The Distributed Grid

Electric vehicles can cut greenhouse gas emissions in two ways. They are clean and efficient. By acting as storage capacity, they can also make the electric grid more efficient.

Electric cars are also cheap to drive and to maintain, and they don't make much noise. They still are relatively expensive to buy, but automated production and economies of scale can overcome this hurdle and make electric vehicles cheaper than gasoline cars.

If the electricity came from coal-fired power plants, driving an electric car still causes less greenhouse emissions than driving a gasoline car. Electric cars have zero emissions and are also more efficient. Thermal efficiency of power plants is higher than the thermal efficiency of most gasoline cars. Much of the fuel burned in gasoline cars turns into heat. Electric cars use regenerative breaking and do not use their motors when waiting before traffic lights. Electric cars use energy more efficiently, especially in city traffic that causes most of the emissions.

Impact on the grid - Running our entire fleet of vehicles on electricity instead of oil would not put much stress on the electric grid. One study concludes that if we transformed our entire fleet of vehicles into electric vehicles, they would jointly consume only 20% of grid capacity.

We wouldn't even need much expansion of the grid in terms of extra capacity or transmission lines. The majority of vehicles could run on the idle capacity that is available in the existing grid. One study concludes that there is sufficient idle capacity in the grid to power 73% of light vehicles, i.e. cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans, without adding generation or transmission.

Moreover, such a move would benefit the grid. Car batteries can contain many times more power than what cars need for their average daily travel. Cheap off-peak rates would make it financially attractive to charge batteries at off-peak times, over and above what the individual user consumed during the day. The surplus can then be fed back into the grid to help out with high demand at peak times. Net-metering at good rates could make this attractive, while the grid becomes more efficient, more reliable and less prone to outages and glitches.

New batteries for electric cars are light, safe and do not harm the environment. Batteries are on the market now that allow electric cars to drive for hours without recharging. While these batteries are still expensive - they can cost over $10,000 - and are hard to get, mass production can overcome these hurdles.

Most cars only drive short distances. Recharging them at home and/or at work would suffice in most cases. In case they needed extra power to travel longer distances, their batteries could also be recharged at other locations with the required outlets, e.g. gas stations, parking buildings or parking meters. New batteries are now on the market that can be recharged in minutes, they can last for over a decade and can be recharged thousands of times without degeneration. This would make recharging convenient and safe, compared to filling a car with gas.

We don't all need to buy new cars. Many existing vehicles can be converted into electric vehicles. With some financial assistance, the conversion cost can pay itself back over time through savings on the cost of driving and maintenance. For those who cannot afford to buy a new electric car, there are also initiatives such as Project Better Place that plans to offer electric cars at a cheap price, while making profits on services such as car maintenance, battery upgrades and recharging the batteries. In an effort to offset the company's greenhouse gas footprint, employers may also contribute through leasing arrangements and by making recharging facilities available at work.

Renewable energy looks set to become the dominant supplier of energy. Wind turbines are being installed around the world. This will increase the amount of surplus energy in the grid at night. Storing this surplus energy in the batteries of electric cars will increase overall efficiencies.

Owners of electric cars will consume more electricity (but no gasoline) and are more likely to get solar panels, for the savings as well as to help the environment. Similarly, as more of their staff start driving electric cars, businesses will be more inclined to get solar panels on the roofs of their buildings and car parking facilities.

Solar facilities typically include a battery. Car batteries could be used instead. Most cars are parked at home when people switch on their lights, air-conditioners and TV-sets. Similarly, the power needs at work coincide with cars of staff being parked there. Using the batteries of electric cars to store electricity can reduce the need for batteries in solar facilities and will thus reduce the overall cost of solar facilities.

Cost of solar power has come down over the years. As an example, Nanasolar now offers thin film material at under $1 per watt. This promises clean and safe energy that is price-competitive with power plants. It also becomes increasingly attractive for households and businesses to install solar facilities. Recognising the market opportunities and the financial incentives made available at different levels of government, there now are numerous companies offering to help people adopt green energy at home without having to make large investments, sometimes even without any upfront payments.

