Making Perfect the Enemy of Good

Critics of using hydrogen as a transportation fuel seized on an event that happened a few months ago to demonstrate hydrogen is not safe for use. Though no explosion or fire occurred and no one was injured, hydrogen critics used the event to question the safety of hydrogen.  Meanwhile, one can find reports each week on serious – often catastrophic – events associated with the production, distribution, and/or consumption of gasoline and diesel.  The reality is that, on the balance, hydrogen is no safer and no more dangerous than what we use today.  Citing safety concerns to oppose hydrogen as a fuel, therefore, is nothing more than a red herring.

On February 11, a semi tanker carrying liquid hydrogen overturned on Interstate 84 in Connecticut when the driver fell asleep at the wheel.  Hydrogen began to leak from the tanker but there was no explosion or fire.  Officials closed the freeway for several hours during the morning commute, causing traffic snarls and raising the profile of the incident.  Fortunately, no one was injured, but bloggers and readers posted comments en masse questioning the safety of hydrogen as a transportation fuel.

This past weekend a diesel fuel tanker overturned and caught fire, shutting Interstate 91 near Boston for 5 hours.  Sadly, the driver died.  Just a month earlier, the same company had a truck carrying gasoline explode, damaging several houses and destroying numerous cars.  But its virtually impossible to find blogger or reader comments citing these or similar incidents as justification for questioning the safety of using diesel or gasoline.

EIN’s concern is not the fact the hydrogen incident attracted the attention of bloggers and commentators.  Rather, we are concerned with the fact that similar incidents with conventional fuels do not draw nearly as much attention.  We’re concerned that familiarity and complacency skews the playing field against alternative fuels and vehicles.  We’re concerned that the public has the expectation alternative fuels will be perfect, rather than accepting they may be better.

There are properties of hydrogen that make it safer to use than gasoline and diesel.  At the same time, there are other properties that require hydrogen to be handled differently than gasoline and diesel to prevent fire or explosion.  This is true with all alternative fuels and vehicles.  Simply because they have some risk associated with them is not justification for opposing their adoption.  These fuels and vehicles must be compared with what is in use today.  The question should be: are they safer, more dangerous, or prohibitive to handle?  The answers to these question must then be weighted within the context of the other benefits and drawbacks of the fuel compared to the incumbent.

We cannot make perfect the enemy good.  There is no silver bullet.  Every alternative will carry some risk along with its benefits.  If we deem the benefits to outweigh the risks, but insist on the fuel or vehicle being risk free, we’ll never move forward.

Silver Buckshot: EIN’s Philosophy for Alternative Fuels

“EIN’s Executive Director, Daniel Emmett, recently had a piece published in the Summer 2007 edition of Waterkeeper Magazine. In the piece he elucidates EIN’s view of the roles of all alternative fuels and vehicles in the broader effort to reduce our nation’s dependence on petroleum and fossil fuels.”

Click the graphic below to read the article.

Independent carmakers lead the way on plug-in hybrids

Smaller firms have plans to market gasoline-electric cars that can go 45 to 50 miles on batteries alone.

By Martin Zimmerman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 8, 2007

Yet another environmentally friendly automobile is headed your way — if you have a spare $80,000 or so.

Irvine-based car designer Henrik Fisker just announced plans to unveil a plug-in hybrid at the Detroit auto show in January and to have his high-performance gasoline-electric sedans ready for sale in the U.S. within 18 months.

If Fisker’s hybrid is too rich for your blood, and you’re patient, no worries.

Industry veteran Malcolm Bricklin, who introduced America to both the Subaru brand and the Yugo, also announced plans for a luxury plug-in hybrid sedan, saying his cars would be available in the U.S. by 2010. And he said the sticker price would be about $35,000.

Whatever the price, suddenly, the plug-in hybrid market looks crowded.

The hybrids on the road now are powered by a gasoline engine that is assisted by an electric motor and can run short distances at low speeds on electric power alone.

The plug-in hybrids on the drawing board will feature much more powerful battery packs that can power the car on electricity alone for many miles at highway speeds. And unlike electric cars, when the battery gives out, the gasoline motor takes over — either to drive the wheels directly or to produce electricity to power the electric motor. The batteries could be recharged overnight at a household outlet.

