A woody grass called Miscanthus is one of the biofuel feedstocks being examined.

Despite all the buzz around biofuels, commercial production has been slow to scale up. As a result, the EPA scaled back its goals for advanced biofuels earlier this year. Still, some Bay Area scientists recently made a breakthrough that could move us one step closer to a day when our cars run on fuels from plants.

The idea behind biofuels is pretty simple. Plants take sunlight and use that energy to make sugars. The biofuels industry wants to transform those sugars into fuel. That requires some molecular rearranging, so they’re looking to microbes to do the job.

At the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) in Emeryville, e.coli is the microbe of choice. Researcher Greg Bokinsky shows me racks of glass tubes that are home to e.coli cultures that have been biologically engineered. They’ve created e.coli that munch on a woody plant called switchgrass.

If you’ve heard anything about biofuels, you’ve probably heard about ethanol that’s made from corn, which you can buy at gas stations today. But ethanol can’t be transported long distances because it corrodes pipelines. And using corn for fuel has also raised some concerns.

“Corn is used extensively to feed animals. Corn is also used for some food as well, human consumption. So we want to be very careful about using corn itself,” says Jay Keasling, CEO of JBEI.

Engineering Microbes

JBEI was founded 5 years ago with a $125 million grant from the Department of Energy. It’s a partnership between UC Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and other groups with the mission of creating biofuels from plants that aren’t used for food – also known as cellulosic biofuels.

“Switchgrass is one that gets mentioned a lot,” says Keasling. “Switchgrass is a native to much of the Midwest. It grows without a lot of water and fertilizer.”

But unlocking the energy inside switchgrass is no easy task. “Plants have evolved to be tough. There are beetles, there are fungi that want to attack them all the time and get access to those sugars. So they’ve evolved defense mechanisms,” he says.

The first line of defense is like a barbed wire fence. Plants protect their sugars with a tough material called lignin. Keasling’s team breaks through it using a liquid salt solution.

Once it’s gone, the sugars still have to be broken down further. Most companies use industrial enzymes to do that. But this is where Keasling’s engineered e.coli comes in.

“What we’ve done is we’ve gone to places like the rainforest in Puerto Rico and to compost piles. We’ve sequenced the organisms that are breaking down that biomass and then cloned those genes into e.coli,” Keasling says.

The e.coli break down the sugars for themselves, saving an expensive step in the process. Using the sugars, they produce fuels. “Really they’re pooping out fuels,” says Keasling. “And these are fuels that can be put directly into gasoline engines, diesel engines or jet engines.” These microbes are an exciting breakthrough for Keasling, since they could help bring down the cost of production.

Federal Goals Scale Back

The federal government was once excited about cellulosic biofuels, too. In 2006, former President George W Bush included them in his State of the Union address, saying “we'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switchgrass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within 6 years.”

Congress set up tax credits for cellulosic biofuels with a goal of seeing 500 million gallons produced in 2012. Since then, the industry has faced a harsh reality. The goal for next year has been cut back to just 12 million gallons.

“It was oversold. There was a lot of hype around it. It’s a tough problem. We can’t expect this to happen overnight,” says Keasling.

Keasling says if there’s anything that casts a shadow over biofuels, it’s the price of their biggest competitor. “If oil is under $100 a barrel, we’re not going to see many advanced biofuels on the market. They’re just not going to be able to compete. It’s virtually impossible,” he says.

Chris Somerville, director of the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI), agrees. “The costs are still not where we need them to be.” EBI is also run by UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab, among other collaborators. It was started with a $500 million grant from BP.

Like JBEI, EBI’s mission is also engineering cellulosic biofuels. They’ve developed specially engineered yeast that eat feedstocks like miscanthus. “It’s going to be another 10 years before it really scales up. And it’s not because there’s a big problem. It’s just takes time to build and bring online big industrial facilities that are first of a kind.”

Companies, including BP, are now building commercial-scale biofuel plants. But the science is evolving so quickly, Somerville says it’s hard for companies to commit. “If you’re a company that has to lay down some hundreds of millions of dollars for a new facility and you look around and everyday, there’s new advances, you think, well maybe I’ll wait until next week and build a better facility.”

Although some in Congress are impatient over the progress of advanced biofuels, Somerville is confident that it’s just a matter of time before the industry scales up. “What we’re really trying to do is change the world. And we have this huge entrenched energy sector. And so there’s lots of entrenched players that don’t welcome change.”

