here is where an investment in massive fresh water production and transfer infrastructure would transform and green the lands from California to Burkina Faso.

Reference: Revisiting Desalinization, Photovoltaic Desalinization

We have just published a feature-length report by Daniela Muhawi on the oceans of the world entitled “Our Endangered Oceans.” It is our contention that global warming alarm and the war on CO2 emissions has shoved into the background urgent environmental challenges that require action right now – tropical deforestation, species extinction, aquifer depletion, desertification, genuine air pollution, water pollution. But joining these global environmental challenges at the top of the list are the imminent threats to ocean species and ecosystems.

One of the most compelling reasons to report on the oceans is because it is here that sweeping changes are happening now, not in 50-100 years. The final destruction of the major ocean reef habitats as well as the collapse of major fish populations is well underway. As of 2007, both may soon be destroyed beyond repair, and with every month of delay on the part of the international environmental community the chances dim for our fisheries and reefs.

The encouraging news is this doesn’t have to happen. Where coral reefs have been protected from destructive fishing practices, they have often began to show signs of revitalization within a few years. If overfishing were stopped with some strong international agreements, soon many fisheries would again begin to yield sustainable harvests larger than today’s unsustainable harvests.

With 70% of the earth’s surface consisting of ocean, the myriad of ways they nourish us and nurture vast ecosystems defy easy summaries. Even deforestation is a problem in coastal waters, where the mangrove forests are being cut down. Tsunamis and cyclones can rampage far further inland when mangrove forests are destroyed, as they frequently are to make room for aquaculture. Intact coral reefs also act as effective storm barriers. But the coral reefs are failing – as much from overfishing as from global warming.

CO2 in the air becomes carbonic acid as it is absorbed by the ocean, reportedly increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans to the highest levels seen in hundreds of thousands of years. Increasing seawater acidity eventually becomes toxic to many reefs and other ocean species. This alarming data could well be the most compelling reason of all to be concerned about rising levels of atmospheric CO2.

On April 20, 2007, John Stossel published an article on the ABC News website entitled “The Global Warming Myth.” In this article he suggests there are several myths being promulgated by global warming alarmists, including these four:

1. The Earth is warming uncontrollably
2. Tis warming is because of humans
3. There will be huge disruptions in climate including violent storms and flooded coasts
4. Signing Kyoto will help solve the problem

For the most part, we agree with Stossel. But our intention, despite contrary perceptions by single-minded global warming alarmists, is not to discourage the new momentum of worldwide environmental consciousness that has been stoked by this issue. Our intention is to attempt to restore balance to the debate – and it is a debate – and in a larger sense, to restore balance to environmentalism. Huge environmental challenges are not being addressed as forcefully as they were – they all now sit in the shadow of the great global warming boogyman, or even worse, they are now represented as problems that are best addressed by reducing industrial CO2 emissions.

There is an ideological struggle for the soul of environmentalism that anti-environmentalists don’t care about, and environmentalists barely grasp. There are two ways to address environmental challenges and they should be complimentary approaches. One approach centers on reducing consumption, improving efficient use of energy and water, conserving open space. This approach dominates environmental thinking today. But the other approach is vital – and that approach centers on increasing the production of clean energy and water, and developing land to accomplish these goals. We call these two complementary approaches demand side vs. supply side environmentalism. Without a balance between these approaches, solving environmental challenges (without incurring devastating economic hardship) is doomed to failure.

Global warming is not the principle cause of drought, for example, nor of extreme weather. Both of those problems on a global scale can be addressed by reforestation, especially in the tropics. Reforestation, reversing desertification, and refilling aquifers all over the world – actions that will mitigate global warming but are also extremely important to accomplish even if there was no global warming alarm – will require more energy production, to desalinate seawater and to operate pumps to relocate fresh water.

As we document in “Revisiting Desalinization,” for $5.0 billion dollars (which includes a budget for mitigation and disposal of the brine) a desalinization plant can provide water for 5.0 million residential users, and would only require about 250 megawatt-years of electricity per year. This is an astonishingly low amount to those of us who bought into the conventional wisdom that desalinization requires too much energy – one good 1.0 gigawatt nuclear power plant can desalinate 4 cubic kilometers of water per year, enough to supply 20 million residential water users.

