Climate, food, water and energy — they’re all connected

Friday afternoon, the National Climate Assessment Advisory Committee – a consortium of 13 federal agencies — released its 3rd draft report on the impact of climate change on the U.S. As seems to be the rule with federal documents, it’s monstrously long, but fairly readable and the online table of contents is easy to navigate.

I went directly to the section on the Southwest to see what’s in store for the desert. It’s unsettling reading.

– Snowpack and streamflow amounts are projected to decline, decreasing water supply for cities, agriculture and ecosystems. 

 

– The Southwest produces more than half the nation’s high-value specialty crops, which are irrigation-dependent and particularly vulnerable to extremes of moisture, cold and heat. Reduced yields from increased temperatures and increasing competition for scarce water supplies will displace jobs in some rural communities.

– Increased warming, due to climate change, and drought have increased wildfires and impacts to people and ecosystems in the Southwest. Fire models project more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive areas.

– Projected regional temperature increases, combined with the way cities amplify heat will pose increased threats and costs ot public health in Southwestern cities which are home to more than 90 percent of the region’s population. Disruptions to urban electricity and water supplies will exacerbate these health problems.

The not-so-subtle subtext here are the integral and finely balanced connections between food, water and energy — and the potentially dangerous disruptions that could occur as climate change drives more erratic and warmer weather.

Those connections are made more explicit in the report’s section on Water, Energy and Land Use:

“Energy, water and land systems interact in many ways. Energy projects – coal-fired power,  biofuel, solar farms – require varying amounts of water and land; water projects – water supply, irrigation – require energy and land; and land activities – agriculture, forestry – depend upon energy and water. Increasing population and a growing economy intensify these interactions. Climate change impacts each of these sectors directly, and because of the many connections between them, sectoral responses are often intensified or offset.”

Backing all this up is another report released Monday, Food, Water, Energy: Know the Nexus, from the Grace Communications Foundation, a New York group that works on a range of sustainablity issues.

The report’s introduction lays out the issues by looking at the water, food and energy that goes into a pizza. Taking into account the water required to grow the wheat, mill the flour and produce the mozzarella, your basic cheese pizza soaks up 333 gallons of water, or enough to fill 10 bathtubs.

“Producing one calorie of food requires about one liter of water,” the report continues. “That means you ‘eat’ more water than you drink.”

The amount of energy used to make pizza is mind-boggling to conceptualize, let alone put a number on — think about how much electricity might be needed to pump water to grow the wheat, produce fertilizers and even the electricity required to manufacture the pizza oven.

The report contains many eye-opening figures, such as the amount of water used each day to cool power plants in the U.S. – 58 billion gallons from the ocean and 143 billion gallons of fresh water — more than used for agriculture or public drinking water.

Climate change could mean first less water to cool plants and second, warmer water, which may not even be able to be used at all.

The National Climate Assessment notes:

“The projected warming of water in rivers and lakes will reduce the capacity of thermal power plants, especially during summer when electricity demand skyrockets.”

The Grace Communications report ends not with recommendations, but with a list of the things we don’t know – where, when, and how much water we use; the quantity and quality of our groundwater; the true economic costs of environmental degradation — and the problems that arise from looking at food, water and energy issues in isolation.

The nexus approach the report promotes also fits well with the kind of collaborative, and adaptive decision making process the National Climate Assessment says will also be key to finding effective responses to climate change. Policy going forward must be science-based and flexible, acknowledging the uncertainties involved and the need for ongoing evaluation and adjustment, the report says.

In other words, when it comes to climate change, we will never know everything and even if we did, it would change almost immediately.

But what is abundantly clear from both reports is that action is essential now.

 

This holiday, eat green, shop green

The season of excess is upon us — Thanksgiving, when overeating is practically compulsory,  as is overspending on Black Thursday-Friday. The sales are so good, you just had to buy that kilowatt-guzzling laptop, cell phone, large-screen TV, etc.

I daresay I will be pilloried as an unpatriotic holiday killjoy for what follows, but before insanity descends, let’s stop, take a few deep breaths and think about making the holidays a little less wasteful, food and power-wise.

Dana Gunders, a project scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, has put together some rather unsettling, but well-documented numbers about the environmental impact of our Thanksgiving meals and the food we throw away afterwards.

Turkey with all the fixings, courtesy of the Associated Press. It's 48 hours before Thanksgiving; do you know how much carbon dioxide your holiday meal will emit?

– Producing one pound of turkey meat requires 520 gallons of water and produces 5 kilograms of carbon dioxide.