A FeeBate Policy can help facilitate the switch to zero emission vehicles and to clean and safe ways to produce energy. A FeeBate policy can include fees on gasoline cars, with the proceeds used for rebates on zero emission vehicles. A FeeBate policy can also include fees on fossil fuel, with the proceeds used for rebates on clean and safe alternatives, such as wind and solar facilities.

In conclusion, all this will lead to a more distributed grid, with numerous suppliers and with numerous places where electricity is stored. The grid now draws electricity from a relatively small number of large power plants, to supply electricity in an area. Renewable energy supplies only a fraction of power, most of it through hydro facilities. The existing grid looks much like a broadcasting network, with a relatively small number of broadcasting stations sending content one-way to the public. In future, the grid looks set to become more distributed, with two-way connections to most users, much like a multitude of users can send and receive information over the Internet.

More Wind Power!

Globally, wind power generation more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006. But while wind power is making steady progress in Europe, the U.S. gets less than 1% of its electricity from wind power,

Spain now gets 9% percent of its electricity from wind power, with turbines generating 44% of electricity in the province of Navarra. In Germany turbines generate 7% of electricity, 36% in the coastal state of Sleswig-Holstein. In Denmark, wind turbines produced an average of 18.5% of electricity in 2004. Denmark aims to have 50% of its electricity demand supplied by wind turbines in 2025.

So, are the Danes wrong, or is the US public being fed the wrong ideas? Those with vested interests in the status quo have gone to extraordinary lengths to fabricate arguments against clean technologies such as hydrogen and wind power. They claim that wind power was unreliable as the wind does not blow continuously. Indeed, the contribution of wind power fluctuates with the wind, so when it is windy, the contribution of wind power can increase. On September 15th, a particularly windy day, wind turbines accounted for 70% of Denmark's electricity measured around midday. On windy nights, Denmark transfers excess electricity along interconnected grids into Germany and Sweden.

Wind power works best in combination with other technologies, such as solar and hydro-power. Furthermore, electricity can be stored in many ways, such as by pumping water back uphill. Do wind turbines make too much noise? Virtually noiseless systems can be installed in your backyard. Storage of water, heat and electricity can result in huge savings. For household hot water usage, there are low-tech thermal solar systems that heat up domestic water tanks, requiring no electricity. Many other 'low-tech' alternatives are being tested for use in developing countries, such as flywheels, springs and weights. Mobile phone and other electronic devices can be powered by hand cranks.

Using more advanced technologies, electricity from wind turbines can be stored by compressing or heating substances in tanks. One of the most promising ways to store surplus wind power is by producing hydrogen. Hydrogen can be stored under pressure in tanks, to provide fuel for industrial or domestic use or in cars, all without creating pollution. As discussed in more detail in an earlier article, electric vehicles can also run on Lithium-ion batteries that can be recharged from the solar panels on top of the roofs under which they are parked.

Anyway, more electric cars means that we need to generate more electricity, and wind power is one of the easiest and cleanest ways to do so. We can choose the times when best to recharge the batteries or produce the necessary hydrogen, so we can do so when it's windy and when there's little further demand, so it will take little or no electricity away from other usage. Look at it this way and claims that wind power was unreliable and that hydrogen was inefficient do not hold.

Once you look at the wider picture of a mix of technologies, the 'problems' that opponents of wind energy and hydrogen like to bring up will quickly evaporate. Similarly, many perceived problems are purely the result of the way the power grid is currently organized. A more distributed and intelligent system will allow a multitude of points to act as suppliers, with net-metering allowing households to earn money for feeding surplus electricity from their wind turbines back into the grid.

Oh, and do wind turbines kill birds? Does nuclear radiation kill birds? A recently completed Danish study using infrared monitoring found that seabirds steer clear of offshore wind turbines and are remarkably adept at avoiding the rotors.

Wind power does deserve more attention and should get more marketshare, while the share of fossil fuel should be reduced. The quickest and most effective way to achieve this is by taxing fossil fuel and using the proceeds to subsidize supply of wind power and other clean and renewable alternatives.

References:

- Wind power in Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

- 50% Wind Power in Denmark in 2025

http://www.windpower.org/

- On a windy night, Denmark exports elctricity

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22500426-23850,00.html

- European wind power companies grow in U.S.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18310987/

- Wind power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

- Massive Offshore Wind Turbines Safe for Birds

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18167/

- Solar power and electric cars, a winning combination!

