Likes Alter energy

Mycellium has almost mystical significance to some greens, but as Eben Bayer of ecovative design notes in this TED Talk, it can also be used to make a biodegradable packaging material called "mycobond" from a variety of different types of waste biomass, thus eliminating the need to make materials like styrofoam from fossil fuel inputs - Eben Bayer: Are mushrooms the new plastic ?.

Product designer Eben Bayer reveals his recipe for a new, fungus-based packaging material that protects fragile stuff like furniture, plasma screens -- and the environment.

Eben Bayer is co-inventor of MycoBond, an organic (really -- its based on mycelium, a living, growing organism) adhesive that turns agri-waste into a foam-like material for packaging and insulation.

Im not sure if this is truly a form of bioplastic, but Im going to count it as a variety of green chemistry. Apparently Dell is going to use this in some of their packaging, so it is gaining some traction already.



You can view the growth process in this video - and unlike most plastics used in packaging, it is fire resistant.

ReNew Economy has a pair of articles looking at the benefits provided by solar power during the recent heatwave in southern Australia - Solar saved southern states from new and costly demand peaks.

Victoria and South Australia have just finished a week which put the highest stress on the electricity grid since a similar heatwave occurred on 28th-30th January 2009. Despite the population of Victoria and South Australia increasing at least 7%2 since then, the electricity demand supplied by the grid during the heat wave was just lower than the peak usage reached on the 29th of Jan 2009.

Electricity demand from the grid in the recent heatwave peaked on Wednesday. There were initially warnings of potential load shedding1 from the grid operator after the usually baseload Loy Yang A3 brown coal unit and one of the Torrens Island gas units tripped offline on Tuesday. However, demand came in slightly lower than forecast and apart from some minor local transmission outages, demand was fully supplied. ...

If no solar had been installed, Victoria would have set a new demand record of 10,675MW at 1:55pm today 17th-Jan-2014, higher than the metered demand of 10,572MW used at 12:35pm on the 29th-Jan-2009. South Australia would have set a new demand record of 3,549MW at 4:30pm yesterday 16th-Jan-2014, higher than the metered demand of 3,441MW set 4:25pm on the 29th-Jan-2009. Solar reduced the maximum combined VIC & SA demand by 448MW.

Asking what happens when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow ignores the spare capacity built into the grid to handle record demand days like yesterday and today. For the majority of the year, spare generation capacity can backup variations in solar or sudden failures at fossil fuel plants. Record demands, where there is little spare capacity, are caused by hot conditions and strong sunlight. Solar is now a critical component of the generation fleet that reliably supplies our power.

An the second from Giles Parkinson - Solar puts heat on big generators as demand peaks subside.

There seems no doubt that solar is playing a key role in moderating demand and stress on the grid.

It’s interesting to note that the differences between the peaks of previous years – such as in 2009 when there was little solar – correspond with the amount of solar that has been installed (notwithstanding the need to add in population and air-con growth, offset by more energy efficient appliances and less manufacturing).

On Wednesday, for instance, the interval peaks were 10,110 MW in Victoria and 3,108MW in SA. The corresponding numbers on January 29, 2009, were 10,446 MW and 3,270 MW. According to the APVI’s Live Solar website, the PV contribution at the peak times was around 220 MW in each state. Some suggest that without solar, Victoria would have hit record demand from the grid on Thursday – and prices to boot.

In WA, the peak in electricity demand has fallen well short of previous years, despite the record-breaking streak of temperatures, rising population and growing use of air conditioning.

In 2011 and 2012, peak demand peaked at more than 4,000GW. In the past week, it made it only as high as 3,733. How much solar does WA have on its rooftops? About 340MW.

This has had an impact on peak pricing events. In 2009, the average spot price between 8am and 4pm was over $6,000/MWh. The average price – despite a few peaks – in the latest period has been about one tenth of that.

On Thursday, the volume weighted pool prices between 08.00 and 16.00 yesterday were $299/MWh in Victoria and $377/MWh in South Australia, despite the huge levels of demand. The reaching of super peaks of $12,000/MWh or more in Victoria occurred mostly when Loy Yang A – the biggest brown coal generator – had one of its four units off-line for urgent repairs .

