Image from: Inorg. Chem., 2009, 48 (21), pp 10001-10017

Earlier this year, JRSE reported on a New York Academy of Sciences meeting that included mention of Prof. Daniel Nocera's (MIT) presentation on hydrogen production. In January, I wrote:

Nocera recently gained worldwide attention for his recent discovery of an inexpensive, abundant, and safe catalyst that efficiently and rapidly splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. The remarkable discovery has been covered in MIT's Technology Review and the New York Times, to name a few. Although some chemists have balked at calling the discovery "groundbreaking" it's hard not to get excited by Nocera's energy and charm. Nocera is willing to bet that a "personal energy production and storage system" (like one based on his technology) will change the way the world functions.

Now Nocera is making some more exciting noise. This time, he has just published an article in Inorganic Chemistry outlining his vision of the day when "personalized solar energy" is the norm. The article describes an inexpensive method of solar energy storage that could theoretically provide power for homes and plug-in cars—all without the need for a grid. Nocera explains that the demand for energy worldwide will double by 2050 and triple by the end of the century—concluding with "...a research target of solar [personal energy] provides the global society its most direct path to providing a solution for its sustainable energy future."

It's hard to ignore such a powerful voice in the research world, and if you didn't take the hint the first time, keep your eye on Dr. Nocera's team and their research.

Sifting through the vast library here at the American Institute of Physics Publishing Center, I often come across pristine copies of amazing little books that nobody, it seems, has read. My favorite example, is "Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction," by Paul J. Nahin. Nahin comes across with a kid-in-a-candy store enthusiasm that reminds me (in an endearing way) of Doc Brown, the genius yet obviously insane time travel inventor in Robert Zemeckis's Back to the Future films.

So, there are some little treasures to be dug up in the libraries around the office. Another more relevant find is "Climate Change & Energy Policy," by Louis Rosen and Robert Glasser. The most intriguing part about reading this book—which is a collection of presentations from the International Conference on Global Climate Change held at Los Alamos in October 1991—is the kind of time travel effect (and you thought that intro was all fluff... I was setting you up the whole time!) you experience by reading the views the world's leading climate scientists had 18 years ago.

Here are a few quotes I think are especially notable:

From "Assessing Global Climate Change: When Will We Have Better Evidence?" by J.D. Mahlman, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA:

...scientifically, much was known about this problem 15 years ago, while much will remain uncertain 15 years from now.

I find this especially poignant since we're basically 15 years in the future and here we are... indeed there are still uncertainties.

"When Will We Have Better Evidence for Climate Change Due to Anthropogenic Emissions?" by G.S. Golitsyn, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, USSR Academy of Sciences, concludes with:

So if you are in government, business, or education, do not ask, when will we have better evidence? The evidence is enough to start moving in the right direction of conserving natural resources and using them in a more efficient way.

From "National Energy Strategies and the Greenhouse Problem" by Irving M. Mintzer, Stockholm Environment Institute:

If current policies and strategies continue unchanged, and if the resulting trends in the emissions of these gases continues, there is a significant risk of rapid and disruptive climate change in the decades ahead. To reduce the risks of rapid climate change while preserving the prospects for economic development, national energy strategies must be modified to increase the efficiency of energy use and to develop cleaner, safer, and less carbon-intensive supplies of energy.

From "Global Trends in Energy Use: Indications for Research" by Robert N. Schock, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

Even conservative world-energy scenarios show the need for more energy from clean sources beyond what coal and nuclear are likely to provide. We must invest financial resources now in a broad range of technologies to ensure that these sources are available.

From "The Greenhouse Effect: Political Decision Making and the Application of Upwelling/Diffusion Models" by Peter Laut, Engineering Academy of Denmark:

...grave difficulties are likely to arise for the political decision maker, especially because of the long time delay between the investment now of national resources in order to counter climatic change, and the resulting benefits, which may first materialize in the distant future in the form of a somewhat more moderate rise of global temperatures.

From "Energy Policy in the Light of Global Climate-Change Uncertainty" by Alan T. Crane, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress:

Some want to increase energy supply, in particular by allowing drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge or by expediting nuclear reactor licensing... Most consider it a low-priority issue as long as energy supplies are adequate and prices low.