And he says, if we care about addressing climate change, we won’t be able to do it without remaking the fuels that go in our cars.

In a dark lab at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, engineers and mathematicians are developing new burners and studying different flames in hopes of better understanding the power of fire and how to make the most efficient flame possible.

Combustion powers everything from cars to power plants. Improving the efficiency of those systems will help generate more power as well as reduce the amount of emissions produced by burning fossil fuels. In addition, today most power plants run on a single fuel type, say coal or gas. Power generators of the future will probably need to be more versatile and capable of running on multiple different types of fuels, such as hydrogen and natural gas, and move back and forth. Thus, the burners being developed here to study flame efficiency may also lead the way to more versatile power plants.

Robert Cheng, John Bell and the other team members have come together from different scientific disciplines; from mechanical engineering and mathematics to physics and chemistry, to develop these innovative burners and amazing three-dimensional combustion simulations that take advantage of some of the largest super computers in the world. The results are incredibly beautiful and mesmerizing models that one can get lost in staring at…. Much as one might get only when staring at that old campfire.

How one climate model breaks the planet into a 10,242-cell
spherical geodesic grid. Source: Prabhat, LBNL.

In my QUEST radio story this week, we learn about how faster supercomputers will help scientists run climate simulations. One of the trickiest aspects of that is dealing with clouds. To find out why, I sat down with Bill Collins, head of Climate Science Department at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

How important are supercomputers to climate change science?

We understand the climate by making observations using satellites and ice sheets. But the only crystal ball we know about, short of a time machine, is the supercomputer.

We started with by running simple climate models on supercomputers that included simulating the weather, rainfall, and carbon dioxide. In the last 20 years, the complexity of models has vastly increased. They now include ocean dynamics, glaciers, sea ice and the exchange of carbon dioxide between the ocean and the land, known as the carbon cycle. All of that has required an immense increase in computing power.

Climate models today simulate the atmosphere and carbon cycle by breaking up the planet into a grid and running the calculations in those segments, right?

Right, in modern climate models, we simulate the weather every two to five minutes and then average that to see how the climate is going to change across that grid. We simulate the weather in segments that are 25 kilometers wide.

Our goal is model something the size of San Francisco County, which is about 10 kilometers wide. Once we get to that scale, we're going to be able to provide local projections of climate change. We're honing in, but we're not there yet. We need bigger computers to get there.

The other reason is we'd like a higher resolution is that we're having to make educated guesses about certain things, like clouds. And those educated guesses are a source of uncertainty. Cloud systems can be very large or very small. We don't know how they work at the large scale, but we do know how they work at the small scale. So the trick is to simulate them at the small scale.

What role do clouds play in the climate?

Clouds stabilize the climate. They reflect sunlight, so they act like a sun shield. But they also trap heat from the Earth. They both heat and cool, but their net effect is to cool the planet. So the question is, what happens if climate change makes the cloud cover decrease or increase? Understanding how clouds will be affected by climate change has become a critical question.

Where clouds form in the atmosphere makes all the difference. High clouds reflect sunlight, but they're mostly very efficient blankets. Clouds low in the atmosphere aren't very good blankets. They act as a big sunscreen, reflecting energy.

How do climate models today treat clouds?

Models today represent clouds throughout statistical methods over large areas. That models their effect, but not really how they work. And you don't want to assume how they work now is how they'll work in the future. We want to get to a level of physical modeling of clouds.

To do that, we need to be able to resolve them at a small scale. The current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections use a 50 kilometer grid, but that's still not good enough. The scale we need to get to is about 10km or so. So once supercomputers can get us there, we'll be on a much more solid footing to predict how clouds might be affected by climate change.

If we tried to run climate models at that resolution now, it would simply take too long. The rule of thumb is that we'd like to simulate the climate a thousand times faster than it happens. So simulating three years in a day is our rule of thumb. If we increase our resolution from 50 kilometers down to 10 kilometers, that increases the computation demand by a factor of 125. At that point, you're doing 9 days in a day. We can't afford to do that and make the kind of projections that policymakers need in the next century.

Climate model resolution of California. Source: LBNL.

What will we learn about California with better climate models?

Temperature changes are happening faster in the mountains than in the valley. So climate change in California is locally specific. A big questions is how much snowfall we'll get in the future. That's going to hinge on what the temperature is at the peaks of the Sierras. So knowing how fast the temperature change is going to happen at the peaks is going to make a big difference to our water supply.