Using desalinated seawater to replenish aquifers and supply water to cities requires a lot of scratches in the ground – something the demand side environmentalists decry. But they are wrong. And speaking of scratches in the ground, why aren’t we building canals to redirect excess fresh water from the Volga to the Aral Basin, or from the Congo to the Lake Chad Basin? Compared to the costs to mitigate industrial CO2, redirecting huge volumes of water to restore the lakes and aquifers in Central Asia and in Africa’s Sahel is easily done – but it requires some big scratches in the ground.

The point here is sometimes we have to protect the environment from the environmentalists. The demand side environmentalists often seem to want no development, anywhere, yet now they want to sieze the means of energy production and basically shut it down. Their prescriptions are unrealistic and futile. Stossel is absolutely right about that, but what we are offering is the alternative vision of environmentalism that even someone like Stossel should endorse. We should take all that CO2 tax revenue – and brace yourself, it’s coming – and use it to fund massive development projects to repower and rewater the planet, restoring rains, cooling the land, reforesting, moderating the weather and eliminating severe droughts. That would be a better use of funds.

Silicon Valley Solar, or SV Solar, is a pretty good name for a company located in the heart of Northern California’s Silicon Valley, where the latest generation of silicon fueled booms is taking shape in the form of photovoltaic cells being designed and manufactured at dozens if not hundreds of companies, from start-ups to Fortune 500 stalwarts.

SV Solar’s “SolX2″ Flat Plate PV Concentrator Photo: SV Solar

Today I had the chance to talk for a while with Dave Shannahan, President and Chief Operating Officer of SV Solar. The technology they are pursuing is known as “low level concentrators” which is an interesting hybrid design that combines the simplicity of a stationary solar panel with the higher efficiency of a concentrating panel.

Solar concentrators take many forms – thermal concentrators, for example, heat a transfer fluid which in turn drives a turbine to generate electricity. But photovoltaic concentrators have two basic designs, high level and low level. The high level concentrators put a small amount of photovoltaic material into a mobile array that moves to track the sun across the sky each day, in order to maximize the amount of sunlight that hits the concentrator. Combining this tracking function with magnifying glasses between the sun and the photovoltaic material allows high level concentrators to deliver as much as 300x as much sunlight to the photovoltaic surface compared to a standard flat, stationary photovoltaic panel.

Low level concentrators, by contrast, are stationary, and can be housed in a panel only 2-3″ thick, the same as a conventional photovoltaic panel. But by using prisms and magnifying lenses, a low level concentrator can nonetheless deliver up to 10x the sunlight that a standard photovoltaic panel might receive. Because they are stationary, they are less expensive than the high level concentrators, because they use less silicon, they are less expensive than standard stationary solar arrays.

“The cost of a photovoltaic panel is 70% silicon,” said Shannahan, “we are able to deliver the same amount of electricity with less than half as much photovoltaic silicon.” The obvious follow-up question, of course, is how much do the prisms and lenses add to the cost. Shannahan was not able to disclose this, but expressed confidence that the added costs are nowhere near the amount of costs saved by requiring so much less silicon.

SV Solar was founded only one year ago, and they intend to begin commercial production – about 10 megawatts – in 2008. These “flat plate PV concentrators,” as they are known, may indeed find a cost-effective niche in the wide open photovoltaic industry where worldwide production is forecast to literally double each year well into the foreseeable future.

For more on photovoltaics – reference: < href="/fuels/indias-thin-film-photovoltaics.html"a title="India's Photovoltaics">India’s Photovoltaics, China’s Photovoltaics, Photovoltaic Desalinization, Windmills vs. Photovoltaics, Crystaline Photovoltaics, Thin Film vs. Silicon Ingots, and The Photovoltaic Revolution.

The entire nation of Australia is going fluorescent – I guess I won’t be going there again. The entire province of Ontario is going fluorescent – ditto. Now the legislature in my own state of California is considering a ban on incandescent light bulbs, and astonishingly, it appears likely to pass. Only our governor’s veto can stop this government overreach.

