One hundred and fifty years, exactly yesterday, since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and I finish off the final words to peer, literally awestruck, at the breadth of Darwin’s thesis: there really are no words to sufficiently define the extent to which this work captures the utter power of nature. There are many things you can say about Darwin’s argument, not least that it was controversial, but I don’t think that the controversy really explores the vision within the story he unwinds. And I do mean this; above all else this book is to my mind a story: one that encapsulates the entire planet, her life forms, and their coexistence together. I read around the work to ensure I understood the period in which the book was written (being a ludicrously involved history buff, this was straight-forward) which I would highly recommend, as it gives a comprehensive context. Many sciences were still newly burgeoning fields during this period, including biology, however, the understanding in the physical sciences was high – so much so that many believed Darwin’s ultimate theory was a century or so later than it should have been. I’m not converted to this view, I think that this theory is novel in every way imaginable; indeed, its consistent opposition (slight, but there) over the past 150 years is representative of its ingenuity.

Nothing displays this view more than the difficulties society today has with the fact of evolution. In the year 2009 there have been three books released showcasing the argument for evolution (timed for the anniversary) which is so broad that it would actually take some serious effort to oppose the reality. One of these books (the only one I have read) is very thorough and easily digestible: Richard Dawkin’s The Greatest Show on Earth. Though Darwin’s work is rightly construed as the firing salvo, his theory is an explanation for evolution, explaining how it works via natural selection. Having read through Origin it feels as though Darwin’s main endeavour is to deliver an opposing theory to the commonly understood origin of life from that period: namely, independent creation. This is of course part of its controversy – but it is clear when reading that Darwin is far more involved in dismissing the idea of independent creation than he is exposing faith. Independent creation is more or less the view that all individuals (human or otherwise) were created in the current form we see in this age: i.e. they could not have evolved. Darwin’s fundamental argument against this is evolution, which he shows is controlled by natural selection, but also pretty much proves that all animals could not have been created in the form they currently hold, and must have originated from broadly a single life form (he argues five or six life forms, but today it is known to be one).

His proof that independent creation is not possible is absolute. Evolution, by its nature of occurrence over millennia, is impossible to prove to the same degree. Having shown that independent creation was not possible, Darwin proposes the argument for evolution as an alternative and to the best level that he could, explains how it occurs through natural selection. At its most basic natural selection is the selection (by nature) of dominant characteristics in any grouping of animals which best enable that group to survive. As each selection is made to the group the improvement it makes is carried down through their line and thus the animals evolve. This is of course over many many years. The genius, as with every theory, is how well this argument fits into place – in this case in the natural world. Darwin spends some time showing how his theory works; which is the story of life I mentioned earlier.

All in all it’s a fabulous piece of work, and is rightly construed as one of the most important books of all time. I’ve always enjoyed the popular phrase of Darwin’s theory, which if you Google draws only one winner: the single greatest idea ever. This has the ring of truth.

I’ll natter about the Origin in a future post, as I’m still trying to grasp the totality of the picture that Darwin introduces: but I will say that the work is vastly more interesting than its title suggests, and very easy to pick up and read through as a general reader, which was Darwin’s intention. As I mentioned this book was partly responsible for the introduction of an overriding image of nature, which has entered my thoughts, as a thunderous, mountainous force peerless in its global majesty. This sits well with the current event of adverse climate change. But how to be positive in this realm of monumental climatologically attrition? I think this is well showcased in the number of significant green revolutions taking place across the planet. Take for instance, Samso, a tiny island off the coast of Denmark: suffused in greening the Scandinavian landscape Denmark is already well known for its efficient renewable measures. Samso is 100% energy self sufficient, with all its electricity coming from wind farms; many house are heated by burning straw and many vehicles utilising biofuels for combustion. All of which describes an oasis of green energy, where the island produces so much that it sells to the mainland, and indeed, to third party vendors.