Local climate predications are really important for state and local policymakers. How should building codes be changed? How will local areas adapt? We need accuracy at the state and local level to pull off that planning.

If you can resolve clouds better in the future, will that change overall projections about climate change?

I'd be shocked if they did. The physics of climate change is really basic. We're not going to get out of global warming. We know based on the projections that we've had in hand for the last 20 years that the time to act is now. The longer we wait, the harder the solutions are to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

What better resolution of clouds is likely to give us is a better idea of changes in rainfall. That's really important to our water supply, our forests, and our crops. Higher resolution will also give us better predictions of climate change extremes, like when droughts happen or the impact of downpours on rivers and dams.

We want to know about climate change that goes bump in the night. We're concerned about abrupt climate change – the type that occurs quickly over a large region, like the melting of the permafrost. We're also worried about extreme climate change – intense, highly-localized changes like heat waves, hurricanes and tornadoes. Both of those are stressors on society and the environment. They've been difficult to simulate since we haven't had the computing power. But now, thanks to advances, we're getting there.

37.8077719 -122.2689661

John Shalf of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab stands inside the Hopper supercomputer.

Whether its laptops or cell phones, computers are getting smaller for most of us. But for many scientists, they’re getting larger. Supercomputers have become a critical tool for analyzing complex problems like climate change.

But as supercomputers grow, so does their energy appetite. Researchers are trying to solve that problem by using a smaller, more pervasive technology.

Supercomputers have improved at a break-neck speed, especially if you look back to the Cray-1. In 1976, this six-foot tall tower of wires was the most powerful supercomputer the world had ever seen. It was installed at Lawrence Livermore National Lab for fusion research.

“If you needed an icon for a supercomputer, you would use the Cray-1,” says Dag Spicer, senior curator at the Computer History Museum, where the computer is spending its retirement. “It blew people’s minds. It was so powerful, so fast.”

Of course, in today’s terms, “It’s roughly equivalent to a first generation iPhone from Apple,” says Spicer.

Listen to the QUEST radio story The Future of Supercomputers

The reason we don’t play Angry Birds on a supercomputer today is thanks to something called Moore’s Law.

“Moore’s law is a predication made by Intel cofounder Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors – that is the little switches that make up a computer – the number of transistors incorporated in a chip will double approximately every 12 months,” says Spicer. Moore later amended that timeline to every 18 months.

What that means is computer chips have gotten smaller and faster at an incredible rate over the last 40 years. Which leads us to a supercomputer known as Hopper.

Today's Supercomputers

“This is our new Cray XE6 supercomputing system,” says John Shalf, a computer scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. We’re standing next to row after row of tall black computer towers inside a building in downtown Oakland. The sound of the computer’s massive cooling system is deafening.

“You have to keep it cold or it’ll melt. We’ll have a puddle of chips on the bottom of the floor,” says Shalf.

Hopper is the eighth largest supercomputer in the world. And right now, it’s chewing on some complicated problems. “Number one here is particle accelerator design. We have fusion energy and then we also have laser plasma inertial fusion simulation,” says Shalf.

“Science has just really been revolutionized by the speed of computers,” says Kathy Yelick, associate director for computing sciences at Berkeley Lab. She says scientists use Hopper to simulate everything from black holes to climate models. There’s a special term to measure this supercomputer’s power: a petaflop.

“So how fast is that?” says Yelick. “Most people can do probably about one arithmetic operation per second if they’re pretty good.”

Now imagine asking a billion people on the planet to do one math problem per second. To get to Hopper’s speed, “we would need a million earths,” she says.

A million earths, each with a billion mathematicians – that’s how fast Hopper is. But it won’t be long before a faster model comes along. “Every four years we get a system that’s about 10 times larger than one we put in three or four years earlier” says Yelick.

According to Moore’s Law, those next generation supercomputers should be faster and more compact. But John Shalf says computer chips have hit a wall.

The End of Moore's Law?

“The problem is now we can’t make them go any faster. So we can cram more things on the chip, but if you make them go fast, it’s so hot they’ll melt.”

If chips themselves aren’t faster, supercomputers will simply have to add more and more of them to increase computing power. And that comes with a very big impact on the energy use.

