sustainable energy

A leading climate scientist whose pirated e-mails were bared for world scrutiny in the so-called "climategate" incident is making some points about the climate-change debate, and scientists' relationship with the public, that have needed saying for some time.

Hat tip to Matt Preusch of The Oregonian for spotting one piece in The Wall Street Journal by Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia in England. Hulme also held forth in a longer and more involved column, written in conjunction with science critic-questioner Jerome Ravetz, for the BBC. (It's also worth noting that Hulme is the author of a book I intend to find, Why We Disagree About Climate Change.)

Now, I have to say that I was taken aback by the way scientists involved in the email exchanges seem to have been trying to squelch the dissemination of data, and even schemed to block publication of science they found ... sorry, can't help myself... inconvenient.

The e-mail exchanges between prominent American and British climate researchers revealed some disturbing points about how some of the scientists involved in this field have conducted themselves.

But as I read Hulme's piece, it came to me that he is on point about this: We are all arguing about the science of climate change, when what we ought to be arguing about is our value systems and our political inclinations.

Hulme's WSJ article, which is fairly short, is worth a read.

[caption id="attachment_3331" align="alignleft" width="144" caption="Photo by Natasha Walker"][/caption]

A study released by the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources found that woody debris could provide a sustainable source of liquid fuel for growing energy demands.

At the request of the Washington Legislature, university scientists looked into how wood-to-energy might play a role in the state's fuel consumption future. They found plant biomass to be the only renewable resource available in the state for conversion to biofuels, and  touted woody debris in particular as the state's best chance for green fuel. It accounts for two-thirds of the state's available biomass.

Utilizing woody debris, they contend, would reduce greenhouse gases not only by offsetting the use of carbon-emitting fuel sources, but also by thinning and making use of overly dense forests, thereby minimizing the carbon dioxide put off by potential wildfires. This may change the way the U.S. Forest Service handles its woody debris, considering that in the past the agency has resorted to burning thinned trees because they don't sell well.

The report finds that besides the 11 million tons of dry forest biomass available annually, additional woody debris from pulp and paper mills can be recovered. The report even suggests that biorefineries, for converting the plant matter to biofuels, be placed near these establishments to maximize debris reclamation and decrease transportation costs.

[caption id="attachment_2055" align="alignleft" width="225" caption="Courtesy scruss via Flickr under Creative Commons license (http://bit.ly/2vL6D2)"]http://bit.ly/2vL6D2)" width="225" height="300" />[/caption]

It's always dangerous to evaluate how many news reporters wrote about any given scientific study, particularly if you're relying on Google News, but I can't find anything about a recent study that seems pretty significant:

Xi Lu of Harvard and colleagues report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the overall potential for production of wind energy could supply our current electricity more than 40 times over.

Wow!

Now, clearly, there are some caveats in order. Lu's calculations represent the output of a network of 2.5-megawatt wind turbines smothering  everything on Earth that's not water, forest, covered in ice or inhabited by humans. Given wind turbines'  environmental downsides and eyesore issues, that's obviously not something we'd want to do.

Still, the study gives pause when you consider just how big wind could be. The 40-times-over estimate contemplates replacing electricity alone. If one were to look at how Lu's envisaged network could do when those units are translated into replacing all our energy use, the numbers say it could produce more than five times our *total* energy use.

Even sustainable energy has its foes. A Eugene sawmill wants to put in a wood-fired boiler to generate electricity. But critics say the biomass cogeneration plant would foul the air with tons of particulate matter. Susan Palmer of the Register-Guard has the story.