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977115548

- Tax greenhouse gas emissions!

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977030740

The Hydrogen Economy

Hydrogen fuel cells constitute an efficient way to store energy and as such they form an important component in our struggle to contain global warming. Hydrogen fuel cells are a convenient and clean way to power cars and supply electricity on demand virtually everywhere. The importance of hydrogen as a technology is huge, as it constitutes the clean and renewable storage compliment to clean and renewable ways to capture energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, wave and hydro-power.

The Hydrogen Economy is much more than that; it promises to change the fabric of our society. Hydrogen, holds the promise to break up the current cartel of energy suppliers that works hand-in-glove with a military-industrial complex that holds the entire world in a suffocating stranglehold. Hydrogen can clean things up and set the economy free. Hydrogen is the elixer that can remedy our polluting habits to create a better society, without the monopolies, the pollution, the taxes, regulations and the military controls that come with the current ways of supplying energy. Currently, energy is largely obtained from sources that centralize the economy around a single supplier, such as a huge nuclear plant or coal-powered plant. Similarly, oil is pumped up under monopoly conditions and transported in huge tankers, which has created these allmighty oil companies that extend their grip over society through services stations and political lobbying to keep cars polluting the world.

We should look forward to a world in which anyone can capture energy for free in their backyards, from renewable power sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydro-power. This energy can be directly stored in fuel cells that are built into heating and cooling systems of buildings, lights, TV-sets, stereo equipment, computers, cars, mowers, scooters, power tools, etc. Wherever you now see rechargeable Lithion batteries used, such as in mobile phones, think hydrogen and you'll get a preview of the bright future that awaits us. Hydrogen fuel cells will enable us to cut the wires through which the puppetmaster controls us now. Hydrogen fuel cells hold the promise to set us free. Let's take a serious effort to give this technology a chance!

Global Warming - Tax or Standards?

As global warming becomes an increasingly urgent issue, there are many calls for action. Many call for standards to be set, to achieve a reduction in pollution. In some cases, it seems to make sense to set a standard or to simply prohibit a product or service that causes too much pollution. However, there are several arguments that make tax more attractive compared to standards and outright prohibition. Taxing supply of energy that was generated by burning fossil fuel can often be a better alternative to achieve reductions in pollution. As such taxes make pollution more expensive, markets could work out what was the least polluting alternative.

How well do standards work? The inevitable practicalities of standards are that some rather polluting behavior will be permitted, while other behavior that was far less polluting will be prohibited. Standards are often popular as they seem to come at no direct cost for consumers, whereas taxes only seems to cost us money. But in reality, the cost of compliance with standards can be huge and it may not always make sense, i.e. people do not often see how a standard helps reducing pollution. A tax has a direct relationship with the pollution and therefore makes more sense, especially if the proceeds of tax are used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy.

There is popular support for outlawing cars that are too polluting, but does that justify standards rather than tax? Perhaps someone only drives a rather polluting car for a very small distance once in a while, producing far less pollution than someone who drives a clean car for long distances daily. With tax there's no such judgement call to be made. Taxing emissions constitutes a straitforward and effective instrument to reduce global warming, whereas standards could lead to all kinds of complications.

There's not just an economic argument in there, it's also a moral issue. The reality of global warming urges us to reduce all pollution, rather than to prohibit only some forms of pollution while legalizing and protecting other forms of pollution, as if some were justified in polluting since they complied with an arbitrary standard or were exempt from complying. Indeed, will the army be expected to comply, will police in persuit of subject stick to the limit or will the burglars, for that matter? Tax can simply apply across the board, to all supply of energy resulting from burning fossil fuel. All users pay the tax and they will pay more, the more they use such energy. Such a tax makes sense and is also fair - it penalises all pollution and it penalises the bigger polluter more than the smaller polluter, at a flat rate or under a scale that can be gliding or exponential and that is under control of the legislator and can be adjusted as needed. Standards, by contrast, set arbitrary limits - rather than to prohibit all pollution, they approve some pollution and prohibit other pollution. Standards operate in a framework that only allows one option, i.e. one has to comply with the standard.

