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

If you look at the drive towards “LCFS” fuel (LCFS means “lower carbon fuel standards”), it appears that natural gas powered vehicles are the wave of the future. Can you say “natural gas powered series hybrid”?

The GM “Flextreme,” set for production in Europe, is the only series hybrid employing an onboard diesel we’ve ever heard of. As for a natural gas powered series hybrid, who knows…

Read this recent email from someone on the ground, responding to EcoWorld’s feature “The Case for the Series Hybrid,” published a few years ago:

After reading your article today (even though it’s two years old), I have some points to make. These points are for everyone else promoting electric/hybrid cars.

First, I don’t think the majority of CO2 are from cars. They represent only 40% of fossil fuel use.

Second point is the serial hybrid seems like a no brainer that took GM too many years to figure out (Chevy Volt). A diesel is the best choice for efficiency for obvious reasons but the car makers still haven’t figured that one out. [GM is launching the 'Flextreme' in Europe, which is a diesel series hybrid] Why bother with those big car makers when someone else can do it better? Why does the Navy use diesel-electric submarines?

Third, you, like so many others, never mention natural gas. It is the cleanest fuel yet. Fork lift trucks use them all the time with changeable fuel tanks.

My fourth point is commercial use. Being a commercial vehicle driver, I deal with diesel engines which the average driver doesn’t really think about, but what kind of hybrid can you make with one of those? They have payloads up to 100,000 pounds (garbage trucks). A typical class 7 or 8 truck uses about 50 to 100 gallons per week. Multiply that by 52 and you can get an idea of a year’s use for one truck. Then multiply that by 4 million trucks and buses on the road. 80-90% of everthing you see is brought by trucks. There is a saying in the trucking industry, without trucks, America stops. Somebody better call GE!

Number five is buildings. They also use fossil fuels. Why doesn’t anyone mention that? The more efficiently a building is insulated, the less it costs to maintain its temperature. Oil is used to make foam insulation, yet we still use fiberglass. Foam, mainly polyurathane as well as styrene, is more dense than fiberglass and can be sprayed in place. Polyurathane is a thermoset plastic, which means it is used once. Why not insulate our homes with this foam insulation and then use some of these other alternative technologies to heat and cool? Add PV and you have a much more efficient building.

I just want to expand someone’s view on this alternative fuel thing.

The engine in my brother’s ML450 siezed up because of having no oil. Perhaps I can use that vehicle as prototype if he still has it. The whole engine and transmission would have to be pulled out. The truck weighs about 4k lbs. Can this hybrid technology handle trucks in that weight range? Any tips?

Sir, you have great insights. Respect.

Released March 2008 by the 25x’25 Alliance, republished with permission.

Biofuel, especially via cellulosic extraction from crop residue, has huge potential. (Photo: 25x’25 Alliance)

Biodiesel & methanol from livestock waste is a promising source of alternative fuel. (Photo: 25x’25 Alliance)

In September of 2007, the 25x’25 Alliance’s Steering Committee chartered a work group composed of a cross section of agricultural, forestry, industry, environmental and conservation leaders to help further define sustainability in a 25x’25 renewable future.

The mission of the work group was to develop recommendations for sustainability principles that would help guide the evolution of 25x’25.

The sustainability principles outlined in this report are the product of the 28-member 25x’25 National Steering Committee. Though the assumptions and principles were drawn from the consensus recommendations developed by the work group, they represent the views and position of the 25x’25 National Steering Committee rather than any individual 25x’25 Alliance partner.

Sustainability Principles for a 25x’25 Energy Future

Preamble

In the Energy Independence and Security Act passed in December 2007 the U.S. Congress formally adopted 25x’25 as a national goal, affirming that it is the goal of the United States to derive 25 percent of its energy use from agricultural, forestry and other renewable resources by 2025.

The 25x’25 Action Plan Charting America’s Energy Future, authored and released by the 25x’25 National Steering Committee in February 2007, outlines specific steps that need to be taken to put the United States on a path to secure 25 percent of its energy needs from renewables by the year 2025. The 25x’25 goal and Action Plan stand on a foundation of five key principles – efficiency, partnership, commitment, sustainability, and opportunity.

Sustainability has always been considered as central to the success of the 25x’25 renewable energy initiative and is defined as follows in the Action Plan:

Sustainability: To be a long-term solution for America, renewable energy production must conserve, enhance, and protect natural resources and be economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially acceptable.

Underpinning the concept of sustainability is the ideal of stewardship or the responsible use and orderly development of natural resources in a way that takes full and balanced account of the interests of society, future generations, and other species, as well as private needs, and accepts significant answerability to society.

In developing these principles, a number of basic underlying assumptions were identified and agreed to:

Renewable energy production must comply with all existing federal, state, and local laws
and regulations.

All regions will have an opportunity to engage in the production of bioenergy feedstocks
and renewable energy.

Renewable energy production should address the multiple-values of the land-base
including environmental, economic, social, and historical.

Balance of stakeholder interests must be a central theme in renewable energy production.

The principles set forth for sustainability are mutually reinforcing.
The 25x’25 National Steering Committee recommends the following principles to 25x’25
partners and would support their adoption by renewable energy producers and policy makers.

Wind power is already becoming cost competitive with conventional energy. (Photo: 25x’25 Alliance)

25x’25 Sustainability Principles

Access: Renewable energy producers and consumers should have fair and equitable access to renewable energy markets, products, and infrastructure.

Air Quality: Renewable energy production should maintain or improve air quality.

Biodiversity: Renewable energy production should maintain or enhance landscape biodiversity and protect native, rare, threatened, and endangered species and habitat.

Community Economic Benefits: Renewable energy production should bolster the economic foundation and quality of life in communities where it occurs.

Efficiency and Conservation: Renewable energy production should be energy efficient, utilize biomass residues and waste materials when possible, and conserve natural resources at all stages of production, harvesting, and processing.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Renewable energy production should result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions when compared to fossil fuels.

Invasive and Non-Native Species: Introduced or non-native species can be used for renewable energy production when there are appropriate safeguards against negative impacts on native flora and fauna, and on agricultural and forestry enterprises.

Market Parity: Renewable energy production should have parity with fossil fuels in access to markets and incentives.