This bill is the wrong approach. Incandescent light bulbs do NOT cause pollution any more than electric cars cause pollution. Why don’t we ban electric cars? If you are purchasing clean energy, you should be able to use that energy to do whatever the heck you want.

Some of us happen to dislike fluorescent lighting. Now the government is going to tell me how to light my kitchen, my living room, my bedroom? The government is going to force us to live under lights we don’t like? I’d rather pay for a $20,000 photovoltaic array so I could produce surplus clean energy. I’d even rather pay more taxes. Just don’t force me to use lighting I find unpleasant in my own home.

Check this fact sheet from General Electric “FAQ – Compact Fluorescents.” As you can see, fluorescent lights are supposed to be left on at least 15 minutes to work efficiently and if they are turned on and off a lot they will have a short life span. Well maybe some of us like to turn lights off when we’re not walking through a room. And now those inconsiderate homeowners who let their “security lighting” ruin sleepy neighborhoods all night long will never be convinced to adopt motion activated lights, they’ll all just blaze away.

How about this according to GE – fluorescents cannot be installed in any fixture that vibrates, from ceiling fans to garage door openers. Or this – fluorescents cannot work with dimmer switches, unless you purchase special dimmer switches (over $50 each), and special fluorescents that can handle these dimmer switches. Some of us happen to enjoy mood lighting – but the only mood our legislators apparently understand is undimmed, always on, bright, glaring, cool white.

What about the fact that fluorescent light just plain looks bad? Maybe some of us are more sensitive to this than others – yet these self-righteous fanatics, dupes of powerful special interests who will make a killing off of selling these expensive bulbs, intend to force us to be constantly tortured inside our homes so they can feel like they did something good for the earth.

If you want to enforce more efficient energy use, put a tax on incandescent bulbs so they cost slightly more than fluorescents. That should work. And if it doesn’t, then maybe our aesthetically-challenged legislators should get the hint – fluorescent light does NOT look good. Is it better than it was? Yes, but it is still annoying, problematic lighting to a lot of people.

Leave my incandescents alone. Make me buy a photovoltaic array. Tax me. I don’t care how you do it. But leave my incandescents alone.

Overfishing is destroying the last fisheries (Photo: Jerry Huang)

A Right Whale in the Southern Ocean (Photo: NOAA)

A Right Whale slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean. At 70 years old, it had survived attacks from fisherman and killer whales, but something was going to get it eventually; twenty large propeller cuts along the left side of the animal hint that the whale’s death was caused by a ship…

One might think that this whale has nothing left to offer as it makes its way closer to the black abyss of the deep sea hundreds of feet below, but that is far from the truth.

Everything in the ocean has a purpose. Even the 90 ton whale carcass has a specific role in the spectacular deep sea niche on the ocean floor. In fact, a whale carcass is an ecosystem in itself. The decomposing animal provides a feast for scavengers such as hagfish, lobsters and sleeper sharks. A few weeks later, large amounts of sulphur seep into the environment from the bacteria decomposing the whale. This creates the perfect habitat for a variety of worms, clams and other organisms. NOAA states that “the decay of bone lipids supports remarkably dense bacterial mats, mussels, vesicomyid clams&the diversity of species found in these dense populations far outnumber local species richness in other extreme deep-sea environments&” Many worms-some only recently discovered-survive solely on the bones of animals that drift to the ocean floor. These ‘whale-fall’ specialists survive on nothing else. A ‘whale-fall’ community may survive for years on a single carcass. (Ref. BBC Science & Nature)

A variety of deep sea arthoropods may have already gone extinct as fewer and fewer whales found their way to the ocean floor over the years. Like everything in an ecosystem, marine animals are linked to one another. These marine food webs are described in more detail by the Scottish Fisheries and Research Services: “All&life forms, from the smallest microbes to the dolphins and whales, are part of the marine food web, a complicated network of who-eats-who, or predator-prey relationships.”

