Today’s cruise ships are environmental nightmares. Just one vessel packed with a veritable petri dish of passengers can burn as much as 250 tons of fuel per day, or about the same emissions as 12,000 cars. If the industry is to survive, it will need to adapt quickly in order to adequately address the myriad ecological emergencies facing the planet—and one Norwegian cruise liner company is attempting to meet those challenges head-on.

Earlier today, Hurtigruten Norway unveiled the first designs for a zero-emission cruise ship scheduled to debut by the end of the decade. First announced in March 2022 as “Sea Zero,” Hurtigruten (Norwegian for “the Fast Route”) showed off its initial concept art for the craft on Wednesday. The vessel features three autonomous, retractable, 50m-high sail wing rigs housing roughly 1,500-square-meters of solar panels. Alongside the sails, the ship will be powered by multiple 60-megawatt batteries that recharge while in port, as well as wind technology. Other futuristic additions to the vessel will include AI maneuvering capabilities, retractable thrusters, contra-rotating propellers, advanced hull coatings, and proactive hull cleaning tech.

[Related: Care about the planet? Skip the cruise, for now.]

“Following a rigorous feasibility study, we have pinpointed the most promising technologies for our groundbreaking future cruise ships,” said Hurtigruten Norway CEO Hedda Felin. Henrik Burvang, Research and Innovation Manager at VARD, the company behind the ship concept designs, added the forthcoming boat’s streamlined shape, alongside its hull and propulsion advances, will reduce energy demand. Meanwhile, VARD is “developing new design tools and exploring new technologies for energy efficiency,” said Burvang.

With enhanced AI capabilities, the cruise ships’ crew bridge is expected to significantly shrink in size to resemble airplane cockpits, but Hurtigruten’s futuristic, eco-conscious designs don’t rest solely on its next-gen ship and crew. The 135-meter-long concept ship’s estimated 500 guests will have access to a mobile app capable of operating their cabins’ ventilation systems, as well as track their own water and energy consumption while aboard the vessel.

Next up for Hurtigruten’s Sea Zero project is a two-year testing and development phase for the proposed tech behind the upcoming cruise ship, particularly focusing on battery production, propulsion, hull design, and sustainable practices. Meanwhile, the company will also look into onboard hotel operational improvements, which Hurtigruten states can consume as much as half a ship’s overall energy reserves.

Hurtigruten also understands if 2030 feels like a long time to wait until a zero-emission ship. In the meantime, the company has already upgraded two of its seven vessels to run on a battery-hybrid-power system, with a third on track to be retrofitted this fall.  Its additional vessels are being outfitted with an array of tech to CO2 emissions by 20-percent, and nitrogen oxides by as much as 80 percent.

The post This concept cruise ship will have solar-paneled sails, an AI copilot, and zero emissions appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In 2015, the United Nations announced a series of interdependent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) meant to provide a “shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.” In the years since, the UN and various partner organizations have released periodic progress reports that assess global movement towards these benchmarks. The latest annual recap, published on Tuesday, focuses on SDG 7’s aim at providing “affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy” to the world, alongside universal access to clean cooking and electricity, doubling historic levels of efficiency improvements, and increasing renewable energy usage by the end of the decade.

The UN’s 2023 assessment of efforts so far? Not great.

According to the Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report, the world’s current pace is simply not en route to achieving “any of the 2030 targets.” Although the commission acknowledges some regions’ improvements in various areas such as renewable energy availability, the number of people globally lacking electricity access is likely to have actually increased for the first time in decades due to the ongoing energy crisis exacerbated by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. The report also explains the most pressing factors styming progress towards SDG 7 include the uncertain global economic outlook, high inflation, currency fluctuations, the growing number of countries dealing with debt distress, and supply chain issues.

[Related: 1 in 5 people are likely to live in dangerously hot climates by 2100.]

At humanity’s current trajectory, nearly 2 billion people will still lack clean cooking facilities in 2030, with another 660 million without reliable electricity access. The report’s summary notes that, according to the World Health Organization, over 3 million people die every year due to illnesses stemming from polluting technologies and fuel that increase exposure to toxic household air pollution.

“We must protect the next generation by acting now,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the World Health Organization, said in a statement. “Investing in clean and renewable solutions to support universal energy access is how we can make real change.” “Clean cooking technologies in homes and reliable electricity in healthcare facilities can play a crucial role in protecting the health of our most vulnerable populations,” Ghebreyesus added.

[Related: Extreme weather and energy insecurity can compound health risks.]

There is at least one bright spot in the discouraging report, however. According to the UN Statistics Division, even accounting for recent electrification slowdowns, the number of people lacking electricity has halved over the past ten years—down to 675 million in 2021 versus around 1.1 billion in 2010.

“Nonetheless, additional efforts and measures must urgently be put in place to ensure that the poorest and hardest-to-reach people are not left behind,” explained Stefan Schweinfest of the UN’s Statistics Division in the UN’s statement. “To reach universal access by 2030, the development community must scale up clean energy investments and policy support.”

The post 675 million people still didn’t have access to electricity in 2021 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

These days, it seems like every carmaker—from those focused on luxury options to those with an eye more toward the economical—is getting into electric vehicles. And with new US policies around purchasing incentives and infrastructure improvements, consumers might be more on board as well. But many people are still concerned about whether electric vehicles are truly better for the environment overall, considering certain questions surrounding their production process. 

Despite concerns about the pollution generated from mining materials for batteries and the manufacturing process for the EVs themselves, the environmental and energy experts PopSci spoke to say that across the board, electric vehicles are still better for the environment than similar gasoline or diesel-powered models. 

When comparing a typical commercial electric vehicle to a gasoline vehicle of the same size, there are benefits across many different dimensions. 

“We do know, for instance, if we’re looking at carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, that electric vehicles operating on the typical electric grid can end up with fewer greenhouse gas emissions over the life of their vehicle,” says Dave Gohlke, an energy and environmental analyst at Argonne National Lab. “The fuel consumption (using electricity to generate the fuel as opposed to burning petroleum) ends up releasing fewer emissions per mile and over the course of the vehicle’s expected lifetime.”

[Related: An electrified car isn’t the same thing as an electric one. Here’s the difference.]

EVs also produce no tailpipe emissions, which means reductions in particulate matter or in smog precursors that contribute to local air pollution.

“The latest best evidence right now indicates that in almost everywhere in the US, electric vehicles are better for the environment than conventional vehicles,” says Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at Yale School of the Environment. “How much better for the environment depends on where you charge and what time you charge.”

Electric motors tend to be more efficient compared to the spark ignition engine used in gasoline cars or the compression ignition engine used in diesel cars, where there’s usually a lot of waste heat and wasted energy.

Creating an EV produces pollution during the manufacturing process. “Greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing an electric vehicle are almost twice that of an internal combustion vehicle…that is due primarily to the battery. You’re actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions to produce the vehicle, but there’s a net overall lifecycle benefit or reduction because of the significant savings in the use of the vehicle,” says Gregory Keoleian, the director of the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. “We found in terms of the overall lifecycle, on average, across the United States, taking into account temperature effects, grid effects, there was 57 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for a new electric vehicle compared to a new combustion engine vehicle.” 

In terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with operating the vehicles, fully battery-powered electric vehicles were the best, followed by plug-in hybrids, and then hybrids, with internal combustion engine vehicles faring the worst, Keoleian notes. Range anxiety might still be top of mind for some drivers, but he adds that households with more than one vehicle can consider diversifying their fleet to add an EV for everyday use, when appropriate, and save the gas vehicle (or the gas feature on their hybrids) for longer trips.

The breakeven point at which the cost of producing and operating an electric vehicle starts to gain an edge over a gasoline vehicle of similar make and model occurs at around two years in, or around 20,000 to 50,000 miles. But when that happens can vary slightly on a case-by-case basis. “If you have almost no carbon electricity, and you’re charging off solar panels on your own roof almost exclusively, that breakeven point will be sooner,” says Gohlke. “If you’re somewhere with a very carbon intensive grid, that breakeven point will be a little bit later. It depends on the style of your vehicle as well because of the materials that go into it.” 

[Related: Why solid-state batteries are the next frontier for EV makers]

For context, Gohlke notes that the average EV age right now is around 12 years old based on registration data. And these vehicles are expected to drive approximately 200,000 miles over their lifetime. 

“Obviously if you drive off your dealer’s lot and you drive right into a light pole and that car never takes more than a single mile, that single vehicle will have had more embedded emissions than if you had wrecked a gasoline car on your first drive,” says Gohlke. “But if you look at the entire fleet of vehicles, all 200-plus-million vehicles that are out there and how long we expect them to survive, over the life of the vehicle, each of those electric vehicles is expected to consume less energy and emit lower emissions than the corresponding gas vehicle would’ve been.”

To put things in perspective, Gillingham says that extracting and transporting fossil fuels like oil is energy intensive as well. When you weigh those factors, electric vehicle production doesn’t appear that much worse than the production of gasoline vehicles, he says. “Increasingly, they’re actually looking better depending on the battery chemistry and where the batteries are made.” 

And while it’s true that there are issues with mines, the petrol economy has damaged a lot of the environment and continues to do so. That’s why improving individual vehicle efficiency needs to be paired with reducing overall consumption.

EV batteries are getting better

Mined materials like rare metals can have harmful social and environmental effects, but that’s an economy-wide problem. There are many metals that are being used in batteries, but the use of metals is nothing new, says Trancik. Metals can be found in a range of household products and appliances that many people use in their daily lives. 

Plus, there have been dramatic improvements in battery technology and the engineering of the vehicle itself in the past decade. The batteries have become cheaper, safer, more durable, faster charging, and longer lasting. 

“There’s still a lot of room to improve further. There’s room for improved chemistry of the batteries and improved packaging and improved coolant systems and software that manages the batteries,” says Gillingham.

The two primary batteries used in electric vehicles today are NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt) and LFP (lithium-ferrous-phosphate). NMC batteries tend to use more precious metals like cobalt from the Congo, but they are also more energy dense. LFP uses more abundant metals. And although the technology is improving fast, it’s still in an early stage, sensitive to cold weather, and not quite as energy dense. LFP tends to be good for utility scale cases, like for storing electricity on the grid. 

[Related: Could swappable EV batteries replace charging stations?]

Electric vehicles also offer an advantage when it comes to fewer trips to the mechanic; conventional vehicles have more moving parts that can break down. “You’re more likely to be doing maintenance on a conventional vehicle,” says Gillingham. He says that there have been Teslas in his studies that are around eight years old, with 300,000 miles on them, which means that even though the battery does tend to degrade a little every year, that degradation is fairly modest.

Eventually, if the electric vehicle markets grow substantially, and there’s many of these vehicles in circulation, reusing the metals in the cars can increase their benefits. “This is something that you can’t really do with the fossil fuels that have already been combusted in an internal combustion engine,” says Trancik. “There is a potential to set up that circularity in the supply chain of those metals that’s not readily done with fossil fuels.”

Since batteries are fairly environmentally costly, the best case is for consumers who are interested in EVs to get a car with a small battery, or a plug-in hybrid electric car that runs on battery power most of the time. “A Toyota Corolla-sized car, maybe with some hybridization, could in many cases, be better for the environment than a gigantic Hummer-sized electric vehicle,” says Gillingham. (The charts in this New York Times article help visualize that distinction.) 

Where policies could help

Electric vehicles are already better for the environment and becoming increasingly better for the environment. 

The biggest factor that could make EVs even better is if the electrical grid goes fully carbon free. Policies that provide subsidies for carbon-free power, or carbon taxes to incentivize cleaner power, could help in this respect. 

The other aspect that would make a difference is to encourage more efficient electric vehicles and to discourage the production of enormous electric vehicles. “Some people may need a pickup truck for work. But if you don’t need a large car for an actual activity, it’s certainly better to have a more reasonably sized car,” Gillingham says.  

Plus, electrifying public transportation, buses, and vehicles like the fleet of trucks run by the USPS can have a big impact because of how often they’re used. Making these vehicles electric can reduce air pollution from idling, and routes can be designed so that they don’t need as large of a battery.  

“The rollout of EVs in general has been slower than demand would support…There’s potentially a larger market for EVs,” Gillingham says. The holdup is due mainly to supply chain problems. 

Switching over completely to EVs is, of course, not the end-all solution for the world’s environmental woes. Currently, car culture is very deeply embedded in American culture and consumerism in general, Gillingham says, and that’s not easy to change. When it comes to climate policy around transportation, it needs to address all the different modes of transportation that people use and the industrial energy services to bring down greenhouse gas emissions across the board. 

The greenest form of transportation is walking, followed by biking, followed by using public transit. Electrifying the vehicles that can be electrified is great, but policies should also consider the ways cities are designed—are they walkable, livable, and have a reliable public transit system connecting communities to where they need to go? 

“There’s definitely a number of different modes of transport that need to be addressed and green modes of transport that need to be supported,” says Trancik. “We really need to be thinking holistically about all these ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The post Electric cars are better for the environment, no matter the power source appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Grist.

In the Mon Valley of western Pennsylvania, steel was once a way of life, one synonymous with the image of rural, working-class Rust Belt communities. At its height in 1910, Pittsburgh alone produced 25 million tons of it, or 60 percent of the nation’s total. Bustling mills linger along the Monongahela River and around Pittsburgh, but employment has been steadily winding down for decades.  

Though President Trump promised a return to the idealized vision of American steelmaking that Bruce Springsteen might sing about, the industry has changed since its initial slump four decades ago. Jobs declined 49 percent between 1990 and 2021, when increased efficiency saw the sector operating at its highest capacity in 14 years. Despite ongoing supply chain hiccups and inflation, demand continues growing globally, particularly in Asia. But even as demand for this essential material climbs, so too does the pressure to decarbonize its production.

Earlier this month, the progressive Ohio River Valley Institute released a study that found a carefully planned transition to “green” steel — manufactured using hydrogen generated with renewable energy — could be a climatic and economic boon. It argues that as countries work toward achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, a green steel boom in western Pennsylvania could help the U.S. meet that goal, make its steel industry competitive again, and employ a well-paid industrial workforce.

“A transition to fossil fuel-free steelmaking could grow total jobs supported by steelmaking in the region by 27 percent to 43 percent by 2031, forestalling projected job losses,” the study noted. “Regional jobs supported by traditional steelmaking are expected to fall by 30 percent in the same period.”

In a world struggling to keep global climate change below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the traditional coke-based process of making steel, which uses coal to power the furnaces that melt iron ore, remains a big problem. The industry generates 7.2 percent of all carbon emissions worldwide, making it more polluting than the entire European Union. Old-school steel manufacturing relies on metallurgical coal — that is, high-quality, low-moisture coal, which still releases carbon, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants. About 70 percent of today’s steel is made that way, much of it produced cheaply in countries with lax environmental regulations. However, only 30 percent of U.S. production uses this method.

Technological improvements and pressure to reduce emissions have led to increased use of leftover, or “scrap,” steel during production. When products made of traditional, coke-based steel have reached the end of their useful life, they can be returned to the furnace and recycled almost infinitely. This reduces the labor needed to produce the same amount and quality of steel as traditional production methods, and it accounts for about 70 percent of the nation’s output.

The scrap is melted in an electric arc furnace and uses hydrogen, rather than coke, to process iron ore. It requires less energy than traditional methods, particularly if renewable energy powers the furnace and generates the hydrogen. Nick Messenger, an economist who worked on the Institute’s study, believes this approach could revitalize the Rust Belt by placing the region at the forefront of an innovation the industry must inevitably embrace.

“What we actually show is that by doing that three-step process and doing it all close to home in Pennsylvania,” he said, “each step of that process has the potential to create jobs and support jobs in the community” — from building and operating solar panels and turbines, to operating electrolyzers to produce electricity, to making the steel itself.

The study claims a business-as-usual approach would follow current production and employment trends, leading to a 30 percent reduction in jobs by 2031. A transition to hydrogen-based electric arc manufacturing could increase jobs in both the steel and energy industries by as much as 43 percent. The study calls western Pennsylvania an ideal location for this transition, given its proximity to clean water, an experienced workforce, and 22,200 watts of wind and solar energy potential.

To make it work for the Mon Valley, the study notes, manufacturers must get started as soon as possible. The quest for green steel isn’t just an ideological matter, but a question of global economic power. “There’s a huge new race, in a sense, to get in on the ground floor,” Messenger said. “When you’re the first one, you attract the types of capital, you attract the types of businesses and entrepreneurs and industries that cause that kind of flourishing boom to happen around this particular sector.” 

The Ohio Valley’s fabled steel mills may be looking, if cautiously, toward a decarbonized future. Two years ago, U.S. Steel canceled a $1.3 billion investment in the Mon Valley Works complex, citing, in part, its net-zero goals and the need to switch to electric arc steel production. Of course, the biggest challenge is that while the Mon Valley has massive wind energy potential, very little of it has been tapped. But thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, federal subsidies and tax breaks could give clean energy developers a boost.

The Biden administration has shown faith in green steel through a series of grant programs, subsidies and tax credits, including $6 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to decarbonize heavy industry. But Europe has the advantage. Nascent projects in Sweden, Germany, and Spain dot the European Union, with the United Kingdom close behind. Some are using hydrogen, but others are experimenting with biochar, electrolysis, or other ways to power the electric arc process. 

In the United States, a company called Boston Metal is experimenting with an oxide electrolysis model, hoping to make the U.S. a leader in green steel technology. This model eliminates the need for coal by creating a chemical reaction that emulates the reaction that turns iron ore into steel. The company is in the process of commercializing its technology and plans to license it to steel manufacturers. Adam Rauwerdink, the company’s senior vice president of business development, hopes to see its first adopter by 2026.

Rauwerdink believes the world is moving away from traditional steel manufacturing and  that U.S. companies will be playing catch up if they don’t adapt. He has seen more and more companies and investors get on board in the past five years, including ArcelorMittal, the world’s second biggest steel producer. It invested $36 million in Boston Metal this year. He considers that investment a clear sign that the race for green steel is on, and it’s time for manufacturers to embrace the technology — or get left behind.

“Historically, you would have built a steel plant near a coal mine,” he said. “Now you’re going to be building it where you have clean power.”

This story has been updated to clarify that Boston Metal is still commercializing its technology.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/energy/steel-built-the-rust-belt-green-steel-could-help-rebuild-it/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post Steel built the Rust Belt. Green steel could help rebuild it. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

On a small patch of land in the northeast Bronx in New York City sits a tidy but potent battery storage system. Located across the street from a beige middle school building, and not too far from a Planet Fitness and a Dollar Tree, the battery system is designed to send power into the grid at peak moments of demand on hot summer afternoons and evenings. 

New York state has a goal of getting a whopping six gigawatts of battery storage systems online in the next seven years, and this system, at about three megawatts, is a very small but hopefully helpful part of that. It’s intended to be able to send out those three megawatts of power over a four-hour period, typically between 4 pm and 8 pm on the toastiest days of the year, with the goal of making a burdened power grid a bit less stressed and ideally a tad cleaner. 

The local power utility, Con Edison, recently connected the battery system to the grid. Here’s how it works, and why systems like this are important.

From power lines to batteries, and back again

The source of the electricity for these batteries is the existing power distribution lines that run along the top of nearby poles. Those wires carry power at 13,200 volts, but the battery system itself needs to work with a much lower voltage. That’s why before the power even gets to the batteries themselves, it needs to go through transformers. 

During a January tour of the site for Popular Science, Adam Cohen, the CTO of NineDot Energy, the company behind this project, opens a gray metal door. Behind it are transformers. “They look really neato,” he says. Indeed, they do look neat—three yellowish units that take that voltage and transform it into 480 volts. This battery complex is actually two systems that mirror each other, so other transformers are in additional equipment nearby. 

After those transformers do their job and convert the voltage to a lower number, the electricity flows to giant white Tesla Megapack battery units. Those batteries are large white boxes with padlocked cabinets, and above them is fire-suppression equipment. Not only do these battery units store the power, but they also have inverters to change the AC power to DC before the juice can be stored. When the power does flow out of the batteries, it’s converted back to AC power again. 

The battery storage system is designed to follow a specific rhythm. It will charge gradually between 10 pm and 8 am, Cohen says. That’s a time “when the grid has extra availability, the power is cheaper and cleaner, [and] the grid is not overstressed,” he says. When the day begins and the grid starts experiencing more demand, the batteries stop charging. 

In the summer heat, when there’s a “grid event,” that’s when the magic happens, Cohen says. Starting around 4 pm, the batteries will be able to send their power back out into the grid to help destress the system. They’ll be able to produce enough juice to power about 1,000 homes over that four-hour period, according to an estimate by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA.

[Related: How the massive ‘flow battery’ coming to an Army facility in Colorado will work]

The power will flow back up into the same wires that charged them before, and then onto customers. The goal is to try to make the grid a little bit cleaner, or less dirty, than it would have been if the batteries didn’t exist. “It’s offsetting the dirty energy that would have been running otherwise,” Cohen says. 

Of course, the best case scenario would be for batteries to get their power from renewable sources, like solar or wind, and the site does have a small solar canopy that could send a teeny tiny bit of clean energy into the grid. But New York City and the other downstate zones near it currently rely very heavily on fossil fuels. For New York City in 2022 for example, utility-scale energy production was 100 percent from fossil fuels, according to a recent report from the New York Independent System Operator. (One of several solutions in the works to that problem involves a new transmission line.) What that means is that the batteries will be drawing power from a fossil-fuel dominant grid, but doing so at nighttime when that grid is hopefully less polluting. 

How systems like these can help

Electricity is very much an on-demand product. What we consume “has to be made right now,” Cohen notes from behind the wheel of his Nissan Leaf, as we drive towards the battery storage site in the Bronx on a Friday in January. Batteries, of course, can change that dynamic, storing the juice for when it’s needed. 

This project in the Bronx is something of an electronic drop in a bucket: At three megawatts, the batteries represent a tiny step towards New York State’s goal to have six gigawatts, or 6,000 megawatts, of battery storage on the grid by 2030. Even though this one facility in the Bronx represents less than one percent of that goal, it can still be useful, says Schuyler Matteson, a senior advisor focusing on energy storage and policy at NYSERDA. “Small devices play a really important role,” he says. 

One of the ways that small devices like these can help is they can be placed near the people who are using it in their homes or businesses, so that electricity isn’t lost as it is transmitted in from further away. “They’re very close to customers on the distribution network, and so when they’re providing power at peak times, they’re avoiding a lot of the transmission losses, which can be anywhere from five to eight percent of energy,” Matteson says. 

And being close to a community provides interesting opportunities. A campus of the Bronx Charter Schools for Better Learning sits on the third floor of the middle school across the street. There, two dozen students have been working in collaboration with a local artist, Tijay Mohammed, to create a mural that will eventually hang on the green fence in front of the batteries. “They are so proud to be associated with the project,” says Karlene Buckle, the manager of the enrichment program at the schools.

Grid events

The main benefit a facility like this can have is the way it helps the grid out on a hot summer day. That’s because when New York City experiences peak temperatures, energy demand peaks too, as everyone cranks up their air conditioners. 

To meet that electricity demand, the city relies on its more than one dozen peaker plants, which are dirtier and less efficient than an everyday baseline fossil fuel plant. Peaker plants disproportionately impact communities located near them. “The public health risks of living near peaker plants range from asthma to cancer to death, and this is on top of other public health crises and economic hardships already faced in environmental justice communities,” notes Jennifer Rushlow, the dean of the School for the Environment at Vermont Law and Graduate School via email. The South Bronx, for example, has peaker plants, and the borough as a whole has an estimated 22,855 cases of pediatric asthma, according to the American Lung Association. Retiring them or diminishing their use isn’t just for energy security—it’s an environmental justice issue.

So when power demand peaks, “what typically happens is we have to ramp up additional natural gas facilities, or even in some instances, oil facilities, in the downstate region to provide that peak power,” Matteson says. “And so every unit of storage we can put down there to provide power during peak times offsets some of those dirty, marginal units that we would have to ramp up otherwise.” 

By charging at night, instead of during the day, and then sending the juice out at peak moments, “you’re actually offsetting local carbon, you’re offsetting local particulate matter, and that’s having a really big benefit of the air quality and health impacts for New York City,” he says.  

[Related: At New York City’s biggest power plant, a switch to clean energy will help a neighborhood breathe easier]

Imagine, says Matteson, that a peaker plant is producing 45 megawatts of electricity. A 3-megawatt battery system coming online could mean that operators could dial down the dirty plant to 42 megawatts instead. But in an ideal world, it doesn’t come online at all. “We want 15 of [these 3 megawatt] projects to add up to 45 megawatts, and so if they can consistently show up at peak times, maybe that marginal dirty generator doesn’t even get called,” he says. “If that happens enough, maybe they retire.” 

Nationally, most of the United States experiences a peak need for electricity on hot summer days, just like New York City does, with a few geographic exceptions, says Paul Denholm, a senior research fellow focusing on energy storage at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. “Pretty much most of the country peaks during the summertime, in those late afternoons,” he says. “And so we traditionally build gas turbines—we’ve got hundreds of gigawatts of gas turbines that have been installed for the past several decades.” 

While the three-megawatt project in the Bronx is not going to replace a peaker plant by any means, Denholm says that in general, the trend is moving towards batteries taking over what peaker plants do. “As those power plants get old and retire, you need to build something new,” he says. “Within the last five years, we’ve reached this tipping point, where storage can now outcompete new traditional gas-fired turbines on a life-cycle cost basis.” 

Right now, New York state has 279 megawatts of battery storage already online, which is around 5 percent of the total goal of 6 gigawatts. Denholm estimates that nationally, nearly nine gigawatts of battery storage are online already. 

“There’s significant quantifiable benefits to using [battery] storage as peaker,” Denholm says. One of those benefits is a fewer local emissions, which is important because “a lot of these peaker plants are in places that have historically been [environmental-justice] impacted regions.” 

“Even when they’re charging off of fossil plants, they’re typically charging off of more efficient units,” he adds. 

If all goes according to plan, the batteries will start discharging their juice this summer, on the most sweltering days. 

The post How an innovative battery system in the Bronx will help charge up NYC’s grid appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

After embracing artificial intelligence, Microsoft is taking another gamble on a promise from OpenAI’s CEO for one more moonshot goal—nuclear fusion. As CNET reports, Microsoft announced it has entered into a power purchase agreement with a startup company called Helion Energy that is slated to go into effect in 2028. Unlike AI’s very immediate realities, however, experts suspectbelieve the project’s extremely short timeframe and technological constraints make this timeline unrealisticcould easily prove disastrous.

Nuclear fusion is considered by many to be the end-all be-all of clean, virtually limitless energy production. Compared to fission reactions within traditional nuclear power plants that split atoms apart, fusion occurs when atoms are forced together within extremely high temperatures to produce a new, smaller mass atom, thus generating comparatively massive amounts of energy in the process. Researchers accomplished important fusion advancements in recent years, but a sustainable, affordable reactor has yet to be designed. What’s more, many experts estimate achieving this milestone won’t happen without “a few decades of research,” if ever.

Helion was founded in 2013, and received a $375 million investment from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman in 2021, shortly after it became the first private company to build a reactor component capable of reaching 100 million degrees Celsius (180 million degrees Fahrenheit). The optimum temperature for fusion, however, is roughly double that temperature. Meanwhile, Altman’s OpenAI itself garnered a massive partnership with Microsoft earlier this year, and has since integrated its high-profile generative artificial intelligence programming into its products, albeit not without its own controversy.

[Related: Physicists want to create energy like stars do. These two ways are their best shot.]

Helion aims to have its first fusion generator online in 2028. This generator would theoretically provide at least 50 megawatts following a one-year ramp up period—enough energy to power roughly 40,000 homes near a yet-to-be-determined facility location in Washington state. From there, Microsoft plans to pay Helion for its electricity generation as part of its roadmap to match its entire energy consumption with zero-carbon energy purchases by the end of the decade. As CNBC notes, because it’s a power purchase agreement, Helion could face financial penalties for not delivering on its aggressive goal.

In 2015, Helion’s CEO David Kirtley estimated their company would achieve “scientific net energy gain” in nuclear fusion within three years. Within nuclear fusion research, this energy gain refers to the ability to viably emit more power than it takes to produce. When asked this week by MIT Technology Review if Helion met those goals, a representative declined to comment, citing competitiveness concerns, but said its “initial timeline projections” had assumed the company would raise funds faster than it ultimately managed.

“We still have a lot of work to do,” Helion CEO David Kirtley also admitted in a statement released Wednesday,  but we are confident in our ability to deliver the world’s first fusion power facility.”

The post Microsoft thinks this startup can deliver on nuclear fusion by 2028 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story from the March 2012 issue of Popular Science covered the nuclear fusion experiments of Taylor Wilson, who was then 16. Wilson is currently 28 and a nuclear physicist who’s collaborated with multiple US agencies on developing reactors and defense technology. The author of this profile, Tom Clynes, went on to write a book about Wilson titled The Boy Who Played With Fusion.

“PROPULSION,” the nine-year-old says as he leads his dad through the gates of the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “I just want to see the propulsion stuff.”

A young woman guides their group toward a full-scale replica of the massive Saturn V rocket that brought America to the moon. As they duck under the exhaust nozzles, Kenneth Wilson glances at his awestruck boy and feels his burden beginning to lighten. For a few minutes, at least, someone else will feed his son’s boundless appetite for knowledge.

Then Taylor raises his hand, not with a question but an answer. He knows what makes this thing, the biggest rocket ever launched, go up.

And he wants—no, he obviously needs—to tell everyone about it, about how speed relates to exhaust velocity and dynamic mass, about payload ratios, about the pros and cons of liquid versus solid fuel. The tour guide takes a step back, yielding the floor to this slender kid with a deep-Arkansas drawl, pouring out a torrent of Ph.D.-level concepts as if there might not be enough seconds in the day to blurt it all out. The other adults take a step back too, perhaps jolted off balance by the incongruities of age and audacity, intelligence and exuberance.

As the guide runs off to fetch the center’s director—You gotta see this kid!—Kenneth feels the weight coming down on him again. What he doesn’t understand just yet is that he will come to look back on these days as the uncomplicated ones, when his scary-smart son was into simple things, like rocket science.

This is before Taylor would transform the family’s garage into a mysterious, glow-in-the-dark cache of rocks and metals and liquids with unimaginable powers. Before he would conceive, in a series of unlikely epiphanies, new ways to use neutrons to confront some of the biggest challenges of our time: cancer and nuclear terrorism. Before he would build a reactor that could hurl atoms together in a 500-million-degree plasma core—becoming, at 14, the youngest individual on Earth to achieve nuclear fusion.

WHEN I MEET Taylor Wilson, he is 16 and busy—far too busy, he says, to pursue a driver’s license. And so he rides shotgun as his father zigzags the family’s Land Rover up a steep trail in the Virginia Mountains north of Reno, Nevada, where they’ve come to prospect for uranium.

From the backseat, I can see Taylor’s gull-like profile, his forehead plunging from under his sandy blond bangs and continuing, in an almost unwavering line, along his prominent nose. His thinness gives him a wraithlike appearance, but when he’s lit up about something (as he is most waking moments), he does not seem frail. He has spent the past hour—the past few days, really—talking, analyzing, and breathlessly evangelizing about nuclear energy. We’ve gone back to the big bang and forward to mutually assured destruction and nuclear winter. In between are fission and fusion, Einstein and Oppenheimer, Chernobyl and Fukushima, matter and antimatter.

“Where does it come from?” Kenneth and his wife, Tiffany, have asked themselves many times. Kenneth is a Coca-Cola bottler, a skier, an ex-football player. Tiffany is a yoga instructor. “Neither of us knows a dang thing about science,” Kenneth says.

Almost from the beginning, it was clear that the older of the Wilsons’ two sons would be a difficult child to keep on the ground. It started with his first, and most pedestrian, interest: construction. As a toddler in Texarkana, the family’s hometown, Taylor wanted nothing to do with toys. He played with real traffic cones, real barricades. At age four, he donned a fluorescent orange vest and hard hat and stood in front of the house, directing traffic. For his fifth birthday, he said, he wanted a crane. But when his parents brought him to a toy store, the boy saw it as an act of provocation. “No,” he yelled, stomping his foot. “I want a real one.”

This is about the time any other father might have put his own foot down. But Kenneth called a friend who owns a construction company, and on Taylor’s birthday a six-ton crane pulled up to the party. The kids sat on the operator’s lap and took turns at the controls, guiding the boom as it swung above the rooftops on Northern Hills Drive.

To the assembled parents, dressed in hard hats, the Wilsons’ parenting style must have appeared curiously indulgent. In a few years, as Taylor began to get into some supremely dangerous stuff, it would seem perilously laissez-faire. But their approach to child rearing is, in fact, uncommonly intentional. “We want to help our children figure out who they are,” Kenneth says, “and then do everything we can to help them nurture that.”

At 10, Taylor hung a periodic table of the elements in his room. Within a week he memorized all the atomic numbers, masses and melting points. At the family’s Thanksgiving gathering, the boy appeared wearing a monogrammed lab coat and armed with a handful of medical lancets. He announced that he’d be drawing blood from everyone, for “comparative genetic experiments” in the laboratory he had set up in his maternal grandmother’s garage. Each member of the extended family duly offered a finger to be pricked.

The next summer, Taylor invited everyone out to the backyard, where he dramatically held up a pill bottle packed with a mixture of sugar and stump remover (potassium nitrate) that he’d discovered in the garage. He set the bottle down and, with a showman’s flourish, ignited the fuse that poked out of the top. What happened next was not the firecracker’s bang everyone expected, but a thunderous blast that brought panicked neighbors running from their houses. Looking up, they watched as a small mushroom cloud rose, unsettlingly, over the Wilsons’ yard.

For his 11th birthday, Taylor’s grandmother took him to Books-A-Million, where he picked out The Radioactive Boy Scout, by Ken Silverstein. The book told the disquieting tale of David Hahn, a Michigan teenager who, in the mid-1990s, attempted to build a breeder reactor in a backyard shed. Taylor was so excited by the book that he read much of it aloud: the boy raiding smoke detectors for radioactive americium . . . the cobbled-together reactor . . . the Superfund team in hazmat suits hauling away the family’s contaminated belongings. Kenneth and Tiffany heard Hahn’s story as a cautionary tale. But Taylor, who had recently taken a particular interest in the bottom two rows of the periodic table—the highly radioactive elements—read it as a challenge. “Know what?” he said. “The things that kid was trying to do, I’m pretty sure I can actually do them.”

A rational society would know what to do with a kid like Taylor Wilson, especially now that America’s technical leadership is slipping and scientific talent increasingly has to be imported. But by the time Taylor was 12, both he and his brother, Joey, who is three years younger and gifted in mathematics, had moved far beyond their school’s (and parents’) ability to meaningfully teach them. Both boys were spending most of their school days on autopilot, their minds wandering away from course work they’d long outgrown.

David Hahn had been bored too—and, like Taylor, smart enough to be dangerous. But here is where the two stories begin to diverge. When Hahn’s parents forbade his atomic endeavors, the angry teenager pressed on in secret. But Kenneth and Tiffany resisted their impulse to steer Taylor toward more benign pursuits. That can’t be easy when a child with a demonstrated talent and fondness for blowing things up proposes to dabble in nukes.

Kenneth and Tiffany agreed to let Taylor assemble a “survey of everyday radioactive materials” for his school’s science fair. Kenneth borrowed a Geiger counter from a friend at Texarkana’s emergency-management agency. Over the next few weekends, he and Tiffany shuttled Taylor around to nearby antique stores, where he pointed the clicking detector at old
radium-dial alarm clocks, thorium lantern mantles and uranium-glazed Fiesta plates. Taylor spent his allowance money on a radioactive dining set.

Drawn in by what he calls “the surprise properties” of radioactive materials, he wanted to know more. How can a speck of metal the size of a grain of salt put out such tremendous amounts of energy? Why do certain rocks expose film? Why does one isotope decay away in a millionth of a second while another has a half-life of two million years?

As Taylor began to wrap his head around the mind-blowing mysteries at the base of all matter, he could see that atoms, so small but potentially so powerful, offered a lifetime’s worth of secrets to unlock. Whereas Hahn’s resources had been limited, Taylor found that there was almost no end to the information he could find on the Internet, or to the oddities that he could purchase and store in the garage.

On top of tables crowded with chemicals and microscopes and germicidal black lights, an expanding array of nuclear fuel pellets, chunks of uranium and “pigs” (lead-lined containers) began to appear. When his parents pressed him about safety, Taylor responded in the convoluted jargon of inverse-square laws and distance intensities, time doses and roentgen submultiples. With his newfound command of these concepts, he assured them, he could master the furtive energy sneaking away from those rocks and metals and liquids—a strange and ever-multiplying cache that literally cast a glow into the corners of the garage.

Kenneth asked a nuclear-pharmacist friend to come over to check on Taylor’s safety practices. As far as he could tell, the friend said, the boy was getting it right. But he warned that radiation works in quick and complex ways. By the time Taylor learned from a mistake, it might be too late.

Lead pigs and glazed plates were only the beginning. Soon Taylor was getting into more esoteric “naughties”—radium quack cures, depleted uranium, radio-luminescent materials—and collecting mysterious machines, such as the mass spectrometer given to him by a former astronaut in Houston. As visions of Chernobyl haunted his parents, Taylor tried to reassure them. “I’m the responsible radioactive boy scout,” he told them. “I know what I’m doing.”

One afternoon, Tiffany ducked her head out of the door to the garage and spotted Taylor, in his canary yellow nuclear-technician’s coveralls, watching a pool of liquid spreading across the concrete floor. “Tay, it’s time for supper.”
“I think I’m going to have to clean this up first.”
“That’s not the stuff you said would kill us if it broke open, is it?”
“I don’t think so,” he said. “Not instantly.”

THAT SUMMER, Kenneth’s daughter from a previous marriage, Ashlee, then a college student, came to live with the Wilsons. “The explosions in the backyard were getting to be a bit much,” she told me, shortly before my own visit to the family’s home. “I could see everyone getting frustrated. They’d say something and Taylor would argue back, and his argument would be legitimate. He knows how to out-think you. I was saying, ‘You guys need to be parents. He’s ruling the roost.’ “

“What she didn’t understand,” Kenneth says, “is that we didn’t have a choice. Taylor doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘can’t.’ “

“And when he does,” Tiffany adds, “he doesn’t listen.”

“Looking back, I can see that,” Ashlee concedes. “I mean, you can tell Taylor that the world doesn’t revolve around him. But he doesn’t really get that. He’s not being selfish, it’s just that there’s so much going on in his head.”

Tiffany, for her part, could have done with less drama. She had just lost her sister, her only sibling. And her mother’s cancer had recently come out of remission. “Those were some tough times,” Taylor tells me one day, as he uses his mom’s gardening trowel to mix up a batch of yellowcake (the partially processed uranium that’s the stuff of WMD infamy) in a five-gallon bucket. “But as bad as it was with Grandma dying and all, that urine sure was something.”

Taylor looks sheepish. He knows this is weird. “After her PET scan she let me have a sample. It was so hot I had to keep it in a lead pig.

“The other thing is . . .” He pauses, unsure whether to continue but, being Taylor, unable to stop himself. “She had lung cancer, and she’d cough up little bits of tumor for me to dissect. Some people might think that’s gross, but I found it scientifically very interesting.”

What no one understood, at least not at first, was that as his grandmother was withering, Taylor was growing, moving beyond mere self-centeredness. The world that he saw revolving around him, the boy was coming to believe, was one that he could actually change.

The problem, as he saw it, is that isotopes for diagnosing and treating cancer are extremely short-lived. They need to be, so they can get in and kill the targeted tumors and then decay away quickly, sparing healthy cells. Delivering them safely and on time requires expensive handling—including, often, delivery by private jet. But what if there were a way to make those medical isotopes at or near the patients? How many more people could they reach, and how much earlier could they reach them? How many more people like his grandmother could be saved?

As Taylor stirred the toxic urine sample, holding the clicking Geiger counter over it, inspiration took hold. He peered into the swirling yellow center, and the answer shone up at him, bright as the sun. In fact, it was the sun—or, more precisely, nuclear fusion, the process (defined by Einstein as E=mc2) that powers the sun. By harnessing fusion—the moment when atomic nuclei collide and fuse together, releasing energy in the process—Taylor could produce the high-energy neutrons he would need to irradiate materials for medical isotopes. Instead of creating those isotopes in multimillion-dollar cyclotrons and then rushing them to patients, what if he could build a fusion reactor small enough, cheap enough and safe enough to produce isotopes as needed, in every hospital in the world?

At that point, only 10 individuals had managed to build working fusion reactors. Taylor contacted one of them, Carl Willis, then a 26-year-old Ph.D. candidate living in Albuquerque, and the two hit it off. But Willis, like the other successful fusioneers, had an advanced degree and access to a high-tech lab and precision equipment. How could a middle-school kid living on the Texas/Arkansas border ever hope to make his own star?

When Taylor was 13, just after his grandmother’s doctor had given her a few weeks to live, Ashlee sent Tiffany and Kenneth an article about a new school in Reno. The Davidson Academy is a subsidized public school for the nation’s smartest and most motivated students, those who score in the top 99.9th percentile on standardized tests. The school, which allows students to pursue advanced research at the adjacent University of Nevada–Reno, was founded in 2006 by software entrepreneurs Janice and Robert Davidson. Since then, the Davidsons have championed the idea that the most underserved students in the country are those at the top.

On the family’s first trip to Reno, even before Taylor and Joey were accepted to the academy, Taylor made an appointment with Friedwardt Winterberg, a celebrated physicist at the University of Nevada who had studied under the Nobel Prize–winning quantum theorist Werner Heisenberg. When Taylor told Winterberg that he wanted to build a fusion reactor, also called a fusor, the notoriously cranky professor erupted: “You’re 13 years old! And you want to play with tens of thousands of electron volts and deadly x-rays?” Such a project would be far too technically challenging and hazardous, Winterberg insisted, even for most doctoral candidates. “First you must master calculus, the language of science,” he boomed. “After that,” Tiffany said, “we didn’t think it would go anywhere. Kenneth and I were a bit relieved.”

But Taylor still hadn’t learned the word “can’t.” In the fall, when he began at Davidson, he found the two advocates he needed, one in the office right next door to Winterberg’s. “He had a depth of understanding I’d never seen in someone that young,” says atomic physicist Ronald Phaneuf. “But he was telling me he wanted to build the reactor in his garage, and I’m thinking, ‘Oh my lord, we can’t let him do that.’ But maybe we can help him try to do it here.”

Phaneuf invited Taylor to sit in on his upper-division nuclear physics class and introduced him to technician Bill Brinsmead. Brinsmead, a Burning Man devotee who often rides a wheeled replica of the Little Boy bomb through the desert, was at first reluctant to get involved in this 13-year-old’s project. But as he and Phaneuf showed Taylor around the department’s equipment room, Brinsmead recalled his own boyhood, when he was bored and unchallenged and aching to build something really cool and difficult (like a laser, which he eventually did build) but dissuaded by most of the adults who might have helped.

Rummaging through storerooms crowded with a geeky abundance of electron microscopes and instrumentation modules, they came across a high-vacuum chamber made of thick-walled stainless steel, capable of withstanding extreme heat and negative pressure. “Think I could use that for my fusor?” Taylor asked Brinsmead. “I can’t think of a more worthy cause,” Brinsmead said.

NOW IT’S TIFFANY who drives, along a dirt road that wends across a vast, open mesa a few miles south of the runways shared by Albuquerque’s airport and Kirkland Air Force Base. Taylor has convinced her to bring him to New Mexico to spend a week with Carl Willis, whom Taylor describes as “my best nuke friend.” Cocking my ear toward the backseat, I catch snippets of Taylor and Willis’s conversation.

“The idea is to make a gamma-ray laser from stimulated decay of dipositronium.”

“I’m thinking about building a portable, beam-on-target neutron source.”

“Need some deuterated polyethylene?”

Willis is now 30; tall and thin and much quieter than Taylor. When he’s interested in something, his face opens up with a blend of amusement and curiosity. When he’s uninterested, he slips into the far-off distractedness that’s common among the super-smart. Taylor and Willis like to get together a few times a year for what they call “nuclear tourism”—they visit research facilities, prospect for uranium, or run experiments.

Earlier in the week, we prospected for uranium in the desert and shopped for secondhand laboratory equipment in Los Alamos. The next day, we wandered through Bayo Canyon, where Manhattan Project engineers set off some of the largest dirty bombs in history in the course of perfecting Fat Man, which leveled Nagasaki.

Today we’re searching for remnants of a “broken arrow,” military lingo for a lost nuclear weapon. While researching declassified military reports, Taylor discovered that a Mark 17 “Peacemaker” hydrogen bomb, which was designed to be 700 times as powerful as the bomb detonated over Hiroshima, was accidentally dropped onto this mesa in May 1957. For the U.S. military, it was an embarrassingly Strangelovian episode; the airman in the bomb bay narrowly avoided his own Slim Pickens moment when the bomb dropped from its gantry and smashed the B-36’s doors open. Although its plutonium core hadn’t been inserted, the bomb’s “spark plug” of conventional explosives and radioactive material detonated on impact, creating a fireball and a massive crater. A grazing steer was the only reported casualty.

Tiffany parks the rented SUV among the mesquite, and we unload metal detectors and Geiger counters and fan out across the field. “This,” says Tiffany, smiling as she follows her son across the scrubland, “is how we spend our vacations.”

Willis says that when Taylor first contacted him, he was struck by the 12-year-old’s focus and forwardness—and by the fact that he couldn’t plumb the depth of Taylor’s knowledge with a few difficult technical questions. After checking with Kenneth, Willis sent Taylor some papers on fusion reactors. Then Taylor began acquiring pieces for his new machine.

Through his first year at Davidson, Taylor spent his afternoons in a corner of Phaneuf’s lab that the professor had cleared out for him, designing the reactor, overcoming tricky technical issues, tracking down critical parts. Phaneuf helped him find a surplus high-voltage insulator at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Willis, then working at a company that builds particle accelerators, talked his boss into parting with an extremely expensive high-voltage power supply.

With Brinsmead and Phaneuf’s help, Taylor stretched himself, applying knowledge from more than 20 technical fields, including nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, radiation metrology and electrical engineering. Slowly he began to test-assemble the reactor, troubleshooting pesky vacuum leaks, electrical problems and an intermittent plasma field.

Shortly after his 14th birthday, Taylor and Brinsmead loaded deuterium fuel into the machine, brought up the power, and confirmed the presence of neutrons. With that, Taylor became the 32nd individual on the planet to achieve a nuclear-fusion reaction. Yet what would set Taylor apart from the others was not the machine itself but what he decided to do with it.

While still developing his medical isotope application, Taylor came across a report about how the thousands of shipping containers entering the country daily had become the nation’s most vulnerable “soft belly,” the easiest entry point for weapons of mass destruction. Lying in bed one night, he hit on an idea: Why not use a fusion reactor to produce weapons-sniffing neutrons that could scan the contents of containers as they passed through ports? Over the next few weeks, he devised a concept for a drive-through device that would use a small reactor to bombard passing containers with neutrons. If weapons were inside, the neutrons would force the atoms into fission, emitting gamma radiation (in the case of nuclear material) or nitrogen (in the case of conventional explosives). A detector, mounted opposite, would pick up the signature and alert the operator.

He entered the reactor, and the design for his bomb-sniffing application, into the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. The Super Bowl of pre-college science events, the fair attracts 1,500 of the world’s most switched-on kids from some 50 countries. When Intel CEO Paul Otellini heard the buzz that a 14-year-old had built a working nuclear-fusion reactor, he went straight for Taylor’s exhibit. After a 20-minute conversation, Otellini was seen walking away, smiling and shaking his head in what looked like disbelief. Later, I would ask him what he was thinking. “All I could think was, ‘I am so glad that kid is on our side.’ “

For the past three years, Taylor has dominated the international science fair, walking away with nine awards (including first place overall), overseas trips and more than $100,000 in prizes. After the Department of Homeland Security learned of Taylor’s design, he traveled to Washington for a meeting with the DHS’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which invited Taylor to submit a grant proposal to develop the detector. Taylor also met with then–Under Secretary of Energy Kristina Johnson, who says the encounter left her “stunned.”

“I would say someone like him comes along maybe once in a generation,” Johnson says. “He’s not just smart; he’s cool and articulate. I think he may be the most amazing kid I’ve ever met.”

And yet Taylor’s story began much like David Hahn’s, with a brilliant, high-flying child hatching a crazy plan to build a nuclear reactor. Why did one journey end with hazmat teams and an eventual arrest, while the other continues to produce an array of prizes, patents, television appearances, and offers from college recruiters?

The answer is, mostly, support. Hahn, determined to achieve something extraordinary but discouraged by the adults in his life, pressed on without guidance or oversight—and with nearly catastrophic results. Taylor, just as determined but socially gifted, managed to gather into his orbit people who could help him achieve his dreams: the physics professor; the older nuclear prodigy; the eccentric technician; the entrepreneur couple who, instead of retiring, founded a school to nurture genius kids. There were several more, but none so significant as Tiffany and Kenneth, the parents who overcame their reflexive—and undeniably sensible—inclinations to keep their Icarus-like son on the ground. Instead they gave him the wings he sought and encouraged him to fly up to the sun and beyond, high enough to capture a star of his own.

After about an hour of searching across the mesa, our detectors begin to beep. We find bits of charred white plastic and chunks of aluminum—one of which is slightly radioactive. They are remnants of the lost hydrogen bomb. I uncover a broken flange with screws still attached, and Taylor digs up a hunk of lead. “Got a nice shard here,” Taylor yells, finding a gnarled piece of metal. He scans it with his detector. “Unfortunately, it’s not radioactive.”

“That’s the kind I like,” Tiffany says.

Willis picks up a large chunk of the bomb’s outer casing, still painted dull green, and calls Taylor over. “Wow, look at that warp profile!” Taylor says, easing his scintillation detector up to it. The instrument roars its approval. Willis, seeing Taylor ogling the treasure, presents it to him. Taylor is ecstatic. “It’s a field of dreams!” he yells. “This place is loaded!”

Suddenly we’re finding radioactive debris under the surface every five or six feet—even though the military claimed that the site was completely cleaned up. Taylor gets down on his hands and knees, digging, laughing, calling out his discoveries. Tiffany checks her watch. “Tay, we really gotta go or we’ll miss our flight.”

“I’m not even close to being done!” he says, still digging. “This is the best day of my life!” By the time we manage to get Taylor into the car, we’re running seriously late. “Tay,” Tiffany says, “what are we going to do with all this stuff?”

“For $50, you can check it on as excess baggage,” Willis says. “You don’t label it, nobody knows what it is, and it won’t hurt anybody.” A few minutes later, we’re taping an all-too-flimsy box shut and loading it into the trunk. “Let’s see, we’ve got about 60 pounds of uranium, bomb fragments and radioactive shards,” Taylor says. “This thing would make a real good dirty bomb.”

In truth, the radiation levels are low enough that, without prolonged close-range exposure, the cargo poses little danger. Still, we stifle the jokes as we pull up to curbside check-in. “Think it will get through security?” Tiffany asks Taylor.

“There are no radiation detectors in airports,” Taylor says. “Except for one pilot project, and I can’t tell you which airport that’s at.”

As the skycap weighs the box, I scan the “prohibited items” sign. You can’t take paints, flammable materials or water on a commercial airplane. But sure enough, radioactive materials are not listed.

We land in Reno and make our way toward the baggage claim. “I hope that box held up,” Taylor says, as we approach the carousel. “And if it didn’t, I hope they give us back the radioactive goodies scattered all over the airplane.” Soon the box appears, adorned with a bright strip of tape and a note inside explaining that the package has been opened and inspected by the TSA. “They had no idea,” Taylor says, smiling, “what they were looking at.”

APART FROM THE fingerprint scanners at the door, Davidson Academy looks a lot like a typical high school. It’s only when the students open their mouths that you realize that this is an exceptional place, a sort of Hogwarts for brainiacs. As these math whizzes, musical prodigies and chess masters pass in the hallway, the banter flies in witty bursts. Inside humanities classes, discussions spin into intellectual duels.

Although everyone has some kind of advanced obsession, there’s no question that Taylor is a celebrity at the school, where the lobby walls are hung with framed newspaper clippings of his accomplishments. Taylor and I visit with the principal, the school’s founders and a few of Taylor’s friends. Then, after his calculus class, we head over to the university’s physics department, where we meet Phaneuf and Brinsmead.

Taylor’s reactor, adorned with yellow radiation-warning signs, dominates the far corner of Phaneuf’s lab. It looks elegant—a gleaming stainless-steel and glass chamber on top of a cylindrical trunk, connected to an array of sensors and feeder tubes. Peering through the small window into the reaction chamber, I can see the golf-ball-size grid of tungsten fingers that will cradle the plasma, the state of matter in which unbound electrons, ions and photons mix freely with atoms and molecules.

“OK, y’all stand back,” Taylor says. We retreat behind a wall of leaden blocks as he shakes the hair out of his eyes and flips a switch. He turns a knob to bring the voltage up and adds in some gas. “This is exactly how me and Bill did it the first time,” he says. “But now we’ve got it running even better.”

Through a video monitor, I watch the tungsten wires beginning to glow, then brightening to a vivid orange. A blue cloud of plasma appears, rising and hovering, ghostlike, in the center of the reaction chamber. “When the wires disappear,” Phaneuf says, “that’s when you know you have a lethal radiation field.”

I watch the monitor while Taylor concentrates on the controls and gauges, especially the neutron detector they’ve dubbed Snoopy. “I’ve got it up to 25,000 volts now,” Taylor says. “I’m going to out-gas it a little and push it up.”

Willis’s power supply crackles. The reactor is entering “star mode.” Rays of plasma dart between gaps in the now-invisible grid as deuterium atoms, accelerated by the tremendous voltages, begin to collide. Brinsmead keeps his eyes glued to the neutron detector. “We’re getting neutrons,” he shouts. “It’s really jamming!”

Taylor cranks it up to 40,000 volts. “Whoa, look at Snoopy now!” Phaneuf says, grinning. Taylor nudges the power up to 50,000 volts, bringing the temperature of the plasma inside the core to an incomprehensible 580 million degrees—some 40 times as hot as the core of the sun. Brinsmead lets out a whoop as the neutron gauge tops out.

“Snoopy’s pegged!” he yells, doing a little dance. On the video screen, purple sparks fly away from the plasma cloud, illuminating the wonder in the faces of Phaneuf and Brinsmead, who stand in a half-orbit around Taylor. In the glow of the boy’s creation, the men suddenly look years younger.

Taylor keeps his thin fingers on the dial as the atoms collide and fuse and throw off their energy, and the men take a step back, shaking their heads and wearing ear-to-ear grins.

“There it is,” Taylor says, his eyes locked on the machine. “The birth of a star.”

Read more PopSci+ stories.

The post How a 14-year-old kid became the youngest person to achieve nuclear fusion appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Back in 2021, President Joe Biden announced the administration’s new Justice40 Initiative through Executive Order 14008. The program’s aim is that 40 percent of the benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities. Investments related to climate change, clean energy, reduction of legacy pollution, and the development of water and wastewater infrastructure, among others, all fall within the initiative.

The administration doesn’t intend the program to be a one-time investment, but rather, a way to improve the distribution of the benefits of government programs and ensure that they reach disadvantaged communities. Since it was established, 19 federal agencies have released a total of nearly 470 covered programs, with three agencies joining just last month. While it’s promising that the administration recognizes the need to address long-standing equities, it’s critical to assess how they plan to make environmental justice a reality.

Marginalized and underserved communities must be prioritized to advance environmental justice

Hannah Perls, senior staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program (EELP), says that many of the environmental injustices around the country today are the result of a legacy of disinvestment in low-income communities. This is especially true in communities of color where “racist policies barred or discouraged public and private investment in housing, critical infrastructure, public transit, and natural spaces.”

[Related: Stronger pollution protections mean focusing on specific communities.]

These communities often face greater exposure to industrial pollution, higher health risks from deteriorating infrastructure, and more energy and housing burdens than wealthier, white communities, says Perls. They also lose out often in competitive federal funding processes—and in some cases, funding is intentionally withheld. This only reinforces existing wealth disparities. By explicitly targeting that 40 percent of federal climate investments reach these communities, the Justice 40 Initiative hopes to combat the legacy of disinvestment and equitably distribute the benefits of the transition to renewable energy, she adds.

To identify disadvantaged communities, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has put out its Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), a geospatial mapping tool that identifies overburdened and underserved census tracts across all states.

“Agencies can build upon the CEJST as needed, again on a program-by-program basis,” says Perls. “One benefit of this flexibility is that agencies can incorporate burdens specific to their jurisdiction. For example, the Department of Energy’s definition incorporates five measures of energy burden and two measures of fossil dependence.”

The CEJST is an exciting starting point that the federal government can continue to refine. That said, “environmental justice burdens don’t necessarily follow census boundaries, so there should be opportunities for communities to make the case to receive federal dollars if their community is not identified by the tool,” says Silvia R. González, director of climate change, environmental justice, and health research at the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Initiative.

How to ensure that the benefits reach disadvantaged communities

All covered programs are required to consult the community stakeholders, ensure their involvement in determining program benefits, and report data on said benefits. An established number of 40 percent provides clear guidelines and expectations for agencies. To strengthen that goal, a team of researchers and advocates recommend that the 40 percent be a minimum for direct investments in disadvantaged communities.

“A direct investment means the percentage is not just a goal that relies on counting trickle-down benefits,” says González, who was involved in the report. “The straightforward nature of a direct benefit strategy would enhance transparency and accountability to taxpayers because it is tough to measure trickle-down benefits.”

To ensure investment objectives are met, transparency in reporting and evaluation is necessary, she adds. Accountability mechanisms are a must in guaranteeing equitable, effective, and efficient implementation.

[Related: The hard truth of building clean solar farms.]

“We currently have no federal environmental justice law,” says Perls. “As a result, most of the administration’s environmental justice commitments, including the Justice40 Initiative, are established via Executive Order and are therefore not judicially enforceable.”

Fortunately, there are some ways to monitor how the government is living up to its promises. The administration recently published the first version of the Environmental Justice Scorecard, a government-wide assessment of the actions taken by federal agencies to achieve environmental justice goals. Harvard Law School’s EELP also has a Federal Environmental Justice Tracker that tracks the progress of the administration’s environmental justice commitments and other agency-specific initiatives.

Overall, experts say it’s a positive sign that the Justice40 Initiative has catalyzed critical discussions to face climate change and historical disinvestment head-on. But as with any ambitious policy agenda, the implementation will need to overcome many hurdles, says González. The most vulnerable communities tend to be those that are least resourced, and they should not get left behind. Some communities or households may be under-resourced due to language, technology, trust, and capacity barriers to programs that can help them develop financial and health resiliency. There will need to be capacity-building and technical assistance for under-resourced communities to apply for and manage these investments, she adds.

In general, there is strong potential for Justice40-covered programs to bring transformational change from the bottom up. The knowledge and lived experiences of disadvantaged communities could shape targeted investments to ensure that their needs are met. “I hope Justice40 builds a framework rooted in principles of self-governance and self-determination, direct engagement, and collaboration with communities,” says González, “instead of top-down solutions.”

The post How the US is fighting wealth disparities in climate action appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Decarbonizing the energy sector requires ramping up power generation from renewable sources. However, increasing renewable energy generation poses some challenges, like mismatches between production and demand. Output from renewables varies seasonally and annually due to insolation differences and trends in weather, which means there may be periods of over- and undergeneration.

Seasonal heating and cooling—usually the largest energy expenses in households—don’t align often with renewable energy generation patterns, says Amarasinghage T. Perera, an associate research scholar in the Andlinger Center for Energy and Environment at Princeton University. For instance, there is higher heating demand in the winter, but more renewable energy generation during the summer. In such cases, it’s important to store additional energy in the summer to cater to the winter heating demand, he adds. This explains why long-term energy storage is needed to support renewable technologies.

According to a recent study published in Applied Energy, underground water has the potential for storing much-needed renewable energy. This approach, called aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES), uses naturally occurring groundwater or aquifers for long-term storage of thermal energy that can be used to assist the heating and cooling of buildings, says Perera, who was involved in the study.

[Related: Scientists think we can get 90 percent clean energy by 2035.]

In an ATES system, there are two wells connected to the same groundwater reservoir. During the summer, cold groundwater is pumped up to provide cooling, warmed at the surface, and then stored. During the winter, the opposite happens—the warm groundwater is pumped up to provide heating, cooled at the surface, and then stored. The cycle repeats seasonally.

Energy storage is often discussed in relation to decarbonizing the transportation sector by replacing internal combustion engine vehicles with those supported by battery and hydrogen storage. However, for grid storage, the materials required to store electric charge in batteries have a high energy cost, while hydrogen storage results in significant energy losses. Perera says more research funding can help identify the broader potential of thermal energy storage technologies.

“Compared to conventional groundwater heat pumps, the extraction of heated or cooled groundwater which was previously injected into the subsurface enables a more efficient operation,” says Ruben Stemmle, a researcher from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)’s Institute of Applied Geosciences in Germany who was not involved in the study. ATES systems can also store excess heat from industrial processes, combined heat and power plants, or solar thermal energy. Overall, it helps bridge the seasonal mismatch between the demand and availability of thermal energy, he adds.

