Pacific threats: no strangers for Hawai'i

Our ocean is at risk.

A new study by Stanford University researchers looked at a vast array of previous studies about the Pacific, and concludes that there's trouble in our Paradise.

(Image: The oceans report's cover. Credit: Center for Ocean Solutions.)

Interestingly, for anyone familiar with issues in the coastal ocean around Hawai'i, most of the conclusions won't come as a surprise: big issues include sewage and runoff from the land, habitat destruction, overfishing, invasive species, climate change.

In the Islands, think of clouds of sediment pouring into the sea after a heavy rain. Think of dredged reefs and ships aground. Think of why you can't count on catching dinner on a shoreline fishing trip. And think of the tangles of invasive limu choking Kane'ohe Bay. Think of eroding beaches and dying corals.

The study by the Center for Ocean Solutions is “Pacific Ocean Synthesis: Scientific Literature Review of Coastal and Ocean Threats, Impacts, and Solutions.” The Center for Ocean Solutions is managed by the Woods Center for the Environment, at Stanford University.

Primary report authors are Margaret Caldwell, Tegan Churcher Hoffmann, Steve Palumbi, Jessica Teisch, Chelsea Tu. It is available here: http://www.centerforoceansolutions.org/PacificSynthesis.pdf.

One of the issues with scientific research, of course, is that there are lots of researchers studying different pieces of the elephant, but seldom does anyone step back and view the whole elephant.

This report tries to do that.

It “summarizes and distills the scientific literature and highlights common trends in and around the Pacific Ocean regarding threats, impacts and solutions through the review of more than 3400 scientific articles and reports.”

The lead scientists got together and reviewed their work in Honolulu in August last year.

Among their findings: “a review of environmental threats across the Pacific Ocean shows remarkable similarity between the major problems experienced in poor and rich countries or territories alike, in densely settled areas and in rural zones, in populous countries and on small islands. Across these diverse areas, there are three pervasive and serious local threats: pollution from sewage and land runoff, habitat destruction, and overfishing and exploitation. We classify invasive species, which can be considered under both pollution and habitat destruction, as a fourth threat, in a category of its own.”

The final big one, of course, is climate change, which “imperils all Pacific ecosystems.”

An H1N1 “swine” flu analogy may be appropriate here. Ultimately, when people die of this generally mild flu, it's because its symptoms are piled on top of pre-existing medical conditions. Most otherwise healthy folks can handle a flu.

Same with the oceans.

“When marine life is subjected to multiple stressors, including pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing, and climate change, populations of ecologically and economically important species can collapse, from coral reefs to kelp forests to cold water deep seas. In this sense, global climate change is coming at the worst possible time, when many communities around the Pacific—both human and ecological—are threatened by other major problems,” the report's abstract says.

Its recommendations are to act globally on global issues, like climate change, and locally to create a sustainability ethic for local issues, like runoff and overfishing.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Compact truck fuel economy: tragedy

Fair warning: This is a rant about poor truck fuel economy.

Where is the science of good fuel economy in compact pickups, when, for example, Ford's little Ranger with a 6-cylinder engine gets the same fuel economy as Ford's big F-150 with a V8?

(Image: The old truck, in the woods.)

It's astounding that in the past 20 years, the fuel economy of compact pickup trucks has not seemed to improve, and in some cases has gotten worse.

This is one driver who's looking forward to government-mandated fuel economy standards, because it seems this is one place the industry isn't going on its own.

Mea culpa, I drive a four-wheel-drive pickup.

It's a compact. It's 13 years old, I bought it used, and it replaced a truck that was 15 when I sold it. So I take some credit and blame for not generating a lot of new vehicle construction.

My truck is not some gentrified gleaming plaything. It's a working truck. It hauls construction materials, it tows outrigger canoes, it has pulled other vehicles out of mudholes and, heck, it has even been known to pull out tree stumps. I can't think of another vehicle that accomplishes these tasks as well, and so I have a truck.