Generators and retailers use elaborate hedging policies to reduce their exposure to such fluctuations – which can be triggered as much by bidding tactics and other factors as much as weather – but the fact remains that a large revenue pool has been evaporated by the impact of solar.

In the same way that one third of the network costs are to cater for about 100 hours of peak demand a year, generators source a huge amount of their annual revenue from similar events. The problem for many coal generators is that they grew to rely on these peak pricing events to boost their revenue, and inflate their values. Solar eats into those revenues whenever they produce – because the output comes during the day-time period, when prices are normally higher.

Michael Klare has a new article in TomDispatch about fossil fuel politics in North America - A New Energy Third World in North America?.

The “curse” of oil wealth is a well-known phenomenon in Third World petro-states where millions of lives are wasted in poverty and the environment is ravaged, while tiny elites rake in the energy dollars and corruption rules the land. Recently, North America has been repeatedly hailed as the planet’s twenty-first-century “new Saudi Arabia” for “tough energy” -- deep-sea oil, Canadian tar sands, and fracked oil and natural gas. But here’s a question no one considers: Will the oil curse become as familiar on this continent in the wake of a new American energy rush as it is in Africa and elsewhere? Will North America, that is, become not just the next boom continent for energy bonanzas, but a new energy Third World?

Once upon a time, the giant U.S. oil companies -- Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, and Texaco -- got their start in North America, launching an oil boom that lasted a century and made the U.S. the planet’s dominant energy producer. But most of those companies have long since turned elsewhere for new sources of oil.

Eager to escape ever-stronger environmental restrictions and dying oil fields at home, the energy giants were naturally drawn to the economically and environmentally wide-open producing areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America -- the Third World -- where oil deposits were plentiful, governments compliant, and environmental regulations few or nonexistent.

Here, then, is the energy surprise of the twenty-first century: with operating conditions growing increasingly difficult in the global South, the major firms are now flocking back to North America. To exploit previously neglected reserves on this continent, however, Big Oil will have to overcome a host of regulatory and environmental obstacles. It will, in other words, have to use its version of deep-pocket persuasion to convert the United States into the functional equivalent of a Third World petro-state.

Knowledgeable observers are already noting the first telltale signs of the oil industry’s “Third-Worldification” of the United States. Wilderness areas from which the oil companies were once barred are being opened to energy exploitation and other restraints on invasive drilling operations are being dismantled. Expectations are that, in the wake of the 2012 election season, environmental regulations will be rolled back even further and other protected areas made available for development. In the process, as has so often been the case with Third World petro-states, the rights and wellbeing of local citizens will be trampled underfoot.

TOD ANZ has a post pointing to a SMH article on the "dutch disease" slowly destroying Australian industry - Squeezing the life out of local industry.

The cost of the mining boom is a high dollar and a desperate manufacturing sector.



WERE you among the multitudes who cheered last year when the mining industry managed to hobble Ken Henrys proposal for a comprehensive resources rent tax?



Did you begin to feel a strange sense of unease when, just a few weeks later, those same mining groups delivered earnings results that would have been unimaginable a couple of years earlier?



And are you becoming alarmed at the forces sweeping through the economy right now that are ravaging our ever diminishing manufacturing base?



At some stage, either demand for our minerals and energy will slow or well simply run out. Thats the thing about natural resources; they are finite. You only get to dig them out of the ground once.



When this boom does end, youd hate to think that as a nation we would be left with nothing more than a pile of worn out, imported flat screen televisions, a lot of empty holes in the landscape and no way of earning a crust in the future.



Yesterdays long-expected restructuring from BlueScope Steel, which will shed a quarter of its workforces at Port Kembla and Hastings, follows a similar announcement by OneSteel last week and proposed layoffs at Qantas and Westpac.



These workers arent just units of labour, as the economics textbooks would have us believe, who can quickly transfer to the mines of Western Australia. They have families and commitments and specialised skills that make them far less mobile than machines.