Opportunities: All regions of the nation should have the opportunity to participate in renewable energy development and use.

Private Lands: Renewable energy production on private working farm, forest, and grasslands should improve the health and productivity of these lands and help protect them from being permanently converted to non-working uses.

Public Lands: Renewable energy production from appropriate public lands should be sustainable and contribute to the long-term health and mission of the land.

Soil Erosion: Renewable energy production should incorporate the best available technologies and management practices to protect soils from loss rates greater than can be replenished.

Soil Quality: Renewable energy production should maintain or enhance soil resources and the capacity of working lands to produce food, feed, fiber, and associated environmental services and benefits.

Special Areas: Renewable energy production should respect special areas of important conservation, historic, and social value.

Technology: New technologies, including approved biotechnology, can play a significant role in renewable energy production, provided they create land use and production efficiencies and protect food, feed, and fiber systems, native flora and fauna, and other environmental values.

Water Quality: Renewable energy production should maintain or improve water quality.

Water Quantity: Renewable energy production systems and facilities should maximize water conservation, avoid contributing to downstream flooding, and protect water resources.

Wildlife: Renewable energy production should maintain or enhance wildlife habitat health and
productivity.

Enhanced geothermal using advanced drilling techniques could be a gigantic surprise. (Photo: 25x’25 Alliance)

Reference Materials Reviewed

25x’25 Action Plan: Charting America’s Energy Future. 25x’25 National Steering Committee.
Washington, DC. February 2007.

Achieving Sustainable Production of Agricultural Biomass for Biorefinery Feedstock.
Biotechnology Industry Association. Washington, DC. 2006.

Bioenergy. NCR-SARE Bioenergy Position Paper. Nov. 2007.

http://www.sare.org/ncrsare/bioenergy.htm

Getting Biofuels Right: Eight Steps for Reaping Real Environmental Benefits from Biofuels.
Natural Resources Defense Council. Washington, DC. May 2007.

Ken Cairn, B. Biomass Energy – Critical Issues for Consideration in Developing Biomass
Energy and Energy Policy in Colorado and the West. Community Energy Systems, LLC. Oak
Creek. CO. 2007.

Natural Resources: Woody Biomass Users’ Experiences Offer Insights for Government Efforts
Aimed at Promoting Its Use. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC. GA)-06-
336. March 2006.

Principles for Bioenergy Development. Union of Concerned Scientists. Cambridge, MA. April
2007.

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels: Ensuring That Biofuels Deliver on Their Promise of
Sustainability. Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne. July 2007.

Sample, V. Alaric. Ensuring Forest Sustainability in the Development of Woody-Based
Bioenergy. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Washington, DC. Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007.

Sample, V. Alaric. Bioenergy Markets: New Capital Infusion for Sustainable Forest
Management. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Washington, DC. Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006.

Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry: A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry. National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry.
Washington, DC. January 2005.

Sustainability: Meeting Future Economic and Social Needs While Preserving Environmental
Quality. National Corn Growers Association. Chesterfield, MO. 2007.

The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal. Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices. Washington, DC, and New York, NY. 2007.

The Environmental, Resource, and Trade Implications of Biofuels. Woods Institute for the Environment. Stanford University. Stanford, CA . 2007.

http://woods.stanford.edu/ideas/biofuels.html

Solar power is the wildcard – it possibly could experience exponential growth. (Photo: 25x’25 Alliance)

25x’25 National Steering Committee

William Richards – Circleville, OH (Committee Co-Chair)

Corn and soybean producer; former Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service

J. Read Smith – St. John, WA (Committee Co-Chair)

Wheat, small grains and cattle producer; former President, National Association of Conservation Districts

Duane Acker – Atlantic, IA

Farmer; former President, Kansas State University; former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Science and Education, U.S. Department of Agriculture

R. Bruce Arnold – West Chester, PA

Consultant, woody biomass utilization for the pulp and paper industry; retired engineer and
manufacturer, Scott Paper Company

Peggy Beltrone – Great Falls, MT

County Commissioner- Cascade County Montana; member, National Association of Counties
Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee

John R. “Jack” Block – Washington, DC

Former Secretary of Agriculture, 1981-1986

Michael Bowman – Wray, CO

Wheat, corn and alfalfa producer; Steering Committee member, Colorado Renewable Energy
Forum; Rural Chair, Colorado Ag Energy Task Force

Charles Bronson – Tallahassee, FL

Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; member, Florida
Cabinet; member, Florida Governor’s Council on Efficient Government; former President,
Southern Association of State Departments of Agriculture

Glenn English – Arlington, VA

CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; former Co-Chair, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, DOE Biomass R&D Federal Advisory Committee; former Member of Congress (6th-OK) 1974-1994; Chairman, House Agriculture Subcommittee on Environment, Credit, and Rural Development

Tom Ewing – Pontiac, IL

Immediate past Chairman, USDA, DOE Biomass R&D Federal Advisory Committee; former Member of Congress (15th/IL) 1991-2001; Chairman, House Agriculture Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops

Barry Flinchbaugh – Manhattan, KS

Professor of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University; Chairman, Commission on 21st
Century Production Agriculture

Robert Foster – Middlebury, VT

Dairy farmer, composter, anaerobic digester; President, Vermont Natural Ag Products; Vice-
President, Foster Brothers Farm Inc.; President, AgReFresh

Richard Hahn – Omaha, NE

Retired President, Farmers National Company

Harry L. Haney, Jr. Austin, TX

Consultant, non-industrial private forestland management; emeritus professor, Department of
Forestry, College of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech; past president, Forest Landowners Association

Ron Heck – Perry, IA

Soybean and corn producer; Past President, American Soybean Association

Bill Horan – Rockwell City, IA

Corn and soybean producer; former Board Member, National Corn Growers Association

A.G. Kawamura – Sacramento, CA

Orange County specialty crops, produce grower and shipper; Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture; Vice Chairman, Rural Development & Financial Security Policy Committee, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; founding Partner, Orange County Produce, LLC

Jim Moseley – Clarks Hill, IN

Managing Partner, Infinity Pork, LLC; former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; former Director of Agricultural Services and Regulations, Purdue University’s School of Agriculture; Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Allen Rider – New Holland, PA