Ultimately the whole system is dependent on the amount of inorganic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus fixed as organic matter by some of the microbes and phytoplankton as a result of photosynthesis. Phytoplankton and bacteria are eaten by the micro – and larger zooplankton which in turn are eaten by krill and fish, and ultimately by the marine mammals. Fish-eating seabirds also participate in this food web. Countless animals are affected with the death of one species. (Ref. Scottish Fisheries & Research Services)

Fascinating organisms are found everywhere, even in the vast expanses of the deep sea where life seems impossible. “One study of a deep-sea community revealed 898 species from more than 100 families and a dozen phyla in an area about half the size of a tennis court. More than half of these were new to science,” explains Nasa’s SeaWiFS website. (Ref. NASA Ocean Planet Overview)

Unfortunately, with the increase in pollution, fishing and cargo boats, the largest mammals on earth, not to mention all the other marine species, have to pay the price by association. Just a change in the levels of oceanic bacteria will effect everything in the food chain.

Before anyone can honestly care how important it is to protect marine habitats, one needs to appreciate the vast quantities of marine life that exists in the ocean. It is hard for some people to relate to something they never see.

However, it makes sense that the vast expanse of water and its inhabitants, covering 70% of the planet, affects us all.

A Fimbriated Moray Eel lurks in the coral (Photo: Francis Tan)

Most marine animals are found near coral reefs. These colorful underwater forests naturally spring to mind with the mention of scuba diving or underwater life. Conservation International, one of the world’s largest organizations dedicated to habitat and species conservation, describes these habitats: “Coral reefs are constructed by living plants and animals, primarily corals that surround their small anemone-like tentacles in a hard skeleton that forms much of the reef structure.

They generally occur in clear, tropical or semi-tropical seas to a depth of approximately 100 meters (328 feet). Coral reefs fringe approximately one sixth of the world’s coastlines and are the biologically richest of all shallow-water marine ecosystems. They support as many as 1 million species of animals and plants, but only a small fraction have been described. Among the best known groups are at least 5,000 species of fish, over 10,000 species of mollusk and more than 800 species of reef-building corals.”

Corals are not only important to fish. Reefs are important to the human population for a wide variety or reasons: For one, they are a food source. A majority of people make their living fishing near coral reefs and an even larger part of population enjoys eating some of the catch. Unfortunately, “If current trends of over-fishing continue, and we deplete fisheries as fast as we are, then this food source will eventually run out,” explains Brian Huse, Executive Director of the Coral Reef Alliance – a non-profit organization dedicated to sustaining Coral Reefs, ” scientific evidence shows that 90% of top predators in the ocean are now extinct because of over-fishing – predatory fish include anything salmon sized and above&all the way through sharks&On the other hand, killing off the grazing species of fish at reefs allows algae to build up, which in turn kills the coral.” With 30% of oceanic fish making their home near coral reefs at one time or another, reefs are essential in maintaining a healthy fish population and many of the fish maintain the coral in return. Sustainable fishing is a must.

Corals aren’t only a food source. “There is also a clear connection between tsunamis and storm events having a much greater impact on eroding coast lines than healthy ones,” Huse continues to explain; “Healthy reefs protect coastlines from the damage of massive waves. During the recent tsunami in Indonesia, for example, coastlines protected by reefs and mangrove forests remained intact and experienced much less impact than coasts that did not have reefs [to defend against oncoming waves].”

Pollution is a major threat to the ocean. Pollution comes in many forms and shapes, but most have one thing in common: Almost all ocean pollutants stem from land based human activity. Waste produced on land eventually finds its way to the ocean. It is not uncommon to find beaches littered with plastic bags and bottles that finally came to rest on shores. Rivers carry dirt, oils, sewage and chemicals out to sea. Garbage also finds its way to ocean. Seeing plastic bags floating around the water instead of fish is not a pretty sight. Washed up garbage on the sand will definitely ruin a nice beach vacation. With many third-world countries relying on tourism for income, it is important to maintain the ocean and beaches in as pristine a condition as possible.

