Archive for the Category »environment «

Jun

It’s here now…if only we could stomach it….

“Mmmmm,” Jill uttered breathlessly, in the rapt voice of someone joyously surprised with herself. “Perfumy, tastes like salty apples.”

“Like a scented candle blended with an artichoke,” added her friend, scooping out and swallowing the grayish, slightly greasy “meat”.

What ARE they eating that is so delectable, you might ask? Well…you asked… It is a 3-inch long South Asian water bug that looks uncannily like a cockroach. Ironically, as a biologist, I harbor an unreasonable aversion to that insect.

The giant water bug (Lethocerua indicus) is just one of many insects available for the tolerant palate. In fact, 1,400 species of insects are commonly eaten around the world with the practice dating back thousands of years. Cave paintings in Altamira, north Spain, dated to about 9,000 to 30,000 BCE, depict the collection of wild bee nests. At the time people must have eaten bee pupae and larvae with the honey. Cocoons of wild silkworm (Theophilia religiosae) were found in ruins in the Shanxi province of China, dating from 2,000 to 2,500 years B.C. The cocoons had large holes in them, suggesting the pupae were eaten (Capinera, 2004). Many ancient entomophagy practices have been passed down to the present, forming traditional entomophagy (Wikipedia). In Botswanna and Zimbabwe, insect gathering has become commercialized. Rural villages in southern Africa harvest caterpillars from the local mopane trees, which have been a traditionally important source of protein but more recently are being packaged and sold as a regional delicacy, according to Josie Glausiusz of Discover Magazine (May, 2008). “Kungu cakes” – made from midges – are a delicacy in parts of Africa. Mexico is an insect-eating – or entomophagous – hotspot, where more than 200 insect species are consumed. Demand is so high that 40 species are now under threat, including white agave worms. These caterpillars of the tequila giant-skipper butterfly fetch around $250 a kilogram (New Scientist, March, 2007). Lana Unger, of the University of Kentucky, and Gene R. De Foliart of the University of Wisconsin, provide extensive lists of insect snacks from around the world.

In Colombia Hormiga culona (literally “fatass ant”) Atta laevigata is served at movie theaters in addition to popcorn.

There is good reason to believe that these somewhat unsavory creatures (at least to most North Americans) can provide a significant portion of our nutritional needs in the future. Given the latest figures from the United Nations of 854 million people around the world who went hungry in 2003, here are some good reasons to consider them:

1. A United Nations report released in 2006 placed the livestock industry in the top three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems we are facing, from local to global. The report noted that livestock production was responsible for 18% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, more than what is produced by transportation worldwide. Meat production is expected to double by 2050.
2. Insects are very nutritious. The female gypsy moth, for instance, is about 80 per cent protein. While they contain slightly less protein by weight than beef (e.g., a 100 grams of giant water bugs, for example, contains 20 grams of protein to 27 grams protein for the same weight of beef), grasshoppers contain one third of the fat of beef and water bugs almost four times the iron. Insects generally have a higher food conversion efficiency than more traditional meats. For example, studies concerning the house cricket (Acheta domesticus), when reared at 30°C or more and fed a diet of equal quality to the diet used to rear conventional livestock, show a food conversion twice as efficient as pigs and broiler chicks, four times that of sheep, and six times higher than steers when losses in carcass trim and dressing percentage are counted (Capinera, 2004). Most insects are cheap, tasty and a good natural protein source requiring less land and feed than raising cows or pigs. By weight, termites, grasshoppers, caterpillars, weevils, house flies and spiders are better sources of protein than beef, chicken, pork or lamb according to the Entomological Society of America. Also, insects are low in cholesterol and low in fat.
3. Raising insects has low impact on the environment and require little water. While it takes 869 gallons of water to produce a third of a pound of beef (a large hamburger), a quarter pound of crickets only requires a moist paper towel, refreshed weekly. Many insects are far cleaner than other creatures. For example, grasshoppers and crickets eat fresh, clean, green plants whereas crabs, lobsters and catfish eat any kind of foul, decomposing material as a scavenger (bottom water feeder).

