Greetings From Almost-Carbon-Neutral Iceland

I just left Iceland after a three-day visit. It is an amazing country with wild natural beauty and very special natural resources.

The island grows 2cm each year due to being on the continental rift between North America and Europe. In fact, while visiting, we got to walk off the edge of North America and through the rift in the middle. (We didn't get to walk all the way to Europe as it's over 7 miles away, and the tour didn't have time for that.)

This unique topography also gives it very unique natural resources. Since it is very geologically active, they have vast amounts of geothermal power available. All electricity is geothermally produced, and all hot water comes straight out of the ground. In fact, it usually needs to be cooled off first before it can be used.

I would like to know, however, if Icelanders ever get used to the smell of their geothermal hot water. Let's just say I loved knowing my hot showers were carbon-free, but I wasn't a huge fan of the smell I had to endure.

While we were there, we certainly incurred emissions from the food we ate (coffee, anyone?), the tour buses we explored in (mostly Sprinter-type vans, in fact), and obviously our flight to get there, but it was really nice knowing that all the hot water and electricity and ~80% of the building heat were all from naturally occurring geothermal sources.

In February 2008, Iceland was one of the first countries in the world to commit to achieving carbon neutrality. However, according to this Reuters article from November 24, 2009, Iceland has dropped its plans due to its current economic meltdown. I can't find other sources to corroborate the Reuters story right away. Wikipedia has not been changed. I will continue to try to figure out what's really going on. Regardless of where their goal stands, I commend them for being among the first (and the few) to make such goals at all, and wish them the best in their economic recovery.

Public art set to emit GHGs unnecessarily in February

A set of internet-controlled searchlights will illuminate the sky over Vancouver's West End and English Bay during the Olympics this February. 20 of them. Each 10,000 watts bright.

Twenty. Ten. Thousand. Watt. Lights.

Sounds crazy, right? Well, as is becoming practice here on Carbontastic, let's do a little math.

20 lights x 10 kW each x 8 hours per day (estimating 3ish til 11ish) x 25 days = 40,000 kWh of electricity

That's just 11% of an average home's electricity use in a year. Correction: That's a little less than the electricity use by four homes over one year in BC. (And based on BC Hydro's VERY low electrical grid emissions factor of 20 g CO2e/kWh, the display represents 800 kg of CO2e.) So while my first reaction was, "Seriously? How wasteful," I'm actually coming around to think this could be a good--or at least not so bad--thing, because it's easily compensated for by asking folks to conserve a little more electricity during the games...

However, what if this display were going up in Portland? Try more than 16 tonnes of CO2e.

To his credit, artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, did say they this:

When I saw English Bay I knew it would be the perfect spot to create our largest canopy of light to date and for the first time we are also able to use renewable energy.

(Note on correction: My original figure of 11% was from the US EPA Equivalencies Calculator, based on the 800 kg CO2e, which produced a very low result because the EPA calculator is based on the US's higher emissions factors. Mea culpa. Thanks to Joe for catching my funky math.)

Twitter Carbon Footprint...Tweetprint?

As an active Twitterer, this calculation of the GHG emissions of Twitter's activities is half hilarious and half sad.

Based on their averages, I did my own math and came to 13 grams of CO2e per tweet, which puts the total Tweetprint (TM) (kidding) of my own Twitter habit at well over 35 kg. That represents about 9 months of serious use.

Let's put that in perspective.

According to the US EPA GHG Equivalencies Calculator, 35 kg is approximately the CO2e emissions from 4 gallons of gasoline consumed or 1.5 propane cylinders used for home barbeques, or the carbon sequestered by 0.9 tree seedlings grown for 10 years.

So, putting the debate about forestry offsets aside for a moment, could a heavy-ish Twitter user like me just plant a tree or two per year, assuming they'll survive for at least 10 years, and call it a Tweet?

Perhaps we should instead lobby Twitter to move their servers to Iceland to reduce their emissions thanks to natural cooling and a carbon-free electricity grid...

Norway Develops Osmotic Electricity

Now, I don't claim to understand osmotic electricity. I'll leave that to Reuters (via BoingBoing):

The plant is driven by osmosis that naturally draws fresh water across a membrane and toward the seawater side. This creates higher pressure on the sea water side, driving a turbine and producing electricity.

Sounds good, right? Streams and rivers flow into oceans all over the world. All the time. Regardless of the weather, unlike wind and solar.

I love this story for its obvious GHG-reducing potential, but I really love it for Norway's hype-free approach. Maggie at BoingBoing agrees:

I have to give a shoutout to the Norwegians for not claiming that their osmosis-based generator will magically solve the world's energy problems--instead describing it as part of a mix of different technologies that, together, could make a difference.

Those Norwegians...clever and humble!

To be clear, they speculate that the "difference" osmotic power could make globally constitutes about half of the EU's demand. That's certainly impressive, however, it's obviously that conservation efforts still need to come first.

So I'm unplugging my computer now.

Humble Oil Ad, 1962

Grist today published this Humble Oil ad from 1962.

Yes, it says what you think it says...

Each day Humble supplies enough energy to melt 7 million tons of glacier!

Indeed. If only they knew back then the impact that power and energy would have a couple generations down the line...

Oh, and if you're thinking, "Who the heck is Humble Oil anyway?" Humble was partially owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey, held the Esso ("S-O" for Standard Oil) and Enco ("ENergy COmpany") brands, and finally combined with Standard Oil of New Jersey to become Exxon on January 1, 1973.

Funny story about the merger and the renaming...

At first, consideration was given to simply rebranding all stations as "Enco" but that was shelved when it was learned that "Enco" is a Japanese abbreviation of "engine failure." (エンジン故障, enjinkoshō^?)

 Oh Wikipedia, how I love thee.

Carbon Roundup Special Edition: Countdown to Copenhagen

Copenhagen climate change summit: The issues (guardian.co.uk)

A thoughtful, straightforward intro to the less-than-straightforward issues on the table in Copenhagen in under a month.

What are the prospects for a Copenhagen deal?
Negotiations held last week in Barcelona were grim: all now acknowledge that no legal deal is possible in Copenhagen. A miracle is needed for a triumph. President Barack Obama is the one who could deliver it, but it is very unlikely.

Obama will go to Copenhagen - if he can seal a deal (climateprogress.org)

How likely is that Obama miracle?

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he would travel to Copenhagen next month if a climate summit is on the verge of a framework deal and his presence there will make a difference in clinching it.

Religious leaders join to battle climate change (telegraph.co.uk)

Well if anyone can deliver a miracle...

At a meeting hosting by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leaders from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian faiths called on the UK and G20 governments to fight for an ambitious deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions at UN-led talks in Copenhagen in December.

Best Carbon Tweet Ever

This could be a whole new Twitter meme...not to mention a whole new type of carbon reduction strategy!

less carbon, more _________.

What cute/happy thing would you like to see more of alongside less carbon?