Green Tech

The world faces a surge in energy costs, as well as in planet-warming carbon emissions, unless it can swiftly agree a climate change deal, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday.

Arguing strongly for a global deal at the U.N. Climate Change summit in Copenhagen in December, the IEA said use of fossil fuels will increase quickly if policies remained unchanged.

Without an international agreement on climate change, the ratio of energy spending to gross domestic product for the largest consumer countries would double by 2030.

The world would have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delayed implementing a deal on global warming, the IEA said in its annual World Energy Outlook.

"As the leading source of greenhouse-gas emissions, energy is at the heart of the problem and so must be integral to the solution. The time to act has arrived," it said.

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol told Reuters in an interview the world needed to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent.

"The world needs to go to the 450 parts per million target, not only because of climate change but because of growing problems within our energy system and its possible implications again on the economy," Birol said.

Global energy demand would rise by an average of 2.5 percent per year over the next five years if governments made no changes to their existing policies and measures.

Under these circumstances, which the IEA called its reference scenario, world primary energy demand would rise by an average of 1.5 percent per year over the next two decades.

Oil demand, excluding biofuels, would increase by 1 percent per year to 105 million barrels per day by 2030 from 85 million barrels per day in 2008. This was a slight decrease in its demand forecast, reflecting the impact of the global economic downturn.

Last year the agency, which advises 28 industrialized nations, forecast oil use would reach 106 million barrels per day by 2030.

But the IEA stressed the trend toward heavier use of hydrocarbons would be unabated without a climate change deal.

"Fossil fuels remain the dominant sources of primary energy worldwide in the reference scenario, accounting for more than three-quarters of the overall increase in energy use," it said.

A key driver of energy demand would be inexorable growth in power generation, it said, forecasting in its reference scenario world electricity demand would grow 2.5 percent a year to 2030.

Stressing the need to move away from dependence on fossil fuels, Birol said that without a climate change deal, the European Union's annual energy bill would more than double to $500 billion by 2030, up from $160 billion in the last 30 years.

Oil prices soared to a record of nearly $150 a barrel in July 2008. They then collapsed to less than $33 last December, but have since recovered to around $80.

The price collapse, combined with the credit crisis, choked off investment and the Paris-based IEA has warned the oil market could surge back, damaging still fragile economic growth.

Birol said the oil price was likely to reach $100 per barrel by 2015 and $190 by 2030: "This means that if we don't do anything to our energy system, we will be in difficulty."

Bank of Ireland analyst Paul Harris said the IEA had taken a "rather cautious approach" in the report.

"There's an emerging consensus that the demand and supply balance is really going to start to tighten by 2015 which should sound the death knell for cheap oil."

Story Copyright (c) 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Al Gore, a self-described "wanna-be geek," is on the road talking about solutions to multiple problems.

The former vice president gave a speech at the First Parish Cambridge Unitarian Universalist church here on Saturday to promote his latest book, "Our Choice." Whereas "An Inconvenient Truth" documented the reasons for global warming, his latest book is focused almost entirely on ways to address climate change, Gore said.

But don't expect only a discussion of solar, wind and biofuels. In outlining the contents of "Our Choice" on Saturday, Gore said he consulted hundreds of experts in different fields to develop a comprehensive approach. The book includes discussions on carbon-capturing farming practices, word population projections, social psychology, and the political challenges to cutting fossil fuel use.

Al Gore signing books after his talk at the First Parish Cambridge Unitarian Universalist church in Cambridge, Mass.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)

Rather than limit his remarks to climate change, Gore argued there are political and economic reasons to make a transition to a less-polluting society. "There is a common thread running through the discussion of climate, (national) security, and the economic crisis, and that is our ridiculous dependence on foreign oil and coal," he said.

The hundreds of billions of dollars a year the U.S. spends on importing foreign oil is one reason the military remains involved in the Middle East. It also undermines the country's finances, he said.

