I’ve recently been spending a good deal of time learning about energy and alternative energy approaches. “Why!?”, you ask … because I recently got surprised by a high energy bill and wanted to make sure that I wasn’t paying hundreds of dollars extra a month!! In looking into it, I realized that within the tiered rate structure of California, I was paying greater that $.30/kWh for energy and felt cheated within a world that has reduced the average cost of energy to about $.10/kWh. Being the selfish, greedy, SOB that I am, I decided I wanted alternatives!!

Now, because I’d hate for you to get the wrong impression, I’ll also point out that there’s a strong belief that projected world’s energy needs when supplied by today’s technology, leads to, in the most dramatic framing, “the destruction of the global environment”. Therefore, alternatives are required!! Putting us in this “boat” together then … learning about alternative energy is important for us all so that we can save the planet …

By the way, there are other people in the boat rowing in the same direction and the TED group recently highlighted an interesting talk by none other than Bill Gates.




OK, if you’ve read this far it means I didn’t completely alienate you with my introduction and you did not get sidetracked by the much more compelling content of Mr. Gates’ talk. I appreciate your patience. As a reward I’ll try to get on track and give you a few “talking points” on “global warming”, a topic that’s filled with debate and sometimes rancour.

To help avoid the rancour, I propose a set of framing questions that have helped me try to understand further the issues in debate and the things worth doing about it. These questions are as follows:

1. Is there a build-up of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere?
2. If so, is this build-up of man-made origin?
3. If so, what are the implications of this build-up of carbon dioxide?
4. Given the implications, what should we do about it?

Question 1 – Is there a build-up of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere??
This question, though leading, is primary to the debate. The core result is presented as the “Keeling Curve”, shown below, with all the background on that particular curve presented at the NOAA site that “owns” the measurements. This data quickly provides a convincing picture that, yes, Carbon Dioxide is building in the atmosphere.

Question 2 – Is this build-up of man-made origin?
Though slightly less obvious then the first, the data here is again pretty convincing. The core data is the measurements made that attempt to determine the carbon dioxide concentration over the last 400,000 years and compare that to the direct measurements made over the last 50 years.  This reasoning, though circumstantial is, none the less, strong.  The argument strenghtens by estimating the effect that the 8 billion or more tons of estimate carbon production would have in an environmental model (see graph below).    Believing the data, however, you could still argue that something other then man’s activity is the source but it’s tough to believe given the spike in CO2 concentration is wholly coincident with the industrial age.   In addition, there is supposedly a direct method to estimate the “age” of carbon in the atmosphere.

Question 3 – If so, what are the implications of this build-up of carbon dioxide??
Now enter the realm of the debatable!  The advertised implication is “Global Warming”.  This now overused phrase is the result of many decades of research that begin with the observation we learned in high school known as the “Greenhouse effect”. Interestingly the first observations of the existance of the “Greenhouse effect” were made as early as 1824 by none other than Joseph Fourier, the namesake of the oft use “Fourier Analysis” techniques. Many observations and experiments have been made since and you’re encouraged to look and view the many presentations, one of which is presented here. Of course, the debate begins as conclusions here depend on the accuracy of the models, which, in my opinion are questionable and how these models relate to other natural and chaotic phenomena. Nonetheless, arguing in the extreme: it’s not debatable that a different atmosphere would, in fact, change the temperature of the planet (see, for example, Venus)

Question 4 – Given the implications, what should we do about it?
OK, we’ve loosely presented some of the scientific background, intentionally moving from the most concise and compelling to the more complex and debatable. Now we’ve arrived into the realm of the pure political. Man’s activity is measurably producing over 8 billion tons of atmospheric carbon/year. But acting to change man-made carbon production on a global basis would require a political structure and will that doesn’t exist. If you are where I am, that 1) atmospheric carbon dioxide IS increasing and 2) it’s due to MAN-MADE effects and 3) this will inevitably have SOME effect on the environment we live in then it’s easy to conclude that, all else being equal, we should choose energy sources that produce less carbon. Unfortunately, there’s almost no choice where “all else is equal”.

But recognizing carbon production as a cost of energy is important, and is today, not directly included in the “price”. “Carbon credits” begin the discussion but, already, we start down a road that will be politically difficult to implement. I have to agree with Bill Gates. Results will occur when we have a readily available source of energy that cost less, period, and, by the way, doesn’t produce carbon. This solution, whether it’s as nice and “natural” as solar, wind or waves or it’s of more “industrial strength”, such as nuclear, enables economic activity and improved lifestyle (man’s selfish goal) … and, by golly, even saves the planet from man-made destruction (a nice side effect to carry along).

Going back to my own, admitted, selfish behavior. We’re installing solar panels on our roof! There’s a bit of an up front cost but Akeena Solar has made it easy for me. In addition, the government has conspired to make it so that I’ve contracted with SunRun and bought my solar electricity for the next 18 years at a rate of just of over $.15/kWh.   Now with only a little bit of scheming (and hoping I can control, to some degree, the amount of Xbox Live played during school hours!)  I believe I will have electric bills of zero dollars/year.   If my nefarious scheme works I’ll have paid for my solar panels in less than four years and it’s all upside from there, baby!!  I place the worst case scenario at an investment with about a 10% return which isn’t too bad in today’s slowed economy. And, BTW, I’m reducing the “carbon footprint” of our house. So you see, I can remain the selfish guy that I am … and still do my part in saving the planet.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 21st, 2010 at 11:25 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.