Long-term seasonal storage and demand-driven utilization of previously unused heat sources, like waste heat or excess solar thermal energy, can promote the decarbonization of the heating and cooling sector, as well as reduce primary energy consumption, says Stemmle.

According to the study, ATES can improve the flexibility of the energy system, allowing it to withstand fluctuations in renewable energy demand and generation from future climate variations. It could make urban energy infrastructure more resilient by preventing additional burdens on the grid during hot or cold months.

[Related: How can electrified buildings handle energy peaks?]

ATES has very high storage capacities due to large volumes of groundwater available in many areas like major groundwater basins and complex hydrological structures. This enables ATES application for district heating and cooling or large building complexes with high energy demands, says Stemmle. It can significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels compared to conventional types of heating and cooling, he adds, like gas boilers and compression chillers.

Currently, there are over 3,000 ATES systems in the Netherlands alone. Some are also found in Sweden, Denmark, and Belgium. They aren’t as widely used in the US yet, but adding ATES to the grid could reduce the consumption of petroleum products by up to 40 percent.

To increase ATES deployment, policymakers can support funding programs for ATES systems and related technologies, like heat pumps and heating grids, says Stemmle. He emphasizes the importance of decreasing market barriers as well, which can be achieved by establishing a simple and rapid permitting procedure and a uniform regulatory framework governing ATES operations. The deployment of such thermal energy storage systems could help achieve a more climate change-resilient grid in the future.

The post Could aquifers store renewable thermal energy? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Grist.

In the premier episode of Apple TV’s climate show, Extrapolations, it’s 2037 and Earth is in turmoil. Global temperatures have reached record highs. Wildfires rage on every continent. People lack clean drinking water, while a stone-faced billionaire hoards patents to life-saving desalination technology. 

People are understandably upset. Because it’s nearly a decade and a half in the future, protests now include towering holograms and desperate calls to limit global warming — which has long since blown past 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — to 2 degrees C. One thing is eerily familiar, though: In one scene, demonstrators chant “net-zero now!” — a catchphrase with origins at the end of the last decade. 

To some, this is a surprising slogan to hear today, let alone in 2037. Although the concept of global net-zero is rooted in climate science, today’s carbon neutrality pledges from individual governments and corporations have been criticized in some quarters as a “con,” because they allow polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases. The carbon offset projects that are supposed to neutralize all those residual emissions are often questionable, if not a sham.

“If today’s version of net-zero is still the rallying cry for climate action 15 years from now, we are in big, big trouble,” said Rachel Rose Jackson, director of climate research and policy for the nonprofit Corporate Accountability. “I hope we’re headed down a different path.”

Just what that path looks like, however, remains a matter of debate.

The concept of net-zero is rooted in the climate science of the early 2000s. Between 2005 and 2009, a series of research articles showed that global temperatures would continue rising alongside net emissions of carbon dioxide. The “net” acknowledged the role of long-term processes like deep-ocean carbon uptake, in which the seas absorb the pollutant from the air. These processes occur over decades, even centuries.

The term “net-zero” doesn’t appear in the Paris Agreement of 2015, but it was at about that time that it went mainstream. Based on recommendations from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, countries agreed in Article 4 of the accord to achieve a “balance” between sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions during the second half of the century.

So far, so good; this is relatively noncontroversial. “Global net-zero is nonnegotiable if you’re serious about climate targets,” said Sam Fankhauser, a professor of climate change economics and policy at the University of Oxford. Where things start to skew, however, is when individual countries and businesses adopt net-zero targets for themselves. “That’s where you leave the science and get into the realm of policy and opinion,” Fankhauser said.

Sweden became the first country to legislate a midcentury net-zero goal in 2017. Since then, that target has exploded in popularity, almost to the exclusion of other pledges. Some 92 percent of the global economy is now covered by a patchwork of such commitments, made by entities including 130 countries and 850 of the planet’s largest publicly traded companies. 

Fankhauser considers that good news. “None of those firms or organizations had any targets at all before, so they’re moving in the right direction,” he said, although he added that there’s lots of room for improvement in the integrity of those promises. A global analysis published last year found that 65 percent of the largest corporate net-zero targets don’t meet minimum reporting standards, and only 40 percent of municipal targets are reflected in legislation or policy documents.

Others, however, have harsher words for something they consider little more than “rank deception” from big polluters. With heads of state and fossil fuel companies pledging net-zero yet planning to expand oil and gas reserves, Jackson said the logic behind carbon neutrality has been “completely lit on fire” by greenwashing governments and corporations. “They have entirely co-opted the net-zero agenda,” she said. 

At the heart of the issue lies that little word, “net,” and the offsets it implies. When companies or governments can’t get their climate pollution to zero, they can pay for offset projects to either remove carbon from the atmosphere or prevent hypothetical emissions — like by protecting a stand of trees that otherwise would have been razed. Under ideal conditions, a third party evaluates these offsets and converts them into “credits” polluters can use to claim that some of their emissions have been neutralized.

The problem, however, is these offsets are too often bogus — the market for them is “honestly kind of a Wild West,” said Amanda Levin, interim director of policy analysis for the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. For projects claiming to avoid emissions, it’s difficult to prove the counterfactual: Would a given forest really have been cut down without the offset project? And carbon removal schemes like those based on afforestation — planting trees that will store carbon as they grow — might last only a few years if a disease or forest fire comes along.

Levin said polluters too often use poorly regulated and opaque “junk offsets” to delay the absolute emissions reductions required to combat climate change. Although the IPCC includes offsets in nearly all of its pathways to keep global warming well below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), experts agree those offsets should be considered a last resort used only when it’s no longer possible to further cut climate pollution. 

“Net-zero does not mean that we don’t have to take steps to directly reduce our emissions,” Levin said. 

Many, many others — from environmental groups to scientists to policymakers — agree. Where opinions differ, however, is what to do about it. Many net-zero critiques are paired with suggestions for reform, like a 2022 report from a U.N. panel that blasted nongovernmental net-zero pledges as “greenwash.” It recommended tighter guidelines on reporting and transparency, as well as new measures to ensure the integrity of offsets.

Carbon Market Watch, a European watchdog and think tank, takes a slightly different approach. In a February letter to members of the European Parliament, the organization called for a total ban on “carbon neutrality” claims for companies’ products, arguing that such boasts give consumers the false idea that business as usual can continue without adverse impacts on the climate or environment. 

“To say that you neutralize your climate impact by investing in an avoided deforestation program halfway across the world? That’s not scientifically sound,” said Lindsay Otis, a policy expert for Carbon Market Watch. “It deters from real mitigation efforts that will keep us in line with our Paris Agreement goals.”

To Otis, it’s not necessarily offset projects that should be banned. Although she acknowledged that many are problematic, she said mitigation efforts like reforestation can have “a potential real-world benefit,” and it would be a mistake to stop funding them. Instead, she considers this a communication problem: Rather than allowing companies to claim carbon mitigation projects cancel out residual emissions, Carbon Market Watch favors a “contribution claim” model, in which polluters advertise only their financial support for such projects. Some carbon credit sellers like Myclimate are embracing a version of that model, as is the global payment service Klarna.

Carbon Market Watch distinguishes between “carbon neutrality” claims, which describe companies’ products and current environmental performance, and “net-zero” claims about what companies say they’ll do in the future, as in “net-zero by 2050.” It says the latter are still permissible, but only if backed by a detailed plan to quickly drive down emissions and not offset them.

On its face, this is similar to an alternative benchmark that has gained popularity in recent years: “real zero,” which involves the rapid elimination of all fossil fuel production and greenhouse gas emissions without the use of offsets. At least two major companies, the utilities NextEra and National Grid, have eschewed their own net-zero goals in favor of real zero. However, some environmental groups — including a coalition of 700 organizations from around the world — take the concept further. They see real zero as a whole new lens with which to view equitable climate action, one that rejects a single-minded, technocratic focus on greenhouse gas emissions. 

“The real zero framing puts at the center not just the urgency” of climate mitigation, “but also fairness,” said Jackson, the policy director at Corporate Accountability. She and others say real zero is an opportunity to reorient the international climate agenda around new priorities, like funneling climate finance to the developing world and protecting Indigenous land rights. It also sets faster decarbonization timelines for the biggest historical polluters and demands that they pay reparations to communities most harmed by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

It’s a far-reaching and ambitious agenda, and its calls for climate justice are broadly supported by experts and policy wonks. Still, some push back, returning to the idea of net-zero as a global necessity. 

“While real zero is a valuable guiding light, net-zero is still a worthy and necessary goal,” said Jackie Ennis, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Her modeling shows that even the most ambitious carbon mitigation scenarios will require offsets for the hardest-to-abate corners of the economy, which she defined to include waste management and animal agriculture. She pointed to work from the independent Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market to define criteria that define a “high-quality” offset — including whether it contributes to sustainable development goals and doesn’t violate the rights of Indigenous peoples.

According to Fankhauser, the “gold standard” here is geological removal, in which carbon is drawn out of the atmosphere and locked up in rock formations. This technology can’t yet handle even a tiny fraction of the planet’s overall carbon emissions, but experts say it could one day enable offsets that are less prone to double-counting and more likely to sequester carbon for the long haul.

Fankhauser suggested a sort of middle ground between real and net-zero, in which governments set different decarbonization targets for different sectors: net-zero for those like shipping and steel-making for which zero-carbon alternatives aren’t yet viable, and the total elimination of emissions for the rest of the economy. Some jurisdictions already do something like this. The economy-wide net-zero target set by New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act prohibits offsets for the power sector and caps them at 15 percent for the state’s overall emissions by 2050. That means 85 percent of Empire State emissions reductions must come from actually reducing emissions. 

“That’s a perfect example of how policymakers are trying to constrain the use of offsets so they’re being used where it’s most valuable,” said Levin, with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

More global efforts, however, are hard to come by, likely because there’s so much contention around the net-zero agenda. One thing people seem to agree on, however, is that the status quo is not working. Although thousands of companies and governments have pledged to reach net-zero sometime in the next several decades, the planet is still on track for dangerous levels of global warming — 2.8 degrees C (5 degrees F), to be precise. That’s more than enough to “cook the fool out of you,” as one protester in Extrapolations so eloquently put it.

“The current trajectory is one of failure,” Jackson told Grist, though she said it’s not too late to turn things around. “The money exists, the technology exists, the capacity exists — it’s only the lack of political will. If we’re brave enough to alter course and redirect toward what we know is needed, then a totally different world is possible.”

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org.

The post Inside climate activists’ uneasy relationship with ‘net-zero’ appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com.

Offshore wind is one of the fastest-growing sources of renewable energy, and with its expansion comes increasing scrutiny of its potential side effects. Alessandro Cresci, a biologist at the Institute of Marine Research in Norway, and his team have now shown that larval cod are attracted to one of the low-frequency sounds emitted by wind turbines, suggesting offshore wind installations could potentially alter the early life of microscopic fish that drift too close.

Cresci and his colleagues made their discovery through experiments conducted in the deep fjord water near the Austevoll Research Station in Norway. The team placed 89 cod larvae in floating transparent mesh chambers that allowed them to drift naturally, then filmed as they subjected half the fish in 15-minute trials to the output of an underwater sound projector set to 100 Hz to mimic the deep thrum put out by wind turbines.

When left to their own devices, all of the cod larvae oriented themselves to the northwest. Like the closely related haddock, cod have an innate sense of direction that guides their ocean swimming. When the scientists played the low-frequency sound, the baby fish still had a northwest preference, but it was weak. Instead, the larvae favored pointing their bodies in the direction of the sound. Cresci thinks the larvae may be attracted to the 100-Hz sound waves because that low frequency is among the symphony of sounds sometimes part of the background din along the coastline or near the bottom of the ocean where the fish might like to settle.

As sound waves propagate through water, they compress and decompress water molecules in their path. Fish can tell what direction a sound is coming from by detecting changes in the motion of water particles. “In water,” says Cresci, fish are “connected to the medium around them, so all the vibrations in the molecules of water are transferred to the body.”

Like other creatures on land and in the sea, fish use sound to communicate, avoid predators, find prey, and understand the world around them. Sound also helps many marine creatures find the best place to live. In previous research, scientists have shown that by playing the sounds of a thriving reef near a degraded reef they could cause more fish to settle in the area. For many species, where they settle as larvae is where they tend to be found as adults.

Even if larval fish are attracted to offshore wind farms en masse, what happens next is yet unknown.

Since fishers typically can’t safely operate near turbines, offshore wind farms could become pseudo protected areas where fish populations can grow large. But Ella Kim, a graduate student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego who studies fish acoustics and was not involved with the study, says it could go the other way.

Kim suggests that even if fish larvae do end up coalescing within offshore wind farms, the noise from the turbines and increased boat traffic to service the equipment could drown out fish communication. “Once these larvae get there,” Kim says, “will they have such impaired hearing that they won’t be able to even hear each other and reproduce?”

Aaron Rice, a bioacoustician at Cornell University in New York who was not involved with the study, says the research is useful because it shows that not only can fish larvae hear the sound, but that they’re responding to it by orienting toward it. Rice adds, however, that the underwater noise from real wind turbines is far more complex than the lone 100-Hz sound tested in the study. He says care should be taken in reading too much into the results.

As well as noise pollution, many marine species are also at risk from overfishing, rising ocean temperatures, and other pressures. When trying to decide whether offshore wind power is a net benefit or harm for marine life, says Rice, it’s important to keep these other elements in mind.

“The more understanding that we can have in terms of how offshore wind [power] impacts the ocean,” he says, “the better we can respond to the changing demands and minimize impacts.”

This article first appeared in Hakai Magazine and is republished here with permission.

The post Baby cod seem to be drawn to the lullaby of wind turbines appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best Overall		HQST Solar Panel 2pcs 100 Watt 12V Monocrystalline		SEE IT	Get renewable energy for the campsite, RV, or even the home with these impressive monocrystalline solar panels.
Best for the Money		Nekteck 21W Solar Charge		SEE IT	Lightweight and affordable, these monocrystalline solar panels are ideal for backpacking or hiking.
Best for Camping		Goal Zero Boulder 200 Watt Briefcase		SEE IT	This foldable pair of solar panels is easy to pack into a vehicle and set up at a campsite using the built-in kickstand to get the best angle.

Hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar panels all represent the future of renewable energy. But why wait for everyone else to figure out the benefits when you can take the initiative to start relying on renewable energy today? Whether you are looking to completely power a home, generate power for an RV, or just charge your phone at the campsite, have the best solar panels are an excellent choice. 

The best solar panels are typically made with monocrystalline silicon wafers. Their high efficiency and power output make them ideal for powering a home. However, polycrystalline and thin film solar panels are also effective choices that are more affordable. To get a better understanding of the various products available, take a look at this list of top products, then keep reading for detailed information on solar panel types, size, weight, and device integration to help you find the best solar panels for long-lasting renewable energy.

• Best overall: HQST Solar Panel 2pcs 100 Watt 12V Monocrystalline
• Best for the money: Nekteck 21W Solar Charger
• Best for camping: Goal Zero Boulder 200 Watt Briefcase
• Best portable: Jackery SolarSaga 60W Solar Panel
• Best for RVs: Renogy 200 Watt Monocrystalline

How we chose the best solar panels

Having used solar panels to power camp stoves, mobile devices, and power stations for many camping trips, this first-hand experience helped to found the basis for the selection criteria, though extension research was also required in order to choose the best products from over 30 different panels. The top choices were selected based on the type of solar panel, the size and weight of each product, as well as the suitability of the solar panel for various uses, like powering solar generators, hiking, camping, or heading out in the RV.

Monocrystalline products represent the best options available simply because they outperform both polycrystalline and thin film solar panels in both efficiency and power output. The size and weight of a panel impacts the suitability of the product for specific uses. For instance, a 50-pound solar panel isn’t a good choice for hiking, but it works perfectly well for powering the home or even mounting on an RV. Lighter-weight products may blow off a home or RV. The efficiency and power output of each product impacted our decision-making, but the individual ranges were typical representations of each type. Monocrystalline products offer the best efficiency and power output. Polycrystalline panels are the second best, while thin film products rely more on affordability and portability to stand out.  

The best solar panels: Reviews & Recommendations

Whether you’re using a solar panel to power a solar generator for an outdoor party or preparing to go off the grid, we have plenty of choices to fit your lifestyle, budget, and use. Look on the bright side of life by checking out our recommendations below.

Best overall: HQST Solar Panel 2pcs 100 Watt 12V Monocrystalline

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: These monocrystalline panels have corrosion-resistant aluminum frames to ensure the solar panels can be used outdoors for an extended period of time.

Specs

• Type: Monocrystalline
• Output: 100 Watts
• Weight: 12.1 pounds

Pros

• High efficiency rating of 21 percent
• Suitable for houses, boats, caravans, RVs, or camping
• Durable, corrosion-resistant aluminum frame

Cons

• Must connect to compatible power station to charge mobile devices

The HQST 2-Piece Solar Panel Set comes with two 100-watt panels that each measure 40.1 inches tall by 20 inches wide. They’re just 1.2 inches thick. These best-quality solar panels have predrilled holes in the back of their frames that make it much easier to mount the panels to Z-brackets, pole mounts, or tilt mounts. 

Each panel weighs 12.1 pounds and they can either be used separately or collectively to generate electricity. However, it should be noted that these solar panels are made for charging power stations, backup batteries, and any vehicles that operate with a 12V battery. This means that they are not equipped with outlets for USB, USB-C, or any other adapters for mobile devices. 

The panels are supported by a durable aluminum frame that is specifically designed to resist corrosion, withstand snow loads of up to 112.8 pounds per square foot (PSF), and weather any winds of up to 140 miles per hour. With a high-efficiency rating of 21 percent and the versatility to be used for a house, boat, caravan, RV, or even camping, these panels are an excellent option for safe, renewable energy.

Best for the money: Nekteck 21W Solar Charger

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Pack this lightweight product into a backpack to take to the campsite and take advantage of the two built-in USB ports for mobile device charging.

Specs

• Type: Monocrystalline
• Output: 21 Watts
• Weight: 1.1 pounds

Pros

• High efficiency rating of 21 to 24 percent
• Foldable and compact for easy storage
• Best suited for hiking, backpacking, and camping

Cons

• Can easily blow away in moderate wind if not secured

These best solar panels for the money are lightweight and essential for camping, backpacking, and hiking trips that require the user to carry everything they need in a backpack. The Nekteck 21W Solar Charger weighs just 1.1 pounds and can fold up to just a quarter of the original size, saving space in the user’s backpack. When this product is unfoldable it reveals three monocrystalline solar panels that each have an efficiency rating of about 21 to 24 percent, ensuring that a high level of energy is captured from the sun and transferred to the USB outputs.

Plug in up to two USB devices at once to draw power directly from the 21-watt panels. It’s flexible, so it’s easy to arrange in such a way that it gets a good look at the sun. Simply adjust the angle and position of the solar panels according to the current position of the sun. Just keep in mind that this product only weighs 1.1 pounds, so even moderate winds can carry the panels away if they are not secured.

Best for camping: Goal Zero Boulder 200 Watt Briefcase

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Pack the briefcase-style monocrystalline panels into the truck or car and use the built-in kickstand for optimal positioning.

Specs

• Type: Monocrystalline
• Output: 200 Watts
• Weight: 46.2 pounds

Pros

• High efficiency rating of 21 percent
• Built-in kickstand
• Folds to just half the original size
• Comes with a carrying case and handle

Cons

• Too heavy to carry on hikes or backpacking trips 

The goal of camping is to get out into the wilderness and enjoy the outdoors, but it doesn’t have to mean totally abandoning technology. In fact, it’s advised to at least have an emergency radio available at all times to stay up to date on current and future weather conditions, as well as call for help in emergencies. The Goal Zero Boulder 200-Watt Solar Panels is an excellent option to ensure that the campsite has power for the emergency radio, mobile device, electric camp stoves, and any other items that users take with them camping. 

Each solar panel has a power output of 100 Watts, but both panels are attached and cannot be used independently, so these monocrystalline panels have a combined output of 200 Watts and an efficiency rating of 21 percent. The panels come with a carrying case, a built-in handle, and a kickstand to make transporting and setting up the panels easier. Even with those portability features, the 46.2-pound weight makes this the best solar panels for camping but a poor option for hiking or backpacking. 

Best portable: Jackery SolarSaga 60W Solar Panel

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: A built-in kickstand and handle make this foldable 60-Watt solar panel easy to carry and set up.

Specs

• Type: Monocrystalline
• Output: 60 Watts
• Weight: 6.6 pounds 

Pros

• High efficiency rating of 23 percent
• Built-in kickstand and handle
• Lightweight and compact

Cons

• Vulnerable to high winds
• Low power output

Despite its small size, the Jackery Solar Saga Solar Panel has a high-efficiency rating of 23 percent due to the premium monocrystalline construction. However, while the size doesn’t impact the efficiency of the silicon wafers, it does reduce the overall power output to just 60 Watts. That stream is still more than enough to charge up to two devices at once through the USB-C and USB-A ports. Additionally, the panels can connect to an available power station to simply store the collected energy until the sun goes down and the camp lights come out. 

These best portable solar panels can fold in half and it has built-in handles to make it easier to carry. It weighs just 6.6 pounds, which is ideal for hiking, backpacking, and camping, though the slight weight does leave the panels vulnerable to high winds. The built-in kickstand helps to support the panels, but it’s advised to secure them to be certain that they do not get blown away.

Best for RVs: Renogy 200 Watt Monocrystalline

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: Set up these monocrystalline panels to get an output of up to 200 Watts at an efficiency rating of 21 percent.

Specs

• Type: Monocrystalline
• Output: 200 Watts
• Weight: 35.9 pounds

Pros

• High efficiency rating of 21 percent
• Comes with a solar charge controller
• Adjustable, corrosion-resistant aluminum stand
• Built-in handles

Cons

• Too heavy for hiking or backpacking

Operate the accessories and charging ports on an RV or a boat with these impressive Renogy 200-Watt Panels. These best solar panels for RVs come equipped with a solar charger controller to convert the solar power to usable electricity for both 12V and 24V batteries. The controller has a clear LCD display so that the user can review the operating information, switch between Amp and Volts on the display, and use the controller to set the battery type. 

Mount the panels to the RV or simply use the built-in stand to set these panels up in the optimal position to absorb energy from the sun. This product is made with monocrystalline silicon wafers with an efficiency rating of 21 percent and a combined power output of 200 Watts, though it should be mentioned that each solar panel has an individual output of just 100 Watts. These panels weigh 35.9 pounds, so they are not the best for hiking or backpacking, but the heavy weight and adjustable, corrosion-resistant aluminum stand ensure that the panels can hold up in poor weather.

Things to consider when buying the best solar panels

Solar panels are an investment that should be carefully considered in order to ensure that you get the best option for your situation. There are significant differences between the capabilities of the various solar panel types, but the size, weight, portability, and device integration can also help to determine which products are the best solar panels for camping, backpacking, or installing on the roof of your home. Take some time to learn about these important factors before making a decision. 

Solar panel types

The type of solar tech you choose for your panels can have a profound effect on the appearance, cost, efficiency, and power absorption. The three main types can be differentiated by the material that is used to make the solar cells, including monocrystalline, polycrystalline, and thin film.

• Monocrystalline solar panels are made with silicon wafers that are cut from a single silicon crystal. This construction method and material results in higher efficiency and power output than either polycrystalline or thin film panels. Monocrystalline products tend to have an efficiency that exceeds 20 percent, while the power output can range from 100 Watts (W) to over 400 Watts. However, these products usually cost more than both polycrystalline and thin film solar panels.
• Polycrystalline solar panels can immediately be differentiated from monocrystalline due to the blue solar cells instead of black cells. The color differences, as well as the lower efficiency and power output, can be linked to the way in which polycrystalline solar panels are made. Instead of using a single silicon crystal to create the silicon wafers, a polycrystalline solar panel is made up of silicon crystal fragments that have been melted together through a superheating process. This type of panel typically has an efficiency rating between 15 to 17 percent and will usually have a maximum output of 200 Watts.
• Thin film solar panels are the most affordable option available. They are made with several different materials including cadmium telluride (CdTe), amorphous silicon (a-Si), and copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). These products also typically incorporate conducting layers made of glass, ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), aluminum, or steel. While this type of panel only has an efficiency rating of about 11 percent and a maximum power output of 100 Watts, they are usually lightweight and may even be flexible, making thin film panels great for camping, hiking, and backpacking.

Size & weight 

The specific size and weight of a solar panel is a key consideration when you are trying to determine the suitability of a product. For instance, compact lightweight solar panels are excellent for hiking, backpacking, and camping because they can fit into a backpack and don’t cause excessive fatigue. However, these panels are vulnerable to the wind because of their broad, flat shape and low weight, meaning that they can be carried away easily.

Alternatively, broad heavy panels are great for mounting on the roof of the house or an RV, but they are much too bulky to pack into a vehicle or set up at a campsite. So, it’s important to figure out how you want to use the solar panel before deciding on a specific product. 

Device & battery integration

The purpose of solar panels is to absorb the solar power from the sun and convert it to usable electricity for a range of different devices and batteries. However, each product will have different devices that they can connect to, like USB-charging mobile devices, 12V batteries, or power stations. Before investing in solar panels, make sure that the specific product can be used as intended. 

If you are looking for a way to charge your mobile devices, then it’s necessary to find solar panels that have USB outlets, but if the goal is to charge a boat battery, then solar panels that connect to 12V batteries would be best. If you aren’t quite sure what you want to use the panels to charge then it’s advised to invest in a power station that can collect, store, and convert the energy from the panels into usable electricity for a variety of different purposes.

FAQs

Final thoughts on the best solar panels

• Best overall: HQST Solar Panel 2pcs 100 Watt 12V Monocrystalline
• Best for the money: Nekteck 21W Solar Charger
• Best for camping: Goal Zero Boulder 200 Watt Briefcase
• Best portable: Jackery SolarSaga 60W Solar Panel
• Best for RVs: Renogy 200 Watt Monocrystalline

The highly efficient HQST Solar Panels are suitable for mounting to the RV, setting up at the campsite, or even mounting to the home to help save money on electric bills. However, if you are looking for a smaller solar panel for backpacking or hiking, then the affordable Nekteck 28W Solar Charger is the right way to go.

Why trust us

Popular Science started writing about technology more than 150 years ago. There was no such thing as “gadget writing” when we published our first issue in 1872, but if there was, our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers means we would have been all over it. Here in the present, PopSci is fully committed to helping readers navigate the increasingly intimidating array of devices on the market right now.

Our writers and editors have combined decades of experience covering and reviewing consumer electronics. We each have our own obsessive specialties—from high-end audio to video games to cameras and beyond—but when we’re reviewing devices outside of our immediate wheelhouses, we do our best to seek out trustworthy voices and opinions to help guide people to the very best recommendations. We know we don’t know everything, but we’re excited to live through the analysis paralysis that internet shopping can spur so readers don’t have to.

The post The best solar panels of 2023 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article originally appeared in Grist.

Last year, U.S. renewable electricity generation surpassed coal for the first time, according to newly released federal data. The report marks a major milestone in the transition to clean energy, but experts say that much faster progress is needed to reach international climate targets.

According to the Energy Information Administration, a federal statistical agency, combined wind and solar generation increased from 12 percent of national power production in 2021 to 14 percent in 2022. Hydropower, biomass, and geothermal added another 7 percent — for a total share of 21 percent renewables last year. The figure narrowly exceeded coal’s 20 percent share of electricity generation, which fell from 23 percent in 2021. 

The growth in renewable electricity was largely driven by a surge in added wind and solar capacity, the agency said. Texas was the top wind-generating state last year, producing more than a quarter of all U.S. wind generation. It was also the leading state for natural gas and coal power. Iowa and Oklahoma landed at second and third in wind generation, accounting for 10 percent and 9 percent of national wind power respectively. 

California took the lead in solar, clocking in with 26 percent of the nation’s solar electricity. Texas came in second at 16 percent, followed by North Carolina at 8 percent. Renewable generation also exceeded nuclear for the second year in a row, after surging ahead for the first time in 2021. 

But the report found that fossil fuels still dominate the country’s energy mix. Natural gas remained the top source of electricity in the U.S. — its share rose from 37 percent of electricity generation in 2021 to 39 percent in 2022. 

For 2023, the Energy Information Administration forecasts additional growth in renewables. The agency predicts wind power will increase from 11 percent to 12 percent of total power generation this year. Solar is projected to rise from 4 percent to 5 percent. Coal is expected to further decline from 20 percent to 17 percent. Meanwhile, natural gas generation is expected to remain unchanged.

Despite the encouraging news, some energy experts say the uptick in renewables still isn’t fast enough. On Tuesday, the International Renewable Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organization, announced that global annual investments in renewables need to more than quadruple to meet the Paris Agreement target of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The assessment echoes the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s top climate science body, which called for a rapid scale-down of greenhouse gas emissions largely produced from fossil fuels. 

Melissa Lott, director of research for the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, told the Associated Press that the $369 billion in clean energy spending authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act should have a “tremendous” impact on further accelerating domestic renewable energy growth. But to reach that potential, the U.S. may need new policies to remove hurdles that stand in the way of building new clean energy infrastructure. 

In the United States, rapid deployment of renewable energy has been hindered by practical barriers including delays in connecting projects to aging electric grids. At the end of 2021, thousands of wind, solar, and battery storage projects were waiting to connect to grids across the country. According to data from the Department of Energy, less than 20 percent of wind and solar projects waiting to be connected are successfully completed. And even when projects are approved, developers often discover they need to pay for new transmission lines to deliver power to residents and businesses. Those transmission lines often face further permitting delays.

“It doesn’t matter how cheap the clean energy is,” Spencer Nelson, the managing director of research at the nonprofit ClearPath Foundation, recently told the New York Times. “If developers can’t get through the interconnection process quickly enough and get enough steel in the ground, we won’t hit our climate change goals.”

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A bacterial relative of tuberculosis known as Mycobacterium smegmatis can pull off an incredibly impressive trick. When fuel is in short supply, it can absorb trace amounts of hydrogen in the atmosphere and water around it to convert into energy. Simply put, it turns air into electricity.

Unlike its infamous cousin, M. smegmatis is both nonpathogenic and commonly found in soil literally all over the world—from volcanic craters, to Antarctic climes, to the deepest ocean depths. This ubiquity and resilience is owed in part due to its ability to absorb miniscule levels of hydrogen for nutrition. Although researchers have been aware of the mechanism for some, they didn’t know how it worked. But as a new paper published in Nature reveals, the puzzle has finally been solved—and it could usher in a new era of revolutionary, clean energy.

Researchers at Australia’s Monash University Biomedicine Discovery Institute have discovered and isolated the M. smegmatis’ unique enzyme, dubbed “Huc,” enabling it to convert hydrogen into electricity. “Huc is extraordinarily efficient,” explains research co-lead and professor of microbiology, Chris Greening, in a statement last week. “Unlike all other known enzymes and chemical catalysts, it even consumes hydrogen below atmospheric levels—as little as 0.00005 percent of the air we breathe.”

[Related: Scientists think this tiny greenhouse could be a game changer for agrivoltaics.]

To isolate and identify the previously unknown enzyme, researchers utilized cryo-electron microscopy, which fired electrons at frozen Huc samples to map its atomic structure and electrical pathways. Another approach known as electrochemistry allowed researchers to demonstrate the purified enzyme could create electricity with only tiny concentrations of hydrogen. From there, researchers explained that by immobilizing Huc on an electrode, its electrons can subsequently transfer into an electrical circuit to generate current.

Although in its relative infancy, researchers hope the newly isolated Huc enzyme could one day be grown at scale, seeing as how M. smegmatis can be easily grown in large quantities within lab settings. What’s more, Huc isn’t alone in this ability. According to Monash researchers, between 60 and 80 percent of soil bacteria feature similar enzymes that collectively absorb 70 million metric tons of hydrogen per year. Further studies of these enzymes could provide insights into how to help stabilize atmospheric conditions in the face of climate change.

Before this, however, a natural Huc battery could be utilized akin to solar cells to eventually help power smartwatches, computers, or even one day cars. “Once we produce Huc in sufficient quantities, the sky is quite literally the limit for using it to produce clean energy,” said research co-lead Rhys Grinter, a research fellow at the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute and study co-lead, last week.

The post This common bacteria is teaching scientists how to turn air into energy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A floating wind turbine prototype has generated its first 1kWh of power off the coast of Spain’s Canary Islands, marking a major milestone in its makers’ goals to begin manufacturing their novel design at scale. Not to mention, it’s one of the first deployed floating turbines with a tension leg platform (TLP), an innovation that drastically reduces damage to sea floors.

Created by Spain-based X1 Wind, the startup company’s X30 floating prototype is the result of years of planning and fine-tuning, as well as includes several unique components and adaptations. At one-third the size of the final proposed turbine, X30 utilizes PivotBuoy, an augmented single point mooring (SPM) setup that allows the floating platform to passively align with wind currents, much like a classic weathervane. This eliminates the requirement of an active yaw actuator and ballast systems, thus minimizing the turbine’s overall weight and maintenance needs.

[Related: A wind turbine just smashed a global energy record—and it’s recyclable.]

X30’s tension leg platform addition provides boosted environmental benefits. In this setup, a TLP is kept stable and at rest using steel rods anchored to the sea floor with either suction anchors or caissons. The legs remain stretched via the turbine’s platform tension beneath the water line, and its braces will limit the turbine’s vertical movement atop the waves.

From there, a 1.4km underwater cable feeds the X30 prototype’s energy generation into the Oceanic Platform of the Canary Islands’ (PLOCAN) existing offshore test site smartgrid.

X1 Wind’s floating turbine design was first envisioned in 2012 by company cofounder Carlos Casanovas while a student at MIT. Since then, Casanova’s team has worked to bring the concept into the real world. The project first began its design phase in April 2019, before moving onto its manufacturing stage throughout the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Final assembly and construction finished in October 2022 in 50m deep waters off of the Canary Islands.

Once thought a pipe dream, offshore floating wind turbines are increasingly showing themselves to be an extremely promising asset in sustainable global energy generation. Speaking in 2022, Axelle Viré, an associate professor of Floating Offshore Wind at Delft University of Technology, estimated that floating wind turbines could be expected to generate between 150-200 gigawatts of energy in the coming decades. Currently, fixed wind turbines only generate 12 gigawatts. 

[Related: Scientists think we can get 90 percent clean energy by 2035.]

“Floating wind is set to play a vital role supporting the future energy transition, global decarbonisation and ambitious net-zero targets,” Casanovas stated in a statement on Tuesday. “Today’s announcement marks another significant stride forward for X1 Wind accelerating towards certification and commercial scale ambitions to deliver 15MW platforms and beyond in deepwater sites around the globe.”

X1 Wind hopes to move into full-scale production after its prototype testing is completed, with their floating wind turbines each generating 15mW of clean energy anchored in deep sea environments around the world.

The post This floating wind turbine just generated its first kilowatt hour of power appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Last week in Washington state, an airplane that appeared perfectly normal from the outside made a brief flight. On the left side of the plane was a standard engine, burning jet fuel. But on the right side was something radically different: an electric motor that got its power not from batteries, but from hydrogen stored inside the aircraft. 

While burning jet fuel creates carbon emissions and particulate matter pollution, in this case the hydrogen system produces water vapor and heat. It’s just one way that aircraft makers are trying to make flying less bad for the planet: companies are working on planes that run off batteries, they are creating synthetic aviation fuel, and in this case, they are leveraging hydrogen fuel cells. 

“This is certainly the biggest aircraft to have ever flown on hydrogen fuel cells,” boasts Mark Cousin, the chief technical officer of Universal Hydrogen, the company behind the experimental aircraft. 

Here’s how the system works: While the left side of the plane stored its jet fuel in the wing like a typical aircraft, the hydrogen for the electric motor on the right wing was stored in tanks, in a gaseous form, in the back of the plane. “You simply can’t fit hydrogen in the wing of an airplane,” Cousin says. “It was taking up probably about a third of the fuselage length.” 

[Related: Watch this sleek electric plane ace its high-speed ground test]

The hydrogen travels up to the right wing, which is where the magic happens. There, in the nacelle hanging off the wing where the motor is, the hydrogen combines with compressed air (the air enters the equation thanks to the two inlets you can see near the motor on the right wing) in stacks of fuel cells. The system uses six stacks of fuel cells, each of which is made up of hundreds of individual fuel cells. Those fuel cell stacks create the electricity that the motor needs to run. “A fuel cell is a passive device—it has no moving parts,” Cousin says. The juice it creates comes in DC form, so it needs to go through inverters to become the AC power the motor requires. 

When the plane flew last week, it was a type of hybrid: a regular engine burning jet fuel in the wing on the left side, and the electric motor on the right running off that hydrogen and air. “Once we hit cruise, we throttled back and we flew almost exclusively on the right-hand engine,” the pilot said, according to The Seattle Times. “It was silent.”

Usually holding around 50 people, the aircraft, a modified Dash 8-300, in this case had just three aboard for the test flight, which had a duration of some 15 minutes. It flew at an altitude of about 2,300 feet above the ground. “The aircraft did a couple loops around the airfield,” Cousin says. Then eventually it made a “very, very smooth landing.” 

While the aircraft stored its hydrogen in gaseous form in the tanks in the back, the company has plans to switch to a method that stores the hydrogen as a liquid, which occupies less space than the gaseous assembly and doesn’t weigh as much. Those tanks must be kept at very cold temperatures, and the liquid needs to be converted to a gas before it can be used in the fuel cells. While this type of liquid hydrogen setup still takes up more space than regular jet fuel does, it’s a better solution than storing hydrogen in gaseous form, he says. Their plan is to switch the same plane that just flew over to a liquid hydrogen system this year. 

In terms of trying to decarbonize the aviation industry—after all, it’s a sizable producer of carbon dioxide emissions—Cousin argues that hydrogen is the best approach. “We think that hydrogen fuel is really the only viable solution for short- and medium-range airplanes,” he says. It’s certainly not the only approach, though. In September of last year, a battery powered plane called Alice also made a first flight in Washington state, and other companies, like Joby Aviation and Beta Technologies, are working on small aircraft that are also battery electric. 

Universal Hydrogen isn’t alone in pursuing hydrogen as a means of propelling aircraft. In February of last year, Airbus said that it would use a special, giant A380 aircraft to test out hydrogen technology, and in November, unveiled plans for an electric engine that also runs off hydrogen fuel cells.

Watch a short video about the recent flight, below.

The post This plane powered by hydrogen has made an electrifying first flight appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The field of agrivoltaics, in which land is used for both farming and solar power generation, has some basic logistical issues. Namely, it has been difficult to build structures that can both efficiently generate solar power while not blocking the sunlight needed for crops to actually grow. A team of researchers at UCLA recently discovered a novel solution to the issue that relies on organic materials. The process even outperforms conventional glass-roof greenhouses installed with traditional solar panel arrays.

[Related: Why your community’s next solar panel project should be above a parking lot.]

The team detailed their findings on Monday in Nature Sustainability, describing how integrating a layer of a naturally occurring chemical known as L-gluthathion can extend semi-transparent solar cells’ lifespans while also improving their efficiency. Yang Yang, a materials scientist at UCLA’s Samueli School of Engineering, explained that organic materials could be a major tool within agrivoltaics, because they selectivity absorb certain spectrums of light. Historically, however, they have been too unstable to widely deploy in the solar energy industry.

Inorganic solar cells’ organic counterparts often degrade extremely quickly as sunlight causes them to lose electrons through oxidation. By adding a thin layer of carbon-based L-gluthathion, the previously short-lived cells could maintain upwards of 80 percent efficacy after 1,000 usage hours—a major step up from the less than 20 percent efficacy over the same time period sans L-gluthathion.

[Related: Solar energy company wants to bolt panels directly into the ground.]

To test the new solar cells, Yang’s team compared the yields of two dollhouse-sized greenhouses growing broccoli, mung beans, and wheat. The transparent glass roof of one greenhouse was fitted with a number of traditional inorganic solar panels, while the other’s ceiling was entirely composed of the semitransparent organic panel arrays. To researchers’ surprise, the semitransparent greenhouse actually resulted in higher crop yields than its traditional counterpart. The team believes this could be thanks to the L-gluthathion layer blocking both ultraviolet and infrared rays—UV light often can damage plants, while infrared can heat greenhouses too much and cause crops to require more water.

Yang’s team hopes to eventually scale production of the new organic solar cells for widespread industrial usages. 

New, efficient, partially organic designs, along with proposed projects like more parking lot canopies and cheaper home applications, could help insure solar power as one of nations’ key tools in transitioning to green, sustainable energy grids.

The post Scientists think this tiny greenhouse could be a game changer for agrivoltaics appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured in Knowable.

Franklin Chang-Díaz gets into his car, turns on the radio and hears the news about another increase in the price of gasoline. But he sets off knowing that his trip won’t be any more expensive: His tank is filled with hydrogen. His car takes that element and combines it with oxygen in a fuel cell that works like a small power plant, creating energy — which goes into a battery to power the car — and water vapor. Not only will Chang-Díaz’s trip cost no more than it did yesterday, it will also pollute far less than a traditional gasoline-powered car would.

Chang-Díaz would like to have a public hydrogen station nearby whenever he needs to fill his tank, but that isn’t possible yet, either in his native Costa Rica or in any other Latin American country. He ends up instead at the hydrogen station he built himself, as part of a project aimed at demonstrating that hydrogen generated with renewable energy sources — green hydrogen — is the present, not the future.

A physicist, former NASA astronaut and the CEO of Ad Astra Rocket Company, Chang-Díaz has a clear vision. Green hydrogen, he believes, is a fundamental player in lowering emissions from transportation and converting regions that import fossil fuels — such as his small Central American country — into exporters of clean energy, key to avoiding the catastrophic effects of global warming.

According to data from the Inter-American Development Bank, the most polluting sectors in Latin America to which clean hydrogen technology could be applied are transportation (which generates 40 percent of the region’s CO₂ emissions) and electricity and energy (36 percent of emissions). And Chang-Díaz is not alone in his belief in the promise. Large-scale hydrogen transportation will be part of the future, says Nilay Shah, a chemical engineer at Imperial College London. “By 2050, hydrogen could deliver 18 percent of the global energy supply … 28 percent of which would be destined for the transport sector,” he and his colleagues note in an article on the application of hydrogen in mobility technologies in the 2022 Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.

But for green hydrogen to become an important player in the world’s energy resources, the technologies for obtaining it will need to be developed on a large scale. Latin America wants to be part of this future and is already preparing, with projects throughout the region.

Not all hydrogen is the same

Hydrogen is the lightest chemical element: Its nucleus has only one proton, orbited by an electron. It’s also the most common: Up to 90 percent of the atoms in the universe are believed to be hydrogen atoms. In its gaseous state (H ₂), it is tasteless, colorless and odorless. In the terrestrial environment, it is usually found in more complex compounds, such as two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom to form a water molecule (H ₂O), or four hydrogen atoms bonded to one carbon atom to form methane (CH ₄). If we need the hydrogen atoms alone, we must uncouple them from these compounds.

The use of hydrogen as an energy source is not new. For decades, NASA mixed H₂ gas with oxygen to generate the energy needed to lift hundreds of tons and send its shuttles into space. The US Department of Energy lists it as a safer fuel than fossil fuels because it is non-toxic and dissipates quickly in the event of a leak, since it is lighter than air.

At present, hydrogen as an energy source is mainly used in the production of petroleum derivatives, steel, ammonia and methanol. According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2020 the world’s population consumed about 90 million tons of hydrogen — equivalent to only 2.5 percent of global energy consumption. Latin America uses only 5 percent of this hydrogen, mainly in countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia and Chile. It is mostly dirty hydrogen, which pollutes the planet due to the processes used to obtain it.

Depending on how it is derived, hydrogen can be classified as gray, blue, green — or even black. Gray hydrogen is generated using fossil fuels — natural gas especially, in the case of Latin America. In a process called steam reforming, carbon monoxide (CO) and water vapor (H₂O) are subjected to high temperatures, moderate pressure and a catalyst, producing carbon dioxide (CO ₂) and hydrogen (H ₂). If coal is used instead of gas to generate the heat necessary for steam reforming, the hydrogen is then considered black — the worst of all, from an environmental point of view.

Blue hydrogen uses gas or coal in the same steam reforming process, but in this case 80 percent to 90 percent of the carbon emissions end up underground through a process called industrial carbon capture and storage (CSS). Finally, green hydrogen — also called clean hydrogen — uses electrical energy generated by renewable sources, such as solar and wind power, to separate the water molecule into its two elements, hydrogen and oxygen, by means of an anode and a cathode in a process called electrolysis.

Currently, less than 0.4 percent of the hydrogen utilized in Latin America is green; the rest is linked to fossil fuels. In fact, in 2019, hydrogen production for the region required more natural gas than all of the gas consumed in Chile, a country with 19 million inhabitants. And it generated more polluting emissions than those produced in a year by all the cars in Colombia, a nation with some 7 million vehicles.

Globally, 4 percent of hydrogen production is already the result of electrolysis, but the remaining 96 percent still requires gas, coal or petroleum derivatives.

Toward green hydrogen

With the goal of producing more and more green hydrogen, several projects on different scales are taking shape in Latin America.

• The Brazilian company Unigel plans to inaugurate a $120 million plant in 2023, which will produce 10,000 tons per year of green hydrogen — the equivalent of 60 megawatts (MW) — in its first stage.
• Sener Ingeniería Mexico announced in August 2022 the creation of the first of a series of small plants, of about 2.5 MW.
• Chile, for its part, is already seeing some of the fruits of its National Green Hydrogen Strategy, launched in 2020. This South American country says it plans to “conquer global markets” in 2030, mainly Europe and China, where it aims to send 72 percent of its production. The port of entry to Germany will be Hamburg. “With its great potential for green hydrogen production, Chile is on the verge of becoming an exporter of global magnitude,” said the mayor of Hamburg, Peter Tschenscher, during the signing of a cooperation agreement in September 2022.
• Uruguay launched the Green Hydrogen Sector Fund, with $10 million non-reimbursable funding from the government to finance projects. In August 2022, nine companies won a spot, some with names such as “Green H ₂ Production for Forest Transport” and “Palos Blancos Project: green hydrogen, ammonia and fertilizer production plant with wind and solar photovoltaic renewable energy.”
• And in Costa Rica, Chang-Díaz is helping lead the way to add green hydrogen to the country’s portfolio of clean energy sources (about 99 percent of electricity in Costa Rica is generated through sources such as the sun, wind and water from dams). In July 2022, Chang-Díaz demonstrated on social media how he fueled his car, at a prototype station, with green hydrogen produced in his own country.

While some Latin American countries may benefit from the production of green hydrogen, others will benefit from large-scale consumption of the clean energy source. For example, Trinidad and Tobago, which consumes 40 percent of the region’s hydrogen for its oil refining processes, emits 12.3 metric tons of carbon per person per year (by comparison, Costa Rica emits 1.6 metric tons per capita per year, according to 2019 World Bank data). If Trinidad and Tobago used green hydrogen in its processes instead of gray hydrogen, its carbon footprint would be significantly reduced.

Other countries are being creative and are not yet focusing on either production or consumption of green hydrogen. Panama, for example, seeks to become a storage and commercialization node for the element, like the air and maritime transport hub it already is. As part of this national energy transformation plan, called Green Hydrogen Roadmap, the authorities of this country signed a memorandum of understanding with Siemens Energy. Panama also has plans to produce some of its own green hydrogen eventually: The Ciudad Dorada Biorefinery, expected to begin construction this year, will have the capacity to generate 405,000 metric tons.

“Green hydrogen technology is developing worldwide and by 2030 Latin America will be the third region in the world with the most projects, after Europe and Australia,” says José Miguel Bermúdez, chemical engineer and energy technology analyst at the IEA.

For Shah, the reason for this growing interest is clear: Many Latin American countries have the potential to generate more clean energy than they need. “Let’s take Chile, for example,” he says. “The amount of potential for renewable electricity is probably 10 times more than the amount of electricity you need in the country.” Exporting that clean energy from Chile or Costa Rica in the form of electricity over long distances is complicated and expensive. But using it to create hydrogen and transport it in tanks to practically any place in the world is realistic, he says, although it will require investments — just as investments in oil tankers and gas pipelines were once needed.

But, Shah adds, green hydrogen could also be transported with existing infrastructure if it is used to create popular products, such as ammonia (NH₃, a nitrogen atom bonded to three hydrogen atoms, a compound widely used in agriculture) or synthetic fuels.

Challenges to be solved

After the production and distribution of green hydrogen comes its myriad uses. To power car batteries, it’s combined with oxygen in a fuel cell and generates water vapor and energy. To manufacture iron, hydrogen is used to transform one molecule of iron oxide (Fe₂O ₃) into two molecules of iron (Fe) and three molecules of water (H ₂O) at high temperatures — fossil fuels are currently used for this purpose. Processing this iron further, with more energy, produces steel.

The manufacture of cement also requires high temperatures, currently generated with fossil fuels: The IEA indicates that as much as 67 percent of hydrogen demand in 2030 could come from this industry. In addition, hydrogen combined with carbon in the Fischer-Tropsch process generates synthetic fuels, which are cleaner than traditional fossil fuels. Aircraft are already allowed to fly on up to 50 percent synthetic kerosene.

Some 50,000 hydrogen vehicles are already on the road worldwide, Bermúdez adds. Projections are that the number will soon skyrocket — China alone expects to have 1 million on its streets by 2035 — but experts agree that, in the short or medium term, hydrogen will not completely replace the most polluting fuels; instead, it will be one alternative in a matrix of different options, such as traditional electric cars or solar-powered airplanes. However, the experts also agree that it will be a significant option, not a marginal one.

“There will be a series of technologies and areas of opportunity that do not have to be specifically the same in all the countries of our region,” says Andrés González Garay, a process engineer at the chemical company BASF and a coauthor of the article on hydrogen production and its applications to mobility in the Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. “It is also true that hydrogen, although it can be applied in a lot of areas, will not make sense in all of them, and it will depend a lot on our political, social and economic systems.”

To arrive at the more environmentally friendly scenario that green hydrogen offers, its production should be increased as soon as possible and, at the same time, its consumption needs to be encouraged, Shah says. “Global hydrogen production is expected to grow six to 10 times between now and 2050,” González Garay says, and the increase is projected to be mainly in clean hydrogen.

The role of governments will be pivotal, the scientists say. “If governments become the first users of hydrogen — for their buildings, for their vehicle fleets, for their other operations, for power generation — they become the customer. Then they can create the supply chain of hydrogen and give confidence to the producers that there is a market,” Shah says.

Adds Bermúdez: “The public sector needs to put the regulations and support programs in place to accelerate the private sector. Public policies are needed to force demand for green hydrogen…. If Latin America does not position itself well and start producing and closing agreements, it runs the risk of being left behind.”

Chang-Díaz, for his part, fears that countries like Costa Rica, despite producing almost all its electricity through clean renewable sources, risk moving too late to take advantage of the wave of green hydrogen that is already beginning to rise. In December 2022 he participated as a speaker at an international meeting held in San José, the capital of his country. But at the same time, a few kilometers away, the bill to support the green hydrogen sector, which has been under discussion for months, has not advanced in the Legislative Assembly.

So, at least for now, Chang-Díaz will remain the only one in his country who can travel in a car that uses green hydrogen as fuel.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

The post The rise of green hydrogen in Latin America appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

OFF-THE-GRID LIVING is experiencing a renaissance. Dwellings devised to support a sustainable lifestyle could help us adapt to some of our biggest present-day challenges—from a lack of housing for the world’s growing population to pollution and extreme weather. With the climate crisis in mind, architects are looking to more resilient options that don’t depend on the overdrawn electrical grid at all. Some designers are reinvigorating decades-old “biotecture,” like the 1970s Earthships made from reclaimed and natural materials; others are rejecting synthetics and leaning on Indigenous practices of building with natural materials. Meanwhile, weather-resistant domes and 3D-printed dwellings could house more people with fewer resources. We asked architects and engineers about off-the-grid living solutions that could help us adapt to changing environments. 

Earthships

The definition of the term off the grid usually focuses on electricity, but Earthships involve much more. Every feature of these structures, including heating, cooling, water supply, wastewater treatment, electricity, and some food production, is off the grid. Recycled materials like tires and bottles make up the walls and other structural elements; these components are already distributed around the world, so procuring them doesn’t use much energy. Overall, Earthships allow us to be self-sustaining, and therefore happier. 
—Jonah Reynolds, Earthship designer and builder at Pangea Design Build

3D-printed homes

We use trees and other plants to produce the fiber and the resin for printing a home in Maine, so it’s 100 percent renewable. You can change insulation on the walls and roof to make them more energy efficient, so you don’t even get air leaks. If in 200 years, your great-grandchildren don’t want the home anymore, they can grind it up and put it back into the printer and do it again. It makes a good choice for off-the-grid living because it’s customizable to your landscape. It can be made in any shape you desire. If you send in a drawing, in most cases, it can be produced.
—Habib Dagher, executive director of the Advanced Structure and Composites Center at the University of Maine

Tiny houses

A tiny house is generally defined as a dwelling with a main floor of under 450 square feet. Our models come on wheels and can have composting toilets or incinerator toilets, so that means you don’t even need to be hooked up to a sewer. We have special washers, refrigerators, and dishwashers that use a lot less electricity and water than you would in a regular home. We can pre-wire the home so that it’s easy to install solar. Your energy footprint, and just your footprint in general, is much smaller.
—Trine Rieck, lead designer at Tiny Heirloom

Geodesic bioceramic domes

Geodesic domes are constructed with precast ceramic composite materials, which are combinations of ceramics and nontoxic natural fibers like hemp and basalt. The space is really made to mimic the natural environment that humans evolved in. They are highly resilient to fires, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes, and result in about a 90 percent reduction in carbon footprint. They’re also easy for people to build—it’s kind of like putting together a Lego set. The domes are absolutely a great choice for off-grid living, and I think that at some point, they will be very common choices worldwide.
—Morgan Bierschenk, co-founder and CEO of Geoship

Read more PopSci+ stories.

The post 4 of the best homes for off-the-grid living appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Wind turbines are integral to our renewable energy future, but they come with a fatal flaw—their massive turbine blades are often relegated to landfills at the end of their lifespans. There, they remain indefinitely. It’s an unfortunately dire scalability conundrum that requires a remedy sooner than later, but one potential solution not only could provide the industry a way forward—it could take care of the existing backlog of trash.

The world’s largest manufacturer of turbines, Vestas Wind Systems A/S, announced on Tuesday its development of a new chemical solution that can break down turbine blades’ epoxy resin into recyclable material. “Going forward, we can now view old epoxy-based blades as a source of raw material,”  Lisa Ekstrand, Vestas Vice President and Head of Sustainability, said in a statement. Ekstrand added that once the new tech is scaled, all existing and future blade materials can be disassembled and re-used. “This signals a new era for the wind industry, and accelerates our journey towards achieving circularity,” she said.

[Related: A wind turbine just smashed a global energy record—and it’s recyclable.]

Turbine epoxy resins’ resilient chemical properties have long made them extremely difficult to recycle, a fact that looms large over the wind energy sector. Vestas’ statement explains that many mature markets’ first turbines are reaching their lifespans’ end. Industry analyst Wind Europe recently estimated that by 2025, around 25,000 tonnes of blades will be retired annually.

The implementation of the company’s new chemical solution, however, could theoretically overcome the problem entirely while simultaneously taking care of landfill backlogs. According to Mie Elholm Birkbak, Specialist, Innovation & Concepts at Vestas, the novel chemical process relies on already widely available ingredients, and thus can be easily deployed and scaled as needed. What’s more, the solution could be soon applied to all epoxy-based composite materials across a vast number of industries beyond just wind energy.

Vestas’ breakthrough was developed in collaboration with Aarhus University, the Danish Technological Institute, alongside a coalition of industry and academia working towards circular technology for turbine blades.

The post A new solution could keep old wind turbine blades out of landfills appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A public utility is experimenting with blending small amounts of carbon-free hydrogen into natural gas lines in some Minnesota homes, but critics argue the procedure remains largely an exercise in hot air.

As first reported last week by Energy News Network, the Midwest’s CenterPoint Energy company began injecting as much as five percent hydrogen gas into downtown Minneapolis residents’ methane supplies for their homes’ stoves and heaters last summer. After various small modifications at the $2.5 million hydrogen pilot production facility (which was built on a former coal gasification plant), the utility provider is now claiming success. But the lengthy list of overall remaining concerns still makes it unlikely to see green hydrogen mixing compose a large portion of future infrastructures.

[Related: A beginner’s guide to the ‘hydrogen rainbow’]

“Green” hydrogen involves utilizing renewable energy to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen in a facility, which is how we get hydrogen energy that can then be used to heat homes or fuel industrial production.  Nevertheless, the process remains cost-ineffective when compared to other low- and zero-emission energy sources such as wind and solar. In particular, green hydrogen production operates at between a 30 and 35 percent energy loss, and often requires expensive new plant updates and maintenance.

According to Energy News Networks, CenterPoint’s green hydrogen plant relies in part on wind energy renewable carbon credits, casting doubt on its true “clean” status. Carbon offset credits are a controversial, yet popular, tactic used by a large number of major corporations and industries, but critics are increasingly casting doubt about the strategy’s viability, efficacy, and even trustworthiness.

[Related: Many popular carbon offsets don’t actually counteract emissions, study says]

Despite the drawbacks, the hydrogen production industry is a rapidly growing sector with bipartisan blessing. Last year, the Biden Administration announced $8 billion in funding for states’ developing their hydrogen production, processing, and storage infrastructures, with an aim to lower its cost down to one dollar per kilogram within a decade. Much of this energy isn’t meant for green projects, however, but for petroleum processing and ammonia fertilizer production.

Last year, a report released by San Francisco-based think tank Energy Innovation cast extreme doubt on the alternative’s viability, citing exorbitant costs and society’s extremely limited timeframe for effectively tackling climate change. Further industry advancements and refining may one day result in viable large scale uses for green hydrogen, but funding for those projects will need to be balanced with efficient, realistic, and safe renewable energy sources.

The post Hydrogen is supplementing natural gas, but critics remain wary appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Best overall		Tumo-Int 1000W 3 Blades Wind Turbine		SEE IT	Tumo-Int’s 1000W wind turbine provides enough power to take a bite out of your electric bill.
Best backyard		Automaxx Windmill 1500W Wind Turbine		SEE IT	With enough space, the Automaxx Windmill 1500W Wind Turbine delivers plenty of power.
Best small		Pacific Sky Power Survival Wind Turbine Generator		SEE IT	The Pacific Sky Power Survival Turbine can give you a little power boost when nothing else will.

When most people consider upgrading their homes to take advantage of sustainable energy, they run right to solar panels without considering other options, like wind turbines. While a residential wind turbine doesn’t typically generate enough power on its own to power a house entirely, it can handle a substantial portion of your power needs. It’s enough to drastically reduce your energy bills and, when paired with solar panels and other sustainable power sources, makes off-grid living possible. Whether you want to do your part and help our energy grid go green, give your home its own sustainable power source, or simply want to take a bite out of your energy bills, the best home wind turbines provide a reliable source of sustainable electricity wherever the wind blows. 

• Best overall: Tumo-Int 1000W 3 Blades Wind Turbine
• Best backyard: Automaxx Windmill 1500W Wind Turbine
• Best system: Auecoor 800W 12V 24V Solar Panel Wind Turbine Kit
• Best small: Pacific Sky Power Survival Wind Turbine Generator
• Best off-grid: Ramsond Atlas LM3500 Wind Turbine
• Best budget: Pikasola Wind Turbine Generator Kit

How we picked the best home wind turbines

As a tech-nut and green energy enthusiast, I’ve covered a wide range of sustainable energy products for the likes of Popular Science, Scientific American, The Daily Beast, The Manual, and more. These extensively researched selections represent the best wind turbines available right now, based on a combination of first-hand trials, input from industry professionals, and impressions from real buyers.

One critical caveat: In light of ongoing supply chain issues, we’ve elected to focus on turbines that are regularly available from major retailers like Amazon and Home Depot. There are several well-respected options that we’ve elected to leave out at this time, as they have not been in stock and may not be available again for the foreseeable future. We will update this story as more choices become widely available.

The best home wind turbines: Reviews & Recommendations

Our favorite residential wind turbines are made for many purposes and budgets. Some offer a substantial step toward personal energy independence, while others offer a small amount of backup power. Whatever you’re looking for, there should be a turbine for you on this list.

Best overall: Tumo-Int 1000W 3 Blades 48V Wind Turbine Generator Kit

Tumo-Int

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: The Tumo-Int 1000W delivers solid power output combined with reliable design at a relatively affordable price.

Specs

• Form factor: Standalone
• Rated Power: 1000W max output
• Start-up wind speed: 6 mph
• Rated wind speed: 28 mph
• Safe wind speed: 90 mph

Pros

• Strong output
• Reliable design
• Automatic direction adjustment
• Low noise and vibration

Cons

• Expensive

You’ll need a powerful wind turbine to make a serious dent in your energy bill. When placed well, Tumo-Int 1000W can deliver that kind of power. It performs well at lower wind speeds and boasts a number of features that you won’t find in lesser turbines, such as automatic direction adjustment to boost efficiency.

It’s made to last, and rated for 15 years of maintenance-free operation. It features electromagnetic over-speed protection and overcharge protection to increase its lifespan. It’s also just solidly built: It can survive a bad tropical storm or even a low-level hurricane.