Retired President, New Holland North America; former Vice President, New Holland North
America Agricultural Business Unit

Nathan Rudgers – Batavia, NY

Senior Vice-President, Director, Business Development, Farm Credit of Western New York;
former Commissioner, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets; former President, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

Bart Ruth – Rising City, NE

Corn and soybean producer; Past President, American Soybean Association; 2005 Eisenhower
Fellow for Agriculture

E. Dale Threadgill – Athens, GA

Director, Faculty of Engineering, and Department Head, Biological & Agricultural Engineering, the Driftmier Engineering Center, and the Biorefinery and Carbon Cycling Program, University of
Georgia; private forest landowner

Mike Toelle – Brown’s Valley, MN

Chairman, CHS; past Director and Chairman, Country Partners Cooperative; operator, grain and hog farm, Browns Valley

Gerald Vap – McCook, NE

Chairman, Nebraska Public Service Commission; former Chairman, National Conservation
Foundation; President, Vap Seed & Hardware

Don Villwock – Edwardsport, IN

Grain and soybean producer; President, Indiana Farm Bureau Federation; former Chairman,
Farm Foundation

Sara Wyant – St. Charles, IL

President, Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc.; former Vice-President of Editorial, Farm Progress
Companies

Ernest C. Shea – Lutherville, MD (Project Coordinator)

President, Natural Resource Solutions, LLC; former CEO, National Association of Conservation

About the authors: The “25×25 Sustainability Principles” was released in March 2008 by The 25x’25 Alliance, and is republished with permission. The 25x’25 Alliance began in 2004 as a group of volunteer farm leaders who first envisioned the goal of America achieving 25% renewable energy by 2025, and the group quickly gained the support of a broad cross-section of the agriculture and forestry communities. Now leaders from business, labor, conservation and religious groups are joining this alliance as well.

The 25x’25 Alliance is supported financially by the Energy Future Coalition, a non-partisan public policy initiative funded by foundations. For general inquiries, email info@25×25.org. The 25x’25 Alliance is headquartered at 1626 Bellona Avenue, Lutherville, MD 21093, (410) 252-7079.

Additional EcoWorld reports on Biofuel:

- Food vs. Fuel?

- Biofuel’s Mixed Blessings

- The Biofuel Bonanza

- Factory Farmed Biofuel

- Bioethanol vs. Biodiesel

- Growing & Refining Biofuel

- India’s Biodiesel Scene

- Biodiesel: The Alternative Fuel That’s Already Here

- Jatropha in Africa

- Europe Adopts Jatropha

- Jatropha – Biofuel Grown in the Desert

Also reference over 40 Editor’s posts on the topic of biofuel:

- Biofuel Posts, EcoWorld Editor’s Blog

Back in June 2006 we posted “We Need More Freeways,” a position that has, along with our nuanced position on climate change – and perhaps other controversial positions, to lead to a recent post on DeSmogBlog entitled “EcoWorld: a website officially unconcerned with accuracy.” DeSmogBlog’s “about us” page states they “exist to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change.”

Before noting our response to the post on DeSmogBlog, it is important to state we respect the dignity and the sincerity of anyone who takes a position opposed to our own. Like any media property, our goal is to report news and provide analysis, but we also have an editorial position. We reject the tone of many blogs who demonize anyone who disagrees with them, and that is reflected in our arguments as well as in our option to delete comments that make personal attacks. If DeSmogBlog’s commentators disagree with us – good for them. If they want to dub me “Ed ‘Freeway’ Ring” instead of my preferred moniker, “Ed ‘Redwood’ Ring,” that is their right. We will not question their integrity or their motives, we will only respond to their points with further explanation of the reasons behind the positions we’ve taken.

Here is our response to their post:

Dear Sir: If you took the time to read more than one or two posts on EcoWorld, you will see we were, for example, one of the first to point out the massive rainforest destruction occurring in order to grow biofuel. You would also see our enthusiastic and unwavering support for EVs and solar power, and our unrelenting search to identify clean technologies to enable the coming electric age.

Our position on freeways is more nuanced than you give us credit for – we believe roads are the most versatile mode of transportation available, and that the efficiencies of rail only play out in cases of very high urban densities or longer intercity modes. Because cars, trucks and busses can all use roads, because they don’t require as much maintenance, security or operating personnel, and because they allow great personal independence – we think upgrading our road network is being given too little priority.

Adding to this the fact that cars are becoming smart, clean and green is the clincher in our view. We believe the world is within a generation of abundance, not scarcity, and green technology will deliver this abundance. We are optimists. It only takes 1 gigawatt of additional off-peak electrical output to recharge 1.0 million EVs for commuters. “Smart growth” proponants have declared war on the car, and we think this is a well-intentioned mistake.

As for climate change – I think it is naive to think big business is fighting the alarmism. Nobody benefits more than big business when regulations are put in place to restrict CO2 emissions. Wall Street gets to trade CO2 credits, corporations get subsidies to develop new technologies to mitigate the CO2 – the consumer pays more and small businesses go under because they can’t afford to comply. It isn’t at all clear to me based on all of the climate science I’ve read that anthropogenic CO2 is the clear culprit in climate change, nor that climate change is the existential crisis it is made out to be. Moreover, it seems to me that people suggesting we slow down and examine the economic and social consequences of massive transitions to reduce CO2 emissions should be considered the moderate ones, not those raising the alarm and demanding radical and abrupt changes.

Another reason EcoWorld highlights the arguments of climate skeptics is because we believe debate is important, and frankly we’re alarmed by the consensus in the media that the debate is over, and by the demonization of people who don’t think the debate is over. Science and journalism relies on skepticism and debate to allow the truth to emerge.

EcoWorld is supported by advertisers, and there aren’t a lot of them. If we were willing to compromise our integrity, i.e., rail against the “deniers” and invariably advocate policies and positions that constitute today’s conventional wisdom on environmental issues, you may rest assured our commercial and financial success would be far greater than it is presently.

You may criticize our positions as vehemently as you like. But if you question the sincerity of our viewpoints or the depth of our concern for the environment, you are mistaken. You are welcome to call me or email me to discuss this at any time. And I have earned my nickname of “Redwood.” I have personally grown from seed and given away thousands of trees, and never charged anyone for any of them.