Hopper uses around 3 megawatts of electricity – about as much as 2000 homes. But future supercomputers? “Projections say that at the end of the decade, we’d be at 100 megawatts if we continue,” says Shalf.

That’s enough power for a small city, about the size of Novato. The electricity bill alone would be roughly 100 million dollars a year.

“What that says is our current approach to doing supercomputing is dead end. And that we need to think of dramatically new ways to improve the efficiency of computing,” Shalf says.

That could be done with some very familiar technology. Cell phones have computer chips inside them, but not the same chips as desktop computers.

From Peter M. Kogge, "ExaScale Computing Study: Technology Challenges in Achieving Exascale Systems," Sept. 28, 2008

“For as long as they’ve existed, they’ve wanted a cell phone that would last longer, be less expensive,” says Shalf.

To do that, chips in cell phones have had to be smaller and more energy efficient. So Shalf says, why not build a supercomputer with chips that combine millions of these simple cell phone processors, specially designed for scientific jobs? In other words, use cell phone technology to make the world’s most powerful computers.

“We’re able to demonstrate an additional 80 times more energy efficiency than business as usual, and that gets us within striking distance of where we need to be to build a practical supercomputer,” he says.

Instead of a 100-megawatt supercomputer, it would be a three to ten megawatt computer. Whether or not it gets built depends on chipmakers like AMD and Intel, who would design the chips. But Shalf says a supercomputer with that power could make a big difference in climate change science.

“It enables policymakers to have the tools they need to make important decisions that have trillion dollar consequences. And that’s why you want to build a supercomputer that’s able to do this.”

Berkeley Lab hopes to use the supercomputer to better predict some of the trickier impacts of climate change – like changes in rainfall patterns, ice sheet melt and the effects of clouds.

37.8077719 -122.2689661

With the demolition of the Bevatron, a chapter of the Bay Area's high-level physics research comes to a close.

One of the places they came to ask those questions was Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in the Berkeley hills.

Stewart Loken is a physicist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and every day on his way to work he passes by a decrepit-looking building about the size and shape of a small sports stadium. Its windows are knocked out, there's a junk pile of old doors and pipes in front. It's called the Bevatron.

Listen to the QUEST radio story Goodbye to the Bevatron.

With the demolition of the Bevatron, a chapter of the Bay Area's high-level physics research comes to a close.

“This was the highest energy accelerator in the world,” says Loken, pointing to the ruins. “It was commissioned with a single goal in mind, which was to produce experimental evidence of the existence of the anti-proton.”

To understand – or at least, approach understanding — the anti-proton, you have to back up, all the way up to the event that physicists consider the very beginning of the universe, 14 billion years ago: The big bang.

“Any model of the big bang that makes any sense to us creates equal amounts of matter and antimatter from the vacuum,” says Persis Drell, who directs the SLAC National Accelerator Lab, at Stanford.

Some of the Bevatron’s waste was radioactive, and had to be hauled to hazardous waste sites, such as in Kettleman City.

Drell says matter is pretty straightforward. It's what makes up your coffee cup, your brain, the visible universe. But for every subatomic particle that makes up matter, there’s a matching particle, an anti-particle, with the opposite electrical charge.

“When you create matter, you always create an equal amount of antimatter,” Drell says.

Scientists knew the anti-matter had to be out there, but for the most part, they couldn't see it. So, they decided to look for one type of anti-matter in particular, the anti-proton.

“The anti-proton was the thing that would confirm the fact that there is an antimatter world, in addition to the matter world that we see every day,” says Stewart Loken.

In other words, if scientists could produce an anti-proton, it would mean that our understanding of the Big Bang, and the makeup of our universe was basically on the right track. If not, well, it was back to square one.

So, they built the Bevatron to test their theory.

Five Nobel Prizes were won based on work at the Bevatron, including the 1959 nobel Prize in Physics, for the discovery of the anti-proton.

The experiment began with a thin cloud of hydrogen gas. First, scientists extracted protons from the hydrogen atoms, and injected them into the accelerator chamber. As the protons whipped around and around the chamber they went faster and faster, until they approached the speed of light.

“You want to get to high enough energy that when particles smash together, you can turn that energy into the production of new particles,” says Loken.

Which is exactly what happened. As the particles approached light speed, the Bevatron performed a feat Einstein himself described with the equation E=MC2: That mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing.

Since mass and energy are essentially interchangeable, the Bevatron was able to transform matter into energy, and energy back into even more matter… including, in 1955, for the first time ever, antimatter.