The simple explanation for what is happening right now is that the resources sector is squeezing the life out of our manufacturing industries. The enormous amount of money flowing into Australia - from mineral exports and in new capital to fund new projects - has pushed our dollar and our interest rates higher.



There is a way forward for Australia but it requires bold leadership, a refusal to be held hostage to opinion polls and an end to the easy capitulation to vested interests.



The fruits from the resources boom need to be harvested and invested for our future. And they could be invested in such a way as to take the pressure off our currency, thereby maintaining the competitiveness of our manufacturers. (Remember too, Henry proposed tax cuts to industry.)



Norway has done just that with its oil revenues. It has a sovereign wealth fund with accumulated assets of more than half a trillion dollars. All of it is invested offshore, thereby helping to stabilise the amount of cash flowing into the economy. That counteracts the pressure on its currency and longer term diversifies its earnings base.



Chile has a stabilisation fund while Alaska and the Canadian province of Alberta have similar funds. Thats not to mention the Gulf states that invest the proceeds of their oil revenues abroad. Countries such as Singapore and China have massive sovereign wealth funds that invest the proceeds of their trade surpluses.



But the bulk of the owners are foreign institutions. And that is where the proceeds from the biggest-ever resources boom in our history are headed.

While wave power is one of my favourite potential sources of renewable energy progress in the field continues to be achingly slow. ReNew Economy has a report on a new startup in Western Australia - Perth company seeks $4m for new wave energy technology.

Perth-based renewable energy company Bombora Wave Power Australia has launched its first round of capital raising, to help fund the next phase of development of its award winning wave energy technology. The company, run by WA brothers Shawn and Glen Ryan, is hoping to raise $4 million towards the next two years of development of its home-grown Wave Energy Converter (WEC) technology, which has so far been tank tested and cleared for technology readiness.

The WEC technology uses a unique ramp-like feature to capture both heave and surge motions within a wave to extract more of its energy. The (patent pending) design impedes the wave’s forward motion, forcing it to rise higher, accentuating the forces acting on the power capture elements of the device. It also restricts flow back over the structure during a wave trough, lowering the wave depth and emphasising the effective height variation of the wave as it passes.

The Oil Drum has a post looking at the paper from Leonardo Maugeri that prompted George Monbiots strange about face on peak oil - New Energy Report from Harvard Makes Unsupportable Assumptions.

As for US production, this is tied to increasing production from all the oil shales in the country, which will see spurts in growth similar to that seen in the Bakken and Eagle Ford.

I estimate that additional unrestricted production from shale/tight oil might reach 6.6 mbd by 2020, or an additional adjusted production of 4.1 mbd after considering risk factors (by comparison, U.S. shale/tight oil production was about 800,000 bd in December 2011). To these figures, I added an unrestricted additional production of 1 mbd from sources other than shale oil that I reduced by 40 percent considering risks, thus obtaining a 0.6 mbd in terms of additional adjusted production by 2020. In particular, I am more confident than others on the prospects of a faster-than-expected recovery of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010.

As I noted in my review of the Citicorp report this optimism flies in the face of the views of the DMR in North Dakota – who ought to know, since they have the data. The report further seems a little confused on how horizontal wells work in these reservoirs. As Aramco has noted, one cannot keep drilling longer and longer holes and expect the well production to double with that increase in length. Because of the need to maintain differential pressures between the reservoir and the well, there are optimal lengths for any given formation. And as I have also noted, the report flies in the face of the data on field production from the deeper wells of the Gulf of Mexico.

It seems pertinent to close with the report’s list of assumptions on which the gain in oil production from the Bakken is based:

* A price of oil (WTI) equal to or greater than $ 70 per barrel through 2020

* A constant 200 drilling rigs per week;

* An estimated ultimate recovery rate of 10 percent per individual producing well (which in most cases has already been exceeded) and for the overall formation;

* An OOP calculated on the basis of less than half the mean figure of Price’s 1999 assessment (413 billion barrels of OOP, 100 billion of proven reserves, including Three Forks).