Best backyard: Automaxx Windmill 1500W Wind Turbine

Automaxx

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: The Automaxx Windmill 1500W Wind Turbine offers high output if you’ve got the space for it.

Specs

• Form factor: Standalone
• Rated Power: 1500W max output
• Start-up wind speed: 5.6 mph
• Rated wind speed: 31 mph
• Safe wind speed: 110 mph

Pros

• Strong output
• Reliable design
• Bluetooth controllable 
• Automatic and manual braking system

Cons

• Very expensive
• Limited customer support

If you’re looking for a freestanding wind turbine for your backyard, the Automaxx Windmill 1500W is a powerful—if expensive—option. It offers a hearty 1500 watts of continuous output and operates at a relatively wide range of wind speeds. 

It also features maximum power point tracking (MPPT) that avoids voltage surges due to strong wind gusts and boasts both automatic and manual braking. The MPPT Controller can be monitored and controlled via Bluetooth. 

It’s certainly not cheap, but it’s a great home wind turbine if you’re willing to invest.

Best system: Auecoor 800W 12V 24V Solar Panel Wind Turbine Kit

AUECOOR

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This kit from Auecoor combines solar panels and wind turbines for a more comprehensive green energy solution.

Specs

• Form factor: Standalone and solar panels
• Rated Power: 400W max output
• Start-up wind speed: 6 mph
• Rated wind speed: 23.5 mph
• Safe wind speed: 80 mph

Pros

• All-weather green energy
• Easy installation
• Decent power output

Cons

• Not made from great parts
• Pole not included

Wind turbines and solar panels are a natural match. Turbines often work best at night when wind speeds tend to be faster, while solar panels store up plenty of energy during the day. Auecoor sells a green energy combo that pairs the two to generate up to 800W of power per hybrid kit. That isn’t enough to power a full home, but the combination provides enough electricity throughout the day to keep your batteries topped or power a smattering of small appliances. 

Candidly, this is as much a recommendation of the concept as it is the actual gear here. Mixing solar panels and a wind turbine is an awesome idea and this kit allows you to do so for less than $1,000, which is quite cheap. That said, users report that the components have a plasticky feel to them, which doesn’t instill a ton of confidence in the product overall. Auecoor offers a 6-year material and workmanship warranty, however, so you have some protection.

Best small: Pacific Sky Power Survival Wind Turbine Generator

Pacific Sky Power

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: This turbine from Pacific Power Sky is ultra-portable and surprisingly affordable.

Specs

• Form factor: Standalone
• Rated Power: 15W max output
• Start-up wind speed: 8 mph
• Rated wind speed: 25 mph
• Safe wind speed: 40 mph

Pros

• Super portable
• No installation required
• Solid build quality
• Good customer service

Cons

• Low power output

Generating just 15W, the Survival Wind Turbine Generator from Pacific Sky Power is a portable power generator that can help you power up a phone, laptop, or another small device in an emergency situation when you’ve lost power or are far from any other power source.

Folding down to just a few square inches and weighing a mere 3 pounds, this tiny turbine is ideal for camping or backup van-life juice (when you’re off-grid, it never hurts to back up your solar generator back-up). It’s built to last, and won’t short out in the rain.

Obviously, this is not the kind of turbine you want if you’re looking to upgrade your home, but it’s a very useful (and comparatively affordable) way to get basic emergency power anywhere.

Best off-grid: Ramsond Atlas LM3500 Wind Turbine

Ramsond

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: For big power and big durability, the Atlas LM3500 provides the off-grid performance and reliability you need.

Specs

• Form factor: Standalone
• Rated power: 3,000W
• Start-up wind speed: 4.5 mph
• Rated wind speed: 28 mph
• Safe wind speed: 110 mph

Pros

• High power output
• Built to last
• Low noise and vibration
• Professional appearance

Cons

• Expensive
• Heavy

If you’re looking for the most power you can get from a single wind-based power source at home, you’ll need a very big turbine. Atlas’ 3,000W LM3500 delivers much more power than any of our other picks and it’s very well built. It’s capable of generating 175 kWh per month, or roughly a quarter of the typical power needs of a low-power-usage home, at less than half its rated wind speed.

With a few of them, or with one and a set of solar panels, you should be able to generate enough power to run an off-grid cabin or a farm that requires intermittent electricity. It’s also solidly built and will provide many years of reliable performance.

It’s certainly not cheap and, at just over 200 pounds, it’s pretty heavy. Given the weight, it also won’t be easy to install. That said, if you have a good place to put it, you’ll have plenty of reliable power.

Best cheap: Pikasola Wind Turbine Generator Kit

Pikasola

SEE IT

Why it made the cut: The Pikasola Wind Turbine Generator Kit delivers decent power output with easy installation at a great price.

Specs

• Form factor: Wall/roof mounted
• Rated power: 400W
• Start-up wind speed: 6 mph
• Rated wind speed: 29 mph
• Safe wind speed: 90 mph

Pros

• Low price
• Easy installation
• Durable quality

Cons

• Lower power output
• Can get noisy in high wind

For less than $300, the Pikasola Wind Turbine is a very affordable way to dip your toe in the alternative energy pool. With a maximum output of 400W, it’s made to give you just a small amount of power. That said, it’s easy to install, durable, and produces reliable electricity as long as the wind blows. Some owners have reported that it can get noisy at higher wind speeds, but at moderate speeds, it’s essentially silent. Using alternative energy is normally a major investment, but the Pikasola turbine gives you a real way to try the upgrade before you buy in for real.

What to consider when buying a wind turbine

Not all residential wind turbines are created equal. Many don’t generate enough power to make a meaningful difference for many homes. Some are prohibitively expensive or too large to be for residential use. Whatever the case, there are a few things to consider when choosing a wind turbine for your home.

What you can get out of a home wind turbine

According to the Energy Information Administration, The average home in the United States uses approximately 10,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. To generate that much power, you need alternative energy sources that can harness nearly 30 kWh per day.

Realistically, you aren’t going to generate that much power using wind turbines. With ideal wind conditions, a single home turbine kit should produce about 3 kWh per day. To fully take your home off-grid, you’ll need several industrial-grade wind turbines or a combination of wind turbines and solar panels (the kind you install on your roof or in your backyard, as opposed to the portable kind).

If you adjust your expectations, though, you can get a lot out of even a single home wind turbine. A turbine that generates a maximum output of 400 watts (W) will give you up to 1.3 kWH per day. That’s enough to shave 4 percent off an average 30 kWh electric bill, or power a fridge and a few small devices if the power goes out.

We recommend shooting for the largest possible output that fits your budget and home. Some of our top picks generate 1000W or higher, which can knock the average energy bill down by 10 percent, or provide a moderate amount of backup power.

Who should buy a wind turbine?

Wind turbines can produce a fair amount of green electricity for you, but they need to be placed well. That means you need to take a good, hard look at your property and figure out whether wind power makes sense.

With freestanding turbines, you typically want a large open space like a field, large yard, or hilltop position. For a rooftop turbine, you need to find a spot on your roof that won’t be obstructed by trees where you can secure the turbine safely. Make sure your roof can handle the weight, and it probably shouldn’t be at a sharp incline.

If you don’t want a wide open space or safe spot on your roof that isn’t obstructed, you won’t be able to get the maximum output from the turbines. In that case, you may want to look at other ways of generating sustainable energy.

Type of wind turbine

Wind turbines vary greatly in regard to size, form, power output, and installation difficulty. The one that is right for you depends on your home, space, power needs, and building experience. 

Some wind turbines are smaller and designed to be installed directly onto your roof. They take advantage of the faster winds that tend to whip over your house. These are usually less expensive but they typically generate smaller power outputs. Also, you need to install them on your roof, which may be dangerous.

Standalone turbines tend to be significantly more powerful, but are usually more expensive and require a lot of open space like a field or an unblocked hilltop. They’re also often difficult to install. A rooftop turbine is relatively straightforward to bolt in place while standalone turbines require digging to seat the pole, structural support, running wires to the house, and so on.

Lastly, boat-owners can install smaller marine turbines to help power devices and equipment. While they don’t produce all that much power, they’re built to withstand maritime conditions and can be a great way to ensure that your batteries stay topped off.

Wind speed in your area

All of the specs about power production for wind turbines highlight their best output under ideal wind conditions. The average wind speed where you live can play a huge role in picking the right turbine for your home. To understand how wind speed impacts a turbine, we’ll need to define a few terms:

• Starting wind speed: the speed at which the blades turn but don’t yet produce usable power.
• Rated wind speed: the speed at which the turbine reaches its maximum energy output.
• Safe or “survival” wind speed: the maximum speed before the turbine becomes vulnerable to damage.

Check your local wind averages, including average lows and highs, to make sure that a particular turbine suits your area. Look for a turbine with a starting wind speed below your local average to ensure it works often. If you live somewhere where severe weather conditions occur regularly, safe speed will also be very important.

Installation and maintenance

Anytime you’re messing with your home electrical system, the first rule of thumb is: Hire a professional if you don’t know what you’re doing.

Installing a wind turbine takes a fair amount of know-how. Some of the turbines are very heavy, so the risk of injury is high—doubly so if you’re getting on your roof. Even if you manage to set up the turbine, it will still need to connect to your home’s power, which you leave to a professional. Realistically, most people should consult with a contractor and electrician for this kind of installation.

Also, keep in mind that your wind turbine will need long-term maintenance. While some are designed to operate for over a decade without a tune-up, you will occasionally want an expert to come to look your system over and make repairs as necessary. 

Price

Like solar generators and virtually any kind of power storage, home wind turbines are usually expensive. They come in a wide range of sizes and prices, from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. Moreover, while we’ve highlighted comparatively good options at many price points, the turbines that generate a meaningful amount will be fairly expensive.

Like installing solar panels on or around your home, you should think of setting up a wind turbine as a home improvement project and an investment. If you buy a better turbine, you will notice a bigger difference in your energy bills, and likely recoup the cost of installing it more quickly.

FAQs

Final thoughts on home wind turbines

Installing one of the best home wind turbines is a major home improvement project. You shouldn’t do it carelessly. Take your time and do some research to figure out what options, if any, will work on your property. If you have the space and the inclination, wind power can be an amazing, sustainable resource. 

The post The best home wind turbines of 2023 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Undark.

“This is one of the least smelly carcasses,” said Todd Katzner, peering over his lab manager’s shoulder as she sliced a bit of flesh from a dead pigeon lying on a steel lab table. The specimens that arrive at this facility in Boise, Idaho, are often long dead, and the bodies smell, he said, like “nothing that you can easily describe, other than yuck.”

A wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, a government agency dedicated to environmental science, Katzner watched as his lab manager rooted around for the pigeon’s liver and then placed a glossy maroon piece of it in a small plastic bag labeled with a biohazard symbol. The pigeon is a demonstration specimen, but samples, including flesh and liver, are ordinarily frozen, catalogued, and stored in freezers. The feathers get tucked in paper envelopes and organized in filing boxes; the rest of the carcass is discarded. When needed for research, the stored samples can be processed and sent to other labs that test for toxicants or conduct genetic analysis.

Most of the bird carcasses that arrive at the Boise lab have been shipped from renewable energy facilities, where hundreds of thousands of winged creatures die each year in collisions with turbine blades and other equipment. Clean energy projects are essential for confronting climate change, said Mark Davis, a conservation biologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. But he also emphasized the importance of mitigating their effects on wildlife. “I’m supportive of renewable energy developments. I’m also supportive of doing our best to conserve biodiversity,” Davis said. “And I think the two things can very much coexist.”

To this end, Katzner, Davis, and other biologists are working with the renewable energy industry to create a nationwide repository of dead birds and bats killed at wind and solar facilities. The bodies hold clues about how the animals lived and died, and could help scientists and project operators understand how to reduce the environmental impact of clean energy installations, Davis said.

The repository needs sustained funding and support from industry partners to supply the specimens. But the collection’s wider potential is vast, Davis added. He, Katzner, and other stakeholders hope the carcasses will offer a wide array of wildlife biologists access to the animal samples they need for their work, and perhaps even provide insights into future scientific questions that researchers haven’t thought yet to ask.

In 1980, California laid the groundwork for one of the world’s first large-scale wind projects when it designated more than 30,000 acres east of San Francisco for wind development, on a stretch of land called the Altamont Pass. Within two decades, companies had installed thousands of wind turbines there. But there was a downside: While the sea breeze made Altamont ideal for wind energy, the area was also well-used by nesting birds. Research suggested they were colliding with the turbines’ rotating blades, leading to hundreds of deaths among red-tailed hawks, kestrels, and golden eagles.

“It’s a great place for a wind farm, but it’s also a really bad place for a wind farm,” said Albert Lopez, planning director for Alameda County, where many of the projects are located.

A 2004 report prepared for the state estimated deaths and offered recommendations that the authors said could add up to mortality reductions of anywhere from 20 to 50 percent. The most effective solution, the authors argued, involved replacing Altamont’s many small turbines with fewer larger turbines. But, the authors wrote, many measures to reduce deaths would be experimental, “due to the degree of uncertainty in their likely effectiveness.” More than a decade of research, tensions, and litigation followed, focused on how to reduce fatalities while still producing clean electricity to help California meet its increasingly ambitious climate goals.

While all this was happening, Katzner was earning his Ph.D. by studying eagles and other birds — and beginning to amass a feather collection halfway around the world. In Kazakhstan, where he has returned nearly every summer since 1997 to conduct field research, Katzner noticed piles of feathers underneath the birds’ nests. Carrying information about a bird’s age, sex, diet, and more, they were too valuable a resource to just leave behind, he thought, so he collected them. It was the start of what he describes as a compulsion to store and archive potentially useful scientific material.

Katzner went on to co-publish a paper in 2007, in which the researchers conducted a genetic analysis of naturally shed feathers, a technique that could allow scientists to match feather samples with the correct bird species when visual identifications are difficult. He later towed deer carcasses across the East Coast to lure and trap golden eagles in order to track their migration patterns. And today, part of his research involves testing carcasses for lead and other chemicals to understand whether birds are coming in contact with toxicants.

For the last decade, Katzner has also researched how birds interact with energy installations like wind and solar projects. During this time, studies have estimated that hundreds of thousands of birds die each year at such facilities in the United States. Thats’s still a small fraction of the millions of birds that at least one paper estimated are killed annually due to habitat destruction, downstream climate change, and other impacts of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. But renewable energy is growing rapidly, and researchers are trying to determine how that continued growth might affect wildlife.

Bats seem attracted to spinning wind turbines, sometimes being struck by the blades while attempting to roost in the towers. Birds sometimes swoop down and crash into photovoltaic solar panels — possibly thinking the glass is water that is safe for landing. A separate, less common solar technology that uses mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays into heat energy is known to singe birds that fly too close — a factor that has drawn opposition to such facilities from bird activists. But scientists still don’t fully understand these many interactions or their impacts on bird and bat populations, which makes it harder to prevent them.

In 2015, by then on staff at the USGS, Katzner and a team of other scientists secured $1 million from the California Energy Commission to study the impacts of renewable energy on wildlife — using hundreds of carcasses from the Altamont Pass. NextEra Energy, one of the largest project owners there, chipped in a donation of approximately 1,200 carcasses collected from their facilities in Altamont.

The team analyzed 411 birds collected over a decade at Altamont and another 515 picked up during a four-year period at California solar projects. They found that the birds originated from across the U.S., suggesting renewable facilities could affect far away bird populations during their migrations. In early 2021, Katzner and a team of other scientists published a paper examining specimens collected at wind facilities in Southern California. Their results suggested that replacing old turbines with fewer, newer models did not necessarily reduce wildlife mortality. Where a project is sited and the amount of energy it produces are likely stronger determinants of fatality rates, the authors said.

In the Altamont, scientists are still working to understand impacts for birds and bats, with a technical committee created to oversee the work. Ongoing efforts to replace old turbines with newer ones are meant to reduce the number of birds killed there, but whether it’s working remains an open question, said Lopez. Installing fewer turbines that produce more energy per unit than earlier models was expected to provide fewer collision points for birds and more space for habitat. And when new turbines are put in, scientists can recommend spots within a project site where birds may be less likely to run into them. But other variables influence mortality aside from turbine size and spacing, according to the 2021 paper authored by Katzner and other scientists, like season, weather, and bird behavior in the area.

On a small road in the Altamont, a white sign marks an entrance to NextEra’s Golden Hills wind project, where the company recently replaced decades-old turbines with new, larger models. Not far away, another wind project sits dormant — a relic from another time. Its old turbines stand motionless, stocky, and gray next to their graceful, modern successors on the horizon. The hills are quiet except for the static buzz of power cables.

Some conservationists are still concerned about the area. In 2021, the National Audubon Society, which says it strongly supports renewable energy, sued over the approval of a new wind project in the Altamont, asserting that the county didn’t do enough environmental review or mitigation for bird fatalities.

Katzner attributes his work in California with the beginnings of the repository, which he’s dubbed the Renewables-Wildlife Solutions Initiative. Amy Fesnock, a Bureau of Land Management wildlife biologist who collaborates with Katzner, simply calls it the “dead body file.”

In Idaho, Katzner has already amassed more than 80,000 samples — many drawn from the feather collection he’s kept for decades, and thousands more recently shipped in by renewable energy companies and their partners. Ultimately, Katzner would like to see a group of repository locations, all connected by a database. This would allow other scientists to access the bird and bat samples and use them in a variety of ways, extracting their DNA, for example, or running toxicology tests.

“Every time we get an animal carcass, it has value to research,” said Katzner. “If I think about it from a scientific perspective, if you leave that carcass out there in the field, you’re wasting data.”

That data is important to people like Amanda Hale, a biologist who helped build the repository while at Texas Christian University. She is now a senior research biologist at Western Ecosystems Technology, a consulting company that, along with providing other services, surveys for dead wildlife at renewable energy sites. Part of her new role involves liaising with clean energy companies and the government agencies that regulate them, making sure decision makers have the most current science to inform projects. Better data could assist clients in putting together more accurate conservation plans and help agencies know what to look for, she said, making regulation more straightforward.

“Once we can understand patterns of mortality, I think you can be better in designing and implementing mitigation strategies,” said Hale.

The initiative is not without its skeptics, though. John Anderson, executive director of the Energy and Wildlife Action Coalition, a clean energy membership group, sees merit in the effort but worries that the program could be “used to characterize renewable energy impacts in a very unfavorable light” without recognizing its benefits. The wind industry has long been sensitive to suggestions that it’s killing birds.

Several renewable energy companies that Undark contacted for this story did not respond to inquiries about wildlife monitoring at their sites or stopped responding to interview requests. Other industry groups, including the American Clean Power Association and the Renewable Energy Wildlife Institute, declined interview requests. But many companies appear to be participating — in Idaho, Katzner has received birds from 42 states.

William Voelker, a member of the Comanche Nation who has led a bird and feather repository called Sia for decades, says he’s frustrated at the lack of consideration for tribes from these types of U.S. government initiatives. Indigenous people, he said, have first right to “species of Indigenous concern.” His repository catalogs and sends bird carcasses and feathers to Indigenous people for ceremonial and religious purposes, and Voelker also cares for eagles.

“At this point we just don’t have any voice in the ring, and it’s unfortunate,” said Voelker.

Katzner, for his part, says he wants the project to be collaborative. The Renewable-Wildlife Solutions Initiative has sent some samples to a repository in Arizona that provides feathers for religious and ceremonial purposes, he said, and the RWSI archive could ship out other materials that it does not archive, but it has not yet contacted other locations to do so.

“It’s a shame if those parts of birds are not being used,” he said. “I’d like to see them get used for science or cultural purposes.” 

Many U.S. wind farms already monitor and collect downed wildlife. At a California wind facility an hour north of Altamont, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District tries to clear out its freezers at least once per year — before the bodies start to smell, said Ammon Rice, a supervisor in the government-owned utility’s environmental services department. The specimens that companies accumulate are often kept until they’re thrown out. Until recently, samples had been available to government and academic researchers on only a piecemeal basis.

There are many reasons why a clean energy company might employ people to pick up dead animals at its facility: Some states require companies to survey sites during certain stages of their development and keep track of how many birds and bats are found dead. Removing the carcasses can also deter scavengers, such as coyotes, foxes, and vultures. And the federal government has set voluntary conservation guidelines for wind projects; for some companies, complying with the recommendations is part of maintaining good political relationships.

Most of the time, human searchers canvas a project, walking transects under turbines or through solar fields. It’s “enormously labor intensive,” said Trevor Peterson, a senior biologist at Stantec, one of the consulting firms often hired to conduct those surveys. On some sites, trained dogs sniff out the dead bodies.

For years, conservation biologists have wanted to find a use for the creatures languishing in freezers at clean energy sites around the country. To get a nationwide project off the ground, Katzner started working with two other researchers: Davis, the conservation biologist at University of Illinois, and Amanda Hale, then a biology professor at Texas Christian University. They were part of a small community of people “who pick up dead stuff,” said Katzner. The three started meeting, joined by scientists at the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who helped connect the initiative with additional industry partners willing to send carcasses.

Building on Katzner’s existing samples, the repository has grown from an idea to a small program. In the last two years, it received about $650,000 from the Bureau of Land Management and earned a mention in the agency’s recent report to Congress about its progress towards renewable energy growth.

Davis had already been accepting samples from wind facilities when he started working on the repository. Often the bodies are mailed to his laboratory, but he prefers to organize hand-to-hand deliveries when possible, after one ill-fated incident in which a colleague received a shipped box of “bat soup.” To receive deliveries in person, Davis often winds up loitering in the university parking lot, waiting for the other party to arrive so they can offload the cargo.

“It sounds a lot like an illicit drug deal,” said Davis. “It looks a lot like an illicit drug deal — I assure you it is not.”

Recently, Ricky Gieser, a field technician who works with Davis, drove two and a half hours from Illinois to central Indiana to meet an Ohio wildlife official in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel. Davis arranged for Undark to witness the exchange through Zoom. With latex-gloved hands, Gieser transferred bags of more than 300 frozen birds and bats — lifting them from state-owned coolers and then gingerly placing them into coolers owned by his university. The entire transaction was over in under 15 minutes, but coordinating it took weeks.

Davis studies bats and other “organisms that people don’t like,” with a focus on genetics. He grew up in Iowa chasing spiders and snakes and now stores a jar of pickled rattlesnakes — a souvenir from his doctoral research — on a shelf behind his desk. Protecting these creatures, he said, is of extreme importance. Bats provide significant economic benefit, eating up bugs that harm crops. And their populations are declining at an alarming rate: A disease called white-nose syndrome has wiped out more than 90 percent of the population of three North American bat species in the last decade. In late November of 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed Davis’s favorite species, the northern long-eared bat, as endangered.

For certain species, deaths at wind facilities are another stressor on populations. Scientists expect climate change to make the situation worse for bats and overall biodiversity. “Because of this confluence of factors, it’s just really tough for bats right now,” said Davis. “We need to work a lot harder than we are to make life better for them.”

Like other wildlife researchers, Davis has sometimes struggled to get his hands on the specimens he needs to track species and understand their behaviors. Many spend time in the field, but that’s costly. Depending on the target species, acquiring enough animals can take years, said Davis. He used museum collections for his doctoral dissertation, and still views them as an “untapped font of research potential.” But museums often focus on keeping samples intact for preservation and future research, so they may not work for every project.

That leaves salvage. Frozen bird and bat carcasses are “invaluable” to scientists, said Fesnock, the BLM wildlife biologist. So far, samples collected as part of the Renewables-Wildlife Solutions Initiative have led to about 10 scientific papers, according to Katzner. Davis says the collection could reduce research costs for some scientists by making a large number of samples available, particularly for species that are hard to collect. It’s difficult for scientists to catch migratory bats that fly high in the air with nets, making it challenging to estimate population levels. Bat biologists say there’s much we still don’t know about their behaviors, range, and number.

As scientists work to compile better data, a few companies are experimenting with mechanization as a possible way to reduce fatalities at their facilities. At a wind farm in Wyoming, utility Duke Energy has installed a rotating camera that resembles R2D2 on stilts. The technology, called IdentiFlight, is designed to use artificial intelligence to identify birds and shut turbines down in seconds to avoid collisions.

Prior to IdentiFlight, technicians used to set up lawn chairs amid the 17,000-acre site and look skyward, sometimes eight hours a day, to track eagles. It was an inefficient system prone to human error, said Tim Hayes, who recently retired as the utility’s environmental development director. IdentiFlight has reduced eagle fatalities there by 80 percent, he added. “It can see 360 degrees, where humans can’t, and it never gets tired, never blinks, and never has to go to the bathroom.”

Biologists say there are still unknowns around the efficacy of these types of technologies, in part because of incomplete data on the population size and spread of winged wildlife.

Katzner and his colleagues want the repository to help change this, but first they will need long term funding to help recruit more partners and staff. Davis estimated he needs between $1 and $2 million to build a sustainable repository at his university alone. Ideally, the USGS portion of the project in Boise would have its own building. For now, Katzner stores feathers in a space that doubles as a USGS conference room. Next door, in a room punctuated with a dull hum, the walls are lined with freezers. Some carry samples already cataloged. Others hold black trash bags filled with bird and bat bodies just waiting to be processed.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

The post When wind turbines kill bats and birds, these scientists want the carcasses appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently announced its approval of the designs for a first-of-its-kind small modular reactor (SMR). This could signal a potential shift in the development and integration of next generation power plants in the US. While traditional nuclear facilities have long been based on very narrow specifications—think the instantly recognizable cooling towers—NuScale Power honed its SMR design over nearly a decade following early concept research undertaken at Oregon State University.

[Related: How to survive a nuclear bomb shockwave.]

Unlike existing plants, NuScale’s modular SMR allows for most of its components to be assembled within factories, hypothetically making them both cheaper and simpler to build on-site—although it remains to be seen if these new plants can break the stereotypically astronomical cost increases associated with nuclear construction. When completed, NuScale’s VOYGR™ SMR can house 12 factory-built power modules, each capable of generated 50 megawatts of power while taking up roughly a third the space of traditional large-scale reactors. The modules also only rely on natural processes like gravity and convection to cool the reactor without the need for any additional water, power, or operators.

Despite clearing the major regulatory hurdle, actual deployment of NuScale’s SMR is still years away. The company is currently working alongside the Department of Energy and  utility provider Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems to construct a demonstration facility at the Idaho National Laboratory. The first module is expected to come online in 2029, with full 462 megawatt plant capabilities scheduled for the following year.

[Related: How nuclear fusion could use less energy.]

Even then, numerous concerns remain surrounding the nuclear industry as a whole, from nuclear waste disposal, to uranium mining concerns, to the potential safety issues. Despite huge strides in design and size, NuScale’s SMR still must tackle some of those worries.

Still, the NRC’s recent approval of the first small modular reactor could soon usher in a major new era for nuclear energy. If nothing else, it’s not everyday that you hear of a new nuclear plant getting the greenlight—as The Verge also noted on Monday, the NRC has only approved six previous nuclear plant designs, all of which are much larger than NuScale’s proposed alternative.

The post The next generation of US nuclear plants could be tiny but powerful appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Government incentives might encourage you to add another goal to your new year’s resolutions in 2023: reducing your carbon footprint. Starting this year, Americans can take advantage of a stream of tax credits to make their homes, cars, and businesses more sustainable thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The new legislation narrowly passed Congress after a lengthy political battle in the Senate last August. Considered one of President Biden’s signature achievements, the $440 billion package provides money for clean energy and lowers drug costs for older people, among other things. The government plans to pay for the credits through raising taxes on corporations that make over $1 billion in profit per year, taxing stock buybacks and investing in the Internal Revenue Services to catch tax cheats. If all works out as planned, the package will actually bring in $300 billion extra dollars, which will go towards paying off government debt.

Climate policy experts like Rachel Cleetus, the policy director for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, see the IRA as the stimulus the country needs to make America’s energy infrastructure more sustainable, even if it’s just an initial step to meeting emission reduction goals. Cleetus says the law is the culmination of years of work.

“It’s a moment of relief, more than anything else,” she says. “Clean energy is already so competitive in the marketplace, here in the US and around the world, and this will really tip the scales in favor of accelerating that momentum around renewable energy, wind, solar, etc.”

With a receipt and tax form, consumers can save up to thousands of dollars on everything from electric cars to solar panels to two-pane windows. As you take stock of your sustainability resolutions this year, review how to apply for IRA credits.

“By being proactive, consumers can have a plan to make the most cost-effective upgrades for their specific housing and local policy circumstances once IRA funding is made available,” says Dan Esposito, a senior policy analyst at the an energy and climate policy think tank, Energy Innovation.

What are the tax credits?

There are two main buckets of credits you might qualify for: electric vehicle credits and home improvement credits. The first is purchasing an electric vehicle. To reap maximum benefits from the credits, you’ll want to make sure that it complies with a long list of technical and trade manufacturing requirements, like making sure the vehicle’s final assembly was in a US facility. 

Consumers should pay special attention to electric vehicle credits because they will most likely give buyers “the biggest bang for their buck,” Esposito wrote in an email to PopSci. A new electric vehicle can qualify for up to a $7,500 credit and used vehicles could be $4,000. (You can find more details about IRA tax credits from electric vehicles in our guide.) 

“The tax credits for electric vehicles are generally most impactful in terms of reducing one’s climate footprint, as the average US passenger vehicle emits roughly 60 percent more greenhouse gases than the average US home using natural gas,” he says. “However, the [exact] climate benefit depends on several factors, such as the vehicle you currently have (hybrid vs. gas guzzler), how often you drive, the climate you live in, and your home’s insulation,” Esposito writes.  

[Related: Check before you buy: Here are the new EVs that qualify for the clean vehicle tax credit]

The second bucket of IRA credits can be collected by reducing your home’s emissions through switching to renewable energy and making it more energy efficient. Consumers can save money on a range of products designed to reduce their home’s reliance on fossil fuels. You can get money for putting a solar panel on your roof. You can also get money from buying energy efficient products like two-pane windows that better insulate your house. You can also receive a $300 tax credit for purchasing a heat pump, instead of the typical furnace or energy inefficient air conditioners that most Americans own. 

If you plan to replace both the furnace and an air conditioning unit, then the tax credit for heat pumps could be worthwhile as well. How much you actually get back in credits, however, will vary from house to house—wiring might need to be upgraded or a heat pump designed to tolerate colder climates. “The timing of when these credits will become available will vary by state, with state energy offices set to play the dominant role in facilitating their rollout,” Esposito writes. “In the meantime, homeowners can assess the state of their house to determine which upgrades to seek out in the coming years.”

While renters might be locked out of some credits that require home ownership, they are still eligible for many incentives. It might be worth it to make the long-term investments if they plan to stay in their rental space for a year or more, Cleetus says.

[Related: How heat pumps can help fight global warming]

“The question for renters is obviously, how long are you going to be in a place? And is that something that you and your landlord want to split the cost?” she says. “In some cases, you can recoup the cost within a year, so even if you’re renting for just a year, it might make sense to do it.”

For example, it might make sense to purchase a more energy efficient air conditioner that will save you money on heating and cooling bills in the long run. And with the insulation-related tax credits, you can recoup the cost faster, perhaps in a year or two, than you would otherwise, according to Cleetus.

What to know before filing for the credits

Consumers should research what tax credits they can take advantage of before they buy any green products, says Susan Allen, senior manager for tax practice and ethics with the American Institute of Certified Professional Accountants (CPA). 

The amount of money you get will differ depending on your income, the number of dependents you have, and if you rent or own your home, so it’s important to do your research before buying anything that could have a tax credit or an upfront discount, Cleetus and Allen say.

“Planning before you buy helps you make the most informed decision on the ultimate savings you can accomplish,” Allen says. “If you can work with a CPA tax or financial planner, wonderful. They can help guide you and maybe save a lot of time and headache while you might be trying to navigate it.”

One of the best ways to make sure you can cash in on the credits is to ask the manufacturer before you make a purchase, Allen says. Car dealers will be aware of which vehicles qualify for the credits and appliance companies that manufacture electric stoves or other green products will likely know how much you can save. 

Cleetus says stores should start adopting labels that indicate if a product is eligible for tax credits. “That’s the kind of thing that will be really impactful, so that people don’t have to search,” she says. 

[Related: The Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS could kick US climate policy back into action]

If you don’t have an accountant, you can also take advantage of a number of government guides, Allen and Cleetus say. Consumers can refer to the White House’s interactive clean energy website, which helps users determine what credits are available to them. The Department of Energy published a list of the credits people can save specifically on green energy and energy-efficient household appliances. The Internal Revenue Services details the cars eligible for electric vehicle credits. For those who want a more thorough breakdown of the credits, the White House also published a 183-page guidebook. And further guidance is still coming out, Cleetus says. 

And while the tax credits can help you save money on clean energy investments, the IRA doesn’t quite live up to what the country promised during global climate negotiations.The US pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030. The package aims to reduce emissions by about 40 percent. “It’s not enough, for sure. From a science perspective, we know we have to go further, faster,” Cleetus says. 

Still, the IRA is a vital step in accelerating the nationwide transition to clean energy infrastructure. “It’s important to think about this in a holistic way,” Cleetus says. “These tax credits will go a long way towards many, many households lowering their carbon footprint. But they’re also part of a broader system that has to shift.”

The post How the Inflation Reduction Act can help you save cash and energy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Wasting resources is a huge cause of environmental degradation. At our current rate, we’re on track to 3.4 billion metric tons of solid trash by 2050. This route is completely untenable for both civilization and the overall environment, but given that roughly only 20 percent of that is currently recycled annually, we’ll need to get really creative quickly to address this issue.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge found a potential solution to this challenge by recently developing a novel process using just energy from the sun to transform plastic trash and greenhouse gasses into sustainable fuel and other valuable materials. As detailed in the journal Nature Synthesis, the team successfully created a solar-powered reactor capable of transforming CO2 into syngas, a pivotal component within sustainable liquid fuels. At the same time, the setup also managed to take plastic bottles and break them down into glycolic acid, a chemical often used within the cosmetics industry.

[Related: A potentially revolutionary solar harvester just left the planet.]

The new integrated reactor contains two compartments, one for the greenhouse gasses and one for the plastic waste, reliant on a new and promising silicon alternative, perovskite, for its solar cells. Persovskite innovations have rapidly improved its efficiency rates from just 3 percent in 2009 to recently over 25 percent. As such, it could soon become a major component of solar power manufacturing, although barriers still need overcoming for its stability, lifespan, and scalability.

From there, researchers created different catalysts for the light absorber, which changed the final recycled product depending on which one was used, including CO, syngas, and glycolic acid. What’s more, the breakthrough reactor pulled all this off with a greater efficiency than standard photocatalytic CO2 methods, all BY simply shining sunlight into the setup.

“A solar-driven technology that could help to address plastic pollution and greenhouse gasses at the same time could be a game-changer in the development of a circular economy,” says the study’s co-first author, Subhajit Bhattacharjee.

[Related: Solar energy company wants to bolt panels directly into the ground.]

Researchers’ ability to fine-tune the integrated reactor’s end result products depending on the input catalyst also shows immense promise for additional outputs. The paper notes that, although the initial studies were limited to simple carbon-based molecules, future experiments could result in far more complex products. Further advancements along these lines could even one day offer a new type of entirely solar-powered recycling plant, ostensibly providing society with a circular economy in which very little, if anything, is wasted.

“Developing a circular economy, where we make useful things from waste instead of throwing it into landfill, is vital if we’re going to meaningfully address the climate crisis and protect the natural world,” said the study’s other co-first author, Motiar Reisner. “And powering these solutions using the Sun means that we’re doing it cleanly and sustainably.”

The post Scientists just got one step closer to solar-powered recycling plants appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This story was originally published by Grist. You can subscribe to its weekly newsletter here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new standards for how much of the nation’s fuel supply should come from renewable sources. 

The proposal, released last month, calls for an increase in the mandatory requirements set forth by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. The program, created in 2005, dictates how much renewable fuels — products like corn-based ethanol, manure-based biogas, and wood pellets — are used to reduce the use of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel and cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

The new requirements have sparked a heated debate between industry leaders, who say the recent proposal will help stabilize the market in the coming years, and green groups, which argue that the favored fuels come at steep environmental costs. 

Below is a Grist guide to this growing debate, breaking down exactly what these fuels are, how they’re created, and how they would change under the EPA’s new proposal:

The fuels

Renewable fuel is an umbrella term for the bio-based fuels mandated by the EPA to be mixed into the nation’s fuel supply. The category includes fuel produced from planted crops, planted trees, animal waste and byproducts, and wood debris from non-ecological sensitive areas and not from federal forestland. Under the RFS, renewable fuels are supposed to replace fossil fuels and are used for transportation and heating across the country, and are supposed to emit 20 percent fewer greenhouse gasses than the energy they replace.

Under the new EPA proposal, renewable fuels would increase by roughly 9 percent by the end of 2025 — an increase of nearly 2 billion gallons. The new EPA proposal will set a target of almost 21 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2023, which includes over 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol. By 2025, the EPA hopes to have over 22 billion gallons of different renewable fuel sources powering the nation. 

Advanced biofuel, a type of renewable fuel, includes fuel created from crop waste, animal waste, food waste, and yard waste. This also includes biogas, a natural gas produced from the methane created by animal and human waste. Advanced biofuel can also include fuels created from sugars and starches, apart from ethanol. 

In its newest proposal, the EPA suggests a roughly 14 percent increase in the use of these fuels from 2023 to 2024 and a 12 percent increase the year after that. The EPA wants roughly 6 billion gallons of advanced biofuel in the marketplace by this year.

Nestled inside of the advanced biofuel category is biomass-based diesel, a fuel source created from vegetable oils and animal fats. This fuel can also be created from oils, waste, and sludge created in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Under the new EPA proposal, the agency is suggesting a 2 percent year-over-year increase in these fuels by the end of 2025, which equals a final amount of nearly three billion gallons.

Cellulosic biofuel, another type of renewable fuel, is a liquid fuel created by “crops, trees, forest residues, and agricultural residues not specifically grown for food, including from barley grain, grapeseed, rice bran, rice hulls, rice straw, soybean matter,” as well as sugarcane byproducts, according to the 2005 law.

“In the interim period, there’s going to be a need for lower carbon, renewable liquid fuels”

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuel Association

The EPA’s recent proposal aims for nearly double the amount of the use of these fuels by 2024. Then a 50 percent increase the year after, equivalent to 2 billion gallons. 

The new RFS proposal also hopes to create a more standardized pathway for renewable fuels to be used in powering electric vehicles, with more and more drivers turning to EVs in recent years. 

“We are pretty pleased with what the EPA proposed for 2023 through 2025,” Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuel Association, an industry group whose members primarily include ethanol producers, but also represent biogas and biomass producers, told Grist. 

Cooper said that the EPA and the Biden administration recognize that alternative fuels are a growing and needed sector while the country tries to move away from fossil fuels. Setting standards for the next three years will help the biofuels industry grow, said Cooper, who predicted more ethanol, biomass, or biogas producers will emerge in the coming years. 

“I think the administration recognizes that you’re not going to electrify everything overnight,” Cooper said, “and in the interim period, there’s going to be a need for lower-carbon, renewable liquid fuels.”

The controversy

While renewable fuel standards have gained a stamp of approval from industry producers and the federal government, environmental groups see increased investment in ethanol, biomass, and biogas as doubling down on dirty fuel. 

“It’s not encouraging because it continues on the false premise that biofuels, in general, are a helpful pathway to meeting our climate goals,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the nonprofit environmental group Center for Biological Diversity. 

Hartl argues that investing in increased corn production to fuel ethanol will continue harmful agricultural practices that erode soil and dump massive amounts of pesticides on corn crops, which causes increased water pollution and toxic dead zones across the country and the Gulf of Mexico. The United States is the world’s largest producer of corn, with 40 percent of the corn produced used for ethanol. 

A study released earlier this year from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that when demand for corn goes up, caused by an increase in blending requirements from the RFS, prices increase as well, which causes farmers to add more fertilizer products, created by fossil fuels, to crops. The EPA’s own internal research has also shown greenhouse gas emissions over the next three years will grow with the increase in blending requirements from the federal mandate.

The Center for Biological Diversity has been critical of the EPA’s past support of renewable fuel without a calculation of the total environmental impacts of how the fuel is produced and is currently in legal battles with the federal agency. They’re not alone in their critiques. 

Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit environmental watchdog group, said in a statement that an increase in both industrial corn production and biogas, a fuel created from animal and food waste, are not part of a clean energy future. 

“Relying on dirty fuels like factory farm gas and ethanol to clean up our transportation sector will only dig a deeper hole,” Heinzen said. “The EPA should recognize this by reducing, not increasing, the volume requirements for these dirty sources of energy in the Renewable Fuel Standard.” 

Alternative fuels, like biogas and biomass (a fuel created from trees and wood pulp), have gained steam thanks to the ethanol boom of the renewable fuel category. The biogas industry is set to boom thanks to tax incentives created by the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Biomass is a growing industry in the South, with wood pellet mills popping up in recent years. Scientists from across the globe have decried the industry’s suggestion that burning trees for electricity is carbon neutral, with 650 scientists signing a recent letter to denounce the industry’s claims.

The world’s largest producer of wood pellet biomass energy has come under fire from a whistleblower who said the company uses whole trees to create electricity, despite the company’s claims of sustainably harvesting only tree limbs to produce energy. Wood pellet facilities have faced opposition from local governments and federal legislators, with community members in Springfield, Massachusetts successfully blocking a permit for a new biomass facility in November. 

Despite concerns from environmental groups, the forecasted demands of the EPA show that the nation is pushing for more of these fuels in the coming years. This past spring, a bipartisan group of Midwestern governors asked the EPA for a permanent waiver to sell higher blends of ethanol year-round, despite summer-time smog created by the higher blend of renewable fuel.

The post The EPA wants more ‘renewable’ fuel. But what does that actually mean? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Following over a decade of research, including two years of testing origami-inspired components, a small prototype satellite designed to harvest solar energy launched yesterday morning aboard SpaceX’s most recent Falcon 9 rocket launch in Cape Canaveral, Florida. If its initial experiments are successful, arrays similar to Caltech’s Space Solar Power Demonstrator (SSPD) could one day beam essentially endless renewable energy back to Earth via microwave transmitters.

After reading a Popular Science article on the concept in 2011, Caltech Board of Trustees lifetime member Donald Bren approached the school in hopes of making the science fiction idea a reality. The resultant Space Solar Power Project, co-funded by defense manufacturer Northrop Grumman alongside the Bren family’s $100 million endowment, saw its first major milestone completion yesterday via the SSPD arrival above Earth.

[Related: This space-adapted solar panel can fold like origami.]

Over the next few weeks and months, the roughly 110-pound prototype will send back data on three main projects. The Deployable on-Orbit ultraLight Composite Experiment (DOLCE) will test lightweight, foldable structures that can unfurl to collect sunlight. Meanwhile, ALBA (Italian for “dawn”), a collection of 32 different varieties of photovoltaic cells, will determine which could work best in the space’s extremely harsh environment. Finally, the Microwave Array for Power-transfer Low-orbit Experiment (MAPLE) will test microwave transmitters that may one day transmit the collected solar power via wireless electricity.

Speaking yesterday with The Los Angeles Times, Caltech senior researcher Michael Kelzenberg explained that the SSPD’s first tests are not meant to supply Earth with solar space energy just yet. Instead, the team hopes to begin determining which materials, designs, and methods could result in the most efficient and affordable solutions in the future.

[Related: Solar energy company wants to bolt panels directly into the ground.]

It’s hard to overstate just how revolutionary the prospect of space solar energy farming could be for humanity’s power needs. In 2007, a study from the National Space Society estimated that a single, half-mile wide band of photovoltaics orbiting above Earth could hypothetically generate the same amount of energy as the entire planet’s remaining oil supplies over the course of just one year. To do this, Popular Science explained in 2011 that high energy lasers could transmit the solar supply back to Earth at roughly 80 percent efficiency to a global network of receivers, thus providing clean power across the world, even to places with previously unreliable electricity grids.

A multitude of hurdles remain, most notably the vast costs attached to any space engineering project. Still, as Ali Hajimiri, Caltech’s Bren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Medical Engineering and co-director of SSPP, explained in a statement, “no matter what happens, this prototype is a major step forward.” 

The post A potentially revolutionary solar harvester just left the planet appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s been a big month for Martian winds. Last week, audio recordings revealed the sounds of an actual dust devil traveling across the Red Planet’s surface. On Monday, a team of researchers released a study in Nature Astronomy detailing how some of these very same breezes could help provide energy to future human settlements at a rate far higher than previously believed.

As also reported in earlier rundowns courtesy of New Scientist and Motherboard, past assessments once deemed the winds of Mars too weak to provide a reliable, major source of power production, especially when measured against alternatives like solar and nuclear energy. This stems from the planet’s relatively thin atmosphere—just 1 percent of the density of Earth’s—which generally results in low force winds capable of moving flecks of dust and rock, but not much else. 

[Related: For the first time, humans can hear a dust devil roar across Mars.]

However, a team led by Victoria Hartwick, a postdoctoral fellow at NASA Ames Research Center, used a state-of-the-art Mars climate model adapted from a similar, Earth-focused program to factor in the planet’s landscape, dust levels, solar radiation, and heat energy. After simulating years’ worth of weather and storm patterns, the group found substantial evidence that multiple regions of Mars could provide reliable wind alongside other sources like solar panel arrays. Not only that, but certain areas could generate enough power from wind alone to keep a base up and running.

Particularly suitable locations include crater rims and volcanic highlands, while winds blowing off ice deposits during the northern hemisphere’s winter produce essentially a “sea breeze” effect on the surrounding areas that could also be harvested for energy. In certain locations, average wind power production even came in as much as 3.4 times higher than solar, according to the study. In their findings, Hartwick’s team propose the construction of 160-foot tall turbines in seasonally icy northern regions of places such as Deuteronilus Mensae and Protonilus Mensae, along with similar structures around crater edges and volcano slopes.

[Related: NASA could build a future lunar base from 3D-printed moon-dust bricks.]

Unfortunately, because of traditional turbines’ weight, the additional rocket storage bulk could pose logistical and financial barriers. As such, the group’s paper encourages additional explorations into new construction designs, such as low-volume, lightweight balloon turbines and building from materials harvested on Mars itself—a concept that is already being explored for NASA’s upcoming return to the Moon in anticipation of an eventual permanent lunar base.

The post The wind on Mars may be a viable power source after all appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A 600 acre, 1,500 employee electric vehicle battery recycling facility will soon break ground outside of Charleston, South Carolina, providing a major boost in clearing one of the biggest hurdles currently facing EV adoption. Once completed, Redwood Materials’ Battery Materials Campus will break down end-of-life lithium-ion batteries into their raw materials such as copper, cobalt, and nickel within its 100 percent electric factory facilities. From there, new cathode and anode products can be built and subsequently used once again in future EV manufacturing, thus extending material lifespans while lowering overall vehicle costs for consumers.

According to Redwood’s estimates, the campus will eventually be able to provide 100 GWh in recycled components per year—enough to annually power an estimated 1 million EVs—and can eventually scale upwards as demand grows. The startup already has a similar facility in Nevada, which announced its own expansion earlier this year.

[Related: Why solid state batteries are the next frontier for EV makers.]

Redwood’s newest project is located in what is becoming known as America’s Battery Belt—a region stretching from the Midwest to the Deep South increasingly focused on the production of electric vehicles and EV components. Green energy and EV advocates argue that shifting production stateside is crucial for economics, the environment, and human rights. Currently, the vast majority of EV parts such as the rare earth minerals needed for batteries are mined overseas in countries like China, resulting in massive ethical and ecological concerns. As Engadget notes, the company alleges its methods lowers battery component production’s CO2 emissions by around 80 percent when compared to current standard Asian supply chain outputs.

Charleston’s geographic location is a strategic choice, given its ports. As CEO JB Straubel explained in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, there currently aren’t enough recyclable EV materials to meet industry demands, and importation is still a necessary step in the process. Straubel estimates that between 40 and 60 percent of its Redwood Materials’ South Carolina facility products will be made from recycled materials.

[Related: You throw out 44 pounds of electronic waste a year. Here’s how to keep it out of the dump.]

One of the biggest hurdles in electric vehicle adoption is the e-waste generated from depleted “end-of-life” lithium-ion batteries. Thankfully, industry pushes such as Redwoods’ latest venture furthers our capability of breaking down these power sources and recycling the bulk of what would otherwise be relegated as potentially harmful trash. Construction on South Carolina’s Battery Materials Campus is set to begin early next year, with an eye to begin initial recycling processes by the end of 2023.

The post A new battery recycling plant could power 1 million EVs per year appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Last month, the US Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice announced more than a million dollars in penalties against companies for polluting local waterways. The culprits? Four solar farms in Illinois, Alabama, and Idaho.

“The development of solar energy is a key component of [the Biden] administration’s efforts to combat climate change,” said Larry Starfield, an administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a press release on November 14. “These settlements send an important message to the site owners of solar farm projects that these facilities must be planned and built-in compliance with all environmental laws.”

Each of the large-scale solar projects, which shared a common contractor, violated construction permits and mismanaged storm water controls, causing harmful buildup of sediment in waterways. As private companies race to build renewable capability, the EPA’s case with the four solar farms illustrates a central challenge: While gleaning energy from the sun might be a panacea to overconsumption of fossil fuels, building a clean power grid that can harness solar energy is often more complicated.

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

Experts say a path to net zero emissions will almost certainly require solar energy—and that calls for a hard look at the challenges these sweeping facilities face with clean construction and more ethical production of panels.

Building and recycling solar panels

Most solar panels used in the US today start out as sand. Scientists purify the grains into almost pure crystalline silicon, but the process requires a large amount of electricity. Almost 80 percent of a solar panel’s carbon footprint can come from this purification process alone, according to Annick Anctil, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Michigan State University.

“Where that electricity is coming from is really important,” Anctil says. “If you’re making solar panels in a place where electricity uses coal or natural gas, that makes your solar panels not as green as if you’re able to produce it from solar energy.”

Solar panels are built to last about 30 years. At the end of their lifecycle, installers can either throw them into a landfill or recycle them, but there isn’t much infrastructure for reusing the materials in the panels since the industry is new. 

Government agencies, organizations, research groups, and companies worldwide have begun developing technologies and creating recycling programs to break down solar panels and materials. The US-based Solar Energy Industries Association, for instance, has been creating a network to help consumers identify where they can recycle their solar panels and installers find a place to purchase recycled modules, Anctil explains. The association reports it’s processed over 4 million pounds of solar panels and related equipment since its recycling program launched in 2016. Luckily, if panels wind up in landfills, the glass and silicon materials are not toxic, Anctil says. (She does note that the metal frame needs to be broken down, too.)

There isn’t comprehensive data about how many solar panels are recycled versus thrown away in the US. Large-scale production of solar panels only began about 10 years ago, so it’s likely that most haven’t reached the end of their life cycle yet.

Grading land for solar farms

Solar panels are easier and cheaper to install on leveled ground, which often requires companies to mow down trees and local vegetation. Leveling, or grading, the land can lead to soil erosion and eventually sediment runoff, where storms force eroded soil to travel downhill, sometimes into waterways. Too much soil in bodies of water can disrupt local ecosystems, hurt the plants and animals that live in them, and damage drinking water treatment systems.

In the recent settlement, the EPA and Department of Justice charged the four solar farms with violating the Clean Water Act by failing to prepare for the sediment runoff created during construction. The agencies alleged that two of the farms in Idaho and Alabama even discharged sediment illegally into nearby waterways.

Dustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San José State University in California whose research focuses on solar energy commodity chains, says these violations appeared to be “really manageable problems” that the companies should have had under control. “Where [solar farms often] go wrong is they assume they understand the landscape,” Mulvaney says. But when building starts, “they run into endangered species conflicts, stormwater issues, and air pollution issues.”

Grading the land for solar farms “is like any other road construction project,” Anctil says. “It’s just unfortunate that some companies in the construction [process] just didn’t care or weren’t careful.” The runoff from building these recent solar farms could have been avoided by, say, planting vegetation to catch some of the soil and water.

Anctil and Mulvaney say that regulations can help prevent these kinds of water and pollution issues from construction projects. While the bidding process for projects varies from state to state, stronger government assessments could ensure that solar companies preserve the environments they’re otherwise capitalizing on.

Since farmland is already flat and offers room to scale up, it’s been a prime candidate for solar projects—with energy companies incentivizing farmers with financial returns. But converting this land into solar farms also presents cultural and wildlife issues. Farmers may be reluctant to see their land converted from rows of crops to rows of synthetic panels. 

While the construction process has the potential to cause significant land disturbance, solar farms do offer some immediate benefits to farmers and the environment, David Murray, director of solar policy for American Clean Power, wrote in a statement to Popular Science. In some setups, growers can plant crops between or alongside the panels. “Ecosystem services are an understated benefit of large-scale solar sites and once operational, solar facilities yield less nutrient runoff and require far less pesticide and herbicides compared to row crop agriculture,” Murray writes. 

Accountability from start to finish

The four solar farms that violated the Clean Water Act are all subsidiaries of international finance and investment companies. But Mulvaney argues that what’s even worse are inexperienced solar developers that build a single arm and then soon disband. He’s seen “quite a few projects” handed to these temporary companies.

“When you have these entities that do one-offs and then vaporize, there’s absolutely no accountability at all,” he says. “That’s a structural problem.”

[Related: Dams show promise for sustainable food systems, but we should tread lightly]

While public and private groups might feel the urgency in building renewable energy systems, it’s important to be cautious about how the systems themselves are built and sourced, Anctil says.

“The problem is people tend to just look at how much electricity is going to be produced,” she explains. “We need to plan and choose panels considering not just the electricity production but the full lifecycle.”

A more environmentally conscious process is needed from start to finish. Sand should be legally and ethically mined, Anctil says. Developers also need to consider how to build sustainable  solar arrays that minimize the impacts on the local habitat. Better recycling plans should be in place for the solar panels once they reach the end of their lives. And like with any other major construction project, renewable energy companies should take heed of state and federal environmental regulations.

“I’m not trying to kill solar,” Anctil says. “It’s making sure that in 5 or 10 years from now, we don’t find out there’s a new environmental disaster.” 

The post The hard truth of building clean solar farms appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Solar power grid installation costs have dropped precipitously over the past decade, with arrays averaging nearly 90 percent cheaper in 2021 than in 2010. This is due to a number of key advancements in scalability, materials, and rapidly improving technology—but nothing lasts forever. Industry analysts predict solar power’s cost-benefit ratio is largely stabilizing, and may even backslide as global markets and supply chains constrict.

This also means that for solar power to continue to transition society towards green, renewable energy systems, designers will need to get creative on how to keep costs down while maintaining efficacy.

One potential solution courtesy of the solar installation startup, Erthos, is to embrace a hyper-minimalist approach to their panel arrays. The company recently announced a partnership with Industrial Sun for a radically designed, 100 megawatt (mW) utility-scale solar farm in Texas that does away with traditional elevated, racked setups in favor of installing panels directly across the ground. If successful, it could revolutionize the solar industry—and ease the concerns of understandably critical skeptics.

[Related: These powerful solar panels are as thin as a human hair.]

Picture a standard solar panel setup: the photovoltaic cells framed and propped up above the ground using metal frames and protective glass cases. Currently, the designs required to physically encase and support solar panel farms comprise around 20 percent of their total price tag. If engineers were to do away with them entirely, then overall costs could dramatically decrease while simultaneously cutting down on additional resource mining, production, and consumption. That’s exactly what Erthos aims to do, although there are a few reasons why this has never been tried at scale.

As Canary Media reports, solar experts have pointed towards issues such as the lack of airflow around a ground-installation scenario, which could hypothetically increase humidity and therefore attract organic materials like mold and fungus. Then there’s the ability to access broken panels in the middle of arrays without stepping on or damaging its surrounding siblings. Add ground instability and everyday varmints moseying around the areas, and there could be a recipe for failure.

[Related: This new floating solar farm follows the sun like a flower.]

By removing aluminum and glass racks and trackers, the company asserts it can construct a project in half the time on one-third of the land using 70 percent less cable and trenching. Proper protective fencing will keep critters and plant life away from the paneling, and small, mobile robots will safely traverse across the arrays’ surfaces for cleaning and minor repairs.

No one at Erthos is arguing there won’t be further opportunities for optimization and improvement, but as the company’s chief marketing and product officer, Daniel Flanigan, posited last year, one could look at traditional solar farming methods as the truly inefficient and burdensome approach compared to in-ground alternatives. Traditional methods, he adds, require triple the land, trenching, and cable requirements, large amounts of steel and other natural resources, driving piles into the ground, and all the additional mechanical complexities and issues that come with that.

Research estimates that wind and solar power sources need to comprise at least 40 percent of global energy by 2030 in order to realistically stem the worst effects of climate change—up from the estimated 10 percent currently used today. With such a giant shift, ongoing efforts to diminish the energy sector’s effects on local wildlife are crucial.

The post Solar energy company wants to bolt panels directly into the ground appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

An essential part of any space mission is power. If a spacecraft runs out of energy, the communications go down, the craft becomes unsteerable, and life support systems shut off—a scenario that’s the stuff of sci-fi nightmares. 

For a spacecraft, the sun is a particularly vital supplier of energy, and the recent Artemis I mission proved just how powerful it can be to harness solar energy in space. During the nearly month-long flight around the moon, NASA tested all functions of the uncrewed spacecraft, including the Orion crew capsule’s innovative solar panels. The vehicle’s solar panels exceeded expectations, proving themselves to be a key technology for the future of human space exploration.

“Initial results show that the arrays are providing significantly more power than expected,” says Philippe Berthe, an engineer who manages the Orion European Service Module Project Project at the European Space Agency (ESA).

[Related: Welcome back to Earth, Orion]

Engineers from ESA and the European company Airbus collaborated with NASA and Lockheed Martin to build the Orion spacecraft, the component that separates from the launch rockets and will ferry astronauts to their destination and back during subsequent Artemis flights. The Paris-based agency’s main contribution to Orion is the European Service Module, which houses the solar panels and other critical systems. 

Orion has four wings, each nearly the length of a British double-decker bus, that unfolded 18 minutes into its journey while still in low-Earth orbit. Each of these wings holds three gallium arsenide solar panels, a particularly efficient and durable type of solar cell made for space. Together, the four wings generate “the equivalent of two households’” worth of power, according to Berthe. 

This type of solar cell is commonly used by military and research satellites. What’s innovative about Orion’s panels is how they’re maneuvered. “Usually solar arrays have only one axis of rotation so that they can follow the sun,” says Berthe. The ones on the capsule, however, can move in two directions, folding up to withstand the pressures of spaceflight and the heat of Orion’s powerful thrusters.

During Artemis I’s 26-day mission, the combined NASA and ESA team tested all aspects of the solar panels, including their ability to rotate, unfold, and produce power. According to Berthe, the panels worked so well they provided 15 percent more power than what engineers had projected. That has consequences for future Artemis missions: “Either the size of the solar arrays could be reduced,” he says, “or they could provide more power to Orion.” Smaller solar arrays could reduce the cost of missions, but more power could allow for additional capabilities onboard the crewed spacecraft.

These nimble solar panels are also equipped with cameras on their wingtips, which Matthias Gronowski, Airbus Chief Engineer for the European Service Module, likens to a “selfie stick” for the mission. These cameras have provided incredible images of the spacecraft as it cruised between the moon and Earth, and can even help the mission engineers inspect the spacecraft for damage. Because the arrays are maneuverable, they act like robotic arms, providing a “chance to inspect the whole vehicle,” says Gronowski.

[Related: These powerful solar panels are as thin as human hair]

Artemis I is NASA’s first step in testing the technology needed to return humans to the moon, and eventually venture further to Mars using the Orion crew capsule. The new lunar program plans to carry humans beyond low-Earth orbit, where the International Space Station resides, for the first time since the 1970s, including the first woman and first person of color to set foot on the moon.

The solar panels are one part of the pioneering technology of Artemis and Orion, and this first test flight proves they are a reliable technology for distant space travel. Moveable arrays like those on Artemis I will be key for future missions that require even more powerful engines, allowing the panels to shift into a protective configuration as the spacecraft speeds up. 

“We are very proud to be part of the program,” says Gronowski. “And we are very proud to be basically bringing humans back to the moon.”

The post Artemis I’s solar panels harvested a lot more energy than expected appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Six years ago, an MIT engineering team at the university’s Organic and Nanostructured Electronics Laboratory (ONE Lab) developed a solar cell so thin it could rest atop a soap bubble. While impressive, the manufacturing requirements and cost unfortunately prohibited any viable large-scale plans. This week, however, ONE Lab revealed a new, similarly ultra-thin solar cell material that is one-hundredth the weight of conventional panels, while also potentially generating 18 times more power-per-kilogram compared to traditional solar technology. Not only that, but its production methods show promising potential for scalability and major manufacturing.

As a press release from MIT explains, powerful solar cells’ fragile natures require thick glass and aluminum encasements for protection, thus limiting their versatility and implementation opportunities. Using semiconducting inks printed onto material thinner than a single strand of human hair, the team was able to subsequently glue the panels onto a layer of Dyneema, a protective, ultra-lightweight composite fabric weighing only 13 grams-per-square meter. The resultant microns-thin sheet could then be laminated atop a variety of surfaces and materials—think tent exteriors to generate power during disaster relief efforts, or drone wings to extend their potential flight times.