Standards put legislators in charge of running the economy. Where standards produce only one correct outcome (i.e. one has to comply with the prescriptions), tax is much more flexible and leaves more choice in the hands of suppliers to come up with products that respond to market demand. These market mechanisms make tax a much more effective instrument, both economically and in terms of reducing global warming. Standards lead to a single product, designed by legislators and administrators, with all the associated risks of bureaucratic waste, little innovation, favoratism and collusion.

Standards give suppliers an economic incentive to operate on the edges of what the standard permits, seeking loopholes and ways to slip through the mazes. A standard forces all suppliers to produce a product that is just as polluting as their competitors, thus maximising (permittable) pollution. By contrast, tax doesn't prescribe product details other than that the more one pollutes, the more tax is paid. Tax thus leaves it up to suppliers to design a product, while creating incentives to produce a product that reduces pollution more than their competitors.

Also, standards can come not only with a high cost of compliance, but also a high cost of administering the standard. Who pays for the cost of setting the standard, administering it, the technical testing and the testing of the dicisions in court? Who pays for the cost of enforcement? What will happen if one does not comply? Who pays for imprisonment of offenders?

By contrast, tax raises money in a rather simple and straitforward manner, without the need for a battery of trained technical staff and experts to test things. As said, the proceeds of tax could be used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, making the policy more effective, whereas there's less clarity what the impact will be of the cost of standards.

Standards cost a lot of money. Should penalties paid by offenders perhaps pay for that cost? Designing a policy on that basis would only lead to administrators becoming dependent on revenue from fines and give them an incentive to chase fines instead of reducing global warming. It's often hard to get rid of such administrators. Tax, by contrast, will simply go away by itself. If no more energy is sold that resulted from burning of fossil fuel, then no tax will be levied on the supply of such energy.

In conclusion, taxes work better to combat global warming than standards. Mind you, I'm not arguing to abolish all standards. There's a place for standards and I surely wouldn't want to abolish safety standards for vehicles. But what we need to look at here is what is the most effective framework. Note that we have progressive income taxes (i.e. the more you earn, the higher the scale at which you're taxed). Yet, Warren Buffett, the world's third-richest, was last year taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million, while his receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
This because there are so many deductions and loopholes in the tax system. If we're to introduce a progressive tax on fossil fuel (one that increases as one pollutes more), then we have to be very cautious about possible exemptions and deductions. Also, taxes run the risk of being consumed by administrators who seek to perpetuate their bureauracy.

The framework I propose is a combination of tax and subsidies. The proceeds of the proposed tax on fossil fuel should be spent to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, rather than end up in the consolidated government funds. If we taxed the rich polluters and spent the money to help the poor polluters (as in the old socialist motto), then pollution will only increase, as the rich can afford to continue to pollute, while the poor will pollute even more if they get paid to do so. the rich can afford the higher energy prices (being rich) while the poor get compensated (either directly from the proceeds of the carbon tax or because the proceeds will be used to lower income and payroll taxes), then there will be little or no change to people's patterns of energy use. As said, the rich can afford to continue with their current lifestyle while the poor get financial support, so there's little or no incentive for either to change.

I don't want to see the proceeds of emissions tax added to the consolidated government funds, because of the risk that it will then be used to assist people buying fossil fuel or simply to feed a wasteful bureaucracy. Instead, I want all proceeds to be used directly to subsidize clean and renewable energy. It should be a local dollar for dollar exchange, to assure people that their money will be used to lower the price of clean energy in their area. That way, the combined policy will be most effective and most easily accepted.

I propose a new emissions tax to be introduced and the proceeds to be used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy. An emissions tax introduced as a new tax doesn't require budget changes and makes it easier to raise extra money to subsidize alternative energy, which will reduce the local price of alternative energy and which in turn will help people cope with higher energy prices. A new tax could be justified on those grounds, and also on the need to become energy independent and since the urgency of global warming warrents compensation for cost to be more directly included in the price of fossil fuel.

My feeling is that a new tax at a mere 10% would be acceptable to the public and (given the proportion of energy now generated from fossil fuel) such a tax would result in a huge amount of money. If (as I propose) all that money was used to subsidize clean and renewable energy, it would probably be more than the alternative energy industry could handle at this time. Instead, we need a framework of policies that work together to establish a shift away from burning fossil fuel. We need to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, but where should we get the money for such subsidies? Doesn't it make a lot of sense to get those who pollute most to pay for it?

