Solar thermal power is generated by building a field of concave mirrors that focus the sun’s heat onto a liquid encased in pipes. The liquid is superheated and used to generate steam that powers turbines, generating electricity. In the south west, where open desert land and sunlight are plentiful, they are building these facilities as fast as they can. They are completely unrelated to conventional solar panels that convert light into electricity but are very costly to build.

“On sunny afternoons, those 10 plants would produce as much electricity as three nuclear reactors, but they can be built in as little as two years, compared with a decade or longer for a nuclear plant. Some of the new plants will feature systems that allow them to store heat and generate electricity for hours after sunset.”

NYTimes.com (link above)

New designs that focus the heat onto towers will work in less sunny areas. With a lot of discussion about starting to build new nuclear plants which are very efficient but create an unsustainable stream of radioactive waste, it’s important to understand that we have very clean alternatives. There are environmental impacts of building these large facilities on open land but they are nothing compared to the impact of any conventional energy source such as coal, gas or nuclear.

A team of US climate scientists using computer models has determined that there is no flexibility in how much greenhouse gas emissions we can continue to emit if we want to stop warming. The only viable goal is zero emissions. The value of this is that it gives us an unsullied goal, one that is easy to measure but very difficult to achieve. In fact I suspect the target we really have to shoot for is a negative emissions goal, one in which sequestration is an equally important part of the total number. This will be necessary to offset the growing demand for and use of energy worldwide by a rapidly growing global population. Those of us in the Western world have a responsibility to go beyond zero in our carbon emissions.

Could we finally stop the insanity over biofuels? They are nothing more than a gimmick created by the purveyors of corn seeds. Dirty, unstable, costly, increases the prices of thousands of other products and extremely dangerous from a carbon cost perspective. Great stuff.

Not.

Bamboo is the hot new ’sustainable’ material because it grows ultra-fast (it’s a grass) and it can be used for everything from building materials to fabrics. And it’s very attractive, durable and cost-efficient. So what’s not to like? Nothing unless this stuff is traveling thousands of miles to reach an end-user. This is a major dilemma of the carbon economy.

I don’t buy a lot of organic products in spite of a commitment to cutting the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Why? Because the last quart of organic milk I bought traveled all the way across the US before it got to me. There is a balance to be determined between environmentally beneficial labels like ‘organic’ and ‘fair trade’ and the carbon cost of some of these products above and beyond their other benefits.

I’ve had basic discussions with the optimistic 21st century hippie types who run my local holistic food store and it’s not a comfortable conversation. If you imply that organic milk may actually be bad for the environment if it comes from Oregon and you live in NY, you’re treading in religious belief territory for many folks who’ve been fighting the good fight for a long time.

Unfortunately, carbon cost is now another factor in making buying decisions if you are a responsible consumer. And BTW, buying used and local is a great way to limit carbon costs if you need stuff.