Along with nutrition comes the added benefit of good taste, according to William F. Lyon of Ohio State University (check out his recipes!). Doug Whitman, Entomologist at Illinois State University, enjoys eating raw yellowjacket larvae which have a sweet, nutty flavor. Gene R. DeFoliart, retired Entomologist at the University of Wisconsin, prefers the greater wax moth larvae (deep-fried will melt in your mouth, tasting like bacon) and crickets deep-fried have a crunchy, tangy flavor. He feels the honey bee has a good chance of becoming an American bug food. A pound of honey bees is about 3,500 bees. They can be put in an oven at low heat for eight hours and then used in flour for cookies. Some feel insect popcorn, using crickets, would be a new theater treat.

Insect-eating even has its own term: entomophagy.

David Gracer is a self-described “geeky poet/nature boy” who teaches in Rhode Island and founded a company called Sunrise Land Shrimp. He recently attended a United Nations workshop on entomophagy in Thailand. “I would love to counteract the portrayal of entomophagy that we see on Fear Factor and Survivor,” he said to Josie Glausiusz of Discover Magazine.

Another advocate of entomophagy is Robert Kok, chairman of the department of bioresource engineering at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec. “I’ve been working for a long time on trying to convince people that farming insects for the production of animal protein and other materials might be a good idea,” said Kok to Discover Magazine. “Even if they didn’t want to eat them ‘whole hog’ so to say, it would be possible to extract the protein and oil from them and then manufacture food products from those components.”

Well? I’m not rushing off for cricket popcorn just yet… but perhaps I should at least try it… I’ll let you know… Any takers?

References:
Capinera, John L. (2004). Encyclopedia of Entomology. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-8670-1.

Share and Enjoy:

Category: eating insects, entomophagy, environment, food, future food, insects 8 Comments

Apr

Somerset Bob—Friday Feature

Nina Munteanu

His Tag line reads: where the true and the real are often confused.

He calls himself Somerset Bob. “Because throughout my professional life, I’ve often found myself explaining to people that I’m ‘the other’ Bob Kingsley,” he says rather apologetically. “It’s about time that changed. I don’t want to be the other any more. I want to be my own man. I need a new ‘handle’.” … Well, I think he’s found it. And, along with it, a worthwhile cause…

On January of this year, Bob Kingsley wrote this mission statement on his blog, ‘Somerset’ Bob’s Place:

”I’m not a scientist, but since June 2007 I’ve been gathering evidence for climate change from various diverse sources and speculating as to the possible future outcomes indicated by that research. As the months have passed I’ve become increasingly concerned that we’re heading for a sudden, catastrophic climatic event. By “sudden”, I mean just that: not a gradual change over centuries or decades — something to which we might, if we’re lucky, be able to adapt — but an event that will overwhelm us over a matter of a few years or even a single year or season. I’m searching for any evidence that underpins that view and narrows the time-frame so we might know when to expect the change. I’m not preaching about what we as individuals should be doing, I’m warning about what I’m increasingly convinced will be the consequences for us all, no matter how much or how little we each do to minimise our individual energy/carbon footprints. This is not to say we needn’t bother doing anything — far from it. By “thinking globally and acting locally”, as the saying goes, we may be able to delay the catastrophe, which will be a good thing — for people of my generation at least, if not for the next — but as I gather and analyse the information that’s out there, I’m becoming persuaded that despite our best individual efforts, it will ultimately overtake us.” Words reflected grimly by the British maverick scientist, James Lovelock (but that’s a later post of mine).

Bob has posted many stellar articles on climate change. Here are some of them:

Defeat Global Warming? Just Think About It (results of a US university’s study)
The UK Floods (summer flood hits the UK)
Climate Change: Sunspots? Or Us? (BBC News item)
UK Floods: The Crisis Deepens (floods invade southern counties in Britain)
Climate Change: Competing Theories (Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream and Superstorm theory)
Gore Gored by British Judge (facts vs. facts…)
North Polar Meltdown (Al Gore and the NOAA report)
More Climate Change Indicators (latest BBC reports)
Superstorm Authors Vindicated (about the Gulf Stream and superstorm theory)
The Maya and the Arctic Meltdown (Mayan calendar and the end of the world in 2012)
Antarctic Ice Loss Confirmed (latest research)
Sudden Climate Shifts Predicted (journal findings)
Polar Meltdowns: More Evidence Emerges (about the Antarctic’s Larsen B ice shelf breakage)
Being Economical with the Truth (is there really human-induced climate change?)
Antarctic’s PIG Threatening Sea Levels (glacial shrinkage and global sea level rise)
There Goes the Sun (China’s coldest winter in 100 years)
When More Means Less (more about the Arctic winter sea ice debate)

