Monthly Archives: March 2011

BIRD OF THE DAY: Magpie goose

Posted on
Reply

Images via Wikipedia

One of my favorite species of waterfowl, and one of the most unusual, is the magpie goose (Anseranas semipalmata). I worked with these extraordinary creatures at Sylvan Heights Waterfowl Park (which I highly recommend that you visit if you’re ever travelling through North Carolina — it’s located off Interstate 95).

The magpie goose is the sole member of its genus and the sole member of the family — Anseranatidae — (and its closest relatives are probably the screamers). The magpie goose also has a bill that’s unusual among geese and other species of waterfowl, and its feet are barely webbed. They will also breed in trios, so “the social breeding unit is often polygamous and cooperative with both male and females caring for the young.” Furthermore, although they’re a precocial species, magpie geese, unlike other species of waterfowl, feed their own young and maintain brood nests. Another odd trait of the magpie goose is that, like the screamers, it’s not flightless during its molt. There’s also differences in juvenile growth between males and females. Via the Australian Journal of Zoology:

Sex differences in juvenile growth patterns are consistent with pronounced sexual dimorphism in adult body size (larger males), which is associated with an unusual polygynous mating system. Although smaller, females grow relatively faster than males, so that at a given age they have completed a greater proportion of the pre-fledging growth phase; wing growth is particularly advanced and females fly earlier. Slower development may increase mortality among juvenile males when family groups are forced to abandon drying swamps, and contribute to skewing of the sex ratio towards females. Larger hatchlings from large eggs tend to maintain a size advantage, at least until fledging.

More unusual facts about the magpie goose via Johnsgard (1965):

Two facts about magpie goose behavior are of special interest and may make this species unique in the Anatidae. The first is that from the time that they leave the nest, the downy young are fed directly by their parents in a bill-to-bill fashion (Fig. IF). The downy young have a loud, sibilant whistle which they utter with their orange bill open, and which seems to function as a food-begging call. They also forage for themselves, but much of their food is obtained by their parents, who bring up aquatic vegetation from under the water and allow the young to take it from their bills. Janet Kear (pers. comm.) has observed possible cases of parental feeding in Dendrocygna and Cygnus, but these forms apparently exhibit a much more rudimentary form of parental feeding than do the magpie geese. The second fact of special interest is that unlike those of some swan species, the magpie goose family does not return to the original nest at night for brooding; rather, both adults assist in building a “brood nest,” which is simply a pile of grass on which the young sleep or rest while being brooded by the mother. This brood nest is used until the young are about two weeks old, by which time they have largely abandoned parental feeding. A more detailed account of the development and the molts of the young has been published elsewhere (Johnsgard, 1961b).

The image below shows the parental feeding behavior of the magpie goose:

ENERGY POLICY: Germany wants to abandon nuclear power

Posted on
2

Image: According to Wikipedia, “Waldpolenz Solar Park, which is the world’s largest thin-film photovoltaic (PV) power system, was built . . . at a former military air base to the east of Leipzig in Germany. The power plant is a 40 MW solar power system using state-of-the-art thin film technology, and was fully operational by the end of 2008.” Image via Wikipedia.

It will be interesting to observe if Germany will totally abandon nuclear power, and if the world’s fourth-largest economy does abandon nuclear power, then it will be interesting to observe the period of time it took Germany to complete its shift from nuclear power to cleaner, safer, renewable energy sources. Germany can be a model for other countries, particularly the United States, and I am convinced that a large economy can actually abandon both fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources. I believe that energy conservation initiatives, solar energy, wind energy, and energy storage can together replace fossil fuels and nuclear power. What’s lacking, especially here in the United States, is the political will and agressive investment by the federal government into research and development of new technologies that can improve energy efficiency, energy output, and energy storage. More via The Seattle Times:

Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.

The world’s fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.

The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a “catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions.”

Berlin’s decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.

And experts say Germany’s phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.

“If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier,” said Felix Matthes of Germany’s renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. “Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments.”

Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster drifted across the country. A center-left government a decade ago penned a plan to abandon the technology for good by 2021, but Merkel’s government last year amended it to extend the plants’ lifetime by an average of 12 years. That plan was put on hold after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami compromised nuclear power plants in Japan, and is being re-evaluated as the safety of all of Germany’s nuclear reactors is being rechecked.