[Related: This new floating solar farm follows the sun like a flower.]

Despite its incredibly miniature design, the new material packs a lot of storage potential. Speaking with MIT, Mayuran Saravanapavanantham, one of the team’s paper co-authors and an electrical engineering and computer science graduate student, offered a standard home rooftop solar array for comparison. “A typical rooftop solar installation in Massachusetts is about 8,000 watts,” Saravanapavanantham explained. “To generate that same amount of power, our fabric photovoltaics would only add about 20 kilograms (44 pounds) to the roof of a house.”

Durability is also a key component for any viable solar cell array, a feature the ONE Lab team demonstrated in its new design by reportedly rolling and unrolling the fabric over 500 times, which only resulted in a less than 10 percent loss in potential power generation.

[Related: A tiny, foldable solar panel is going to space.]

Unfortunately, MIT’s impressive solar fabric isn’t quite ready to sew into your clothes just yet. The team is still searching for the right material to encase the product—because the cells are made from carbon-based organic material, exposure to the natural moisture and oxygen in the air would result in a quick decline in capabilities.

“We are working to remove as much of the non-solar-active material as possible while still retaining the form factor and performance of these ultralight and flexible solar structures,” Jeremiah Mwaura, one of the paper’s additional co-authors, explained to MIT. Once that problem is addressed, the solar fabric could find its way onto countless surfaces to add much-needed green, renewable power to daily life.

The post These powerful solar panels are as thin as a human hair appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Renters, homeowners, and DIY-ers don’t always have the time, money, or skills to accomplish the home improvement tasks on their lists. We get it. Fortunately, one of the benefits of living in a time of rapid innovation is that technology can easily step in where our brains, brawn, and bank accounts fall short. This year, you can upgrade your living space with an easy-install smart showerhead, use spray paint that doesn’t drip, or even consider the most compact in-home water recycling system we’ve ever seen—and that’s just the tip of the screw.

Looking for the complete list of 100 winners? Check it out here.

Grand Award Winner: Smart water recycling by Hydraloop: A compact, easy-to-use gray water recycling system

Hydraloop

Learn More

Gray water is the stuff that spirals down your shower and sink drains, and it’s mostly clean, usable H2O that goes to immediate waste. Recycling this wastewater is doable, but the required systems are frequently large, maintenance-intensive, and involve a complicated jumble of pipes and valves. Hydraloop founder Arthur Valkieser changed that by redesigning existing water treatment technology to eliminate filters, and shrinking his device into something that looks a lot more like a modern household appliance. As water fills the Hydraloop’s tank, sediment sinks to the bottom and lighter grime like soap and hair floats to the top, where it foams up and over as waste. Then, a torrent of air bubbles grabs any free-floating solids and removes them, too. The gray water then enters an aerobic bioreactor where live bacteria feast on any remaining organic material and soap. Every four hours after that, UV-C light disinfects the stored water to kill any remaining bacteria, and the non-potable (but sanitized) water is ready to go back into your washing machine, toilet tank, or garden.

Timberline Solar shingles by GAF Energy: Roofing and renewable energy in one

GAF Energy

Learn More

Installing traditional rack-mounted solar panels requires drilling through your existing roof, creating holes that can lead to leaks and water damage if they’re improperly sealed. GAF Energy’s Timberline Solar shingles, however, nail down just like regular asphalt roofing, thanks to a flexible thermoplastic polymer backing. With that supporting a durable photovoltaic surface, they’ll hang tight in the rain, hail, and winds up to 130 mph. Even brighter: These shingles have serious curb appeal and you won’t have to choose between spending on a roof replacement or investing in solar—you can do both at the same time.

3-in-1 Digital Laser Measurer by Dremel: Precise measurements of uneven surfaces

Dremel

Learn More

Anyone who’s tried to measure an odd-shaped object knows the struggle of fumbling with a flexible tape, laboring through numerous calculations, or painstakingly determining the length of a string that once followed the contours of the piece in question. Dremel’s 3-in-1 digital laser measurer makes this job easier with a snap-on wheel you can roll for up to 65 feet along any surface. On top of that, it’s got a laser measurer that’s accurate within an eighth of an inch, and a 5-foot tape for all your in-home measuring needs.

757 PowerHouse by Anker: A longer-lasting portable power station

Anker

Learn More

Whether you need portable outdoor power or are trying to sustain your home through a blackout, the lithium iron phosphate cells inside the Anker 757 PowerHouse will keep your devices juiced for more than 3,000 cycles. That means if you dispense and refill its full 1,500-watt output once a day, this picnic-cooler-sized hub will last for more than eight years. It’s got one car outlet, two USB-C ports, four USB-A connections, and six standard household AC plugs. Bonus: Its flat top allows it to double as a sturdy off-grid table.

Glidden Max-Flex Spray Paint by PPG: Drip-proof spray paint

PPG

Learn More

Few things are more disheartening to a DIY-er than completing a project, shaking up a can of spray paint, and then seeing your first coat start dripping all over your masterpiece. Applying a smooth sheen of color takes practice, and PPG seems to understand that not everyone has the time to learn the fine points of pigment application. The company’s Glidden Max-Flex all-surface paint eschews the traditional conical spray for a unique wide-fan pattern that not only refuses to drip, but dries in minutes. The lacquer-based formulation works on wood, glass, and metal and is available in 16 matte shades ranging from “In the Buff” to “Black Elegance.”

M18 18V Cordless Tire Inflator by Milwaukee: Faster, cooler roadside assistance

Milwaukee

Learn More

It goes without saying that cordless inflators produce lots of air, but they also generate a bunch of heat. That’s a problem when your pump conks out after 5 minutes and you have to wait for it to cool down before you can keep filling your tires. Not only will Milwaukee’s M18 cordless tire inflator push out 1.41 standard cubic feet of air per minute—making it the fastest 18-volt cordless tire inflator around—but its internal fan will keep it chugging along for up to 20 minutes. You might not even need to use it that long, either: It’ll top off a 33-inch light duty truck tire in less than a minute.

Smart Showerhead by hai: No plumber necessary

hai

Learn More

Smart showerheads frequently require skilled experts to install, and some even feature components that are built into the wall of your bathroom. That’s not accessible for the everyday homeowner. You don’t need tools or special skills to hook up Hai’s smart Bluetooth showerhead, though. Just unscrew the old head, twist on the new one, connect the app, and you’ve got immediate control over both temperature and flow. Use the adjustable spray slider on the head to go from a high-pressure stream to a light mist, and choose your preferred heat level from the app. Plus, customizable LED lights will let you know when you’ve reached your self-imposed limit, saving water.

The post The best home innovations of 2022 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Nearly every new home and commercial building in Washington state will be required to install a heat pump in under a year. This follows the Climate Commitment Act signed into law in the state last year, which aims to limit pollution to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. 

Back in April, the Washington State Building Code Council (SBCC) voted to require the installation of heat pumps for new commercial and multi-family buildings. The council recently voted in favor of requiring it for new residential construction as well, both of which are expected to go into effect in July 2023. 

These updates to the state’s commercial and residential codes encourage building electrification, which is a major step in phasing out the use of fossil fuels for heating and cooling.

A heat pump can ideally replace both a heater and an air conditioner because the technology allows it to absorb heat energy and move it from one place to another. Compared to standard gas heating equipment like furnaces, air-source heat pumps are more energy-efficient because they use electricity to transfer heat from outdoors to indoors when heating and vice versa for cooling. 

[Related: How heat pumps can help fight global warming.]

“Since they move heat around rather than generating it from burning something, they are much more efficient than combustion heating,” says Jonathan J. Buonocore, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health at the Boston University School of Public Health. “By replacing a natural gas furnace, oil heater, wood stove, or some other combustion source, you’re benefiting the environment by replacing a source of emissions of greenhouse gasses or other air pollution.”

A 2021 study published in Environmental Research Letters found that 70 percent of US households could reduce climate damages caused by CO2 emissions related to the house’s energy consumption by simply installing a heat pump. For instance, if all single-family homes used heat pumps, residential carbon emissions may be reduced by 32 percent. The adoption of heat pumps may also reduce financial costs for about 32 percent of households.

“In new construction, installing a heat pump can be cheaper than extending a natural gas connection, installing a furnace, and installing an air conditioner,” says Parth Vaishnav, assistant professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability who was involved in the study.

About 88 percent of single-family, new construction homes in Washington already use some sort of electric primary space heating in 2018, according to a report from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. With the High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act (HEEHRA), low-income households who want to move away from combustion heating may be able to get a rebate covering the cost of a heat pump installation up to $8,000.

In a recent Scientific Reports study, Buonocore and his co-authors analyzed building energy data and identified the ‘Falcon Curve,’ the monthly profile of US energy consumption. Peak total energy consumption occurred in December and January for heating and July and August for cooling.

[Related: Energy costs hit low-income Americans the hardest.]

Policymakers can anticipate this coming electricity demand by putting more non-combustion renewable sources on the grid to supply electricity during the winter, says Buonocore. The installation of heat pumps would be an efficient electrification technology for building decarbonization.

Without energy storage or other ways to manage the grid load, meeting the winter peak in electricity demand with renewable energy would require a 28-fold increase in January wind generation or a 303-fold increase in January solar energy generation. However, if buildings were to have efficient technologies like air source or ground source heat pumps, only 4.5 times more winter wind generation or 36 times more solar energy would be needed to meet the winter peak, ideally flattening the Falcon Curve to an extent.

“Heat pumps make it possible to efficiently use electricity for heating,” says Vaishnav. “If that electricity is produced cleanly—by wind, solar, or nuclear power—then we can eliminate the CO2 emissions that come from burning fossil fuel in a furnace.”

The post Energy-efficient heat pumps will be required for all new homes in Washington appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A new solar power farm prototype bobbing atop the waters of a large lake in the southwest Netherlands is stalking the sun’s movements to make the most out of its energy capabilities. As BBC News explained yesterday, a company called SolarisFloat‘s artificial island—dubbed Proteus after the Greek sea god—is a 38-meter-wide circular system comprised of 180 interconnected modular panels that not only produces around 70 kilowatts of peak power (kWp), but makes the most of its position by slowly following the sun’s trajectory as it arcs across the sky.

[Related: A tiny, foldable solar panel is going to space.]

Much like flowers shifting position as the day progresses, Proteus’ onboard technology allows its double-sided panels to turn in tandem with the sun’s movement in order to consistently generate as much solar power as possible. Because of this, SolarisFloat estimates Proteus can generate as much as 40 percent more energy than nonmoving arrays on land. Another benefit comes from its ability to maintain lower temperatures than land-based counterparts thanks to the water-cooled air underneath it.

There are a few limitations to a sun-tracking solar farm, however. For one thing, location matters—Proteus’ onboard tracking systems won’t mean much anywhere near the Equator, where the panels would stay virtually horizontal the entire day. Additionally, the setup would need to be installed in areas with comparatively weaker tidal currents and fair weather.

[Related: ‘Workhorse of batteries’ could give California tribe’s new clean-energy microgrid a jolt.]

Still, projects like Proteus can potentially help overcome one of the chief barriers to widespread solar power adoption—the comparatively massive amounts of space that panel arrays require to harvest their energy. One study from Leiden University in The Netherlands even estimates that solar farms need somewhere between 40-50 times the area of coal plants, and 90-100 times the land needed by the gas providers. Land value will only increase as the world continues transitioning towards completely renewable energy, meaning it’s likely that solar projects will compete against other vital usages like sustainable farming and forest seeding. Situating solar farms atop otherwise unused bodies of water could be a relatively simple, effective way to allow space for all of the required projects needed to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

The post This new floating solar farm follows the sun like a flower appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Undark.

Wild Alaskan salmon are a gold standard for American seafood. The long journey from the river to the ocean and back builds the muscle mass that gives the fish their distinct texture and flavor, and the clean rivers of the north produce seafood with very low levels of mercury and other contaminants. Indigenous communities have been harvesting salmon in Northwestern North America for more than 10,000 years and some still depend on subsistence fishing for survival. In southeastern Alaska, salmon fishing and processing adds an annual total of about $70 million to the local economy.

But 21st-century salmon face many stressors, including habit loss, climate change, and overfishing. As a result, salmon populations are declining across the United States. The fish still thrive in some parts of Alaska, but local residents and scientists are increasingly concerned about an additional stressor: the mining industry. Active mines, proposed mines, and dozens of exploratory projects span the transboundary region of southeastern Alaska and British Columbia, which includes three major salmon-bearing rivers. One of these proposed mines, the Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell project in Canada, will extract ore from what is reportedly the largest undeveloped gold-copper deposit in the world.

For decades, scientists have been trying to understand the impact of mining on salmonids, a family that includes salmon, trout, and other closely related fish. In July, the journal Science Advances published a review study evaluating more than 100 research papers and documents, concluding that the earlier research has underestimated the impacts of mining operations on Pacific salmonids. Mining activities are of special concern today, the authors wrote, because demand for metals is rising as manufacturers seek raw materials for low-carbon technologies like electric car batteries.

Even under normal circumstances, mining can release contaminants like heavy metals into nearby watersheds, threatening the health of salmon. And mine tailings — the slurry of silt, fine sand, clay, and water that’s left behind after ore is extracted — need to be carefully stored beyond the life of the mine. Without proper environmental mitigation, scientists say, current and proposed mining activities could have devastating effects on Alaskan salmon and their watersheds.

In interviews with Undark, several mining representatives underscored the industry’s efforts to keep watersheds free of contaminants. But many scientists and locals remain skeptical, and they worry about losing the region’s salmon. The nonprofit Salmon Beyond Borders was created to protect transboundary rivers and ways of life. “Wild salmon are at the center of my life,” said Heather Hardcastle, a campaign adviser for the organization, “as they are at the center of most people’s lives in this region.”

Northwestern North America represents a convergence of natural resources, wrote the July paper’s 20-plus authors, most of whom are affiliated with the region’s universities, First Nations, or environmental nonprofits. Northwestern North America holds substantial reserves of coal and metals. It is also home to “some of the most productive and least disturbed salmonid habitat remaining on Earth,” the authors wrote. These fish are unique for their large home ranges and for their tendency to use all of the accessible parts of the watershed. For these and other reasons, it can be difficult to assess and mitigate the risks of mining.

The review was comprehensive, analyzing not only peer-reviewed studies, but also government databases and reports, and industry disclosure documents and technical materials. The results were sobering: Mining operations often fail to meet their own water quality goals, the review found. Further, few studies have compared the predicted impacts of mining with the industry’s actual impacts. Cumulative effects of multiple mines and other stressors are often underestimated. Mitigation strategies aren’t always based on proven technology, and they rarely consider the effects of climate change in years to come.

Lead researcher Chris Sergeant said the July paper is the first of its kind to comprehensively review and summarize the impact of mining on salmon and provide guidance on how to improve the science that supports mining policy. The scale of the review allowed researchers to see a big picture, which can be difficult to visualize based on individual datasets, especially when the data comes from the mining companies themselves.

“It’s nearly impossible with the data we’re given by mining operations these days to do a kind of pre-project assessment of risk,” Sergeant said. “The data quality is so non-transparent and not done systematically.” Sergeant also said he wasn’t surprised by his paper’s findings, given that there are so many individual examples of how mining operations can affect watersheds. Having those examples all together in one place, though, makes the extent of the problem clearer.

Jonathan Moore, a professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia who worked on the July review, noted that salmon also help support the overall health of local watersheds. More than 100 species are believed to have some kind of relationship with salmon, whether direct or indirect. Trout eat salmon eggs and young salmon, for example, and bears eat the spawning adults. When salmon die, their bodies contribute nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus to the watershed and the forests that grow nearby.

The ecological impact of these nutrients is sometimes visible to the human eye. A 2021 study found that the “greenness” of vegetation along the lower Adams River in British Columbia increased in the summers following a productive sockeye salmon run. Another study found that the presence of dead salmon in spawning grounds influenced the growth rate of Sitka spruce trees not just close to the riverbank but also farther into the forest, where researchers said “bear trails and assumed urine deposition were prevalent.”

Environmental activists and scientists are wary of new mining projects, in part, because mining disasters are still happening, even though modern infrastructure is supposed to be robust enough to prevent them. During a 2014 dam failure at the Mount Polley Mine in British Columbia, for example, 32 million cubic yards of wastewater and mine tailings spilled into a nearby lake. From there, the mine waste traveled down a creek and into a second lake, which supports one of the region’s most important salmon habitats.

The mining company, Imperial Metals, maintains that the tailings from the Mount Polley spill did not cause largescale environmental damage. The tailings contained very little pyrite, a mineral that can generate sulfuric acid when exposed to air and water, wrote C.D. Anglin, who worked as the company’s chief scientific officer in the aftermath of the Mount Polley accident, in an email to Undark. Sulfuric acid is one of the most environmentally concerning consequences of mining. When the compound enters a watershed, it doesn’t just threaten the health and survival of fish and other animals, it can also dissolve other heavy metals like lead and mercury from rock it contacts. But, Anglin wrote, “the Mount Polley tailings are considered chemically benign.”

Still, a 2022 study found that the dam failure did have environmental consequences. The study, which was not included in the July review, was led by Gregory Pyle, a researcher at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. Pyle and his colleagues took water, sediment, and invertebrate samples from sites impacted by the spill and from a nearby waterbody, Bootjack Lake, that was not impacted by the spill. In the areas most affected by the spill, Pyle’s team found elevated copper levels in the sediment, as well as high concentrations of copper in the bodies of invertebrates living in those areas. Notably, the researchers also found elevated copper levels in Bootjack Lake, which suggests that the environmental impact of the Mount Polley mine predates the spill itself.

Anglin said the study’s results are misleading. “While the copper levels are slightly higher than in some of the organisms in unimpacted areas,” she wrote, “they are not at a level of environmental concern.”

Pyle disagrees. In an interview with Undark, he pointed to a follow-up study in which his team exposed freshwater scuds (a shrimplike mollusk) to contaminated and uncontaminated water and sediment collected four years after the Mount Polley spill. “When they were in contact with the sediments for as little as 14 days,” he said, “it impaired their growth and survival.” The results of Pyle’s study have implications for salmon since scuds and other invertebrates are an important food source for these fish.

Copper can also build up in the bodies of salmon, as well as their prey, impacting their growth and survival. Studies have found that even sub-lethal copper levels can harm salmon’s olfactory system, which may make it harder for them to avoid predators and orient themselves in their habitat. “Copper has these really insidious effects in terms of salmon’s ability to navigate,” said Moore. “Salmon might not be able to find their way home, for example, in a system that has excess copper.”

Even when contaminants are taken out of the equation, scientists say, the sheer volume of material entering the watershed during a spill like the one at Mount Polley can have physical consequences. “These big disasters like Mount Polley, they transform these systems,” said Moore. For example, the slurry of fine sediment and waste material can cover the gravel where salmon would otherwise lay their eggs, making it useless as spawning habitat.

The lingering effects of past mining have activists and scientists concerned about new projects like the proposed Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell mine, which is expected to begin construction in the summer of 2026. Hardcastle said Salmon Beyond Borders wants the region to take a precautionary approach to new mining projects.

“What’s the point otherwise of trying to decarbonize and get to a clean energy future,” she asks, “if all we’re doing is swapping the big oil and the fossil fuel industry for big mining?”

Christopher Mebane, assistant director for hydrologic studies at the U.S. Geological Survey, studies metals, toxicity, and mining and jokingly describes himself as “a dirty water biologist.” He called the July study, in which he was not involved, “a fair assessment” of the problems that mining activities can create for salmonids. “I can’t find a single misstatement or error,” he said. “But you know, if this were written by a group of mining engineers, it would have a very different tone and probably conclusions.”

Indeed, mining industry representatives say the mistakes of the past won’t be repeated. “Mines with tailing storage facilities are required by law to implement new design and operational criteria using best available technology,” said Michael Goehring, president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia, a trade group. And Brent Murphy, senior vice president of environmental affairs at Seabridge Gold, the company that will operate the proposed KSM mine, said the KSM tailings management facility won’t drain into Alaskan waters. Although the mine itself will be located in a watershed that drains into a transboundary river, Murphy said the tailings facility will drain only into Canadian waters and does not require water treatment.Salmon are believed to have a relationship, direct or indirect, with more than 100 different species. In Alaska, brown bears famously fish for adult salmon as they swim upstream to spawn. Visual: RooM via Getty Images

Murphy added that the tailings facility will be in a confining valley, closed off by two large dams. “We’re containing all of the potential acid-generating material, which is only 10 percent of the total volume of the tailings produced, within a lined facility,” he said. That part of the facility will be surrounded by more than 1.8 miles of compacted sandy material. The design, Murphy said, was implemented to address the concerns of local First Nations.

To satisfy agency and community concerns over the long term, mining operations may also propose water treatment plans that span centuries. Seabridge Gold said water treatment will continue for 200 years after the KSM mine closes, though Murphy told Undark that the water at the site is already naturally contaminated with copper, iron, and selenium and won’t be further contaminated by mine operations.

Christopher Sergeant, who led the July review, said he’s skeptical. “I don’t know of any successful examples of anyone treating water for 200 years,” he said. “And my understanding of corporate structure is that there’s not really a motivation once the project is not creating profit anymore. That’s a big concern of mine: Who is going to be on the hook for making sure that that water is treated in what’s basically perpetuity?”

Goehring said the cost of ongoing water treatment is paid for upfront. British Colombia already holds 2.3 billion Canadian dollars ($1.7 billion ) from the mining industry for the express purpose of containing mine waste, he said. This ensures that after the KSM mine closes, he added, “water treatment, if required, will continue to take place.”

Even so, the future effects of climate change could threaten infrastructure at KSM and other mines. “A lot of the calculations that are made for engineering are based on what the current environment looks like,” said Sergeant, adding that there’s really no way to predict how different the environment will be 10 or 20 years into the life of a mine. Destructive weather events are becoming more common, he noted, and they “aren’t necessarily considered in engineering designs.”

For now, environmental groups like Salmon Beyond Borders aim to convince agencies and policymakers to put a pause on new and expanding mines in shared watersheds until Canadian law can be revised to include provisions for downstream stakeholders. More significantly, Salmon Beyond Borders said it also wants a permanent ban on tailings dams near transboundary rivers. But because mining is so lucrative, permanent bans may not be practical or possible.

Moore said the July paper showcases the key challenges to protecting salmon populations in a region touched by the mining industry. He hopes the research points toward “a productive path forward,” he added, in which the mining industry can coexist with thriving salmon systems and the communities that depend on them.

UPDATE: A previous version of this piece incorrectly stated that the KSM tailings management facility will be located in a watershed that drains into a transboundary river and that wastewater will be piped to a treatment facility miles away. While the mine itself is located in such a watershed, the tailings management facility drains only into Canadian waters and does not require water treatment. The piece also originally referred to Heather Hardcastle as the campaign director for Salmon Without Borders. She is a campaign adviser.

The post What new mining projects could mean for Alaskan salmon appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2022 claims that the world is at a “historic turning point” in regards to transitioning away from fossil fuels. The report says that while the war in Ukraine led to a global energy crisis, the shortage is spurring long-lasting changes that will speed up the transition to more sustainable and secure energy.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, an energy crisis spread around the world as natural gas and gasoline prices surged. Since then, governments around the world have been working to find additional sources of energy to make up for the deficits due to the war. Early on, some worried that this fear could hamper efforts to transition to renewable energy, and the United States and the United Kingdom both pledged to encourage more fossil fuel extraction to ease prices.

However, according to a statement from IEA executive director Faith Birol, the current energy crisis, “is in fact going to accelerate the clean energy transition.” Birol also added that, “We are approaching to the end of the golden age of gas,” in a press conference following the report’s publication.

[Related: What a key natural-gas pipeline has to do with the Russia-Ukraine crisis.]

The report also finds that commitments to clean energy contributed to the run-up in energy prices and more renewable energy was were correlated with lower electricity prices. Additionally, more more energy efficient homes and electrified heat have been an important financial buffer for some customers, but it is not enough. “The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy,” the report says.

The planned investments in green energy in response to the crisis means that government policies would lead to demand for polluting fossil fuels peaking in 2025, according to the report. The IEA referenced the European Union’s emissions reduction package, the US Inflation Reduction Act, Japan’s Green Transformation (GX) Program, and the ambitious clean energy targets in India and China, and others as notable responses to the energy crisis.

“Energy markets and policies have changed as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not just for the time being, but for decades to come,” said Birol, in a statement. “Even with today’s policy settings, the energy world is shifting dramatically before our eyes. Government responses around the world promise to make this a historic and definitive turning point towards a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system.”

[Related: Europe’s energy crisis could shut down the Large Hadron Collider.]

This increased clean energy investment will cost Russia $1 trillion in lost fossil fuel revenues by 2030, according to the report. Previously among the world’s largest exporters of fossil fuels, Russia would have a, “much diminished role in international energy affairs” as the world’s reliance on burning methane gas for power falls, Birol added.

The report also makes the case that cleaner technologies are now more economically feasible and are part of creating stronger energy security in the future. However, more financial investment in clean energy is still needed to meet these goals. In order to reach net zero emissions by 2050, more than $4 trillion in investment is needed. It also highlights the need to attract more investors to the clean energy sector.

“Amid the major changes taking place, a new energy security paradigm is needed to ensure reliability and affordability while reducing emissions,” Birol said. “And as the world moves on from today’s energy crisis, it needs to avoid new vulnerabilities arising from high and volatile critical mineral prices or highly concentrated clean energy supply chains.”

The post Global carbon emissions will peak in 2025, international agency estimates appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Global carbon emissions rose in 2021, bouncing back up an estimated six percent following months of slowed emission during the COVID-19 shutdowns. It was a sobering reminder of just how much work remained ahead of us to if we are to ensure a sustainable future for ourselves, but according to a new report from the International Energy Agency released earlier this week, this year’s numbers are thankfully much lower. The latest data analyzed by IEA experts indicates global CO2 emissions are on course to increase by nearly 300 million tons in 2022 compared to last year’s levels, putting the total amount around 33.8 billion tons. Any increase isn’t exactly great, but it’s a far cry from the almost 2 billion ton leap made between 2021 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The key to this heartening alteration is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the rapid rise in renewable energy sources. The IEA notes that, were it not for “major deployments” of renewable energy tech alongside increased demand for electric vehicles (EVs), we would have likely seen almost triple that number. This even figures the ongoing geopolitical crisis in Ukraine, which has had dramatic effects on the global supply of natural gas and oil. “Even though the energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has propped up global coal demand in 2022 by making natural gas far more expensive, the relatively small increase in coal emissions has been considerably outweighed by the expansion of renewables,” notes the IEA in its summary.

[Related: This space-adapted solar panel can fold like origami.]

The report notes that solar and wind systems led the rise in renewable energy generation in 2022, producing over 700 terawatt-hours(TWh)—the largest annual rise ever measured—accounting for two-thirds of all renewable power. Additionally, “despite the challenging situation that hydropower has faced in several regions due to droughts this year, global hydropower output is up year-on-year, contributing over one-fifth of the expected growth in renewable power.”

Of course, it rarely is all good news when it comes to our fight against climate change. A minuscule rise in emissions is certainly wonderful to hear, but humanity needs to massively reduce our total amount if we’re to stave off the worst effects of eco-catastrophe. A recent study showed that, were we to continue on pace at our current trajectory, nearly 90 percent of all marine life could be wiped out by the end of the century. Still, seeing the measurable effects of increased renewable energies is certainly encouraging news, to say the least. With any luck, we’ll see similarly low numbers—if not even lower—this time next year.

The post Global CO2 emissions grew by less than a percent this year thanks to renewables appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Caltech researchers inspired by Japanese origami design theory are preparing to launch a small satellite prototype into orbit in December. The roughly 3.9 square-inch prototype is capable of harnessing and subsequently wirelessly transmitting solar energy back to Earth. If successful, the nearly ten-year, multimillion dollar project partially backed by aerospace and defense manufacturer Northrop Grumman alongside a $100 million endowment from Donald and Brigitte Bren could help steer the renewable energy sector in a radical new direction, one that could hypothetically even provide clean electricity to regions with no access to reliable power infrastructures.

According to Caltech’s recent interview with two of the project leads, the satellite combines three main areas of advances:

• The development of ultra lightweight, high-efficiency photovoltaic cells “with power-to-weight ratios some 50-100 times greater than even the solar panels currently used on the ISS and modern satellites.”
• Creating similarly lightweight and low-cost tech with the ability to convert direct current power into radio frequency power, then transmit that power back to Earth in the form of safe microwave radiation.
• Perfecting a thin, foldable, and lightweight structure that can not only support all these components, but steer the radio frequency outputs as needed.

[Related: This fabric doubles as 1,200 solar panels.]

To achieve these impressive milestones, Caltech scientists looked to one of the oldest art forms for step-by-step direction, so to speak. “By using novel folding techniques, inspired by origami, we are able to significantly reduce the dimensions of a giant spacecraft for launch,” Sergio Pellegrino, a project co-leader and the Joyce and Kent Kresa Professor of Aerospace and Civil Engineering, said in a recent interview. “The packaging is so tight as to be essentially free of any voids.”

The eventual goal is to launch into orbit hundreds of thousands of solar panels—each individual piece a 4-by-4 inch square weighing less than a tenth of an ounce. Once situated above the planet, these panels would each subsequently unfurl to form a satellite constellation measuring roughly 3.5 square miles of sunlight-gathering surface.

[Related: Are solar panels headed for space?]

Despite the numerous logistical and financial hurdles, there is increasing interest in pursuing solar renewable energy via satellite systems, primarily for a simple reason—beyond Earth’s atmosphere, a solar array hypothetically has access to the Sun’s rays 24/7, not to mention the energy potential in space is about eight times better per square meter, per a writeup from New Atlas. That said, the overall difficulty and prohibited costs may make something like Caltech’s project beyond the possibility of widespread deployment. As New Atlas adds, space solar energy costs could range between $1-2 per kWh, compared to less than $0.17/kWh for US electricity. A similar alternative could be utilizing solar panels here on Earth, then ostensibly reverse beaming their energy up to satellites for global distribution. In any case, Caltech’s numerous advancements in lightweight and flexible panel systems represent major steps forward for innovative renewable energy solutions to our climate crisis.

Update 10/24/22: This article has been updated to more accurately cite the project’s funding.

The post This space-adapted solar panel can fold like origami appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

There’s a phrase that rings loudly in the heads of Popular Science editors any time we bring together a new Brilliant 10 class: “They’ve only just begun.” Our annual list of early-career scientists and engineers is as much a celebration of what our honorees have already accomplished as it is a forecast for what they’ll do next. To find the brightest innovators of today, we embarked on a nationwide search, vetting hundreds of researchers across a range of institutions and disciplines. The collective work of this year’s class sets the stage for a healthier, safer, more efficient, and more equitable future—one that’s already taking shape today. 

• Kandis Leslie Abdul-Aziz: Turning food waste into filters
• Sangeetha Reddy: Harnessing the power of immunotherapy for breast cancer
• Mohammad Hajiesmaili: Decarbonizing the internet
• Rachael Bay: Predicting how wildlife will adapt to climate change
• John Blazeck: Building an immune system from scratch
• Daniella Mendoza DellaGiustina: Spying our future in near-asteroid flybys
• Samitha Samaranayake: Making transit sustainable and equitable
• Chantell Evans: Finding the roots of neurodegenerative disease
• Aaron Streets: Mapping every human cell
• Daniel Larremore: Crunching the numbers to get ahead of outbreaks

Turning food waste into filters

After earning a bachelor’s in chemistry in 2007, Kandis Leslie Abdul-Aziz took a position at an oil refinery along the Schuykill River in South Philadelphia. Part of her job was to analyze refined petroleum products, like acetone and phenol, that other industrial manufacturers might buy. She was also tasked with testing the refinery’s wastewater—which, she couldn’t help but notice, flowed out right next to a residential neighborhood. “Literally, if you looked out past the plant,” she says, “you could see houses close by.”

That was more than a decade before an explosive fire forced the refinery to close and spurred an unprecedented cleanup effort. But the experience got Abdul-Aziz thinking about the life cycle of chemical byproducts and their potential impacts on human health. She went back to school for a PhD in chemistry, and her lab at the University of California, Riverside, now focuses on giving problematic waste streams—from plastic trash to greenhouse gases—a second life.

To start, Abdul-Aziz decided to investigate whether she could convert corn stover into something with economic value. The stalks, leaves, tassels, and husks left over from harvest add up to America’s most copious agricultural waste product. Much of it is left to rot on the ground, releasing methane and other greenhouse gases. A small percentage does get salvaged and converted into biofuels, but the payoff usually isn’t worth the effort.

Abdul-Aziz and her colleagues set out to test multiple processes for turning the refuse into activated carbon, the charcoal-like substance that’s used as a filter everywhere from smokestacks to your home Brita pitcher. Her analysis, published in 2021, looks at the activated carbon produced by various methods—from charring stover in an industrial furnace to dousing it in caustic substances—and the molecular properties that affect which contaminants it can soak up. The ultimate aim: Tell her what kind of chemicals you want to clean up, and she’ll create a carbon filter that can do the trick.

Abdul-Aziz has since applied to patent her customizable process, and is looking into other sources of detritus and use cases. Wastewater treatment companies have expressed interest, she says, in using her tools on environmental toxins such as PFAS—the stubborn, hormone-disrupting “forever chemicals” ubiquitous in household products and prone to contaminating drinking water. At the same time, she has also demonstrated that she can derive activated carbon from citrus peels, and is now investigating whether she can do the same with plastic trash.

She’s also exploring an even bigger swing. Earlier this year, the National Science Foundation awarded her half a million dollars to develop absorbent materials to capture carbon dioxide emissions and help convert them back into useful materials such as polymers and fuels. Abdul-Aziz wants to identify practical recycling processes that don’t require overhauling existing infrastructure. “For us it’s about trying to develop realistic solutions for these sustainability problems so they can actually be implemented,” she explains. It’s these small steps that she believes will move us toward a truly circular economy—one where materials can be reused many times. And with any luck, her innovations will help buffer the worst impacts of the very petrochemicals that inspired her quest.—Mara Grunbaum

Harnessing the power of immunotherapy for breast cancer

In recent decades, immunotherapy has been a game-changer in cancer treatment. Drugs that augment the body’s natural immune response against malignant tumors have dramatically improved survival rates for patients with diseases like lymphoma, lung cancer, and metastatic melanoma. But the method has been far less successful in breast cancers—particularly the most aggressive ones. Sangeetha Reddy, a physician-scientist at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, is trying to change that. “We could do better,” she says.  

Reddy works with patients with triple-negative breast cancers, so-called because the malignancies don’t have any of the three markers scientists have historically targeted with anti-cancer drugs. Even with aggressive chemotherapy and surgery, the prognosis for these patients—who account for about 15 percent of breast cancer diagnoses worldwide—is relatively poor. Immunotherapies, in particular, often fail because breast cancers tend to hobble the body’s dendritic cells, the roving molecular spies that sweep up pieces of suspicious material and carry them back to immune system headquarters to introduce as the new enemy. When the body doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be attacking, boosting its power is of little use.

Reddy is therefore trying to figure out how to restore dendritic cell function. As a physician-scientist, she uses a relatively new approach that she describes as “bedside to bench and back.” She treats patients in her clinic, conducts in vitro and mouse experiments in her lab, and designs and manages her own clinical trials. This physician-scientist method enables a positive feedback loop: Reddy can analyze tumors excised from her own patients to assess whether treatments are working. Then she can test out new drugs on those same cancer cells. When she identifies a promising tactic, she can design clinical trials to test things like safety, dosage, and timing. At every step, she can find something in what she learns to incorporate back into her research or her patients’ care.

This cyclical strategy has led Reddy to the combination of three drugs that she’s currently testing against triple-negative breast cancer: Flt3-ligand, a protein that stimulates the proliferation of dendritic cells; a chemical that helps activate these cells and others; and anthracycline, a standard chemotherapy agent. In mice, this triad kept breast cancer tumors at least 50% smaller than chemotherapy alone. “A couple of our mice, we actually cured them,” says Reddy. A Phase-1 clinical trial investigating the safety and efficacy of the regimen in people began enrolling patients earlier this year.

Though it can take years to work out all the kinks in a new cancer treatment and clear the hurdles on the way to FDA approval, Reddy’s multi-pronged strategy should streamline this process as much as possible. Doing so will allow her to enable a transformation she’s been eyeing since she started to specialize in cancer treatment more than eight years ago. As a fellow at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, Reddy worked with melanoma patients in clinical trials of immunotherapy, which gave her a firsthand look at the treatment’s emerging potential. “We were taking patients who would have passed away within months and giving them ten years,” she says. “Just that hope that we can get there with [triple-negative breast cancer] led me to this path.”—M.G.

Decarbonizing the internet

The internet as we know it is inextricable from the cloud—the ethereal space through which all e-mails, Zooms, and Instagram posts pass. As many of us well-know, however, this nebulous concept is anchored to the Earth by sprawling warehouses that crunch and store data in remote places. Their energy demands are enormous and increasing exponentially: One model predicts they will use up to 13 percent of the world’s power by 2030 compared to just 3 percent in 2010. Gains in computing efficiency have helped matters, says University of Massachusetts Amherst assistant professor of informatics and computer science Mohammad Hajiesmaili, but those improvements do little to reduce the centers’ impact on the environment.

“If the power supply is coming from fuel sources, it’s not carbon optimized,” explains Hajiesmaili. But renewable power is sporadic, given its reliance on sun and wind, and geographically constrained, since it’s only harvested in certain places. This is the puzzle Hajiesmaili is working to solve: How can data centers run on carbon-free energy 24/7?

The answer involves designing systems that organize their energy use around a zero-carbon goal. Several approaches are in the works. The simplest uses schemes that schedule computing tasks to coincide with the availability of renewable energy. But that fix can’t work on its own given the unpredictability of bright sunlight and gusts of wind—and the fact that the cloud doesn’t sleep. Another strategy is “geographical load balancing,” which involves moving tasks from one data center to another based on local access to clean power. It, also, has drawbacks: Transferring data from one place to another still requires energy, Hajiesmaili notes, and, “if you’re not careful, this overhead might be substantial.”

An ideal solution, and the focal point of much of his work these days, involves equipping data centers with batteries that store renewable energy as a reserve to tap, say, at night. “Whenever the carbon intensity of the grid is high,” he says, “you can just discharge from the battery instead of consuming local high-carbon energy sources.” Even though batteries that are big enough, or cheap enough, to fully power data centers don’t exist yet, Hajiesmaili is already developing algorithms to control when future devices will charge and discharge—using carbon optimization as their guiding principle. This “carbon-aware” battery use is just one of many ways in which Hajiesmaili thinks cloud design should be overhauled; ultimately, the entire system must shift to put carbon use front and center. 

Most big technology companies have pledged to become carbon-neutral—or negative, in Microsoft’s case—in the coming decades. Historically, they have pursued those goals by buying controversial offset credits, but interest in carbon-intelligent computing is mounting. Google, for one, already uses geographical load balancing and is continuing to fine-tune it with Hajiesmaili’s input, and cloud-computer company VMWare has its own carbon-cutting projects in the works. In his view, though, the emerging field of computational decarbonization has applications far beyond the internet. All aspects of society—agriculture, transportation, housing—could someday optimize their usage through the same approach. “It’s just the beginning,” he says. “It’s going to be huge.”—Yasmin Tayag

Predicting how wildlife will adapt to climate change

Evolutionary biologists typically think about changes that took place in the past, and on the scale of thousands and millions of years. Meanwhile, conservation biologists tend to focus on the needs of present wildlife populations. In a warming world, where more than 10,000 species already face increased risk of extinction, those disciplines leave a crucial gap. We don’t know which animals will be able to adjust, how quickly they can do it, and how people can best support them.

Answers to these questions are often based on crude generalizations rather than solid data. Rachael Bay, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Davis, has developed an approach that could help make specific predictions about how at-risk species might evolve over the coming decades. “Injecting evolution into conservation questions is really quite novel,” she says.

The central premise of Bay’s work addresses a common blind spot. Conjectures about how climate change will affect a particular creature often assume that all of them will respond similarly to their changing habitat. In fact, she points out, it’s exactly the variation between individuals that determines if and how a species will be able to survive.

Take the reef-building corals she looked at for her PhD research: Thought to be one of the organisms most vulnerable to extinction as a result of warming oceans, some already live in hotter waters than others. Bay identified genes associated with heat tolerance in the coral Acropora hyacinthus and measured the prevalence of that DNA in populations in cooler waters; from there, she was able to model how natural selection would change the gene pool under various climate-change scenarios. Her findings, published in 2017 in Science Advances, made a splash. The data indicated that the cooler-water corals can, in fact, adapt to warming if global carbon emissions start declining by 2050; if they don’t, or keep accelerating as they have been, the outlook becomes grim.

Bay has continued her work on corals and other marine organisms, but she has also applied her method to terrestrial animals. In 2017, work she conducted with UCLA colleague Kristen Ruegg bolstered the case for keeping a Southwestern subspecies of the willow flycatcher on the US endangered list. Though the species as a whole is abundant, with a breeding range that spans most of the US and southwestern Canada, the subgroup that occupies southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico has struggled with habitat loss. The scientists demonstrated not only that the desert-dwelling birds were genetically distinct enough to merit their own listing, but also that individuals in that population have unique genes that are likely associated with their ability to survive temperatures that regularly top 100°F. Protecting this small subgroup—less than one-tenth of a percent of the total population—could help the entire species persist.

That kind of specific, forward-looking decision is exactly what Bay hopes to enable for other wildlife facing an uncertain future. Other recent work has focused on how yellow warblers, Anna’s hummingbirds, and a coastal Pacific snail called the owl limpet might shift their ranges in response to climate change. “The pie-in-the-sky goal is to make evolutionary predictions that can be used in management,” she says.—M.G.

Building an immune system from scratch

When a new pathogen invades, the immune system unleashes a suite of antibodies into the bloodstream—the bodily equivalent of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. While most of those proteins will do an okay job of neutralizing the trespasser, a valuable few will zero in with deadly accuracy. The faster scientists can identify and replicate those killers, the better we’ll get at beating disease. Case in point: Antibody therapy helped many at-risk patients sick with COVID-19. The big challenge in studying the body’s natural response, however, is that in order to do so, people have to get sick.

John Blazeck, of Georgia Tech’s School of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, is developing a workaround. Instead of using the human body as a “bioreactor” for antibodies, he wants to use microbes. That way, the repertoire that fires off in response to a pathogen can be studied in, say, a flask or a chip. The dream of a “synthetic immune system” has kicked around biotech circles for the last two decades, but Blazeck’s work is ushering it into reality. “We can have a million different microbes, making a million different antibodies that would mimic what a person would be doing,” he says.

His career began in synthetic biology, a field that involves sticking genes into microbes to make them do new things. Specifically, he tried to get them to pump out biofuels. His interest in advancing health, however, led him to use his expertise to fight disease in 2013, when he injected microbes with the human genes known to produce antibodies. Recreating the immune system in this way is a colossal undertaking. “The catch is that the process has been optimized for millions of years, so it’s very hard to make it happen,” he explains.

Nevertheless, his team has made foundational progress that could underpin the future of this research. Recently, they figured out how to efficiently mutate antibody DNA after it’s been inserted into microbes, which will help them select antibodies that bind more tightly to a given pathogen. The process is meant to mimic how the immune system uses its B cells—the body’s antibody factories—to self-select the proteins that generate the strongest defenses.

Building a synthetic immune system is only half of what Blazeck is doing to supercharge immunity. The rest builds on his postdoctoral research on engineering a means to thwart cancer cells’ defenses. Tumors secrete molecules that shut down immune cells trying to get in their way. Blazeck—with his former advisor George Georgiou, of the University of Texas, Austin—found an enzyme that can render those molecules harmless, allowing the immune system to do its thing. Ikena Oncology, a company specializing in precision cancer treatment licensed the enzyme, one of the first of its kind, in 2015. Both aspects of Blazeck’s work are at the forefront of burgeoning new fields, and he’s been heartened by the early response. “I hope that people continue to appreciate the value of trying to engineer immunity, and how it can contribute to understanding how to fight disease—and also directly fight disease,” he says.—Y.T.

Spying our future in near-asteroid flybys

The whole world will be watching when a 1,000-foot-wide asteroid called Apophis swoops by Earth in mid-April 2029. But Daniella Mendoza DellaGiustina, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona, will be looking more closely than anyone else. Her gaze will be trained on what the space rock reveals about our past—and what it means for our future. “It’s going to captivate the world,” she says. In 2022, NASA named her principal investigator of the OSIRIS-APEX mission, which will send the OSIRIS-ReX spacecraft that sampled the asteroid Bennu in 2020 chasing after Apophis.

DellaGiustina wasn’t always interested in space, but as a “cerebral young person” gazing into the famously clear skies of the desert Southwest, she had a lot of big questions: Why are we here? How did we get here? A community college class in astronomy piqued her interest. Then, a university course on meteorites led to an undergraduate research position with Dante Lauretta, who later became the principal investigator of OSIRIS-ReX. DellaGiustina knew “very early on” that the research environment was right for her: “You’re actively pushing the boundary of human knowledge.” A master’s degree in computational physics led her to field work on the ice sheets of Alaska, which resemble those on other planets. Eventually, she returned to the University of Arizona, where completed a PhD in geosciences (seismology) while working on image processing for OSIRIS-ReX.

A belief that asteroids hold answers to the big questions of her youth drives her to understand them from the inside out. “They really represent the leftovers of solar system formation,” she says. “It’s kind of like finding an ancient relic.” So-called carbonaceous asteroids like Ryugu and Europa—rich in volatile substances, including ice—may explain how water and the amino acids that jumpstarted life once made their way to Earth. They may also offer a glimpse of the future: “Near-Earth asteroids, especially, hold tremendous potential for resource utilization,” DellaGiustina says, “but one might also take us out someday.”

Apophis is not considered dangerous, but it will swing by at roughly one-tenth the distance between Earth and the Moon. “If we ever have an incoming threat to our own planet, we need to understand ‘what’s the structure of this thing?’ so that we can properly mitigate against it,” she says. With DellaGiustina at the helm, the OSIRIS-APEX project will use this once-in-7,500-years chance to study how close encounters with planets can change an asteroid. Earth’s tidal pull, for example, is expected to “squeeze” Apophis—a tug DellaGiustina hopes to measure via a seismometer dropped on the surface.

Lauretta, who has worked with DellaGiustina since she was an undergraduate, jumped at the chance to nominate her to lead the next phase of the OSIRIS mission. She had always been keen on designing experiments—Lauretta seriously considered her proposal to equip OSIRIS-ReX with a dosimeter to measure the radiation risk for future asteroid-hopping astronauts. Her “decisive leadership is rare and critical for a program of this size,” he adds. On the off chance that an errant space rock ever threatens Earth, it’ll be a comfort to know she’s at work behind the scenes.—Y.T.

Making transit sustainable and equitable

Picture this: It’s Tuesday morning, and you’re planning to ride the train to work. Walking to the station takes 25 minutes, so you hop on the local bus. Today, though, the bus is delayed, and doesn’t reach the station in time to catch the train. You wait for the next one. You’re late for work.

If your boss is a stickler and you rely on public transit, a missed connection can be make or break. These are the kinds of problems that Samitha Samaranayake, a computer-scientist-turned-civil-engineer at Cornell University, has made it his mission to solve. He designs algorithms to help varied modes of mass transit work more seamlessly together—and help city planners make changes that benefit those who need them most.

Before Cornell, Samaranayake spent several years studying app-based ridesharing, including the potential of on-demand autonomous car fleets. In 2017, he co-authored an influential paper showing that companies like Uber and Lyft could reduce their contribution to urban congestion if cars were dispatched and shared efficiently. But he quickly became disillusioned with entirely car-centric solutions. “It’s convenient for people who can afford it,” he says, but when it comes to moving city-dwellers efficiently and accessibly, mass transit can’t be beat.

So Samaranayake began investigating how new technology can best be incorporated into city transit systems—and possibly solve some of their most-common pitfalls. Take the “last mile problem:” the challenge of transporting people from transit hubs in dense urban areas to the less-centralized places that they need to go—like their homes in far-out neighborhoods. If these connections aren’t quick and reliable, people may not use them. And if people aren’t using a neighborhood bus line or other last-mile service, says Samaranayake, a transit agency might cut it rather than run more buses, making the problem worse.

That’s where the technology developed by ride-sharing companies becomes useful, says Samaranayake. In recent years, he’s designed algorithms to integrate real-time data from public transit with the software used to dispatch on-demand vehicles. This could let transit authorities send cars to pick up groups of people, then deliver them to a commuter hub in time to make their connections.

This approach is known as “microtransit,” and after pandemic-related delays, a test project with King County Metro in Seattle launched earlier this year. It uses app-based rideshare vans to shuttle shift workers and others who live in the outskirts of the city to and from the regional rail line. Although it’s too early to measure success, Samaranayake has seen enthusiastic uptake from some commuters without many good alternatives.

That points toward his other goal: finding better ways to quantify how equitably transit resources are apportioned, so that city planners can ultimately design new systems that reach more people more efficiently. This social-justice element helps motivate Samaranayake to keep working on mass transit, even though funding has typically been more abundant for flashier technology like self-driving cars.

That could be changing: In recent years, Samaranayake and his collaborators have received nearly $5 million from the US Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation to pursue their vision. “Transit is not ‘cool’ from a research perspective,” Samaranayake admits. “But it’s the only path forward to a transportation system that is environmentally sustainable and equitable, in my view.”—M.G.

Finding the roots of neurodegenerative disease

Anyone who’s taken high school biology knows that mitochondria are the powerhouses of cells. While it’s true that these organelles are responsible for converting sugars into energy, they also have many less-appreciated jobs, including generating heat, storing and transporting calcium, and regulating cell growth and death. In recent decades, researchers have linked the breakdown of these functions to the development of certain cancers and heart disease.

When it comes to diseases like dementia, Parkinson’s, and ALS, however, Duke University cell biologist Chantell Evans thinks it’s time to look specifically at neurons. “Mitochondria are implicated in almost every neurodegenerative disease,” says Evans. By unraveling how neurons deal with malfunctioning mitochondria, her work could open up possibilities for treating many currently incurable conditions.

Evans’ work focuses on understanding a process called mitophagy—how cells deal with dead or malfunctioning mitochondria—in neurons. There are plenty of reasons to believe brain cells might manage their organelles in unique ways: For one, they don’t divide and replenish themselves, which means the 80 billion or so we’re issued at birth have to last a lifetime. Neurons are also extremely stretched out (the longest ones run from the bottom of the backbone to the tip of each big toe) which means each nucleus has to monitor and maintain its roughly two million mitochondria over a great distance.

Before Evans launched her investigation in 2016, research on epithelial cells—those that line the surface of the body and its organs—had identified two proteins, PINK1 and Parkin, that seem to be mutated in patients with Parkinson’s disease. But, confusingly, disabling those proteins in mice in the lab didn’t lead to the mouse equivalent of Parkinson’s. To Evans, that suggested that the story of neural mitophagy must be more complicated.

To find out how, she went back to basics. Her lab watched rodent brain cells in a dish as they processed dysfunctional mitochondria. Evans gradually cranked up the stress they experienced by removing essential nutrients from their growth medium. This, she argues, is more akin to what happens in an aging human body than the typical process, which uses potent chemicals to damage mitochondria.

Results she published in 2020 in the journal eLife found that disposing of damaged mitochondria takes significantly longer in neurons than it does in epithelial cells. “We think, because [this slowness] is specific to neurons, that it may put neurons in a more vulnerable state,” she explains. Evans has also helped identify additional proteins that are involved in the best-known repair pathway—and determined that that action takes place in the soma, or main body, of a neuron but not in its threadlike extensions, known as axons. That, she says, could mean there’s a separate pathway that’s maintaining the mitochondria in the axon. Now, she wants to identify and understand that one too.

Thoroughly documenting these mechanics will take time, but Evans says charting the system could lead to precious medicine. “If we understand what goes wrong,” she says, “We might be able to diagnose people earlier… and be more targeted in trying to develop better treatment options.”—M.G.

Mapping every human cell

It took the Human Genome Project a decade to lay out our complete genetic code. Since then, advances in sequencing technology have vastly sped up the pace by which geneticists can parse As, Gs, Ts, and Cs, which has allowed biologists to think even bigger—by going smaller. Instead of spelling out all of a person’s DNA, they want to create a Human Cell Atlas that characterizes the genetic material of every single cell in the body. Doing so will create “a reference map of what a healthy human looks like,” explains bioengineer Aaron Streets.

Understanding what makes individual cells unique requires insight into the epigenome—the suite of chemical instructions that tell the body how to make many kinds of cells out of the same string of DNA. “This is where the notion of the epigenome comes into play,” says Streets, who runs a lab at the University of California, Berkeley. All cells may be reading from the same book, but each one’s epigenome highlights the most relevant passages—essentially how and which genes are expressed. Streets is inventing the tools scientists need to zero in on those specifics.

Reading the epigenome is important, says Streets, because, in addition to showing why healthy cells act the way they do, it can also reveal why an individual one goes haywire and causes illness—cancer, for example. Once the markers of a rogue actor are known, he explains, researchers can develop therapeutics that address the question: “How can we engineer the epigenome of cells to fix the disease?”

Characterizing cells is highly interdisciplinary work, which Streets is perfectly suited for. He majored in art and physics but “just wasn’t good at” biology organismal studies. It wasn’t until graduate school, where he worked with a physicist-turned-bioengineer, that he realized how much insights gleaned from math, physics, and engineering could benefit the study of living things.

As a start, this year Streets and his colleagues published a protocol in the journal Nature Methods for reading particularly mysterious parts of the genome. The tool identifies sections within hard-to-read DNA regions that bind proteins—and thus have epigenomic significance—by bookending the strings with chemical markers called methyl groups. To James Eberwine, a pharmacology professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a pioneer of single-cell biology, “it is going to be very useful” for building a cell atlas.

Now, Streets’s lab is building new software to piece together the millions of sequences that comprise a single cell’s genome. And, because mapping every single anatomical cell will require a fair bit of teamwork, the programs they create are shared freely with other scientists who can use the tools to make their own discoveries. “If you look at really huge leaps in progress in our understanding of how the human body works,” says Streets, “they correlate really strongly with advances in technology.”—Y.T.

Crunching the numbers to get ahead of outbreaks

Like everyone in early 2020, Daniel Larremore wondered whether this virus making its way around the globe was going to be a big deal. Would he have to cancel the exciting academic workshop he had planned for March? What about his ongoing research on the immune-evading genes of malaria parasites?

As the answers became clear, so did his next big task: predicting the trajectory of the disease so that scientists and policymakers could get ahead of it. “You have a background in infectious diseases and mathematical modeling,” thought the University of Colorado Boulder computer scientist. “If you’re not going to make a contribution when there’s a global pandemic, when are you going to step up?” He put his work on the epidemiology of malaria on hold as he emailed colleagues studying the emerging outbreak to ask how his lab could help. “I sent that mid-March,” he says, “and didn’t stop working until early to mid-2021.”

Before coming to Boulder, Larremore had been a postdoctoral candidate at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where he was first immersed in the world of infectious disease—how it was transmitted, how it evaded immunity, and how to model its spread. It prepared him well for the first wave of COVID-19 research questions, which were all about working around the shortcomings of antibody tests. At the time, they were the only tools available for counting infections, but their sensitivity and specificity varied widely. A paper he co-authored in those early months described how to estimate infection rate, a key metric in justifying public health measures like mask mandates and social distancing.

As the pandemic wore on, Larremore and his collaborators continued to think forward: “What’s the question we’re going to be asking six months from now that we’ll wish we had the answer to right away?” The research they conducted now underpins much of American COVID policy: Their modeling found that speed, not accuracy, in testing was more important for curbing viral spread; that the success of immunity passports depended on the prevalence and infectiousness of the virus; and that elderly and medically vulnerable people should be prioritized for vaccination. “Dan did a huge amount of work across a number of different disciplines, and I think the contributions he’s made have really been remarkable,” says Yonatan Grad, an associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who frequently collaborates with Larremore.

While his work on COVID-19 winds down, Larremore is already helping develop a general theory of disease mitigation involving at-home testing. Through modeling, he’s hoping to find out how much testing might slow the spread of different infectious diseases—and how that changes with disease or the variant. He’s excited about leveraging the jump in public science literacy induced by COVID-19: “If you tell people to self-collect a nasal swab, they’ll do a great job at it,” he says. He imagines a world where the public can reliably self-diagnose common illnesses like flu, and take the appropriate steps (wearing a mask, opening windows) to protect others. “That just seems really empowering,” says Larremore. “And, potentially, a cool future.” —Y.T.

The post The Brilliant 10: The top up-and-coming minds in science appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The latest fashion breakthrough is taking “activewear” in an entirely new direction: researchers at Nottingham Trent University have developed a new fabric featuring interwoven minuscule photovoltaic cells capable of recharging electronic devices like mobile phones and smartwatches. Per the school’s announcement last week, the prototype swatch includes 1,200 minuscule solar panels—each measuring just 5 by 1.5 millimeters—that can generate 400 milliwatts (mWatts) from the sun, which is enough to keep small gadgets juiced thanks to the renewable energy source.

“Until now very few people would have considered that their clothing or textiles products could be used for generating electricity,” explains Theodore Hughes-Riley, lead researcher and an associate professor of Electronic Textiles. “… [T]he material which we have developed, for all intents and purposes, appears and behaves the same as any ordinary textile, as it can be scrunched up and washed in a machine.” Researchers also note that, because the tiny solar cells are comprised of silicon, wearers aren’t able to even notice a difference in the fabric’s composition when compared to standard clothing.

[Related: Best solar panel of 2022.]

Potential scaled-up usages include constructing items like outerwear, backpacks, and other carrying bags using the material, all of which could allow wearers to keep their devices charged while on-the-go during the day. “Electronic textiles really have the potential to change people’s relationship with technology, as this prototype shows how we could do away with charging many devices at the wall,” adds Hughes-Riley.

Solar power innovations are key to transitioning human society away from fossil fuel technologies, and are cropping up in a variety of different fields. The European Space Agency, for example, plans to experiment with solar panel systems orbiting above Earth. Since there are no real “days” or “nights” in space—not to mention zero cloud coverage—potential solar power generation could be as much as 8 or 9 times greater than what’s currently achievable here on the planet’s surface. As powerful as that may one day be for us, it’s encouraging to know that even small changes like the composition of our clothing can help usher in the necessary renewable energy shift for our species.

The post A new experimental fabric can turn a coat into a mini solar farm appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Siemens Gamesa announced Monday that its breakthrough development in offshore wind turbine technology, the 14-222 DD offshore prototype, has set a new world record for the most energy generated over 24 hours. As first reported by news outlets earlier this week, the prototype delivered 359 megawatt-hours in a single day—roughly enough to power 18,000 households, or keep a Tesla Model 3 charged for over 1 million miles.

“With every new generation of our offshore direct drive turbine technology—which uses fewer moving parts than geared turbines—component improvements have enabled greater performance while maintaining reliability,” Siemens Gamesa explains via the turbine’s fact sheet.

[Related: Best home wind turbines of 2022.]

One of the keys to the 14-222 DD offshore prototype’s success are its “revolutionary” blades cast from a single, gigantic piece of recyclable resin. Although the company’s “RecyclableBlade” technology first appeared in an earlier turbine generation last year, additional construction advancements have further optimized its offerings via its latest project.

“We are proving that as the leaders of the offshore revolution, we are committed to making disruptive technology innovation commercially viable with the pace that the climate emergency demands,” Marc Becker, CEO of the Siemens Gamesa Offshore Business Unit, told The Independent.

[Related: Scientists think we can get 90 percent clean energy by 2035.]

Advancements in renewable wind energy technology are heartening to see as climate change‘s effects rapidly become increasingly dire for the world’s populations. Recently, the first utility-scale facility comprised of a solar, wind, and battery triple threat came online in northern Oregon. The setup reportedly can power 100,000 homes thanks to its combined 300 megawatts of wind, 50 megawatts of solar, and 30 megawatts of battery storage.

According to Siemens Gamesa, the 14-222 DD turbine is slated to go into production in 2024, and already has preorders from wind farms off the coasts of the US, UK, and Taiwan.

The post A wind turbine just smashed a global energy record—and it’s recyclable appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

What’s better than one type of clean energy? A triple threat of technologies working together to bring renewables to the grid. Just last week, the first utility-scale energy facility combining solar, wind, and battery storage opened up and started providing power in northern Oregon. Between 300 megawatts of wind, 50 megawatts of solar, and 30 megawatts of battery storage, the triple-powered project can power around 100,000 homes using clean energy. 

The project, called Wheatridge Renewable Energy Facilities is co-owned by NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and Portland General Electric (PGE).

Solar and wind energy naturally work well together because of their opposite power hours—wind tends to be strongest at night, and the sunniest hours are during the day. Still, a  key part here is the battery storage, which provides a little bit of an extra cushion for the intermittency of solar and wind energy. With all that storage, energy can be harnessed on demand, even if the sun and wind are nowhere to be seen.

Before the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, renewable energy projects that incorporated storage were largely just stuck with solar, because “energy storage was only incentivized under the tax code when it was associated directly and solely with a solar project,” Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO at the American Council on Renewable Energy, told Utility Dive. But since the massive climate bill passed, the door has opened for battery projects to nestle in with wind and other renewables as well.