Consequently, I expect 300 billion barrels of OOP and 45 billion of proven oil reserves, including Three Forks;

* A combined average depletion rate for each producing well of 15 percent over the first five years, followed by a 7 percent depletion rate;

* A level of porosity and permeability of the Bakken/Three Forks formation derived from those experienced so far by oil companies engaged in the area.

Based on these assumptions, my simulation yields an additional unrestricted oil production from the Bakken and Three Forks plays of around 2.5 mbd by 2020, leading to a total unrestricted production of more than 3 mbd by 2020.

Enough, already! There are too many unrealistic assumptions to make this worth spending more time on. To illustrate but one of the critical points - this is the graph that I have shown in earlier posts of the decline rate of a typical well in the Bakken. You can clearly see that the decline rate is much steeper than 15% in the first five years.

I suppose that just about everyone knows of the important role the p53 protein plays in protecting cells from becoming cancerous. The protein was identified 30 years ago and its gene (TP53) cloned soon thereafter. Whats not so widely known is just how complex the operation of p53 in protecting against cancer really is. And very recent research shows the complexity is even more than previously thought.

However, the complexity is to be expected, because evolution doesnt "design" cellular mechanisms to work in a straightforward way. The mechanisms are simply the result of about a billion years of trial and error. Being pretty and elegant was not a criterion for success.

Nature is "hairy", knowing nothing of Occams Razor, and caring even less. Simplicity is for wimps.

But one thing is clear: p53 plays a large role in preventing, or at least suppressing, the development of cancer. In many types of cancer, p53 is found to have mutations more than 50% of the time. Even if p53 isnt mutated, cancer cells generally have other p53 abnormalities, such as low levels of the protein or the presence of various factors that interfere with its activity.

Until the latest research, there have been two principal ways known in which p53 works against cancer, and several additional minor ways. The two main ways p53 has been known to act are binding to DNA as a transcription factor, and binding directly to certain proteins. And each of these mechanisms can lead to either of two main types of tumor suppression: apoptosis (cell death) and temporary or permanent suspension of the cell cycle, which is the process a cell goes through in order to divide and proliferate.

P53 is primarily a transcription factor. In this role it is found in a cell nucleus and binds to various specific DNA gene promoter regions, in order to direct transcription of the associated gene – the first step in production of proteins from a gene.

The proteins that are expressed as a result of this p53 activity can play a part in either apopotosis or cell cycle control (as well as other functions not directly related to cancer – see here, here, here). Which function is invoked depends on the type of signal that activates the p53. Among the possible conditions that may be signaled are detection of correctable or uncorrectable damage to DNA and detection of chromosome telomeres that are too short.

In addition to binding to DNA as a transcription factor, p53 is also capable of binding directly to other proteins in order to control their behavior. Mainly these proteins are involved with apoptosis, such as members of the Bcl2 family.

P53 itself is actually a family of proteins – there are at least 9 different RNA transcripts that can be derived from the TP53 gene. But one thing that each of these family members have in common is a segment, called the DNA binding domain. It is this part of the p53 that is capable of binding to either DNA or other proteins. (In general, a protein domain is a more-or-less self-sufficient component of a protein. Often the same domain appears in different members of a family of proteins.)

One indication of the importance of this p53 domain is the fact that point mutations (errors involving only a single nucleotide pair) in the part of TP53 that code for the binding domain are the only type of point mutations of p53 that are commonly found in tumors. Errors that affect portions of p53 outside of the binding domain are not associated with cancer.

Theres one more thing to note about p53s role as a transcription factor. Namely, the RNA that is transcribed under the direction of p53 is not always messenger RNA (mRNA) that will eventually code for the production of a protein. P53 can also initiate the transcription of genes that code for microRNA (miRNA), which is a single-stranded RNA molecule thats normally only 21 to 23 nucleotides in length. Over 500 different types of miRNA have been found in human cells.

MicroRNA is never translated into a protein. Instead, miRNA molecules regulate the translation of messenger RNA for many different proteins (by binding with the mRNA to prevent translation). It has been known for some time that p53 acts as a transcription factor for the miRNA family known as miR-34. It has also been learned that among the proteins regulated by miR-34 are some found in pathways that lead to apoptosis or cell cycle arrest. The net effect is that miR-34 has tumor-suppressing properties, so this is another way that p53, as a transcription factor, helps suppress tumors.