Almost 2 billion people use kerosene lamps to light their homes- Many individuals fall victim to burns when these lamps get knocked over, suffer through the stench of burning oil and children are sent to hospitals after accidentally ingesting the kerosene. Not only are these lamps dangerous, especially when fueled with gasoline out of desperation, but they are costly.

Founder and CEO of http://www.dlightdesign.com/, Sam Goldman, spent the better part of his 28 years growing up in South America, Africa, India and the Middle East. Goldman seems to feel comfortable in any environment. He explains his involvement in rural towns while growing up in his blog:
“I remember:
* caravans of camels passing by our house in Mauritania,
* Boy Scouts trips to the Kyber Pass in Pakistan shooting AK47′s smuggled out of Afghanistan,
* boat trips in the Amazon looking for river otters during school break in Peru,
* drinking yak milk tea during high school field trips in the Indian Himalayas.

I was young – deeply concerned with poverty and inequality. Typical for someone who had never experienced it. While bicycling 9,000 km across Canada with the Climate Change Caravan I decided to apply to the Peace Corps. I wanted to understand the life of a poor farmer. A year later I was living 20 km from the Nigerian border, in a small village in Benin without electricity, water, telephones, or a paved road. ”

Goldman experienced the danger of Kerosene lighting while in Benin, when a neighbors son was badly burned after tripping over a kerosene lamp and engulfed in flames. It was then that Goldman decided to design a cheap and safe light source for underprivileged families throughout the world.

D.light is dedicated to eliminating the need for kerosene lanterns with cheap, safe and efficient alternatives. Their website explains their goal: “In 10 years, we will partner with other organizations to replace every kerosene lantern in the world with safer, brighter, and more affordable lighting. Like the eradication of small pox and soon polio, we can provide everyone with access to a basic human need: safe and bright light. This will allow children to study more effectively, adults to engage in income generating activities, and it will provide safer and cleaner indoor environments while reducing climate changing CO2 emissions.”

Driven to succeed in his vision of replacing the world’s Kerosene lamps, Goldman was accepted to an MBA program at Standford which provided the fundamentals for an entrepreneur focused on manufacturing a universally affordable product. After spending a few months researching rural peoples’ lighting needs and testing prototypes d.light was launched in May 21, 2007 with 5 full time employees. Only 10 days later, the Draper Fisher Jurvetson Venture Challenge awarded the company $250,000.

The quality product developed by d.light is up to 20 times as bright as a kerosene lantern, 30-50% more efficient than compact fluorescent lights, is solar charged and provides up to 200 hours of light at the lowest setting!

Currently, d.light is focusing on India and Asia where respiratory infections caused by the horrendous indoor air quality are a major cause of death in children under 5. Many families have already benefited from owning a d.light: Productivity has increased because it is easier to see and breath around these lights, the maintinence costs are non-existent and families can save the money they make rather than spend a whole days pay on the fuel needed to run a kerosene lamp. Right now a major concern is making the lights more affordable to families. Donations are accepted where online visitors can donate a $30 d.light to a family in India but the company is attempting to reduce production costs as well. Things are definitely a lot brighter with d.light.

Which of these solutions is more space efficient?

If you assume 5.0 watts (peak) per square foot for thin film photovoltaic, you end up requiring 4.6 acres per peak megawatt-hour (MWp), about the same as Nevada Solar One’s solar thermal farm (4.7 acres per MWp). Thin film PV panels now have a factory cost of about $1.00 per watt, which is quite cost competitive with solar thermal. Remember there isn’t nearly as much balance of plant with photovoltaic. With solar thermal, the solar field is just the beginning – you need the heat concentrators, the boiler, the turbine, and the condensing loop.

While Ausra and others have designs somewhat more space efficient than Nevada Solar One (Ausra’s proposed Carrizo plant will only require about 3.6 acres per MWp), more efficient PVs require far less space. A high-end PV will generate 20 watts per square foot (peak), which equates to 1.15 acres per MWp. Needless to say the costs per watt for these higher efficiency PV panels are 2-3x the costs for the thin film panels – at least at present, polysilicon may decline in price, and who can say how the electrical input required to bake monocrystaline PV is costed? Also, we don’t have good history yet on the longevity of thin film PV.

Which of these systems delivers lower lifetime costs per kWh?

The costs for photovoltaic solutions are better documented, although utility scale photovoltaic installations are just beginning to be implemented. The most significant variable isn’t peak output, which is somewhat easier to calculate, but kilowatt-hour output per year. Variables affecting this yield, of course, are the latitude and the weather conditions at each site. Notwithstanding the fact that some latitudes are cloudier than others, in the higher latitudes, say beyond 50 degrees north, you can multiply your peak hourly output by about 1,200 to get your yearly output. If you have an array that delivers 1.0 kilowatts in full sun, then that array will deliver about 1,200 kWh per year. In the temperate latitudes, around 35 degrees north, that multiple increases to around 1,600, and in the tropics, it can get over 2,000x.

Another way to stretch the output of photovoltaic systems is to point them at the sun, the same way solar thermal mirrors track the sun. This can increase yields per collector area by 50-100%, more if optical concentrators are used, but this also increases costs.

Calculating costs per kilowatt-hour are also impacted by how long the system will last, and how much output will degrade each year. Solar thermal systems are more expensive to maintain, but can last 50 years or more. Monocrystaline photovoltaic systems only degrade about 0.5% per year, which means they still produce at around 80% of their original efficiency at age 25. But by age 50 their output will be significantly degraded. Nobody knows yet how long thin film arrays will last.

At this point it isn’t clear which systems are cheaper. Taking the total installation price divided by peak megawatt output to get a installation cost per 1.0 megawatt output (peak), is a cost that is easier to objectively calculate, To cite a recently commissioned solar thermal plant, Acciona’s Nevada Solar One plant cost a reported $260 million and will output 64 megawatts at peak, or about $4.1 million per megawatt. For an example of a utility scale thin film plant, Optisolar’s 40 megawatt Sarnia facility is reported to cost $300 million, or $7.5M per megawatt.