You might know Bob as “Bob Kingsley” through his work as a radio presenter and voice-over artist. You might even think he’s the other Bob Kingsley, but here in cyberspace they call him ‘Somerset’ Bob, and these days he likes to be thought of as a voice-over man and writer. You can hear his sexy voice right here and read some of his writing here.

Here’s Bob’s potted history: Bob has been associated with the UK radio business in one way or another all his adult life, including working as a radio show presenter at various commercial stations in his younger days, but best known as a voice-over artist for nearly 30 years. You’ll find some demo MP3s posted under the Work category of his blog.

But, says Bob, “I really set up [his blog] to give myself an outlet for my lifelong wish to be a writer. Now I’m no longer constantly dashing hither and yon pursuing work in a mad, youthful frenzy, I want to spend more time honing my skills in this noble art, flexing my creative muscles. I’m hoping to write a novel–look for posts about that in the Writing category. I’m also creating what will eventually be an online archive of all my earlier attempts at creative writing. Even if they’re only ever read by a handful of others, I’ll be pleased. They’ve been filed away on my computer or hidden away in desk drawers for years–putting them up on the web is just another way of storing them, except now anyone will be able to read them if they wish. I always wanted people to read my stuff. Isn’t that what any writer wants?”

Yup. So true, Bob!

Share and Enjoy:

Category: Bob Kingsley, Somerset Bob, climate change, environment, friday feature, global warming, radio, voice-artist, writing 6 Comments

Apr

Climate Change–Part 2: Solastalgia

Nina Munteanu

Solastalgia: the sadness caused by environmental change or loss.

Solastalgia: the distress caused by the lived experience of the transformation of one’s home and sense of belonging and is experienced through the feeling of desolation about its change.

“Australia is suffering through its worst dry spell in a millennium. The outback has turned into a dust bowl, crops are dying off at fantastic rates, cities are rationing water, coral reefs are dying, and the agricultural base is evaporating,” wrote Clive Thompson of Wired Magazine last December in a compelling article on “How the Next Victim of Climate Change Will Be Our Minds”.

Glenn Albrecht (professor at the School of Environmental and Life Sciences at the University of Newcastle) described his fellow Australians’ reactions:

“They’re getting sad.”

Australians described a deep sense of loss as they watched the landscape around them change and deteriorate: familiar plants not taking; gardens not growing; birds disappearing… Albrecht believes this to be a new type of sadness, a feeling of displacement. “They’re suffering symptoms eerily similar to those of indigenous populations who were forcibly removed from their traditional homelands,” said Thompson.

Albrecht gave this syndrome an evocative name: solastalgia. It encompasses the roots of solacium (solace) and nostos (return home) with algia (pain)—yet another paradox that aptly conjures the word nostalgia. In essence, says Thompson, it’s “pining for a lost environment.”

“The homesickness you feel when you’re still at home,” says Albrecht.

“It’s fascinating…to think about the impact of global warming,” says Thompson. “Everyone’s worrying about resource management and the spooky, unpredictable changes in the ecosystem. We fret over which areas will get flooded as sea levels rise. We estimate the odds of wars over clean water, and we tally up the species—polar bears, whales, wading birds—that’ll go extinct.” But, Thompson warns that we should also be concerned about the huge toll climate change will inflict on our mental health.

During his research, Albrecht noticed that the more quickly environmental change occurred, the more intense the solastalgia. For instance, in the Australian outback, where open-pit mining has created moonscapes seemingly overnight, the suicide rate in the region skyrocketed. In New Orleans, a Harvard study revealed that survivors of Hurricane Katrina reported suffering a “serious mental illness” at about double the rate of the city’s residents three years earlier. Although trauma and personal loss played a large role, one should not discount the powerful effect of physical environmental loss as well.

