Every year, Gustavus Adolphus College in tiny St. Peter, MN holds a Nobel Conference, authorized by the Nobel Foundation of Stolkhom, Sweden. The conference brings together renowned experts to discuss timely issues, like aging or globalization. This year, it was “Heating Up: The Energy Debate.”

I attended the two-day event, which delivered in its round-up of impressive energy and global warming experts: Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Stephen Chu, biofuels expert Dr. Lee Rybeck Lynd, peak oil expert Ken Deffeyes, economist Paul L. Joskow, polar explorer Will Steger, hydrogen expert Joan M. Ogden, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While at times the science got a bit thick, the message from all of the lecturers was clear: Global warming is urgent, we need to do something NOW, and many different solutions will get us there.

I was most interested to hear from Paul L. Joskow, an MIT economist who discussed the best methods for regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Many politicians favor a cap-and-trade policy, in which a limit on CO2 is determined and then tradable/sellable permits to pollute are issued to utilities and industry. Economists, on the other hand, generally prefer a carbon tax that simply taxes CO2 at a certain rate.

Although an economist himself, Joskow argued that a cap-and-trade policy is the best way to create a market for CO2 and drive down emissions. First of all, a cap-and-trade policy is politically feasible, and making sure it actually has a chance of passing Congress in our lifetime is the most important thing to slowing global warming. Secondly, a cap-and-trade plan links the U.S. with other nations (and other states) that have already started down this path, thus creating a global solution to a global problem.

While economists favor a carbon tax that the feds could ideally use to cut taxes in another area, like income, Joskow said “perfect the enemy of good.” Sure, in a perfect world we would tax bad stuff and never tax good stuff (like working). But the urgency of global warming calls for a good system that is feasible now and gets us in sync with the rest of the planet. And the best system for that is a cap-and-trade policy.

Joan M. Ogden lectured on a hydrogen economy, although her fellow panel discussion presenters were skeptical of using hydrogen as a fuel source, at least in terms of it being ready fast enough to fight global warming. Although no option should be taken off the table, hydrogen could play a more important role in bettering existing technologies (like ethanol production) rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure.

Dr. James Hansen – you may remember him from his accusations that NASA officials edited his global warming reports – said that if someone is seriously concerned about climate change, any elected official they vote for should agree on three principals:

1) A moratorium on traditional coal-fired power plants (until we can sequester the CO2, building more plants moves us backwards)

2) Policies that encourage more renewable energy

3) Incentives for energy efficiency.

With the clean technology here but the leadership lacking, the issue of urgency was paramount throughout the lectures. In fact, I thought the statistics and scenarios put forth more dire than those I normally read in the media. More than one expert prefaced a recommendation with something like, ‘A year ago I would’ve been laughed out of the room for saying this, but now I can say that what we need to do is…’ The extensive media attention on global warming, along with some serious dialogue and action by the business sector and politicians, have made it “safer” to talk about the true consequences and costs of global warming without immediately being labeled a nutcase.

For example, MIT economist Paul L. Joskow said that any sort of carbon regulation is going to raise our utility bills “and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.” With a cap-and-trade policy that sets CO2 at $50 per ton (a price he thinks is likely), it could drive up utility bills 40-50%. But this would not happen over night: Any measure passed by Congress would give utilities several years to implement efficiency programs to soften the landing. But the message was still clear: This isn’t going to be easy, but we can do it.

Polar explorer Will Steger, who has been traveling and studying the arctic and Antarctic regions for 40 years, gave an eyewitness account of global warming’s effects at the poles (in May I interviewed him about his most recent trip). I’d heard his talk several times, but there was a big difference this time: He showed a slide of polar bear and then said in his quiet-but no-BS –sort-of-way, “This is our friend the polar bear. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for them – they will go extinct. I couldn’t say that 18 months ago to people, but now I am.”

Despite the wake up calls – no use in sugarcoating at this point – it was still uplifting to know that some of the planet’s smartest people are working on this and elected leaders are slowly getting the message.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to get to work. For starters, check out Will Steger’s “Template for Action,” Lighter Footstep’s “10 First Steps,” or the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “How You Can be Involved.”

I’m not one to think a hydrogen economy is right around the corner – let’s make sure our energy efficiency and current renewable technology are maxed out first – but this invention caught my eye.

The WindHunter is the concept of an offshore, floating system of wind turbines that make electricity, electrolyze sea water, and make hydrogen. The architects of the idea envision four two-megawatt wind turbines mounted on a moveable framework connected to the deck of a ship. The electricity produced from the turbines is sent to four electrolyzers in the hulls or inside the deck, and then the collected hydrogen is compressed and stored in tube tank trailers until transported to shore. From the website:

“This continuously manned, safe and stable system will be easily maintained on-board while relocating to the best wind conditions for the wind turbines…. These large ships or platforms will operate out of sight of land either moored or anchored while facing into the wind and the oncoming waves. Millions of them can operate on the world’s oceans with minimal environmental impact and human resistance.”

The WindHunter is an interesting concept and we’re going to need to consider all ideas to transition ourselves to a clean energy economy. But this system has quite a ways to go before it sees the light of day, let alone feels an ocean breeze. The WindHunter company is in Phase One of developing a feasibility study of a vessel and its wind turbines. Next come the design, build, and launch of the system and then finally producing the hydrogen. According to the company, the estimated total cost is $100 million of the research and design process, and could take at least six years.

Via Ecogeek
WindHunter

Mike Strizki’s utility bill is zero, thanks to some creative thinking using renewable energy technologies. By using solar panels, a hydrogen fuel cell, storage tanks and an electrolyzer, he has enough electricity even on the cloudiest days. And Strizki isn’t a hermit living in the dark off of snails and rainwater, either. His 3,500 square foot house is located in central New Jersey on 12 acres, with amenities you’d see in any 21st century home, like a hot tub and big screen TV. His renewable energy system even creates hydrogen he uses to power his fuel-cell car.

So how does he produce zero emissions?

On a sunny day, Strizki can get more than enough of his electricity from the solar panels. The excess goes to an electrolyzer that then breaks down a tank of water into oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen is released into the atmosphere, but the hydrogen is stored in 10 1,000-gallon propane tanks. So when the solar panels aren’t producing enough energy, the hydrogen is piped to an air-conditioner-sized fuel cell that makes electricity.
The fuel-cell car in the garage is called “The New Jersey Genesis” and Strizki – a civil engineer – helped design the car and maintains it for the NJ Department of Transportation. He fills it up with the hydrogen made from his electrolyzer.

This sort of system isn’t going to be available commercially for the rest of us anytime soon. Strizki’s project is extremely expensive - $500,000, paid for in part with a $250,000 grant from the NJ Board of Public Utilities.

Strizki acknowledges that the enormous cost is a huge hurdle, but believes that, with mass production, the price of the system (not including solar panels) would be about $50,000 and the new solar system would be around $80,000 (some states like NJ offer rebates that cover up to 70 percent of the solar’s cost).

Then there’s the question of efficiency. Critics point out that electrolyzers are only 50 percent efficient. By the time the process is complete, the hydrogen that is converted back into electricity is only half of the energy with which the process started. Sending that power back to the grid, some say, would be more effective because it would displace other dirty energy sources.

Strizki has created a company called Renewable Energy International that engineers, installs, and supports renewable energy systems like his. Despite its costs and efficiency questions, he still believes that hydrogen is the best solution to our clean energy problems. “No one has said what I’m doing doesn’t work…Nothing is as wildly expensive as destroying the whole planet.”

Christian Science monitor, Via the Modesto Bee
Renewable Energy International