University of Cincinnati researchers built an artificial photosynthetic foam based on the foam created by the Tungara frog during mating. (image: newsimg.bbc.co.uk)

The Tungara frog is a semi-tropical frog found in Central and South America, and known for creating foam nests that nurture offspring while they develop into tadpoles. Now researchers at the University of Cincinnati have used Tungaras’ foam nests as the basis for the design of their own foam that will conduct artificial photosynthesis, reported PhysOrg.com on Tuesday. Like natural photosynthesis in plants, the artificial foam converts sunlight and carbon dioxide into sugars; those sugars can then be converted into ethanol or other biofuels, according to Assistant Professor David Wendell, one of the researchers.

The foam contains enzymes from plants, bacteria, frogs, and fungi to allow it to conduct photosynthesis. Producing sugars from artificial photosynthesis could avoid several obstacles that confront production of other biofuels. First, the foam is more efficient at converting sunlight to sugar than real plants, because plants have to devote some of their energy toward staying alive. Second, the foam doesn’t need to be planted in soil so it doesn’t compete for land with food production. Third, the foam can be used in high-carbon dioxide areas—such as near coal-burning power plants—where high CO2 levels would essentially drown plants impede natural photosynthesis.

As with most advances in the sometimes-strange world of biofuels research, the next big challenge is using this technology in a large-scale application. Filling your home heating oil tank with fuel produced by foam designed to be like the foam nests of a semi-tropical frog seems like a long shot—but using the ancient remains of dinosaurs and plants to heat our homes and run our sounds a little farfetched, too.

Although gasoline at $7 per gallon seems unthinkable to many Americans, researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs say it’s the only way to meet current emissions reduction goals. (image: psychologytoday.com)

On Tuesday, the New York Times’ “Dotearth” blog reported on a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard that concludes that the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources would be to push gasoline prices to $7 per gallon. To reach the Obama administration’s goal of cutting greenhouse emissions by 14 percent from 2005 levels in the next 10 years, the report says, the government must simply use taxes to make driving more expensive. The 14 percent goal was included in the Environmental Protection Agency’s fiscal 2010 budget.

The researchers looked at models of different approaches to cutting emissions from the transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of America’s oil. The researchers determined that how much Americans drive was far more important than how they drive or even the type of cars they use. Without any taxes or other steps to increase the price of gasoline, they warned, “vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030.”

The huge political risk associated with jacking up fuel taxes make the possibility of Congress taking action on the issue appear extremely slim, at least at this time. But perhaps circumstances will change in the next 10 years and Americans will not greet $7-per-gallon gasoline with fiery rage but rather with grudging acceptance. If and when that day comes, heating oil users can expect similar taxes on their heating fuel—unless of course they have by then largely switched over to clean burning, renewable biodiesel to keep warm.

President Obama tours the job training center at IBEW headquarters in Lanham, Maryland where he spoke about energy policy and announced new government support for the construction of nuclear power plants. (image: baltimoresun.com)

President Obama once again hammered home his belief that green energy technology development is the most important avenue to economic recovery and a brighter future for America. Speaking at a training center for energy technicians in Maryland yesterday, Obama announced federal loan guarantees that will allow for the construction of a new nuclear power plant in the US for the first time in over 30 years (watch a video of the speech below).

Obama fit the announcement into a larger context, once again calling for comprehensive energy legislation that provides incentives for the energy industry to move away from fossil-fuel sources that produce carbon emissions and toward low- and zero-emissions electricity generation. Although nuclear reactors do produce dangerous waste, they do not produce carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas emissions, unlike CO2-spewing coal-powered plants, which generate the bulk of US electricity. Obama framed the move as an embrace of bipartisanship, as many Republicans have favored construction of new nuclear power plants to help meet America’s energy needs.

Early on in his ten-minute speech, Obama mentioned biofuels as an important part of America’s clean energy future, reiterating the support he voiced in his State of the Union speech last month. He also made clear his belief that comprehensive energy reform (including provisions to encourage greenhouse gas emissions reduction and development of renewable energy technology) is a necessary part of American energy evolution. Despite that support, three separate energy reform bills are currently stalled in Congress, with little hope of moving forward any time in the near future.

Much like his State of the Union Speech, Tuesday’s remarks by the President offered renewed support for energy reform but no specifics. Obama’s continued touting of biofuels as a crucial part of the nation’s future energy mix keeps hope alive for future government support for biofuel development. Putting some money behind Obama’s words, the Department of Energy did announce $80 million in funding for biofuel research last month. The current reality, however, is harsher: the domestic biofuel industry is reeling after Congress allowed the $1 per gallon producer credit to expire at the end of 2009, and a renewal of that credit was recently dropped from a Senate bill.