Both Fisker and Bricklin are aiming for electricity-only ranges of 45 to 50 miles — far enough to allow many drivers to spend most days cruising on electrons alone.

“Our car can become your main car,” Fisker says. “If you decide this afternoon, ‘Hey, I want to go to Las Vegas,’ you can do that. You can’t do that in an electric car.”

Plug-ins could be just the thing to satisfy car buyers looking for relief from high gas prices — and for auto companies facing the possibility of much tougher fuel economy standards from the federal government.

General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and Ford Motor Co. are pursuing plug-in technology but aren’t expected to have models in showrooms until shortcomings of the current generation of batteries are overcome.

Fisker is a well-known designer of high-end sports cars, including the BMW Z8 and the Aston Martin DB9 and V8 Vantage. To produce the plug-in hybrid, he has formed a joint venture with Irvine-based Quantum Technologies, which will provide the crucial battery and powertrain design.

While providing few details, Chief Executive Alan Niedzwiecki said his company had developed a lithium ion battery pack that solves the overheating problems that have complicated development of plug-ins.

“There are few automotive companies that have their own battery, and we’re one of them,” he said.

The joint venture, named Fisker Automotive Inc., will contract out the production of the cars to a vehicle manufacturer. Initial plans are to build 15,000 of the premium-priced vehicles a year, and then in four to five years introduce a second plug-in design priced at $35,000 to $40,000.

Fisker wouldn’t discuss financing, other than to say the company has attracted interest from venture capitalists and has enough cash for initial operations.

Bricklin, whose up-and-down auto industry career has earned him comparisons to P.T. Barnum, is raising money from a network of dealer-investors and also plans to announce more investors this month. He originally planned to build the cars in China but now is considering other sites.

Fisker said he was confident he could find buyers for his pricey plug-ins, especially because he plans to market the car heavily in Europe. He expects the car to be popular with movie stars and other wealthy individuals who want to be “eco chic.”

“We wanted to create a vehicle that’s environmentally correct but looks good and performs better than the car you’re driving today,” he said.

Another high-end, eco-friendly carmaker, Tesla Motors Inc. of San Carlos, Calif., is finding a receptive audience for its $98,000 electric roadster. The company has received nearly 600 orders for the high-performance car, which will be built in England and have a range of more than 200 miles.

“That’s way more than what we were anticipating,” said Darryl Siry, head of marketing and sales for Tesla. “We’re very happy with it.”

Tesla hopes to ship the first roadster this year and has plans to introduce a less expensive vehicle — although still priced at more than $50,000 — by 2010. That car will be assembled in New Mexico.

Rumors are swirling that the car, code-named Whitestar, will be a plug-in hybrid, which could give it a broader appeal than the electric-only roadster. Siry declined to comment on the rumors.

Jack Nerad, an auto market analyst at Irvine-based Kelley Blue Book, said independent carmakers like Fisker and Tesla are aiming to meet demand from consumers who are tired of waiting for GM, Toyota and the other auto giants to bring new technology to market.

“There’s a thirst from a segment of the public for environmentally friendlier vehicles than what is now available from the big manufacturers — even beyond what is available in hybrids,” Nerad said.

“And this is fueling the entrepreneurial spirit. There are people who think they can make money at this.”

martin.zimmerman@latimes.com

---

Q&A: What’s Behind High Gas Prices?

Business

NPR.org, April 27, 2006 · With average prices at the pump approaching $3 a gallon, filling up is causing American consumers increasing pain in the pocketbook. A look at the issues surrounding high gas prices:

What factors are causing gas prices to rise so quickly?

The biggest factor in rising costs is the price of crude oil, followed by the cost of refining.

If a gallon of gasoline costs $2.90 (this week’s average, according to the Energy Department), crude oil accounts for about $1.60. The cost of crude oil on the futures market has risen about 33 percent in the last year. This reflects supply problems in such places as Nigeria, Iraq and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the threat of supply problems in Iran.

Refining costs add another 64 cents or so to a gallon of gasoline. Refining margins have increased from a few years ago, and are especially high this spring, because many refineries are currently shut down for seasonal maintenance. Refineries are still recovering from the effects of last year’s hurricanes. And they are adjusting to more stringent low-sulfur fuel requirements and the phase-out of the gasoline additive MTBE.