“We smashed proton against proton and in the end we had proton, proton, antiproton and another proton to balance it out,” Loken says.

This work won Bevatron scientists the 1959 Nobel Prize in physics. It was the first of four Nobels to come from research done here – as well as new insights into things like radiation treatment for cancer, and how to keep astronauts safe from radiation in space.

But by the late 1980s, the Bevatron had become obsolete. In 1993, it closed its doors for good.

Taking down the Bevatron is a huge endeavor. When it's finally demolished, in 2011, it will have cost the country 50 million dollars. Part of the expense will be from removing a protective layer of concrete blocks that kept scientists safe from radiation released by the accelerator. Now, those blocks must be hauled away to hazardous waste sites.

As for the work that in some ways began here… much of it has moved to the Large Hadron Collider in Cern, Switzerland. Where scientists – including from Berkeley – are trying to get a better understanding of how the universe began.

37.8768 -122.251

To go solar or not to go solar? Homeowners looking to save money on their energy bills have a number of factor to consider.

It's easy to get excited about installing solar panels on your house – particularly when you find out that state and federal rebates can cut the price almost in half.

But, as we've reported before, you might get more bang for your buck from far cheaper (and yes, far less exciting) fixes. Small things like weather stripping your doors, turning down the thermostat or upgrading your refrigerator, can put a dent in your utility bills.

Even if you've done all that, solar panels still might not pencil out. That's because of something called "tiered pricing", which is how most utilities calculate your monthly energy bills. The idea is that energy is relatively cheap as long as you stay within a certain amount. Exceed that, and you're in the next "tier," where the rate increases. At the next tier, the rate is even higher. The difference between top tier and bottom pier can be as much as 44 cents versus 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

That's why solar panels tend to make more sense for people with substantial energy needs – the big, air-conditioned houses, the heated pools, the multiple flat-screen TVs.

The higher your monthly utility bills without solar panels, the faster those panels will pay for themselves once they're installed. Plus, even if those panels don't meet the complete energy needs of your house, they may be enough to bring you down to a lower tier, where the rate is much better.

If you're interested in making your home more energy efficient, this handy and comprehensive online audit from the people at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs is a good place to start.

37.5629917 -122.3255254

Lawrence Berkeley Lab's TEAM 0.5 is capable of resolving individual carbon atoms in the honeycomb crystal structure of graphene. See QUEST's video The World's Most Powerful Microscope for more information. Image source: Nano Letters

Fifty years later, a new field of nanotechnology has exploded. At the cutting edge, researchers are successfully manufacturing everything from corporate logos to radios that are all small enough to be stacked end-to-end perhaps a million items long across the proverbial head of a pin. The advent of personal computers and smart phones has brought the power of such miniaturization into sharp focus for the general public. In a very real sense, we have all become bottom feeders. Below is a brief progress report on the state of the field.

Microscopes: The old adage “seeing is believing” was not lost on Feynman back in the late fifties. He noted that many of the most fundamental questions in biology could be readily solved if we only had the ability to see the molecules directly. Today, new inventions such as the scanning tunneling microscope (STM), the atomic force microscope (AFM), and the transmission electron microscope (TEM) have all achieved resolution at the scale where individual atoms can actually be seen and manipulated.

Miniature Motors: Perhaps the speech’s most imaginative scenario, due to Feynman’s friend (and graduate student) Albert Hibbs, was the concept of being able to “swallow the surgeon.” Feynman imagined that we might some day be able to construct robots capable of repairing or investigating the inner reaches of an ailing patient’s body. Mixing engineering and biology like this can run quickly into thorny ethical questions. Nevertheless, interesting progress has been made. Researchers in Alex Zettl’s group at UC Berkeley have recently constructed a nano motor, for example.

Information Storage: Using order-of-magnitude arguments, Feynman argued that the Encyclopedia Britannica could be squeezed into a pin’s area if the text were reduced by a factor of 25,000. He offered a $1,000 prize to the first person capable of printing one page of any book at this scale. Tom Newman, a graduate student at Stanford, first accomplished this in 1986 with an impressive reprinting of the first page of Dickens’ classic A Tale of Two Cities. Today, you can buy the book in its entirety for only 1.9 megabytes. For a high-end smart phone with 30 gigabytes of memory, you could perhaps hold 15,000 books within the palm of your hand. Not bad.