Not quite as self sufficient but remarkably well adapted to the new greening world is Costa Rica, which is involved in a staggering endeavour to become completely carbon neutral as a society. They began the process with large scale reforestation, but are now into biofuel plantations and wide ranging automobile carbon reduction. Costa Rica is a useful example (not lost on the many webpage’s describing their world leading policies) as it leads the way for the globally recognised Happy Planet Index. This brilliant exercise in putting life ahead of wealth is currently in the process of taking over from gross domestic product (GDP) as the fundamental indicator of true societal bliss. The index is, well, an index of human well-being alongside the environmental impact of the particular country, which is deemed essential since how can you have a well-being minus an environment. See the link a few lines back for further detail. Suffice to say Costa Rica is winning: not least because of its environmental measures. Which can only be construed as a positive thing for the world; and I feel as the HPI grows in stature such listings will be a measure of how well a country represents its people.

There are reams of words. Whole spillages of words delivered into the ether of the internet acknowledging the fear of humanity at our capacity to wreak lasting damage on our society. Just read the pages of the climate project or the climate count down. Whole earthquakes of tiny words. Such is the embrace of the people and the fear. Bill Bryson, in his revelatory work of simple genius – A Short History of Nearly Everything – discusses at length the shocking power of the earth to unleash damage on the surface of the planet. In fact it incorporates a number of chapters. There is as seriousness to that power. I think that it is always present, and can never be fundamentally shifted. Utilised, though, is another thing entirely.

Imagine a sea of biological organisms that are bred solely to capture carbon from the atmosphere. That is, apparently, not too distant a possibility. These and a number, what can only be termed as vast, other engineering wonders are mixing around the political and scientific landscape seeking a home, and awaiting the correct level of funding to become a reality. These ‘projects’ are the burgeoning new world of geoengineering. Caveat: I say burgeoning, and new, but really they have been around for an extraordinary length of time; but have only lately been confirmed as a major step in tackling our climate problem. Their ultimate goal is the protection of our climate from the adverse effects of our buildup of carbon, but delivered in the swiftest possible timeframe. This swiftness is both bold and somewhat reckless, but the thought is, we may require swift and reckless at some point down the line.

Besides the aforementioned multiple organism engineering, there are a few main methods being tested: cloud seeding (first publically used – supposition alert – by the Soviet Union to deflect the weather systems pushing north from the Ukraine following Chernobyl) is a method by which clouds are deliberately formed. The purpose of this seems to be that consistent cloud cover would deflect significant amounts of sunlight, and thus reduce (significantly) the corresponding heating. It is thought that this could be managed both quickly, and to an absurd degree. To my mind Ireland is automatically eliminated from this requirement, as we achieve it naturally. It, of course, brings with it the issue of poor growing seasons for certain crops, and the withering problem of murdering organisms that demand voluminous sunlight. There also exists the possibility of planting artificial trees. This is currently taking place, but to a lesser degree than is envisaged in planet saving mode. This effectively would work in tandem with the current carbon cycle of carbon capture by trees. The issue, in the same way that a tree has this issue, is that the carbon is only stored until it is set free. This happens all too commonly across the world at present where overzealous corporations and developers burn into forested woodland to make room for road networks, and thereby free the captured carbon. It is both ruinous to the habitat (destroying multiples of life) and our planet.

There are many other types of geoengineering (not least the Russian idea of building a massive sun blocking device in the outer atmosphere to shade part of the planet) and I will continue on this topic as write through these blogs; but the aforementioned give a feel for what is being engendered. They are an interesting line in our assault on warming. As I said previously they bring with them the potential for possible mishaps, or indeed, many side effects that have disasters consequences. But they work in their swiftness; and can, in many cases, achieve powerful reductions in the rising temperatures However, this topic has filtered across the media in the last two years bringing awareness to the subject and with it it’s most troublesome aspect: the potential alacrity with which some geoengineering projects could have an impact as somewhat reduced the necessity for immediate action on carbon reduction.  Scientists worry that successes in cloud seeding and other methods could loosen the greening of the world’s political framework. And as any scientist would confirm (or indeed any science writer) geoengineering in almost every case is a temporary halt at best – while at worst, it could be too little too late.

The Science of Survival Parts 1, 2 and 3.