The economy, too, can be revived by developing emerging industries in the U.S. Among them are products and services to retrofit buildings to be more efficient; solar, wind, and enhanced geothermal power; a "super grid" that's able to transport solar and wind power efficiently; and plug-in electric cars.

"When put together, we have the tools and technologies to solve three or four climate crises," he said. "But the missing element is political will."

He predicted that the U.S. Senate will get a climate and energy bill through committee before the Copenhagen round of international climate negotiations next month. Despite the "odds and the pessimism," he said there is a chance for a binding political agreement from Copenhagen next month and a roadmap for a comprehensive treaty.

Gore said that an Internet-aided grass-roots movement is the way to influence political change on this issue.

WASHINGTON--A key U.S. Senate environment committee approved a Democratic climate change bill on Thursday that would require industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

The bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee will now become one of several initiatives in the Senate aimed at attacking global warming. But they are unlikely to produce legislation that would be voted on by the full Senate until next year at the earliest.

With Republicans boycotting the environment panel's measure, saying more analysis of the legislation was needed, 10 Democrats approved the bill and one Democrat, Sen. Max Baucus, voted against it.

Sen. John Kerry, who co-authored the bill with fellow Democrat Barbara Boxer, is leading an effort with some Republicans and the White House to draft a compromise.

Democrats in Congress, working on a major plank of President Barack Obama's agenda, have been anxious to show at least some progress on enacting a domestic climate change bill before December 7, when an international global warming summit convenes in Copenhagen.

While there were scores of amendments to the bill that environment committee members wanted to debate and vote on before approving it, they were unable to because of the Republican boycott.

Under committee rules, at least two Republicans had to be present to debate and vote on changing the bill.

Boxer delayed work on the legislation for two days, saying she was giving Republicans the opportunity to collect more information from EPA officials and to offer their own amendments.

But Republicans did not take her up on the offer and by Thursday, Boxer had lost patience with the delay.

She opened Thursday's work session reading from a letter from John Rowe, Chief Executive of Exelon, one of the country's largest utilities.

Calling the bill written by Boxer and Kerry "an excellent starting point," Rowe wrote, "We urge you as chairman, as well as your colleagues, to take the steps necessary to order the bill reported by the committee so that climate legislation can be considered by the full Senate."

Baucus' vote against the bill reflected the difficulties ahead in crafting a measure that would attract the 60 votes needed for passage by the Senate.

As an influential moderate Democrat, Baucus laid out changes he would seek, including a weaker carbon-reduction target. Other Midwestern and Southern senators from states heavily reliant on coal will seek their own changes, which could upset liberals now supporting the bill.

Story Copyright (c) 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Scientists need the same sort of computer breakthrough that the spreadsheet brought to business users decades ago, says Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer.

Mundie gave a speech at Harvard University here on Tuesday to discuss coming "disruptions" in computing and to argue that computer science is fundamental to solving daunting global problems, including energy, environment, health care, and education.

Without taking advantage of advances in computing, adjacent fields of nanotechnology and biotechnology will not move as fast as they could, he said. At the same time, he lamented how computer science is seen as "so yesterday."

"It's stunning how much people want to fund the fads and they don't put any emphasis on how core computing is," Mundie said during questions. "I hope we can come together and realize that we have to invest in the future of computing if we want a future in all these other areas."

Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer urges students to think about coming disruptions in computing.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)

The Harvard talk was one of four Mundie is giving this week in an effort to stir excitement in the study of computing, with both computer science students and people in other fields, such as medicine or material science. Less than 100 students and faculty came to the Harvard talk on Tuesday where he demonstrated some of how Microsoft's research can be applied to energy and the environment.

Computing is becoming increasingly embedded in everyday devices, in everything from phones to cars. But even though people are increasingly familiar with digital technologies, there are still disruptive changes on the near horizon, Mundie said.

"We think we understand it but in fact it's at a time that the flux in computing overall is as great as it's ever been," he said.