Then again, at the extreme limit, Feynman also reasoned that you ought to be able to squeeze the text of every book that has ever been written (now more than 32 million titles according the Library of Congress) within the confines of a single speck of dust. We still have a long way to go.

37.8768 -122.251

Is corn ethanol a poor fit for future U.S. liquid fuel needs?

The timing, then, was quite appropriate for a panel discussion last week organized by the Friends of Berkeley Lab at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre. Titled “Hope or Hype: What’s Next For Biofuels?” the event, hosted by KTVU’s John Fowler, featured a panel with Jay Keasling, Susanna Green Tringe, and Jim Bristow, three scientists exploring the role that synthetic biology might play in fabricating a better fuel for tomorrow’s autos. The evening consisted mainly of two themes: the relative limits of both crude oil and corn-based ethanol, and an outline of research being pursued to make new ideas practical.

Fossil fuels are unsustainable, a point that saturates public rhetoric each election cycle to the point of ad nauseum. It might be slightly more surprising to learn, however, that fuel based on ethanol (the alcohol found in all common beers, wines, and liquors) may be as bad for global warming as gasoline, perhaps even be worse. When extracted from corn, considerable energy is lost on fertilizers. If that energy was generated using a coal plant, global warming is still a problem. Additionally, ethanol is an unwieldy fuel. It is corrosive, for example, and therefore must be trucked, rather than piped, from one location to another. “I like to say that ethanol is for drinking, not for driving,” Keasling joked as he explained these faults.

The push in the American science community, then, tends to be away from corn-based ethanol and toward something called cellulosic biomass (Editor's Note: see our QUEST video "Beyond Biofuels" for more information). The idea is to make fuels not from corn, but rather from corn stover—plant leftovers after the crop has already been harvested. Alternatively, almost any other organic material ranging from wheat stover to sorghum to garbage could be used if the proper techniques are developed.

There are considerable scientific challenges. Much of the material we might like to use as fuel is tough and woody. Scientists have yet to figure out a satisfactory method for breaking this down, and a great deal of gene-sequencing effort is currently underway with the aim figuring this out. There are also challenges in terms of deciding what product will be generated from these woody materials. At least one idea is to genetically engineer an organism that can transform organic matter not into ethanol, but rather into something more amenable to transport and carbon neutrality.

What should we make of these new efforts? My own feelings are mixed. I enjoy my car, and I love road trips. As Bristow said during the panel, “The reality in the U.S. is that people are going to drive cars. We need liquid fuel.” The current push in biofuels research is tremendously important. The vast majority of energy sources are simply inadequate for powering cars to the extent that the public is accustomed to. The maximum power one could ever expect to obtain from a solar-powered car, for example, is less than 10 horsepower. Even the Geo Metro gets 55 horsepower. The new Volkswagen Beetle gets over 100 horsepower. Electric cars might hold some promise, but at this point it is impossible to tell whether batteries or biofuels will ultimately make a better alternative. These two fronts are also not necessarily exclusive, as the hybrid explosion of recent years has shown.

And yet, for all the excitement, selling the American public on biofuels feels a little like feeding methadone to a heroin addict. We believe that a shift to biofuels will assuage the continued seeping of carbon into the atmosphere. But there are a lot of side effects. The controlled production of biomass requires land, and with that allocation comes a host of ecological concerns. When it comes down to it, there will never be a substitute for good old fashioned belt-tightening.

37.8768 -122.251

Before You Invest in Photovoltaics, make sure your house isn't haunted by phantom loads.

When writing about energy efficiency in California, I know that emphasizing heating systems doesn’t carry much punch. I might as well try to get Californians interested in who makes the best deep- dish pizza. (That’s Chicago, of course. Zachary’s isn’t bad though.) Cooling systems are accounting for more and more of a share of residential energy use as we continue to build out from the cities near the Bay in hot dry climates. But overall, when it comes to climate, the inside and the outside of Bay Area homes are pretty much the same for most of the year. But let’s not get soft on energy efficiency! There are other energy users in California homes that threaten to lift us in the future to the level of, say, what a Wisconsin home uses in the winter today.