The balance of the price is taxes — about 55 cents — and distribution and marketing costs, which account for about 11 cents per gallon.

OK. So the rising cost of crude oil and of refining help account for the spike in gas prices. But at the same time, oil companies are reporting record net profits. They’re being accused of price gouging. What’s their response?

Big oil companies are making most of their money by producing crude oil. They invested in oil fields when prices were much lower, with the expectation that they could break even at, say, $25 per barrel. Since the market price is now more than $70 a barrel, the extra money is gravy. It’s like a farmer who can raise corn for $1.50 a bushel. If the market price is $1.75, he makes a quarter per bushel. If the market price jumps to $2.25, his profits jump as well. (If the market crashes to $1 per bushel, the farmer loses money. That can happen to oil companies as well.) Oil companies, like the farmer, are the beneficiaries of high market prices, but they can no more control those prices than a farmer can dictate what he gets for a bushel of corn.

Critics would say the oil industry is far less competitive than the corn market, which is certainly true. But if oil companies could control the price of crude oil, they would not have allowed the price to fall to $10 a barrel as it did in 1998.

Then who sets the prices?

Oil companies don’t set crude-oil prices; the global market does. Basically, the market decides what people are willing to pay at a certain moment in time. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that the world is getting richer. Countries like India and China are growing, and that has created more demand for oil and gas. In the United States, we’re still going full throttle when it comes to energy use. At the same time, there have been supply disruptions and political instability in major oil-producing nations. So you have a situation where demand has been growing steadily and inexorably, and the system of supply is quite vulnerable. That’s the basic recipe for high prices.

If the market sets prices for oil, then what role does OPEC play? How does it affect prices?

Traditionally, OPEC set limits on how much oil its member countries produce in order to keep the price higher than it would be in a truly competitive market (but not so high as to encourage development of alternatives). This often worked, despite widespread cheating by OPEC members, who often produced above their quotas. OPEC’s production quotas are less of a factor in limiting supplies today, since members other than Saudi Arabia are almost all producing as much oil as they possibly can.

Iraq’s oil production hasn’t recovered to its prewar levels. Has this had a major impact on global oil supply and prices?

Yes. In January 2003, before the U.S. invasion, Iraq produced 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. Production fell sharply during the invasion, and recovered to as much as 2.3 million barrels per day in 2004. Last year, however, Iraq rarely produced as much as 2 million barrels a day. And in January of this year, daily production was only 1.6 million barrels. By itself, this would not be a huge loss to the world market. But coupled with supply problems in Nigeria, Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico, it doesn’t help.

Some Republicans want to open up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas drilling. What kind of impact might ANWR oil have on prices?

The Energy Department forecasts that if ANWR were opened to drilling, it would add about 900,000 barrels of oil per day to global supplies. That would just about make up for the current gap in Iraq’s production. But the new barrels wouldn’t become available for many years.

Are prices really that high when compared to other countries or to the gas crisis of the late ’70s and early ’80s?

Gasoline prices have increased sharply in the last two years. But over a longer period of time, the prices of other goods have increased even more. In March of 1981, the average price of gasoline nationwide peaked at $1.42 a gallon. If gasoline prices had simply risen at the same rate as other goods since then, the average price today would be $3.08. (Although gas prices are higher than that in some areas, the national average is still about 18 cents shy of the all-time high.)

Drivers in some other countries have it worse. Gasoline prices in the United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands are at least twice as high as those in the United States. (But drivers in oil-rich countries such as Kuwait, Nigeria and Venezuela pay less than a $1 a gallon for gas.)

Is there any evidence that people are starting to change their habits in response to higher prices?

When you ask drivers at the gas station, “Are you trying to conserve?,” they invariably say they are. But weekly data from the Energy Department show that we’re still using more gasoline than we were a year ago. It’s likely that the pace of growth has slowed because of the high price.

It also appears that people shopping for new cars are paying more attention to fuel economy than they were a few years ago. Buyers of hybrid and fuel-efficient diesel cars are already eligible for tax breaks, and this week President Bush called on Congress to expand those.

The Bush administration is supporting an investigation into possible price gouging. Meanwhile, some members of Congress are talking about a windfall profits tax. Will those measures help?