The amount of computation that's available will continue to increase with multicore processors, which will enable new applications. That includes what Microsoft calls "natural language processing," where people can interact with computers in more intuitive ways than the familiar mouse and graphical user interface. An example is Microsoft's Project Natal, motion-sensing technology where people can use arms and legs to play games.

Two other big technology changes, he said, are three-dimensional displays and cloud computing, where people can tap banks of servers over the Internet for data-intensive jobs.

High-end demos
Mundie showed Microsoft Computational Science Studio, a tool designed by Microsoft Research in the U.K. to allow scientists to run complex and data-intensive computer simulations.

Science Studio could be used to project the impact of rain forest deforestation in South America on other regions of the world. The tool is designed to help experts from different disciplines create a model around different sources of data and visualize simulations.

In this example, the application tapped data centers off-site to run simulations of how changes to the rate of deforestation would affect average temperatures in the U.S.

Generating these models is very practical not just to scientists but to policy makers as well, Mundie said. "Is it better to pay the Brazilians not to cut down trees or to develop genetically engineered crops that can grow in temperatures that are five degrees hotter?" he said. "Those are the kind of choices that our society is going to have to deal with."

In another demo, Mundie showed how a researcher can optimize output from a wind farm. Using an 8-processor computer with a three-dimensional display and pen-based input, Mundie was able to view how different wind turbine blade shapes affect wind flow.

Several energy technology companies are already using IT aggressively. The idea of the smart grid is essentially overlaying digital communications and controls onto the electricity grid. Start-up eSolar uses embedded processors on thousands of mirrors to track the sun and generate the most heat possible with its solar concentrator.

Cloud computing opens up more possibilities for far-reaching energy research, Mundie said. One example is TerraPower, a Seattle-area nuclear power company that has attracted Bill Gates and former Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold as investors.

TerraPower is designing a "traveling-wave nuclear reactor" that could use the spent fuel from traditional nuclear reactors and make electricity from it for decades. To speed its research, the company is using high-end computation, which only now is accessible to start-up companies because of cloud computing, Mundie said.

"These are the types of technologies where scientists, engineers, and computer scientists have to come forward, explore them and, if we can make them work, then of course they represent a real discontinuity in the quest for high-scale, zero carbon energy sources," he said.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--A group of academics on Friday considered the ultimate engineering challenge: building machines to stabilize the earth's climate.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology convened a symposium here to discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of geoengineering, also called climate engineering. Everything from shooting light-blocking particles into the atmosphere to "artificial trees" is being seriously studied, despite trepidation among researchers and opposition from others.

During talks Friday morning, academics said climate engineering techniques are not well understood and, because of the complexity of the global climate system, individual approaches are pockmarked with uncertainties.

Still, speakers at the event said it's time to step up research in geoengineering to sort out which approaches are worth serious consideration. But they cautioned against expecting easy fixes or abandoning efforts to ratchet down the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

"At this point the fear is that if we talk about this, people will stop cutting emissions, which is a rational fear. But the idea that we shouldn't have a research program would be a real mistake," said David Keith, the director of the ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group at the University of Calgary during his talk the symposium, which was called Engineering a Cooler Planet.

Speakers said each climate engineering approach needs to be viewed with an associated cost and risk. For example, one relatively inexpensive idea is to shoot particles, called aerosols, into the air in order to block the amount of heat from the sun that reaches the earth's surface.

The cooling effect from aerosols, such as sulfur dioxide, in the atmosphere is rapid--measured in days or years. But they also impact the planet's water cycle. Early models show that large-scale efforts to inject aerosols in the atmosphere would likely make certain areas drier and affect the monsoons in India and Asia, said Joyce Penner, a professor of atmosopheric sciences at the University of Michigan.

Even with the risks and uncertainties of climate engineering, speakers said that there is risk with the so-called business-as-usual scenario where the concentration of greenhouse emissions continues to increase at its current pace.

These heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere are forecast to raise average global temperatures, speakers said. But there are a number of regional impacts from global warming, which will likely spur more research in planet-level engineering, said Thomas Karl, the director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

For example, higher temperatures directly affect water and agriculture. The productivity and ability to reproduce of common crops goes down after certain temperature levels, Karl noted. Pests have a longer time to populate and weeds grow better with more carbon dioxide, too, he said. The west of the U.S. is already feeling the impact of droughts, which will continue if mountain snowpack decreases.

"It's an important choice to make even if we don't do a thing--that's a choice itself," said Karl. "The consequences of not studying this are enormous--understanding the physical, ecosystem, and societal impacts."

Engineering for a cooler planet
There are two general approaches to engineering for a cooler planet: reflecting sunlight back into space or removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it.

Injecting sulfur-based aerosols in the atmosphere have a known cooling effect observed in volcanic eruptions, including Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The approach is more practical than, say, placing mirrors in space. But there still isn't suitable understanding of how the entire climate system would react, including potential changes to ocean circulation, ocean ecosystems, and land precipitation, said Penner.

Also, blocking sunlight from space does not address the problems caused by higher concentrations of carbon dioxide on earth, notably ocean acidification which makes it more difficult for marine animals with shells or corals to grow, speakers noted.

(Credit: Philip Boyd, University of Otago in Dunedin.)

Other approaches for reflecting heat back into space include spraying sea salt from special-purpose boats to enhance the reflectivity of clouds or installing white roofs on buildings to bounce more sunlight back into space.

Land-based approaches to reducing greenhouse gas concentrations include growing algae-based fuels at massive scale, storing carbon dioxide in underground geological formations, and making charcoal with plants to create a soil amendment called biochar.

There have also been 12 tests to stimulate plankton growth by "fertilizing" the ocean with iron. The goal is to create a rapid "plankton bloom" which will remove carbon dioxide and sequester it in the ocean. But this technique is difficult to verify and risks transforming the existing ocean ecosystems, said Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at the University of East Anglia.

Because of the risk and uncertainly, Lenton said he is not convinced that climate engineering proposals to block solar radiation makes sense. On the other hand, land-based approaches create competition with other uses of land, notably agriculture.

One area that clearly needs further research is the life-cycle analysis of different climate engineering idea, Lenton said. For example, dumping iron into the ocean to grow plankton has an associated carbon footprint.

"You'll find out when you do the full calculation, it's very difficult to make it carbon negative," he said. "Because of the emissions in simply deploying the technology, it will veto a number of options."

The computational models to simulate the regional impact of climate changes need to be improved as well, said David Battisti, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington. In research he presented on Friday, Battisti found that once models took into account ice and ocean effects from aerosol injection, there was a significant variation on the projected impact on temperatures and precipitation.

The symposium at MIT is not the first meeting of scientists to consider geoengineering--the idea has been discussed for decades. But some of the academics on Friday said the current trajectory of climate change argues in favor of at least doing research on climate engineering techniques, even if these projects are ultimately never launched.

There is also a uncertainty around climate policy and how effective policies will be at cutting emissions, noted Keith. "It doesn't mean that we have to do it. But it means that you do need to have the capability to do it," he said.

In the near term, research in the field should be focused on ranking different proposals, addressing both scientific and political issues, said Philip Boyd, a professor of ocean biochemistry from the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Boyd has created a model that ranks geoengineering schemes in terms of efficacy, affordability, safety, speed of implementation, and the ability to stop a project. Societal and political factors need to be considered because conflicts over use of land, water, and the ocean creates a "geopolitical mess."

"We pump up the potential for conflict," he said. "It's just a minefield in terms of teasing these apart."

Google CEO Eric Schmidt (left) and U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu at Google headquarters Monday.

(Credit: James Martin/CNET)

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--For a bunch of search engineers, Google employees care an awful lot about energy and the environment.