Miscellaneous electric loads are electric loads other than heating and cooling, water heating, refrigerators, and lighting, and include consumer electronics, outdoor lights, and portable inside lighting fixtures. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency estimates that these “other” electric loads, along with televisions and office equipment, made up close to 30% of U.S. residential electricity consumption in 2006; this will rise to about 35% by 2020. Part of the reason for the growth in energy use of these devices as a percentage of total home energy use is that homes are heating and cooling more efficiently, with better HVAC equipment, tighter building envelopes, and more insulation.

Rich Brown and Greg Homan of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, measured electricity use in 13 new California homes in 2007 and came up with some interesting results. They metered plug-in devices in standby, off, or low-power mode. Since the homes were not yet occupied, they estimated the annual energy use by using typical use patterns and the energy use of the plug-in devices in active mode, or “on,” measured in other studies. Some of the homes were model homes and packed with appliances and electronics like TVs, and others had only the plug-in devices installed by the builders. Builder installed devices include things like garage door openers, structured wiring, and gas fireplaces. The homes were in four different subdivisions and span the range of typical new construction to super efficient homes with PhotoVoltaic (PV) systems installed.

The builder-installed devices use on average 800 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, or about $80 worth with electricity at a low $0.10 per kWh. That does not include lighting energy. That’s interesting. About half of the energy used by the builder-installed devices is used by devices that are supposed to be turned off, or are in standby mode! That’s very interesting. This is like having a 50-Watt light bulb on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, lighting nothing.

One of the model homes, the biggest energy user of the 13, used close to 2,500 kWh per year ($250) for two large televisions, a structured wiring panel that uses 20 Watts continuously to power three security cameras and an Internet router, smoke alarms, garage door openers, a washer/dryer, a very big refrigerator, and a few more devices. Add in lighting and that house is a major energy hog, even with super efficient heating and cooling systems and PV panels on the roof.

So what to do? Don’t even think of getting that PV system until you spend some time reducing your electricity load. The PV system you need to meet that load then won’t be so expensive. When it’s time to buy a new appliance, always look for the Energy Star label. Energy Star appliances use about 20% less energy than typical new appliances. Anything that uses a remote control, such as televisions and set-top boxes, or that displays the time of day all day, such as some stoves and microwave ovens, uses energy when officially off. Look for electronic devices that are really off when they say off, or that use 2 Watts or less in standby mode. For your other sleep slurping electronics, plug them into a power strip, and turn the power strip off when you aren’t using the devices. Then look into that sexy new PV system for your roof. More on that in my next blog.

37.8768 -122.251

(left) A cell imaged with an optical microscope. (right) The same cell imaged by allowing the cell to absorb UCNPs and then irradiating it with infrared light. Each nanocrystal is one thousand times smaller than the width of a human hair. Image courtesy of PNAS.

Thus proceeds Michael Crichton's 2002 thriller, Prey, as the protagonists face off against a malicious swarm of flesh-hungry nano-robots that are the offspring of a most unholy marriage of biological, computer science, and engineering research efforts.

Real science capabilities lag somewhat behind, but researchers succeeded recently in demonstrating an exciting new class of nanoparticle with potential applications in biological imaging. The new crystals, more formally known as lanthanide-doped upconverting nanoparticles (UCNPs), were fabricated and studied under the direction of principle investigators Bruce Cohen and James Schuck at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Molecular Foundry, and results were published on June 18^th in a paper by Shiwei Wu and others in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Happily, while Crichton's nanoparticles coordinated an attack on a your vital organs, these particles behave more like benign light bulbs. After allowing a living cell to absorb the UCNPs, researchers shine infrared laser light on the cell, and the nanocrystals within light up like a Christmas tree in red or green arrays of dots. These, in turn, can easily be spotted using an optical microscope and used to map out particle distributions within a cell, yielding information impossible to obtain by other methods.

The method, known as single-molecule imaging, has been demonstrated using other nanoparticle types, but UCNPs are unique because of their uncommon brightness and stability, and because they are powered by infrared light. This is both good for the studied cells, because infrared light is less damaging than visible or X-ray frequencies, and good for the people measuring them, because it can probe more deeply into tissue than other types of light. In fact, one prospect for future research is the imaging of entire animals.

Reflecting on the research effort's long-term goals, Cohen commented that cross-disciplinary sharing of ideas is crucial. "In general, we'd like to bring nanoscience to the larger scientific community, especially biology, where few researchers have had much exposure to it," he said. "Our goal is to make interesting and useful new materials that will let them do all sorts of experiments that would otherwise be impossible."

37.873798 -122.254475