Getting to cost per kWh from peak output is not easy. Annual kWh yield is influenced by latitude, weather, and whether or not the array is tracking. Lifetime maintenance costs are a factor, and the life of the system and whether or not there is annual degradation are factors. At the end of the day, the solar thermal industry is claiming they can immediately deliver power for about $.12 per kWh, and they think they will eventually get that cost down to around $.07 per kWh. The thin film folks haven’t disclosed their costs – but with the incentives of feed-in tariffs this technology will continue to be developed.

Ecoworld has repeatedly focused on the benefits of solar energy – It is taking advantage of a renewable resource, getting cheaper every year, has basically no maintenance costs associated with it and even better; the excess power generated by these panels can be sold back to the local power grid! The concept is simple: The sun’s rays are absorbed and converted to electricity.

Unfortunately, the popularity of solar panels is marred by the high cost associated with the product. Installing photovoltaics on your roof is a major investment. It is important to note that once installed, however, the solar panels will pay for themselves within an average of five to ten years. Other good news is that costs are still decreasing and soon even the most skeptical consumer won’t be able to argue the benefits of getting electricity practically for free.

Soliant Energy, based in Pasadena, CA has made huge strides in the photovoltaics industry, led by Art Buckland who became their CEO last year. At Soliant, engineers working in partnership with members of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, have been developing solar panels that use 88% less photovoltaic material which brings the cost down significantly. Cheaper and more efficient materials are constantly being developed, with photovoltaics that are able to harness three times as much electricity as typical panels currently available. Soliant Energy predicts prices using their product will come down to $4.00 per watt installed. This is a significant decrease from the $100 per watt during the 1960′s and $20 per watt in the following decade. Even today, photovoltaic systems, installed, rarely go much under $10 per watt at the residential and small commercial scale.

As stated in their website, “Soliant uses the latest in solar cell technology. By using specialized triple-junction cells, our rooftop solar concentrator can capture more of the sun’s energy than conventional solar panels.” The solar panels developed by the company rest on a dual axis where the absorbing area rotates throughout the day in order to maximize the amount of sunlight that hits the panels. The panels are extremely efficient: The “triple-junction cells [installed by Soliant] use specialized materials to capture a wider range of solar energy. While standard silicon cells only capture 15-20% of the sun’s rays, today’s triple junction cells can capture as much as 40% or more.”

“It is my belief that the strident claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data.” Dr. William M. Briggs

“Most extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views on global warming may be desire for political action.” Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber

Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.

The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]

The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around the world. (See “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” and see climate declaration signed by the scientists at the conference here).

The conference occurred just months after the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report featuring over 400 prominent scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that “all scientists agree” about man-made global warming. But as New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, science is ultimately not a numbers game. “As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue),” Revkin wrote. Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged “consensus” is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’” According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA”s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views. “We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-”consensus” views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,” wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4.

Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklýs Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed “runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” but he claims NASA refused to allow him. “Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article.

“Global warming has been tremendously over-hyped; most of the climate change we’ve seen is natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly.” Dr. William Gray

Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is “very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.”

Other scientists have echoed these claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that skeptics have a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature. “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor, who was not in attendance at the New York conference, wrote in December. In February 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki publicly called for politicians skeptical of a man-made climate “crisis” to be thrown “into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”  – See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

Many prominent scientists participating and attending were very impressed by the New York City climate conference. Hurricane researcher and Meteorologist Stanley B. Goldenberg of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in Miami praised the Heartland Instituted sponsored conference. “The fact is that this conference is evidence that there are numerous respected, established and in many cases world-renowned scientists who have done careful research in various areas of “climate change” that sharply differ with the [UN] IPCC results,” Goldenberg told the New York Times. Meteorologist D’Aleo had nothing but praise for the conference. “It was the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies. The two-day meeting featured over 100 excellent presentations made by scientists from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States,” D’Aleo wrote on his website IceCap.US on March 4. The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. Inhofe Debunks So-Called ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming, and The Inhofe EPW Blog

Many current and former UN scientists disagree with the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and many of them attended the skeptical climate conference in New York. In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists.

D’Aleo addressed the complaints of some mainstream media reporters who noted that the climate conference did not produce a focused scientific message, but instead posited multiple explanations of climate changes. “There was a variety of opinions as there should be in science and all were tolerated. There was no group think or stagnant thinking as we find at other so called Climate Conferences,” D’Aleo wrote. Why would the media ever expect a uniform scientific message at a large climate conference? It appears that reporters need to be reminded that the UN IPCC (after all it is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change) is the unusual event, not the international climate conference in New York City this past week. It is true that the skeptical conference presented an array of scientific views, but reporters should not be surprised by this diversity. Instead, the question for reporters should be, Why do UN IPCC climate events have such conformity and a lack of dissent? Many reporters are so used to attending virtually scripted UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers meetings which reach the predetermined “consensus” that mankind is driving a climate crisis. (To read more about how the IPCC Summary for Policymakers has been tainted by politics please see this article.)

Media Coverage of Conference

The climate conference garnered the attention of many media outlets including:

• New York Times
• BBC
• Washington Post
• ABC News
• Associated Press
• Reuters; China Post
• CNSNews.com
• CNN
• New York Sun
• Fox News
• Times of India
• Czech’s Ceske Noviny
• Investor’s Business Daily
• Canada”s Financial Post
• United Press International
• WorldNetDaily.com
• Wall Street Journal

Some of the mainstream media coverage reached bottom quickly See CNN’s Miles O”Brien accuses scientists at conference of being “Flat Earthers”.

Some of the mainstream media coverage, including several articles in New York Times, presented fair coverage:

• Global-Warming Skeptics Convene in N.Y.
• Lessons from the Skeptics’ Conference
• Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell

Despite many mainstream media outlets efforts to mock the gathering, it was a semi-victory for the conference that reporters likes Miles O’Brien of CNN and Bill Blakemore of ABC News even showed up. For info on O’Brien’s past climate reporting, see here. For info on Blakemore’s past climate reporting see here. The Business and Media Institute (BMI) also released their comprehensive study during the conference which reveals how the news media reports on global warming. The report, titled “Global Warming Censored” found that network TV news stifles debate, relies on “politicians, rock stars and men-on-the street for science” reporting. BMI also critiqued the news media coverage of the International Conference on Climate Change. WorldNetDaily.com has a critique of the media coverage titled “Mainstream media’s mockery”. American Thinker weighed in with a very comprehensive report from the conference. [Note: For a comprehensive sampling of the media coverage of the conference, see part two of this report here.