Therein lies the crux. What is true of a relatively short debate on the direction of a country is the same of a long standing, and often bitter, debate on the direction of a planet. People say that time is of the essence in any endeavour at halting planet warming, and certainly this seems to be the case. Time, and the myriad political impediments to prompt and comprehensive action, are of equal importance if the necessary changes are to be delivered. But surely the public must be involved in the process; that they must be aligned to the path that is taken, especially when it is in their interests and requires from them significant changes in lifestyle. Any debate that takes place cannot be contained within a vacuum. But how to keep that from a series of polemic pieces or shocking angry explosions of fear is a difficulty that almost eclipses the consignment of the debate to scientific journals and the ubiquitous blogosphere. Certainly, it is not all bad: the modern day news cycle caters for concise, deliberative discussion, in a certain measure. To my mind best show-cased (in Ireland anyway) through the medium of radio.

However, it is not enough; not nearly enough for the level of change that is being envisaged. More focus is necessary. More time should be apportioned in the media to a discussion that is not national, political or otherwise local. It is an issue which is international, social and profound in a way that little else could every conceivably be. Except maybe war. But then changes to the climate are inherently a form of warfare. A war of attrition in which the natural cycle of the planet, utilised to maintain its order, is disrupted by an external and opposing force. This is one view of course. The savaging that this thesis has received in the past is symptomatic of the level of anger available to people when they disagree with science. It almost (though not entirely) bears comparison to the ire of creationists at their lack of support in amending the school syllabus in the United States to give equal coverage to the theory of creation as the theory of evolution. But that is an aside. Going forward it will be interesting to see how significant a place the debate on climate change takes in the course of things, and whether the negativity subsides, in light of the seriousness of the subject. You know when something is at least partially infused in the system when Hollywood starts to make movies about its more dramatic conclusions. But if a few more original prime time documentaries were aired, I think the public might be served better in this pivotal debate on our future.

The founder and CEO of Synthetic Genomics, J. Craig Venter, was pivotal in advancing the Human Genome Project, and following its successes created SG to forward alternative fuel projects through biological engineering. SG’s projects (I’ve looked at a few of them online – tough to even write about) are extremely complex, but one stands out in its potential: its algal biofuel production system, not surprisingly. Taking off where others left off, Venter and SG began engineering specific forms of algae to create a strain of the autotroph, through changes to its genetic structure, with superior oil producing and photosynthetic capabilities. The plan endeavours to create a super–strain of algae that can be utilized to produce a biofuel that is useable for all requirements, automobiles, aviation, the production of electricity and so forth. Their aim is to bring the systems online only when they are at a stage that they can reduce significantly, and in quick operation, global fossil fuel necessity. A relatively small company with such a global aspiration might commonly be viewed as being, well, aspirational. SG appears to have surpassed that by acquiring a phenomenal funding partnership / investment by none other than Exxon Mobil Corporation, the world’s largest oil and gas company. One can only imagine that Exxon are getting involved as the potential for this fuel is, at least, very promising.

I wonder whether biofuels (of all types, not just necessarily algae) will be at the centre of the next phase of the globe’s energy consummation. It is very clear that the main issue for new energy is whether it can be used, cleanly and safely, in international transportation systems. Feeding energy to houses will remain a much easier requirement than intercontinental air travel, when fossil fuels are gone. Most policy makers worry about what will happen to economic systems if current globalization stalls, or is abruptly ended by lack of energy.  Thus the endeavour is to find a source of energy that is stable enough to operate in conditions of stress (40k feet, please God don’t blow up), but is cheap enough so that said flight is not only marketable to billionaires. There is lots of writing around major advancements in the production of batteries that could potentially be used in transportation (you charge up the battery, attach it to the engine and away you go) that can be charged from any source, even unsafe ones, say hydrogen, etc.  Will biofuel production leap above these other areas? It’s not certain, but it certainly looks promising. And the more areas like this that are making waves, so to speak, the happier we should all be.