– As I type, shoppers across the country are buying an estimated 736 millions pounds of turkey — about 581 million pounds will be actual meat. Figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicate that about 35 percent of that — 204 million tons — will be thrown out.

– Going back to our water and CO2 figures, that means about 1 million tons of CO2 and 105 billion gallons of water, on top of all the food wasted.

“This outlandish wastefulness may seem absurd, but only because it’s rare that we stop and appreciate just how much goes into getting food to our tables,” Gunders writes.  “It’s the ultimate irony, really.  We feast to celebrate that our ancestors had enough food to survive their first winter, acknowledging that once upon a time food was something to be grateful for.  Then the next day, we throw half of it away.”

Needless to say, the possibilities for leftover turkey are virtually endless. A Google search on “leftover turkey recipes” delivers 3,230,000 results in .21 seconds.

The Food Network website has a video for a leftover turkey and Brie grilled cheese sandwich that looks absolutely killer.

The NRDC also has an energy-efficiency expert, Noah Horowitz, who has some good tips for having a greener Black Friday.

Buying Energy Star computers, TVs and other appliances is pretty much a no-brainer at this point, the Energy Star website even has a list of its most efficient TVs. But, Horowitz also says to look for the yellow Energy Guide label that provides information on how much power a device uses, televisions and appliances have to have them.

Energy Label E420VA_B003DV55YO__V142464664_.jpg

Horowitz also gives you another good reason to splurge on that iPad — it’s 10-times more energy efficient than a laptop and 35 times more efficient than a desktop computer.

How you set up your new devices also makes a difference, he says. A new TV has a choice of settings, and the most energy efficient will be the “home” or “standard” options; going with a “vivid” or “retail” setting uses 15 to 30 percent more power and could add $50 to $100 to your electric bill over the life of the set.

Going green for the holidays — it really doesn’t take a lot of time and, in the end, it could actually give you much more to be thankful for.

 

 

 

Solar thermal fights back; FedEx expands its electric fleet

Every day, 5,000 times more energy shines down on the Earth from the sun than it takes to power the entire world.

That enlightening factoid comes to us today from the solar industry’s newest trade group, the Concentrating Solar Power Alliance. CSP, as it is called in the industry, is what most of us call solar thermal — where panels or troughs collect or concentrate heat from the sun, which is then used to heat a liquid, create steam and run a generator.

Large-scale solar thermal projects have had a tough time in the past year, what with the pressure from falling photovoltaic panel prices and permitting challenges related to how much water they use.

In the Riverside East solar zone, the public land east of the Coachella Valley, three of the first four fast-track projects were originally solar thermal — Solar Millennium’s Blythe and Palen projects and NextEra Energy’s Genesis project.  As most local readers are aware, both Blythe and Palen are now on hold, presumably being retooled as PV plants by their new owner, solarhybrid.

Only the 250-megawatt Genesis project, now under construction, has remained solar thermal, and NextEra’s next project planned for the region, the 750-megawatt McCoy plant, is PV.

BrightSource, one of the three solar thermal companies behind the new organization, also has a local solar thermal project in the works, the 750-megawatt Rio Mesa plant on private land near Blythe.

Making the world a little more welcoming to solar thermal is where the new group comes in, building on the efforts of a new international organization, the World Solar Thermal Electricity Association. Both groups are clearly aimed at promoting the benefits of solar thermal technology to energy markets. 

While more expensive upfront, the alliance says that solar thermal plants are much more reliable than PV projects and produce power that can be stored to match peak energy demands.  Another plus, they can keep operating even when the sun is not shining. 

Solar thermal also produces more construction and permanent jobs than PV plants.  A 2006 study commissioned by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab for the Department of Energy found that a 100 megawatt solar thermal plant creates more than $600 million in impact to gross state output, ten times that of a fossil fuel plant due to the local content and job creation.

With PV clearly the technology of choice right now, and panel prices continuing to move toward grid parity — it will be interesting to see  how CSPA will market itself and its projects.

In other breaking green tech news today, Smith Electric Vehicles of Kansas City, Mo.,  unveiled a new all-electric truck that FedEx will be adding to its fleet throughout the rest of the year.

FedEx put its first all-electric vehicles on the road in Los Angeles in March 2010.

The new FedEx electric vehicles will have a range of 100 miles on a single charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The new trucks will have a range of about 100 miles on a single charge, which makes them ideal for urban delivery routes.  Don’t know if we’ll see any in the valley, but hats off to FedEx for its ongoing efforts.