All this reminded me of the nightmare I suffered last month and the nagging thoughts of climate change that have lingered with me since then…nay, since my earlier experience of that unseasonal tornado in Louisville, Kentucky. Albrecht has given what I feel a name: Solastalgia.

Where I live I don’t personally experience strong environmental change (with the exception of the odd weather mishap like ice storms and atypical snow for this Med

iterranean climate). In fact, we are having a wonderful spring season here, with the cherry trees and the crocuses in my garden already blooming and tulips not far behind. But, while I don’t see the devastation and change around me, I feel it. Acutely. Since childhood, I remember having this feeling, this emotional link to my beloved planet and a growing sadness for what we are doing to it (the reason I pursued a science degree and became an environmental consultant). I still remember being sternly lectured by a high school teacher about my “misdirected” efforts to enlighten my school about global pollution. “You’re putting up posters about taking care of the planet when you should be focusing on your neighbourhood,” he chided me. It was then that the penny dropped for me: not everyone thought about their planet like I did.

But, surely, we are all part of Gaia. Let me rephrase: surely, we ARE Gaia…the woman walking her child to school…the young grocery boy taking your bags to the car… the blooming cherry trees growing along the side of the road…the birds singing on the power lines…the clouds scudding overhead or the rain spattering our faces… We ARE the planet, the living, breathing planet Earth. And the malaise of our planet is our own malaise. Humanity’s malaise.

Most of us reading this post live in a fast-paced stressful world, where many of us find ourselves coping day-to-day to “survive” the copious demands on our time, energy, brains and feelings. How can anyone in that frame of mind be expected to willingly take on the burden of thinking about the entire planet?!? Are we trapped in a shockwave of fretful living without even realizing it? “In a world of cheap airfares, laptops, and the Internet, we proudly regard mobility as a sign of how advanced we are,” Thompson quips sarcastically, “Hey, we’re nomadic hipster capitalists!…Only losers get attached to their hometowns.” Only losers care about their environment…

I am reminded of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, the 1927 classic dystopia about the social crisis of a world where the selfish “dreams of a few had turned to the curses of many” (Fritz Lang, Metropolis). There is a scene in this evocative film where creative men of antiquity decide to build a monument to the greatness of humanity, high enough to reach the stars and reminiscent of humanity’s hubristic construction of the Tower of Babel. It is a world dom

Metropolis new tower of babel Climate Change Part 2: Solastalgia

inated by technology and the greed of few; where the bulk of the people are dehumanized workers, who more resemble machines in their jerky rhythmic movements and laconic faces than the oppressed humans they are. It is a world whose “heart” (the intermediary) is missing between its “brain” (those who conceive and run the city) and its “hands” (those who labor to make it a reality).

And I am reminded of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven.” The rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, teaches that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that “what is mine is mine and what is yours is

Sodom and Gomorrah Climate Change Part 2: Solastalgia

yours,” which was interpreted as lack of compassion. Classical Jewish texts describe the sins of Sodom as cruelty and lack of hospitality to the stranger.

In the Bible, God said: Now, this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen—Ezekiel 16: 49-50.

Some Kabbalistic mystics (e.g., Menachem Tsioni; others) described the Tower of Babel as a functional flying craft, empowered by powerful magic and/or technology and originally intended for holy purposes but later misused to gain control over the world. An escape ship, perhaps? A kind of arc? We have no flying tower. We just have Gaia. Our home. And what are we doing to our home?

Laments Thompson, “In a world that’s quickly heating up and drying up, you can’t go home again—even if you never leave.”

