I suspect most of us on the list have favorite non-fossil forms of
energy, but we (as a community) should be using as many of them as
possible. The more the merrier! But I also appreciate this thread for
its consideration of the true ecological costs and benefits of each
method.
I would like to throw in another traditional form of carbon
sequestration: rotational grazing, which promotes carbon being moved
from the air deep into the ground--and staying there (due to regular
die-back of roots when grasses are allowed to grow between grazings).
But, like any technique, it has to be done appropriately: right timing
of rotation, right soil, right types of grazers. Some places should
never have grazing (like much of Australia, which was ruined by the
introduction of cattle and sheep, both of which do fine in much of New
Zealand). This area seems like prime terrain and soil for carbon
sequestering grazing.
Same with hydro: as Ryan says, micro hydro is great. So is small to
mid-scale almost anythings. The more we can do (bio)regionally, the
less likely we are to be doing wrong-scale projects, like HydroQuebec.
We do have to be careful when particular techniques are pushed by
particular industries; they will tout the advantages, but not the
problems (duh!). But just as Exxon Mobil paid to promote disbelief in
global warming, it wouldn't surprise me to find out big coal (which is
pushing all kinds of uses of coal) is trying to discourage commercial
scale solar. However I will have to look into the specifics, rather
than just bad-mouthing coal (which is my favorite nemesis).
BTW, Massey (who supplies coal to AES Cayuga) essentially bribed a
judge in W. Virginia to decide a case which would allow mountaintop
removal of a contested site (Coal RIver Mountain), instead of letting
it be developed as a commercial wind site; a related suit recently
went to the US Supreme court.
Margaret
On Aug 5, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Ryan Hottle wrote:
Thanks Rich,
This is helpful... Yet, you're right, where's the data?
NASA I tend to trust... company publications not so much. Any gas
which has
risen from 0.02 ppt to 0.454 ppt in the past thirty some years and
has a GWP
(Global Warming Potential) of 17,000 times that of CO2 (CO2 GWP = 1)
is
certainly of some concern. I.e. can't simply be written off as a
"big coal"
conspiracy. We shouldn't let our desire for certain technologies
allow to
manipulate
Rich could certainly be right that in comparison to coal generation
solar
still wins out. What percentage of total NF3 is produced by solar?
What
would happen if existing technologies are scaled up to replace coal
generation without consideration of NF3? What is the residence time
of NF3
in the atmosphere?
If, of course, there is a cost-effective means of manufacturing PV
solar in
an environmentally sustainable manner, then all the better!
Lastly, to respond Karl, pyrolization of biomass which can create
biochar to
sequester C for centennial to millennial time scales can be
sustainably
harvested from all sorts of sustainably managed and harvested
crops. Short
rotation willow coppice, saw dust, saw ends, nut shells, storm
debris, urban
lawn debris, low-input high diversity energy crops (see the work of
David
Tilman for this last one). Go talk to Johannes Lehmann at Cornell,
he's the
world's foremost on biochar and pyrolysis technology. It's been
used by
ancient Amazonians for millenia prior to conquistadors to create
incredibly
rich "Terra Preta" in a highly weathered, nutrient poor landscape.
I sense a very defense stance on solar....Why is everyone so
attached to PV
anyway? Solar hot water makes much better economic sense.
Concentrated
solar look good in desert climate... we might get some of that if
HVDC smart
grid technologies ever come. Microhydro is wonderful (single moving
part,
lasts longer than PV, can be manufactured regionally [i.e. in
Ithaca], and
has minimal impact on stream ecology) particularly if you have the
topography which Ithaca has. Energy conservation and efficiency is
first of
course. And, of course, I think biomass makes a lot of sense--
particularly
on-farm applications, Karl--where it can be deployed for both heat and
power, sequester C, and create a powerful soil amendment.
Ok. All the best. Good discussion. Thanks for references Rich,
you've
obviously been paying attention to this issue... you own a PV
installation
company? ;)
Ryan
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Margaret McCasland <[email protected]
>wrote:
Thanks to Rich for a thoughtful post with lots of good context--
including
look at all ghg emissions connected with all electronics.
I wonder if the coal industry has been funding this sort of out-of-
context
info? (this query is based on knowledge of the sorts of things big
coal has
done, not just generalized paranoia).
Margaret
On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Rich Bernstein wrote:
What matters most with the NF3 issue is the amount released per unit
of PV manufactured, compared to the lifetime of the PV. Nobody
writing the stop-buying-PV-because-of-NF3 articles is printing the
important numbers, just the meaningless ones that sound scary.
Actually, they're not meaningless- they mean it is important to
consider NF3 emissions, they just don't provide any useful
information
about the environmental impacts of the manufacture of a particular
product. The reason for this is clear: they're all paraphrasing an
article about measurements of atmospheric levels of NF3, and making
assumptions about electronics manufacture with no scientific basis
whatsoever. I believe this is the original article:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/oct/HQ_08-268_Greenhouse_gas.html
The closest thing to a useful value I found was a short article
about
a manufacturer who removed NF3 from their process, which says it
reduced the GG emissions payback time of their modules by about a
year:
http://www.ecofriendnews.com/environmental_article9150.html
If that's true, the global warming impact of NF3 PV manufacture is
on
the same order of magnitude as the other contributions like energy
consumption, i.e. we're talking about a 2-3 year payback instead of
1-2 years. I would tend to guess that they are overestimating the
benefit of their new manufacturing process, meaning that the
effect of
NF3 is being overestimated in this case.
So, 1) this is a problem across the electronics industry (of which
PV
is a very small part) that means NF3 should be dealt with across the
board, 2) it can be removed from the manufacturing process, and 3)
its
GW contribution is probably small compared to the CO2 emissions of
the
displaced fossil fuel use. But we need real numbers.
--
Rich
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Ryan Hottle<[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm not necessarily against PV solar, but there seems to be a
significant
issue over the manufacture of PV releasing Nitrogen trifluoride,
which is
some 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 albeit
having a
much
shorter lifetime. I am convinced that rainwater catchment with
microhydro,
biomass pyrolyization/gasification, and, in particular areas,
wind are
likely to be the best way for Ithaca and surrounding areas to go.
Article regarding NF3 and PV manufacture:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/top10-2008/index6.html
Best,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County
area,
please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask
[email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County
area,
please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask
[email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
--
Ryan Darrell Hottle
LEED-AP
Environmental Science, PhD Student
Carbon Management and Sequestration Center
The Ohio State University
Rm. 454 Kottman Hall
2021 Coffey Road
Columbus, OH 43210
C: (740) 258 8450
NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this
information by a person other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized and may be illegal.
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County
area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