My truck has a four-cyclinder engine, and actual fuel use ranges from a low of about 17 on short hauls and 20 on the highway, generally averaging 18-19. I don't put many miles on it.

I'm looking for a replacement truck, and there's the rub.

For one thing, a four-wheel-drive compact truck with a four-cyclinder engine is apparently impossible to sell these days. A few of the major car-makers build them, but they're hard to find on the car lots. At a minimum, you get a six-cylinder. And that generally means still worse fuel economy.

A Toyota Tacoma 4x4 regular cab gets 17 to 22 in a 4-cylinder configuration—if you can find it. I couldn't, and was left with 6-cylinders that get about three mpg worse.

For 4x4 in a Ford Ranger, you need to buy an extended cab. It comes with a 4-liter six, and it gets 16 miles to the gallon (14-19, depending on city/highway and automatic/stick options)

Nissan's similar truck gets similar mileage—16 to 17 on average, Dodge Dakota a little less, Chevy Colorado a little more, according to window stickers and auto web sites.

What's frustrating is the sense that they could do better.

Honking big full-size pickups get fuel not much different from these light trucks.

A 4x4 Chevy Silverado with a big V8 averages 15. A big old 4x4 Ford F-150 with a 5.4-Liter V8 gets 15 on average, and the 4.6-liter V8 kicks it up to 16—right in compact truck territory.

Toyota's 5.7-liter 4x4 Tundra gets 14 to 15, and Nissan's 4x4 Titan with its 5.6-liter V8 is at 14.

I suppose someone has considered pulling the efficient 4.6-liter V8 out of the 5,000-pound F-150 and sticking it in a 3,500-pound Ranger. A 30 percent reduction in weight ought to do wonders for fuel economy.

It might even get mileage as good as my 13-year-old truck.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Windmills hazardous to wildlife? Compared to what?

Wind energy gets a lot of bad press for its potential to injure and kill birds.

On Kaua'i, particularly, where endangered Newell's shearwaters fly low from mountain nesting sites to the sea, there seems to be a fairly widespread assumption that wind is just too risky a proposition.

But what are the risks of other power sources, and how do they compare?

(Image: wind machine. Credit U.S. Energy Information Administration)

In New York State, an extensive study found that for all the danger to wildlife of those whirling blades, other forms of energy were considerably worse.

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority produced a report on its study, entitled “Comparison of reported effects and risks to vertebrate wildlife from six electricity generation types in the New York/New England region.” A summary is available here.

A lot of the information isn't directly applicable to the Islands, of course, but it's an instructive study in terms of challenging common assumptions.

The first fact, of course, is that EVERY form of energy production has impacts on the natural environment. And with the exception of photovoltaic power, all have these things in common, the report says: “a turbine must be turned to drive a shaft in a generator. The generator produces electricity by spinning copper coils, or armature, through a magnetic field. A source of energy is needed to turn the turbine.”

The study looks at the impacts of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro and wind. All but the middle two play a role in the Hawai'i power grids.

Ultimately, wildlife are arguably equally impacted by the power lines that birds like Newell's shearwaters run into, no matter what source produced the power.

With wind and hydro, once built, the wildlife risks appear entirely associated directly with their operations—streamlife impacted by the removal of water from rivers or being killed in the hydro plant mechanism. With wind, the risk of being struck by the blades.

With oil and coal, once the plants are built, there are toxic compounds released in their exhaust plumes, which promote such things as mercury accumulation in marine organisms, including edible fish, as well as ocean acidification and global warming.

These power plants are also tied to a permanent requirement that fuel be supplied, and all the attending risks associated with extraction and transportation.

This is not just a theoretical risk. In the Aug. 24, 1998, Tesoro oil spill on O'ahu, which drifted to Kaua'i. Hundreds of seabirds of different kinds were oiled, and many died. Some estimates suggested thousands or tens of thousands of seabirds may have been impacted.

The New York report concludes that wind has significant impacts in operation, notably, “high risks of bird and bat collisions with wind turbines during operation.” But when you look at the whole picture, that's not the most significant impact on wildlife, it says.