Share and Enjoy:

Category: Bible, Clive Thompson, Earth, Gaia, Glenn Albrecht, Kabbalah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Tower of Babel, climate change, drought, environment, global warming, mental health, science, solastalgia 3 Comments

Mar

Climate Change–Part 1: Human Health—Friday Feature

Nina Munteanu

This is the first in a new series I’ll be posting that deals directly with climate change, a topic of great controversy among scientists still and one meriting discussion among us here. Okay, I lie: I posted several articles already that touch on this subject. I touched upon the chaotic nature and interrelatedness of climate and weather in my post on chaos theory. In two blog post

al gore Climate Change Part 1: Human Health—Friday Feature

s, “Climate Change & the Nobel Peace Prize” and “Blog Action Day—Truth”, I devote lengthy discussion to the dedicated work of Al Gore, his film, “the Inconvenient Truth” and generate lively discussion on the topic (check out the comments pages!). In “Tornadoes Connected to Global Waming?” I described my own personal experience with the

tornado02 Climate Change Part 1: Human Health—Friday Feature

historic unseasonal tornadoes in the US earlier this year and how some believe this is related to climate change and is a sign of more to come. In “Polar Cities” I describe Dan Bloom’s concept for surviving the aftermath of global warming and explore the need for paradigm changes. Then in “The Complexity of Nature” I discuss how perspective plays a role in our perception of both our future and that of our planet.

I left off with a discussion—actually a series of questions—related to “scale” and whether or not we should intervene, when everything that we are and do is PART of the global network already. Is it simply that we are being hubristic once again by seeing things from a strictly anthropomorphic view? Perhaps, it isn’t our place to succeed, but rather to secede to something more suited to what is yet to come… I’d like to think that it may be neither, rather that these global events will hasten our own evolution into a higher form. But I’m getting way ahead of my own series. Because today’s post is entirely from a human’s viewpoint and concerned with our own well being. Much of the information here is from an article written by the medical community in Nova Scotia, Canada. I start with some very interesting statistics. For instance, did you know that:

Close to 8% of all non-accidental deaths in Canada are caused by air pollution resulting from by-products of burning fossil fuels.

Following smog days, hospital admissions for respiratory problems increase by 6%, admissions of infants with respiratory problems increase by 15%.

Forecasts show that without reductions in fossil fuel consumption, in 20 years there will be a 60% increase in particulate emissions with a corresponding increase in respiratory illnesses, hospitalization and health care costs.

A report by the US National Academies’ National Research Council, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, warns that people can expect “climate surprises” in the form of “large, abrupt and unwelcome regional or global climatic events,” including drought, floods, extreme heat, hurricanes, (how about unseasonal tornadoes?…) and rising sea levels. Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, says the report indicates that “we’ve underestimated the rate of this change, we’ve underestimated the sensitivity of biological systems, we’ve underestimated the cost of global warming.”

Epstein and other authors published a paper in the Canadian Medical Association Journal where they suggested that the direct effects of climate change to humanity include: illness and deaths from heat waves, drought, floods, storms and the breakdown of systems in the aftermath of weather disasters. Indirect effects would include decreased crop productivity owing to pests and climate change, changing water availability, lower air quality, rising sea levels and animal-based diseases appearing in regions in which they had previously been unheard of.

I dedicate this Friday Feature page to the stellar websites and blogs devoted to educating us, challenging us and guiding us on climate change, some of which appear below. Please check them out and let me know of any sites you think should be included that I’ve neglected to include.

The David Suzuki Foundation on Climate Change
Environment Canada’s page on Climate Change
The International Institute for Sustainable Development on Climate Change and Energy
Climate of Our Future
Climate Ark
Real Climate
Climate Feedback
Climate Change Action
Talk Climate Change
Global Climate Change
Grenedia
GlobalWarming.org
Global Warming: early warning signs
Global Warming Blog
Climate 411
Climate Crisis
Global Warming Futurist

Share and Enjoy:

Category: Al Gore, air pollution, climate change, environment, friday feature, global warming, science, unseasonal tornadoes 12 Comments

Feb

Harnessing the Sun’s Energy/Across the Universe

Nina Munteanu

The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year — Zweibel et al., 2008

Energy from the sun travels to the earth in the form of electromagnetic radiation similar to radio waves, but in a different frequency range (Natural Resources Canada). Available solar energy is often expressed in units of energy per time per unit area, such as watts per square metre (W/m2). I’m told that the amount of energy available from the sun outside the Earth’s atmosphere is about 1367 W/m2, which I’ve calculated is nearly the same as a high power hair drier for every square meter of sunlight (okay, someone told me that too!)…

“Solar energy obviously harvests the sun, which on its own currently provides 99% of the world’s natural energy,” say authors of the University of Michigan website for alternative energy. The use of solar fields and solar panels is in effect today, just not on an extremely large scale. Some of the downsides of solar energy include the fact that they are relatively expensive to build at first, and that they only harvest energy when the sun is out.