The government has conducted numerous investigations of suspected “price gouging” in the past; it usually finds that market forces of supply and demand, not illegal market manipulation, are responsible for high prices. The idea of a windfall profits tax was raised last year and went nowhere. Oil companies say taxing their profits would limit their ability to invest in new oil fields or refineries, although at least one proposal, from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), would tax only those windfall profits that were NOT reinvested.

Are there any short-term fixes?

The market solutions are: a) increase supply; and b) decrease demand. The seasonal crunch in refining capacity should ease in the next few weeks. But unless peace suddenly breaks out around the globe, crude oil supplies are likely to remain tight. So decreasing demand is our best hope in the short run.

What about long-term fixes?

They’re the same: increase supply and decrease demand. But in the long term, we have more opportunities to do this, by developing new oil fields, building new refineries, replacing gas guzzlers with gas sippers, and searching for alternative fuels.

Record Profits at Oil Companies Draw Criticism

Source:  NPR.org

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, announced that it earned more than $8 billion in the first three months of the year. The news follows Conoco Phillips’ announcement that it earned $3.3 billion during the first quarter of 2006. Chevron is set to announce its quarterly profits Thursday.

Big profits at the oil companies may seem like salt in the wounds to drivers, who are already smarting from gasoline prices of $3 a gallon or more. As Congress debates how to address the situation, companies are taking steps to soothe an expected backlash.

The oil supplies Exxon brought to market in the first three months of the year sold for an average of about $60 a barrel. That’s 40 percent more than the oil it produced a year ago. Like farmers who prosper when the price of their crops rise, Exxon and other big oil producers are the beneficiaries of soaring crude oil prices.

But senior energy analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer and Co. says oil companies can no more control those prices than a farmer can dictate what he gets for a bushel of corn.

Russ Roberts, a spokesman for ExxonMobil, said, “We understand it’s tight for everyone these days. It’s difficult to pay high gasoline prices. But our job is to bring supply to the market, and that’s what we’re doing. And we’re investing billions of dollars around the world to do that.”

Crude oil production accounted for more than three-fourths of Exxon’s profit during the quarter. The company made another $1.2 billion refining crude oil into gasoline and other products.

Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota wants to tax what he calls “windfall profits” that oil companies earn on prices over $40 a barrel. His proposal went nowhere last year. But with the return of high gasoline prices, Dorgan says even some of his Republican colleagues have begun to give the idea a second look.

“The American people have all the pain with these prices at the pump and all of the gain is going into the corporate treasuries,” Dorgan said.

Exxon spent nearly $5 billion in the first quarter on exploration and expanding oil fields. The company also spent $6 billion buying its own stock back in an effort to boost the share price.

Volvo Demonstrates Trucks Running on Seven Different Renewable Fuels; Evaluates the Fuels

Source: The Green Car Congress

29 August 2007

Volvo’s seven renewable fuel trucks and a summary chart of the fuel evaluation. More evaluation detail below. Click to enlarge.

The Volvo Group showed seven of its diesel trucks modified to run on 100% renewable fuels: biodiesel, biogas, biogas combined with biodiesel, ethanol/methanol, dimethyl ether (DME), synthetic diesel and hydrogen gas combined with biogas. The company also published the results of its own assessment of the potential and viability of these different fuels.

The seven Volvo FM trucks were equipped with Volvo’s own 9-liter engines that have been specially modified to illustrate the possibilities of what Volvo calls “carbon-dioxide-free transport.” Since all the fuels chosen originated from renewable materials—such as the gasification of biomass for DME and the synthetic Fischer-Tropsch diesel—the combustion of the fuels contributes no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Production of the fuels, however, does generate CO₂ in amounts varying with the specific pathway—which is one of the criteria Volvo used in its assessment.

<!––>Volvo calculates that cargo transport will account for about 4-5% of total global carbon-dioxide emissions, based on European conditions and statistics in which passenger cars represent 60% of carbon-dioxide emissions and cargo transport for the remaining 40%.

The Volvo Group is the first vehicle manufacturer to produce seven demonstration trucks that can all be driven without emitting any environmentally harmful carbon dioxide. These trucks were exhibited for the first time today in Stockholm and are equipped with diesel engines that have been modified to operate on seven different types of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels. Volvo is part of the climate problem, but today we have shown that carbon-dioxide free transports are a possibility and that we as a vehicle manufacturer both can and will be part for the solution to the climate issue.