Germany currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power – about as much as the U.S. Its ambitious plan to shut down its reactors will require at least euro150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources, which experts say will likely lead to higher electricity prices.

Germany now gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable energies, 13 percent from natural gas and more than 40 percent from coal. The Environment Ministry says in 10 years renewable energy will contribute 40 percent of the country’s overall electricity production.

The government has been vague on a total price tag for the transition, but it said last year about euro20 billion ($28 billion) a year will be needed, acknowledging that euro75 billion ($107 billion) alone will be required through 2030 to install offshore wind farms.

The president of Germany’s Renewable Energy Association, Dietmar Schuetz, said the government should create a more favorable regulatory environment to help in bringing forward some euro150 billion investment in alternative energy sources this decade by businesses and homeowners.

Last year, German investment in renewable energy topped euro26 billion ($37 billion) and secured 370,000 jobs, the government said.

Continue reading this article at The Seattle Times.

CAN YOU SEE ME? | ANIMAL CAMOUFLAGE

Posted on
1

Some of the best examples of animal camouflage come from the African savannahs.

  1. Zebra

    2. Via Stephen Downes on Flickr

  2. Cheetah

    3. Via zrim on Flickr

    Via Splodgy Pig on Flickr

  3. Elephant

    4. Via western4uk on Flickr

  4. Giraffe

    5. Via Esthr on Flickr

  5. Leopard

    6. Via Wikipedia

See more animal camouflage here on The Conservation Report. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me, and their images are protected under an attribution license.

AIR POLLUTION: American Lung Association launches billboard campaign against Fred Upton

Posted on
Reply

Images via American Lung Association

Fred Upton, who is a Republican Representative from Michigan and the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, wants to “to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of the ability to regulate climate-warming gases like carbon dioxide, which the agency declared a threat to public health and safety in 2009.” The American Lung Association (ALA), in response, placed “four ads in Upton’s district, some in direct view of Upton’s district offices.” More via the ALA:

The American Lung Association is working to protect the public health from air pollution. We are defending the Clean Air Act to ensure that all Americans can have air that is safe and healthy to breathe. The Clean Air Act has provided the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the authority and the responsibility to protect and clean up the nation’s air since 1970. Thanks to that law and later amendments that strengthened it, people throughout the nation breathe cleaner, healthier air.

But, the work is not done; millions of Americans continue to breathe unhealthy air. Polluters and some members of Congress want to interfere with EPA’s ability to protect public health. Most Americans believe that the Clean Air Act needs protecting. We are fighting hard to prevent anyone from weakening or undermining the law or the protective standards the law provides. We are fighting to ensure EPA has the legal authority and necessary funding to continue to protect public health.

Please join us in this fight for air. Click here for an interactive overview of the fight.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, determined that carbon emissions can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Court also determined that if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wishes to regulate carbon emissions or if the agency wanted to decide against regulating carbon emissions, then the EPA must determine whether greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to climate change and therefore endangers the public’s health and welfare. Consequently, the EPA reasonably concluded in an endangerment finding that “six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)” threaten the public’s health and welfare. Via the EPA (emphasis added):

The Administrator has considered how elevated concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and associated climate change affect public health by evaluating the risks associated with changes in air quality, increases in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases in food- and water-borne pathogens, and changes in aeroallergens. The evidence concerning adverse air quality impacts provides strong and clear support for an endangerment finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur over broad areas of the country, and they are expected to increase serious adverse health effects in large population areas that are and may continue to be in nonattainment. The evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases in ozone in attainment areas also supports such a finding.

.       .       .

There is some evidence that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and climate changes can lead to changes in aeroallergens that could increase the potential for allergenic illnesses. The evidence on pathogen borne disease vectors provides directional support for an endangerment finding. The Administrator acknowledges the many uncertainties in these areas. Although these adverse effects provide some support for an endangerment finding, the Administrator is not placing primary weight on these factors.

Finally, the Administrator places weight on the fact that certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects.