According to Natural Resources Canada “There are many ways that solar energy can be used effectively. Applications of solar energy use can be grouped into there are three primary categories: heating/cooling, electricity production, and chemical processes. The most widely used applications are for water and space heating. Ventilation solar air heating is also growing in popularity. Uptake of electricity producing solar technologies is increasing for the applications photovoltaics (primarily) and concentrating solar thermal-electric technologies. Due to recent advances in solar detoxification technologies for cleaning water and air, these applications hold promise to be competitive with conventional technologies.”

Solar energy has the following advantages over conventional energy:

The energy from the sun is virtually free after the initial cost has been recovered.

Depending on the utilization of energy, paybacks can be very short when compared to the cost of common energy sources used.

Solar and other renewable energy systems can be stand-alone; thereby not requiring connection to a power or natural gas grid.

The sun provides a virtually unlimited supply of solar energy.

The use of solar energy displaces conventional energy; which usually results in a proportional decrease in green house gas emissions.

The use of solar energy is an untapped market.

“By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions.” suggest Zweibel et al. (2008). Their recent article in Scientific American (January, 2008 issue) suggests a plausible scenario by 2050: 69 percent of electricity in the U.S. and 35 percent of its total energy would be supplied by solar energy. This would, of course, involve a massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy currently in use in North America.

Here’s what it would look like: a vast area of the Southwest would be covered in photovoltaic cells with excess daytime energy being stored as compressed air in underground caverns (to be tapped during nighttime). Large solar concentrator power plants would deliver a direct current power transmission backbone of solar electricity across the country.

In order for this scenario to happen, though, $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fun the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive, says the article. How likely is that? If the government recognizes that the payoff is far greater to the investment, then it is a good bet that this could indeed happen. Here are some of the advantages: solar panels consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars annually. The solar infrastructure would replace an inefficient and fuel-glutting system of coal-fired power plants and gas plants. No oil would be imported, along with the obvious headaches associated with that endeavor. And here’s the part I really like: solar technology is virtually pollution-free, and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons a year. Another 1.9 billion tons of gas emissions would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid, according to Zweibel et al. Furthermore, these authors contend that that by 2050, U.S. carbon emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels and suggest this would as much as end global warming. The authors further suggest that by 2100 renewable energy could generate 100 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and more than 90 percent of its energy.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, here’s a look at some things we can expect in the future from solar technologies:

“All our buildings will feature energy-efficient design, construction, and materials as well as renewable energy technologies. In effect, each building will both conserve energy and produce its own supply, to be one of a new generation of cost-effective “zero-energy buildings” that have no net annual need for nonrenewable energy.

“In photovoltaic research and development, there will be more breakthroughs in new materials, cell designs, and novel approaches to product development. In a solar future, your mode of transportation—and even the clothes you wear—could produce clean, safe electric power.

“With today’s technology roadmaps to lead the way, concentrating solar power will be fully competitive with conventional power-generating technologies within a decade. Concentrating solar power, or solar thermal electricity, could harness enough of the sun’s energy to provide large-scale, domestically secure, and environmentally friendly electricity, especially in the southwestern United States.

“The enormous solar power potential of the Southwest—comparable in scale to the huge hydropower resource of the Northwest—will be realized. A desert area 10 miles by 15 miles could provide 20,000 megawatts of power, and the electricity needs of the entire United States could theoretically be met by a photovoltaic array within an area 100 miles on a side.
Within 10 years, photovoltaic power will be competitive in price with traditional sources of electricity.

“Solar electricity will be used in an electrolysis process that separates the hydrogen and oxygen in water so the hydrogen can be used in fuel cells for transportation and in buildings.”

Zweibel, K., J. Mason and V. Fthenakis. 2008. By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions. In Scientific American, January 2008 issue.

Share and Enjoy:

Category: environment, green energy, science, scientific american, solar energy 4 Comments

Archive for the Category »environment «

Pages

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Meta

Archive for the Category »environment «

Popular Posts

Pages

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Meta