—Leif Johansson, CEO of the Volvo Group

Volvo carried out its own analyses of the renewable fuels that are most suitable based on seven criteria: Impact on the climate; energy efficiency; land use efficiency; fuel potential; vehicle adaptation; fuel costs; and fuel infrastructure.

We know that in the foreseeable future there will be insufficient biomass or renewable fuels to fully replace fossil fuels. That is why it is important that decisions on the production of future fuels are preceded by such comprehensive assessments—otherwise there is the risk that we focus on too many and quite simply unsuitable alternatives, which will delay the introduction of carbon-dioxide-free transport.

—Jan-Eric Sundgren, member of Volvo Group Management and Senior Vice President, Public and Environmental Affairs

Volvo is particularly optimistic about the prospects for second-generation renewable fuels produced via the gasification of biomass. While different fuels have different strengths and weaknesses, dimethyl ether produced via biomass gasification comes out as a leading alternative in these assessments. A summary of the results follow.

Indexed results for climate impact. 100 is the baseline (conventional diesel), and a lower score is better. Click to enlarge.

Impact on the climate. Volvo used a five-degree scale showing the percentage the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions compared with conventional diesel fuel: 0-25% reduction; 26 - 50% reduction; 51 - 75% reduction; 76 - 90% reduction; and 91 – 100% reduction. Non-fossil CO₂ emissions were not included since they do not lead to a net increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Five of the alternatives—synthetic diesel, dimethyl ether, methanol, biogas and hydrogen plus biogas—reduce the impact on the climate by more than 90%. In the case of methanol, gasification of black liquor is required in order to get the highest rating. For biogas and hydrogen gas+biogas, gasification of biomass is required in order to receive the highest rating. A lower rating applies if the biogas is produced through anaerobic digestion of household waste. Results for ethanol vary between 0 and 75 percent reduction depending on the production method. Biodiesel had the lowest ranking after ethanol.

WTW energy efficiency expressed in percentage of energy reaching the wheels. Click to enlarge.

Energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is rated on a falling scale and is expressed in percent indicating the amount of energy that reaches the vehicle’s driven wheels. Current fossil diesel fuel achieves approximately a 35 percent total level of efficiency. Results may vary for the same fuel, depending on the production process used.

DME and methanol receives the highest rating, on the condition that they are produced from black liquor from the wood pulp industry. The highest rating for synthetic diesel also requires the gasification of black liquor. The rating for biogas, biogas+biodiesel and hydrogen gas+biogas apply to production with gasification and anaerobic digestion. Production of biogas via gasification of black liquor is not included in the summary. The low rating for ethanol is due to the high energy consumption for cultivation and fuel production.

Efficiency of land use expressed in km/hectare/year. Click to enlarge.

Land use efficiency. The yield per hectare for each crop has been calculated using information about average yields from good quality land. The rating scale indicates how far a heavy truck can travel per year and hectare. Growing conditions apply to Swedish conditions. Cultivation in other places leads to different results but the relationships are more or less the same, according to Volvo. Volvo reduced the amount of fuel produced by the amount of fuel/energy required for harvesting, production, transport, etc. The results may vary for the same fuel, depending on the production process used.

DME and methanol, combined with black liquor gasification get the highest rating. These fuels have high harvest yields, require little use of fossil fuels, and have high energy efficiency. Synthetic diesel has high harvest yields, requires little use of fossil fuels, but has lower energy efficiency and limited selectivity in production. Ethanol gets a low rating due to limited energy efficiency and in certain cases the need for a great deal of fossil energy. Biodiesel gets the lowest rating due to low average harvest yields and the use of a great deal of fossil energy. Biogas production via gasification of black liquor is not included in the summary.

Fuel potential in TWh. Click to enlarge.

Fuel potential. Volvo expressed fuel potential in TWh (Terawatt hours). According to a study conducted by EUCAR/CONCAWE/JRC, the potential availability of waste wood, farmed wood, and straw in the EU in 2012 is approximately 700 TWh per year while the potential for sunflower oil and rapeseed oil is estimated at approximately 80 TWh per year.

350 to 420 TWh—the highest ranking Volvo used for the fuels—are equivalent to approximately 10-12% of the expected demand for petrol and diesel in the EU in 2015.