A Parrotfish presents an almost thoughtful gaze (Photo: Jerry Huang)

Chemicals are constantly absorbed by the ocean. Chemicals have a drastic effect on fish populations and the fishing industry. Chemicals absorbed by animals at sea will also harm the human population that consumes them. Mercury is a chemical now commonly found in larger predatory fish such as tuna and shark. The Food and Drug Administration explains how this chemical finds its way to sea: “Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and also can be released into the air through industrial pollution. Mercury falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and oceans. Bacteria in the water cause chemical changes that transform the mercury into methylmercury. It is this type of mercury that can be harmful to unborn babies and young children. Fish absorb the methylmercury as they feed in these waters. Methylmercury builds up in the tissue of some types of fish and shellfish more than others depending on what the fish eat.” (Ref. U.S. FDA)

High levels of mercury can poison the human body, have adverse effects on the nervous system and prevent a baby from developing normally in the womb. This is just one of the harmful chemicals that are actively absorbed by the ocean. Those of us who enjoy the occasional tuna salad sandwich or swordfish steak have been absorbing natural and industrial chemicals from the meat for a few years now (Thankfully, it has not been proven harmful in occasional small doses, but it certainly can’t be healthy).

Another chemical pollutant is carbonic acid. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the ocean and reacts with the seawater to form carbonic acid – this makes the ocean more acidic and intolerable to a variety of species. The shells of living mollusks have even been known to dissolve in very acidic areas of the ocean. The Royal Society, an independent scientific academy based in the UK and commonwealth, states that “sea creatures such as corals, shell fish, sea urchins and star fish are likely to suffer the most because higher levels of acidity makes it difficult for them to form and maintain their hard calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. For example, even under the ‘low’ predictions for future carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, the combined effects of climate change and ocean acidification mean that corals could be rare on tropical and subtropical reefs, such as the Great Barrier Reef, by 2050.” (Ref. U.K. Royal Society Scientific Academy)

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas that impedes the escape of heat into outer space, thereby causing temperatures to rise-this is called global warming. In recent years, global warming has changed ocean environments. Since even the slightest fluctuation in ocean temperatures and chemical balances effect marine life, CO2 absorption is a major problem. NASA explains that “Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.” (Ref. NASA Global Warming Worldbook)

The Royal Society explains that “emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times
greater than at any time over this period.” Most man-made CO2 is inadvertently released with the use of fossil fuels in power generators and transportation vehicles.

Some poisons are intentionally released into the water. Cyanide or pesticides are released in designated areas known to harbor fish and the stunned fish are scooped up in nets and sorted. Even though the poisons don’t always kill the fish, they destroy smaller organisms including the coral reef building animals.

A Bluering Angel Fish in Coral (Photo: Jerry Huang)

Huse expresses his concern over losing coral reefs within our lifetimes: “By most scientific estimates,” Huse explains,”we’ve already lost 20-30% of all coral reefs. If we continue to impact the ocean like we are, another 50% of coral will die off within the next decade.”

Obviously over-fishing and pollution will always be a problem. The solution lies in limiting activities that harm the ocean even though the problem will never be completely eliminated. Certain fishing techniques are devastating to marine environments and often unnecessary: ‘Blasting’ is an example; This technique involves bombs that are detonated at sea in the hopes that the fish killed with float to the surface for easy collection. Bottom trawling destroys massive amounts of deep sea ecosystems killing the habitats of the animals they are fishing for. It is fishing practices like these that need improvement.

Controlling the amount of gases released into the atmosphere poses a more difficult problem. The good news is that there IS a potential solution. “Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently,” explains NASA, ” Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.” (Ref. NASA Global Warming Worldbook)

Fossil fuels are a limited resource as it is and research is currently underway in the hopes of finding alternative (and more environmentally friendly) fuel sources. Until research comes up with less expensive alternative fuels, fossil fuels will continue to be used as the world’s primary energy source.

A few years ago, the idea of an animal surviving the intense pressures of the deep sea was inconceivable. Today, it is a known fact that animals manage to survive at such depths. In fact, the deepest fish on record was found at 27,460 ft (8,370 meters) below sea level.