[Related: Scientists think we can get 90 percent clean energy by 2035.]

In 2007, Oregon set emissions reductions targets at 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and the governor ordered even tighter targets in 2020. Emissions targets for energy delivered to retail customers are ambitious: emissions must be reduced by at least 80 percent by 2030, 90 by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040.

But they are getting there—in 2020, 68 percent of utility-scale electricity generation was from renewables, according to the US Energy Information Administration. For PGE and NextEra, this project represents another step forward. 

“By supporting innovative projects like Wheatridge, we continue to accelerate renewable energy solutions for our state, communities and customers, while maintaining reliability and affordability,” Maria Pope, president and CEO of Portland General Electric said in a press release. “This partnership marks a technological milestone in decarbonizing our system and making clean energy accessible to all Oregonians.”

Even outside the US, projects incorporating wind, solar, and battery storage are rare. One such project just came online in March in the Netherlands, and projects in Australia and the UK are underway. With climate policy back in action across the country, hopefully there will be more renewable energy team-ups in the future.

The post The US’s first utility-scale renewable energy triple threat is online in Oregon appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Batteries to store renewable energy and power electric vehicles are essential if countries, communities, and businesses hope to meet climate change and clean energy goals. But, these technologies require complicated-to-mine materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel. And the demand for these minerals is only expected to increase—the market for battery cells is predicted to grow by more than 20 percent annually until 2030.

This increasing demand for batteries rustles up interest in seabed mineral extraction because the deep seafloor may contain enough minerals to support the transition to a low-carbon energy system.

However, deep-sea mining—the process of extracting minerals from the ocean below 200 meters—may destroy habitats and cause the loss of marine species. Is mineral extraction initiatives in shallow sea areas the key to meeting mineral demand sustainably? It’s unlikely, according to researchers.

Shallow-water mining isn’t necessarily a sustainable option

Shallow-water mining, defined as extracting materials at depths less than 200 meters deep under the water, is a contentious subject. Two factors are often considered it comes to the sustainability of deep-sea mining versus shallow-water mining: We have better knowledge of shallow-water ecosystems, and their biological communities have shorter recovery times, says Laura Kaikkonen, visiting scholar at the University of Helsinki Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme.

Deep-sea ecosystems are incredibly understudied, and the lack of data makes predicting the long-term impacts of mining very difficult. In addition, deep-sea species are long-lived and reproduce less often than their shallow-water counterparts. Therefore their populations will take much longer to recover, she adds. However, a recent study published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution argues that there are no thorough and impartial comparisons between the two. Consequently, the paper argues there are no justifications in favor of shallow-water mining.

“Despite ​claims about how shallow-water mining can be the environmentally and socially sustainable alternative to traditional mining, thus far there have not been any thorough evaluations of the impacts of different mining practices to back these claims,” says Kaikkonen, who was involved in the new study.

Shallow-water mining may save operational costs because it takes place closer to the shore, and dredging shallow seafloor minerals is often efficient. But, any mineral extraction from the seabed will result in several environmental changes, including disrupting shallow-water minerals and their massive role in the habitat of seafloor organisms. And when seafloor organisms hurt, those impacts can be felt all the way up the chain of marine life, Kaikkonen adds.

However, shallow-water ecosystems may be more tolerant of mining-related stressors like elevated turbidity, sediment burial, and noise levels, says Craig Smith, professor emeritus in the Department of Oceanography at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa who was not involved in the study. That’s because shallow-water ecosystems usually experience noise and disruption from the surface more often than their deep-sea counterparts due to human activity.

That said, no matter how minimal, the noise, vibrations, and other impacts of mining operations may be detrimental—especially since the effects added would be on top of the stressors that already exist from human activities, pollution, and the impacts of climate change, says Kaikkonen. She adds that we must evaluate whether the short-term benefit from seafloor minerals is worth the permanent damage to ecosystems.

Shallow-water mining is likely to cause heavy metal contamination of the marine environment, damaging different habitat types that may take decades to recover, says Andrew K. Sweetman, professor of deep-sea ecology at the Heriot-Watt University who was not involved in the study. 

A 2021 Environmental Science and Pollution Research study assessed water and fish samples from fourteen monitoring stations to determine heavy metal contamination in the Persian Gulf. The authors found high concentrations of heavy metals like copper, nickel, and lead in water samples from stations near petrochemical plants. They also discovered that fish populations dwelling near the seafloor were more contaminated than those living within the top five meters of the water column, making them hazardous to human health.

More research about the environmental impacts of shallow-water mining is needed

Before rushing to exploit new mineral resources, research and development should be targeted to improve the use of what we already have, says Kaikkonen.

According to a 2022 commentary in One Earth, seabed mining is often justified by the incorrect assumption that land-based metal reserves are rapidly depleting. But, this isn’t true—the identified resources of nickel and cobalt on land can meet global demand for decades. Therefore, it’s essential to embrace circular economy practices that reuse, repurpose, and recycle minerals as much as possible to avoid the expansion of mining into the ocean.

For instance, nickel has a high recycling efficiency, and about 68 percent of all nickel from consumer products is recycled. However, plenty of factors stand in the way of increased recycling of cobalt and lithium. This includes inefficient collection infrastructure, product design without thinking of second-life uses, and price fluctuations of raw materials.

Although some extractive activity might be necessary to move to a carbon-negative economy, it must be done properly—which means doing baseline and impact assessments, says Sweetman. Smith suggests proceeding very slowly with deep-sea and shallow-water mining, allowing only one operation to happen until the resulting intensity and extent of the disturbance to ecosystems is well-understood. It’s essential to close the significant knowledge gaps on the potential impacts of mining before seafloor mining is allowed to proceed at a large scale, he adds. 

Protecting large areas from mining may also preserve regional biodiversity and ecosystem services, says Smith. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), an intergovernmental body of 167 member states and the European Union, was formed to protect the marine environment by regulating mining operations in international seabed areas. But, the group has faced controversy given that they have granted at least 30 exploration contacts covering more than 1.3 million square kilometers of the deep seafloor, leading some environmental activists to argue that they prioritize the development of deep-sea mining over environmental protection.

Shallow-water mining activities should not be considered the silver bullet to resolving the growing global need for metals. Fully powering the world’s growing demand for electric vehicles and storage—even with all currently known mineral resources—is unrealistic, says Kaikkonen. For a future that is sustainable for human life and the ecosystems that will be affected by growing demand, shrinking energy use is just as important as finding new ways to power the world.

The post Even mining in shallow waters is bad news for the environment appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced yesterday that all new vehicles purchased in the state must be zero-emission models beginning in 2035. To reach this goal, the governor said that 35 percent of new cars will need to be zero-emissions by the year 2026 and 68 percent by 2030. Additionally, all new school buses purchased will have to be zero-emissions by 2027, with the entire fleet meeting these standards by 2035.

“We’re really putting our foot down on the accelerator and revving up our efforts to make sure we have this transition—not someday in the future, but on a specific date, a specific year—by the year 2035,” said Hochul in yesterday’s press conference.

New York is the fourth most populous state in the United States and the second state to mandate zero-emissions vehicles by the year 2035 after California.

[Related: California poised to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars.]

Last month, The California Air Resources Board voted to ban the sale of gas-powered cars beginning in 13 years. Due to federal regulations, any state-led move to enforce stricter emissions rules must occur first in California. California was authorized with the ability to set its own emissions standards in 1970, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act. This ability to set emissions standards was granted to the populous western state due to smog conditions at the time.

However, the Clean Air Act does have a a provision that prevents states from setting their own emissions. So to use its emission setting power, California must first apply for a waiver with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Once that step is complete, other states can follow.

New York’s State Department of Environmental Conservation has been tasked with implementing the necessary regulations to require that all new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) sold in New York State will be be zero-emissions by 2035. These regulations were passed last year.

[Related: Everything you need to know about EV tax credits and the Inflation Reduction Act.]

The governor also announced a $10 million investment in the state’s Drive Clean Rebate program. She said the program could “help New Yorkers purchase and drive these vehicles.” She explained that an up-to-$2,000 rebate is available in all of New York’s 62 counties.

The New York Power Authority also recently completed the installation of its 100th high-speed EV charger. The installation was part of New York’s EVolve NY statewide charging network. According to Governor Hochul, New York State will receive $175 million from The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s $5 billion allocation for EV charging networks.

“So that’s going to help over 14 interstates in New York, especially ones used by the people in this community,” Hochul said. “So you’re going to see that you have no more excuses.”

The post New cars sold in New York state must be zero-emissions by 2035 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s rare to behold these days, but here’s some good news: A lot of scientists agree that a 90percent green energy infrastructure is not only possible, but that there are now clear pathways to making it a reality. The bad news? They really are having a tough time figuring out how to finish the job for that tricky little last 10 percent.

A new study published last week in in the research journal Joule details both the impediments and six possible solutions to ensuring the United States can reach the Biden administration’s 2035 goal for net-zero emissions in the electricity sector. Within those potential pathways are a mix of strategies, including further reliance on wind and solar energy production, hydrogen energy storage, and an expansion of our nuclear power capabilities. For example, as explained by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), wind and solar energy would provide 60 to 80 percent of total generation in the least expensive electricity mix, with “the overall generation capacity grow[ing] to roughly three times the 2020 level by 2035—including a combined 2 terawatts of wind and solar.”

[Related: A century ago, wind power was a farming norm. What happened?]

“A 100 percent carbon-free power system will require a portfolio of resources,” Trieu Mai, a senior energy researcher for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the paper’s lead author, told Inside Climate News last week. “But humility is needed to accept that we don’t know … the optimal mix to solving the last 10 percent.” The NREL cites difficulties including the speed and exponential growth required to scale renewable energy sources, securing adequate research and development funding, and supply chain adaptation as key areas to ensure that last 10 percent push.

As Mai and their collaborators explain in their paper, the balancing act to achieve this lofty, yet wholly necessary, benchmark is a delicate one. There are numerous political and societal factors at play, such as cost concerns (nuclear and geothermal power can be pretty pricey, for example), near term viability (hydrogen power is far from market ready), and convincing a potentially hesitant public.

Of course, such a paper can’t lay out a specific path forward for the US, but instead present a host of options we need to consider what is the best and most likely way to address the existential threat at our doorstep. “We just want people to recognize that within each option, there are tradeoffs,” Mai told Inside Climate News. “We recognize the degree of uncertainty with all of these technologies, and we need to lay that out on the table.”

The post Scientists think we can get 90 percent clean energy by 2035 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The following is an excerpt from The Big Fix: Seven Practical Steps to Save Our Planet by Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis.

Had you met Dew Oliver in 1926, you might have written him a check. A lot of people did, and came to regret it. He was a charming Texan running around Southern California in a cream-colored Stetson cow-boy hat, sporting a walrus mustache and talking up money making schemes. His boldest idea was a plan to capture the wind.

Mr. Oliver, like just about everybody else who passed through the San Gorgonio Pass, was mightily impressed by the winds there. The pass, created by the famed San Andreas Fault, is one of the steepest in the United States, with the mountains on either side rising nearly nine thousand feet above it. Like a lot of mountain passes, it functions as a wind tunnel. As the hot desert air of interior California rises, cooler air from the Pacific Ocean, to the west, rushes through the pass. The story goes that Mr. Oliver realized how strong those winds were when they blew his Stetson off his head.

His scheme was pretty simple, really. He wanted to erect a ten-ton steel funnel to capture the wind, then send it through propellers connected to a 25,000-watt generator. His intent was to sell the electrical power to the budding nearby resort town of Palm Springs. He apparently failed to realize that a local utility had already claimed the town and would not welcome an interloper. But he did get the thing built: by 1927, Mr. Oliver’s wind machine had been erected at a spot a few yards from where Interstate 10 passes today. A huge funnel on the front end was attached to a cylinder seventy-five feet long and twelve feet wide, with propellers inside to drive a secondhand generator Mr. Oliver had scrounged up. But even Mr. Oliver had underestimated the power of the wind: in the early testing, a propeller spun too fast and set the first generator afire. He found a bigger one. Yet the few customers he managed to sign up complained that the power from his machine was erratic. Needing more money to improve his equipment, Mr. Oliver undertook to sell stock to local people, and it seems he may not have been entirely honest with them about the risks of his venture.

One suspects the costs got away from him, but whatever the cause, the scheme failed. Mr. Oliver was hauled into court and convicted of selling stocks unlawfully. After a short stint in jail, he fled California, and his machine stood forlorn in the desert for years, eventually to be cut apart for scrap in World War II. Why would any investor be duped into writing checks for such a crazy plan? Actually, the notion of generating electricity from the wind was a hot idea in the 1920s, and many Americans had read about it, if not seen it working. On thousands of farmsteads that had not yet been connected to the electrical grid, families were eager to gain access to the new medium of the age: radio.

This new technology had soared in popularity in the mid-1920s, with five hundred new broadcasters going on the air in a single year, 1923. In the pre-radio era, farmers had gotten along with kerosene lanterns at night and no electrical power, but many now felt they had to get connected to the modern world. For one thing, critical farm news, including daily prices, was now being broadcast on the radio. Startup companies plied the countryside, selling kits that included a small wind turbine connected to a generator, a set of batteries, a radio, and an electric light or two. The devices were called wind chargers, and they were finally rendered obsolete in the 1940s, when one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs delivered nearly universal access to the power grid. Many decades later, though, the cultural memory of the wind chargers would prove to be important. Deeply conservative people living in the middle of the country, who might have been expected to oppose such newfangled inventions as large commercial wind turbines, remembered hearing about wind chargers from their grandparents. The idea of harvesting the wind, the way you harvested a crop, would strike many of them as a perfectly sensible thing to do. 

By the time the wind-charger business collapsed in mid-century, it was clear you could generate significant amounts of electrical power from the wind. A few people had the vision to see how much bigger wind power could become: with extensive support from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a large-scale turbine was built in this era to feed electricity into the power grid. The turbine, installed atop a Vermont mountain called Grandpa’s Knob, operated intermittently but successfully for five years, sending power to the Champlain Valley below. The turbine broke near the end of World War II, and since power from the wind was somewhat more costly than power from conventional generators, the local utility decided not to pay for new turbines. Yet a dream had come to life, and it would not die. The most important scientist in American public life of that era, Vannevar Bush—who had been President Franklin Roosevelt’s science advisor during World War II—had kept a close eye on the project.

“The great wind-turbine on a Vermont mountain proved that men could build a practical machine which would synchronously generate electricity in large quantities by means of wind-power,” Dr. Bush wrote in 1946. “It proved also that the cost of electricity so produced is close to that of the more economical conventional means. And hence it proved that at some future time homes may be illuminated and factories may be powered by this new means.” While Dew Oliver’s project to generate wind power in the desert had come to naught, he had gotten one thing right: he had indeed found one of the best places in the nation to capture the wind. Half a century after his scheme went under, the idea of generating power at commercial scale with wind turbines would be reborn, and the San Gorgonio Pass would be one of the places where it happened.

Copyright © 2022 by Justin Gillis and Hal Harvey. From the forthcoming book THE BIG FIX: 7 Practical Steps to Save Our Planet by Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis to be published by Simon & Schuster, Inc. Printed by permission. 

The post A century ago, wind power was a farming norm. What happened? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Tapping into green energy such as hydropower, wind, and solar energy is more important now than ever. But, these three powerhouses are not the only “renewable” energy sources on the scene. Compared to hydro, wind, and solar, biomass had the largest percentage share of total US energy consumption in 2021. 

Biomass refers to renewable organic materials from plants and animals, which include wood and wood processing wastes, agricultural crops, and animal manure, among others. Natural biomass resources can help fulfill energy demand, and unlike other renewable energy sources, they can also be converted directly into biofuels for transportation use.

In 2021, the United States produced about 17.5 billion gallons of biofuels. While this fuel source isn’t without controversy, the global biofuel demand is expected to increase by 28 percent by 2026. However, biomass feedstocks are not immune to the impacts of climate change. 

Climate change poses a direct threat to biomass sources

To have biomass, ultimately, we need plants to grow. In a sense, biomass supply and availability ultimately depend on the climate. 

“Increasingly dryer and hotter weather conditions pose a threat to successful cultivation, and ultimately, the yield of agro-derived biomass feedstocks,” says Victor Ujor, assistant professor of food science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “With a near-global drop in rainfall, plant growth and yield will fall dramatically, if this trend continues.”

Aside from having fewer agricultural residues for use as biomass, lower crop yields can also lead to more and more non-agricultural land being converted to use for food crops. This could lead to a reduction in non-agricultural biomass and increased use of fertilizers, says James Clark, professor of chemistry at the University of York in England.

Wildfires are also happening more frequently, becoming bigger and more intense, and spreading further thanks to climate change. These raging fires can eliminate forest-derived plant biomass, most of which takes longer to grow, says Ujor. 

[Related: Biofuels are having a government-funding moment.]

Overall, worsening climate change threatens the availability of biomass, affecting not only the supply of biofuels, but also the capacity of a negative emission technology called bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Negative emission technologies refer to those that remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the air.

BECCS extracts bioenergy from biomass via combustion or processing, which may release emissions because plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere as they grow. However, these emissions are captured and stored through geologic sequestration, the method of securing carbon dioxide in underground geologic formations to prevent its release into the atmosphere. As of 2019, five facilities around the world were using BECCS technologies and capturing about 165,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.

According to a new Nature study, the capacity of BECCS may decrease in the future due to the effects of climate change on crop yields and biomass feedstocks. Therefore, it must be utilized sooner rather than later, the authors argue.

If global mitigation strategies alongside large-scale BECCS are employed in 2040, global warming may reach 2.5 degrees Celsius in 2050 and 2.7 degree Celsius in 2100, says Clark, who was involved in the study.

Only by starting to use this strategy at a much larger scale by 2030 will we meet the Paris goal of limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, he adds. The study emphasizes that there is an urgency to use BECCS in the near future to mitigate climate change and avoid serious food crises, unless other negative emission technologies become available to compensate for its reduced capacity.

Bioenergy use still poses environmental risks—even when paired with carbon capture 

If BECCS can help blunt the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, what’s preventing its large-scale deployment today?

The cost may be the single most important factor, says Ujor, and we still need massive investments in research to develop cost-effective BECCS strategies. Estimates show that it may cost up to $200 per ton of CO2 sequestered. This is costly compared to another negative emission technology called direct air capture with Carbon Storage (DACCS), which can cost as low as about $94 to $232 per ton of CO2 from the atmosphere.

“The cost of trapping, storing and compressing CO2 is enormous,” says Ujor. “At present, the economics does not yet add up positively to warrant scale up at the level that we direly need the technology to work.”

Also, the energy sources of BECCS operations are, for the most part, fossil-based, so it could be counterproductive to put more CO2 in the air in an effort to trap and store CO2, he adds. Shifting energy sources away from fossil fuels may be necessary first.

Technical barriers also exist, specifically, the safe storage of carbon dioxide. The security of a storage site is crucial because the leak of highly concentrated carbon dioxide would be dangerous for public safety, the ecosystem of the site, and the Earth’s climate. Extensive studies need to be conducted to determine how well and how safely CO2 can be stored without harming the environment, says Ujor. 

[Related: Tech to capture and reuse carbon is on the rise. But can it help the world reach its climate goals?]

However, BECCS remains controversial because of concerns about the sustainable scalability of the technology. According to Nathanael Greene from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the amount of land, water, and nutrients needed to produce enough biomass may threaten biodiversity, water supply, and nutrient balances. 

Based on integrated assessment models, a massive deployment of BECCS in an effort to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius may require about 25 to 80 percent of current global cropland. Meanwhile, growing biomass crops for BECCS to meet the Paris goal of 2 degrees Celsius might require more than double the amount of water currently used worldwide in irrigation for food production. 

Given its potential impact on resources and biodiversity, the scale of BECCS deployment must remain within certain conditions where it is beneficial. For instance, the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere through BECCS may be offset if there is a significant land-use change to meet a 1.5 degrees Celsius climate change target.

When it comes to bioenergy crops, there’s also the risk of taking arable land away from growing food. “If food is used to power cars or generate electricity or heat homes, either it must be snatched from human mouths, or ecosystems must be snatched from the planet’s surface, as arable lands expand to accommodate the extra demand,” says Guardian columnist George Monbiot.

Ujor says this may be mitigated by targeting reclaimed surface-mined lands for growing bioenergy crops, as well as continuing to develop strategies and plants that can do more with less. “We need to develop agro technologies that allow us to grow more with less,” he adds. “Breeding and engineering crops that generate greater yield whilst using less water and fertilizer—both for bioenergy and food crops—are particularly important to this quest.”

The post Biofuel is a ‘renewable’ resource, but climate change could soon limit its potential appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Solar power is a major player in turning the world’s energy from carbon-emitting to climate-friendly—but who says those solar panels need to sit on Earth? The European Space Agency (ESA) has eyed space-based solar power since the beginning of this year. As of August, the agency is considering developing a program to start generating energy with photovoltaics in space. 

While space-based energy may sound a little out there, they aren’t the only major organization looking to outer space for our ever-growing clean energy needs. NASA has also taken an interest in generating space-based power. This unique technology might sound like science fiction, but it’s something that could become a significant source of energy in the not-too-distant future. 

How space-based solar power works

Before rocketing off into space, here’s a quick recap of how photovoltaic panels work. When the sun shines, photolvoltaic cells in the solar panel absorb the energy from light rays. Then, the energy creates a charge that moves inside an electric field within the cell, according to the Department of Energy. 

Space-based solar power involves putting photovoltaics in geostationary orbit—the same place where we have weather satellites—and sending the energy they collect back to Earth via a microwave power beam. The microwave power from space-based solar would be received at a power station and used to generate electricity. 

Ali Hajimiri, a professor of electrical engineering and co-director of the Space-Based Solar Power Project at Caltech, tells PopSci that space-based solar could be an efficient way of generating solar power. He says it may be even more efficient than putting solar panels on land.

[Related: Hawaii’s only coal plant will shut down for good in September.]

“There is no day and night or seasons or clouds in space. If you look at the total energy that’s available for photovoltaics in space, it’s eight to nine times higher,” Hajimiri says. 

Shooting microwave energy at the Earth from space might sound dangerous, but Hajimiri says it’s actually quite safe. “The way the system is designed and built, the energy density that you get is actually less than what you get from standing in the sun,” he says. “It’s actually less harmful than the sun because it’s what’s called nonionizing radiation. A lot of the energy that comes from the sun is ionizing, which is why standing too long in the sun gives people skin cancer.”

Hajimiri says the system could quickly be shut down if something went wrong, such as an electrical issue or if it got damaged.

His team has been developing the hardware needed to generate solar power in space. He adds that these systems could be set up in a modular fashion, which means they could be put together piece by piece. A square of photovoltaics could be sent up to start, and more components could be attached down the line. He says you could have a square kilometer of photovoltaics and generate a gigawatt of energy—enough to power around 750,000 homes. 

Who is getting involved with space-based solar?

No nation has deployed the technology yet, but space-based solar is gaining interest in areas beyond the US and Europe. China plans to test out space-based solar power in low Earth orbit in 2028, a lower altitude than geostationary orbit. Then, there are plans for the country to try for geostationary orbit in 2030. South Korea and Japan are also taking an interest. 

The lucky thing about space is there’s plenty of room to generate energy in Earth’s orbit, and the energy could quickly go wherever it’s needed, Hajmiri says. “You can also almost instantaneously change where the energy is going,” he says. “You can dynamically dispatch power.”

[Related: Floating solar panels could be the next big thing in clean energy.]

Currently, Earth’s atmosphere reflects about 30 percent of the sunlight that solar panels could collect. While this is important for keeping things from getting too hot on Earth, for energy purposes, that’s a lot of lost potential.

Space-based solar power, theoretically, could generate a lot of energy that’s currently going to waste simply because of where it is.

Many worry about how we’ll keep things running using solar panels when the sun goes down at night. Proposed solutions are often large batteries because they can charge when energy is being generated and discharge when it’s not. But storage wouldn’t be an issue for this type of energy system. 

“All of the technologies that are commonplace today are things that were scary or unknown at some point,” Hajimiri says. “We should not let the fear of the unknown dictate where we go.”

The post Are solar panels headed for space? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Electric vehicles are key to a sustainable future for the planet, but while EVs continue their steady rise within the automotive industry, many drivers remain skeptical of making the major change. There are a number of factors behind consumer hesitancy, but one of the foremost concerns is just how long it takes to recharge a car’s battery. Owners can still expect between 15 and 30 minutes to re-up their EVs for another estimated 200-300 miles, while gas stations’ rates are obviously dramatically shorter—typically only a few minutes for around 400 miles.

Last week, however, a team of government researchers at the Department of Energy-run Idaho National Laboratory announced extremely promising new advancements that could help the US achieve the Biden administration’s lofty goal of making EVs half of all automotive sales by 2030. Thanks in part to a machine learning program analyzing vast amounts of lithium-ion battery data, scientists have reportedly found a means to safely and reliably recharge EVs’ power supplies up to 90 percent within just 10 minutes.

[Related: Biden pushes forward on electric cars, clean emissions.]

“Fast charging is the key to increasing consumer confidence and overall adoption of electric vehicles,” Idaho National Laboratory researcher Eric Dufek said in a release. “It would allow vehicle charging to be very similar to filling up at a gas station.”

When an EV’s lithium-ion battery charges, the ions migrate from the cathode to the anode. Faster migration means faster charging, but as researchers explained, this currently means lithium ions sometimes don’t fully make over to the anode, resulting in lithium metal buildups that cause battery failure, cathode cracking, and even explosions.

Achieving the charging goal required massive data troves to determine new methods that could quickly restore battery charges without doing significant, often irreparable damage to the battery itself. As The Washington Post explained last week, Dufek and colleagues designed an algorithm that analyzed somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 data points from various kinds of lithium-ion batteries to determine the most efficient and safe recharging method, which they then tested on real batteries. The results created “unique charging protocols” based on the physics of what is exactly happening within batteries during charging and usage. The end goal, according to researchers, is to develop EVs that are able to “tell” charging stations how to recharge based on a vehicle’s specific battery.

[Related: Why Dyson is going all-in on solid-state batteries.]

The resultant designs drastically reduced charge times without sacrificing battery health and consumer safety. With faster charge times, car makers could also conceivably introduce vehicles with smaller (i.e. cheaper) batteries, thus lowering the economic barrier many face when considering EV purchases. And although Dufek and colleagues estimate consumers won’t see these kinds of charge times for EVs for about another 5 years, the prospect of such advancements will help solidify electric cars as the viable alternative to fossil fuel transportation moving forward.

The post New ‘super-fast’ method can shave EV battery charging down to minutes appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A big change is coming down the pike in how the federal government encourages people to buy clean cars like electric vehicles. The Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) on August 7, and the House of Representatives could pass it today. Barring any last-minute shifts, automakers and car buyers will find themselves with new tax rules that are baked into that massive legislation after President Biden signs it into law. 

The changes, experts say, are restrictive in terms of what electric vehicles and potential buyers will qualify. However, it’s not all bad news, either. 

Here’s a look at what to expect in the EV space if the IRA becomes law. 

The current landscape 

First, it makes sense to consider the way tax credits have worked in the clean vehicle space, pre-IRA, in the United States. Currently, in some cases, as much as $7,500 is available as a tax credit to people who want to buy an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid. “The amount of money that you could credit from your taxes was based on the battery size, although the battery size limits were so low, that basically everything qualified for the $7,500,” says James Di Filippo, a senior policy analyst with Atlas Public Policy. 

The current system has some important rules. One of those is that the $7,500 is a tax credit towards the sum a person might owe the federal government in taxes. For example, imagine that a taxpayer owes exactly $7,500 in federal taxes for a certain year, and has been careful about their withholdings in their paycheck, paying the exact right amount throughout the year. Typically, come tax time in April, when that person and the IRS reconciled, neither party would owe anything. But, if that individual bought an EV that qualified for the $7,500 tax credit, the IRS would then cut them a check for that amount. “Typically, the way that it was working was people were just getting their money back when they filed their taxes,” Di Filippo observes. 

But Di Filippo points out that that system wasn’t fair, or equitable, across income levels. “The key equity implication of that is that the less you earn—at a certain threshold, basically—the less you get in that credit.” Imagine you only owned $1,000 in federal taxes, then the maximum you could gain in a credit was also $1,000. 

There’s another issue with the current system, too. The full $7,500 credit only applies to the first 200,000 qualifying vehicles a company makes, and then it diminishes and ends. “That particular cap was a point of contention,” Di Filippo adds. General Motors and Tesla, for example, have since surpassed that 200,000 figure already. 

Interested in reading up more on all this? Here’s where it is spelled out in US Code. 

The road ahead 

If the IRA becomes law in its current form, the system outlined above will change. For one, the 200,000 limit disappears. “That is going to be a humongous help—in theory—for automakers like Tesla, as well as General Motors,” reflects Robby DeGraff, an industry analyst with AutoPacific. 

Another change restricts people who make over a certain amount of money annually from getting the credit. For example, households that make more than $300,000 a year are out of luck, at least in the tax-credit department. Also, there are caps on the price of the vehicles: For example, a pickup truck that costs more than $80,000 would not be eligible; others are capped at $55,000. In short, expensive vehicles are left out. 

But other changes have to do with where a vehicle—and the parts in it—comes from. “The vehicle must be assembled in North America,” says Di Filippo. “And right away, that removes quite a few current vehicles on the market from eligibility.”

An ID.4 made by Volkswagen in Tennessee is in good shape at least with this requirement, but a Hyundai Ioniq 5, which is made overseas, not so much. 

[Related: Can the Chips and Science Act help the US avoid more shortages?]

Then there are other requirements pertaining to the provenance of the vehicle’s components. In particular, in the spotlight are the questions of where the battery components (like the cells) are assembled, and where the minerals in the battery—such as lithium and cobalt—are mined from and processed. Whether or not an automaker checks these boxes determines how much of the $7,500 might apply. “The battery mineral content and components really make up the two halves of that $7,500,” Di Filippo says. (In other words, some vehicles could qualify for smaller tax credits based on what boxes they do tick.) 

“Battery components have to be manufactured and assembled in North America, and if you meet the thresholds, which expand over time—starting in 2023, it’s 50 percent—then the vehicle is qualified for $3,750,” he explains. 

As for the minerals that go in a battery (here’s more on how a lithium-ion battery works), that part is tricky.

The new restrictions state that by 2023, 40 percent of the battery’s critical minerals need to come from—be extracted from, and processed in—a country that the US has a free-trade agreement with. That percentage requirement increases over time. And by 2025, none can come from China (which refines lithium) or Russia, for example. So even if the lithium was mined in Australia or Chile, an issue could remain if it was processed in another country.

“My understanding is no car manufacturer can hit that 40-percent target in 2023, as of right now,” Di Filippo says. “They may be able to scramble and change that.” 

The takeaway

Ultimately, the changes are restrictive, says Di Filippo. “From a consumer’s perspective, this is going to probably reduce, or almost certainly reduce, the number and value of EV credits going forward for the next few years at least.” 

There are some bright spots, though. One is that there will be up to a $4,000 tax credit that a person can get when buying a used EV from a dealer, provided their income is below a certain level ($75,000 for an individual person, for example). “The used EV tax credit, or clean vehicle credit, is a huge perk for consumers looking to get into electrification,” says DeGraff, of AutoPacific. 

Also, previously the tax credit was money that someone would generally get when they filed their taxes; now there will be a way for it to go into effect when people actually purchase the vehicle at a dealer. 

But still, there’s general concern about the effects of the legal changes on the electric vehicle market, as the CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation wondered in a blog post titled: “What If No EVs Qualify for the EV Tax Credit? It Could Happen.” 

Ultimately, Di Filippo sees some improvements with the new policies over the old, but with an important caveat. “It’s a win for equity in the EV tax-credit policy space—of course none of that matters if nobody can buy a vehicle that can actually qualify for the tax credit,” he reflects. 

The post Everything you need to know about EV tax credits and the Inflation Reduction Act appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In the US, buildings are a tremendous energy burden. About 70 million American homes and businesses burn fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, cooking, and other purposes, accounting for approximately 10 percent of all US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2017. One way to slim down those emissions is via electrification.

Building electrification is the process of replacing fossil fuel-powered systems and appliances in homes and buildings—such as gas furnaces, water heating, or stoves—with electric ones that run on clean energy to deliver climate, health, and economic benefits, says Stephanie Greene, managing director at RMI that leads their Carbon-Free Buildings Program.

Seasonal peaks in energy demand are typically managed using fossil fuels, but electrified buildings must rely on renewable energy and energy-efficient measures instead. There are, however, a few ways to make this transition less daunting. 

Electrified buildings must reduce strain on the electric grid during seasonal peaks

Throughout the year, energy demand usually experiences seasonal fluctuations. One 2022 Scientific Reports study identified that total energy consumption usually peaks in the coldest and hottest months due to energy-intensive measures like air conditioning and heating.

For gas-heated buildings, this fluctuation is currently managed via their connection to underground gas storage facilities—typically old oil fields or aquifers with old wells that were converted for gas storage—and some above-ground liquefied gas storage facilities, says Jonathan J. Buonocore, study author and assistant professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. Some also manage the fluctuations using propane, fuel oil, or wood as primary heating fuel. All of these have long-term storage capability, which means people can rely on them when needed.

“This peak in energy demand will still exist when buildings are electrified, and the electrical grid needs to be able to meet this demand,” Buonocore adds. “In order to truly result in energy decarbonization, this demand needs to be met with renewables.” 

According to the study, building decarbonization models need to account for the seasonal fluctuations to minimize strain on the nation’s electric grid during peaks. For instance, meeting the current winter peak in demand would require a 28-fold increase in January wind generation or a 303-fold increase in January solar energy generation in the US.

Reducing demand on the electric grid is also crucial. More efficient electric heating technologies must be installed in homes and buildings to bring sky-high energy peaks down to a more manageable level.

These technologies already exist: air and ground source heat pumps extract heat from the air or the earth to heat and cool buildings. Replacing gas furnaces with clean heat pumps will significantly reduce carbon emissions and minimize electricity use for heating by approximately 50 percent. “The higher the efficiency of the heating/cooling technology, the better,” says Buonocore.

Long-term energy storage that stores excess electricity generated by renewables for winter heating can also help provide more electricity when needed. Such measures can reduce the demand for renewable energy during winter peaks, only requiring 4.5 or 36 times more generation from wind and solar power, respectively.

Policymakers can improve pathways to building electrification

While it’s true that building electrification will increase the electric load, the growth will be at a manageable pace, which gives us time to plan and expand the grid with efficiency and flexibility in mind, says Greene. “We have a runway of time in front of us to modernize the grid, build out renewables, and make our buildings and technology more efficient,” she adds.

Potomac Electric Power Company (or Pepco), an electric utility company that supplies electric power to Washington, DC, conducted a study last year to assess the potential impact of electrification on their system. If electrification was the city’s primary method to achieve its decarbonization targets, they estimate that peak demand will grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 to 1.7 percent between 2021 to 2050. This is surprisingly manageable, considering the grid has handled growth rates above 2 percent in the past. Moreover, they add that energy efficiency and load flexibility could reduce the future load growth rate to less than 1 percent per year.

There are plenty of ways for policymakers to make building electrification possible and reduce the use of fossil fuels for heating and cooling. At the federal level, policymakers can provide manufacturer incentives to drive domestic production of efficient electric heat pump furnaces and water heaters. Greene says they could also develop direct rebates or tax credits for electric appliances and create zero- and low-interest financing tools for electrification.

The Biden administration plans to support efficiency upgrades and building electrification by using more widely heat pumps and induction stoves, adopting modern energy codes for new buildings, and investing in new technologies associated with construction. Last June, President Biden authorized the Defense Production Act (DPA) to accelerate the production of clean energy technologies such as heat pumps, building insulation, and critical power grid infrastructure.

At the state level, policymakers can enforce policies that make buildings efficient from their inception, says Greene. In New York, a landmark bill was introduced to require new buildings and infrastructure across the state to be all-electric by 2024. New York would be the first state to mandate all-electric buildings if it passes. Almost 60 cities or counties in California have also adopted gas-free building commitments or electrification building codes. “New construction should be all-electric and efficient, net-zero carbon buildings,” she adds.

Policymakers can also reform electric rates to ensure low-income families see lower bills from electrification, build new incentives and pilot programs to allow people to electrify at zero or low costs, and help rural communities shift from wood and propane to highly-efficient all-electric homes. Last week, the Biden administration announced several actions to lower electricity bills for working families, which include connecting states and households to low-cost solar power.

Low-income households tend to face additional barriers to electrification. Still, it’s essential to implement thoughtful policies that help make their homes greener and their electricity bills more manageable to further reduce carbon emissions.

The post How can electrified buildings handle energy peaks? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

At first glance, you might think the structure tucked away in a Madrid suburb is a solar power plant. Perched in an industrial park, the facility features an audience of solar reflectors—mirrors that concentrate blinding sunlight to the top of a tower.

But this plant isn’t for generating electricity. It’s for generating jet fuel.

For the past several years, researchers from several different institutions in Switzerland and Germany have been using it to test a method to create propellant—normally a carbon-intensive process involving fossil fuels—using little more than sunlight and greenhouse gases captured from the atmosphere. They published their results in the journal Joule today.

What happens inside their tower is a bit of chemistry known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. Under certain conditions, hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide (yes, the same toxic gas from vehicle exhaust) can react. They rearrange their atoms into water vapor and hydrocarbons. Those carbon compounds include diesel, kerosene, and other fuels that you might otherwise produce by dirtying your hands and refining petroleum.

Though the tower is new, the underlying process isn’t a recent invention; two chemists—named, naturally, Fischer and Tropsch—pioneered it in Germany nearly a century ago. But it’s historically been something of an afterthought. You need some source of that carbon monoxide: typically coal, natural gas, or their byproducts. It’s useful if you have limited access to petroleum, but less helpful if you’re trying to clean up the transport sector.

[Related: All your burning questions about sustainable aviation fuel, answered]

Now, with the intensifying climate crisis kindling interest in cleaner fuels, there’s growing demand for alternate carbon sources. Biological waste is a popular one. This plant takes a different approach: capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

That’s where 169 solar reflectors beam sunlight into the picture. Atop the 50-foot-tall structure, their light—on average, 2,500 times brighter than the sun—strikes a porous ceramic box made from cerium, the rare-earth element number 58. That draws water and carbon dioxide from the air and splits their atoms into hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide.

“We have been developing the science and technology for more than a decade,” says Aldo Steinfeld, an engineer at ETH Zürich in Switzerland and one of the paper authors. Steinfeld and his colleagues had first demonstrated the box method in the lab in 2010. By  2017, they’d begun building the plant.

In that plant, the newly created gases sink to the bottom of the tower, where they enter a shipping container that carries out the Fischer-Tropsch reactions. The end result is fossil-fuel-free kerosene, produced by pulling carbon dioxide from the air. The researchers say it can be pumped into fuel tanks, today, without issue.

Before the global pandemic, aviation accounted for less than 3 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Land vehicles, in contrast, spewed out more than six times as much. But, while we’ve already started to replace the world’s road traffic with electric cars, there just isn’t a viable alternative for aircraft yet.

So the aviation industry—and governments—are trying to focus on alternative sources, such as biofuels. Though their exact timeline is still up in the air, European regulators may require non-fossil-fuel sources to provide as much as 85 percent of the fuel pumped at European Union’s airports by 2050.

In this environment, the Fischer-Tropsch process has entered the stage. Last year, a German nonprofit named Atmosfair opened a plant near the Dutch border that produces synthetic kerosene. It relies on a complex interplay of solar electricity and waste biogas to get its chemical components. Since the Atmosfair plant opened, it has produced eight barrels of kerosene a day: barely a drop in the 2.3-billion-gallon bucket that the world used in the year 2019.

The solar kerosene planet in Spain follows in its footsteps, though Steinfeld says the sun makes getting hydrogen and carbon monoxide much simpler. Still, just like Atmosfair’s plant, it’s only an early drop. “The facility is relatively small compared to a commercial-scale one,” says Steinfeld. But he and his colleagues believe that it’s an important demonstration.

[Related: Floating solar panels could be the next big thing in clean energy]

According to Steinfeld, meeting the entire aviation’s sector would require solar kerosene plants to cover an area of around 17,500 square miles, roughly the size of Estonia. That does sound large, but Steinfeld looks at it differently: A relatively small parcel of a sparsely inhabited hot desert could supply all the world’s planes. 

(There’s precedent for something like it: Sunny Morocco has already become a solar power hub, and the country is planning to export some of that power to relatively cloudier Britain.)

For now, Steinfeld says the next steps are to make the process more efficient. Right now, a meager 4.1 percent of the solar energy striking the ceramic box actually goes into making gas. The researchers think they could considerably boost that number.

The post This solar tower makes jet fuel from sunbeams, water, and gas appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

French shipping company Brittany Ferries has commissioned the world’s largest hybrid ship for its future fleet, the company announced this week, marking another milestone in the industry’s route to decarbonization. The 639-foot Saint-Malo will be operational in 2024 and replace one of their older models on a route from St. Malo, France, to Portsmouth, England. A second hybrid ship will enter the fleet shortly thereafter.

The Saint-Malo will have a battery with an 11.5 megawatt hour (MWh) capacity, which Brittany Ferries says is about double the size of most hybrid marine vessels on the water today. Wärtsilä, a Finnish technology group, is creating the ship’s hybrid propulsion system that can draw on both liquified natural gas and battery power to run. 

“The extensive battery size will allow the vessels to operate with full power, using both propellers and all thrusters to maneuver emissions-free in and out of ports, even in bad weather. The built-in shore power solution will charge the batteries while berthed,” explained Wärtsilä President and CEO Hakan Agnevall in a statement. 

[RELATED: This smart tugboat is about to journey more than 1,000 miles, autonomously] 

This new design has the potential to save up to 15 percent on greenhouse gas emissions compared to a typical diesel-powered vessel, according to the company. Brittany Ferries will double down on its efforts with a second yet-to-be-named ship planned for its route from Caen, France to Portsmouth, England, which will be ready “shortly after” the Saint-Malo, Brittany Ferries said in its announcement. The ships themselves will also be upgradeable; the builder, Stena Roro, plans to leave room on the vessels for renewable updates, such as larger batteries or solar power. 

[RELATED: How the massive ‘flow battery’ coming to an Army facility in Colorado will work]

The shipping industry is in the midst of a global push for more sustainable ways of powering the vessels, which are a challenge due to their size and the long distances they often need to travel. Along with creating hybrid vessels, Wärtsilä is in the process of developing engines that run on ammonia rather than fossil fuels. In Norway, the Yara Birkeland, a fully-electric container ship, went into commercial operation this year, with the added goal of becoming fully-autonomous one day, as well. And there are a number of other innovations in the pipeline, including sails that could capture and convert wind into energy to power the ship’s motor. 

The post The world’s largest hybrid ship will set sail in 2024 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Offshore wind is a popular renewable energy source across Europe, China and beyond, but is still a rarity in the US. There are currently only two offshore wind facilities across the country, which are located off the coasts of Virginia and Rhode Island. 

The lack of offshore wind in America has often been attributed to high costs and a lack of support from states and the federal government. However, new offshore wind projects are already being planned off the coast of New York and California. 

The Biden administration has set a bold goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2030. As of last year, there were only 35 gigawatts of offshore wind power deployed globally. To meet these goals, the administration is streamlining the federal approval process for offshore wind projects by reducing the number of permits a project needs to receive to get going.

“It’s a pretty ambitious goal,” Erin Baker, a professor of industrial engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst says. “But with the price reductions we’ve seen in wind and offshore wind—we’ve seen about a 50 percent reduction over six years in offshore wind—I think it’s very doable.”

Baker notes that there are seven federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), that are involved in approving offshore wind projects.  Having to get approval from each one individually can be extremely burdensome. Still, the Biden administration has set goals to streamline the process, as well as provide funding to update ports and other infrastructure necessary to meet these new energy goals. 

The cost of offshore wind has gone down as the industry has matured and turbines have become more efficient, and there is still space for improvement.  One recent study from researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that increasing the size of turbines and plants alone could bring down a project’s average total cost per megawatt-hour over its lifetime by around 23 percent compared to turbines installed in 2019. A push for more offshore wind from the federal government could help prices continue to decrease if it increases investor interest and helps grow the industry. 

“We expected to see the costs decrease,” Matt Shields, an NREL researcher who headed the study said in a release. “But I was a little surprised about the magnitude. That’s really a game changer.”

Baker says developers are excited about this push for new offshore projects. Wind development groups are putting in a lot of bids to get these projects started—including over $4 billion worth of bids, three times as much as  the funds raised for offshore oil and gas lease auctions countrywide over the past five years, for leasing by the New York coast. Investments in offshore wind are expected to exceed $100 billion in the US by the end of the decade. But it will take time to get the supply chain for offshore wind up and running. “We need people to install these, we need the right kinds of ships for installation, we need to have the transmission planning. There are a lot of pieces that need to come together, so if there’s this sense that there’s going to be a lot of offshore wind, then there’s a lot of reason to develop the supply chain,” Baker says.

[Related: The NY Bight could write the book on how we build offshore wind farms in the future.]

The East Coast is likely the easiest place to get offshore wind up and going. Across the Atlantic region, wind speeds are high and the ocean continental shelf is quite shallow along the coast. This means that traditional, bottom-mounted offshore turbines, like those at the Block Island Wind Farm, will work well. 

The Pacific, on the other hand, is a different story. Water depths drop very quickly off the Westcoast, meaning  proposed offshore wind off the coast of the two new California leasing areas will likely be mostly floating offshore wind. These kinds of wind farms exist off the coast of Scotland, where the wind turbine sits on a floating platform that is moored to the ocean floor, but so far this technology hasn’t been deployed yet in the US and is significantly costlier than fixed turbines. Still, with California’s major goals for clean energy, there is still great potential for the burgeoning technology.

“Floating wind can help us reach areas once thought unattainable, opening up new opportunities,” Amanda Lefton, Director of BOEM, said in a release earlier this year. “Here in California, we are going to bring it to scale, starting at the Morro Bay and Humboldt Wind Energy Areas. Offshore wind is here to stay.”

The Gulf of Mexico also has a huge amount of potential, with research showing that the Gulf has the potential to generate over 500,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy per year, or about twice the current energy needs of the five Gulf states. The Great Lakes also could possibly provide one fifth of the total offshore wind energy potential in the US. 

Some of the biggest benefits of offshore wind are the lack of land use and near invisibility of wind farms, Baker notes.  She says she expects that the US will not only reach its offshore wind goals but might even surpass them because of how much interest there is in getting this industry going. And that means even outside the traditional Northeast zones for offshore farms, according to NREL research released last year.

“Looking to the future, we expect offshore wind energy in the United States to expand beyond the North and Mid-Atlantic into the Pacific, Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico,” Walt Musial, an NREL principal engineer, said in a release last year. “That expansion means abundant energy at lower costs, job growth, and progress toward decarbonization.

The US has taken its time to get into offshore wind development—but with the right support, a breeze of change could hit the country relatively soon.

The post Offshore wind has been slow to take off in the US. Here’s what could change that. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Demand for dependable clean energy is rising. And while the spotlight often lands on wind and solar, both of these renewables struggle with one thing: intermittency.

As the weather report would show, there are plenty of days when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow—meaning power generated from solar panels and wind turbines could stall, given all the challenges with long-term energy storage from renewables. As a result, many countries have stuck with fossil fuels, which they know are reliable. After all, it doesn’t have to be a nice day to burn coal or pump natural gas. 

But now several companies and groups are looking at a creative option: ocean turbines, which churn out electricity from tidal changes instead of breezes. The ocean doesn’t ever stop stirring, so harnessing that power could provide the baseload, or a steady stream of energy, that other renewables just can’t manage. Last month, Japanese engineers from IHI Corp tested a 330-ton tidal turbine prototype on the seafloor near the Kuroshio Current. This current alone could create 200 gigawatts of energy via underwater turbines, or a whopping 60 percent of Japan’s generating capacity, according to the country’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization. 

This comes after another project last year where the UK successfully connected Orbital Marine Power’s roughly 700-ton tidal turbine to the energy grid in Orkney, Scotland. And in 2019, four Scotland-based tidal turbines produced the longest run of uninterrupted power from the new technology for around 4,000 homes. 

Here’s what you need to know about this growing type of sea-borne energy.

How tidal turbines work

The way these turbines are designed is actually quite simple—it’s almost exactly how you’d imagine a wind turbine operating. 

“Whether the medium is water or air, it is the same engineering field and the same equations that are used to determine the geometry and effect of the turbine,” says Petter Karal, CEO of Seatower AS, which builds foundation for offshore wind facilities. 

This gravitational pull of the moon on the planet causes something called “tidal force,” which makes the planet and its water bulge out on the sides closest and farthest from the moon. These bulges form “high tides” on different coastlines twice a day as the Earth and the moon pass through this location on their orbits twice. As these tides change, so do the currents. Currents are the left-to-right movements of the water, and are largely influenced and can be predicted by the tides (but can also be affected by factors like water temperature, salinity, and wind). Think of them as gales blowing underwater. 

[Related: How to build a massive offshore wind farm]

These fluxes below the water’s surface act as the power source for sea-based turbines. As currents stream through tidal turbines, they rotate and generate electricity. (The devices often look more like ship propellers than typical wind turbines, Karal notes.) The turbines can also operate at pretty much any depth: The most recent Japanese model is attached to the sea floor, but some models like Scotland’s Orbital Marine Power float and use robotic legs to capture energy from the topmost part of the ocean. 

Benefits and obstacles of tidal energy

The moon isn’t going to stop spinning around the Earth anytime soon (and if it does, we have bigger problems to think about than turbines). This makes tidal energy a prime candidate for renewable energy, especially seeing that climate change hasn’t impacted currents enough to make tidal energy completely unpredictable. Not to mention, research as far back as 2004 has put the total estimated global energy potential of tidal power at about 3,000 gigawatts. 

The impact on marine wildlife and ecosystems seems minimal, too. Research from the European Marine Energy Center in Scotland found that after around 10,000 hours of wildlife surveillance, sea creatures and local birds were not significantly affected by tidal turbines. Since water is much denser than air, the turbines don’t have to turn extra fast to make energy, which mitigates some concerns. Additionally, Orbital Maritime is undergoing a study to investigate the effects of the acoustics of its O2 tidal turbines on local marine environments. 

[Related: Minimizing offshore wind’s impact on nature is tricky, but not impossible]

But as idyllic as they sound, tidal turbines do come with a few complications. For one, they can’t be placed just anywhere in the water: The best locations are coastal regions with particularly strong currents, like around the British Isles, between the Channel Islands and France, and in the Straits of Messina near Italy and Sicily. Other hotspots include the island regions of Southeast Asia, channels between Greek islands, and the island-filled coasts of Canada. 

Maintenance is yet another hurdle. After all, these giant structures (the Orbital Marine turbine, for instance, is about 240 feet long) need to be tough enough to survive in the roughest parts of the ocean and will require regular repairs. For turbines mounted at the bottom of the sea, that can be costly. 

“An issue with that is it can cost thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, (of dollars and [require] days and weeks of time to service these turbines,” says Sarah Clark of Orbital Marine Power. “No matter what your technology is, it’s going to need servicing at one point or another, even if it’s just getting barnacles off the side of the blade.” 

Additionally, as there’s no single proven way to build these power sources, it can be expensive to test them out and get buy-in from the energy industry. Not to mention the burdens of getting country-by-country permits to install giant turbines at the bottom of the ocean. 

Still, it was not that long ago that other kinds of renewable energy faced some of the same issues. If tidal turbines can generate electricity 24/7 with close to zero emissions, it could be time to start making those leaps. 

The post Tidal turbines put a new spin on the power of the ocean appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Heatwaves are worsening due to climate change, plaguing typically chilly places like Seattle and parts of Europe. Places that are already used to tropical temperatures, including India and Pakistan, are experiencing conditions bordering on unlivable.

With worsening heat comes a steady demand for air conditioning units, which are set to triple in demand by 2050. In 2016, only 8 percent of the 2.8 billion people living in the warmest parts of the world have access to AC. But that number is growing—and with increased use comes higher energy consumption, which can add up to even more stress on the climate. 

Thankfully, there are better options out there to efficiently cool buildings, and even save money on utilities, which is crucial for vulnerable communities that already pay a high price for energy. Heat pumps can both cool and heat a building more efficiently than air conditioners or furnaces, cut energy bills, and decrease heating-related emissions by 45 to 72 percent. The technology was first invented back in the 1850’s; today, Americans are buying millions of heat pumps a year, though air conditioning is still more popular by far. But a pair of new bills in Congress might just be the ticket to getting heat pumps in more homes.  

The first of the two bills, called the “Installing Clean Efficient Energy Hastens Our Transition” or ICEE HOT Act, creates a rebate system for distributors of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. The second, named the Heating Efficiency and Affordability through Tax Relief (HEATR) Act, provides a tax incentive for manufacturers to produce efficient and affordable heat pumps. With heat pumps as a more affordable alternative to AC units, making the switch can be more realistic for average people. 

“Far too many households across our state struggle to afford their heating costs. Families should not have to choose between paying for heat and other essential necessities,” lead sponsor Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-M.N., said in a press release last week. “This legislation is a win-win—reducing energy costs for consumers, while strengthening access to clean, energy-efficient heating solutions.”

[Related: How heat pumps can help fight global warming]

But to understand the benefits of heat pumps, it’s crucial to know how they work. According to sustainability research group Carbon Switch, the process is quite simple—an evaporator scoops up heat from inside your home and pumps it back into the outdoors. The system is made up of an outdoor and indoor unit, as well as a compressor which moves the refrigerant through the system, and two valves that can pressurize the refrigerant or reverse its flow to switch from heating to cooling.

This happens thanks to a very simple concept in physics: Heat is always trying to move toward cold air, which is more or less how ACs and fridges work. But a heat pump can reverse that process in the winter. Colder temperatures put pressure on the system’s refrigerant. The heat pump then absorbs any warmth it can find outdoors to turn liquid into gas. The energy generated from this process is used to keep the inside of people’s homes cozy in the most frigid climates. In fact, icy places like Norway and Finland have the highest heat pump-per-household rate in Europe; Maine beats them both out with its per-capita use.

Installing a few heat pumps might not seem like a big deal. But research released by the appliance-efficiency nonprofit Clasp shows that bumping the market share for the technology from 10 percent to 44 percent by 2032 could save Americans around $27 billion on energy bills. It could also provide $80 billion in “additional social benefits,” stop 888 air-quality related premature deaths a year, and drop carbon dioxide emissions by 49 million tons. 

Old-school HVAC systems can last up to two decades after installation. So rather than waiting for them to sputter out, these new Congressional bills could incentivize plumbers and homeowners to swap in heat pumps, the authors of the Clasp study recently wrote in Canary Media. “Locking in outdated infrastructure in this way pushes back the clock for American decarbonization by decades,” they explained. Oftentimes people don’t even have to throw out their entire heating or cooling system to get a heat pump installed—creating hybrid systems or using fossil-fuel furnaces as backup can still make a dent in energy use. 

In a world where weather is unpredictable, fuel prices are unstable, and climate change has the ability to impact just about anything, it’s crucial to be able to maintain safe temperatures at home in a sustainable way. Heat pumps provide an option for people of any income level and region.

The post Two new bills could help pump up a climate-friendly system for heating and cooling homes appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

States like California, Texas and Colorado are currently vying to become hubs for hydrogen production. While hydrogen offers the potential for additional renewable energy, many are not solely doing it because they’re committed to a clean energy future. 

The Biden Administration rolled out a plan in February to provide $8 billion to numerous states around the country to produce, process, and store hydrogen as part of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Applications for the funding opened up this month, and the Department of Energy is working on deciding where it will be awarded to.  

The vast majority of the hydrogen currently produced in the US goes into the industrial processes like creating ammonia fertilizer and refining petroleum. But that isn’t the only way it can be used—it can also be used to store energy and generate renewable energy.

Interest in hydrogen power has grown signicantly over the past few years, but the country currently isn’t generating a lot of hydrogen power. For example, only around 260 megawatts of power from fuel cell electric power generators is currently in use, while solar is generating around 121 gigawatts. However, Hydrogen fuel cells are also being used to power new electric vehicles.

Jacob Leachman, an associate professor of mechanical and materials engineering at Washington State University, tells Popular Science that hydrogen fuel cells are more common than we’d probably expect. “Thirty-three percent of the nation’s groceries are currently moved with hydrogen fuel cell forklifts,” Leachman says. He notes that hydrogen-fuel cells are used extensively in freight and logistics. 

In terms of what hydrogen power actually looks like, there are a couple of different ways it can be used on the grid. You can use hydrogen for grid energy storage, which can help back up solar and wind power when they’re not generating a lot of power. Essentially, that involves using clean energy for the electrolysis of water to create hydrogen fuel for generating electricity. Renewable energy powers a process that can actually store energy for later.

You can also burn hydrogen in a power plant to produce electricity, but that’s typically done by mixing it with natural gas, which means it still contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. That said, many power plants that run solely on hydrogen are currently being developed in Europe and elsewhere.

A hydrogen hub is considered a region where a new hydrogen production center is formed. This can create jobs and make hydrogen resources more available for various uses. Many states are working together, often forming consortiums, to plan for this and compete for the new funding. 

Texas has begun hydrogen production in the Houston area. But several consortiums of states are linking up to create regional hubs—including  Pacific Northwest and California, Rocky Mountain states like Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and a northeast consortium including New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. 

Considering hydrogen has so many uses, states that are looking to become “hydrogen production hubs” have a range of reasons for wanting to get into the game. Leachman says conservative states may look to produce hydrogen mostly for industrial uses and liberal states could use hydrogen energy to increase their clean energy capacity. There is also a push for renewable energy in conservative states. 

“Every state and region has a different play on the hydrogen hubs. Many of them are very much about renewable energy,” Leachman says. “All of the regions have a different way that they can play this that’s really a benefit to them.”

Distributing hydrogen production across the country will mean all states will have access to hydrogen resources for energy and other uses and will become more familiarized with it. Leachman says this will have an important effect.

“The Hydrogen Hubs initiative requires the hubs to be regionally distributed across the United States, which means, inherently, we will have hydrogen hubs that will be placed in locations where we’ve never had a hydrogen resource,” Leachman says. “That is going to result in huge, fundamental shifts in the goods and services and energy across the U.S. in ways that are very difficult to imagine.”

Leachman says having new hydrogen production in so many parts of the country could mean that hydrogen becomes a much more normalized energy source. People can see facilities in their own communities and the jobs that will be created because of them. 
Hydrogen production appears to be on track to become a rapidly growing industry in the United States, and it’s clearly going to affect every part of the country. Goldman Sachs claims hydrogen generation could become a $1 trillion market in the not-too-distant future. Soon we may be using it to power our homes instead of just making fertilizer.

The post Red and blue states race to become hydrogen energy hubs appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Ambient air pollution is a major threat to human and environmental health that causes nearly  4.2 million deaths annually. Around 9 out of 10 people worldwide breathe in air with excessive levels of air pollutants, according to data from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Air pollution affects every human being on Earth, but the extent of its impact is not the same. There are stark disparities in the exposure and impact of air pollution among various racial and ethnic groups, socioeconomic statuses, and geographical locations. Overall pollutant concentrations may have decreased from 1990 to 2010, but people of color are still more likely to be exposed.

Air pollution disproportionally affects people of color

People of color tend to have a higher exposure to common air pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, says Gaige Kerr, a research scientist studying air quality at George Washington University. 

“Nitrogen dioxide is the most inequitably distributed pollutant in the US, and our research finds that nitrogen dioxide levels in 2019 were over two times higher in the least white communities of the US compared to the most white communities,” he adds. Regardless of income or geographical region, the average exposure to particulate air pollution is higher for people of color.

City areas with a higher air pollution concentration tend to be urban cores and places downwind of prominent highways and major industrial sources, says Michael J. Kleeman, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Davis. Motor vehicles are a significant contributor to urban air pollution because it emits pollutants like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. These pollutants may end up causing lung and heart problems among the 45 million Americans that live near busy roads and other major transportation facilities.

[Related: Tiny air pollutants may come from different sources, but they all show a similar biased trend.]

Systemic racism embedded within urban planning and land use policies in the US has led to sources of common air pollutants—such as busy roadways and industrial facilities—being located in communities of color, says Kerr. In a 2021 study, Kerr and his co-authors used satellite data to document the persistent nitrogen dioxide disparities in the US. They tied its unjust distribution to heavy-duty diesel trucking. About 72 million people are estimated to live near truck freight routes in the country and experience direct exposure to pollution, which are more likely to be people of color and lower-income individuals. Additionally, the density of highways and interstates in racially and ethnically diverse areas is almost five times higher than in white communities. 

Because people of color have greater exposure to air pollution, they also have a higher risk of its health impacts, such as premature death from particle pollution or asthma. Implementing strategies to minimize air pollution is necessary to reduce related health risks. Despite increases in population and energy use, deaths related to air pollution exposure dropped by about 47 percent between 1990 and 2010, possibly due to the increased federal air quality regulations.

“Developing effective, targeted strategies to solve air quality and health inequities requires us to understand the extent of these disparities and what causes them,” says Kerr. “Once identified, we can work with stakeholders and policymakers to develop strategies that lead to reductions in air inequality.”

