A Hail Mary against global warming peril.. (new solar tech)

[gulfcoastliberal]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/13/BAG73HMU9C1.DTL

Long before President Bush told Americans they were addicted to oil, UC Berkeley graduate student Ilan Gur was down in his basement chemistry lab working toward a cure.

Gur thinks big. His goal is to play a part in creating a new kind of solar panel, one so light it could roll off a printing press like newsprint, and so cheap that the world's poorest local economies could not only afford to buy it but also make it.

cut

Gur is one of a number of Berkeley energy researchers hoping to blunt the impact of global warming with the high-tech equivalent of a Hail Mary pass in football. Looking beyond such short-term fixes as conservation, hybrid vehicles and conventionally made alternative fuels, the researchers are joining forces to come up with revolutionary technologies in energy.

cut

For Alivisatos, it's not a question of the world running out of oil; he sees plenty of carbon fuels left to exploit.

"We'll run out atmosphere," he said.

______

Long article, offers perhaps a glimmer of hope. Someone more intelligent than me read it and let us know how realistic the stuff they're working on is.

* Disclaimer: I am neutral on nuclear power, so please no nuke/solar flame fests. This article also speaks of ethanol, and quote "...Andrew Isaacs, a professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, said the solar work is Nobel Prize-level research..."

[amitten]

1. "We'll run out of atmosphere." Exactly what is he implying?

Is he alluding to something other than the global warming we're already aware of? I didn't understand the slant of this quote.

[silverweb]

3. He's not implying anything.

He's stating a literal fact. One of the lethal effects of global warming is the buildup of carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere, as well as the reduction of oxygen production by oceans and the earth's "lungs" in the rain forests. Global warming will suffocate us long before it cooks us.

[amitten]

4. Why is this never ever mentioned in any published articles?

I've been reading about global warming for over a decade--no one ever mentions the possibility of suffocation.

Have you researched this in earnest, or is it just a personal theory? I fully understand the idea but am unsure if there is any proof this kind imbalance is actually proving life-threatening.

[silverweb]

5. They haven't used the word "suffocation" that I've seen.

Too "alarmist" for the media, I guess? This is not a personal theory, but a conclusion that I've read in a number of places -- specifically, in articles about our dying coral reefs and ocean organisms (algae and phytoplankton), the melting permafrost that will release megatons of methane into our atmosphere, the reduction of oxygen production resulting from the decimation of our rainforests, etc, etc, etc. The combination of all these factors is mind boggling in its implications.

I'm basing my statements on accumulated reading over the last couple of years. The process has been accelerating and we may already be past the tipping point. Scientists have been saying recently that things have been happening much faster than they projected.

"Life threatening" is a foregone conclusion.

[amitten]

6. Well I would assume that the powers that be, and the scientific

community at large, would have enough foresight based on current information to find a way around letting the entire planet suffocate.

Um...nobody wants to die. Even the greedy bastards at the top.

[silverweb]

7. We can only hope.

The problem is that finding solutions requires the cooperation of governments and their populations. That cooperation requires understanding of the situation and a willingness to make radical, widespread, mandatory changes. So far, I don't see any amount of that happening.

Most people just kind of assume that "they" will "find a way" to get around the problem without upsetting everyone too much. In the meantime, "they" are arguing about the nickles and dimes of it, who will be in charge, and who will be at the top of the economic heap. Forget about funding scientists adequately to provide immediate and practical remedies -- their budgets are being cut.

Mother Earth will take care of herself. Whether humanity has any chance of enduring depends on our cooperation with her, not visa versa. I'm not terribly hopeful.

[gulfcoastliberal]

8. I'm with ya.

We opt to spend $170/million per day on Iraq rather than invest in making our planet livable. Sigh.

[amitten]

10. It seems to me that alternative energy is only half the problem.

Some scientists say that even if we cut C02 to zero TODAY (obviously impossible) there is still so much of it already in the atmosphere that the consequences are unavoidable.

So...who's working on a way to counteract atmospheric CO2? That is the more immediate problem, because changing to alternative energies will take decades to achieve. And planting trees is a really small solution for a very big problem...you'd have to plant every square foot of land to even put a dent into our C02 output.

[gulfcoastliberal]

11. Since we've already about killed the oceans, might as well seed them with

iron ore to produce CO2 consuming phytoplankton blooms and see if it works. I know a couple of outfits are supposedly working on it.

[jpak]

15. There's been quite a number of ocean iron fertilization experiments

conducted over the last 15 years or so.

None of them succeeded in sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere (they did not result in an enhanced flux of particulate organic carbon to the deep ocean).

Grazers and bacteria effectively (and rapidly) recycled any iron stimulated phytoplankton production back to CO2.

Other researchers have concluded that these schemes - even if they were 100% successful - would reduce projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations by only ~8% and most likely result in enhanced production of nitrous oxide and methane (greenhouse gases nastier than CO2).

Eutrophication of the ocean is no solution to global warming...

[silverweb]

12. Therein lies the problem.

The "powers that be" have been so busy denying the problem and squabbling over the economic fallout of necessary changes that valuable time and funding have been stolen from those who could have been working on solutions for the past 40 years.

And so, for lack of acceptance, agreement, resolve, and leadership, our slide into oblivion continues. Meanwhile, the mad scramble to see who dies with the most toys continues.

[silverweb]

14. Amen.

Instead, we're turning what could be a paradise into a hell.

:(

[Dead_Parrot]

13. CO2 isn't going to get THAT high

IIRC, to be toxic, CO2 concentrations have to be in the 10,000 ppm+ range: Not even we can fuck the planet that far. The main problem with the oceans is that the CO2 forms carbonic acid, which you don't want to live in - bad new for fish and corals.

Most plants actually do quite well in high CO2 atmospheres, but since we've cut down most of the forests we're still screwed anyway.

[skids]

2. It's realistic tech, but still back a ways in the pipeline.

It's nanocrystal and nanodot stuff, which is an entirely new solar field. Incidentally there's been another very interesting potential use found for nanodots, which could result in virtually unbreakable lightbulbs that are even more efficient than compact flourescents (see here)

In addition to that field, there's a flurry of research going on in applying nanotech advances to some of the older solar techs that weren't quite cutting it, to make them competitive, or to improve mono-Si.

But as to what's at the end of the pipline the tech that seems most likely to seriously pose a challenge to mono-Si is CIGS. Though the aSi triple junction stuff and string ribbon stuff are certainly interesting too and starting to scale up.

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. Well I hope these things pan out.

And hope the release of nanotech particles into the environment doesn't cause further pollution issues. Thank you for explaining.