From "Session Two of the Panel Discussions and Conclusions on Integrating Climate-Change and Energy Policy" by Virginia Oversby, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

I get a feeling that we're putting emphasis on changing from coal to renewable energy technologies or non-carbon energy production technologies and using global warming as an excuse for doing this... This should be a first-principles argument. We should separate the climatic effects, which are important to discuss, from this more fundamental issue.

From the "Concluding Observations: Integrating Climate-Change and Energy Policy from Charles Keller and Robert Glasser"

The task before us is to determine how we can improve the dialogue between the climate scientists and the people responsible for contributing to the science of energy production and transportation and the energy-policy makers.

And finally, from Louis Rosen's (Los Alamos National Laboratory) "Summary Talk and Concluding Remarks:

Serguei Kapitsa coauthored, some years ago, an innovative book that dealt with the insanity and futility and danger of the arms race. In it was argued the thesis that we must learn to think differently and behave differently. This, I gather from our conference, must now be done with respect to environment and energy. Old habits, old assumptions, and old value systems must be reexamined. Some must be abandoned, others altered. This is terribly difficult. But the peoples of the USSR and Eastern Europe are showing us that it is not impossible to recast one's vision of the world, and in a relatively short time.

There are a couple of striking things about this quote. The first: Rosen's speech was given on October 24, 1991. On December 8, 1991, the Belavezha Accords were signed, declaring the Soviet Union dissolved and replacing it with the Commonwealth of Independent States. Of course, Rosen and the rest of the world had already seen independent states form within the Soviet Union, so the signs were already there, but I think that the bigger point is clear: there are more important things than power struggles between nations—the world will need to work together to solve our real problems.

And finally, it's notable that Louis Rosen passed away on August 15 of this year. There's not much I can say about Rosen that the New York Times hasn't already said, so I'll leave it at that.

"A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs" is a report released by the National Economic Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy last month. The 22–page report outlines the Obama administration's vision for building economic growth in a sustainable fashion.

The report covers a lot of ground and includes broad ideas, such as "Restoring American leadership in fundamental research," as well as more specific goals, like increasing the focus and effectiveness of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education.

The outline is presented as a 3–tiered pyramid (click for larger image):

The Administration's strategy is presented as a three–tiered pyramid, the base of which is labeled "Invest in the Building Blocks of American Innovation."

The base is comprised of developing and investing in fundamental research and education as well as the creation of a world–class workforce, physical infrastructure, and the development of an advanced information technology ecosystem.

The second tier serves to creative competitive markets and consists of export promotion, opening capital markets, encouragement of entrepreneurship, and improving public sector and community innovation.

The third tier focuses on the Research & Development of new ideas and technology, and includes developing and investing in clean energy, advanced vehicle technologies, health care technology, and working on the "grand challenges of the 21^st century."

A couple of the examples given for the "grand challenges" are really cool:

• Make solar cells that are as cheap as paint
• Build green buildings that produce all of the energy they consume.
• Create biological systems that can turn sunlight into carbon–neutral fuel
• Quickly and inexpensively dispose of radioactive wastes and toxic chemicals.

All in all, it's an exciting document for the research community—and hopefully the entire country. Along with previous distribution of stimulus funds, this shows that the administration realizes that funding basic research is crucial to rebuilding a sustainable economy.

Download the complete document from OSTP.gov: PDF.

FYI: The AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News also covered the document.

According to the 2009 SCHOTT Solar Barometer,^TM solar energy has now become the most popular thing since baked potatoes (toppings? your choice). A remarkably high 94% of all Americans say it's important for the United States to develop and use solar energy. The findings break down along party lines like so:

• 98% of Independents, 97% of Democrats, and 91% of Republicans support development of solar
• 74% of Independents, 72% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans favor extension of Federal tax credits for renewable technologies
• 77% of Americans feel Federal government should make solar power development a national priority

Not to sound to cynical about a very positive thing, but... what the heck? Aren't these types of high approval ratings usually reserved for inoffensive things like cute little kittens or walks on the beach? I honestly don't even think kittens would have such a high approval rating. And I just have two words about the walks on the beach: broken glass.