The sparse coverage of surface-level air quality monitors may have stood in the way of fully understanding the true extent of racial disparities in air pollution exposure. However, the advent of new tools—such as satellites that measure air pollution from space—makes it easier to quantify differences in air pollution from one neighborhood to another and identify their probable sources.

Low carbon energy helps address racial disparities in air pollution exposure

Generating energy from renewable resources such as solar, geothermal, and wind would help mitigate climate change and reduce air pollution levels in the country. 

A recent study published in Science of The Total Environment suggests that adopting low-carbon energy sources in California—like relying on renewables such as wind and solar or using carbon capture and sequestration technologies—would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions and air pollution exposure for all residents. The most significant reduction in GHG emissions resulted in the highest reduction in air pollution exposure compared to business-as-usual conditions by 2050.

[Related: Pollution kills 1 in 6 people worldwide.]

The findings also suggest that statewide energy policies might not completely eliminate air pollution exposure disparity because policymakers need to apply more strategies in targeted neighborhoods. However, adopting low-carbon energy sources could still reduce the racial gap of exposure to atmospheric pollutants like fine and ultrafine particulate matter by about 20 and 40 percent, respectively. Ambient fine particulate air pollution is considered the largest environmental cause of human mortality. Even though low carbon energy can’t eliminate the disparity completely, it takes a step in the right direction, says Kleeman, an author of the study. 

“Regions that adopt low carbon energy will see a public health benefit for all residents,” he adds. “The groups living closest to the sources such as major highways, rail lines, or major industrial facilities are on the front lines of the air pollution exposure, and so they experience the most immediate and largest benefits.”

According to the European Environment Agency, the increase in electricity production from renewable sources has significantly reduced GHG emissions across the European Union and led to a 48.50 and 142.2 kiloton reduction in nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions, respectively. However, biomass combustion may have led to an increase in particulate matter and fine particulate matter emissions by 134.48 and 132.28 kilotons, respectively.

“Reducing ethnoracial pollution disparities will likely need approaches that address certain pollution sources and target certain geographic areas and populations,” says Kerr. “The EPA’s proposed stronger standards for heavy-duty vehicles is one example of a regulation that, if implemented, could move the needle in the right direction to protect community health especially for the most vulnerable and marginalized populations.”

Air pollution exposure and its related health risks burden the affected populations who already face disproportionate harm from climate change. For instance, people of color are more likely to live in areas with the highest projected labor hours lost and the highest projected increases in traffic delays due to climate-driven increases in high-temperature days and changes in high-tide flooding.

“Lost schooldays, lost workdays, [and] more health issues all prevent people from reaching their full potential and achieving their goals in life,” Kleeman adds. “It is important that every member of society has access to clean air.”

The post Low-carbon energy minimizes racial disparities in neighborhoods with air pollution appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

To mark our 150th year, we’re revisiting the Popular Science stories (both hits and misses) that helped define scientific progress, understanding, and innovation—with an added hint of modern context. Explore the entire From the Archives series and check out all our anniversary coverage here.

Tapping the power of concentrated sunlight dates to antiquity. During the Siege of Syracuse in 212 BCE, legendary Greek mathematician Archimedes invented a solar death ray. Its polished bronze shields reflected sunlight walls onto approaching Roman ships to set them aflame—a feat that has been replicated in modern times. 

By the time Popular Science published Alden P. Armagnac’s “Sun Furnace Goes to Work” in March 1954, the prolific writer and editor was well into his four-plus decades-plus of covering the science beat. No stranger to telling sweeping stories with a flare, Armagnac, a chemical engineer from Columbia University, sought to make science entertaining. He neglected to mention Archimedes in his tour of solar technology, but he does cite Lavoisier, a renowned 18th-century French chemist who used sunlit mirrors to melt metals.

Armagnac’s sun-drenched feature covers an array of emerging solar technologies, including a furnace in which “steel melts and drips like sealing wax over a flame;” photovoltaics, whose electric yield was so wretched in 1954 that a skeptic said, “Scientists must understand matter and energy much better before we can count on charging our automobile batteries from thermoelectric or photoelectric generators on the garage roof;” photosynthesis, used to grow a high-yield, single-cell algae food crop, about which Armagnac doesn’t mince words, “if our palate isn’t progressive enough to fancy such ultramodern fare, we can feed it to cattle or poultry, and be rewarded with old-fashioned steaks or fricassees;” and finally, sunlight-in-a-bottle, or capturing rays in test tubes to tap its catalytic characteristics: “Sunlight is known to produce various chemical reactions,” wrote Armagnac, “as when it turns blank film into a portrait of Aunt Ella.” Guess he wasn’t a fan of drinking UV light to cure disease.

“Sun furnace goes to work” (Alden P. Armagnac, March 1954)

A man-made inferno tries out materials for jet and rocket engines—and shows one way to capture free solar power.

A top a 6,000-foot mountain near San Diego, Calif., they’re harnessing the sun to help build airplanes.

A solar furnace newly installed there focuses the sun’s rays, with a 10-foot-diameter mirror of polished aluminum, upon a spot smaller than a dime. It surpasses by far the temperature of the hoc test blowtorch or electric furnace.

Researchers of the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation apply the sun furnace’s terrific heat to materials under trial for jet and rocket engines and for guided missiles. Aim of their experiments is to develop substances more resistant to heat and thermal shock than any yet known—stuff that won’t soften and flow, say, when a long-range missile screams back to the earth from dizzy altitudes.

That the possibilities are promising is shown by recent discovery of two super-refractories, hafnium carbide and tantalum carbide, with fantastically high melting points—7,530 and 7,020 degrees F., respectively. The first looks like the record for any substance known. For comparison, iron melts at a mere 2,800 degrees, and tungsten tops the list of metals at 6,100 degrees; while graphite, long the supreme heat-resisting material, turns from solid into vapor at about 6,600 degrees.

The California experimenters’ solar furnace, essentially an enormous burning glass, provides the most practicable way to explore this newly opening extreme-high-temperature realm. When sky conditions are ideal, it yields an estimated maximum of 8,500 degrees F. At the focus of the great mirror, this heat is concentrated in a spot 5/16 of an inch in diameter.

Metal melts like butter on a stove

Its intensity burns a hole in firebrick with ease. Steel melts and drips like sealing wax over a flame, when a rod is held with its tip at the focal point. A movable cylindrical sunshade controls the temperature of thousands of degrees to within a degree or two, a triumph of precision. Equipped with an astronomical drive, the big mirror turns automatically to follow the sun, permitting experiments of hours’ duration.

Best of all, pure samples of materials can be subjected to the searing heat without contamination by foreign substances, like carbon in electric furnaces. And there are no electric and magnetic fields, nor fumes, to disturb reactions or hinder spectroscopic observation.

Science’s pioneers led way

In going to work for industry, the solar furnace has exchanged academic robes for overalls. For its advantages long were appreciated only by savants of pure science. Lavoisier and other great chemists of the past melted metals with solar furnaces, which made up in size whatever their lenses or mirrors lacked in optical perfection. Then the idea seems to have been forgotten, until recent years.

Abroad, French experiments that began a few years ago with a 78-inch searchlight mirror (PSM Aug. ’50. p. 122) have now led to what is probably the world’s largest solar furnace. Using a 40-foot diameter composite mirror, a mosaic of small panes of window glass, this semi-industrial installation in the Pyrenees went into operation in 1952.

In this country, first practical use of a solar furnace appears to date back only a little earlier, to a little-known project of World War II. A 120-inch sun furnace was built for the AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors at Flint, Mich. with the cooperation of the Aluminum Company of America. Originally 16 reflecting sectors of quarter-inch sheet aluminum gave it a saucer-sized hot spot of up to 2,000-degree temperature and five-inch diameter. After the war, when it became surplus, it was moved to Rockhurst College in Kansas City, Mo., and used in scientific studies by its designer, Dr. Willi Conn. Having reshaped the mirror to obtain a smaller hot spot and much higher temperatures, he perfected the technique of controlling and measuring the extreme heat accurately.

New owner. Final version

This is the sun furnace that Consolidated Vultee has now purchased, modified further to suit its new tasks, and put to work. Incidentally, moving the furnace southward in latitude from Kansas City to San Diego required a new mounting for the big mirror—it turns in its gimbals ring, like an astronomical telescope, on a “polar axis” parallel to that on which the earth turns.

To scientists looking into the future, solar furnaces illustrate just one of many ways to harness the sun. The tantalizing fact is that a full horsepower of solar energy, free for the taking, falls at midday on each square yard of the earth. What progress experimenters are making toward capturing it was recently reviewed by Dr. George R. Harrison, dean of the MIT School of Science.

India has solar cooker

Devices using the sun’s heat directly, as the solar furnace does, represent the simplest approach and the most successful to date. India has perfected a solar cooker; which a government agency now sells for $14, using a circular mirror of yard-square area. Solar stills on life rafts make drinking water from sea water. Experimental solar houses, heated mostly or entirely by the sun, show promise, and will look much more interesting if the necessary investment—still higher than for an ordinary heating plant—can be reduced. For heating homes and hot water, mirrors or lenses aren’t needed. Temperatures up to 400 degrees F. can be obtained in flat-plate collectors, essentially glass-covered boxes lined with black-painted metal, through which water or air circulates to be heated. Steam engines can be run on solar power, as Dr. Charles G. Abbot of the Smithsonian Institution has demonstrated in his pioneering experiments. So far, though, it’s an expensive way—an Abbot boiler with a mirror large enough to produce two horsepower would probably cost about $1,000. Heat engines that could run efficiently at lower temperature than conventional types, dispensing with the mirrors’ cost and complications, would be another story. That’s something for inventors to work on.

Sunshine into electricity?

A miniature “sun motor” exhibited not long ago by Charles F. Kettering, General Motors research ace, demonstrates the future possibility of turning sunshine right into electricity. Enough current to spin it is generated when a candle flame heats a tube bristling with twisted wires, or when a lamp’s beam is directed on a bank of photovoltaic cells.

Twist together the ends of pieces of copper and silver wire, heat one of the two junctions, and current will be generated. This is the effect that a thermocouple applies to operate the temperature-indicating meter of an electrical pyrometer. Voltage and current can be multiplied to substantial figures, by connecting many thermocouples and heating one set of junctions. So it’s easy, in imagination, to picture a solar power station where acres of thermocouples turn the sun’s rays into free kilowatts. The catch is their notoriously low efficiency as energy converters, although improved thermocouple alloys have lately raised the figure considerably.

Unlike photocells that merely control current from an external source, photovoltaic cells actually generate current, when light falls upon them. Camera fans’ light meters employ photovoltaic cells, while a selenium or copper-oxide cell of this type may convert as much as 12 percent of light of some wave lengths into electricity, its low overall efficiency compares with that of a thermocouple. Eventually the figure may be bettered but, as Dr. Harrison comments wryly, “Scientists must understand matter and energy much better before we can count on charging our automobile batteries from thermoelectric or photoelectric generators on the garage roof.”

Improving on nature’s way

There remains the chemical route to harnessing solar energy—tried and proved by nature, long before man came along to puzzle over the problem. All but five percent of the energy we use, including the coal we burn and the food we eat, has at some time been stored by photosynthesis in plants, which captured it from the sun. Can We do better than plant wheat, or corn, or sugar cane, on farms and plantations, and let nature take its course? Some think so.

It may have been a preview of the future when a crop consisting of 100 pounds of dried, microscopic plants was harvested at Cambridge. Mass., not long ago, for the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

The odd product consisted of myriads of single-celled algae of a kind called Chlorella. They had been grown in water containing suitable salts, circulating with carbon-dioxide gas in a plastic tube, while sunshine poured in through the tube’s walls.

Experts predict an acre’s yield of food could be multiplied manyfold by growing Chlorella in tanks, instead of planting the soil at all. The dried or frozen product, we’re assured, forms a nourishing paste with “a delicate grassy flavor.” And if our palate isn’t progressive enough to fancy such ultramodern fare, we can feed it to cattle or poultry, and be rewarded with old-fashioned steaks or fricassees in abundance.

Cerium salts get into the act

Finally, the chemists are talking about bypassing biological processes entirely and capturing sunshine right in flasks and test tubes! Sunlight is known to produce various chemical reactions, as when it turns blank film into a portrait of Aunt Ella. More promising for delivering useful quantities of energy is a photochemical reaction exhibited by salts of cerium dissolved in water, which Prof. Lawrence J. Heidt of MIT has been investigating.

The cerium salts’ ions can take on two forms, called cerous and ceric. When sunlight acts on the solution, they change from one form to the other-and then back again. This might seem to get nobody anywhere. But, in the process, some of the water decomposes into elementary hydrogen and oxygen. The overall result is that, with the cerium salts playing the role of catalyst, sunlight breaks down water into gasses that can be burned for fuel.

We’re still a long way from drawing the plans for a solar-powered gasworks. One percent would be a generous estimate of this reaction’s efficiency in converting solar to chemical energy. But it’s a break-through on a new front, one more promising approach for future experimenters to explore. 

Some text has been edited to match contemporary standards and style.

The post From the archives: The promising new world of solar power—in the 1950s appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Along the Atlantic coast, off New York and New Jersey, a stretch of ocean that’s 2.5 times the size of New York City was just leased by the US government to six energy companies. Those developers have one goal: to turn the 488,000 acres of water into offshore wind farms to power the two states with renewable energy.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced the sale on February 23, at the end of 64 rounds of auction, for the area known as the New York Bight. It’s the largest US marine area ever offered in a single auction, at a staggering $4.37 billion. The lease’s giant price tag was splashed across the news, but the money, as much as it is, is only a small part of the story. A more complicated engineering challenge is ahead.

Building numerous wind turbines several hundred feet tall, miles from shore, is a massive undertaking. The Bight is expected to produce 5.6 to 7 gigawatts—enough power for more than 1.9 million homes—ushering the US toward the Biden administration’s nationwide goal of generating 30 gigawatts of wind power by 2030. This plan, known as 30 by 30, means building 2,100 wind turbines and foundations, laying over 6,800 miles of cable, and building several highly specialized ships to get the job done, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

[Related: Minimizing offshore wind’s impact on nature is tricky, but not impossible]

Meanwhile, the offshore wind industry is investing millions of dollars in a domestic supply chain, which includes factories, port upgrades, vessels, and workforce training, according to a report from the national trade association American Clean Power. 

There is still a long ways to go. “The offshore wind supply chain in the United States is nascent,” says Brandon W. Burke, a managing consultant for Ramboll, a Denmark-based firm that advises offshore wind energy developers. “It is certainly developing more and more rapidly, with increased alignment between federal and state governments—but the reality is there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Where to build a massive offshore wind farm

There are two wind farm projects currently operating in US federal waters: the Block Island Wind Farm, which serves cities across Rhode Island and generates 30 megawatts, and the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Pilot Project, which serves Virginia Beach and generates 12 megawatts.

Like these smaller projects, the Bight is close to the coast and near cities with high levels of electricity demand. It shares two other key features, too. First, there are nearby ports that can provide the manufacturing needed to build the wind farms’ structures. And second, the area’s transmission grid can handle the injections of power. What’s more, New York and New Jersey set ambitious renewable energy targets—9 gigawatts and 7.5 gigawatts, respectively, by 2035—making the Bight an attractive option. 

The farm would rest on the broad and gently sloping Outer Continental Shelf of the Atlantic. Here, the water is relatively shallow, so wind turbines can be fixed to the ocean floor. The majority of fixed-bottom wind facilities use steel tubes or lattices inserted into the seabed, according to Burke. The blades are then mounted on top of those solid foundations. There are also floating-bottom farms, which are anchored to the bottom of the sea with chains. These could be used in deeper waters like the Pacific West Coast, where wind farms have been proposed off California, Oregon and Washington.

Due to the sheer size and height, building a turbine’s foundation and components takes a lot of consideration. A single blade can be as long as 351 feet, or more than 124 baseball bats laid end-to-end. These extremely long turbine components are transported out to sea after being built or assembled at a port to minimize time spent on the water.

Shipping turbines in pieces

For the Bight, everything from the shore’s high-water mark out to three nautical miles is state jurisdiction, which means New York and New Jersey can independently develop the supply chains they need to build an offshore wind farm, Burke says.

To actually get these parts out onto the water, it takes a fleet of about 27 vessels per offshore wind project. That can vary depending on the distance to shore and how many turbines there are, says Claire Richer, director of federal affairs for offshore wind at American Clean Power. These vessels range from seabed preparation ships to cable lay boats to service operation vessels—also known as floaters because they stay out on the water after construction.

The limited number of wind turbine installation vessels (WTIVs) means there’s an especially tight bottleneck in the US for new projects, Burke says. Last year, a vessel named Charybids was commissioned for $500 million as the first WTIV to sail with a US flag. Owned by Dominion Energy, the 472-foot ship is currently being built in the Gulf of Mexico and will use more than 14,000 tons of domestic steel. 

Once completed, Charybids will fill a gap in the US wind farm supply chain, chipping away at American reliance on European manufacturing. The WTIV jacks-up on movable legs to rise in the water, providing a stable surface to carry heavy loads and install the foundations and turbines using cranes. Dominion Energy has already planned to lease its new vessel out to the Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind projects by Ørsted and Eversource, two energy companies that serve Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. Charybids will also work on the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project to expand that pilot program to 176 turbines, generating a total of 2.6 gigawatts. 

Offshore wind farm industries in Europe and Asia are also taking strides with their own renewable energy ambitions: In mid-May Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands set a goal of 150 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2050. Burke says this underscores the need for the US to develop its own domestic manufacturing process, as acquiring components such as blades for wind farms will only get more competitive.

“There is a serious need for that major component manufacturing here,” Burke says. “What is really missing is that we don’t have an overarching industrial strategy to position the US as super competitive” to manufacture wind farm machinery. 

Investing in people and infrastructure

In response, the US has aimed a flood of new funds, federal law, and local policies at amplifying wind power. Utility companies in the states, lured by the siren call of these actions, have begun to put their backing behind the industry. The Port Infrastructure Development Program within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law commits $2.25 billion over the next five years to improve port facilities for commerce, reducing environmental impact, and building resilience against climate change consequences like rising sea levels and extreme weather.

At the state level, Burke says New York and New Jersey have decided to pour millions into existing or new ports with the hope that public investment now will attract private industry in the future. Without continued public and private investment, he explains, a local supply chain can’t be built at scale.

“It’s pretty incredible that offshore wind developers are already making billions of dollars of investments in some of these infrastructure projects, even when they don’t have their construction operation plans yet,” says Richer.

All of this investment should translate to a wind farm job boom in the next few years. “The tricky part is the transition from having no industry to having a robust industry. How do you get those first projects in the water, while striking that balance of as much American labor as possible, while still leveraging the European expertise to train up to the American workforce?” says Josh Kaplowitz, vice president of offshore wind at American Clean Power.

[Related: The US could reliably run on clean energy by 2050]

Though estimates vary, American Clean Power has projected more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the quest for 30 gigawatts of wind power by 2030. These construction, development, and manufacturing jobs should go to union workers, according to the Biden administration. Energy companies seem committed to engaging with unionized labor; New England developers have already signed over 15 different labor agreements for projects already underway.

Such agreements are essential to holding employers accountable on every future wind project as the industry develops, says Mariah Dignan, regional director on Long Island for Climate Job New York, a coalition of labor unions. This accountability, as Dignan explains, includes safety protections, health care benefits, pensions, and market wages. “Making sure that the domestic supply chain through and through is a union industry” will provide wind farm workers with family-supporting and community-sustaining jobs, she adds. 

For offshore wind farms to become a powerhouse in the states, local labor will need to be on board. To Dignan, that means building community trust through education and outreach so that union workers in the energy business have the information and resources they need to build on the seas. If the manufacturing industry can match the speed at which wind farms have secured funding, then 30 gigawatts might just be the start of the whirling turbines that energize the US in coming years.

Correction (May 23, 2022): This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Mariah Dignan’s name. We regret the error.

The post The NY Bight could write the book on how we build offshore wind farms in the future appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When you think about renewable energy, you might think about solar panels and wind turbines. With solar power, you can create a large solar farm that can generate megawatts of electricity, or you can simply throw some solar panels on your roof to help power your home. However, when it comes to wind power, oftentimes we only see the massive wind turbines that pepper rural areas around the globe. Are we missing an opportunity for rooftop wind turbines?

Sadly, it’s not likely we’re going to see rooftop wind power become a vibrant renewable energy source anytime soon. That’s simply because it wouldn’t work very well. Matthew Lackner, a professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, tells Popular Science that wind doesn’t scale down as well as solar.

“If you look at large-scale solar farms versus household solar, the cost per unit of energy produced will be lower for the large-scale solar farm just because of the economics of scale. But solar panels are so cheap now that it still sort of makes economic sense to do it on one home,” Lackner says. “For wind, there are a few problems. One is that with wind turbines—there are a lot of spatial scaling factors that go into it.”

Lackner says you can justify investing in putting up large, industrial wind turbines because they produce a lot of power. If you were to put small wind turbines on your home, the investment simply wouldn’t be worth it—they likely wouldn’t generate enough power to justify purchasing and installing the turbines. He says with wind power you want to have wind turbines with very tall towers that are high up in the air to extract the really strong wind speeds above trees, buildings and other obstructions. Generally speaking, the wind gets more powerful the higher you go thanks to the lack of obstacles and lower pressures. 

[Related: The US could reliably run on clean energy by 2050.]

“When it comes to residential, most areas have limits of towers you can install on your house or something, so you can’t really get a turbine up very high,” Lackner says. “You’re also, in most residential areas, surrounded by other houses and trees and things like that that block the wind low down, so wind speeds tend to be very low right near a house.”

If you live on a farm on top of a hill all by yourself, then it might be worth it to put up a wind turbine, but it wouldn’t work well for most other homes. That being said, wind turbines might be able to generate some power for larger office buildings.

A start-up called Accelerate Wind is marketing small wind turbines to office buildings by taking advantage of how they affect wind patterns. Wind speeds up after it runs into these large buildings and goes over them because the building increases the pressure by forcing it to move up the wall and over the top. The company can angle small turbines near the edge to capture that wind power. The startup states that this technology could generate up to a quarter of a building’s energy needs. 

Lackner says there may be another opportunity for wind turbines. He says he can imagine a community having its own miniature wind farm if they have the right space for it and want to make the investment. These kinds of community-owned wind farms can be found in places like Denmark and Scotland. 

“I don’t think individual homes would make a whole bunch of sense to do, but I could see something like 50-100 kilowatts that powers tens of homes in a development if it was in a place that’s pretty open towards the top of a hill as opposed to the bottom of a hill,” Lackner says.

That’s a pretty specific situation, so it doesn’t appear as if residential wind power is likely to catch on anytime soon unless some new innovations come around the bend. In the meantime, maybe think about putting your community on a microgrid. 

The post Why ‘rooftop wind’ simply can’t compete with rooftop solar appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The entire point of renewable energy is that it comes from a source we can’t use up. Just take solar and wind—the sun won’t stop shining, nor will the wind stop blowing. (If they did, we’d have much bigger problems than figuring out how to power our appliances.) As long as we set up these energy technologies where nature can do its best work, sources like solar and wind give us functionally limitless power without the atmosphere-warming greenhouse gasses emitted by fossil fuels. 

But some renewable energies are a little bit trickier—and climate change could make our favorite renewable resources a lot harder to harness. A recent uptick in droughts shows us just how devastating this could be for our use of hydropower. 

You can theoretically harness the kinetic energy of rushing or falling water without using up the water itself, so it’s not a limited power source like fossil fuel. In 2021, it generated about 260 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity in the US, which amounted to around 6.3 percent of the country’s total utility-scale output. It’s the second-most used renewable energy source across the country, and produces more than twice as much power as solar. 

“Hydropower is a really essential part of the renewable energy portfolio for this region and for many regions around the world,” says Dave White, director of Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation. 

But the required dams can have a negative impact on the environment. Closing off lakes and reservoirs can hurt aquatic life, and can even lead to an uptick in greenhouse gas emissions by trapping plants and other organic materials as they decompose. 

It also requires a fair bit of water in one place—which is becoming a problem in the age of climate change. We’re already seeing this happen on the West Coast, but as droughts get more dramatic across different corners of the world, the future of how we manage water for drinking, agriculture, and hydroelectric power will eventually need to shift. 

“Without planning and investment, a hellscape will be upon us,” says Rich Sorkin, CEO of climate risk analytics firm Jupiter.

The hydropower dilemma at Lake Powell

The Western US is currently experiencing the worst drought in 1,200 years, triggering everything from wildfires to extreme snow loss to the emergence of old corpses from ever-emptier bodies of water. Now Lake Powell, the second-largest reservoir in the US, is on the brink of running dry. 

The giant reservoir’s water powers the Glen Canyon Dam, which provides electricity for around five million people across many states, but is currently sitting at about a quarter of the water level necessary to support that much energy production. Not to mention, Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam are part of the Colorado River system, which provides water to 40 million people (or over 10 percent of the US population) and upholds billions of dollars worth of agriculture. Over a quarter of the river is currently in “extreme drought” conditions, meaning crop and pasture losses are considerable, as well as water shortages and restrictions. 

“It’s almost hard to imagine how important a huge water reserve reservoir is in Arizona, one of the most arid places in the country and in the world,” says Mona Tierney-Lloyd, head of US Public Policy at clean energy group Enel North America. “But that’s one of the primary places for providing electricity to almost seven states.”

[Related: Climate change is blowing our predictions out of the water, says the IPCC.]

Earlier this month, officials announced a plan to hold back releases of around 480,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Powell that typically go to Arizona, Nevada, and California, something that Tanya Trujillo, the US Bureau of Reclamation’s assistant secretary of water and science, says could keep hydropower going for another year or so. “We have never taken this step before in the Colorado River basin, but conditions we see today and the potential risks we see on the horizon demand that we take prompt action,” Trujillo told the Associated Press. 

According to White, this problem is not only because water is drying up faster. Demand for water is also increasing as the drought persists. 

“We have these intersections of the environmental conditions, the megadrought, the climate change impacts,” he says. “And then on the sort of demand side, we have increasing demand. We are simply using more water in the region than the river is able to provide. And our historic strategies for managing that predominantly through infrastructure like dams and reservoirs and delivery systems are now sort of inadequate to the challenges that we face.”

How does hydropower work?

Hydropower has been used since the 1800s, when it first powered a single lamp in England before moving into the big leagues four years later in Wisconsin. By the 1900s, it was everywhere.

The technology itself is quite simple: water in the reservoir gets pushed through an intake valve, which keeps out debris. Next, water funnels through a big pipe, the force of which spins a turbine at a fish-safe speed. This whirling makes a generator shaft turn coils of copper wire in a ring of magnets, creating an electric field—and bam, you’ve got electricity. This is then transformed into a higher voltage and sent through the grid. The water ends up downstream in a river, where it can theoretically be reused for other purposes. 

But for such a system to work, there needs to be enough water coverage to actually push liquid into those intake valves, says Tierney-Lloyd. “My understanding is that now, because of those water levels being as low as they are, the turbines are not generating as much electricity as they otherwise could,” she says. “And it’s just the physical nature of not having enough water to push the water.”

When this happens, we stand at a conundrum—do we funnel water from downstream back into the reservoir to keep power going, or do we use the runoff for other crucial purposes like drinking and agriculture and allow the reservoir to run dry?

“The highly managed Colorado River will be a test case to see if society can reevaluate its priorities and adapt management rules for the entire basin,” says Jan Polcher, hydrologist at the LMD lab of the CNRS, École Polytechnique in France. “Some water rights will have to be abandoned in favor of more critical water uses.”

Future droughts and hydropower

Although the Western drought is a prime example of how finicky hydropower can be, it is hardly the only place in the world that will face this issue in the future, and it isn’t the only place in the world that will see hydropower take such a hit. Zambia has experienced electricity shortages for similar reasons, as have Brazil and China. 

When hydroelectric power isn’t reliable, people typically turn to fossil fuels, says Brian Tarroja, an energy researcher at the University of California-Irvine.

“You do want to build new assets, more renewable energy, more storage, more flexibility and all that stuff,” he says. “But that takes time. If you have a shortfall right now, the marginal resource is usually natural gas.”

[Related: How AI could help bring a sustainable reckoning to hydropower.]

As we shore up our infrastructure, Tarroja adds, we’ll need to figure out new engineering techniques that can handle droughts and other climate change impacts. That could mean plants that work with lower amounts of water. Even more crucial, he says, is making sure that other renewable energy sources are built up as well. Otherwise, shortcomings in hydropower will continue to mean sliding back into fossil fuel use. 

White adds that regions should start talking about water rights and priorities as well. Whereas we once may have been able to cover all sorts of needs, climate change is changing how much water we can expect to access. If we don’t work on fairly prioritizing where to limit usage first, marginalized groups could end up shouldering the burden. 

“When we decide to invest our financial and natural resources into producing one type of social benefit, like economic productivity, environmental conservation, or recreational amenities, we need to balance that sort of portfolio,” White says. “And that is something that will require a transition, because water scarcity affects this region and other regions around the world. We need to be prepared to have a dialog about how we prioritize these benefits, especially when we’re not able to produce all of those social goods simultaneously.”

The post Lake Powell’s drought is part of a growing threat to hydropower everywhere appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When it comes to bat species, Nathusias’ pipistrelle may appear to be relatively unassuming. Found across Europe, it’s about as small as a common pipistrelle, measuring under 2 inches long and weighing only 3 to 8 grams. But even with its petite size, the species can deftly migrate more than 600 miles in a season. Now, one Nathusias’ pipistrelle has broken the record for any measured bat migration, according to a new study published in the journal Mammalia.

In 2009, a young female pipistrelle was “ringed” in the Russian Darwin Nature Reserve, where she received a small bracelet with a identifying number on it. More than two months later, her body was found in the French Alps. A team of Russian and French biologists mapped out the journey to be at least 1,544 miles, although they speculate that with varied flight paths and hunting detours, the bat could have flown upwards of 1,864 miles. They also suspect that the individual might have flown through some of Russia’s chilly regions—an unusual choice for the small mammal, but supported by recent migration data.

[Related: The secret to these bats’ hunting prowess is deep within their ears]

Before this report, the record migration distance among bats also belonged to a Nathusias’ pipistrelle. That male flew roughly 1,381 miles, which could indicate that bats regularly fly farther distances than currently known. The Mammalia study authors called for additional studies on the pathways and distances these animals cover, particularly as Europe has installed more wind farms, which have been shown to negatively affect migratory bat species.

Other chart-busting animal migrations

Grey whales

The 90,000-pound “devil fishes”  make one of the longest annual mammalian migrations. Each round trip is typically 10,000 miles per year, and one record-breaking whale is suspected of traveling 16,700 miles in one trip.

Monarch butterflies

While many bird species make a two-way migration, monarchs are the only butterfly species with the same behavior. The insects only travel during the day, and at nighttime, clouds of butterflies roost in groups. The migration from Mexico to the northern US and Canada can occur over three to four generations, where each insect lives two to six weeks. The last generation of the year is the sole exception: Its individuals live eight to nine months.   

Atlantic salmon

These declining fish move from rivers to the ocean to grow up. They migrate as youths, or “smolts,” in the spring, usually at two or three years of age. Their routes take them from Maine’s rivers to the Eastern Seaboard, and eventually, back to their birthing grounds to reproduce. Atlantic salmon are “anadromous” because of this migration, meaning they can live in both fresh and saltwater.

Bluefin tuna

Stretching up to 10 feet long and weighing more than 1,000 pounds, these migratory fish are powerful swimmers. They can move at 12 to 18 miles per hour in short bursts, which powers them across the Pacific Ocean in roughly 55 days. That 5,000-mile journey takes them from the coast of Japan, through icy waters 1,800 feet below the sea’s surface, and eventually to the shores of California and Mexico.

The post This itty bitty bat flew across two continents at record speed appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The cost of renewable energy has plummeted over the past decade. The price of solar panels has decreased by roughly 90 percent over the past decade or so and the cost of wind power decreased by over half over that same period. With prices so low, it would be affordable to implement more  solar and wind power in the United States than what we currently see. 

Together, they account for about 13 percent of U.S. energy production. One of the reasons there isn’t more solar and wind is that there are costs associated with installing them that haven’t decreased so significantly. Experts refer to them as “soft costs.”

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

“When it comes to deploying renewable energy, there are hard costs. The cost of the system. How much do the panels cost? How much did the inverter cost if you’re doing a residential system?” Joel Eisen, an energy and environmental law professor at the University of Richmond, tells Popular Science.“The soft costs are everything associated with the permitting, construction and installation of the system itself.”

When you’ve decided you’d like to install some solar panels on your home or in your community, for instance, there can be many legal barriers that can delay your doing so or even prevent it entirely. Permitting and zoning laws can become a major issue in some areas.

“It’s not surprising to hear stories about this taking time and adding delays and adding cost to the cost of a system, because that’s the way it’s been for quite some time. The challenge is that every locality in the nation does this differently,” Eisen says. 

One 2020 study found getting a permit to install solar panels takes about 50 days on average, which is weeks longer than many other kinds of construction permits take. Wait times have slowly decreased over the past decade, but they remain a barrier.

Then there’s zoning laws. Eisen says an area might not be zoned for installing renewable energy, which means you can’t install it unless your local government decides to allow it. A zoning ordinance might allow it to be installed but have requirements for where it’s allowed to be installed due to concerns about things like community aesthetics. It could even be entirely unclear if installing a renewable energy system is permissible at all. 

“In many places, zoning ordinances were written a long time ago. The problem is the zoning ordinance might not mention renewable energy at all,” Eisen says. “If a zoning ordinance doesn’t mention renewable energy at all, there’s a gap, and if a neighbor who wants to stop a facility from coming in chooses to exploit that gap in litigation, the result could be problematic.”

If it isn’t not clear if renewable energy is allowed to be built in a certain zone, someone who doesn’t want a project to go forward could sue to stop the renewables from being built. That might just be a neighbor who doesn’t want solar panels near their house.

Many people around the country also live in communities that are overseen by homeowner’s association (HOAs), which sometimes don’t allow solar panels to be installed or restrict where they can be installed. Luckily, many states—from Virginia to California—have passed laws that prevent HOAs from banning solar panels.

[Related: The US could reliably run on clean energy by 2050.]

All of these kinds of issues with permitting, zoning laws and HOAs have led to a situation where people interested in solar often end up paying more than they might have expected or can’t get it done at all. That’s a significant problem for the industry because it might reduce its customer base.

As for wind power, zoning laws, permitting and regulations can also become a major issue. Counterintuitively, sometimes laws that are meant to be environmentally friendly can get in the way of wind projects. For instance, a law that was meant to protect a certain species of bird or bat might prevent a wind project from getting off the ground due to concerns over if the wind turbines will kill some of them. Interestingly enough, wind turbines actually kill fewer birds than cell phone towers and cats.

“That has been a very tricky and difficult subject for renewable energy for as long as I’ve been studying the subject,” Eisen says. “There are people who are interested in wildlife protection and are passionate about that even at the cost of some project like a wind farm.”

States and localities should do what they can to shorten permitting delays, Eisen says, and update zoning laws to allow more renewable energy to be installed. Many localities around the country have made progress working on these issues, such as Brownville, Texas.

“I’m aware of localities that have taken a number of different approaches to address this. Some have established zones where you can do a system by right—in other words, it’s automatically allowed,” Eisen says.

If we’re going to build up enough renewable energy to beat climate change, laws and regulations are going to need to be changed to make it as easy as possible. If you’re trying to install some solar yourself, you might want to check if your community is part of a new Department of Energy project called SolarAPP+ that helps people streamline the permitting process. Instead of going to five different websites to figure out permitting, you can get all of the information you need in one place.

The post Outdated zoning laws are holding renewable energy back appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Analysis paralysis—being so overwhelmed by options you can’t pick a path—has new meaning thanks to climate change. Making the “right” choice has never been more complicated, but we’re here to help. This is Impact, a new sustainability series from PopSci.

It’s become clear in recent years that electric vehicles are the future of the automobile industry—a good thing if you care about winning the fight against climate change. General Motors plans to stop producing gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Volvo plans to go all-electric by 2030, and Jaguar will be doing the same by 2025.

Buying an electric car instead of a gasoline-powered car is a good way to help fight climate change, but what if you already have a gasoline-powered car that’s working perfectly fine? Should you sell it and go electric? What’s the best way to reduce your carbon footprint when it comes to getting where you need to go?

Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of economics at Yale, says that there are multiple factors to consider when it comes to your transportation choices. Producing new cars and transporting them contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, so it’s important to consider that when you’re thinking about this issue—even though research has shown producing an electric vehicle is less harmful to the environment that producing a gas-powered vehicle. If you have a car that’s really fuel efficient, he says it’s probably fine to just keep it for a while. 

“If it’s a very low fuel economy gas guzzler, then the benefits of getting a newer car are clearly going to dominate over the additional supply chain emissions,” Gillingham says. “The supply chain emissions are real and fairly substantial from producing a new car, so creating demand for new cars is not necessarily what we want to do.”

[Related: What to know before you buy an electric vehicle.]

That being said, Gillingham says it is good to help drive up demand for electric vehicles. At the moment, demand is increasing pretty rapidly. 

“In this stage of electric vehicle development, it is really beneficial to have demand for electric vehicles to show the automakers there is a market here and they really can shift 90 percent of their research and development dollars toward electric vehicles and people will buy them,” Gillingham says.

Beyond the issue of what kind of car you own or might soon purchase, it’s also important to consider how you’re using your car and if you need a car at all. Gillingham says driving less reduces your carbon footprint, especially when replaced by walking or biking. Using public transit also helps reduce how much you’re contributing to climate change.

There is a big debate over if using ride services like Lyft or Uber is better or worse for the environment than driving your own car somewhere, but the consensus among researchers seems to be that it’s worse when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. That’s because drivers spend over 40 percent of their time driving without a passenger while they’re in between trips. 

Another misconception is that there’s really no big benefit to using an EV when the electricity used to charge the car could may be  burning fossil fuels.  But the evidence shows that electric vehicles are still better for the environment than gasoline-powered vehicles even when they are still theoretically fossil fueled. Using electricity from fossil fuels appears to be significantly better than a car actually burning them. To be extra green, you can take a step further by ensuring your charging car uses renewables. 

“You can put solar panels on your rooftop and plug in your car in the middle of the day when the Sun is shining and you’re pretty confident it’s clean then,” Gillingham says. “It’s from your own power.”

The burden of climate change and cars shouldn’t fall exclusively on the shoulders of average people. After all, around 71 percent of carbon emissions are produced by some of the world’s largest corporations. Still, Gillingham says he thinks it is important for everyone to do what they can. If enough people do the right thing, it will have an impact. He notes they can also do more than just change their habits if climate change is something they’ve very concerned about.

“The other thing people can do is they can vote for policies that are going to lead both individuals and corporations to [reduce] their emissions and put pressure on corporations to be responsible,” Gillingham says.

If you’re thinking about getting an electric car, there are more and more options becoming available every year—you can even get the massive new Ford F-150 Lighting truck if you’re into that sort of thing.  Not to mention, they’re a lot more stylish than they used to be years ago. You could even get an electric supercar. But the greenest way to travel still would be without a car at all. 

The post Car owners: here’s when experts say you should switch to an EV appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Analysis paralysis—being so overwhelmed by options you can’t pick a path—has new meaning thanks to climate change. Making the “right” choice has never been more complicated, but we’re here to help. This is Impact, a new sustainability series from PopSci.

With constant news reports about the threat climate change poses to a livable future, you might be wondering what you can do to join the fight against climate change. Using less energy or buying an electric car are options we’re all familiar with to reduce your impact on the planet, but one idea you might not have considered could have a much larger effect: Getting your community on a microgrid.

A microgrid, generally speaking, is an area that’s removed itself from the traditional power grid and is powered solely using renewable energy. That could mean a few houses, a whole neighborhood or maybe even a town. Towns like Gonzales, California and Panton, Vermont are starting their own microgrids. Instead of using energy that may be generated through burning fossil fuels, microgrids derive their power from solar panels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.

[Related: How publicly owned power could shape the future of clean energy.]

Daniel Kammen, a distinguished professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, says microgrids are becoming a lot more popular in the U.S.

“We used to think that microgrids were off-grid, rural areas, but increasingly they’re urban areas, cities,” Kammen says. “Solar is certainly the most common just because it’s so easy. With solar and batteries you can do basically everything a utility does.”

Kammen notes that renewable energy has gotten a lot cheaper over the past decade or so, which means it’s more affordable than ever to get your community on a microgrid. The cost of solar power, for instance, has decreased by over 80 percent since 2010. If you want to get your community on a microgrid, you can simply contact a solar energy contractor like Tesla or Sunrun to get things set up.

These companies can come in and install solar panels and battery storage in a community relatively easily. The cost for a single home can be as high as $50,000, but many states offer rebates that can cut that cost in half. Once it’s all set up, you’ll also save a lot of money on electricity.

“All of the biggest solar developers are now mini-grid developers. It’s not complicated, but you do have to make the commitment to do so,” Kammen says. “It’s not something that’s particularly hard. You just have to do it. You want someone who’s going to help you decide the amount of storage you’re going to do and just make all of that work.”

Research has shown over 70 percent of carbon emissions are produced by just 100 or so of the world’s largest corporations, but Kammen says it’s still important for people to do what they can to help fight climate change at home. He says creating more demand for renewable energy has positive effects by itself.

“It’s huge on both the political scale and also on the logistics … The biggest impediments to mini-grids everywhere are logistics. It’s the utility causing a problem, and the more they see this as a business model to invest in, the more that story changes,” Kammen says. “Utilities are going to ultimately need to find a way to really be the backbone. Utilities can be the eBay of the grid in the sense that everyone wants to buy and sell on their networks and they should be compensated fairly.”

[Related: Energy costs hit low-income Americans the hardest.]

The more utility companies see people moving off the grid, Kammen says, the more these companies will see that their business models need to change. 

Another benefit of microgrids is they can help protect communities from blackouts that the central power grid may experience from time to time. We’ve seen states like California and Texas deal with major blackouts due to things like wildfires and extreme temperatures, so isolating your community could help prevent your home from losing power for extended periods of time. 

“It’s inevitable that [microgrids] will win out, because they’re so much smarter than the old style systems,” Kammen says.

Giant utility companies probably aren’t going to simply disappear, but they will have to adapt their role in energy management as more and more communities decide to generate their own power using renewable energy sources. If you’re looking to get more involved in the climate fight, it might be time to start talking to your neighbors about generating your own power.

The post Ever heard of a microgrid? Here’s why you should start one. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

While the goals of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report have been more or less the same since its inception in the 1990s—to underline “the importance of climate change as a challenge with global consequences and requiring international cooperation”—its exact content has varied throughout the years. The last iteration of the report, released in 2014, listed population growth as one of the major factors behind climate change, something the scientific community now adamantly rejects.

This week, the IPCC released the third and final part of the latest version of the report, which focuses on the mitigation of climate change. It brings something new to the table: the importance of shifting society’s demand for products and services, and how that can lower emissions. This is the first time that the report has zeroed in on how people’s behavior can make a difference.

“This assessment report shows that many people care about nature, the environment and other people and are motivated to engage in climate actions,” says Linda Steg, an IPCC author and professor of environmental psychology at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. “Yet they may face barriers to act, which can be removed by actions, for example, by industry, businesses, and governments.”

Demand-side mitigation, explained

While a lot of discussion about climate change and energy use is centered around replacing the energy we use currently with a cleaner substitute, the new report shows that by 2050, demand-side strategies (or ideas and technologies that could lower how much energy is required to keep the world up and running) could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by a huge chunk. 

The report analyzed 60 actions that could reduce individual carbon footprints, and found that the largest potential existed in individual motility—demonstrating that switching from a car to walking or cycling could save two tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita per year. Other choices, such as reducing air travel, shifting to public transport, and shifting  toward plant-based diets also make an impact. Of course, none of this is particularly groundbreaking—nevertheless, it still can be expensive and incredibly difficult for individuals to take these steps without support.

[Related: Climate action is a ‘now or never’ situation, IPCC warns.]

Lowering our demand on energy also has a lot of positive outcomes. The report found that Decent Living Standards (DLS), described first in the 1993’s Human Development Report as “capability of living a healthy life, guaranteeing physical and social mobility, communicating and participating in the life of the community (including consumption),” is entirely possible under a less energy-demanding system. For people in poverty or in low-income nations, demand-side reductions could also help increase access to low-emissions energy and better housing standards.

Another crucial thing about demand-side reduction mitigation is that it’s also within “planetary boundaries,” meaning the environmental risks are significantly smaller when we’re reducing a footprint versus building the infrastructure needed to keep supplying demand, according to the report. This could potentially even make certain technologies meant for removing carbon dioxide, like Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, less relevant, the report states.

Of course, societal changes don’t happen overnight—and in reality, people need policies and support to make climate-friendly choices easy. 

We need policies to get us there

“Having the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behavior can result in a 40-70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This offers significant untapped potential,” said IPCC Working Group III Co-Chair Priyadarshi Shukla in a statement. “The evidence also shows that these lifestyle changes can improve our health and wellbeing.”

[Related: Why is it so expensive to eat sustainably?]

The policies that could help people make less carbon-heavy emissions are good for the world on many accounts.“There is high confidence in the literature that addressing inequities in income, wealth, and decent living standards not only raises overall well-being,” the report reads, “but also improves the effectiveness of climate change mitigation policies.” 

Still, the report leaves out a chunk of Chapter 5 that had been leaked previously to the Guardian that included information on the social science side of climate change—or basically, how politics and high-carbon industries have made it more strenuous to take climate action. Their findings demonstrate how “vested interests,” such as the fossil fuel industry, have been pushing back against climate change policy through factors like “structural barriers, an incremental rather than systemic approach, lack of coordination, inertia, lock-in to infrastructure and assets, and lock-in as a consequence of vested interests, regulatory inertia, and lack of technological capabilities and human resources.” Basically, big players know plenty about the climate problem—it’s just that they haven’t done anything about it. 

“Back in the 80s, we believed in the information deficit model of social change, and that if we could only get the information to policymakers they would do the right thing,” atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira, senior scientist for Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy, told The Guardian. “And now we see that really it’s not about information deficit, it’s about power relations, and people wanting to keep economic and political power. And so just telling people some more climate science isn’t going to help anything.”

The post A new climate report finally highlights the importance of our decisions appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

This article was originally featured on Field & Stream.

At least 150 eagles have been found dead at wind farms, and the company to blame isn’t denying it. ESI Energy pled guilty this week to killing scores of raptors over the last decade in Wyoming and New Mexico due to blunt force trauma with turbine blades. As the Washington Examiner reports, the company owns 50 wind farms nationwide, but the Wyoming and New Mexico facilities in particular do not show any record of applying for the proper permits—a process that includes consulting with wildlife specialists for impacts.

 “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has a long history of working closely with the wind-power industry to identify best practices in avoiding and minimizing the impacts of land-based wind energy facilities on wildlife including eagles,” Edward Grace, USFWS office of law enforcement assistant director, said in a U.S. Department of Justice press release. “This (plea) agreement holds ESI and its affiliates accountable for years of unwillingness to work cooperatively with the Service and their blatant disregard of wildlife laws.”

[Related: Minimizing offshore wind’s impact on nature is tricky, but not impossible]

Raptors are not the only avian species killed by wind turbines, of course, but this case is stands apart because of documented bald and golden eagles kills on unpermitted property. Bald eagles lost the federal protection of the Endangered Species Act when they were delisted in 2007, but both birds of prey are still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It’s illegal to injure or kill either without a permit.

The energy company must file permits for all of its facilities in the next three years, and its guilty plea comes with several monetary penalties, including a $1.9 million fine plus $6.2 million in restitution. An even bigger budget ding is spread over the next five years as a probation period with money specifically designated for the birds: ESI must put $27 million toward mitigating future eagle deaths at its wind farms.

“The sentencing today shows our commitment to both maintaining and making sustainable use of our resources,” stated Robert Murray, U.S. district attorney for Wyoming in the press release issued Tuesday. “It also ensures a level playing field for business in Wyoming and ensures those receiving federal tax credits are complying with federal law.”

According to NPR, the energy company is also responsible for eagle deaths at wind farms in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and North Dakota.

The post Why a wind power company pled guilty to killing 100 protected eagles appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

If you live in an area with abundant sunlight—hello, fellow southern Californians—you’ve probably thought about installing solar panels on your roof to save on your electric bill. But with so much information, it can be hard to know where to start.

Look no further—start here

Between the different types of panels, financing, inverters, and other jargon, researching solar energy can feel overwhelming at first. That’s why I recommend starting at a solar quote comparison site like EnergySage, Solar-Estimate, or SolarReviews (the latter two are run by the same people).

Both EnergySage and Solar-Estimate act as educational resources and comparison shopping tools to help you field bids. I’ve been using EnergySage, which is chock-full of articles explaining the technology involved. You can also watch videos, look at their buyer’s guide, or start getting quotes. Their Solar 101 series of articles will help you understand the basics, and when you’re done, scroll through the site’s “Learn About Solar” sidebar to read even more articles that’ll give you a feel for the process.

To understand what your home requires, though, you’ll need to look up how much electricity you use. If your bill tells you the average amount of electricity you use each month, make a note of that, or calculate a quick and dirty average yourself. The more information you have on your usage, the more accurate an estimate you can get from installers.

Your energy usage will determine how many panels you’ll need on your roof. Too few, and you’ll still have to pay the electric company for whatever extra power you use. Too many, and you’ll waste money on panels you don’t need—though the electric company will give you credits for any energy you don’t use, should you one day need electricity from the grid.

Keep in mind your future use, too—EnergySage CEO Vikram Aggarwal says that if you plan on getting an electric car, for example, you may want to add a few more panels than you currently need. My neighbor did exactly that, and he’s glad he doesn’t have to rely on the grid for the increased energy usage his new car requires.

From there, you can call local installers directly or plug your information into EnergySage to streamline the process. “You tell us about your home, your bill, and we ask you if you have any preferences regarding equipment, quality, or type of financing. Based on that information, you’ll get quotes from half a dozen pre-screened solar companies,” explains Aggarwal.

Since these quotes contain a number of figures, including a “price per watt,” it’s a bit easier to compare each installer apples-to-apples—rather than just comparing the total cost of each installation that you might get from individual quotes. And, unlike some other solar comparison tools, you won’t have to share your phone number on EnergySage, which is a big plus if you don’t want unsolicited phone calls. (Both EnergySage and Solar-Estimate make money from installers, who pay a fee to list on the site.)

How to choose an installer

As with any big project, don’t just pick the first cheap quote that comes along. “Consumers should get three to five quotes from a mix of different kinds of solar companies to truly evaluate their options,” says Aggarwal. That way, you’ll get a feel for the average cost—pay special attention to the price per watt, which is your main point of price comparison—though it isn’t the only factor you should consider when selecting an installer.

When you find some prices you like, reach out to the companies and set up a visit to your home where they can create a more detailed plan. You may find that a slightly more expensive installer makes a better pitch for the project. My brother-in-law, for example, liked that his chosen company had a keen attention to detail and helped explain the process to him. Other companies he looked at were cheaper, but didn’t take as much care in helping him decide between products, or determining the most aesthetic way to run the conduit to the electrical panel. So don’t be afraid to get a few on-site visits under your belt before committing. (And make sure a company is licensed, insured, and certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners—you can search their database of companies here.)

Different installers may carry or recommend different panels and inverters, too. (Inverters convert the direct current from the panels to alternating current for your home.) More-efficient panels are naturally more expensive, but may be necessary if you can’t fit enough lower-efficiency panels on your roof to cover your home’s electricity usage. If you have a large roof or lower usage, you can go with less-expensive panels. You can also choose between more-affordable inverters mounted to the side of your house and pricier, more-efficient ones that sit on your roof. A good installer will walk you through all your options, so you can make an informed decision.

The installer should also draw up the plans, get the permits, and install the actual equipment. So while the installation may be fairly quick, the start-to-finish process may take a few weeks to a few months, depending on your situation. Your installer should also tell you if you need to upgrade your electrical panel, which may be required for certain homes.

Payment and financing

Paying for your system can feel like a minefield all on its own. There are a ton of options out there, but most of them boil down to two main flavors: you can own your system, or you can rent it from the solar company.

Owning the system

Buying everything outright is ideal, since you reap the biggest financial benefits. You can either pay cash, which requires a high upfront cost but nets you the largest long-term savings, or you can take out a loan, which costs a little more in the long run but doesn’t require as much immediate money. Considering a typical solar power system can cost upwards of $10,000, a loan may be attractive. Plus, with a loan, as long as your monthly payment is lower than your monthly electric bill, you start saving money on day one. Purchasing the system upfront means you won’t break even for a few years (though again, you spend less in the long run).

That loan can come from many places, too. You can go to your bank and get it rolled into your mortgage, open a new line of credit, or get a loan through the installer, Aggarwal tells me. Going through your bank may be cheaper, he notes, but may also require more paperwork than choosing the loan your installer offers. It depends on how much legwork you want to do.

Renting the system

Signing a lease, a power purchase agreement, or renting a system through other means is also common, but generally not as financially advantageous. You’ll pay less money, but you won’t get as many of the benefits. “Most of the savings are going to the leasing company,” says Aggarwal. “You may only get 20 to 30 percent.” It can also be a bit complex if you ever want to sell your home—the homebuyer also has to qualify for the solar lease and agree to take over the contract. If they don’t, you could lose that sale, be forced to buy out the solar panels, or deal with the headache some other way. You won’t have to worry about maintenance or repairs, though, like you would with a system you own. If you can’t afford to buy or finance your panels, leasing may be an option, but make sure you’re aware of the downsides before proceeding.

Crunch the numbers

You may be curious to know how long it takes before the solar panels pay for themselves (the moment your savings overtake the initial cost of the system), particularly if you’re buying them outright. This depends on the price of electricity in your area, the incentives available in your region, and how much sunlight you typically get, Aggarwal says. In California, where I live, electricity is 56 percent more expensive than the national average, and there aren’t any state incentives. But we get so much sunlight that Aggarwal tells me California’s average payback period is seven to eight years. Most solar markets, he says, typically see payback in less than 10 years.

That’s pretty good, because most systems are designed to last significantly longer than that. Most solar equipment is warrantied for about 25 years, but can last even longer before you need to replace them, Aggarwal says. The panels do, however, lose efficiency over time, so they may not produce as much energy once you get that far down the road. In addition, the installer’s labor warranty will likely be shorter, so you may have to do a little legwork if you encounter trouble between years 15 and 25, for example.

Finding tax credits and rebates

If you choose to buy your solar system, you may be eligible for a number of financial incentives. It can be hard to keep track of what’s available, though, especially considering the federal government has started to phase out tax credits for solar. For 2020, the current federal tax credit stands at 26 percent of the cost of your system. This isn’t a rebate, it’s a tax credit, which means it’s deducted from the taxes you owe next year. If you don’t owe any taxes, you won’t get a check in the mail. The credit goes down to 22 percent in 2021, then phases out for residential customers in 2022.

There are also state or local incentives, but these can vary by location. Aggarwal recommends checking out the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, or DSIRE, to see what’s available in your area. Your accountant may also be able to help you make sense of all this for your specific tax situation—so give them a call as you’re running the numbers to see what your final cost and savings will be.

Related: Best solar generators

The post What you need to know about converting your home to solar appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Working from your living room couch may be more enjoyable than a stuffy cubicle, but both setups can keep you feeling tethered to a power outlet. Luckily, there’s an easy way to cut that cord and move your workspace outdoors—without worrying about charging battery packs ahead of time. 

Portable solar panels are gaining popularity as folks look for a simple, sustainable way to juice up their devices while off the grid. Whether you’re a hardcore backpacker heading deep into the wilderness or a sunbather hoping to get some work done in your local park, there’s a personal solar panel out there suited to your needs.

Portable solar panels are also a great way to familiarize yourself with renewable energy. While you may not be ready to install a solar roof on your house, charging a phone or laptop with a small panel can help you gauge the light levels in your area and see how well solar power may be able to meet your needs.

Factors to keep in mind

Even though most portable solar panels are easy to set up and simple to use, there’s always a lot to consider when investing in a new piece of technology. We’ve gathered what we think are the most important factors to think about before you start powering up in the great outdoors.

Wattage

Start by figuring out how much electricity you need. Some personal panels are available in a number of different wattages—a measure of pure electrical power. For example, the Goal Zero Boulder Briefcase, a panel that folds into a compact rectangle with handles for easy portability, is available in 50-watt, 100-watt, and 200-watt varieties. The designs with higher wattages are larger and more expensive, so the best panel for you will depend on what electronics you’re hoping to power. Make sure you read our guide on how to properly charge devices when you’re done here.

Lower-wattage panels won’t prove useless in your mission to stray away from traditional energy sources, but they may charge your devices more slowly than you’re used to. For best results, take a look at your device’s specifications and figure how much power their charging cables allow in. This can help prevent you from buying a panel with a wattage that exceeds your devices’ limits.

Power storage options

Many portable panels come with the necessary cables and batteries you’ll need to store electricity for later. A power bank is especially helpful if you hope to use solar energy when there’s no sun: illuminating a campsite at nighttime, charging your phone during a thunderstorm, or keeping your laptop running on a cloudy afternoon are all good examples. If you want to stock up on solar power, consider purchasing a kit that includes the necessary batteries, converters, and cables. 

[Related: Camping gear that could really help in a power outage]

It’s also possible to skip the accessories and use your solar power instantly. Many portable panels have USB ports that allow you to charge your electronics directly. A small, lightweight option may be all you need to keep your phone or laptop running on a sunny day. Foregoing batteries and cables can also help keep the cost of your solar setup low.

Portability

The size, weight, and design of your personal solar panel will all determine its portability. If you’re planning to drive to a sunny field to get some work done, a heavier and more bulky panel might be fine: you can keep it in your car until you reach your destination, so its size and weight won’t be an issue. On the other hand, backpackers and hikers should choose small, lightweight panels that won’t become a burden on long outdoor treks. Before you buy, make sure you check a panel’s weight and dimensions, as well as those of all its accessories.

Weather resistance

The post Everything to consider before buying a portable solar panel appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Most of the large-scale solar parks in the world are located in deserts. These landscapes provide ample vacant land and year-round sunlight for solar power production. Researchers have envisioned transforming the Sahara—the vastest desert region on earth—into a massive solar park that might have the potential of producing four times the world’s present energy demand. 

But, there’s a major problem—dust. Gradual dust accumulation on solar panels can reduce their efficiency by almost 30 percent within one month of operation. For some context, solar power losses of only three to four percent on a global scale could mean an economic loss of at least 3.3 to 5.5 billion dollars. As climate change intensifies dust storms, there may be a rapid loss of solar panels’ efficiency unless they are cleaned several times a month.

Pressurized water jets and sprays are the most common method of cleaning solar panels. To avoid the risk of staining and damaging the glass of solar panels, only pure and demineralized water can be used. The need to transport clean water to dry or remote desert regions with scarce water supplies accounts for 10 percent of solar parks’ operations and maintenance costs. 

While the global capacity of solar parks is currently above 500 gigawatts, researchers estimate that up to 10 billion gallons of drinking water are used every year just for cleaning solar panels. To put things in perspective, that amount of water can fulfill the annual requirements of approximately 2 million people living in developing countries. 

“I was amazed at the sheer amount of pure water that is required for cleaning solar panels,” says Kripa Varanasi, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT (no relation to the author). “The water footprint of the solar industry is only going to grow in the future. We need to figure out how to make solar farms more sustainable.”

The need for a waterless and contact-free cleaning method

Attempts to get rid of dust accumulation on solar panels by using dry scrubbing methods like brushes and air pressure risk damaging solar panels due to the surface getting scratched over time. 

The inefficiency of current cleaning methods motivated Varanasi and his graduate student, Sreedath Panat, to invent a contactless cleaning system that can automatically repel dust from solar panels with zero water usage.

The new system uses electrostatic repulsion to zap dust particles off the surface of solar panels. While dust by itself is not a conductor, they found that applying an electric force or adequate voltage range through an electrode—such as a metal bar—that passes right above the solar panel’s surface charges the dust particles resting on the panel. Next, an opposite charge is applied to a transparent film—similar to the ones used on phones and laptops—which is then installed on the system, allowing the glass surface of the panel to repel pesky dust particles.

[Related: Floating solar panels could be the next big thing in clean energy.]

This system can be used separately along with a solar panel cleaning robot. Alternatively, it is retrofitted along each side of the panel and functions on a small amount of solar energy. Varanasi and Panat wrote about their research in a recent paper published in the journal Science Advances. 

In the past, NASA has used electrostatics for removing dust from solar panels on Mars rovers with the help of electrodynamic screens. However, that technology worked only because they were implemented in extremely dry conditions without humidity impossible on Earth. “It also requires expensive interdigitated electrodes that have a weaker force and cannot tolerate moisture,” explains Varanasi.

That made the duo opt for a different method of using electrostatics for Earth-bound solar panel cleaning. They began by conducting experiments with different sizes of dust particles and discovered that the silica in dust particles absorbs moisture from the atmosphere.

“A charge on the dust particles comes from a thin layer of absorbed water that is only a few nanometers thick but still acts as a conductor. That enabled us to estimate the electric force of dust particles and remove dust particles between the sizes of 30 to 40 microns,” says Varanasi. 

This promising breakthrough for the researchers arrived after performing their experiments at a wide range of humidity levels from five percent to 95 percent. They then observed that humidity is the driving force behind making the system work.