The Science of Survivial – Part 1 and Part 2

The first evidence of violence is roughly 15k – 14k years ago, and takes the form of skeletons in mass graves with crushed skulls and limbs with marks lacerating their bones which appear to be made from weapons.  It stands up with the perception that this type of violence only occurred as humans gained something worthy of protection, as this period coincides with the first major formations of civilization. Indeed, it is possible to trace right throughout history a connection between war and the requirement to obtain something of merit: often war is committed for the purposes of acquiring a resource (whether it is gold, water, territory or oil). These examples highlight the logical aspects of warfare and take away from the vision of war as an inherent human trait ingrained in our dispositions. Coinciding with this is the fact that humanity is significantly less violent that it used to be. The strongest contribution toward this appears to be the advent of democracy, which is a known precursor for increased wealth and living standards: with wealth comes the ability to acquire resources.  It is notable that there have been no wars between developed nations since the Second World War. Almost all warfare in the current period is guerilla tactics, often with an extremely vivid goal as the ultimate purpose for persevering. But there still remain issues that could lead developed nations to return to warfare – energy being the formidable leader in that category.  As climate change continues to wreak havoc upon the globe, energy will only gain a greater significance to an under-powered human tech population trying desperately to stabilize its industrial might. If ever there was an issue that guaranteed conflict it is this. And in today’s nuclear age the fear of avoiding full scale unit warfare by relying on ranged weaponry can only cause greater concern that an unavoidable clash is within the bounds of reality.

That article I mentioned earlier registered an interesting theory in the debate on avoiding such a scenario: the continued education and political awakening of women. Their argument is formed over a number of grounds. Firstly, with education and political freedoms women are more likely to have fewer children: with fewer mouths to feed globally, there is decreased demand for energy consumption – and significantly fewer issues around population space. With educated women comes greater political exposure, and thus, more democracy.  It is again understood that women vote more pacifist candidates, than men, and this engenders more pacifist candidates running for election. Finally, and most prevalent, is that educated and politically involved women are more likely to run for office themselves: the more women in office around the globe – the less war, period.

At the turn of the twentieth century an eminent chemist announced his belief that physics, and to similar degree science as a whole, had concluded its most significant leaps of discovery. His thesis argued that little else could be contributed to the field of physics that could be as unique and peerless as those that had occurred in the previous three centuries. Indeed, the nineteenth century alone was an explosive era for scientific change. Most of the major branches of the sciences saw particular advancement; however, it was the introduction of whole new fields of study that proved the most celebrated events.

Scientific fields such as palaeontology and archaeology absorbed the most abundant intellects of the period, as intense new discoveries were formed and ever more expansive theories introduced. The period’s advancement was of such a revolutionary pace that some scientists began to envisage the potential for a complete understanding of the natural world, including the laws that govern its existence. It was in this transitional climate of ingenuity that voices became prominent with claims that extreme scientific discovery had come to an end.

It is easy with hindsight to view this episode as somewhat premature. The marvellous twentieth century explosion of theory, especially in physics, was only a short number of years away. Very few in the scientific world could have expected a Swiss patent clerk’s series of papers to consist of such a significant advancement. Direct from Einstein’s theories of relativity, physics exploded into activity and the other sciences soon flourished. It is in the recollection of this transitional climate, and the early twentieth century’s scientific ‘pause’, that today’s remarkably similar position comes into focus.

The last half century has been a carefully constructed siege-like attempt on the part of the scientific community to unify the several brilliant theories of the universe into one single manageable, and unifying, theory. Einstein himself began the task though it has changed somewhat from his original endeavours. The collective struggle, involving multiple disciplines of physics, is to locate a Grand Unification Theory (GUT) that will end the complexities of physics and answer the most pertinent questions of the physical world.

The science behind such a theory is complex: in broad terms it involves the coupling of the four key, known, physical forces; electromagnetism (the silent force behind polar magnetism); the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. Some of the mentioned have been unified together, but as yet no theory has been implemented which can include all four into one single static whole. Mixed with this uniquely difficult, and as yet unmanaged, task is the ordering of each of these independent forces into the burgeoning theory of quantum mechanics.

The History of Scientific Endeavour

Before discussing the undertaking involved, and the successes reachable, in achieving a unified theory, it is important to look at the science that laid the foundation to our more advanced period. Over the course of the majority of the past two millennia the physical sciences were fundamentally studied through the prism of Aristotle. A Greek polymath of the 4^th century BC, Aristotle’s treatises on the nature of the physical world remained the key text of university science until the scientific revolution. The main substance of which involved the theory that external bodies (planets) rotate in perfect circles around Earth, propelled by an unknown force. This fundamental principle was added to several hundred years later in the 2^nd century AD, by another Greek mathematician, Ptolemy, who improved on some of the irregularities apparent in Aristotle’s theories and significantly advanced the understanding of astronomy in his seminal volume, the Almagest.