Google hosted an event for employees Monday featuring Steven Chu, the U.S. secretary of energy under President Obama and a man Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said "may become one of the most influential scientists of our generation, if he isn't already." Chu took about an hour to speak to a packed room of Google employees following his announcement of $151 million in funding for new energy-related projects as part of the ARPA-E program.

Chu found a friendly audience of some of the most science-and-technology-obsessed individuals in a region known for science and technology obsession. He called the need to invest in alternative fuels and energy systems "the engineering and science challenge of our time" that will demand contributions from young scientists and technologists like the ones in Mountain View.

Several employees asked Chu to opine on the viability of various alternatives to fossil fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, and the need to reduce carbon through a cap-and-trade system and carbon sequestration. Here Chu jostled a bit with Schmidt, who said he is skeptical about cap-and-trade systems and the ability of the nuclear industry to solve thorny problems like waste disposal and safety.

Congress is considering cap-and-trade legislation at the moment, and Chu is scheduled to testify before Congress on Tuesday about the need for such legislation. Schmidt isn't sure a global system can work because of the tendency for "rogue nations" to do as they please, but Chu thinks if carbon measurement systems are improved, hard data will make it easier to encourage those who are overproducing carbon to get their act together.

And on nuclear, Schmidt bemoaned the lack of standards in nuclear plant construction, saying "the human factors are a disaster" with every plant a little different than its counterparts and the waste issue still unsolved. Chu didn't debate the point, but said the nuclear industry is moving more toward solving those problems and improving safety.

Those were minor policy disagreements, however: Google and the current Department of Energy are definitely friends. Schmidt called Chu one of his heroes, and Chu praised Google's work on reducing the energy consumption of its servers and assuming a "leadership position" in reducing the carbon footprint of its operation.

Schmidt, who serves as an adviser to the administration on President Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, asked Chu what it's like being the senior scientist in the government. He's actually the first scientist to hold the secretary of energy position, and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997.

"It's funny in a macabre sort of way. I don't think Congress treats me like your average cabinet member," Chu said with a wry chuckle. He said he's spent much of his first year on the job talking to Congress about the problems with energy use and the environment, and that legislators are receptive, for the most part.

"I think the president has made it very clear that science plays such an integral role in the decisions we have to make," Chu said. He was preaching to the choir at the Googleplex.

Can a $1 billion help save the environment? George Soros hopes so.

The billionaire financier and philanthropist plans to invest part of his wealth on clean tech to fight global warming. In a speech at the Project Syndicate editors' forum in Copenhagen, Denmark, on Saturday, Soros gave the keynote address announcing his new plans.

Soros said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technologies and will provide $100 million--$10 million each year for the next 10 years--for the new Climate Policy Initiative, a watchdog-type foundation to promote measures to combat climate change.

"Global warming is a political problem," Soros announced to the meeting of editors in Copenhagen, the same city where representatives from around the world will meet in December to try to hammer out a new climate agreement. "The science is beyond dispute," he added, "but how do we achieve the objectives we all know are necessary? That is a political problem."

The need for cleaner coal has been a critical issue for Soros, who has invested in so-called "clean coal" technologies. In April, he was part of a consortium that funded $50 million toward PowerSpan, a firm researching and developing methods for cleaner coal.

On another front, Soros announced last year that his investment fund would pour $25 million in funds toward Qteros, a company that can make cleaner ethanol from a single microbe.

Soros offered few details on where he plans to invest the $1 billion. But he said he will look for profitable opportunities, and also "insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change."

Clean energy has been a key issue for Soros. The billionaire has given speeches and interviews promoting development of alternative energy as not just a necessary goal but one that could revive the global economy.

Of course, clean energy has become an increasingly popular sector all around. A recent report on venture capital funding found that more money is being invested in green tech than in software or biotech.

Born in Budapest in 1930, Soros survived both the Nazi and Communist occupations of Hungary. After fleeing to England where he studied economics, he eventually settled in the United States. Soros amassed his huge fortune as the chairman of Soros Fund Management. He was recently ranked by Forbes as the 15th richest American, with an estimated net worth of $13 billion.