Looking forward, it seems that government funding and incentives for biofuel development will continue, though it will probably be sporadic and relatively focused. Despite Obama’s words, increases in the prices of crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil will likely do more to spur growth in the biofuel industry than will intermittent and unpredictable government support.

For heating oil users waiting for biofuel heating oil to really make a splash in the heating oil market, rest assured that the time will come. But with low oil prices and a slow-moving federal government, that time may be several years or even a decade away.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

President Obama follows through with Copenhagen promise, but the Senate’s role is still unclear. (image: timesonline.co.uk)

In encouraging but slightly underwhelming news, the United States gave formal notice to the UN last week that it would embrace the Copenhagen Accord and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Guardian, Todd Stern, the State Department envoy for climate change, told the UN that America “could cut carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.” Of course, he added, such action would be contingent upon Congressional climate change legislation.

The Guardian found the announcement especially encouraging coming on the heels of Wednesday’s State of the Union address, in which President Obama promised to move forward with his energy and climate change agenda. The 2020 commitment is only a first step, to be followed with a 42 percent cut in 2030, and a cut of more than 80 percent by mid-century.

Under the watered-down accord reached in Copenhagen, countries were expected to offer formal proposals of action by January 31. But with an “elastic” deadline, many fear any momentum generated by the Copenhagen talks has fizzled. Obama’s recent pledge to continue with the climate agenda, as well as his embracing the Copenhagen Accord, is hoped to generate some continued movement.

As both the Los Angeles Times and TreeHugger.com pointed out Friday, Obama’s move was somewhat bold since following through with his pledge will be impossible without approval from the Senate. Although the bill has passed in the House, its prospects in the Senate are uncertain amid the debate over healthcare and after the recent special election that took away a Democratic senate seat.

Global reaction to Obama’s UN pledge has been virtually nonexistent, with most news outlets focusing on the news of the national budget released Monday. Besides the obvious importance of economic news in this global recession, it is likely that many see this pledge as nothing more than good intentions. The real news will be if and when the Senate can make it official.

In regards to commitments made by other nations, the Maldives blows everyone out of the water with a promise of 100 percent carbon neutrality by 2020. China has stuck to its course of lowering carbon intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, which would leave it free to infinitely raise emissions, making it very difficult for other developed nations to make compensating cuts. The EU has pledged to cut its emissions by 20 percent by 2020, while India has pledged a carbon intensity reduction of 20–25 percent. Canada has matched the US target of 17 perfect by 2020, and Japan has ambitiously reiterated its plan to “achieve absolute emissions cuts” of 25 percent, providing other developed nations follow suit.

In addition to the Grist article cited above, you can find a comprehensive list of 33 nations and what they have pledged to cut on the US Climate Network’s website.

According to Black & Veatch, in 2034 windmills like these won’t provide much more energy than they do now. (image: media.supereco.com)

What will America’s fossil fuel consumption look like two decades into the future? Not much different from the picture today, to listen to the predictions in a set of findings by energy consulting firm Black & Veatch. The New York Times Green Inc. blog picked up the story yesterday, summarizing the firm’s findings with a minimum of commentary.

According to Black & Veatch, by 2034 our dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas will have declined less than 10 percent—from 76 percent to 68 percent of the total. Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal will account for that decline, growing from 5 percent now to 13 percent. Coal plants supplying electricity will decline, but this will occur primarily because of the retirement of aging infrastructure, not due to any major shift in usage.

The Times points out that there are several factors that do not play into this analysis, with nods to the unknown results of possible cap and trade policies, as well as the growth of the renewable energy sector. Black & Veatch’s projections are rather bleak on that score, however. Not only do they predict that California will not achieve its ambitious goal to power the state with 20 percent renewable energy by the end of the year, they believe that by 2034 it still won’t have reached the longer-term goal of 33 percent (due to take place by 2020), though only just. The firm also suggests that growth in renewable energy technologies will slacken off once states such as California have met their legislated renewable portfolio standards (RPS).