Many other miRNA molecules, on the other hand, are found at high levels in cancer cells. Such miRNAs most likely inhibit expression of tumor suppressing genes, whose proteins might otherwise control cell proliferation or migration. Weve discussed a number of miRNAs associated with cancer, mostly of the sort that promote cancer, here and here.

Nevertheless, there are miRNAs besides miR-34 that have anti-cancer effects. Three in particular are miR-16-1, miR-143, and miR-145. It has been observed that these miRNAs, and several others, are found at higher levels in cells where p53 has been activated as a result of DNA damage. (Normally, p53 formed in non-cancer cells is either quickly degraded or else inhibited by certain proteins, especially MDM2, so as not to unnecessarily promote apoptosis or cell cycle arrest. The presence of DNA damage results in the removal of these inhibitions on p53.)

It therefore appears that p53 is doing something to help produce a number of miRNAs, some of which are tumor suppressors. The curious thing, though, is that it can be shown that p53 is not a transcription factor for the genes that encode these miRNAs.

So what is it that p53 is doing instead to help produce these miRNAs? New research published in the July 23, 2009 issue of Nature answers this question – and it uncovers an entirely new mechanism through which p53 (and its binding domain, in particular) acts as a tumor suppressor. Heres the research abstract:

Modulation of microRNA processing by p53

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as key post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression, involved in diverse physiological and pathological processes. Although miRNAs can function as both tumour suppressors and oncogenes in tumour development, a widespread downregulation of miRNAs is commonly observed in human cancers and promotes cellular transformation and tumorigenesis. This indicates an inherent significance of small RNAs in tumour suppression. However, the connection between tumour suppressor networks and miRNA biogenesis machineries has not been investigated in depth. Here we show that a central tumour suppressor, p53, enhances the post-transcriptional maturation of several miRNAs with growth-suppressive function, including miR-16-1, miR-143 and miR-145, in response to DNA damage. ... These findings suggest that transcription-independent modulation of miRNA biogenesis is intrinsically embedded in a tumour suppressive program governed by p53. Our study reveals a previously unrecognized function of p53 in miRNA processing, which may underlie key aspects of cancer biology.

To understand whats going on, its necessary to explain a few things about how miRNAs are produced. Its not a simple 1-step process of transcribing an miRNA gene into the final short piece of RNA.

There are, instead, three steps. The first step is transcription, done just as is done for any other gene. The RNA produced in this step is many nucleotides long, and is called the "primary transcript" or pri-miRNA. This pri-miRNA is then cut into smaller pieces having a hairpin shape, called pre-miRNA. The pre-miRNA, in turn, is further processed to produce the final "mature" miRNA.

The intermediate step that converts pri-miRNA to pre-miRNA is performed by a protein complex known as the "microprocessor complex" (having nothing to do with computers, of course). One of the key proteins in this complex is an enzyme called Drosha. The final step, which is performed by another enzyme called Dicer, splits the pre-miRNA apart to yield the mature miRNA.

The main contribution of p53 in this process is to facilitate the action of Drosha. It seems that, although Drosha can do the job by itself (since miRNAs are needed even if p53 isnt active), p53 helps by binding (via its binding domain) with parts of the microprocessor complex. This is indicated by the observation that mutations in the binding domain disable p53 binding to the complex, resulting in lower levels of miRNA production.

So there you have it: an essentially novel way that p53 acts as a tumor suppressor, by facilitating production, non-transcriptionally, of tumor-suppressing miRNAs.

Suzuki, H., Yamagata, K., Sugimoto, K., Iwamoto, T., Kato, S., & Miyazono, K. (2009). Modulation of microRNA processing by p53 Nature, 460 (7254), 529-533 DOI: 10.1038/nature08199

Further reading:

Protein plays three cancer-fighting roles (7/22/09) – Science News article on the research

Link between p53 and miRNA – editors summary in Nature of the research

Cancer: Three birds with one stone (7/23/09) – Nature news article on the research

Tags: p53, microRNA, cancer