DME, methanol, biogas, biogas+biodiesel and hydrogen gas+biogas get the highest fuel potential rating.

Synthetic diesel, DME, methanol, and biogas can all be produced from entire crops, wood feedstocks, or other biological material. However, synthetic diesel has a lower level of efficiency and provides a lower proportion of fuel that can be used in vehicles. With respect to biogas, waste material and sewage can be used in production.

Ethanol can be produced from a number of feedstocks, including waste wood or other biological materials that contain cellulose, although the level of efficiency is relatively low.

Biodiesel, which has received the lowest rating, is produced from vegetable oils such as rapeseed oil and sunflower oil. Availability is limited since rapeseed can only be grown on the same land every fourth year or every sixth year. Furthermore, only the oil in the seeds can be utilized for fuel.

Vehicle adaptation. Volvo tried to provide a collective assessment of technical complexity, including adjustments to compensate for maximal engine performance, weight increase, range between refuelling, increased space for the fuel and the need for new and more expensive components. It also encompasses the need for technology to meet future emissions requirements.

Biodiesel and synthetic diesel get the highest rating, as vehicles that are run on these fuels are essentially comparable to conventional diesel vehicles.

The lower energy content in DME results in a 50% reduction in range but it is still possible to use the fuel for long-haul transport. DME requires a unique and advanced fuel system, but also offers savings in terms of costs and weight with regard to exhaust noise damping and treatment of exhaust gases.

Ethanol’s lower energy content results in a 30% shorter range per tank of fuel.

Biogas+biodiesel offers maximal engine performance, but range is reduced by half if the gas is in liquid form. This also requires two separate fuel systems. Biogas and hydrogen gas+biogas require an Otto engine, which limits power output. The compressed gas has a low energy density, which limits range to approximately 20 percent. A complex tank system results in higher costs and increased weight.

Fuel costs relative to fossil diesel. Click to enlarge.

Fuel costs. Volvo’s assessment—expressed as a percentage of the cost of conventional diesel, exclusive of taxes, at a raw oil price of US$70/barrel—includes the costs of raw materials, fixed and variable costs in the production plants, and costs for transport, infrastructure, and energy consumption in the chain of distribution.

The comparison was made per liter of diesel equivalent. The results may vary for the same fuel, depending on the feedstock.

DME and methanol get the highest rating. When produced from black liquor, they are already competitive today in terms of costs. Production via gasification of forest products or farmed wood is more expensive.

The cost of biodiesel is some 60% higher than for conventional diesel. Biogas based on waste materials leads to the most favorable results, primarily due to low feedstock costs. For biogas+biodiesel, biogas in liquid form is approximately 25% more expensive than compressed biogas. Biogas production through gasification of black liquor is not included in the summary.

Synthetic diesel is the most expensive fuel because of high investment costs and the relatively low energy efficiency in production. Ethanol is generally expensive to produce. Production from forest products is the most expensive process.

Fuel infrastructure. Synthetic diesel gets the highest rating. Biodiesel requires certain measures due to its lower storage stability. Methanol and ethanol require corrosion-resistant material, increased fire protection measures, and a separate infrastructure if they are used as pure fuel. Methanol needs to be handled in completely closed systems due to a high health risk.

The infrastructure for DME is similar to the one that has been established for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). DME is heavier than air and can accumulate in the event of leakage, resulting in a fire hazard. Biogas is handled at high pressure (200 bar) and requires the same infrastructure as the current system for natural gas.

The infrastructure for hydrogen gas is the most expensive and complicated one.

Resources:

• Volvo Group Renewable Fuels

Severe weather is in NASA scientists’ forecast

Global warming will make typical events such as thunderstorms more dangerous.

From the Associated Press

August 31, 2007

WASHINGTON — As the world warms, the United States will face more severe thunderstorms with deadly lightning, damaging hail and the potential for stronger tornadoes, a study by NASA scientists suggests.

While other research has warned of large-scale weather changes, such as more extreme hurricanes and droughts, the new study predicts that even smaller events like thunderstorms will be more dangerous because of global warming.

The basic ingredients for severe U.S. inland storms are likely to be more plentiful in a warmer, moister world, said lead author Tony Del Genio, a NASA research scientist.