Largely missing from this picture are several important developments of recent months that could have substantial bearing on whether our energy grid will shift away from fossil fuels. On the legislative front, both a climate bill that is currently bogged down in the Senate, which would cap carbon emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels, and the EPA’s December endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases could do much to alter the costs of supplying power and heat with fossil fuels in a future much nearer than 2034. In addition, market forces governing oil prices—and the finite nature of oil and other natural reserves—may change Black & Veatch’s picture rather dramatically. After a brief decline from the high crude oil prices of last winter, the cost per barrel has climbed back up into the neighborhood of $70–$80 (with some decline last week), and several analysts predicting that prices may remain that high—or higher—for a long time to come. With oil at such prices, it seems probable that a shift towards renewable energy could occur of its own accord.

Pickens remains committed to energy independence, but is cutting back on wind power. (image: jurvetson via flickr.com)

T. Boone Pickens, recently an outspoken (and somewhat unexpected) proponent of wind power, has changed course again. Pickens announced earlier this week that he is reducing his investment in wind to focus more exclusively on natural gas. The Dallas Morning News reported that the former oilman’s company, Mesa Power, LP, will be taking a delivery of only 300 wind turbines, down from an order he announced in May of 687 turbines.

Those turbines were meant to become part of an ambitious wind farm in Texas; now, none of the turbines will be sent to the Lone Star state. Pickens told reporters that America has only one resource that can compete with oil “and it’s natural gas.” Pickens said that one reason wind energy has become less important is because of the drop in the price of natural gas.

The change in Pickens’ energy interest—wind energy was one of the lynchpins of his Pickens Plan—likely won’t earn the billionaire any points with environmentalists though, as the New York Times notes. The paper highlights that, once again, Pickens has “tweaked the Pickens Plan in a way that just happens to conform with his changing business interests.” The paper goes on to note that many of Pickens’s business investments will benefit if natural gas usage were to rise.

See video here or below.

A natural gas drilling rig. (image: danielfoster437 via flickr.com)

Signifying the rising importance of unconventional energy resources and the developed world’s slow movement away from crude oil, in 2009 the United States overtook Russia as the world’s largest producer of natural gas. On Tuesday, Upstreamonline.com reported that America’s overall production for 2009 rose approximately 3.7% for an estimated 624 billion cubic meters of natural gas. According to Department of Energy data, “minimal hurricane disruptions and significant growth in production from onshore shale basins have contributed to the increase in domestic supply.”

However, America’s increased production does not entirely explain why the U.S. became number one in natural gas for 2009. A significant reason for the shift resulted from tremendous Russian losses, especially from the country’s state-owned natural gas company (and subject of a rousing, if not frightening anthem), Gazprom. It is estimated that Russian output fell by nearly 12 percent last year, to 582 billion cubic meters. However, news that the United States has increased its domestic production of natural gas may put a stop to Gazprom’s crooning. Prior to hearing the news, Gazprom was reportedly hoping to obtain as much as 10% of America’s natural gas market by 2020; however it seems that a spiraling Russian economy and shrinking European demand for Russian natural gas have all but dashed those hopes.

American gains in domestic natural gas production could be a sign of the future. The above Department of Energy reference to increased shale basin production largely refers to the Marcellus Shale formation, an underground rock formation that spans from Kentucky and Ohio to upstate New York and is believed to contain up to 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Much of this massive reservoir of natural gas was inaccessible until new advancements in extraction techniques such as hydrofracking allowed gas companies to drill deeper and reach farther.

However, extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale formation does not come without controversy. Hydrofracking, which consists of sending mixtures of dangerous chemicals underground to break up underground rock, is potentially dangerous to the environment and nearby communities. It has been reported that hydrofracking can result in chemically tainted, radioactive, and even flammable drinking water. This potential for harm has resulted in numerous debates over whether or not the resources obtained through such methods are worth the risk.

While many Americans believe that natural gas production is the future of American energy development, if the United States is going to continue its efforts to expand domestic natural gas production, it will have to do so by means of extracting from difficult areas such as the Marcellus Shale formation. However, before this can be done, numerous difficult issues are going to have to be sorted out between gas companies, extractors, environmentalists, and land owners.

Senator Lindsey Graham. (image: media.counton2.com)

Bucking criticism from fellow Republicans and drawing praise from Democrats and environmentalists, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reiterated his call on Tuesday for the federal regulation of greenhouse gasses, The State reported.

Speaking at a climate-change conference in Columbia, SC, the senator described a cap-and-trade bill that would reduce US carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020, while including allowances for offshore oil drilling and nuclear power. “Whatever political push back I get I’m willing to accept because I know what I’m trying to do makes sense to me,” Graham said. “I am convinced that reason, logic and good business sense, and good environmental policy, will trump the status quo.”