“As long as the relative humidity is above 30 percent, this system is robust and works very well,” says Varanasi. “We can apply this to most geographical areas and even the driest deserts because of dew formations in the mornings.” 

[Related: What you need to know about converting your home to solar.]

The duo has created a lab-scale prototype that consists of a solar panel, a conductive surface, and a moving electrode attached to the top. But, this system still can’t rid a solar panel of particles less than 10 microns in size. 

 “These tiny dust particles are the ones that create the shadowing effect on solar panels,” he adds. “We are working on some more improvements to overcome that issue.”

Alternatives for reducing solar panels’ water footprint

As the MIT engineers are preparing to make their new system scalable in the future, other researchers are working towards developing a solar panel coating technology to reduce dust accumulation. Inspired by the lotus leaf’s self-cleaning properties, Germany-based researchers at Ben-Gurion University attempted to develop silicon-based, hydrophobic coating for solar panels. This could prevent dust from accumulating on the surface of solar panels and reduce the amount of water required to clean them.

As of now, a UK-based company, Solar Sharc, has already launched a dust repellent coating for solar panels. They use nanoparticle structures for transparency that are only a few microns thick. According to the company’s website, the coating is self-cleaning and enables the formation of water droplets on the surface that can roll off the panels. 

But Varanasi says the problem with a coating of nanostructures is that it could erode over time after withstanding dust storms and windy conditions. “The texture of the anti-soil coating on the solar panels’ surfaces could then get affected and lose its transparency,” he says.

Despite all the convoluted challenges involved in preventing dust accumulation on solar panels, engineers like Varanasi remain optimistic about developing the right technology for making the solar industry more environmentally sustainable. 

“Water is a precious resource,” he says. “If the solar industry is proactive and approaches this problem from a holistic view, it will not directly impact communities’ access to clean water.”

The post Dust-repellent solar panels could save billions of gallons of water appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that even if one percent of offshore wind energy’s potential is recovered in the US, it could power around 6.5 million homes. Currently, the country has only one operational commercial offshore wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island. The Block Island Wind Farm produces 30 megawatts of electricity after beginning with commercial operations in late 2016. But the Biden Administration aims to have 20 percent wind energy by 2030 that will generate 300 gigawatts of power (one gigawatt is sufficient to power around 750,000 homes).

The federal government is now proactively investing in offshore wind farms to install in five states across the East Coast over the next decade. The decarbonization of the electricity grid is vital for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Still, the next big challenge for wind energy is ensuring farms are environmentally sustainable by reducing and mitigating any negative impacts on marine ecosystems. 

Scientists predominantly conducted the existing research on the environmental impacts of offshore wind farms in Northern Europe, where offshore turbines started operating in 1991. “But the impacts are not the same in the Mediterranean region and the US as compared to the North Sea,” says Josep Lloret Romañach, a marine biologist and professor at the University of Girona.

The North Sea stretches between Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Its continental shelf—or the edge of a continent that lies under the ocean—is far longer and broader than the Mediterranean and North American continental shelf, explains Romañach. He adds that a smaller continental shelf means builders must put turbines closer to shorelines. 

“That is when there is a conflict with marine conservation issues,” he says.

Wind turbines can disrupt the seafloor—and it’s flora and fauna 

In a 2022 study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, Romañach and colleagues analyzed the potential environmental impacts of a proposed large-scale offshore wind farm project in Cap de Creus, a peninsula located in Catalonia, and the Gulf of Roses in Spain. Eight marine protected areas surround these regions. They found that the offshore wind farm, which will involve constructing 80 turbines taller than the Statue of Liberty, will significantly impact the seafloor in a way that Northern Europe has generally avoided.

“The North Sea’s bed is mostly muddy. But in other parts of the world, there is a lot of marine biodiversity including seagrass and deep-water corals that could get damaged during the construction and operation phases,” he says. “Policymakers need to consider these particularities that make diverse marine habitats highly sensitive to human pressures.”

[Related: Offshore wind has huge potential. Here’s how it could change the US.]

The wind farm, which might be operational in 2026, will have innovative floating turbines for use in the deep waters of the Mediterranean Sea. These floating structures will be held in place with long cables and chains. The anchorage systems will hold the cables and chains tightly to the seafloor. “These floating wind farms require huge mooring and anchorage systems that can affect the integrity of the seafloors. Marine mammals might collide or can get tangled up in the wires,” he adds.

The underwater noise caused by wind farms during the construction phases accumulates with other sounds from human activities—such as sailing and oil drilling —and affects the behavior of marine mammals. Sharks, rays, dolphins, whales, and other mammals use electromagnetic waves to traverse the sea and hunt their prey. These activities get disrupted, especially during the installation of massive wind turbines. 

Moreover, these floating platforms are also attractive for invasive species that might alter the fragile balance of a marine ecosystem, explains Romañach. An increase in activities during offshore wind farms’ installation and maintenance phases means non-native marine species can appear from incoming vessels. Vessels are well-known carriers of non-native species through water exchange and hull fouling (accumulation of marine growth reduces vessel speed). 

Non-native species, like the Rhopilema nomadica jellyfish, are highly opportunistic by nature and ruthlessly infiltrate local marine habitats. They constitute a significant threat to marine biodiversity and cause significant ecological and economic losses for local fishing communities as soon as they become invasive. “This affects the entire trophic chain of a marine ecosystem from the surface of the sea to the bottom,” says Romañach.

“​The United States is in a very similar situation as the Mediterranean regions. A lot of large-scale wind farm projects with floating turbines are being funded in the US with little knowledge about their local impacts,” he adds.

How can we protect marine ecosystems?

Despite all the doom and gloom, researchers have found that offshore wind turbines can act as artificial reefs under the right circumstances. In Virginia Beach’s pilot offshore wind project in 2020, locals observed that the turbines’ steel foundations had become a habitat for algae and mussels. The foundations attracted schools of fish such as Mahi, baitfish, and sea bass.  

“In parts of the sea with degraded habitats, wind turbines help to provide more biodiversity. For example, in the North Sea, some areas suffered from overfishing because of the use of bottom trawlers. The offshore wind turbines helped restore [these ecosystems],” explains Romañach. 

But for marine habitats that already have coral reefs and other forms of biodiversity, he warns that a wind farm’s impact could do more harm than good. 

“We are afraid that energy companies will be tempted to pursue marine protected areas where fishing is banned because the rest of the sea is already crowded with other commercial activities. The artificial reef effect will not work in marine biodiversity hotspots,” he further warned.

While carefully assessing which areas of the sea are better suited for offshore wind farms can help, researchers say quiet technologies can also mitigate and minimize the adverse impacts of underwater noise on fragile marine ecosystems.

[Related: Here’s how wind turbines stay afloat during storms.]

During the construction phase, the percussive piling of foundations into the seabed can be particularly noisy, says Jakob Tougaard, a professor and senior marine mammal researcher at Aarhus University.

An effective mitigation measure is air bubble curtains, he adds. This technology includes a perforated hose placed around the construction site on the seabed. It creates a thick curtain of air bubbles generated by compressed air, increasing the density of the water and muffling construction noises. 

To protect the critically endangered North Atlantic right whales, the Biden administration recently announced a multi-agency initiative for making offshore wind activities environmentally friendly. Some measures include limiting vessel speeds for all construction and operation at 10 knots or below. 

Francine Kershaw, a senior scientist at the National Resources Defense Council, also recommended gravity-based foundations as another mitigation measure in her blog. The turbines’ foundations do not need to be hammered into the seafloor—giant concrete blocks placed at the bottom of the sea can do the trick as well. This technology is already in place in offshore wind farms in Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and Germany. 

But Romañach warns that mitigation measures might not be adequate for protecting marine habitats, which naturally fend off climate change through “blue carbon,” says Romañach. “Offshore wind farms are also effective for climate change mitigation, but if they damage marine protected areas or biodiversity hotspots, most of their benefits will be lost in the long run.”

The post Minimizing offshore wind’s impact on nature is tricky, but not impossible appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

With the world’s eyes on Europe during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy has become a big topic of conversation. Roughly a quarter of Europe’s oil and 40 percent of its natural gas comes from Russia. The Russian army has also seized Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is the largest in Europe.

European countries are developing plans to transform their energy grids as their long-standing reliance on fossil fuels becomes untenable—the escalation of decarbonization efforts are already underway. The European Union has announced it intends to cut Russian gas imports by as much as two-thirds by the end of this year. But when it comes to nuclear power’s role in the transition, nations remain split on what role it should or should not play. Roughly a quarter of Europe’s energy currently comes from nuclear power.

Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, says the volatile energy source has long been a point of contention in Europe. Opinions on nuclear power, he adds, vary from government to government.

“It’s a checkerboard situation, in that there are some countries that are clearly negative about nuclear, others that are very positive, and also some newcomer countries that are seeking to develop a nuclear program for the first time,” Buongiorno says.

When it comes to countries that are against nuclear power, Buongiorno notes that Germany leads the way. The country decided to phase out its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima meltdown in 2011, and its three remaining plants will be shut down by the end of the year. The country is increasing its renewable energy capacity with new solar and wind facilities to try to make up for the loss of nuclear power.

“They remain steadfast that they don’t want nuclear,” Buongiorno says.

Spain intends to phase out its nuclear power plants by 2035. In 2017, Swiss citizens voted in favor of a referendum to start closing up their plants. Countries like Austria, Denmark and Portugal oppose nuclear power but don’t have any plants. Safety is a major concern across the board for these nations. 

As for the pro-nuclear countries, the UK is a big supporter of nuclear power. The country has one nuclear plant under construction, and plans to build multiple new ones in the coming years. The Netherlands is planning on building at least two more nuclear power plants, and France is right with them with a goal to set up 15 new plants by 2050. Finland recently completed a large nuclear power plant that will soon be operational. Meanwhile, Buongiorno says most of Eastern Europe is also pro-nuclear.

“Either they already have it and want more, or they don’t have it and they want it,” he explains. Almost a quarter of Ukraine’s energy comes from nuclear power, for example.

[Related: In 5 seconds, this fusion reactor made enough energy to power a home for a day]

Buongiorno says nuclear power will be an important part of Europe’s transition off of Russian oil and gas—and the transition off of fossil fuels generally. However, there are some issues. As in the US, the construction of nuclear plants has faced significant problems. New projects regularly encounter long delays and significant cost overruns—only one has been completed in the states in the past few years.

“The industry must show that they can deliver new nuclear plants on time and on budget. In the past 10 years, they have not been able to do it,” Buongiorno says. He says a lot of plants end up costing around three times what was promised, and taking longer than a decade to finish.

Buongiorno says one of the main problems is that many of the companies have been focused on servicing, not new construction. Most of Europe’s plants, including Zaporizhzhia, were completed in the late 1980s. He adds that these companies don’t have good project management practices, and that there could be supply chain issue due to the long pause in building new reactors. 

“The industry has definitely got to change to make it happen,” Buongiorno says.

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State, says he’s “skeptical” about Europe’s focus on nuclear power for its energy transition. He says existing plants should be kept running, but building out more nuclear power won’t solve the continent’s problems in an acceptable amount of time.

“It is not plausible that new nuclear construction … could possibly receive the short-term demand on energy caused by the present crisis,” Mann says.

[Related: Why Los Alamos lab is working on the tricky task of creating new plutonium cores]

One way for Europe to bring on more nuclear power without such high costs and delays would be with small modular nuclear reactors. As the name implies, these reactors would be as much as 90 percent smaller than traditional ones, could be relocated if needed, and should be easier and cheaper to build overall. However, the designs are all still in the development phase, so they’re not ready to be deployed yet. In the states, only the company called NuScale has received design approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As much countries want it, it’s clear it’s not going to be easy for Europe to quit Russian oil and gas as quickly , Buongiorno says. It’s going to be a process that will take time and large investments.

“Nobody can snap their fingers and replace 40 percent of their gas overnight,” Buongiorno says. Energy transitions are exactly that, a transition—and that’s become especially true with nuclear power.

The post The war in Ukraine puts new urgency behind Europe’s nuclear energy transition appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Electricity is highly perishable. If not used at the moment it is created, it rapidly dissipates as heat. Full decarbonization of the electric grid can become a reality only when vast amounts of solar and wind energy can be stored and used at any time. After all, we can’t harness renewable energy sources such as solar and wind 24/7.

At present, lithium-ion batteries make up a considerable chunk of the market for energy storage. But they are expensive, involve mining rare metals, and are far from environmentally sustainable. Finding an alternative that is less ecologically degrading is crucial—and so far, scientists are analyzing replacements for lithium-ion batteries with the help of raw materials such as sodium, magnesium, and even seawater. But in the last few years, the energy industry has been investing in metal-air batteries as a next-generation solution for grid energy storage. 

Metal-air batteries were first designed in 1878. The technology uses atmospheric oxygen as a cathode (electron receiver) and a metal anode (electron giver). This anode consists of cheap and abundantly-available metals such as aluminum, zinc, or iron. “These three metals have risen to the top in terms of use in metal-air batteries,” says Yet-Ming Chiang, an electrochemistry professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

In 1932, zinc-air batteries were the first type of metal-air battery, widely used in hearing aids. Three decades later, NASA and GTE Lab scientists tried to develop iron-air batteries for NASA space systems but eventually gave up. Still, some researchers are chasing after the elusive technology. 

The limits, and potential, of metal-air batteries

Researchers believed that, theoretically, metal-air batteries could have higher energy density than lithium-ion batteries for more than six decades. Still, they have repeatedly failed to live up to their full potential in the past.

In a lithium-ion battery, the process of power generation is straightforward. Lithium atoms merely bounce between two electrodes as the battery charges and discharges. 

Involving air, however, makes the process more tricky, and adds an added challenge—the difficulty in recharging. Oxygen reacts with the metal, creating a chemical that then sets off the electrolysis process, discharging energy. But instead of a reaction that can go back and forth, in metal-air batteries, the transfer is most of the times only one way. Thanks to the constant flow of atmospheric oxygen into a metal-air battery, once you start it up, the battery can corrode quickly even when left unused and have a stunted shelf life. 

Additionally, metal-air batteries’ watt-hours per kilogram—that measures the energy storage per unit of the battery’s mass—is not currently exceptionally high. This is the main reason why electric vehicles now cannot utilize metal-air batteries such as iron-air, Chiang tells Popular Science. “Lithium-ion batteries have 100 watt-hours per kilogram. But for iron-air, it was only 40 watt-hours per kilogram. The rate at which energy is stored and then discharged from the battery is relatively low in comparison,” he says. 

[Related: We need safer ways to recycle electric car and cellphone batteries.]

But he argues that despite these limitations, stationary energy storage might utilize iron-air batteries. At a start-up called Form Energy, Chiang and his colleagues have been developing a new, low-cost iron-air battery technology that will provide multi-day storage for renewable energy by 2024.

“Even though it did not work out for EVs, iron-air batteries can be commercially scaled up for energy storage and help mitigate climate change by mid-century,” adds Chiang, who is also chief science officer at Form Energy. 

New designs for metal-air batteries

Chiang’s team fine-tuned the process of “reverse rusting” in their battery technology that efficiently stores and releases energy. As the iron chemically oxidizes, it loses electrons sent through the battery’s external circuit to its air electrode. Atmospheric oxygen becomes hydroxide ions at the air electrode and then crosses over to the iron electrode, forming iron hydroxide, which eventually becomes rust. 

“When you reverse the electrical current on the battery, it un-rusts the battery. Depending on whether the battery is discharging or charging, the electrons are either taken away from or added to the iron,” explains Chiang. He claims that the battery can deliver clean electricity for 100 hours at a price of only $20 kilowatts per hour—a bargain compared to lithium-ion batteries, which cost up to $200/kWh. 

But iron isn’t the only metal on the rise. As the race to develop sustainable metal-air batteries for energy storage accelerates, several companies and their researchers are busy investing in zinc-air and aluminum-air batteries. 

[Related: Renewable energy needs storage. These 3 solutions can help.]

Materials scientists at the University of Münster in Germany have reworked the design of zinc-air batteries with a new electrolyte that consists of water-repellant ions. In traditional zinc batteries, the electrolytes can be caustic with a high pH substance, making them corrosive enough to damage the battery. The researchers overcame this issue by ensuring that the water-repellant ions stick to the air cathode, so that water from the electrolyte cannot react with incoming oxygen. The zinc ions from the anode can travel freely to the cathode, where they interact with atmospheric oxygen and generate power repeatedly.  

As researchers are getting closer to developing rechargeable zinc-air batteries, a Canadian company, Zinc8 Energy, has already unveiled its product. The start-up uses zinc-air batteries with a storage tank that contains potassium hydroxide and charged zinc. Electricity from the grid splits chemical zincate into zinc, water, and oxygen. This charges zinc particles and stores electricity.  

When the electricity needs to feed into the grid, the charged zinc syncs with oxygen and water, releasing the stored electricity and producing zincate. Following that, the entire process begins again. The group announced introducing these zinc-air flow batteries to the global market by installing their technology in a solar-paneled residential building in Queens, New York.

Like iron, zinc is widely available and has existing supply chains. Another metal that is also abundant, aluminum, is also being used to develop aluminum-air batteries. But unlike zinc-air batteries, aluminum-air batteries cannot recharge, says Chiang. The carbon footprint of aluminum production is also higher than other metal-air battery options. 

By 2028, the global metal-air battery market is expected to reach $1,173 million, mainly for providing energy storage solutions. But for now, investors, industry analysts, and consumers alike are eagerly waiting for the next big breakthrough. 

The post Rusty metal could be the battery the energy grid needs appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The conflict in the Ukraine is barreling on—with Russia’s invasion spurring human rights atrocities and nuclear site takeovers. Allies in Europe, Asia, and the US have already put up massive sanctions against Russian businesses and oligarchs, but this week, President Joe Biden initiated a fossil fuel ban that could hit the Siberian oil giant hard.

“The United States is targeting the main artery of Russia’s economy. We’re banning all imports of Russian oil and gas and energy,” Biden said at the White House on Tuesday. “That means Russian oil will no longer be acceptable at US ports, and the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin’s war machine.”

Following suit, the UK and EU have announced similar plans to phase out dependence on Russian fossil fuels in the near future. “This shifts the EU’s global energy priorities,” says Lisa Fischer, Clean Economy Program Lead at climate think tank E3G.  “Securing efficient use of energy globally and scaling renewables should now be a priority to support European interests and to support allies who are impacted by soaring fossil prices.” 

The oil and gas sanctions, however, will likely have a different impact on the US. Let’s look at why.

How dependent on Russian oil is the US, really?

According to the White House, the EU imports around six times as much oil from Russia as the US does. Currently, the EU gets 90 percent of its oil imported—with 45 percent of that coming from Russia. Nearly 40 percent of EU gas comes from Russia as well. 

On the other hand, the US only imports about 8 percent of its total oil from Russia. America is the world’s largest producer of oil: The nation extracted 10 million barrels a day in 2018, and is expected to hit 12.6 million barrels a day by 2023. 

While the US isn’t necessarily dependent on Russian oil (Biden is already potentially turning to politically ostracized countries like Venezuela to replace some of the imports), this move has a chance to have a substantial splash on the market. 

“The oil market is an international market,” says Ken Gillingham, a professor of economics at the Yale School of the Environment. “Because of that, if the US and other countries cut off supply from any country, the price is going to be impacted.”

[Related: The oil and gas industry knew about climate change in the 1950s]

America’s sanctions make Russia’s oil harder to sell across the board, Gillingham explains. So in a sense, disrupting the sale of oil anywhere is going to financially disrupt everyone, no matter where in the globe you are. “It provides a very clear lens into the vulnerability that our economy has with fossil fuels,” Gillingham says.

A similar thing happened during the 1970’s oil crisis—but the main difference between back then and now is that the world really didn’t have much of a choice but to use fossil fuels, says Clark Miller, associate director of the Future of Innovation in Society, at Arizona State University. Fifty years ago, for example, people needed petroleum cars to drive around. In today’s world, there are plenty of options for electric vehicles—though the infrastructure to support them is still catching up. 

How will the US substitute Russian oil?

The quickest option for the US is to replace oil with more oil. But even with the stash that’s squirreled away in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that would take a significant amount of time. 

“Suppose we drill more oil,” says Gillingham. “We have to open up federal lands to leasing.  We have to hold the leases with auctions, clear the leases, hold the leases, and then go and get down there and start drilling. We’re not going to have [that] oil for another year.”

The more sustainable option, of course, is to lower the demand for fossil fuels. “If we really want to insulate the economy from these types of price swings, we’re not going to be able to drill our way out of it,” says Robbie Orvis, senior director of energy policy design at the climate policy think tank Energy Innovation. “That’s the nature of oil markets, they’re not going to change.”

If the US and the EU truly want to reduce conflicts with Russia, they need to switch to more renewable energy and electrification. “It is time we tackle our vulnerabilities and rapidly become more independent in our energy choices,” Frans Timmermans, executive vice-president for the European Green Deal, says. “Renewables are a cheap, clean, and potentially endless source of energy; instead of funding the fossil fuel industry elsewhere, they create jobs here. Let’s dash into renewable energy at lightning speed.” 

[Related: The US could reliably run on clean energy by 2050]

A full transition can’t happen overnight—but the groundwork is there to get started. US lawmakers are already working on ways to replace Russia’s oil contributions with renewables: Just last week, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) introduced the “Severing Putin’s Immense Gains from Oil Transfers (SPIGOT) Act” with bipartisan co-sponsorship to “develop a comprehensive strategy to replace oil imported from the Russian Federation with domestic carbon-free energy sources.”

“We’re really that potential tipping point,” says Miller.

Can ordinary people do anything to help?

US and EU residents also have to play a role in lowering their countries’ dependence on foreign oil. The two main tips? Travel less and travel smarter. “For petroleum, the biggest uses are driving and flying,” Gillingham says.

As for natural gas, a big source of Russia’s imports to Europe, it’s a bit trickier. People can consider replacing furnaces with electric heat pumps and swapping out gas stoves for electric ones, says Kyri Baker, an assistant professor of civil, environmental, and architectural engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. “For US households to reduce reliance on natural gas, a couple things they can do are the obvious things like buy rooftop solar, get an electric vehicle, but also things like electrify,” she says.

At the end of the day, making climate-friendly choices can only help improve a country’s economy and security. That could extend to the war in Ukraine, or to the pandemic downturns here in the states. “It’s not just a matter of cutting off fossil fuels or even the climate benefit, which of course, is important as well,” says Orvis. “This is a way to grow the economy and to grow our manufacturing base so that we can produce these things and save everyday Americans money.”

The post What the bans on Russian fossil fuels actually mean appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

If the latest IPCC report has told us anything, it’s that it’s time to confront climate change right now. And while reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use is absolutely crucial, there’s no doubt that some of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have to be sucked out one way or another. That’s where carbon capture and sequestration come in. 

Carbon capture and sequestration, often dubbed CCS, is the process by which CO₂ can be sucked out of sources like power plant smokestacks or, in some cases, even the atmosphere through Direct Air Capture. Then, the carbon is locked away permanently, often underground, through sequestration. 

However, there’s another potential route for capturing carbon dioxide: reusing it for another product. And in a world where circular economies based on reusing as much material as possible are necessary, many are exploring a second life for greenhouse gas emissions. 

“Carbon capture is definitely one way that we can remove CO₂ from the atmosphere,” says Daniel Sanchez, assistant cooperative extension specialist in the department of environmental science, policy, and management at UC Berkeley. “We can do a lot more with it, though. We can reduce emissions and we can recycle emissions.”

But there are still lots of questions as to how carbon dioxide can be reused—and if it’s actually worth it for the climate.

Carbon capture and utilization, explained

Back in 2017, a group of researchers found that to stay under a 2-degree-Celsius rise above pre-industrial temperatures by 2050, the world would need to avoid emitting around 800 gigatons of carbon for the next three decades. Even with emissions reductions, a chunk of about 120 to 160 gigatons of CO₂ will need to be sequestered until 2050, and more so after. 

However, there’s not a lot of economic incentive to bury loads and loads of carbon deep beneath the land or sea. Enter carbon capture and utilization (CCU), which turns those castoff gases into sellable products.

There are several ways in which captured carbon could be marketed and repurposed, beginning with direct use, or non-conversion. This is a method in which carbon dioxide isn’t chemically altered. Some common forms of direct use are by piping the gas into greenhouses, concentrating it as fertilizers, and turning it into a solvent for decaffeination or dry cleaning.

But the most common way for carbon dioxide to be reutilized through non-conversion is through enhanced oil recovery. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is the process by which carbon dioxide is injected into an existing oil field to, through increased pressure, force out even more petroleum. (The world produces 500,000 barrels of oil every day with this method, according to one 2018 analysis.) Theoretically, if some of the carbon dioxide stays beneath the ground and the rest is recaptured and injected into the process again, the oil could be “carbon-negative.” Of course, burning oil still releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so the balance is dependent on where the gas comes from in the EOR process, and who gets credit for the storage. 

[Related: Volcanoes could be our fiery allies in the fight against carbon emissions]

Beyond just using carbon dioxide as is, the emissions can be converted into products like methane, methanol, gasoline, plastic polymers, cement, and concrete. In some cases, the carbon captured in these products can be kept out of the atmosphere for, theoretically, up to centuries. 

But no matter how captured carbon is utilized, those emissions will likely make it one day back into the atmosphere—which has led to lots of debate on if, and how, these technologies should be wielded against climate change. 

The debate over using CCU against climate change

Last month, a study published in the journal OnEarth broke down the life cycle of emissions and readiness of the technology of dozens of different CCU pathways to determine if any could potentially meet the global goals of halving carbon emissions by 2030 and reaching net-zero by 2050. After considering where the carbon dioxide came from (atmospheric, biogenic or naturally sourced from plants, fossil fuels, or a combination of biogenic and fossil fuels) and what it became (direct use, fuels and chemicals, mineral carbonates and construction materials, or enhanced hydrocarbon recovery), only a handful of methods met the 2030 Paris Agreement conditions. Just one would work with the 2050 benchmark. 

What the researchers found is that the technologies that aligned with the 2030 goals are using carbon dioxide from a biogas plant to enrich agricultural greenhouses, biogenic carbon dioxide to make construction materials, flue gas captured directly for, again, make construction materials, and basic oxygen furnace gas to produce urea, which can be used in fertilizer and commercial products. EOR, meanwhile, only reaches Paris goals under the very specific circumstances that CO₂ is used directly and that no more than two barrels of oil are produced per ton of injected carbon. 

“There are only very few of these CCU routes that are compatible in 2030, or because they’re not ready on time,” says Kleijne de Kleijne, author of the study and PhD student at the Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. “They’re still in a low level of technological maturity.”

Move over to the Paris Agreement’s vision for 2050, and only one type of CCU makes the cut: construction blocks using a purified stream of biogenic CO₂. “Because CO₂ is not stored permanently in fuels or chemicals, these products can only be strictly Paris-compatible when the CO₂ is of biogenic or atmospheric origin and zero emissions are associated with the capture and conversion processes,” the authors write.

But the Paris goals are incredibly tough to meet, says Sanchez. Considering how hard it will be in general for the world to keep climate change below a 1.5-degrees-Celsius rise, and how far off track we currently are, the bar is extremely high.

“[CCU] can substitute for other fossil intensive alternatives. It can help us reduce emissions, but it does not remove carbon from the atmosphere,” says Sanchez. “It keeps the carbon in the economy.” Without long-term storage, he notes, it’s pretty much impossible to get down to zero emissions. 

[Related: 4 sustainability experts on how they’d spend Elon Musk’s $100 million climate commitment]

There are two other major arguments for powering through on CCU. One is that by recycling the carbon dioxide for uses that we’d typically turn to fossil fuels for, we are keeping more fossil fuels buried deep beneath the ground and out of the atmosphere.

Considering how many industries are having a hard time decarbonizing quickly, it seems all the more important to find ways to keep the economy alive without all the environmental degradation of digging up more fossil fuels. One study in the journal Nature last year showed that to have even a 50-50 chance of meeting Paris Agreement goals, 58 percent of oil, 59 percent of fossil gas, and 89 percent of coal around the planet needs to stay in the ground. “Further investment in fossil fuel extraction is not compatible [with mitigating climate change], as shown by this research,” coauthor and University College London energy systems researcher Steve Pye told PopSci in September. 

The second reason is that even if we were able to convert the world’s power to nearly net-zero overnight, we’d still likely be depending on carbon capture and sequestration to draw existing carbon out of the atmosphere to keep the climate in check (the current atmospheric CO₂ levels are 419.03 parts per million, compared to pre-industrial levels of around 260 to 270 parts per million). In some cases, CCU can be used as a stepping stone to more permanent carbon sequestration technologies. 

“There’s a really interesting and kind of more nuanced conversation to be had around [CCU],” Sanchez says. “Maybe the net all of the positive emissions and all the negative emissions need to be less than or equal to zero. But not every single [technology] needs to equal zero.” 

The post Tech to capture and reuse carbon is on the rise. But can it help the world reach its climate goals? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Lithium-ion batteries are omnipresent—they are in laptops, TVs, mobile phones, electric vehicles, e-cigarettes, power tools, and even in some greeting cards. In 2019, the global lithium-ion battery market was valued at $36.7 billion. By 2027, it is projected to grow to more than $129 billion. 

This energy storage technology has been transformational for the clean energy sector, all thanks to lithium-cobalt oxides’ high energy density. But on the flip side, these power sources are infamous for being volatile and turning into fire hazards—particularly at the end of their life cycle. In the last few years, dead lithium-ion batteries were responsible for catastrophic fires breaking out in various recycling plants in the US, UK, France, and China. 

In 2016, a devastating fire broke out at the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos, California, resulting in damages worth $6.8 million. The cause of the fire was an improperly recycled lithium-ion battery. They have also caused disasters in landfills and garbage trucks. It is estimated that the US and Canada have incurred losses worth more than $1.2 billion because of lithium-ion battery fires. 

The core problem takes place in end-of-life old lithium-ion batteries which end up in the trash or recycling bins. During collecting and recycling processes, these batteries can go undetected in piles of garbage. They can get crushed after getting compressed in a truck, accidentally run over by a loader, or jostled around on conveyor belts in waste facilities.

When the barrier between the cathode and the anode of a lithium-ion battery ruptures, it causes a breakaway thermal reaction from the lithium molecules. These molecules can then reach extremely high temperatures within a short time and ignite or explode. 

[Related: Electric vehicle fires are rare, but challenging to extinguish.]

“What makes this technology such a disruptive energy storage device is that they are inherently unstable,” says Michael Timpane, vice president of Resource Recycling Systems, a sustainability and recycling consultancy firm based in Michigan. 

“Studies have proved that compared to the number of lithium-ion batteries being sold every year, not a lot goes through e-waste or hazardous waste systems for recycling,” adds Timpane, who has spent the last four years researching this safety hazard with the Environmental Protection Agency. “No one knows the exact number but a whole bunch of these batteries end up in the garbage. The challenge has been in keeping them out of the solid waste stream.”

Lithium-ion batteries are a fire risk for recycling centers across the country

While recycling batteries is not new for the e-waste industry, used lithium-ion batteries are a new challenge. After all, it is difficult to recover lithium and other rare metals such as cobalt during the recycling process. Since 2021, battery manufacturers like China’s BYD Co, Toyota Motor Corp, and GM, have been working towards making lithium-ion batteries more stable for electric vehicles by using different types of metal such as manganese and phosphate and less cobalt. But Timpane estimates it might take five years to a decade before the technology gets a much-needed upgrade.

Although the average life cycle of light-duty lithium-ion batteries is close to 15 years, by 2030, it is estimated that at least 2,619,000 metric tons of lithium-ion batteries will need to be recycled. The recycling industry in the US has set up new plants with advanced technology and higher capacities to prepare for this surge.

“As used lithium-ion batteries are causing an increase in fires breaking out in recycling facilities, they have had a dramatic impact on insurance rates. This could make people reluctant to invest in material recovery facilities,” says Timpane. “Any devices with lithium-ion batteries should never go in the solid waste stream.”

Awareness and standardizing recycling practice could help

It is crucial to inform communities about the risks of discarding old electronic products with lithium-ion batteries in recycling bins, adds Timpane. Awareness campaigns, like the Call2Recycle project in Akron, Ohio, highlight the need to drop these items only in authorized locations and can go a long way in preventing fire accidents from taking place in the first place.  

[Related: ‘Lithium Valley’ could save one of the most polluted areas in California.]

“Many people don’t know the difference between a lithium-ion battery and a common cell battery,” he says. “Prohibiting the disposal of lithium-ion batteries in the solid waste stream and enforcement of that rule will help.” 

Another issue is the lack of consistent labeling standards for lithium-ion batteries. While some of the labels only have recycling arrows or text that says “handle carefully” or “call your municipality”, Timpane argues that these vague texts do not adequately inform consumers on how to safely discard old electronic devices.

Timpane adds that in the past year, new lithium-ion batteries being manufactured cannot be removed from devices anymore. “The battery manufacturing community has been responsive and is proactively engaging with the government. In the recent past, their label consistency has also been getting better,” he says. Still, older batteries could still pose a risks to recycling and solid waste plants.

As a rule, once you decide to dispose of your old electronic devices, avoid the blue recycling bin. Instead, make the effort to call the manufacturer and inquire about their collection program or a nearby certified recycling provider who can safely handle hazardous materials.

The post We need safer ways to recycle electric car and cellphone batteries appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Hydropower has been stirring up controversies since the early 2000s. Despite being promoted as a solution to mitigate climate change, the hydropower bubble burst when researchers discovered in 2005 that hydropower dams are responsible for huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Hydropower dams’ walls restrict the flow of rivers and turn them into pools of stagnant water. As these reservoirs age, organic matter like algal biomass and aquatic plants accumulates and eventually decomposes and sinks. That oxygen-poor environment stimulates methane production. 

Reservoir surfaces and turbines then release methane into the atmosphere. Methane makes up approximately 80 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted from hydropower dams, peaking in the first decade of the dams lifecycle. 

Methane is infamous for lingering around in the atmosphere for 12 years and is at least 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Researchers estimate that at least 10 percent of the world’s hydropower dams emit as much greenhouse gases per unit of energy as coal-fired power plants. In the Amazon basin, several existing dams are up to ten times more carbon-intensive than coal power plants. 

Despite this, there is still an aggressive push for constructing new hydropower dams in the Brazilian Amazon and the Himalayas. “​​In light of this expected boom in construction of new hydropower dams, it is critical to identify whether future dams will produce low-carbon energy,” an international team of researchers wrote in a 2019 Nature Communications study.

Using AI to plan a more sustainable dam

To identify environmentally-friendly sites for new hydropower dams, the 2019 team harnessed data from a sophisticated computational model that uses artificial intelligence (AI). They observed that lowland dams in Brazil (a predominantly lowland country) tend to have large reservoir areas which yield significantly higher carbon intensities. The Brazilian Amazon has the highest number of carbon-intensive dams as compared to the mountainous parts of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. Higher elevation and steep topography, they found, make for less carbon-intensive hydropower.

New projects have been proposed at least 351 sites spread across the Amazon, which already is home to 158 hydropower dams. To find solutions for minimizing the environmental consequences of these projects, researchers are continuing to harness data with AI.

[Related: This century-old technology could be the key to unlocking America’s renewable energy future.]

In a recent study published in the journal Science last week, a team of researchers utilized AI to scale the Amazon basin. They found that uncoordinated hydropower expansion resulted in forgone ecosystem benefits. Additionally, effective dam arrangements in other locations could generate four times more power.

“AI is being used by Wall Street, by social media, for all kinds of purposes – why not use AI to tackle serious problems like sustainability?” study author Carla Gomes, a computer scientist at Cornell University, said in a press release.

Various environmental criteria, like river flow and connectivity, greenhouse gas emissions, fish diversity, and sediment transport, of the entire Amazon basin, must be considered while selecting sites for new projects, the researchers argue. 

While implementing policies based on such scientific evidence is vital for building sustainable hydropower dams, researchers are also looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing projects via methane extraction. 

Extracting—and using—reservoir methane

The idea to extract the methane accumulating in lakes and dam reservoirs for energy production is not new. In East Africa, saltwater-filled Lake Kivu holds 60 cubic kilometers of methane and another 300 cubic kilometers of dissolved carbon dioxide. The methane is extracted from the lake’s deep waters with a gas separator for producing electricity at the KivuWatt power plant in Rwanda.

Inspired by this possibility, Maciej Bartosiewicz, a geophysicist from the Polish Academy of Sciences, and his colleagues propose using solid mineral absorbents called zeolites for separating methane from reservoir sediments. In a study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, they designed a model mechanism to deploy zeolites coupled with activated carbon that could be placed at the bottom of reservoirs. 

[Related: Dam reservoirs may be much bigger sources of carbon emissions than we thought.]

So far, scientists have been unable to extract methane from freshwater bodies such as lakes and reservoirs because the gas is available at far lower concentrations. This has previously made methane extraction in smaller quantities far too expensive. But Bartosiewicz says zeolites are cheap and widely available, which could offer a viable solution.

“The system contains a gasification component that is a membrane in a box. Then zeolites could capture methane after removing carbon dioxide,” says Bartosiewicz. Installing a pumping system could further boost extraction. 

Still, methane extraction from reservoirs’ sediments is not devoid of ecological consequences. The process could result in a significant disruption in the ecosystem’s biological composition by affecting the growth of bacteria that process methane in sediments—eventually impacting the food web productivity. In reservoirs and lakes where bottom methane levels are high, these bacteria are a vital source of food and energy for microscopic marine animals. Still, water bodies have the remarkable ability to self-regulate, argues Bartosiewicz. 

“We still need to develop the next generation of solutions for renewable energy production. This could be a possibility,” he says. “Methane extraction will not be possible in all hydropower reservoirs. But if we can produce even five percent of energy from this methane, it will add to the quota of renewable energy.” 

The post How AI could help bring a sustainable reckoning to hydropower appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Solar panels can be placed on your roof, on a plot of land, or basically anywhere else where they  are anchored to something solid. That said, there are only so many solid spaces available to install them. To beat climate change, our electricity mix is going to need a lot more renewable energy systems to take over fossil fuels.  Many in the solar industry are looking for a new home for solar panels—possibly even floating on water.

Floating solar farms have been around for over a decade, but water-bound panels became much more prominent in the last few years. The basic idea is to attach solar panels to plastic floats which then drift on a body of water. These floating solar arrays are typically placed on man-made bodies of water—a town’s water reservoir, an irrigation reservoir, a water treatment facility—as to avoid interfering with plant and animal species that live in natural bodies of water. For instance, the United States’ largest floating solar farm sits on a wastewater pond in California and has a nearly five megawatt capacity.

The floating solar industry is expected to grow dramatically over the next decade, but only about two percent of this year’s new solar installations are water-bound.  

[Related: Solar panels and water canals could form a real power couple in California.]

Rebecca Hernandez, an associate professor of earth system science and ecology at the University of California, Davis, has been studying the benefits of floating solar and its potential environmental impacts.  “It’s land-sparing in many cases,” Hernandez tells Popular Science. “We found that three of the sites we were looking at, they had intentionally sited floating solar on water because they ran out of room for land [solar].” 

Another benefit to floating solar, Hernandez says, is the natural cooling effect of water. Solar panels work more efficiently in colder temperatures because of water’s evaporative cooling effect, Hernandez says. Liquid zaps heat away from surface water when it escapes as vapor, which chills the water down even more. Floating solar is estimated to be up to 15 percent more efficient than land-based solar. 

The environmental impacts of floating solar are still a bit of a mystery, Hernandez says. There’s potential for the plastic floats the panels sit on to degrade over time and possibly negatively impact a body of water, she adds, but more research will be needed.

“What we’re looking at is how floating solar impacts water quality,” Hernandez says. “We’re looking at things like water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, total algae and we’re trying to see how the floating array impacts those important parameters.”

Some floating solar arrays are placed on bodies of water where animals live, such as stormwater runoff ponds. However, Hernandez has seen animals who now share their home with floating solar adapt rather quickly according to these solar arrays. She says she’s seen birds stand on the floats while they hunt for fish and otters use the floats to hide.

“We get to watch birds swoop right over the array,” Hernandez says. “I was afraid birds would be flying into the panels because they think they look so much like water, but the remarkable thing is that the birds are really adapting this stuff.”

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

There are many other places where floating solar could be deployed. Ideally, floating solar could be placed near existing hydroelectric plants, which would allow the facility to produce electricity from two sources. A project in South Korea started testing a 41 megawatt floating solar project near a hydroelectric dam last year. 

“The advantage is that obviously if you have a hydroelectric plant, you have the infrastructure to send the electricity somewhere,” David Sedlak, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, tells Popular Science. “The downside is sometimes these hydroelectric reservoirs are used for recreation. I don’t know how much of a reservoir you want to cover if part of the reason that it’s supported by the public is that they can go boating or fishing there.”

Floating solar can also exist on the ocean. The Singapore-based solar energy provider Sunseap deployed this technology last year in bays where the panels will be relatively protected from large waves and other harsh weather conditions. The conditions on the open ocean would likely be too tumultuous for such a solar array. So far, the plan seems to be working quite well. 

Floating solar is still a new way of approaching solar power compared to the land-based panels we’re used to, but it appears to have a lot of potential in areas where land for solar farms is scarce or there is simply an abundance of water. The more solar we install, on the ground, on rooftops or even on the seas, the less we’ll be reliant on fossil fuels. 

The post Floating solar panels could be the next big thing in clean energy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

What if you could power an entire home for a day with just a five-second reaction? British physicists could tell you how. On December 21, 2021 a group of researchers saw a nuclear fusion reaction take place that generated a record-breaking 59 megajoules of energy in just a mere five seconds through using sustained fusion energy.

This discovery is one of several major developments over the past year or so that is shaping  nuclear fusion technology into a stronger potential candidate for fossil fuel-free energy. This reaction, carried out by researchers at the EUROfusion consortium, more than doubled the last record for fusion energy, which topped at 21.7 megajoules in 1997. They used the Joint European Torus (JET) device to create the massive bolt of power.

“This achievement is the result of years-long preparation by the EUROfusion team of researchers across Europe,” Tony Donné, EUROfusion Programme Manager, said in a release. “The record, and more importantly the things we’ve learned about fusion under these conditions and how it fully confirms our predictions, show that we are on the right path to a future world of fusion energy. If we can maintain fusion for five seconds, we can do it for five minutes and then five hours as we scale up our operations in future machines.”

[Related: Energy from nuclear fusion just got a little bit more feasible.]

The JET is the largest and most powerful operational “tokamak” in the world—and essentially looks just like a giant metallic donut. Tokamak devices confine plasma in the donut shape, with magnetic fields containing the massive amounts of heat needed to perform the process. Inside the JET, temperatures can reach 150 million degrees Celsius—that’s 10 times hotter than the center of the sun.

This experiment is crucial for preparation for ITER—an under-construction, 80 percent completed plan to build an even bigger version of the JET tokamak. This time, scientists don’t want to just create energy—the ITER’s goal is to produce net energy, or more energy coming out than going into the process. The project, based in southern France, has been underway since 1985, bringing together some of the brightest energy scientists across China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States. Plans are also in the works for the EU-Demo, the next generation of nuclear fusion tokamaks after ITER which would actually connect to the grid.

The way that the JET works is by using two ingredients—deuterium and tritium. Deuterium is one of the stable isotopes of hydrogen and luckily is quite bountiful in seawater—an estimated 1 in every 5,000 hydrogen atoms in seawater is likely deuterium, according to the US Department of Energy. When nuclear fusion projects become a reality, the DOE estimates that one gallon of seawater may produce as much energy as 300 gallons of gasoline.

Tritium, on the other hand, is rare in nature. The radioactive isotopes are produced, or “bred,”  in nuclear reactors by exposing lithium to energetic neutrons. ITER experts predict that there’s enough extractable lithium out there to operate fusion reactors for at least 1,000 years. 

[Related: Physicists want to create energy like stars do. These two ways are their best shot.]

These two ingredients are then fired into the super-hot plasma inside the reactor where they are forced together to create helium, a neutron, and, of course, energy. And a little bit goes a long way. 

“The energy you can get out of the fuel deuterium and tritium is massive,” Tony Roulstone from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering told CNN. “For example, powering the whole of current UK electrical demand for a day would require 0.5 tons of deuterium, which could be extracted from seawater.” 

Of course, there’s still a way to go before we can herald nuclear fusion as the next clean energy hero. The JET could only handle five seconds of the extreme heat, and we’ll need a lot more of that to reach the clean energy future needed to avoid the worst of climate change. 

“It’s clear we must make significant changes to address the effects of climate change, and fusion offers so much potential,” Ian Chapman, the CEO of JET collaborator UK Atomic Energy Authority said in a release. “We’re building the knowledge and developing the new technology required to deliver a low-carbon, sustainable source of baseload energy that helps protect the planet for future generations. Our world needs fusion energy.”

The post In 5 seconds, this fusion reactor made enough energy to power a home for a day appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

David Goldberg is a Lamont Research Professor, Columbia University. This story originally featured on The Conversation.

Off the Massachusetts and New York coasts, developers are preparing to build the US’s first federally approved utility-scale offshore wind farms—74 turbines in all that could power 470,000 homes. More than a dozen other offshore wind projects are awaiting approval along the Eastern Seaboard.

By 2030, the Biden administration’s goal is to have 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy flowing, enough to power more than 10 million homes.

Replacing fossil fuel-based energy with clean energy like wind power is essential to holding off the worsening effects of climate change. But that transition isn’t happening fast enough to stop global warming. Human activities have pumped so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we will also have to remove carbon dioxide from the air and lock it away permanently.

Offshore wind farms are uniquely positioned to do both—and save money.

As a marine geophysicist, I have been exploring the potential for pairing wind turbines with technology that captures carbon dioxide directly from the air and stores it in natural reservoirs under the ocean. Built together, these technologies could reduce the energy costs of carbon capture and minimize the need for onshore pipelines, reducing impacts on the environment.

Capturing CO₂ from the air

Several research groups and tech startups are testing direct air capture devices that can pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. The technology works, but the early projects so far are expensive and energy intensive.

The systems use filters or liquid solutions that capture CO₂ from air blown across them. Once the filters are full, electricity and heat are needed to release the carbon dioxide and restart the capture cycle.

For the process to achieve net negative emissions, the energy source must be carbon-free.

The world’s largest active direct air capture plant operating today does this by using waste heat and renewable energy. The plant, in Iceland, then pumps its captured carbon dioxide into the underlying basalt rock, where the CO2 reacts with the basalt and calcifies, turning to solid mineral.

A similar process could be created with offshore wind turbines.

If direct air capture systems were built alongside offshore wind turbines, they would have an immediate source of clean energy from excess wind power and could pipe captured carbon dioxide directly to storage beneath the sea floor below, reducing the need for extensive pipeline systems.

Researchers are currently studying how these systems function under marine conditions. Direct air capture is only beginning to be deployed on land, and the technology likely would have to be modified for the harsh ocean environment. But planning should start now so wind power projects are positioned to take advantage of carbon storage sites and designed so the platforms, sub-sea infrastructure and cabled networks can be shared.

Using excess wind power when it isn’t needed

By nature, wind energy is intermittent. Demand for energy also varies. When the wind can produce more power than is needed, production is curtailed and electricity that could be used is lost.

That unused power could instead be used to remove carbon from the air and lock it away.

For example, New York State’s goal is to have 9 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2035. Those 9 gigawatts would be expected to deliver 27.5 terawatt-hours of electricity per year.

Based on historical wind curtailment rates in the US, a surplus of 825 megawatt-hours of electrical energy per year may be expected as offshore wind farms expand to meet this goal. Assuming direct air capture’s efficiency continues to improve and reaches commercial targets, this surplus energy could be used to capture and store upwards of 0.5 million tons of CO₂ per year.

That’s if the system only used surplus energy that would have gone to waste. If it used more wind power, its carbon capture and storage potential would increase.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that 100 to 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide will have to be removed from the atmosphere over the century to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial levels.

Researchers have estimated that sub-seafloor geological formations adjacent to the offshore wind developments planned on the US East Coast have the capacity to store more than 500 gigatons of CO₂. Basalt rocks are likely to exist in a string of buried basins across this area too, adding even more storage capacity and enabling CO2 to react with the basalt and solidify over time, though geotechnical surveys have not yet tested these deposits.

Planning both at once saves time and cost

New wind farms built with direct air capture could deliver renewable power to the grid and provide surplus power for carbon capture and storage, optimizing this massive investment for a direct climate benefit.

But it will require planning that starts well in advance of construction. Launching the marine geophysical surveys, environmental monitoring requirements and approval processes for both wind power and storage together can save time, avoid conflicts and improve environmental stewardship.

The post Offshore wind farms could bank carbon dioxide on slow days appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s hard to think of something more powerful than the sun. The sun in our solar system, and other stars in outer space, are powered by a physical reaction called nuclear fusion. This process occurs when two light nuclei, ​​electrically positive protons and electrically neutral neutrons found in the nucleus of an atom, merge and form a single heavier core. Creating the nucleus releases energy from the loss of mass. 

Einstein formulated that mass could become energy back in the early 1900s, which occurs in nuclear fusion. The energy and heat from this massive, constant reaction help us stave off seasonal depression, grow plants, and create power with solar panels. 

A fusion reactor, or a fusion power plant or thermonuclear reactor, is a device that scientists can use to create electrical power from the energy released in a nuclear fusion reaction. Reactors are currently in testing worldwide in hopes that powering our energy grid will be a possibility. 

Reactors use a high-energy state of matter or ionized gas in a plasma form, which still isn’t entirely understood by scientists. Researchers are working on different ways to create nuclear fusion with the plasma—some reactors use magnets to contain the plasma. In contrast, others use lasers to confine the plasma by compressing it in a tiny space to create a reaction.

[Related: Humans just generated nuclear energy akin to a star.]

China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), a nuclear reactor that is part of the country’s “artificial sun” project, sustained a nuclear fusion reaction for a little over 17 minutes. Superheated plasma reached 126 million degrees Fahrenheit, five times hotter than the sun, the Smithsonian reported. The exciting news comes in light of many wealthy countries pushing for lower emissions and cleaner, renewable energy sources. 

“The world could benefit from virtually limitless carbon-free electricity fueled by the same energy source as the Sun,” the DOE explains. 

However impressive, running tests on reactors is costly. Experiments with the record-breaking reactor in China will likely cost more than $1 trillion by this June. These trials are preparation for a larger fusion project called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which is currently being built in France and will potentially be open for use by 2025. But if these experiments are successful, reactors could create a powerful energy source that makes low levels of recyclable radioactive waste. According to a 2018 report from Live Science, a 100-megawatt fusion reactor can power up to 100,000 homes. 

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear fusion has no related atmospheric emissions. The process makes helium, a nontoxic gas unlike carbon dioxide and radioactive tritium. While tritium may sound concerning, its half-life is only about a century, making it less environmentally harmful than other energy sources. 

[Related: Physicists want to create energy like stars do. These two ways are their best shot.]

Andrew Holland, the CEO of the Fusion Industry Association, an international association that boasts more than 20 fusion companies in the private sector as members, says that the reactor’s success in China points to a bright future for renewable energy. 

“Fusion is the perfect source for that, because it is always available,” he says. 

Holland also points out that though the record is impressive, it will take some time before harnessing the technology for 24/7 renewable energy. The reactor in China shows the potential of the technology. But there still isn’t a reactor that can burn plasma for hours on end, which will be necessary to power grids. 

He envisions that nuclear fusion can be used alongside and even support other lower-emitting or carbon-free energy sources like solar and wind energy. 

“We envision that [nuclear fusion plants] will be commercial in the 2030s, that’s the goal for most of our companies,” he says. “It’s a rapidly growing industry with a lot of comments and a lot of potential but there’s still some hard work to be done … fusion is always hard but there’s a huge potential.” 

The post Energy from nuclear fusion just got a little bit more feasible appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Some of the largest utility companies in the US, such as Xcel, Duke, Dominion, Southern Company, and Public Service Enterprise Group, have voluntarily committed to completely decarbonizing their emissions by 2050. Others, like Berkshire Hathaway Energy and NextEra, have set less ambitious decarbonization goals, creating a hodgepodge of efforts country-wide.

To get to the bottom of all these goals could add up to, researchers at North Carolina State University and Columbia University compiled information from 36 major utility pledges in place at the end of 2020 across over 80 utility subsidiaries. Altogether, the pledges industry-wide would be enough to drop the energy sector’s greenhouse gas emissions by over 30 percent compared to 2018 levels by the year 2050. They published their findings in the journal One Earth.

“Given the magnitude of where we need to be in terms of emission reductions and the pace, there needs to be a recognition of the role of public policy but also a recognition of where voluntary private sector action can contribute,” says Christopher Galik, corresponding author of the new study and a professor of public administration at NC State. 

From both the federal and state level, leaders are pushing for more policy to lower emissions from the energy sector throughout the country. The Biden administration announced goals for a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. Several states, including a landmark eight-state agreement across the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, have also individually pledged to lower their emissions across their energy sector. Across the industry, the researchers found that about one-seventh of the utility pledge reductions will inevitably happen due to state restrictions and policies. 

[Related: How publicly-owned power could shape the future of clean energy.]

The researchers also wrote that between 2005 and 2018, emissions have dropped by about 25 percent, thanks to new advances in low- or no- emitting energy technology and supportive policies. Still, emission reductions across the massive industry are not happening at the pace or magnitude deemed necessary to avoid the worst of climate change. In May 2021, an IEA report found it would cost between $2 trillion to $5 trillion per year to reach net-zero standards for the global energy sector by 2050.

“There are literally trillions of dollars under management,” US climate envoy John Kerry said during an interview at the Reuters Next conference, CNBC reported. “There’s a great deal of money chasing good projects and good deals. I believe the private sector has the ability to win this battle for us.”

Still, every company measures and reports emissions differently. Some reports on emissions don’t always outline how emissions were reduced or if offsets were included in their emissions reduction plans, Galik says. “We had to make some assumptions,” he says. “Some utilities would say ‘net zero,’ which means that they may still be emitting, but they’re offsetting those remaining emissions.” 

He says that how valid those offsets are is still a bit of a mystery, and utilities must be more transparent about the offsets and carbon reduction strategies they choose.

The power sector makes up about a fourth of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, which is why Galik emphasizes that any reduction, whether based on policy or voluntary action from utility companies, is important for helping lower overall emissions in the country. He feels that the private sector’s influence could push policy in the Southeast and Midwest, where regulations are a bit laxer. 

Still, some experts are wary of relying on the private sector to make the most significant push towards climate goals, especially as claims of greenwashing continue to pop up. One January report from the Sierra Club scored utility decarbonization promises across the country (the aggregate score across all utilities studied was a “strikingly low” 17 out of 100). 

“If we’re relying on the private sector, we’re inherently relying on the voluntary efforts and the good faith of corporations to do the right thing,” Leehi Yona, a graduate student at Stanford University who studies climate policy, told the Washington Post this month. “But we don’t really have any oversight to ensure that their actions are anything more than hot air.”

The post Utility companies could nix one-third of their emissions by 2050. Here’s how. appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The Biden administration has pledged to create a carbon-free energy sector by 2035, but because renewable resources generate only around 19 percent of US electricity as of 2020, climate experts warn that our transition to a green grid future needs to speed up.

A group of researchers at Stanford led by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has set out to prove that a 100 percent renewable energy grid by 2050 is not only feasible but can be done without any blackouts and at a lower cost than the existing grid.

“One of the biggest concerns with renewables is that they’re intermittent, that wind doesn’t always blow or the sun doesn’t always shine” says Jacobson, who notes that people have claimed this unreliability caused blackouts in California, which relies heavily on renewables–and in Texas, which doesn’t. “So we wanted to test this contention.”

Jacobson is the lead author of a new paper, published in Renewable Energy, which argues that a complete transition to renewable energy–defined as wind, water, and solar energy–would benefit the US as a whole and individuals by saving costs, creating jobs, and reducing air pollution and carbon emissions.

They modelled how wind turbines, tidal turbines, geothermal and hydroelectric power plants, rooftop and utility photovoltaic panels, and other sources could generate energy in 2050.

A host of different sources powered these projections: Jacobson used data from a weather-climate-air pollution model he first built in 1990, which has been used in numerous simulations since. Individual state and sector energy consumption was taken from the Energy Information Administration. Current fossil fuel energy sources were converted to electric devices that are powered by wind, water, and solar. This was then used to create projections for energy use in 2050. 

Time-dependent energy supply was matched with demand and storage in a grid integration model for every 30 second interval in 2050 and 2051. The study authors analyzed US regions and countrywide demand until the model produced a solution with what the authors called zero-load loss–meaning, essentially, no blackouts with 100 percent renewable energy and storage. 

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

According to Jacobson, no other study is conducting this kind of modelling, which is unique in part because it checks conditions for any simulation every 30 seconds. 

“There’s none that uses a coupled weather prediction model to predict the wind fields continuously or the solar radiation fields consistently,” he says. “Or the building heat and cooling demand consistently. And there’s also not one that treats all processes or all the storage types.”

Wesley Cole, a senior energy analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, says that hourly interval models are more common, but this new study gives researchers like himself a boost of confidence that they are not missing anything by modelling at a higher temporal resolution. “It certainly helps, but it’s unclear if it’s necessary for every study,” Cole says.

In building their forecasts, the authors looked at existing grid regions within the North American Reliability Corporation to understand how current demand and supply is being met in each area. To test the differences between isolated and interconnected grids, they also looked at six states that had large populations and high energy consumption: New York, Florida, Texas, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. The modelers also analyzed all contiguous states and the District of Columbia.

And, finally, the researchers imagined a new region that would fold in Texas with the existing multi-state  Midwest Reliability Region. Texas is its own grid region, and one of the issues that exacerbated the state’s blackouts earlier this year was that the grid’s isolation meant there was no alternative source of energy.

But connecting Texas to another region may not be only a hypothetical envisioned by researchers. Pattern Energy, a renewable energy company has proposed the Southern Cross transmission line that would connect Texas to the Southeast Electric Reliability Council.

Earlier this year, Cole also carried out roadmapping to see how feasible a completely renewable grid would be and how much it would cost. Cole’s study, like Jacobson’s, proved that using renewable sources could generate enough energy to keep the grid balanced without any load loss. 

“The question is much more an economic question, not so much a technical question,” says Cole. According to his research, the pathway to a renewable grid is not as expensive as first estimated due to cost reductions in solar and wind energy. The problem, he says, lies with building capacity.

“We don’t look at supply chains in these kinds of models, but can supply chains scale to get those kinds of things? Or can you build the transmission that would be needed?” he says.

[Related: Here’s how wind turbines stay afloat during storms]

Christian Breyer, a professor of solar economy at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland, contends that Jacobson’s study includes more battery storage options than previous research in the field. The real selling point, according to Breyer, is that Jacobson is the only researcher in the U.S. doing this modelling on this kind of level. 

“Energy system researchers are flooded with fossil energy and nuclear energy money, so that they are practically blocked from researching the real solutions: energy systems based entirely on renewables,” Breyer writes in an email. “That’s now a major roadblock for successful economic development of the U.S. as renewables cost the least.”

As the cost of renewables falls, researchers predict power companies and consumers will migrate to using renewables. Solar and wind are already half the cost of natural gas. Policy may also motivate adoption–or hinder it. While the current administration has set out goals for a renewable energy grid, new permits for gas and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico counteract those same efforts.

“When you have a continuation of fossil fuels, and you have a continuation of their growth, that’s going to slow down any transition. We need 100 percent  transition, every year all new energy has to be renewable,” Jacobson says. “There are a lot of people with vested interests who have a goal of not transitioning, or not transitioning quickly, because they’re making a lot of money on the current industry.”

Anna-Katharina von Krauland, a PhD candidate in the Atmosphere/Energy program at Stanford and a co-author of the paper, emphasizes that it is important for people to recognize that a completely renewable energy grid is possible–and it would have other benefits such as job creation.

The researchers quantified these benefits by looking at private costs, such as those to individuals or corporations, and social ones, which also include health and climate costs. Zero-emissions leads to few air pollution related deaths and illness, and a reduced toll on the healthcare system. 

The model cannot address emissions from things like long-distance shipping or aviation, though the authors argue that green hydrogen could be a possible alternative to explore. They did not include nuclear energy or carbon capture, which von Krauland views as “distractions from getting to 100 percent renewable energy as quickly as possible” because the technologies are costly, unproven, or lacking in their promises.

“The best path forward would be to invest in what we know works as quickly as we can,” she says–such as wind, water, and solar energy.

The post The US could reliably run on clean energy by 2050 appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When it comes to passing game-changing climate policy in the US, there’s always some opposition. Even as the climate crisis gets more dire, and the clock is ticking to do something about it, the path to slimming down emissions and boosting a greener economy isn’t getting much easier. 

One major example in the news right now is the Build Back Better (BBB) plan, a massive policy bill that covers everything from lowering emissions in the transportation sector to creating jobs to slashing healthcare costs. And the bill isn’t just talk; according to Megan Mahajan, the manager of energy policy design at the think tank Energy Innovation, this package represents “the most significant climate legislation in US history.”