The Administrator has considered how elevated concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and associated climate change affect public welfare by evaluating numerous and far-ranging risks to food production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and coastal areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and ecosystems and wildlife. For each of these sectors, the evidence provides support for a finding of endangerment to public welfare. The evidence concerning adverse impacts in the areas of water resources and sea level rise and coastal areas provides the clearest and strongest support for an endangerment finding, both for current and future generations. Strong support is also found in the evidence concerning infrastructure and settlements, as well ecosystems and wildlife. Across the sectors, the potential serious adverse impacts of extreme events, such as wildfires, flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions, provide strong support for such a finding. Water resources across large area

On the Net:

  1. House Panel Approves Bill Stripping EPA’s Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
  2. Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor To Rising Sea Levels: Study

ENERGY: Is the nuclearization of energy sources a prudent investment?

Posted on
Reply

Image via Clay Bennett

Personally, I’m not against using nuclear energy sources to meet energy demand and to reduce carbon emissions. However, since there are significant drawbacks to nuclear power, I do not believe that the nuclearization of energy sources, or substantially increasing the number of nuclear power stations to meet energy demand and to reduce carbon emissions, represents prudent energy policy. I’ve outlined the significant drawbacks to nuclear power before:

[T]he Republican Party believes that “the best way for utility companies to reduce carbon emissions is to increase their supply of nuclear energy.” However, nuclear power isn’t cheap, and the costs associated with constructing new nuclear power plants have skyrocketed. There are also substantial costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants (“it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant“). Other negatives associated with nuclear power production include the fact that the nuclear power industry depends solely on a nonrenewable energy source, and there’s the well-known problem of storing nuclear waste. Also, “the process of thermoelectric generation from fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power, is water intensive. In fact, each kWh generated requires on average approximately 25 gallons of water to produce.” Therefore, drought could force nuclear power plants to shut down. What’s more, there are past and present safety concerns with nuclear power production. Recently, the nuclear power industry has been plagued by safety problems at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Certainly, if the costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants, with the management of nuclear power plants, and with the disposal of nuclear waste are considered, then both solar and wind power are substantially cheaper than nuclear power.

Shouldn’t the massive costs associated with nuclear power construction, production, and decommissioning be invested into renewable energy research and production and into research and technologies related to energy storage, grid modernization, and energy conservation. According to Nathan Lewis, “To get the 10 terawatts we need to stay on the ‘business-as-usual’ curve, we’d need 10,000 of our current one-gigawatt reactors, and that means we’d have to build one every other day somewhere in the world for the next 50 straight years.” Lewis also points out that “one hundred twenty thousand terawatts of solar power hits the earth . . . It is the only natural energy resource that can keep up with human consumption.” More via an earlier post on the Conservation Report:

Nathan Lewis provides a gloomy but sobering assessment of the challenges humanity will face in meeting its future energy needs (emphasis added):

Energy is the single most important technological challenge facing humanity today. Nothing else in science or technology comes close in comparison. If we don’t invent the next nano-widget, if we don’t cure cancer in 20 years, like it or not the world will stay the same. But with energy, we are in the middle of doing the biggest experiment that humans will have ever done, and we get to do that experiment exactly once. And there is no tomorrow, because in 20 years that experiment will be cast in stone. If we don’t get this right, we can say as students of physics and chemistry that we know that the world will, on a timescale comparable to modern human history, never be the same.

The currency of the world is not the dollar, it’s the joule.

.       .       .

Humanity’s current energy consumption rate is 13 trillion thermal watts, or 13 terawatts.

.       .       .

The United States consumes a quarter of the world’s energy, at a rate of about 3.3 terawatts[.]

.       .       .

With population and GDP growth conspiring together, we would then obtain a tripling of energy demand by 2050. This is partly mitigated, however, by the fact that we’re using energy more efficiently per unit of GDP. The ratio of energy consumption to GDP has been declining at about 1 percent, globally averaged, per year. The United States actually saves energy at a faster rate, about 2 percent per year. Because we have such a high per-capita energy baseline consumption, it is easier for us to save off that base, whereas the developing countries save less. The “business as usual” scenario assumes that this will continue, and if we project that down, we will achieve an average energy consumption of two kilowatts per person within our lifetimes. (The United States now uses 10 kilowatts per person.) But factor in population growth and conservative economic growth, and we’ll still need twice as much energy as we need now.