"There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. Consequently, worrying about CO2 is irrelevant." Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn

Funding Myths Exposed

One of the most incisive articles about the conference came from John Tierney of the New York Times. Tierney exposed the erroneous notion that "industry" funding fuels climate skepticism. "Do the critics really think there's more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change," Tierney wrote on March 6. An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. Tierney quoted Joseph Bast, Heartland's president, stating: "Donations from energy companies have never amounted to more than 5 percent of our budget in any year, and there is no corporate sponsor underwriting any of this conference." Tierney also presented the case that so-called global warming "solutions" are money makers for many. "A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week's conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits," he wrote. "And there's lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies," he added.

Dissenters of Climate Fears Growing in Number

The New York City conference of dissenting scientists comes after many declared 2007 the "tipping point" for climate alarmism and referred to it as the year man-made global warming fears "bit the dust" as an abundance of peer-reviewed studies countered rising CO2 fears. Many of the scientists featured in the December 2007 U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 scientists attended the conference. The skeptical scientists at the conference presented diverse views on climate change, but generally they rallied around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

In such nations as:

• Germany
• Brazil
• Netherlands
• Russia
• Argentina
• New Zealand
• Portugal
• France

Groups of scientists have recently spoken out to oppose and debunk man-made climate fears. In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" and "hijacked" the green movement.

Former Vice President Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports have prompted many skeptical scientists to speak out and join the growing resistance. "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that 'real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem," Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, declared in May 2007. Since the release of the December 20 Senate minority report detailing the hundreds of skeptics, a steady stream of scientists from around the world have continued to declare themselves dissenters of the alleged "climate crisis." Just days before the international climate conference began, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, Dr. Joanna Simpson, declared she was "skeptical" of catastrophic man-made warming. "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly," Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. as "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years". "The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts," Simpson explained. "But as a scientist I remain skeptical," she added.

"If we are facing a crisis at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing." Dr. Timothy Ball

Number of Skeptical Scientists Continue to Grow

Also last week, Geologist William F. McClenney, a California Licensed Professional Geologist and former Certified Environmental Auditor in Victoria, Australia, announced that he had reversed his views about man-made global warming. McClenney now says he has done "the math and realized that you just can't get to global warming with CO2." See February 28, 2008 full statement here. McClenney joins other scientists who recently converted from believer to skeptic of man-made climate fears, see full article here. Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, announced earlier this week that he was putting his "reputation on the line" by predicting global cooling. "The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 (except for a brief el Niýo interruption) and record breaking cooling this winter. The argument that this is too short a time period to be meaningful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years," Easterbrook wrote on March 1, 2008.  Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, the recently retired Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications, also publicly announced his dissent from man-made climate fears in February 2008. "Whatever the weather," Douglas said, "it's not being caused by global warming." Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, also announced his skepticism on February 18, 2008. "Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy," Peden wrote. In January 2008, environmental scientist professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder and director of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, announced publicly that he considered CO2 related climate fears to be "dangerous nonsense." Domingos, who retired in 2006, has more than 150 published articles in the research fields of Thermodynamics, Numerical Methods in Fluid Mechanics and Meteorological Forecast. "There are measurable climate changes but there is also an enormous manipulation in reducing everything to CO2 and equivalents. The main gas producing the green house effect is water vapor. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning," Domingos said. Physics professor Dr. Frederick Wolf of Keene State College in New Hampshire, declared himself a dissenter of man-made climate fears in January 2008. Wolf has taught meteorology and climatology courses for the past 25 years and will be undertaking a sabbatical project on global warming. "Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system," Wolf said. "I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming," he added.

Lamenting Use of Term "Consensus"

The number of scientists who are now publicly dissenting from Gore's and the UN's view of climate change has become so overwhelming that promoters of man-made climate fears now lament the use, or the "overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming. "I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word "consensus"" to describe climate change impacts, wrote Joseph Romm of Climate Progress in a February 27, 2008 commentary in Salon.com. [Note: Despite the growing scientific dissent and the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies which debunk rising CO2 fears, Romm now advocates that the term "consensus" be dropped in favor of a stronger term to promote man-made climate fears. In addition, at least one scientist publicly pondered reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists was released in December. "It (the Senate 400 scientists report) got me thinking: I'm an environmental scientist, but I've never had time to review the "evidence" for the anthropogenic causes of global warming," wrote environmental scientist Professor Rami Zurayk of the American University in Beirut on December 27, 2007. "When I said, in my opening speech for the launch of UNEP's (United Nations Environment Program) Global Environment Outlook-4 in Beirut: 'There is now irrevocable evidence that climate change is taking place...' I was reading from a statement prepared by UNEP. Faith-based science it may be, but who has time to review all the evidence? I'll continue to act on the basis of anthropogenic climate change, but I really need to put some more time into this," Zurayk wrote.

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

The Heartland Institute's International climate conference built on the momentum of growing number of skeptics as the conference showcased a new report by a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC called the "Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change" (NIPCC). The skeptical scientist report was titled "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate" Key findings of the NIPCC's report: 1) Most of climate change is caused by natural forces, 2) The human contribution is not significant, 3) Solar-activity changes are the main cause of climate change. Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service and past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, told the conference that the IPCC "chose to ignore these facts, because they conflicted with the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic (man-made).

Not a global crisis

The International Climate Conference in New York also featured hundreds of climate experts from around the world, who issued a March 4 "Manhattan Declaration" on man-made global warming, stating in part: "1) There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change, 2) Attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate, and 3) Human-caused climate change is not a global crisis." The declaration resolved that "scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method."