Unfortunately, with current trends in pollution and deep sea fishing, many species may become extinct before they are even discovered! It is important to protect existing marine habitats, not only to protect a major resource of everything from food to tourism to coastal protection, but to ensure the survival of the creatures that make the world such a fascinating place.

Today I had the opportunity to catch up with Alan Gotcher, CEO of Altair Nanotechnologies. This Nevada-based company has even begun to excite their competitors. For example, last month at a GM-hosted battery technology briefing for journalists, I asked some of the battery engineers from other manufacturers of lithium ion batteries about Altair Nano, and their design got favorable comments.

Scanning electron microscope image of Altair-Nano’s nano-titanate material Photo: Altair Nanotechnologies

According to Gotcher, Altair Nano’s particular lithium ion battery chemistry “has a nice balance between surge power and high energy storage.” This is the problem that has, apparently, kept the nickel metal hydride batteries from getting the nod for next generation electric cars.

Some of Gotcher’s claims are really extraordinary to those of us who have had our eyes on the rapidly evolving market for high-capacity, practical batteries for automobiles. Here are a few: “The battery can operate in temperatures ranging from a low of -50 (farenheit) to a high of +165.” “The product appears to have a 15 year life.” “The battery has a rapid recharge, less than 10 minutes.”

Regarding this high recharge rate, Gotcher stated such a speed would not happen via any old residential wall socket – it would take a 480 volt circuit at around 2-300 amps. Nonetheless, this is not an unthinkable amount of juice to offer at a commercial filling station, and home rechargers could simply work more slowly during overnight garage storage.

Gotcher noted his company is working with a number of automakers, including major automakers who are planning all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. He was not at liberty to disclose the names of most of them. The company everyone’s watching that uses Altair Nano’s batteries is Phoenix Motorcars, based in Ontario, California.

Phoenix already has six or seven prototype electric cars on the road, according to Gotcher, “not including the ones they’ve crash tested.” He stated the typical battery pack unit they are shipping for automotive use is rated at 35 kilowatt-hours, which translates to a 135 mile range for a full sized, all electric car.

“From our perspective the Phoenix guys are doing a very good job of staying on their plan,” said Gotcher. On the all-important issue of price, Gotcher summed it up as follows:

“Once we get all-electric car manufacturing occuring in volumes of over 10,000 cars per year, the total drivetrain cost for an all-electric car, including batteries, should be within 20-50% more expensive than the drivetrain cost for a conventional gasoline-powered car.” This would actually, depending on which percentage you choose, make these cars cheaper than today’s hybrids.

Clearly the lithium ion folks are worth keeping an eye on.

In spite of having been around since the days of the Persian Empire, you don’t see too many vertical axis wind generators. Now a Nevada company “Mariah Power” has launched a product rated at 1.0 kilowatt and designed for home power systems.

The “Windspire” vertical axis generator is 30′ high & 2′ wide. Photo: Mariah Power

When I met Mariah Power’s VP of Marketing, Tracy Twist, last week in Sacramento, she showed me an actual cross-section of the rotor. It is only two feet wide, but 20 feet tall. Standing on a 10 foot tower, with the inverter and generator attached immediately to the bottom of the rotor, this windmill appears simpler to manufacture and maintain compared to traditional horizontal axis windmills.

The problem has been getting sufficient efficiency from the rotor. Because vertical wind rotors have a lower RPM compared to conventional wind rotors, the challenge has been to find a generator that can still generate adequate power at these lower speeds. Mariah Power has on patent awarded and other patents pending on their generator which they believe have solved this problem. They have three prototype generators already constructed which they have submitted to 3rd party testing centers to verify their claims.

Mariah Power’s “Windspire” has the potential to be installed in places where a horizontal rotor might not be practical. Because the rotor turns around on a single tower that depends on one concrete pier anchored below ground, there is a smaller footprint for this unit. The unit is designed to facilitate easy installation, and is rated to survive in winds up to 100 mph. The minimum wind speed necessary for the unit to begin generating power is only 8 mph.