“The strongest thunderstorms, the strongest severe storms and tornadoes are likely to happen more often and be stronger,” Del Genio said Thursday at his office at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. The paper he co-wrote was published online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Other scientists caution that this area of climate research is too difficult and new for this study to be definitive. But some upcoming studies also point in the same direction.

With a computer model, Del Genio explored an area that most climate scientists have avoided. Simple thunderstorms are too small for the massive models of the world’s climate. So Del Genio looked at the forces that combine to make thunderstorms.

A unique combination of geography and weather patterns already makes the United States the world’s hottest spot for tornadoes and severe storms in spring and summer. The large land mass that warms on hot days, the contours of the atmosphere’s jet stream, the wind coming off the Rocky Mountains and warm moist air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico all combine.

Del Genio’s computer model shows global warming will cause more strong updrafts, which occur when the wind moves up and down instead of sideways.

“The consequences of stronger updrafts are more lightning and bigger hail,” he said.

On a normal sunny day, updrafts are less than 1 mph. In a big rainstorm, they’re about 2 mph. In a severe storm they could be 20 to 30 mph. The faster that updraft, the worse the storms.

The Southeast and Midwest lie in the path of most of the worst of these storms.

However, the new study also forecasts danger for the Western United States. It predicts lightning will increase about 6% as the amount of carbon dioxide — the chief global warming gas — doubles.

Other pending and recent research, especially from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, point in the same general direction, said several scientists who weren’t involved in Del Genio’s study. But they pointed out that research in this area is so new that the NASA study is not the final word.

“It’s certainly a plausible result,” said Leo Donner, a climate modeling scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. Donner earlier this year came out with a study predicting more heavy rain as temperatures rise.

Harold Brooks, a top scientist at NOAA’s severe storms laboratory in Norman, Okla., has soon-to-be-published studies finding results similar to the new NASA study, especially when it comes to hail. Some of the severe hail that should be increasing could be baseball-size and come down at 100 mph, “falling like a major league fastball,” he said.

Study links CO2 to demise of grazing lands

 

Increased levels of the greenhouse gas may have a hand in converting the world’s grasslands to useless woody shrubs, a study finds.

By Alan Zarembo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 28, 2007

Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be contributing to the conversion of the world’s grasslands — crucial for livestock grazing — into a landscape of useless woody shrubs, according to a study released today.

By artificially doubling carbon dioxide levels over enclosed sections of the Colorado prairie, researchers created a dramatic rise in Artemisia frigida, commonly known as fringed sage.

The study paints a harsh picture of what grazing lands could look like in 2100, when some project carbon dioxide levels will be double today’s.

“To the extent that CO2 is driving this conversion, this suggests the problem is going to become more intractable in the future,” said Jack Morgan, a plant physiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and lead author of the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Scientists believe the degradation of range lands, which cover about 40% of Earth’s land surface, is mostly because of overgrazing and the modern practice of putting out fires rather than letting them burn, which destroys woody vegetation. But researchers have long suspected that rising carbon dioxide levels also play a role.

Since at least the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, when carbon dioxide levels began to rise with the burning of fossil fuels, large swaths of the world’s seasonal grasses favored by livestock have been replaced by woody shrubs.

The concentration of carbon dioxide has risen from 280 parts per million at the end of the 18th century to 385 parts per million today.

To test the effects of the greenhouse gas, scientists set up open-topped cylinders of clear plastic, 15 feet in diameter, on a prairie 40 miles northeast of Fort Collins, Colo.

They pumped pure carbon dioxide into one group of cylinders, maintaining a concentration of 720 parts per million.

The level in another group of cylinders was left at atmospheric concentrations and used as a control.

Each plot was analyzed every July, the end of the peak growing season. Then half the vegetation was removed to simulate grazing.

After five years, the researchers found a fortyfold increase in the biomass of fringed sage, from 0.72 gram per square meter in the first year to 28.7 grams per square meter in year 5. The area it covered increased from 0.2% to 4.1%.

The trend suggested that, given more time, the sage could eventually squeeze out the grasses, Morgan said.

Woody shrubs have the ability to use carbon dioxide more efficiently than many grass species and have deeper roots than grasses, enabling them to tap into deeper water supplies.

Still, some scientists said that carbon dioxide concentrations were likely to play a smaller role compared with overgrazing and fire suppression.