The problem with both Aristotle and Ptolemy’s theories was that they were engendered to define the movement of the planets in revolutions around the earth; and to achieve this through mathematical computations. Physics struggled for well over a thousand years to break free from the restrictions of the Almagest, and it wasn’t until the age of Nicolas Copernicus (1473 – 1543) that a leap could finally be realised.

Copernicus, a Polish astronomer, was something of a sun worshipper and appears to have worked out quite early in his career that the movement of the planets more suited revolutions of the sun, than revolutions of our own planet. The logic of which was universally recognisable (and spread rapidly) to became the first major denunciation of the Almagest. Unfortunately, Copernicus retained links to the work of Aristotle and maintained incorrectly that planetary revolutions occurred within a perfect circle and was thus unable to complete a comprehensive mathematical theorem explaining the solar system.

A generation or so later, Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630), a German mathematician, worked out the remaining issues that had stifled Copernicus’s efforts, and completed a robust series of papers describing the motion of the planets. His most significant break-through was his abolition of the theory of circular motion, in favour of the accurate description of planetary motion through revolutions around the sun in ellipsis’ (shortened non-perfect circles), which had alluded previous astronomers. Kepler’s genius ended the preoccupation on what was happening in our solar system, which allowed physicists and astronomers to focus on why and how the solar system functioned.

The scientific revolution continued when a contemporary of Kepler, Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642), an Italian physicist, was informed of a Dutch inventor’s success at creating an implement capable of viewing planets in the solar system – the first telescope. Galileo immediately set to work mirroring this feat of engineering, and was equally successful. His work in elucidating the number of satellites that exist in our solar system (as apposed to our single moon, and all of which rotate around their planets) further tarnished the Aristotelian system, which had no place for satellites in its design.

However, Galileo’s most vigorous ingenuity was in the field of mechanics were he originated the principle of inertia – wherein a moving body retains its own velocity unless an external force is applied to slow it down. The principle of inertia merged with Galileo’s basic principle of relativity and Kepler’s work on the solar system, set the scene for a theory that could incorporate all that had come before, thereby unifying the science.

Isaac Newton is widely known and indeed remains to this day as the fundamental face of popular physics. Morose and distrusting, as well as brilliant and expressive, Newton is a difficult character to assess. His achievements though, remain as outstandingly important today as they were when first conceived. Newton brought many novel theories to the scientific world, but one in particular quite literally changed the how we perceive our planet.

As mentioned above, his principle ingenuity was to capture the previous advancements in cosmology and physics and originate a theory (backed up convincingly with mathematics) for the working of the solar system – and, further, the very foundation of the structure of the universe. Newton saw in the laws of motion and falling bodies that an independent force was at play. In his magnum opus – The Principia – he discussed his theory of gravity and contended that all objects or bodies contain mass (whether they are a planet or a simple rock) and endow a pull on all other objects or bodies that are within a sufficient range. The larger the body the stronger the pull. Thus, a star (our own sun) creates a pull on Earth that drives its momentum. And so too Earth instils a gravitational pull on our Moon – and vice versa. The theory explained in full why all the planets in the solar system revolved around the sun, and why the moon around the Earth. The Moon’s own gravitational affect on the Earth explained the complexities of our tidal systems. The Principia became (almost overnight) a sensation.

The One Theory That Ruled Them All

All of which exist as the foundation to Einstein’s twentieth century theorising. Fresh from his revelations in the theories of relativity, Einstein began to focus, in a similar frame as Newton, on incorporating the known boundaries of the physical world in a concise mathematical formula. It ate up the rest of his life. Physicist’s today work at length to locate a workable theory; and with the probable result of finding such a theory being a significant step towards comprehensive understanding of the universe, the race is somewhat clogged with participants. One cannot deny the connotations: to wrap up the entire physical world within a single grand theory could lead to improvements in science on an unimaginable scale. Not least of which could be momentous advancements in propulsion which is the single largest impediment to long distance space travel.