The results seem to definitively say that Americans overwhelmingly want the government to push forward with solar energy right now. In fact, looking over the questions, there are no glaring flaws in the survey's methodology.

A few more interesting results from the survey:

• When asked to choose one energy source to provide financial support for:
  • Solar was picked by 41% of respondents compared to coal (3%), nuclear (10%) and natural gas (15%)
  • Renewable energy (solar or wind) was selected nearly 20 times more than coal.
• When asked "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The development of solar power and other renewable energy sources, including the financial support needed, should be a major priority of the federal government"
  • Nearly eight in ten (77%) Americans say the development and funding of renewable energy should be a "major priority" for the federal government.
  • More Independents (86%) than Democrats (84%) or Republicans (75%) agree that such support should be a "major priority".
  • Only one out of ten Americans felt development of solar power should not be a major priority of the federal government.

Far be it for me to argue with numbers like these. I wonder how many Americans would approve of these numbers? One might guess that the support for the results of this survey would be far lower than the actual survey results were.

The Road to Sustainability (Physics World)

George Crabtree from Argonne and John Sarrao from Los Alamos give a us a view of what technology looks like when it's sustainable; they proceed to lay out an outline of what hurdles researchers need to overcome to achieve a truly sustainable energy economy.

Democrats Unveil Ambitious Draft Climate Change Bill To The US Senate (WorldChanging.com)

Led by Senators Barbara Boxer (CA, D) and John Kerry (MA, D), the Democratic congress has set before the Senate a bill that pushes for a 20% reduction of CO2 from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050. Kerry and Boxer are stressing that the bill could create 1.9 million new jobs by 2020 and that decreasing the reliance on foreign oil will increase the security of the United States.

Energy Awareness Month 2009 (DOE)

October is Energy Awareness Month, a national effort to empower citizens to reshape the energy economy and be part of the solution to climate change. This year, the theme is "A Sustainable Energy Future: Putting All the Pieces Together."

1st International Conference on Materials for Energy (Dechema.de)

The program of this conference will cover current topics and recent progress in the science and technology of energy and new materials, including the nanoscale origin of macroscopic properties. All aspects of materials for energy production and conversion, energy storage, energy transport, and energy saving will be addressed.

Texas Completes $1 Billion Wind Energy Complex (CNET.com)

A couple hundred miles west of Dallas, 100,000 acres of land are covered with wind turbines. One of the world's biggest wind farms was completed and is now operational near Roscoe, Texas. The 627 wind turbines will provide 781.5 Megawatts to 230,000 Texans.

I'm allowed to be a little tough on the Cincinnati Reds. They may be16 games behind the Cardinals, but as an Ohio native, there'll always be a soft spot in my heart for them. So you can imagine my pleasure as I opened up an email this morning and found the statement: "The Reds' Great American Ball Park is among the greenest ballparks in the country." Reds win! (Sort of...)

The quote came from a recent press release issued this morning from the National Biodiesel Board, which quotes Red's outfielder Chris Dickerson, Kansas City Chiefs' quarterback Matt Cassel, and the Indianapolis Colts' tight end Dallas Clark. All of whom are members of We Play Green, a group that works to unite athletes in encouraging environmental awareness and promoting alternative energy. We Play Green was founded by Dickerson with help from Cleveland Indian Jack Cassel. That whole state is pretty awesome.

What the teams are actually doing are really just implementing some simple ideas, but because they're being put into place on such a large scale (for example, last season, the Reds sent 8,234 gallons of used cooking and motor oils to be refined for biodiesel), they can result in big savings. Plus We Play Green's bigger goal is to promote using biodiesel as a fuel, as well as to demonstrate conservation in practice to their fans.

The "green" changes at the Great American Ballpark include:

• Composting grass clippings
• Using biodiesel blends for facility vehicles, such as maintenance vehicles and equipment, tractors, and emergency generators
• Waste oil from kitchen and concession stands are collected to produce a biofuel blend

Visit WePlayGreen.org to find out more about all the athletes who contribute.

Read the original press release at the National Biodiesel Board.

For more info on the NBB's activities, visit they're homepage, biodiesel.org.