“Overall, non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind.”

It may also be that wind energy has more potential for mitigation of wildlife impacts than other forms of power.

An example: Using a windpower firm's money to fence dogs out of a shearwater colony may save more shearwaters in a single season than a windmill will kill in its useful life.

In the case of the massive Kaheawa windfarm on Maui, the firm's website describes the goal of its habitat conservation plan:

“Identify the species likely to be affected and provide an estimate of the anticipated take for each; prescribe mitigation that will provide a net benefit to the species affected.”

And that, ultimately, may be a lot easier and less risky than mitigating the impacts the fossil fuel alternative.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

This flu's been around for years: Science

A new report in the journal Science suggests the Type A H1N1 swine flu virus that is spreading around the world is a truly cosmopolitan virus, and may have been present in pigs for a long time before shifting to humans.

The report was released this morning by Science, written by a team of more than 60 researchers, led by Rebecca Garten, of the WHO Collaborating Center for Influenza, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Portions of the genetic material “of this lineage of Eurasian swine viruses were originally derived from a wholly avian influenza virus that is thought to have entered the Eurasian swine population in 1979 and continues to circulate throughout the region,” the report said.

But other portions hail from North America, and still others from Asia. And it is related to a lot of previous flus, since flu viruses regularly swap genetic material.

The first human cases were reported in Mexico only a couple of months ago, but perhaps the newest information is that researchers now believe this virus may have evolved into its current form and been spreading among pigs for a long time before jumping to humans. Because these diseases are not closely tracked among swine populations, it might have gone unnoticed.

“This virus might have been circulating undetected among swine herds somewhere in the world,” the authors said.

They don't know where.

“Several scenarios exist, including reassortment in Asia or the Americas, for the events that have lead to the genesis of the novel A(H1N1) virus. Where the reassortment event(s) most likely happened is currently unclear.”

One of the issues for public health officials today is to keep close track of the virus, to see if it changes again—potentially making moot the work to develop a vaccine to the current form.

“ Worldwide monitoring of the antigenic and genetic properties of the novel A(H1N1) viruses continues for, among other reasons, detecting any changes and thus any necessity for selecting further vaccine candidates.”

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Low cost, high capacity air battery under development

We've heard of the air car, but now there's the air battery.

This new British invention promises a low-weight, high-capacity rechargeable battery that holds big benefits for everything from electronics to electric cars, renewable energy storage, as for wind and solar.

(Image: Diagram of the St. Andrews Air Cell—STAIR—which uses porous carbon that reacts with air from the atmosphere to release an electrical charge. Credit: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.)

The new battery could have 10 times the storage capacity of existing rechargeables, according to a release from the British Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, which funded the reseach. See their press release here.

The breakthrough appears to be the use of oxygen from the atmosphere to replace the bulky and heavy components of standard rechargeable batteries.

Says the release: “ Improved capacity is thanks to the addition of a component that uses oxygen drawn from the air during discharge, replacing one chemical constituent used in rechargeable batteries today. Not having to carry the chemicals around in the battery offers more energy for the same size battery. Reducing the size and weight of batteries with the necessary charge capacity has been a long-running battle for developers of electric cars.”

Principal investigator Peter Bruce of the University of St Andrews Chemistry Department said his team has been trying to get a battery with five to 10 times more capacity than current lithium rechargeables—a level of improvement that does not appear possible with the lithium battery technology.

“Our results so far are very encouraging and have far exceeded our expectations. The key is to use oxygen in the air as a re-agent, rather than carry the necessary chemicals around inside the battery,” Bruce said.

The carbon used in the process is also much cheaper than the components of standard rechargeable batteries.

Bruce said it will probably take five more years of work to bring the technology to the market. The research team's initial goal is to produce a prototype that will power a cell phone or MP3 player.

The longer term promise of this battery technology is high capacity, compact size, low cost, reduced toxicity. What's not to like?

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009