As has been mentioned above the scientific community have tackled this issue with considerable endeavour, however there is at present only one theory (of broad support) showing any signs of bearing results. Super string theory is the most dynamic and ferociously complex form of fundamental physics currently in practice. It stands as the GUT physicist’s most potent arsenal for the location of the single theory, and enlists only the most competent of mathematicians. The problem with its use is that it has proved to be more complex than original estimates. At its most basic level string theory works within the confines of dimensioned space, in that we would commonly be aware of the standard three dimensions associated with our world, string theory adds a number of dimensions to its analysis; supposing anything up to twelve separate dimensions.

Where at the previous turn of century many scientists came to believe that little else could be contributed to their individual fields that could match the stunning previous achievements, the recent turn saw a radical shift towards a culmination of open scientific threads forming a single complete vision. It is not just physics that would be irreversibly changed by the discovery of GUT but all forms of scientific endeavour would bare dramatic and fundamental reconstitution as our understanding of how the physical world works, becomes much clearer. It is not inconceivable that society itself could undergo its own transformation in view of the extent of knowledge which would come into play; one pivotal section of which, religion, would likely be an area of extensive restructuring.

All of which leads to the question: how likely is it that scientist’s will discover the grand unification theory? Well, the common assertion is that Albert Einstein was one of, if not the, most formidable intellect this earth has yet produced. Einstein spent the second half of his life attempting to locate this one principle (in a less complex fashion, in that certain forces described above had not been fully introduced); and he came to no conclusive grounds. String theory is the current theoretical vessel being used to achieve answers and it has managed to complicate the issue far more than it has achieved any lasting contribution. It is possible string theory could be vastly improved when results begin to filter out of tests at the Large Hadron Collider, at the CERN laboratories; though much else is expected from this much vaunted instrument – not least information on how the universe was formed.

Science can be a finicky discipline and one thing that has been proven throughout our history is that most dramatic leaps have occurred when one person evolves a singular theory in a moment of utter genius propelling their field forwards. The GUT may have some time to arrive at that singular individual. But if they do, there is no doubt that the world as we know it will become a vastly less mysterious place.

What I find most interesting about the discovery, however, is the, frankly, brilliant (and recent) ability of current palaeontologists to locate fossils of these kinds, and successfully remove them from the soil – whilst maintaining their quality; in this case maintaining a 95% complete skeleton that is shockingly well preserved. Of course, technology is at the heart of this advance, with CT (computed tomography) scanning used to document fossils to a level superior even than human interaction. With Ida, for instance, it seems that much of the original paper’s conclusions came direct from CT imagining of the fossils teeth. Often, in the past, it would be necessary for a palaeontological team to damage, or indeed destroy, a fossil in order to find out the most basic facts of its compilation; which leaves a team little choice but to preserve the structure and ignore the science. Today, CT scans allow for immense investigation to take place, without any structural degradation. Ida is the prime example.

The debate regarding Ida’s evolutionary status remains hotly contentious. The original paper which detailed the find argues that the fossil may belong to a primate grouping from which humans originated, though the author’s withhold from fully advocating this principle. This particular contention is strongly argued against by a number of scientists who maintain that the fossil shows links to this species but is far from definitive. Given its early stages the debate looks certain to continue and indeed the internet sphere of expression has contributed to the argument, as writers expound at length in asserting their logic. However one describes Ida’s status, there is absolutely no denying the simple beauty of her remarkable feat: no other fossil record has survived in her condition, and with such a complete form; which is even more stunning in that she is 47 million years in age.

Regardless of the outcome, Ida’s position in the record of human evolution seems prominent. In time further explorations will be made (the German dig which produced Ida, and several other significant fossils, is a veritable gold mine for paleontological activity) and continued advances in technology will ensure that the record remains wholly intact. Whether Ida proves to be the missing link, or she does not, it is a matter of time before the link is derived. And what a particularly explosive debate that will bring!