Greenpeace may have downplayed Apple's recent environmental efforts, but the organization on Thursday is holding the company up as an example for everyone.

(Credit: Greenpeace)

"Apple has stormed out of the biggest lobby group in the United States," reads a post on the environmental organization's Web site. "At issue is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's use of funds to oppose climate change legislation. Apple has done the right thing, and IBM and Microsoft should think different too."

Catherine Novelli, Apple's vice president of worldwide government affairs, informed the Chamber of Commerce in a letter on Monday that the company would be resigning its membership. Apple cited differences in environmental policies.

"Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort," Novelli said in a letter to chamber President Thomas Donohue.

Donohue didn't take the news laying down. In a letter addressed to Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Donohue said that "while we do support legislation to address climate change, we oppose legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill that numerous studies show will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits."

Not surprisingly, Greenpeace doesn't agree with Donohue's position. It said the Chamber of Commerce should think about the number of jobs that would be created by helping clean up the environment, instead of lecturing Jobs about innovation.

Apple is the fourth company to leave the chamber in the past few weeks, and Greenpeace challenged other companies to follow Apple in departing the Chamber of Commerce.

"The stakes have never been higher for the climate," Greenpeace said. "Apple's move will throw an uncomfortable spotlight on any company that stays on in the chamber but doesn't act to change its policies."

The relationship between Apple and Greenpeace has been contentious, to say the least. The two have argued publicly over the extent of Apple's commitment to reducing the use of harmful chemicals in its products.

Greenpeace even demonstrated outside Jobs' Macworld keynote in 2007 to bring attention to its environmental efforts. Apple took the challenge and have worked for the last couple of years to remove harmful chemicals like PVC, mercury, arsenic, lead, and BFR from its products.

Greenpeace even released its own iPhone app version of its "Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide." The app allows users to compare brands to find the most environmentally friendly.

(Credit: Royal Society)

Geoengineering is not a last resort, but the next necessary step to recalibrate the Earth's climate unless carbon emissions are significantly reduced in the near future, the Royal Society, the U.K.'s national academy of sciences, announced Tuesday.

"It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO2 emissions we are headed for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future, and geoengineering will be the only option left to limit further temperature increases," John Shepherd, chair of the Royal Society's geoengineering study and a professor of Earth system science at the University of Southampton, said on behalf of the group.

The report "Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty" (PDF) urged carbon emissions reduction as the primary means of halting climate change. But it looked at geoengineering--engineering the environment on a large scale to purposely manipulate the world's climate--very seriously.

In past years, geoengineering has been thought of an as option of last resort, but the Royal Society asserted that some of the safer geoengineering techniques, like aggressively planting forests, could be implemented currently in conjunction with carbon reduction efforts.

Since geoengineering has the potential to affect people on a global scale, the group further recommended that an international organization like the U.N. Commission for Sustainable Development begin developing policies and a means for resolving anticipated geoengineering political conflicts.

"Assuming that acceptable standards for effectiveness, safety, public acceptance and cost were established, why should appropriate geoengineering options not be added to the portfolio of options that society will need and may wish to use to combat the challenges posed by climate change?" said the report.

With that in mind the group evaluated the safety, expense, effectiveness, and quickness of deployment for projects falling under two main classes of geoengineering: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar-radiation management (SRM).

CDR, efforts to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, included things like afforestation, encouraging plankton growth, and carbon capture and storage in the form of burying carbon-rich biomass or using biochar for fuel.

The SRM suggestions for manipulating the Earth so that it absorbs less solar radiation included more seemingly far-out options like painting all roofs white to reflect sunlight, placing thousands of space mirrors in near-Earth orbits to reflect sunlight, and spraying aerosols into the stratosphere.

The group said it generally favored CDR projects over SRM because they involved processes closer to natural occurrences, while the side effects of SRM projects are unknown and therefore more dangerous.