Innovative small scale wind generators are surprisingly scarce. Innovations such as Mariah Power’s “Windspire” as well as pending designs from other manufacturers may eventually begin appearing on the tops and sides of urban high-rises, where at these relatively high altitudes the wind is more consistent and electricity yields could be quite useful.

To find out more about the Windspire, visit their website Mariah Power. To familiarize yourself with the top producers of conventional small wind generators in the USA, visit Bergey Windpower, or Southwest Windpower.

On or about Earth Day, or Arbor Day, spring in Northern California’s Santa Clara valley is a magical time when the clouds often hang wet in the western skies all day, progressing with moderate winds into the valley over hills that are green year-round. Winds from the west bring ionized and pristine moisture blown in from the Pacific Ocean, scented by the mountain forests, and clearing the senses wonderfully.

Don’t bother me, I’m planting trees.

Saturday, April 21st was a day to plant trees. For eleven years, as of 2007, I’ve been fortunate enough to make it back each spring to a small sliver of West San Jose called Westmont High School to plant trees. The sprawling campus was dedicated in 1965, and still has huge areas of open land that just beg for trees. Now Redwoods grow on the fringes of the lawns, Ash and Sycamore shelter the parking lots and pathways, and new, genetically engineered disease resistant American Elm are skattered about the campus and have begun to thrive.

Today was a particularly gratifying day, because we planted nearly two dozen trees, including Oaks around the football field which, along with a track, is inside a sunken bowl. Along the sides of the bowl these dozen or more Oaks joined about a half dozen Oaks planted in earlier years, and similarly, along the discus field west of the football field and track, several Ash, Elm, and Sycamore joined a grove already there.

Near the varsity baseball field, we planted a beautiful Maple, the first one over there, amidst groves of Sycamore, Ash, Redwoods, Cedar and Pine. Along the San Thomas Creek, that borders the entire northern length of the campus, the great Native Valley Oak and Western Sycamore can shake to their roots during the winds of May. But on this day in late April the weather was tranquil, and leaves burst from buds in the warm sun.

Getting water to these newly planted trees is always our next challenge, especially during their first summer. No urban environment can be entirely natural. Some of the trees in some of the places, such as Redwoods, are never completely independent of watering systems. But I hope as we become a more efficient society we don’t decide that Redwoods can’t exist except in their native realms.

On the football field there is now a spectacular artificial turf. It is a great amenity, but I can’t help thinking how many irrigation systems could have been installed for the cost of that carpet. Watering lawns is water recycling if you ask me – we’re returning the water to nature, and water is life. The more we water, the better it is for our environment. If we are returning the water to the earth or the air, by watering trees or sprinkling grass, why shouldn’t we? Maybe when this installation of artificial turf needs replacement the school can try an actual lawn again.

A tough California Live Oak goes in.

On brisk days in spring, if not all the time, Westmont High School has an exceedingly beautiful campus. To the south and west, and only a few miles away, the green ramparts of the Santa Cruz Mountains, half-mile high forested ridgelines, loom benevolently in spring mists that sparkle in the sun.

In the bowl, along the edges of the discus field, where grass remains, trees with leaves softer than California Live Oak are planted – the Sycamore and Ash and Elm. In the rock strewn slopes of the bowl, these tough native California Coastal Live Oak should nonetheless thrive. The new Elms near the softball field are doing well, and the Redwood groves behind the varsity third baseline are starting to get pretty tall. The parking lots have Ash and Sycamore that could use a pruning, but many are over 20 feet tall. They would all soon be that tall and taller with a good pruning.

Bordering Westmont’s campus to the south, along some parking lots and along Westmont Ave. east of the school buildings, dozens of mature Cork Oaks grow, as well as many young replacements. Running in the other direction along Westmont Ave., proceding along an endless expanse of playing fields west of the school buildings, are a spectacular row of over 30 Yarwood Sycamores, most of them already 20-30 feet tall.

When the sun sets on the longest day of the year, this west/northwest straight-away on Westmont Avenue points precisely at the setting sun. Westmont High School’s arboretum is alive and well, and Earth Day 2007 was a very good day indeed.