"Warming Island" Not So New

Former Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels addressed the conference and debunked fears of unprecedented melting in Greenland. Michaels noted the media hype recently about the "discovery" of a "new" island in Greenland caused by melting glaciers dubbed "Warming Island." (See April 2007 article titled: "An island made by global warming." But Michaels ridiculed the claim that the island was "new" by citing a 1957 book called "Arctic Riviera" by Swiss explorer Ernst Hofer which featured an illustration clearly depicting the same island in the early 1950s. Michaels noted that Greenland temperatures were as warm or warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than today"s temperatures. [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt]

“There are numerous respected, established and in many cases world-renowned scientists who have done careful research in various areas of ‘climate change’ that sharply differ with the IPCC results.” Stanley B. Goldenberg

Sampling of Key Quotes from Scientists Participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:

Former UN Scientist Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris (who resigned from UN IPCC in protest): “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

UN IPCC scientist Vincent Gray of New Zealand: “This conference demonstrates that the [scientific] debate is not over. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”

Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: “If we are facing [a crisis] at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.”

Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers: “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented. [&] 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction. [&] 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend.”

Hurricane expert and Meteorologist Dr. William Gray: “There are lots of skeptics out there, all over the U.S. and the rest of the world. [Global warming] has been over-hyped tremendously; most of the climate change we have seen is largely natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly.”

UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn: “There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. The consequence of that is that worrying about CO2 is irrelevant. Our prediction is world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that.”

Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman: “Serious scientists and serious students of global warming have concluded after a lot of effort that there is little basis for the thought that we are going to have catastrophic global warming.”

Dr. Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science of Liverpool John Moores University in UK: “[Global warming cap-and-trade bills have] caused so much trouble in Europe. It’s not working, it’s never going to work. It won’t have any effect on the climate, but only that there will be more unemployed in Europe. If that helps the climate, perhaps that is a solution.”

Atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, formerly with NASA”s Langley Research Center: “The runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. [&] The observed global warming has nothing to do directly with the greenhouse effect; it must be related to changes in the total absorbed solar radiation or dissipated heat from other natural or anthropogenic sources of thermal energy.”

Meteorologist Art Horn: “There are thousands of scientists around the world who believe that this issue is not settled. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”

German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming.”

Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut: “The fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are caused by astronomical phenomena. The combined effects of all “greenhouse gases,” albedo changes, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about 3 degrees C of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials.”

Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review “It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. [&] Too many people are too confident about too many things. That was the simple message of the Heartland conference, and one that I hope sinks in.”

Weblink to part two of Marc Morano’s report on the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

About the Author: Marc Morano is communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee’s website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics. This article is reprinted here with permission from the author.

Additional EcoWorld features on Global Warming:

• A Case Against Climate Alarmism, Dr. Richard Lindzen
• 35 Inconvenient Truths, Lord Christopher Monckton
• Interview with Roger Pielke, Sr., EcoWorld Exclusive
• Glacial Acceleration, Paul Brown
• Global Warming Priorities, Dr. Edward Wheeler
• Rebuttal to Inconvenient Truth, Marlo Lewis
• Inconvenient Skeptics, D. James Guzy
• Global Warming Facts, Dr. Richard Lindzen
• Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?, Dr. Richard Lindzen
• Global Warming Alarm?, Dr. Edward Wheeler
• Global Warming Posts, EcoWorld Editor’s Blog

If you can’t make rooftop photovoltaics pay financially without feed in tariffs, tax credits, accellerated depreciation, rebates, and subsidized loans – and even with all that it’s still barely better financially than just sticking to natural gas or coal fired grid electricity – how on earth can something like this succeed at the utility scale?

Solar fields in Ontario’s vast open spaces. (Photo: Optisolar)

One reason solar energy still cannot compete financially vs. conventional energy is because the value of future energy output from a photovoltaic system is discounted when calculating, for example, an internal rate of return. But economic models that put a time-value on money – making receipts in the future not worth as much as receipts today – cannot necessarily be applied to energy.

Traditional models of economic analysis for an energy system lasting 50 years treat the free energy in years 11 through 50 as nearly worthless. The underlying assumption when discounting returns beyond 10 years is that BTUs are as fungible as currencies; something that is arguable but not certain. If a society as a whole desires energy independence, a solar energy system’s return on investment in year 50 is no less valuable than the return on investment in year one. (Ref. “Solar Energy Heats Up in India”) You could even argue, since energy intensity improves every year (the amount of real economic value enabled per unit of energy), future units of energy are worth more than present units. So photovoltaics may not yet make compelling microeconomic sense, but they already have real long-term macroeconomic value.

A fairly stealthy, fast growing, vertically integrated photovoltaic company who is staking their strategy on utility scale applications is Optisolar, based in Hayward, California. Owning everything from the manufacturing (and the underlying thin film technology), to the solar fields they build, they have begun construction on what will be the largest photovoltaic field in the world to-date.

It’s interesting that the world’s largest PV array currently is the utility-scale 12-megawatt Erlasee solar park in Germany, and this new 50 megawatt plant built by Optisolar is going to be Ontario, Canada. Interesting because Germany and Canada aren’t necessarily considered the sunniest places on earth.

Also interesting is the differences between these two solutions – the Erlasee fields employ a variety of technologies and vendors. Most of their systems use two-axis tracking devices and crystaline photovoltaics, such as from Sunpower. By contrast, Optisolar’s Sarnia solar farm in Ontario will use thin film photovoltaics. Thin film technologies are only now coming into volume production, with First Solar, Uni-Solar, Nanosolar, and Optisolar all opening manufacturing plants within the last two years. Applied Materials supplies tools to manufacture both crystaline and thin film photovoltaic plants, and they have at least a half-dozen major orders to supply equipment for thin-film manufacturing plants. Thin film manufacturing, less than 10% of world manufacturing PV capacity in 2007, could make big gains in the next few years.

Proponants of high efficiency crystaline photovoltaic solutions, or ultra-high efficiency photovoltaic concentrator solutions, correctly point out that limited rooftop space makes the lower efficiency thin film solutions impractical. Even lower installation costs, which makers of flexible thin film solutions such as Solar Integrated have pioneered, where the photovoltaic material is literally unrolled on a rooftop and plugged in, are not a sure thing. Thin film’s lower efficiency not only means it requires more space, but that there are far more connectors, wiring and maintenance surfaces, all of which can completely offset the easier installation. But thin film, which uses far less silicon than crystaline PVs, can be manufactured for less than $1.00 per watt – exactly how much less varies from company to company and with private companies is a closely guarded secret.