Beset with multitudes of issues, tidal energy has shuddered with cost difficulties for many years (some to my mind, farcical), impeding its logical progression at the fore front of tackling the dependence on oil. The understanding that the oceans (and to a similar respect, rivers and lakes) can drive energy production has ensured that water has remained a target of science from the first beginnings of the industrial revolution – and even distantly previous (see the art of the steam engine). Capturing the force of the wave appears to have been only an isolated step in these advancements. Major endeavours have taken place in a technology known as Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), which has thrust the aspiring engineering onto the policy-meeting agendas of governments in major developed nations.  The first flush of success in this new field occurred in the early eighties when a number of plants were built and for a time its future was golden.  But advances failed to reduce the costs (always a killer), and political will for the technology seems to have ebbed as oil production increased (I feel renewable energy as a whole has remained massively underfunded during periods of cheap oil) with the impact on OTEC devastating. Until recently, when significant funding began anew, the outlook for OTEC was bleak.

So, once again – how does this technology work? Water from the upper layer of a warm water stretch of sea is passed through an OTEC plant where it is placed into a low-pressure container, in which it boils. The steam produced is used to drive a turbine which produces electricity. The salt from the original sea water is left behind in transition, and the steam which leaves the turbine is passed through cold water pumped from deeper in the ocean, leaving fresh de-salinated water as the extract. This water can then be used as needed: a categorically brilliant aspect of the process as future climate change is certain to continue the global difficulties of water supply, as up to two billion people approach a future of likely drought.  The electricity generating potential of OTEC is understood to exceed both tidal and wind capabilities. Further, the long argued complaints of wind, namely, the fact that it cannot be relied upon to consistently produce energy is reduced in OTEC as the process is far more stable.

All of which adds up to a brand of energy production which is, it seems, a matter of investment away from contributing to the fight against global warming.

Such seem to be the issues of energy production. Technological breakthroughs come and go – often with little major impact. Note the struggling science of hydrogen engineering, which in the early nineties was viewed as the new petroleum, but today is still extremely unsteady, and thus (at present) unusable, but for some automobile penetration. In the last ten years, however, advances have been made. Recently, major work has been committed to a new type of biomass engineering – known as gasification – in which the materials, often household waste (commonly destined for land fill) is converted into energy, in a chemical procedure that leaves little or no harmful emissions. Pilot gasification plants have been set up in a number of countries, consisting of the usual players, Japan, France, the UK, et al, (Ireland is as ever behind the times) and though at an early stage, it is currently being used to power sections of residential homeland and industrial heartland. The methodology has proven immediately successful, not least because one element of the process is the production of energy and another element is the comprehensive elimination of waste.

So how does it work? For the most part, it seems the process is not overly difficult, nor expensive: its lack of expense is one of its major successes. A gasification plant appears in the form of a single oxygen-sealed chamber. Engineers pump in waste, which is heated to significant levels. The near lack of oxygen ensures that the waste does not burn, but is chemically reformed into syngas – a mixture of gases. This syngas is scrubbed clean of any toxic particles. It is then burned to produce energy, or converted into ethanol and diesel which can be used in all manner of vehicles. All that is left, following the processing, is an ash which can be removed through sewers. The potential is staggering, and can be clearly ascertained: clean energy and vehicle fuel from household waste? A stunning achievement. Even more recent additions have been made by the introduction of plasma to the process, which superheats the waste. This affords better conservation of the energy produced, and an even cleaner return from the process. The ethanol output is thought to be as close to the energy generating potentials of petroleum diesel, and in time will be producible at costs that rival standard fuel. At this rate trash could soon become the new oil.

In Ireland we have focused almost primarily on the wind and wave sources of renewable energy. To an extent geothermal engineering is also applied, and certainly going forward, this facility is expected to be heavily used with regard to the powering of residential housing. One can see the logic in wind and wave, since the Atlantic north – west corridor is possibly the finest stretch of water in the world to make use of these forms of energy production. However, Ireland has failed categorically in achieving this potential. Given our current flirtation with incineration it would have to be considered prudent to monitor the possibility of operating a plasma gasification plant as the potential for this form of energy production is limitless. In time, the entire process could receive three / four times as much energy as it presently produces, and all in the realm of a clean output. We need to focus on these types of technological advances; need to invest in science, which is the primary force for positive change.