But a big chunk of its carbon-chopping power hinges on the Clean Energy Performance Program, or CEPP. The proposal, which is wrapped up in the text of the BBB, looks to speed up the shift to a fully clean energy grid (something Biden has set a 2035 goal for) by giving power utilities financial incentives to amp up renewables like solar and wind by 4 percent each year—and penalizing them if they don’t. According to one September report, CEPP alone would expand the US workforce by 7.7 million jobs and inject $907 billion dollars into the economy.

Utilities are already getting more invested in renewable energy because of the affordable price tag, but the pace simply isn’t fast enough to get the country on track, Mahajan says. A 4 percent yearly increase would get the energy mix to about 70 to 80 percent in 2030, whereas business as usual would put Americans around 48 percent by the same date.

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

“Wind and solar are some of the cheapest resources on the market, so there has been a lot of progress from utilities that are moving towards them. But CEPP would really kick that into high gear,” Mahajan says. 

To get the colossal bill passed, however, all 50 Democratic senators have to vote yes—and the main holdout so far is Senator Joe Manchin [D-WVa]. Manchin, who represents a coal-mining-heavy state, opposes CEPP on the concern that the addition would be “using taxpayer dollars to pay private companies to do things they’re already doing,” a spokesperson for the politician told E&E News. 

Conversely, recent research by Mahajan and her colleagues shows that CEPP is necessary in the fight to curb CO₂. pollution, Their policy models found that the program would cut US emissions levels from 2005—when the Kyoto Protocol kicked into gear—to 2030 by around 45 percent, a giant chunk out of Biden’s goal of 50 to 52 percent. Without it, the country would only get two-thirds of the modeled reduction results of the BBB, Mahajan says. “This is a very impressive package, but of course, losing the CEPP represents a big hole,” she adds. 

Of course, there’s still hope if the Senate doesn’t pass CEPP. Senator Tina Smith [D-TK], a major proponent of CEPP, has already started to explore alternatives in case the program is cut. 

“We’ve got to figure out how to fill that gap if it’s not going to be with the clean electricity program,” Smith told the Washington Post. “And so those are the things we’re working on.”

[Related: Maine is making companies foot the bill for recycling]

Not to mention, even in a perfect world with CEPP, the US needs to make other changes to reach the goal of 50 to 52 percent fewer emissions. This opens up the door for other entities, from municipalities to regulatory agencies like the EPA, to take charge on greenhouse gas-reducing actions.

“Our view is that as much congressional action as we can get is going to be very important for setting up the foundation for getting to the targets, but there’s also room for action in state and local governments,” Mahajan says. “States have been really powerful actors for emissions reductions in the past, and there’s room for additional reductions on top of the federal action we get.”

The post CEPP could boost the biggest climate policy in US history—if it survives the Senate appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Many of us might assume that the reason so much energy still comes from gas and coal power plants is simple economics: those fuels are cheaper. But though it was once true, that assumption has actually been obliterated by a recent decline in solar and wind costs over the past decade.

When it comes to the cost of energy from new power plants, onshore wind and solar are now the cheapest sources—costing less than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear.

Solar, in particular, has cheapened at a blistering pace. Just 10 years ago, it was the most expensive option for building a new energy development. Since then, that cost has dropped by 90 percent, according to data from the Levelized Cost of Energy Report and as highlighted recently by Our World in Data. Utility-scale solar arrays are now the least costly option to build and operate. Wind power has also shown a dramatic decline—the lifetime costs of new wind farms dropped by 71 percent in the last decade.

Natural gas prices decreased over that time, too, though by a lesser amount—32 percent—but that’s due to the recent fracking boom and not a longer term trend like that seen in renewables, the article states. The cost of building coal plants stayed relatively stable over the decade.

The story behind low costs

Solar became cheap due to forces called learning curves and virtuous cycles, the article describes. Harnessing the power of the sun used to be so expensive that it was only used for satellites. In 1956, for instance, the cost of one watt of solar capacity was $1,825. (Now, utility-scale solar can cost as little as $0.70 per watt.)

The initial demand for satellites fueled a so-called “virtuous cycle.” The more panels were produced for satellites, the more their price declined, and the more they were adopted for other niche purposes. As the cost further declined due to technology improvements and the rise of economies of scale, solar was able to eventually debut as a viable general-purpose energy source. Since 1976, each doubling of solar capacity has led to a 20.2 percent average decline in the price of solar panels.

Fossil fuels, in comparison, can’t keep up with this pace. That’s because fossil power plants have to buy mined fuels to operate. In coal plants, supplying the coal accounts for about 40 percent of total expenses. Sunshine and wind are free, which allows the costs of tapping into their power to decline sharply as technology improves and the industry grows.

Mark Paul, an environmental economist at the New College of Florida, adds that this cycle didn’t happen in a business-only vacuum. “The US government invested serious sums of money into developing modern [photovoltaic] technology during early stages of what we think of as the price curve,” he says. “It drastically improved the efficiency of solar modules, both in our ability to produce them and how much energy solar is able to produce.”

Today’s energy mix

The globe’s energy mix has responded to the bargain prices on renewables. In 2019, 72 percent of new energy capacity came from renewable sources and global renewable power capacity has more than tripled in the last 20 years.

In the United States, renewable power has been ramping up, too. In 2007, wind made up less than one percent of energy capacity, and even less for solar, while coal contributed half. While 2020 estimates are still preliminary, it’s likely that the total output from renewables (including solar and wind as well as other sources like hydropower and biomass) surpassed coal, which only contributed about a fifth of power generated. “2020 … will have been the best year ever for new wind installations in the US and the best year ever for new solar installations,” says John Rogers, an energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

But these changes are still not enough to reduce greenhouse gas at the rate needed to curb the worst impacts of climate change.

While coal plants have been shuttering across the country, the fracking boom has brought in a glut of cheap fossil gas. While this abundant and affordable fuel emits up to 60 percent less carbon dioxide when burned compared to coal, it still contributes to climate change, including from the notorious methane leakages from its facilities. . Oil also still accounts for a large share of polluting emissions due to its use in powering cars and trucks. In fact, transportation accounts for more emissions than any other sector in the country.

Delays to a green transition

Despite a massive drop in costs, renewables haven’t replaced fossil fuels at the rate you might expect. That’s because the investments, policies, and very infrastructure of the energy industry as a whole are very much skewed in favor of fossil fuels.

While it is cheaper to build renewables when considering a new plant, that metric doesn’t necessarily apply to running a fossil fuel plant that already exists, explains Ashley Langer, an energy economist at the University of Arizona. Sometimes, she adds, the regulatory structure of utilities actually makes it more profitable to keep a coal or natural gas plant running.

Langer says this is especially true for the state-regulated monopolies that supply power in about half of US states. These investor-owned utilities are guaranteed a certain rate of return on their investments in power facilities, which basically guarantees continued earnings in exchange for running those plants. Even if the actual market costs of their energy sources would make operations costly, these monopolies are set up so that that’s not really a concern.

“The thing that’s really preventing us from rapidly transitioning is what we call the lock-in effect,” says Paul. “We have existing fossil plants where we’ve already paid to build them and the cost of producing one more unit of electricity is cheaper from using existing infrastructure than building new infrastructure in most cases. So given that we’ve already paid the upfront cost of this fossil fuel infrastructure, the economics don’t quite line up yet where we’re going to facilitate a rapid phase out of fossil fuel plants prior to the end of their life cycle.”

That may change soon, though. The cost of building new renewables is becoming increasingly competitive with the cost of adding additional capacity to existing fossil fuel facilities. In the 2020 Lazard analysis, the lifetime costs (when including subsidies) of power are $31 per megawatt-hour for utility solar and $26 per megawatt-hour for wind. The cost of increasing capacity was $41 for coal and $28 for natural gas.

In addition to being already heavily invested in fossil fuels, there is a lot of inertia in the system due to long-term contracts between utilities, energy producers, and mining companies. And since the country’s total energy use is not increasing that much every year, there isn’t much incentive to build new renewables.

Market forces and monopolies aside, there are few other, more tangible barriers to a widespread renewable roll out.

Sun and wind aren’t consistent throughout the day or the year, and sometimes the best places for power don’t actually have many people living there. The windiest parts of the country—often in the interior regions like the Great Plains—have fewer people to use that power than crowded coastal cities. The aging American electrical grid doesn’t currently have the ability to distribute power from renewables over long distances, says Matt Oliver, energy economist at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

These challenges of intermittency and geography are not insurmountable—batteries and water can store energy, and better transmission systems can be built. But the solutions will require massive investments to develop and build the needed infrastructure.

Making the leap to clean power

In the midst of pandemic-induced high unemployment and low interest rates, renewables and their now-cheap prices could finally have their moment.

“It is rare to have a policy option that leads to more jobs, cheaper prices for consumers, and a greener, safer planet,” writes Max Roser in the Our World in Data article. If affluent countries invest in renewables now, he adds, those technologies will grow even more affordable and therefore more likely to be adopted worldwide to meet increasing energy demands.

In the US, the federal government can play a huge role in these investments. It can borrow at low interest rates and use that advantage to help energy transition projects at state and local levels. Paul explains that this could take the form of a national climate bank, backed by the federal government, that issues bonds for local decarbonization efforts. Senators Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland just introduced a bill proposing to launch such a bank.

The federal government can also make direct investments in clean energy. Langer says one major way political leaders can ensure an energy transition is by providing consistent subsidies to solar and wind. The wind industry in particular has struggled due to inconsistent government funding. “Wind subsidies in the United States have been highly uncertain,” says Langer. Congress will pass subsidies leading to a boom in wind industry growth, but then later allow those subsidies to expire—leading to bankruptcies.

Helping renewables flourish might be the easy part, though. President Biden has stated a goal of bringing the United States to 100 percent clean energy by 2035. Meeting this goal would require sending lots of fossil fuel plants into early retirement.

That’s one thing for coal, which is already on its way out, but Langer points out that the proliferation of new natural gas since 2005 is going to be a challenge for those big climate goals. Those new plants could easily run for decades, as long as there’s nothing stopping energy producers and utilities from making a profit. To make matters more challenging, forced closures could affect people’s energy bills. “If you retire the natural gas plants sooner, rates will rise,” says Langer. “It’s either going to come out of your taxes or it’s going to come into your electricity bills.”

Of course, just letting the plants keep running and the planet keep warming will in the long run be far more costly to humanity than shutting fossil fuels down. But those shutdown costs are still a reality in the near future. All four economists PopSci talked to for this article said that instituting a fee on carbon would help make sure that polluters are paying their fair share of that price. This could take the form of a cap and trade market or a tax on every ton of emissions produced. Right now, there’s no tax on carbon pollution, which means all the costs of increased atmospheric carbon are instead shouldered by ecosystems and individuals, who pay in ways like rising air conditioning and health care costs. (It’s like socialism, but only for the powerful and polluting, you could say).

While enacting a price per ton of carbon would affect energy bills and prices at the pump, some governments have developed progressive solutions to this. In British Columbia, for instance, proceeds from the country’s carbon fee are paid out to the public as tax dividends.

With oil prices low, some argue that this is a prime time to buy out the fossil fuel industry entirely. A one-time buyout would allow the federal government to shut down fossil fuel plants rapidly and put a stop to their political influence. “We need to dismantle the existing fossil fuel economy,” says Paul. “And if we don’t … the market force behind building that green economy is going to be slow.”

The post Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

For the last decade or so, solar energy’s future was so bright, you needed sunglasses to look directly at it. Thanks in large part to the Solar Investment Tax Credit enacted in 2006, the solar sector has seen an average annual growth of 68 percent over the last decade. In 2016, the cumulative capacity of American solar energy surpassed 40 gigawatts, which is enough energy to power 6.5 million households. Some 374,000 people held solar jobs as of 2016 and solar panel installation has been the fastest-growing occupation in the country, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But solar providers worry their perspectives may have suddenly dimmed.

In January, President Donald Trump announced his approval of a 30 percent tariff on all imported solar modules and cells. As many predicted, the subsequent months have seen a seismic shift in the industry, with Reuters reporting in June that approximately $2.5 billion in solar installation projects have been cancelled since the tariffs were finalized. Looking at this news, you might feel (sun)burnt by the fallout over Trump’s decision—and left with quite a few questions about solar technology.

What are solar panels made of?

Solar panel technology has evolved substantially in the last few years, but the basic premise remains the same. The panels are a collection of photovoltaic cells. These crystalline silicon cells are typically formed by encasing slices of silicon in glass. When sunlight hits the cells, the electrons flee the silicon. When the electrons are trapped, they create voltage. Once they’re transported through wiring, those volts are pure energy.

Where are these panels produced?

The majority of solar installations in the United States—roughly 80 percent—use imported panels. Most come from Malaysia (36 percent) and South Korea (21 percent), with China, Thailand, and Vietnam each contributing 8 to 9 percent. The raw materials are sourced from all over the world, a reflection of the industry’s globalized supply chain.

While China supplies just a small fraction of American solar panels, it’s one of the biggest producer of photovoltaics globally—and has been subjected to solar tariffs before. China’s success in this particular manufacturing sector has a fairly long history. Back in the 1990s, Germany established a solar incentive program that caused an explosion in the nation’s demand for rooftop panels. China saw this need and ran to fill it. Soon, other European countries were instituting similar programs and finding themselves with increased demand, which China sought to fill. By getting in on production early—and doing so aggressively, with enormous semi-automated factories—China outstripped its competitors. Over the last decade, global prices for photovoltaics dropped by almost 90 percent, in part because of China’s efficient production system and market dominance.

What is the rationale for this new tariff?

For many worried about air pollution and climate change, access to inexpensive solar arrays from China was seen as an essential to the industry’s growth and with it the slow replacement of fossil fuels with green energy alternatives. “[The panel] is effectively the resource. In the oil and gas business, you go and find low cost and oil and gas,” Francis O’Sullivan, MIT Energy Institute’s director of research, told PopSci. “In the solar industry, you go and find the lowest possible panels you can.”

The Trump administration views China’s manufacturing success as a hindrance to the domestic U.S. effort to produce competitively-priced domestic solar supplies. That’s what these tariffs purport to correct. By bumping up the price of photovoltaic imports, the administration hopes American manufacturers will fill the void and begin to dominate domestic solar sales themselves.

However, the low likelihood of this has led others to wonder what the administration’s true motivations are. O’Sullivan and other experts argue that these new renewable energy roadblocks are just another way of driving consumers to fossil fuels like coal. Notably, the policy also looks “tough on China,” which is a familiar Trump talking point.

How is the new tariff likely to affect the U.S. energy market?

Strangely enough, while these tariffs are pricey enough to reduce installations, they are probably not significant enough to bolster American manufacturing. That’s because building up the infrastructure necessary to produce abundant solar panels would be time-consuming and expensive. “It takes time to build a value chain that’s that efficient,” O’Sullivan says.

Analysts predicted the most likely outcome would be a destructive chain reaction: Tariffs would cause a shortage of panels. That, in turn, would drive up prices. And those price hikes would reduce demand for solar energy. It was estimated 23,000 solar installers, who just a few days before the tariffs were announced had the fastest-growing job in the country, lose their jobs. The intervening months have seen some of these predictions borne out. According to the June report in Reuters, many executives decided their utility-scale solar projects were no longer cost-effective, leading companies to put the kibosh on new installations—and the jobs that come with them. And the fallout could continue. “I think on balance, the likely job losses that will come from a slowdown of 10 percent or more in deployment would probably significantly outweigh any gains,” O’Sullivan says.

The tariff could have farther reaching economic impacts, too. “When it comes to something like electricity, which is a pure commodity, it’s really important to offer the lowest cost option,” O’Sullivan says. “You can smelt metals, you can run data centers, you can do whatever you want.” If solar energy declines, costlier alternative fuel sources will have to replace it.

What will this cost?

For residential systems, like rooftop solar panels, we’re likely to see a 3 percent increase in price, according to analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimate. For solar farms, which produce solar energy to feed to a utility or shared grid, the cost hike is likely on the order of 10 percent.

“At the utility scale, which is really where the bulk of installations happen, the cost of the panel is a much bigger contributor to the overall cost of the system,” O’Sullivan says. “Adding 10 percent really has a cost on competitiveness in many markets. That’s where you’re going to see projects put on hold.” (Installers seem to agree; they’ve been been hoarding equipment since last year

Why is this happening now?

This ball started rolling back in April 2017 when Suniva, a Chinese-owned, Georgia-based solar cell manufacturer, filed bankruptcy. The company attributed its decline to the low prices of foreign panels. In June, it filed a trade suit asking the U.S. government to consider placing import tariffs on foreign manufacturers to give Suniva and its ilk a leg up.

In October 2017, the International Trade Commission released the result of its analysis of tariffs on imported panels. The commission recommended tariffs as high as 35 percent. Initially, Bloomberg reported, “[t]he U.S. solar industry let out a collective sigh of relief” after these numbers were released, as many installers feared much worse. On Monday, the Trump administration announced it had settled on its own final number: a tariff of 30 percent.

Is there precedent for this kind of tariff? ?

In 2012, then-President Barack Obama created his own tariffs on solar panel imports. Those “anti-dumping tariffs” were instituted because the administration believed China was selling solar panels that had been heavily subsidized and then sold significantly below fair market value. Much to the excitement of SolarWorld Industries America, Obama’s policy placed tariffs of 31 percent and up. While American manufacturers may have been excited, the tariff failed to stimulate much domestic production of solar panels, raised prices on solar panels, and resulted in retaliation from the Chinese.

Beyond solar, plenty of presidents have tried to use tariffs to bring manufacturing back to the United States. In 2001, the steel industry employed then-President George W. Bush to impose tariffs on imported steel. Bush’s steel safeguard had the opposite of its intended effect: American manufacturers cheered, but industries that relied on that cheap imported steel lost jobs.

What role should the United States play in solar?

If O’Sullivan had his way, the United States would continue importing cheap solar panels, while focusing on building the future of solar technology. Existing photovoltaics are great compared to what we had just a few years ago, but they can get thinner, more efficient at energy capture, and more flexible. “There’s a legitimate argument that we actually have to move to an entirely different technology paradigm,” he says. “The United States should be focused on being in the vanguard around those technologies, because these crystalline silicon technologies [currently in use]? Yeah, we can do it. But we can’t do it cheaper than the next guy. And certainly we’re not going to gain any economic advantage to doing this here.”

What does it mean for the consumers?

If you’re already invested or employed in solar manufacturing, this could be good for your bottomline! If you’re in the majority of solar employees who works in installation, however, you’re probably seeing business slow, or even come to a halt. And if you’re just an average homeowner looking to switch to green energy, well, you’ll have to spend more green to get it.

The post The price of solar panels just went up—here’s what that means for you appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s no secret that today’s power grid is in need of repair and reinforcement. Extreme weather damaged electricity grids across the country, from winter storms that caused an estimated $200 billion of physical damage to the state of Texas to historic infrastructure-stressing heatwaves. 

To rapidly lower emissions and coincidentally upgrade the grid against environmental stressors like extreme weather, Congress is considering what could be landmark legislation that could meet President Biden’s goal of 80 percent clean electricity by 2030, Renewable Energy World reported. The Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP) is part of a larger $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill that the House Budget Committee recently voted to pass. The bill incentivizes utilities to switch to clean energy—and penalizes those who don’t. 

Earlier this month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced plans for the CEPP. The proposal through the House details how the Department of Energy can give grants to electricity suppliers that are able to “increase the amount of clean electricity they supply to customers by at least 4 percent over the previous year.” The percentage is tied to the incentive. Under the House plan, suppliers that increase clean energy by 4 percent will receive $150 for “each megawatt-hour above 1.5 percent of the previous year’s clean energy generation,” while those that do not meet the percent target will be charged $40 per megawatt-hour. 

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

And while no specific source of electricity is officially banned in the CEPP, it emphasizes that clean electricity generates less than 0.1 percent of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour compared to natural gas, which emits over 800 pounds CO2 per megawatt-hour according to the EPA. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, biomass, and carbon-capturing coal or natural gas plants, however, make the cut. 

While some concerns come with these overhauls like job transitions, potential job losses for the natural gas sector, and the cost to taxpayers, the economy actually benefits from these transitions, the CEPP promises. Not only will this help with reaching an 80 percent reduction of CO2 emissions by 2035, but implementing the policy is estimated to create more than 7 million jobs in the clean energy sector that is rapidly losing fossil fuel extraction jobs– about 100,000 jobs were lost just last year. The $150 billion allotments could produce nearly $1 trillion for the US economy,  the CEPP description states.  

Aleksandar Tomic, an economist and the associate dean for strategy, innovation, and tech at Boston College, says that the current CEPP paints somewhat of a “rosy” picture of how the grid overhaul will be implemented. He wanted to see more details about how some suppliers could avoid hefty fees in the future. 

Tomic worries about suppliers that do not supply their own electricity, he and others worry that the one size fits all will hurt small utilities. Many smaller utilities rely on The Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, the largest public power company in the country, which generates and sells electricity to more than 150 local power companies across the Southeast that have signed 20-year purchase agreements. Those companies would have to rely on the TVA to meet clean energy standards in order to meet the 4 percent targets and avoid penalties. Tomic worries that some of those smaller utilities that rely on purchasing electricity could end up taking on large penalties that they cannot afford, and to no fault of their own. 

[Related: Solar panels and water canals could form a real power couple in California.]

“[The CEPP] is saying, ‘ok we can provide payments for moving to clean electricity,’” he says. “But there will probably be some inefficiencies along the way.” 

Though the CEPP would offer grants through the Department of Energy to electric suppliers to help them meet the new energy goals, Tomic worries that some small companies that purchase electricity could fall through the cracks as the grid transitions. 

“How do we set the benchmark [for clean energy success for smaller companies].” Tomic says.  “We will have to have somebody to monitor and see how the program is structured and coded.”

The post A new program will incentivize utility companies to tap clean sources, and that’s not the only good news appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

The US is pushing to decarbonize its energy sources to stay in line with the Biden-Harris administration’s goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Major urban centers around the country like New York City and New Orleans have independently set timelines for net zero emissions by 2050 as well. 

For decarbonization to work, it’ll mean building in energy storage so that grids are functional when renewable sources aren’t readily available. Doing so will mean expanding lithium battery storage for renewable sources like wind or solar energy. Thankfully, that technology is becoming more and more accessible. According to a Yale Environment 360 report, the country saw a record 1.2 gigawatts of battery storage installed in 2020. That number is expected to increase within the next few years to a little more than 7 gigawatts by 2025. 

But there are challenges to decarbonizing different parts of an economy, especially when everything from residential buildings to businesses need energy storage that lasts longer and at lower costs to avoid sliding back to fossil fuels to power their utilities. 

[Related: This century-old technology could be the key to the future of energy storage]

To meet that challenge, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are testing new thermal energy storage technology that uses inexpensive silica sand as a medium. Economic Long-Duration Electricity Storage by Using Low-Cost Thermal Energy Storage and High-Efficiency Power Cycle, otherwise known as the ENDURING project, takes excess electricity from wind or solar and uses it to super heat silica sand. Zhiwen Ma, a researcher of the ENDURING project, sees the experimental solution as a way to achieve net zero in the near future. 

“While decarbonization of electricity has a clear path, decarbonization of the whole economy―which includes things like building heat and industrial processes―is more challenging because natural gas is very cheap, making it hard to displace,” Ma said in an NREL press release last week. 

The system works when the silica sand, which has a high potential for retaining and conducting thermal energy, is gravity fed through a heater that can reach a staggering 1,200° Celsius. Once toasted, the particles are fed into insulated silos made of concrete for days of storage. When energy is needed, the sand goes through a heat exchanger that then pressurizes gas to power turbomachinery and spin generators that create the electricity.

The size of the silos can be scaled up or down according to the energy needed. (In the diagrams released by NREL, they look several stories tall.) The entire system can be hooked up to an existing grid, or be placed in a decommissioned coal or gas plant. Researchers explained that the stored thermal energy can be discharged during peak electricity usage when wind and solar power are limited, such as in the early morning or evenings when people are more likely to be at home and using multiple appliances at one time. 

According to the press release, a single silica sand system can store up to 26,000 megawatt hours (or 26 gigawatt hours) of thermal energy. To compare, a report from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that “for conventional generators, such as a coal plant, a megawatt of capacity will produce electricity that equates to about the same amount of electricity consumed by 400 to 900 homes in a year.” Renewable energy sources like solar, however, would power fewer homes at a time.

Researchers like Ma think that using silica sand for thermal energy storage over and over can help replace traditional heating fuels like coal and natural gas. What’s more, the sand cost about $50 per ton, which is much cheaper than the per-unit cost of lithium batteries (though prices are falling there as well).   

Other ENDURING researchers like Patrick Davenport agree that the silica sand storage system can help phase out less sustainable energy sources. “Sand and concrete silos with refractory insulation are very inexpensive materials that can lead to low-cost energy storage,” he said in the press release. “Traditional four-hour storage technologies don’t scale well to the grid or city scale,” he continued, referring to battery storage. “Now that we are in need of large-scale energy storage, this technology makes a lot of sense.”

The prototype heaters are currently being tested in an undisclosed location, PV Magazine reported.

The post Super hot sand could help us store renewable energy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

A week after Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana, more than a million homes and businesses in the region remain without power. 150 mile-per-hour winds knocked out all eight transmission lines delivering power to the city, along with two power plants—one of which opened just last year with the explicit promise of preventing blackouts. While Ida was a terrifyingly powerful storm, it’s just the latest in a string of events from this year alone that show extreme weather is the new normal. An unprecedented winter freeze in Texas this past February killed hundreds and left millions more without power, while summer heat waves in the Pacific Northwest melted power cables and triggered rolling blackouts. 

These events expose a stark reality: the American power grid is unprepared for climate change and the extreme weather that follows. Experts say power outages don’t have to be inevitable—though preventing them entirely may require re-imagining how the grid works.

Today, the act of getting electricity to your house is fairly straightforward: a power plant generates electricity, that electricity is sent across long distances through high-voltage transmission lines to substations and transformers, which convert the high-voltage electricity to a lower voltage (usually 120 volts in the US), which is then carried by distribution lines to homes and businesses. The energy industry calls this setup the “spoke and hub” design, loosely modeled after how bicycle wheels send pedal power from the centers of their spoked wheels out to the rims.

In normal circumstances this system works pretty well, but extreme weather tends to expose the many points of vulnerability in the grid. Hurricane-force winds can knock down distribution poles or slap transmission lines into each other, causing them to spark and start fires. Flooding can drown substations, and extreme cold can freeze the wells and pipes that deliver fuel to natural-gas power plants (which is what happened in Texas earlier this year). A failure at any part of the grid can create a power outage, and the closer to the source a problem is—a downed transmission line or a power plant out of commission, for example—the larger and longer the power outage tends to be. The distribution poles you might see on your street are designed to be fixed quickly and only affect small areas; power plants serve millions of people and are more complex, but they’re supposed to rarely fail.

Climate change muddies the reliability equation. “We’ve got a built environment that for the most part didn’t anticipate the weather and the flooding and the rain,” says Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Nobody was thinking about climate change when design standards for energy infrastructure were created, he explains. “So a bunch of our assumptions about what was adequate to build are probably not up to date for what we’re seeing with climate change now, let alone thirty or forty years from now.” 

As Popular Science wrote last year, age is one of the biggest problems affecting the country’s existing power infrastructure. Pieces of the grid installed with a forty- or fifty-year life expectancy have gone long past their expiration date without being replaced (some pieces of equipment date back to the 1920s), and they’re beginning to show their age. “Things work hand in hand as far as power outages are concerned,” says Richard Campbell, an energy policy specialist at the Library of Congress. “Some damage is due to the increased intensity of storms, but part of the damage may be due to the advanced age of the infrastructure.” 

[Related: Slow, meandering hurricanes are often more dangerous—and they’re getting more common]

Maintenance isn’t necessarily the most exciting topic, but it’s a key component to making sure existing grid infrastructure doesn’t fail during emergencies. It also provides an opportunity to install gear that’s not just newer but better. Instead of simply replacing one wooden power pole with another, Campbell says, replacement power poles can be made out of stronger materials like concrete or steel that will do a better job standing up to storms. When substations need to be updated, they can be built a few floors up so they don’t flood. New transmission lines can be outfitted with a special coating so they don’t spark or melt when they get blown into each other. 

One of the most weather-proof solutions is to put wires underground, where they’ll be shielded from the effects of extreme weather. “Singapore has a mostly underground transmission system,” says John Moura, Director of Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis at the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. “They have some of the highest transmission reliability statistics across the world.” 

But North America’s geology varies wildly by region, each of which comes with its own challenges, and putting wires underground isn’t cheap—depending on geology, costs run anywhere from 3 to 10 times those of traditional overhead lines, and utility companies would have to pass those costs onto customers who are generally unwilling to pay higher prices. Underground lines aren’t entirely infallible, either. They’re harder to fix, says Moura, and they can get tangled up in the root systems of trees that fall over in storms.  

Fixing existing infrastructure is just one part of the equation. Truly preventing blackouts, says Jacobs, requires changing the way electricity is generated and distributed. “We don’t have as much spare capacity as these events demonstrated we should have,” he says. Renewable energy can change that. Adding wind and solar farms to the grid diversifies the sources of electricity available to utilities, so the failure of a single power plant wouldn’t mean the complete shutdown of a local grid system. However, Moura points out, there’s currently very limited capacity for additional renewable energy in the existing grid. Power lines cannot carry unlimited amounts of energy, so taking full advantage of renewables would require building a larger transmission system—which President Biden’s infrastructure bill aims to do. 

Another big hurdle for renewable energy is the issue of storage. “Currently, power is consumed exactly when it’s produced,” Moura says. But wind and solar energy are relatively unpredictable compared to fossil fuels: some days they can produce more energy than is needed, while on others (such as cloudy or windless days) they might produce very little. Building a reliable way to store wind and solar energy for long periods wouldn’t just help renewables become a more mainstream source of energy. It would also help store energy we could use in a crisis. 

Perhaps the most radical solution for preventing blackouts is the microgrid. Instead of solely relying on the larger grid system to deliver energy from faraway sources, microgrids put energy generation and distribution into the hands of people on very local levels, in the form of solar panels, wind turbines, or diesel generators on their property. When the main grid fails, communities with microgrids switch to their own power sources, allowing them to keep essential services running even during extreme weather events. 

The idea is an extension of what individuals with their own diesel generators have done for years: instead of just supplying one household with power, Jacobs says, a true microgrid would involve wires strung between buildings that together create a self-contained electricity distribution system. Microgrids are particularly interesting, explains Jacobs, because utility companies are currently the only entities who are allowed to string wires between buildings. Expanding microgrids challenges that federally sanctioned monopoly.

Along those lines, Jacobs argues, utility companies should focus less on creating new energy and more on working with the energy that already exists. “Fixing leaky windows and insulating attics is a far better social investment than building a new power plant,” he says. Well-insulated buildings use less energy and retain climate-controlled air better—so if the power does go out, homes can stay warm or cool for far longer, increasing the comfort and survivability of the people inside. But, says Jacobs, utility companies are unwilling to make those investments because they would mean less profit. 

To prepare for climate change and prevent future blackouts, utility companies may have to make their peace with a grid that is both decentralized and less profitable. “If we don’t change the way we think about it and design it, we’re not fixing it,” says Jacobs. “Large and long-term led to this situation, and it will take large and long term efforts to get us out of it.”

Correction September 7, 2021: A previous version of this story stated that transmission lines deliver electricity to substations only, when in fact, they deliver them to substations and transformers, which convert the higher voltage to a lower one. Further, the story stated that extreme cold can freeze fuel, when in fact, extreme cold can freeze the wells and pipes that deliver the fuel to natural-gas power plants. We regret the errors.

The post Are mass power outages unavoidable after hurricanes? appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

In just a few short days, researchers will float a yellow platform out into the waters of the Pacific Ocean, north of the Hawai’ian isle of O’ahu. It’s not just there to roll upon the waves. It’s called SeaRAY, and if all goes well, it’ll turn those very waves into electricity.

The platform is the latest example of wave power. Despite a name that might sound like an energy drink, it’s a very real, very green power source. Researchers across the globe are trying to harness the energy of ocean waves—energy that would otherwise go into eroding beaches, rocking boats, and destroying sandcastles—and turn it into electricity.

“You know if you’ve walked along the beach on a stormy day,” says Bryson Robertson, a professor of civil and construction engineering at Oregon State University. “There’s a lot of destructive energy, and possibly constructive energy, that we can harness and put to use.”

There’s multiple ways and multiple technologies that make this possible. “There are many different designs out there,” says Rebecca Fao, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado, who works on SeaRAY. “Each developer has their own methodology for extracting energy from the waves.”

Wave energy could, for instance, charge up the buoys that landmark the sea. It could power the desalination plants that make seawater drinkable, potentially providing life-sustaining hydration to places like islands that need it most. It could help make aquaculture more sustainable. And it could power electric vehicles at sea.

It’s that last application which is, currently, of the most direct interest to Fao and her colleagues at NREL. In cooperation with Columbia Power, they’re working to build a wave energy converter that can power what is, effectively, an underwater version of an electric vehicle charging station. It’s a station where undersea drones—fulfilling missions like studying ocean life and mapping the seafloor—could stop to recharge.

NREL, in particular, is working on the data side of the project, creating a system called Modular Ocean Data Acquisition (MODAQ). It’s a data collection system that will continuously measure the waves, the currents, the winds, and how the platform moves in the face of all those. MODAQ will allow the scientists behind SeaRAY to understand if the platform works as intended.

“We’re really hoping to also be able to demonstrate our controller capabilities,” says Fao. “So, really, showing that this MODAQ system can be the brains of these wave energy devices.”

There are good reasons for that. For one, putting something out to sea carries inherent logistic challenges. “You need a boat to get out there, whereas a wind turbine or solar power, you can just sort of wander over,” says Robertson. And, in time, the water itself can turn against you—seawater is very corrosive. Over SeaRAY’s six-month-long test, he says, that’s something its creators will need to carefully monitor.

It’s worth it to tap into the power of the waves. Researchers calculate that Earth’s oceans hold more than two terawatts of wave power, equivalent to several thousand nuclear power plants. If there’s a way to turn all that into usable electricity, it could make quite the dent in carbon emissions. Waves, to wit, are always lapping—unlike solar and wind, which aren’t so reliable when the sun hides or when the weather is calm.

[Related: Renewable energy needs storage. These 3 solutions can help.]

But there’s not yet an equivalent to the sprawling solar farms or massive offshore wind developments that are so prevalent in the world of renewable energy. It’s not that wave power is a new idea; patents for wave power have been around for well over a century, and there was a flurry of interest in it during the energy crisis of the 1970s. 

Large-scale wave power has simply never taken off. The logistical challenges have been too great, and no one’s yet found the technology that will allow us to build functioning wave power plants.

So, perhaps it isn’t practical to think so big, at least not yet. Researchers agree: most of the focus at the moment is on individual applications, such as SeaRAY. 

But that doesn’t mean that SeaRAY can’t evolve into something bigger, like a snowball rolling downhill. “If you look at solar, they started with powering calculators,” says Robertson. “We all had one of those calculators in the 80s and 90s that had a tiny little solar panel.”

And for now, the researchers hope that SeaRAY paves the way for all the things we do in the ocean to, in essence, draw their power from the ocean itself.

The post This yellow floatie can churn the power of the sea into electricity appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

One in seven utility customers are connected to a publicly-owned grid throughout the country according to the American Public Power Association. That’s 2,000 towns and cities, including  Austin, Nashville, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Over 40 million people rely on the often misunderstood energy policy. 

In most places across the US,  communities have a privately owned utility like Con Edison—one of the biggest investor-owned energy companies in the country. No shareholders are involved, and excess profits tend to stay within the community that the public power grid is operated in. Because the community is so connected to grid operations and investments, this helps keep the profits in those same communities, the American Public Power Association says. 

When a grid is publicly owned, it means that businesses and homes are powered by a non-profit,  and publicly owned and funded utility.  And according to public power advocacy nonprofit We Are Community Powered, a public power grid is more likely to be cheaper than privately owned grids. 

In recent years environmental activists in the US have advocated for public power grids versus privately or investor-owned. According to advocates, it not only gives citizens direct access to the source of their power, which could improve grid and weather-related issues– like having quicker access to the grid to turn the lights back on after blackouts from extreme heat and high power usage during super hot summers. 

[Related: This century-old technology could be the key to unlocking America’s renewable energy future.]

“Public power is democratic control over utilities, with the primary mission of dependable, affordable energy—not profit for shareholders,” NYC-based writer Nicholas Boni wrote in an op-ed for Bklyner, a Brooklyn-based news publication, earlier this year.  

Boni argues that a public grid would mean less dependability on peaking plants, and fewer power outages for predominantly lower-income communities in NYC, like the 2019 outages referenced in Boni’s article. However, publicly owned utilities don’t solve every energy problem. Don Whaley, the energy industry veteran and president of energy startup OhmConnect, says that having a public grid is not a one size fits all solution to providing better and cleaner energy sources.  

“[Grids] may be independent but they’re also going to be codependent, on the larger grid because grids will fail from time to time…you have to have a backup source,” he explains. “Until battery storage that would give you the ability to become more universally deployed and become a more economically justified revelation today… you’re going to have to have your full backup from the larger grid.” 

He explains that all grids can have moments when they fail, whether privately owned and relying on fossil fuels or publicly owned grids that may lean on solar and wind. Failure could mean using backup fossil fuels in an emergency. 

Luckily, grid-scale battery capacity is increasing– meaning that both public and privately owned grids could become more sustainable and more likely to weather extreme weather events that could partially shut down a grid. And last year the U.S. saw a record 1.2 gigawatts of storage installed, Yale Environment 360 reported. 

Dan Orzech, the general manager at the Oregon Clean Power Cooperative, explains that public powered and microgrids have pros and cons depending on their location and capacity, like if a grid is serving a rural area and needs backups. He also pointed out that some longer-running public powered utilities don’t always gravitate towards sustainable energy sources.  

[Related: Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?]

“Rural electric co-ops traditionally have served the rural parts of the country and they’re not always the most progressive… some are… [But] if you look at it historically, the public utilities, what they call consumer-owned utilities, aren’t necessarily the most interested in renewable energy,” he explains. “It certainly varies by utility.” 

He says that adding renewables to the energy mix depends on the motivation of the consumers. He used the Oregon Clean Power Cooperative, which is member-owned, and investors and customers as an example. Investors have funded projects like having solar panels on schools and on houses of worship. 

Cooperatives and publicly owned utilities bring local jobs and cleaner energy. Progressive groups like the Democratic Socialists of America NYC, argue that a publicly owned grid would push the city towards cleaner energy and more than 30,000 new jobs. Orzech says the connection between investors and owners in smaller grids and co-ops makes for investments that are important to members of that community. 

“People invest their money in these projects and they can see the projects they can go and look at the solar on the roof of their kids school or on their church or on their town’s library… [it creates a] direct connection,” he says. “Members invest for a variety of reasons– some of them are really motivated by climate change and extreme weather events we’re seeing, others want to invest in our community.”  

The post How publicly owned power could shape the future of clean energy appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

When the world gives you hydrogen, make juice (a.k.a. electricity).

For centuries, chemists flexed their creativity to harness power from the most abundant element in nature. Their experiments paid off with a slew of technologies, including hot air balloons, rocket fuel, and rechargeable batteries. Today, the US uses another one of those technologies, hydrogen-fuel cells, to generate 250 megawatts of energy daily. And though that’s only a pinprick of the country’s total electric capacity, experts are questioning how carbon-intensive the method is.

Nearly 95 percent of the hydrogen-fuel cell centers in the US rely on natural gas to feed their battery-like circuits. They apply a process called steam-method reforming, where methane from the natural gas (and occasionally, biogas) is forced apart by searing-hot water and pressure to produce hydrogen molecules. That means there’s a heavy greenhouse gas footprint on the front end and a few carbon byproducts on the back end.

[Related: The century-old technology that could unlock America’s renewable future.]

That might make hydrogen less appealing in the grand scheme of climate-friendly energy production—unless you add a little nuance to the discussion. Enter the “hydrogen rainbow,” a color-coded system for describing the many ways to convert the lightest element on the periodic table into energy. Steam-methane reforming and other natural gas-based methods are called gray hydrogen. Anything involving coal is classified as brown and black hydrogen. And nuclear gets the great distinction of being deemed pink hydrogen. (There’s also turquoise hydrogen, which tweaks steam-methane reforming by creating heat from electricity. But it still gets its CH₄ from natural gas.)  

While some of these approaches have been in practice for decades, they’re either too inefficient or difficult to scale to be considered real energy alternatives. Which leaves green and blue hydrogen, the freshest and buzziest categories on the spectrum.

Green hydrogen takes energy from renewables, cyanobacteria, or algae to separate hydrogen molecules from water through electrolysis. Though it ultimately depends on wind turbines, solar panels, biomass, or dams, it’s easier to store and transport and has better geographic range than the original power sources. The method is taking off in the European Union, with a handful of facilities breaking ground in the next year or two, and is just starting to see traction in the US. Materials scientists point out that producing green hydrogen can cost four to six times more than gray hydrogen, but those estimates should fall as reservoirs of renewable energy rise.

Blue hydrogen, meanwhile, is another relatively new concept that’s being tested out by fossil fuel companies in Texas, Canada, and the United Kingdom. It isn’t a distinct method of converting hydrogen to energy, but is rather a cleaned-up version of gray hydrogen. Instead of letting steam-methane reformation emit loads of CO₂, blue hydrogen uses retrofitted natural gas plants with carbon capture machines to rein in the CO2 emissions from early in the steam-methane reforming process. 

But an analysis released earlier this month by Cornell University climatologists outlines three caveats that make blue hydrogen a bigger polluter than it’s marketed as. First, the authors explain, carbon capture is never 100 percent effective (the technology is still very much in development) and would leave out the byproducts of heating water through combustion. Second, it takes energy to power the machines that trap and pull emissions out of the air: The process itself could produce 25 to 39 percent of the CO2 volume it captures. And third, blue hydrogen only tackles carbon dioxide—leaving out methane gas, another heavyweight when it comes to atmospheric warming.

In all, the analysis found that blue hydrogen produces 75 percent to 82 percent of the same greenhouse gas emissions as gray hydrogen. That contrasts previous claims that it could halve gray hydrogen’s carbon footprint.

The paper also notes that both methods are far less efficient than burning natural gas directly for heat. Much of the fuel piped into US gray hydrogen facilities comes from fracking, which might be responsible for one-third of the increase in global methane emissions over the past decade.

[Related: What companies really mean when they say ‘net-zero’]

“Society needs to move away from all fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and the truly green hydrogen produced by electrolysis driven by renewable electricity can play a role. Blue hydrogen, though, provides no benefit,” the authors wrote in their conclusion. “We suggest that blue hydrogen is best viewed as a distraction, something that may delay needed action to truly decarbonize the global energy economy, in the same way that has been described for shale gas as a bridge fuel and for carbon capture and storage in general.”

So, if you look at the hydrogen rainbow through the filter of sustainability, green is the only color that shines through (with maybe a hint of pink). Other smart solutions could help fill out the spectrum in the future—but if the debate over blue hydrogen makes one point, it’s that you can’t slap a new label on a broken idea and re-sell it.

The post A beginner’s guide to the ‘hydrogen rainbow’ appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

THEY LOOK LIKE MIRRORS: 32 rectangles neatly arranged in eight rows on the rooftop of a supermarket called Grocery Outlet in Stockton, California. Shimmering beneath a bright sky, at first glance they could be solar panels, but the job of this rig is quite different. It keeps the store from overheating.

Tilted toward the sun, the panels absorb almost none of the warmth beating down on them; they even launch some into space, improving the performance of the systems that keep things inside cold. The feat relies on a phenomenon called radiative cooling: Everything on Earth emits heat in the form of invisible infrared rays that rise skyward. At night, in the absence of mercury-raising daylight, this can chill something enough to produce ice. When your car’s windshield frosts over, even if the thermometer hasn’t dipped below freezing? That’s radiative cooling in action.

To Aaswath Raman, who was a key mind behind Grocery Outlet’s shiny tiles, that effect seemed like an opportunity. “Your skin, your roof, the ground, all of them are cooling by sending their heat up to the sky,” he says.

Raman, a materials science and engineering professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, is the co-founder of SkyCool Systems, a startup trying to flip the script on the technology we depend on to create chill. As the world warms, demand for air conditioning and refrigeration is going up. But these systems themselves expel a tremendous amount of heat, and the chemical compounds they use can escape skyward, where they act as a planet-warming greenhouse gas. According to the Birmingham Energy Institute in the UK, these substances and the power involved accounted for at least 11 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. By 2050, more than 4.5 billion air conditioners and 1.6 billion refrigerators are projected to consume nearly 40 percent of all electricity. If it goes mainstream, SkyCool’s tech—and similar approaches in the works from competitors and other researchers—could slow the cycle by naturally lowering building temperatures and easing the energy burden on conventional methods.

After Grocery Outlet put the panels on the roof of the 25,000-square-foot building in late 2019, energy use by the store’s refrigeration system dropped by 15 percent. That amounts to almost $6,000 in savings per year.

It’s hard to say if the installation has grabbed the infrastructural upgrade brass ring and paid for itself. Lime Energy, a national retrofitter specializing in upgrades to boost efficiency, financed the supermarket’s setup costs, which made the panels affordable. To work on a massive scale, though, radiative cooling needs to be cheap to manufacture and install. Make that happen, and it could be one way to conserve power and reduce emissions. “I was somewhat skeptical that you could gain this significant amount of cooling even under direct sun,” says Chris Atkinson, a former program director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), a division of the US Department of Energy (DOE) that funded Raman’s early research. “But once it was explained to me, it sounded plausible—and the results are remarkably compelling.”

CENTURIES AGO, desert-dwelling peoples exploited radiative cooling to make ice. In the evenings, they insulated the walls of large bowls or pits, then poured in water. During the pitch-black night, heat escaped the liquid, and by morning, it was frozen solid.

Architects and physicists were long skeptical that the effect could ever work in daylight. In the 1970s and ’80s, they made various attempts to apply it to buildings using pools of water on rooftops. But the structures were difficult to maintain and still absorbed too much of the sun’s warmth.

Raman’s own interest in the technique took hold in 2012 while he was finishing his doctorate in applied physics at Stanford University. He was fascinated with how materials interact with light and thought about pursuing a career in solar energy. Then he happened upon research discussing radiative cooling and became fixated on whether the effect could ever happen under direct sunlight.

“What’s happening at night is you are losing heat to the sky, and the sky is letting some of that go to space,” he says. “During the day, you want to continue doing that, but at the same time you want to avoid absorbing the sun’s energy.”

Luckily, Raman had nanotechnology at his disposal—a discipline that designs and produces materials through arranging molecules and atoms to behave exactly as needed.

Under the guidance of Shanhui Fan, an applied physics and electrical engineering professor at Stanford, and with a small team from the engineering department, Raman developed the material that now forms the basis of SkyCool Systems. (ARPAE helped with a $300,000 grant; later, the agency awarded the team some $2.5 million in additional funding.) In the labs, he had access to a variety of tools: physical vapor deposition machines, used for producing ultrathin multilayered coatings; scanning electron microscopes to determine the thickness of the layers; and a variety of spectrophotometers, which measured the ultraviolet and infrared properties of the substances.

In less than a year, they created a thin film composed of seven microscopic layers atop a sliver of silver. The slices alternated between hafnium oxide, an inorganic compound that acts as an electrical insulator, and silicon dioxide, or silica, a natural material that makes up quartz, sand, and nearly two-thirds of Earth’s crust.

Acting together, the substances enable a special set of optical properties. For starters, they’re especially good at emitting infrared light. Greenhouse gases and water molecules in the atmosphere usually absorb most of these rays and send them back to Earth. Infrared between 8 and 13 micrometers in wavelength, however, isn’t absorbed by the atmosphere and instead slips into space, so Raman tuned the film to radiate only within that narrow range. What’s more, the material reflects 97 percent of the sun’s beams, enough to generate a cooling effect during the day. “It’s actually sending more heat out to the sky than the sky as a whole sends back,” says Raman.

[Related: How to stay cool without blasting the AC.]

Around 2013, Raman began testing his specialized reflector in the real world. That summer, he set up a small array of panels atop the university’s electrical engineering building. One morning, while checking instruments measuring radiation and reflectivity, Raman placed his hand on one of the sheets baking in the sunshine. It felt cold.

“That was immediately pretty exciting,” Raman allows. In fact, the material was about 9°F cooler than the ambient air temperature, which was well above 80°F, a result he subsequently published in Nature.

Around that same time, mutual friends connected him with Eli Goldstein, who was at Stanford finishing a doctorate in mechanical engineering. The men spent the next two years giving themselves a practical education in air conditioning and refrigeration, talking to manufacturers as well as their customers. In 2016, the pair founded SkyCool Systems—its name a nod to night sky cooling, another term for the physics phenomenon—and set out to commercialize their tech.

ON A TRIP TO MUMBAI to visit his grandmother, Raman had glimpsed just how influential the new film might be. More homes than he remembered from childhood had AC units installed in their windows.

While only an estimated 15 percent of the world’s population—​mostly in the US, Japan, Korea, and China—has air conditioning, its use is precipitously expanding. According to 2015 projections, sales in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are increasing by upwards of 15 percent every year, although India is estimated to be the fastest-growing sector: When Raman was testing his film, residents owned more than 20 million air conditioners; by 2020, it was 48 million. The International Energy Agency (IEA), a Paris-based group that makes policy recommendations to national governments on sustainable energy solutions, projects that Indians will own more than 1 billion units by 2050. It’s a victory for public health—in 2015, more than 2,300 people in the country died in a crippling heat wave—but a harbinger of climate consequences.

Meanwhile, the basics of cooling technology are about the same as when the first electric air-conditioning unit was designed in 1902. AC systems pump a refrigerant—the chemical compound that moves heat and, in turn, causes cooling—through a mechanical system that forces it through several phase changes. The refrigerant funnels indoors through a coil as a liquid, where it turns into a vapor as it absorbs heat. It exits the building and enters a condenser, where the refrigerant is compressed and expels heat to the outside as it turns from vapor back into liquid. That process repeats until the inside is at the temperature set by the thermostat.

The fossil fuels that power this choreography and the chemicals required, however, are major contributors to global warming. In 2016, the DOE reported that stationary AC systems accounted for nearly 700 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions globally every year. The pollution comes from the combustion to produce the power that runs the units and the hydrofluorocarbons used as refrigerants, which are prone to escaping during repairs or retirement. Their effect is “several thousand times higher than that of carbon dioxide,” the report concluded.

[Related: How to stay cool if you lose power in a heat wave.]

In broad strokes, the world is simply starting to use too much air conditioning too quickly—and yet it must, as temperatures rise. This is leading, as the IEA put it in 2018, to an impending “cold crunch.” By midcentury, the juice required to run ACs will become one of the top drivers of worldwide electricity demand, helping to push the planet beyond the point of irrevocable ecological damage. Indeed, our increasing need to lower indoor temperatures is speeding us toward the 1.5°C warming threshold established in 2018 by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Temperatures are getting hotter, and that’s inherently going to mean that air conditioners and refrigeration systems become less efficient,” says SkyCool’s Goldstein.

Eventually, he and Raman realized their panels could have a greater impact on energy usage if they augmented existing climate-control systems. Around 2016, the team ran another trial at Stanford; this time, it set up a rig with thin water pipes running directly underneath. Over three days, radiative cooling lowered the temperature of the water by upwards of 9°F. It wouldn’t be hard to connect the pipes to the condenser of a conventional AC or refrigeration setup, where the superchilled water would help to chill the refrigerant, reducing the overall energy load. One of their models also showed that integrating the technique into a two-story office building in Las Vegas would lower electricity demand by 21 percent during the summer.

Raman and Goldstein decided to launch the business with locations that use refrigeration systems, since—unlike AC—those need to run every hour of every day. Their estimates indicated that electricity savings for cooling infrastructure that runs constantly are greater than 500 kilowatt-hours per year per square meter of SkyCool film. From 2017 through 2019, the company signed up several California customers interested in trying out anything that might lower their bills: a convenience store, a data center, and Grocery Outlet. The 32 panes atop that market cover 62 square meters; data collected so far shows the store is using 100 fewer kilowatt-hours per day, or 36,500 fewer kilowatt-hours every year.

There is a limit, however, to the overall effectiveness of radiative cooling. The best climates in which to deploy the technology are relatively dry with clear skies: California, Arizona, Nevada, and the like. Cloud cover and high humidity reduce the effect during the day, as water molecules in the air trap some of the emitted infrared.

SkyCool is in discussions with the California State University system to use its tech to chill water that will be piped through the ceilings of three classrooms at Cal Maritime. (Goldstein hopes the project will launch in 2022.) But in dry climates, it might be enough to use the panels by themselves. “Imagine instead of having to buy an air conditioner in a small house in India or Africa, you could just put this on the roof,” says Goldstein.

BECAUSE OF THE PROMISE of radiative cooling, other startups have rushed into the field. Engineers from the University of Colorado, Boulder and the University of Wyoming teamed up to create their own film-like material in 2017. Engineers at the University of Buffalo published research in February 2021 on their own version: two mirrors composed of 10 thin layers of silver and silicon dioxide. They’re now trying to bring it to market through their company, Sunny Clean Water.

The big question is how likely people are to implement a brand-new product. “The technology makes sense,” says Jeremy Munday, a University of California, Davis professor who studies clean-energy innovations. “It really comes down to things like the market, the cost, and then just having the motivation to adopt it.”

Raman and Goldstein aren’t disclosing their pricing, but they admit that SkyCool’s future challenges will be on the manufacturing—not the scientific—side of things. A 2015 study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, part of the DOE, estimated that if rooftop materials like SkyCool’s could be built and installed for less than $6.25 a square meter, the costs would be covered by energy savings over five years.

The pair think they can hit a worthwhile price inside three years, in part because they’ve further refined the film they originally tested at Stanford. These days, the precise makeup is proprietary, although it still contains a mix of polymers and inorganic materials. “We’ve figured out ways to do it that are lower cost and better suited to manufacturing,” Raman says.

[Related: This paint reflects up to 98.1 percent of sunlight.]

With the help of a $3.5 million federal energy grant, SkyCool soon hopes to have the sort of connections that could make its film cost-effective. The startup is collaborating with the 3M Company to devise an affordable means of making hundreds of thousands of its films. The goal is to drive down the price enough by 2023 that customers with persistent cooling needs can recoup installation costs in three to five years.

On top of those challenges, other researchers say they can get the same result with paint. The white version tried decades ago didn’t reflect enough rays to create a cooling effect. In 2020, though, Purdue University engineers created an ultrawhite variety that works like SkyCool’s mirrorlike material. According to Xiulin Ruan, a professor of mechanical engineering involved in its development, the product reflects 98.1 percent of sunlight and radiates infrared at the right wavelength to escape into space—cooling buildings midday to 8°F below the ambient temperature.

Ruan admits that the paint is more a supplemental measure. “You still need to turn on air conditioners, but it can offset a lot of the heat from the sun and reduce demand,” he says. In that sense, it’s missing one component of SkyCool: the ability to connect to existing systems and boost their performance. Still, paints have caught Raman’s eye. Last year he co-published an article in the journal Joule discussing the possibility of modifying off-the-shelf paints so they too carry out radiative cooling.

If any of these methods do catch on, no one seems too concerned about sending heat into the final frontier. “If all that energy was emitted back into space, it would not have any noticeable effects anywhere at all,” says Atkinson, the former DOE official who backed Raman’s early research.

For now, SkyCool is trying to win over more businesses. Soon it plans to deploy its panels in office buildings to augment commercial AC. In March, a big-box retailer in Southern California became the latest customer. On the roof, five full rows of the creaseless, mirrorlike films sit between two columns of solar panels—a fitting juxtaposition, considering Raman’s prior interests. Now he wants to cut energy, not produce it.

“All you have to do,” he says, “is put the material outside, and it stays cool.”

Correction: July 21, 2021. An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the temperature change in early tests of the radiative cooling film as 40 degrees F, and put an end date on SkyCool’s relationship with 3M when their collaboration is ongoing.

This story originally ran in the Summer 2021 Heat issue of PopSci. Read more PopSci+ stories.

The post This California company wants to make modern AC obsolete appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

It’s getting hot out here, and cities are struggling to adapt as heatwave after heatwave pummels urban areas all over the United States and the world. 

A recent heatwave that swept over the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. and Canada challenged infrastructure in areas that aren’t used to such high temperatures. Even with heat advisory warnings from public health officials and efforts to stay cool, there were more than 480 reported sudden deaths at the beginning of July across Canada, a 195 percent increase in deaths that would usually happen in a five-day period country-wide. 

The solution to keeping cities cool and weatherproofing them for safer summers may be holistically investing in better, or smarter, surfaces. According to a recently released report from the Smart Surfaces Coalition, cities can mitigate the “heat island” effect by turning dark roads and parking lots into reflective surfaces, utilizing solar panels and green roofs, changing sidewalks to stop stormwater runoff and flooding, and even planting more trees. 

[Related: Here’s how global warming will change your town’s weather by 2080.]

Greg Kats, the CEO of the Smart Surfaces Coalition and one of the many people behind the study says that they focused on the city of Baltimore as an example where climate was affecting the quality of life and revenue, but implementing smart surfaces in cities across the US will vary region by region.

“We’ve done detailed cost-benefit analysis for cities as varied as El Paso and Philadelphia. In El Paso green roofs don’t make sense,” he says. “So you want a bunch of different tools in your toolbox that’s going to respond to the specific temperature and living profile of a city.”

In their analysis, the authors uncovered that the initial cost of investment would be outweighed by the return on investment for many cities in about 20 years. For example, investing in cool roofs in a 20-year adoption scenario in Baltimore would cost more than $100 million, but the value it would generate was estimated to be more than $800 million. The cost to benefit ratio of all the smart surface strategies combined ended up close to 1 to 10. 

For financially struggling cities, smart surface investments would mean better jobs. People would be needed for installing solar panels, planting trees, and changing roads to become reflective, but also maintaining the new green infrastructure for many years. 

Kats also argued that there was an opportunity to make cities competitive for attracting more summer tourists. Visitors who spent money in Baltimore helped sustain more than 86,000 total jobs directly and indirectly in 2018. The tourism industry to the city generated more than $4 billion in tourism-driven revenue in June, July, and August of that year. If temperatures rise too quickly it could lose anywhere from 5 to 20 percent over the next 30 years, which could cost Baltimore thousands of much-needed jobs. 

“The person who’s head of tourism for Baltimore… is already saying that summer heat is a problem for tourism for Baltimore. It’s reducing summer tourism,” he says. “The city can adopt the [smart surfaces] strategy and say ‘hey we’re getting cooler, all those other places you’re thinking of going to in the summer, they’re getting hotter.’” 

Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association which supported the recent report, argued that cities must spend money on infrastructure. Therefore, it makes sense to put in a large investment upfront for financial and health purposes. He also pointed out that higher temperatures hurt lower-income communities of color by making it harder for them to pay for utilities—a cooler city, in a sense, is a more equitable one. 

“The low-income communities pay a higher portion of their income for power so [climate change is] proportionately impacting those communities, not in just the economic aspects of the healthcare problem, but you’re also taking food money off the table… because you have to pay for air conditioning,” he says. 

According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Black, Latino, and Native American households alongside lower-income households pay a higher share of their income on energy bills, sometimes up 8.1 percent of their income on energy costs, as compared to about 2 percent for non-low-income households. Not to mention, the neighborhoods that house people of color and low-income people are often those that could benefit the most from more tree cover and other cooling techniques. 

[Related: These beautiful, terrifying maps show how hot we’ll get in 2090.]

Creating more temperate cities with smart surfaces could also lower public health costs for cities like Baltimore or in traditionally mild regions like the Pacific Northwest where infrastructure has not been adapted for such rapidly rising temperatures. A report released by the National Resources Defense Council this May found that the health costs of climate change related issues now exceed $820 billion per year in the United States. 

A cooler ambient temperature around homes from solar panels and tree coverage, less water runoff from green roots and porous sidewalks could mean better quality of life—and fewer residents overwhelming the healthcare system on hot days or missing out on work and school. 

“This ought to be a built environment strategy that is endorsed at the highest levels of government … I believe it will save lives,” Benjamin says. 

The post Rethinking our roofs, parking lots, and sidewalks could save money and lives appeared first on Popular Science.

Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

As humanity goes wireless, the last pesky tether we and our gadgets have to escape is the power cable. Portable, battery-powered chargers tend to be both inefficient–so low-powered they struggle to recharge modern smartphones–and environmentally unfriendly. There have been off-the-grid chargers that rely on renewable energy before, valiantly attempting to rectify those problems, but most are ineffective without a steady source of wind, solar power, or abhorrent manual labor like cranking, yanking, or shaking (ech).

Enter the next generation of outlet-free power: Micro hyrdrogen fuel cells like Horizon’s MiniPak. The MiniPak claims to bring the ten times the power of traditional batteries while releasing waste in the form of harmless water vapor. But is it practical?

The MiniPak won’t be widely available until later this year, but we got a sneak preview. The charger is essentially a mini-version of the hydrogen fuel cells that automakers (and goofy tinkerers) have been experimenting with for years, with a couple advantages: It fits in the palm of your hand, and it can charge anything with a USB port, from digital cameras to smart phones to all kinds of other gadgets. Oh, and unlike fuel cells that rely on compressed hydrogen, it doesn’t run the risk of exploding–and when things are supposed to explode, we generally prefer they don’t.