“The ranchers, through their own practices, have a stronger influence on the landscape than CO2 is likely to have, at least in the foreseeable future,” said Jeffrey Dukes, a biologist at the University of Massachusetts Boston, who was not involved in the study. “A herd of cows can change the landscape in the course of a week. The CO2 is working over decades.”

alan.zarembo@latimes.com

NOAA Blames Hot Year on Greenhouse Gases

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 29, 2007; 5:36 AM

WASHINGTON — “We have met the enemy, and he is us,” the comic-strip character Pogo said decades ago. A new analysis of last year’s near-record temperatures in the United States suggests he was right.

Warming caused by human activity was the biggest factor in the high temperatures recorded in 2006, according to a report by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The analysis, released Tuesday, is being published in the September issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.

In January, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center reported that 2006 was the warmest year on record over the 48 contiguous states with an average temperature 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal and 0.07 degree warmer than 1998, the previous warmest year on record.

In May, however, NOAA revised the 2006 ranking to the second warmest year after updated statistics showed the year was actually .08 F cooler than 1998.

At the time the agency said it was not clear how much of the warming was a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change and how much resulted from the El Nino warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that was under way.

“We wanted to find out whether it was pure coincidence that the two warmest years on record both coincided with El Nino events,” Martin Hoerling of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., said in a statement.

His study looked at the effects of El Nino in the past as well as the effects of the release of gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human industrial activities.

The analysis of past El Nino events in the 20th century found that the result was a slightly colder than normal annual average temperature over the 48 contiguous states.

To double check that, the researchers conducted two sets of 50-year computer simulations of U.S. climate, with and without the influence of El Nino. They again found a slight cooling across the nation when El Nino was present.

Then they looked at the effect of the increased greenhouse gases _ which are given that name because they can help trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse traps heat.

They ran 42 different tests using complex computer models to simulate changes in the atmosphere under various conditions and concluded that the “2006 warmth was primarily due to human influences.”

While Hoerling’s study focused on the United States, NOAA also tracks world climate. Worldwide, 2005 was the warmest year on record, topping 1998, according to the agency.

The research was supported by NOAA’s office of Global Programs.

___

In the Net:

NOAA: http://www.noaa.gov

Minnesota Boosts Biodiesel Initiative from 2 to 20 %

Morgan, Minnesota [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty unveiled a schedule for taking the state’s biodiesel requirement from “B2″ to “B20″ over the next eight years. Designed to boost the level of biodiesel sold in Minnesota from the current 2 percent to 20 percent by 2015, the Governor said he would bring this plan to the legislature during the regular 2008 legislative session.

“Increasing the level of biodiesel in diesel fuel means that more of our energy will come from farm fields rather than oil fields and that’s a good thing.”

– Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty

“Minnesota has led the nation in unleashing a renewable energy revolution,” Governor Pawlenty said. “Other states are starting to catch on and it’s time for us to continue to blaze the trail to a cleaner, more secure energy future. Increasing the level of biodiesel in diesel fuel means that more of our energy will come from farm fields rather than oil fields and that’s a good thing.”

Biodiesel in Minnesota is made primarily from soybean oil. It was originally added to Minnesota diesel fuel supplies at the 2 percent level in September 2005. Under the provisions of Governor Pawlenty’s plan, Minnesota would move to a 5 percent biodiesel fuel blend by 2008, then to 10 percent by 2011, 15 percent by 2013 and ultimately to 20 percent by 2015.

Ensuring quality control and careful implementation, the governor has asked his Biodiesel Task Force to develop further details of the proposal and present their recommendations to the NextGen Energy Board. Partners in that process will include members from the trucking industry, petroleum marketers, farm groups, the American Lung Association and others.

According to Governor Pawlenty, quality assurance measures could include a requirement that all biodiesel sold in Minnesota be “BQ9000 certified” and that the Minnesota Department of Commerce be given the authority to modify or lift blend requirements to address any concerns that may arise.

Biodiesel and ethanol production supports nearly 16,000 jobs in Minnesota and generates close to $4 billion in total economic activity statewide each year. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture reports that renewable fuels production has led to a 13 percent increase in demand for the state’s soybean crop and 31 percent expansion of in-state soybean processing.