In December, Graham began drafting the bill with Senators John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn). Advertised as a bipartisan (or even tri-partisan) compromise on climate-change legislation, the proposal is clearly meant to appeal to both sides of the aisle. For liberal and moderate Democrats, the bill outlines a cap-and-trade system that would curb carbon emissions by requiring companies that wish to exceed emission limits to buy credits from those producing smaller amounts of greenhouse gasses. For Republicans and conservative Democrats, who tend to criticize cap-and-trade’s cost to energy industries (especially coal producers and petroleum refiners), the bill includes extra allowances and funding for offshore drilling and nuclear power.

Of course despite Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham’s best efforts, not everyone is pleased by the proposal. Environmental groups, like the ocean-preservation organization Oceana, have suggested that an increase in offshore drilling could create a higher risk of spills, although other environmental groups have been less critical, admitting that an agreement that included a key Republican is a step forward. Likewise, certain Democrats have rejected the party’s agenda, urging President Obama to save climate-change legislation for next year, after the 2010 elections. For example, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said that she has strenuously asked the White House to place cap and trade on the back burner.

Given the general resistance to climate-change legislation, Senator Graham, one of only a few Republicans who have shown any interest in curbing global warming, has demonstrated himself to be an indomitable spokesman for the cause. Even after the Lexington County Republican Party voted to censure him for his views on climate change, Graham appeared at the Columbia conference to have lost little hope that a bill will eventually be passed. Suggesting that the proposed legislation is tied to the very future of America, Graham argued that his bill would boost the flagging US economy while reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Yet, while his remarks were met by a standing ovation from his audience, Senator Graham’s message is still lost on many members of Congress, who will ultimately determine the fate of climate-change legislation, and with it, perhaps, the fate of the nation.

NYT writer Thomas Friedman. (image: treehugger.com)

New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman said on Tuesday’s edition of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show that the UN’s climate change conference in Copenhagen was an “unprecedented breakdown” as opposed to an “unprecedented breakthrough” (video below). After all, the end result of the much discussed summit was a non-binding resolution that may not have any impact on carbon emissions, as HeatingOil.com reported on Monday.

But all is not lost, he says; if the United States creates its own climate change policy, and one that successfully launches a “green economy,” the rest of the world will follow suit and will look towards America for leadership. But it will be tough, as nations like China, India and Brazil are gaining in worldwide influence and becoming stronger competitors with the US by the day.

Copenhagen ends with a bust, with or without the U.S. President's closing speech. (image: washingtonpost.com and nazret.com)

In what could be the final nail in the coffin of the erratic Copenhagen negotiations, President Obama took the stage Friday, saying he was convinced the world could still act “boldly and decisively” on climate change, but offering little in the way of solid examples. The president proposed no further financial commitments of support beyond the $100 billion Hillary Clinton announced yesterday, nor any additional commitments on emissions reductions. He did say America would live up to its pledges to the international community, and hoped the world could walk away with at least something, anything, on paper.

As the Huffington Post pointed out, Obama’s speech was full of open frustration. “I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt,” he said. Even on this last day, the talks are in a state of disarray, with wide chasms still remaining between rich and poor nations, as well as China and the United States. Obama made it clear that the United States’ participation in any deal would be contingent upon accountability and transparency from other nations, specifically China. “Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page,” Obama said. And without such mechanisms in place, any pact “would be a hollow victory.” Read the full text of Obama’s speech here.

After his speech, the president and China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, met for 55 minutes, trying to reconcile some of their differences. A White House official declared that the two leaders ”made progress,” but did not elaborate.

Reactions to the speech ranged from stunned disappointment to ambivalence; nobody thought the speech was a home run. Keith Johnson of the Wall Street Journal gathered together a cross section of reactions, including the BBC’s:

Around the Bella Center, delegates huddled around TV monitors listening with rapt attention - some, doubtless, hoping that the president would bring a rabbit out of a hat, a conjuror sprinkling some magic dust to create a fairytale deal out of what is at the moment a bottomless morass of texts and tensions.

Perhaps this assessment of the world’s expectations of President Obama is the most fair. While the president’s speech was disappointing, it would have been excessively optimistic to think he could sweep in and make everything all right. Yes, America came to the table with weak promises at best. However, the challenges which faced this conference from the very start haven’t gone away, and the U.S. alone can’t rectify them. China’s stubborn refusals to bend on key points, along with deep fractures between the rich and poor have crippled these talks. While delegates continue to talk and negotiate into the evening, it’s all but certain that the world is walking away from Copenhagen virtually empty-handed.