Where thin film has surprising promise however is in areas not specifically related to the “name plate” efficiency, wherein, for example, a typical thin film PV panel delivers 5.0 watts of DC current in full sun per square foot of photovoltaic surface, compared to a high-efficiency crystaline PV panel that delivers 15.0 watts per square foot. Clearly crystalline PV has a higher efficiency when pointed directly at full sun. But thin film PV is able to capture sunlight more efficiently in overcast conditions and in conditions where the sun isn’t striking the collector as directly, such as early morning and late afternoon. For these reasons – thin film collectors, in terms of kilowatt-hours produced per day per “name plate” watt output – are about 20% more efficient than crystaline photovoltaics. Thin film is also more efficient than photovoltaics in turning DC current into usable AC power – about 10% more of the DC current that goes into the inverter from thin film photovoltaics turns into AC power when compared to typical crystaline photovoltaics.

These advantages, especially the ability to operate in marginal sunlight without requiring tracking devices, make thin film an especially appropriate choice for solar fields at latitudes such as Ontario, Canada, where Optisolar is building their field. At 902 acres, or 365 hectares, which equates to power output of 11 watts per square meter, or 28 megawatts per square mile, Optisolar obviously isn’t constrained by land availability. Put another way, the Sarnia solar farm will require 22.5 acres for every megawatt of output. The recently commissioned solar thermal field, Nevada Solar One (operated by Acciona North America) is designed to require 6.25 acres per megawatt of output. But what would Nevada Solar One’s space efficiency be if they were located in Ontario, instead of super sunny Nevada?

Most interesting is what Sarnia actually costs. Estimates quoted in a report last year “Ontario Goes Solar” in the Toronto Star suggest the Sarnia 40 MW facility cost about $300 million (US), which equates to $7.5M per megawatt. Not cheap, but comparable to most photovoltaic solutions. Ontario likes solar – since placing their initial 40 MW order with Optisolar, they’ve upped the size of the Sarnia field to 60 MW – which should ensure its place as the biggest photovoltaic installation in the world for a bit longer. And with a feed-in tariff of $.42 per kWh, even in the northern latitudes, $7.5M per megawatt should deliver a good ROI to Optisolar. And if the collectors last the projected 30-50 years, as noted at the beginning of this post, these utility scale photovoltaic solutions should generate long-term economic benefits as well.

Gold has always been a symbol of wealth, power and beauty. It is also the most malleable metal, where a single gram of the dark yellow material can be pounded into a full square meter sheet. This precious metal is not just limited to jewelry and decoration. Gold is also used in holistic medicine. Since medieval times, it has been assumed that something so rare and precious could be nothing but healthy . With that in mind, many foods are decorated with gold leaf and flakes to add to their appeal, but the metal leaves the body unchanged.

Jewelry is usually what is associated with gold and 80% of the mined metal goes into these accessories. Unfortunately, not many people know how the gold traveled from various mines to a fiance’s finger or a favorite necklace. The whole process is a dirty one. Gold mining has devastating impacts on the environment and local communities. “No Dirty Gold” is a website dedicated to educating the public about the effects of gold mining. The site explains how the mining process reduces air quality, damages habitats and displaces local communities. The cyanide extraction process is one of the less environmentally friendly methods. The high toxicity of cyanide is an obvious threat to any living organism. The potential for disaster was proven when in 2000, a gold mining reprocessing facility in Romania accidentally released 120 tonnes of the poison into surrounding rivers. Dead fish washed up on shore, people became ill and the land simply died after the cyanide spill. No fish have been in the river Sasar for 60 years-ever since cyanide was used in the mining process there.

Gold will always have cultural significance and as well has a multitude of practical uses. It is unrealistic to think that demand for the metal will end. However, there are alternatives to buying an item made from freshly mined gold. GreenKarat provides ecologically responsible jewelry made from recycled gold and diamonds. GreenKarat explains: “Our greater goal at GreenKarat is to end destructive gold and diamond mining. We do not, however, strive to force that change through radical activism. While activist organizations play a critically important role in educating and motivating consumers, we believe that widespread and permanent change will ultimately occur through the voice of consumer buying decisions.”

With companies like GreenKarat providing hundreds of different jewelry options, it is a popular choice among environmentally conscious individuals.

Earlier this month at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit 2008, heads of state, ministers, policymakers, corporate leaders, NGO’s and financiers met for three days to address the issue of climate change. During the event, the REEEP South Asia Regional Secretariat organised a workshop to discuss financial risk management in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Risk is a major concern for financiers and investors.

The Indian renewable energy sector has shown impressive growth in the last few years and investment in the sector have increased significantly. However, investment still lags behind expectations and market potential is not being fully realised. According to the Government of India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy the country’s short term goal is to add approximately 24GW of new capacity from renewables by 2012. Currently installed capacity is about 11 GW. The planned increase in capacity requires more than Euro 3 million in investment.

Mr Creon Butler, UK Deputy High Commissioner, spoke about the UK government’s intent to establish an £800 million environmental transformation fund, which will be made available to developing countries for transition to a low carbon growth path.

Mr. Chadrashekar Iyer, Associate Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers said, “The renewable energy sector in India has been increasing at 20% annually and the annual turnover of the renewables industry is reaching Euro 1.7 billion. Policy and regulatory frameworks are an important factor to promote investment and policies must guide investment into projects that can improve energy production.”

Fuel supply, performance and technology, regulatory and credit risks were some of the major risks identified in the Indian context during the event. In order to address the issue of risk mitigation, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) recently provided funding to a two year project in India to analyse the risks and barriers facing the renewable energy industry. The project is expected to develop risk management instruments and policy recommendations.

The finance community has shown great interest in the project. Mr Debashish Majumdar, Chairman and Managing Director of the Indian Renewable Energy Agency (IREDA) emphasized the enormous potential of renewable energy and urged the finance community to enable the renewables industry to tap into this potential efficiently.

Dr. Marianne Osterkorn, International Director of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), underlined the partnership’s commitment to “proactive cooperation with financial institutions and development agencies, and mainstreaming technology transfer into REEEP projects.”