In terms of average thermal load, a person on a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet is basically a hundred-watt lightbulb. And in our highly mechanized western agricultural system, the energy embedded in food—to run the farm and grow the food and transport it to the supermarket and put it in the refrigerator—is 10 to 20 times the energy content of the food itself. And the farther you live from the food source, the more embedded energy you consume. If we are 100-watt lightbulbs, this means that just keeping us fed requires one to two kilowatts.

.       .       .

Ice cores taken near Vostok Station, Antarctica, show that the CO2 level has been in a narrow band between 200 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for the last 425,000 years; data from other cores have extended this back to 670,000 years. Current CO2 levels are about 380 ppmv. “Business as usual” will require 10 trillion watts, 10 terawatts, of carbon-free power, and it never stabilizes CO2 levels—they just keep going up. So even on that track, we are betting against data that goes back for almost a million straight years, and hoping that this time, we get lucky.

.       .       .

[U]nfortunately, there is no natural destruction mechanism for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Unlike ozone depletion, it will not heal by itself through chemical processes. In our highly oxidizing atmosphere, CO2 is an end product. The lifetimes of CO2 in the atmosphere are well known, and the time for 500 to 600 ppmv of CO2 to decay back to 300 ppmv is between 500 and 5,000 years. Which means that the CO2 we produce over the next 40 years, and its associated effects, will last for a timescale comparable to modern human history. This is why, within the next 20 years, we either solve this problem or the world will never be the same. How different that world will be, we won’t know until we get there.

If we want to hold CO2 even to 550 ppmv, even with aggressive energy efficiency we will need as much clean, carbon-free energy within the next 40 years, online, as the entire oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear industries today combined—10 to 15 terawatts. This is not changing a few lightbulbs in Fresno, this is building an industry comparable to 50 Exxon Mobils. Furthermore, if we wait 30 years, the amount of carbon-free energy we’ll need will be even greater, and needed even faster, because in the meantime we will have put out 30 years of accumulated CO2 emissions that will not go away for centuries to millennia. So stabilizing at 550 ppmv will then require about 15 to 20 terawatts of carbon-free power in 2050.

.       .       .

So let’s look at carbon-neutral energy sources. We could go nuclear, which is the only proven technology that we have that could scale to these numbers. We have about 400 nuclear power plants in the world today. To get the 10 terawatts we need to stay on the “business-as-usual” curve, we’d need 10,000 of our current one-gigawatt reactors, and that means we’d have to build one every other day somewhere in the world for the next 50 straight years. I’ve been giving this talk in one version or another for five years—we should have already built on the order of 1,000 new reactors, or double what’s ever been built, just to stay on track. So we’re really behind.

There isn’t enough terrestrial uranium on the planet to build them as once-through reactors. We could get enough uranium from seawater, if we processed the equivalent of 3,000 Niagara Falls 24/7 to do the extraction. Which means that the only credible nuclear-energy source today involves plutonium. That’s never talked about by the politicians, but it’s a fact. Forgive my facetiousness, but on some level we should be thanking North Korea and Iran for doing their part to mitigate global warming. We’d need about 10,000 fast-breeder reactors and, by the way, their commissioned lifetime is only 50 years. That means that after we choose this route, we’re building one of them every other day, or more rapidly, forever.

We don’t have time for the physicists to figure out how to make nuclear fusion reactors—they’ve been saying it will be demonstrated (although not economical) in 35 years, and they’ve been saying that for the last 50. If we assume they’re right this time, then ITER, a multinational demonstration fusion reactor being built in the south of France, will demonstrate break even—that is, it will put out as much energy as it takes to run it—in 35 years, and it will run for all of one week before the entire machine will, by design, disintegrate in the presence of that high-neutron radiation and temperature flux. And in the meantime we would have to build a commercial fission reactor every day for the next 30 years. It’s not going to happen.

.       .       .

One hundred twenty thousand terawatts of solar power hits the earth . . . It is the only natural energy resource that can keep up with human consumption. Everything else will run up against the stops, soon. In fact, more solar energy hits the earth in one hour than all the energy the world consumes in a year.