Ten Dangers of Global Warming

---

Abstract

Many people wrongly believe that the only way they will be affected by global warming, will be a tiny sea level rise over many decades. But there are at least ten dangers of global warming. Events that to many may seem to be unrelated, can combine to make things progressively worse, with one danger feeding and reinforcing the next one.

---

Contents

The Scream  

• 1. Flooding
• 2. Shortage of water
• 3. Famine and disease
• 4. Migration and refugees
• 5. Collapse of the financial system
• 6. Economic collapse
• 7. War and civil unrest
• 8. Pollution, in particular as a result of nuclear war, fallout and waste
• 9. Tipping points
• 10. Panic

Let's have a look at the many concerns and dangers associated with global warming and the resulting changes in climate around the world. I've tentatively grouped them into ten points.

1. Flooding.

We've all seen the pictures of disappearing glaciers and the predictions of rising sea levels. Most people live close to the sea, but many are in denial about the impact of global warming. They falsely believe that the only change that will affect them will be a tiny rise of sea level over many decades. But without action on global warming, weather events will become increasingly extreme.

And without government action to move people to newly-built cities, they will continue to live on land most prone to flooding and most exposed to tsunamis, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes and thunderstorms, until a disaster hits them like we've seen happen in New Orleans. The task ahead is many scales larger than the evacuation of New Orleans, which after all occurred in the richest nation on earth while all other infrastructure in the U.S. was in good working order. Ironically, global warming comes with increased risks not only of flooding, but also of shortage of water.

Storm Surge

2. Shortage of water.

Dead Vlei

Many areas could be hit by droughts, especially once glaciers that previously fed rivers have disappeared. We can also expect more droughts as the weather becomes more turbulent, while the occasional heavy storm wouldn't give much relief, but instead cause landslides, erosion and run-off of top-soil.

Heatwaves and shortage of potable water cause dehydration and heat stroke in people and livestock, making them more vulnerable to diseases. Lack of rain and irrigation results in loss of stock and crop, and increases risks of wildfires.      

As people and animals move to more fertile grounds, overgrazing of land and clearing land of trees could cause desertification there as well. All this, combined with the increased risk of flooding, should increase concerns for famine and disease.

3. Famine and disease.

Famine 

Higher temperatures will increase the risk of tropical diseases, such as malaria, in previously temperate zones.

Starvation is one of the biggest unconscious human fears that may well become a reality that is daily displayed on TV. The most fertile land is typically located just above sea level, where rivers enter the sea. Due to climate change, many areas will need to switch to other crops. This will take time, further contributing to transitional if not permanent shortages of food everywhere. Food storage and distribution will be hit by rising cost of cooling, while stored food will become exposed to pests and diseases in the face of increased humidity and in the absence of adequate refridgeration. Cost of transport will rise, while many roads may become inaccessable due to flooding and storm damage.

4. Migration and refugees.

Migration will stress the infrastructure of many cities, even if they weren't affected much directly by climate change in terms of famine, droughts, epidemics, flooding or storm damage. Apart from this, people will also be driven away from many areas by pollution, heat, pests, diseases, shortages of water and supplies, and collapse of infrastructure, medical care and security.

Many people will seek new habitats, while at the same time many countries will seek to stop refugees from crossing borders. Refugee camps are notorious for the outbreak of epidemics, such as cholera. Without proper planning and action, this could result in human tragedy at unprecedented scale, while refugee camps could become breeding grounds for new diseases like avian influenza.

Natural disasters caused by climate change, from Wikipedia, Refugees 

5. Collapse of the financial system.

The Biochar Economy 

The value of money used to be linked to gold, but now is based on economic growth, value of real estate and the value of stock (company shares) and the like. As such factors become increasingly exposed to the the above points, the entire global financial system risks collapse.

Instead, carbon-based local currency may take over to some extent.

Uncertainty about this increases the risk that governments will simply become more dictatorial.

In the absence of market forces to guide developments, there will be increased risks that such dictatorial governments take actions that make things worse, resulting in total economic collapse.

6. Economic collapse.

Many countries face uncertain futures, as they are dependent on income from oil, coal, tourism or a single crop that cannot survive climate change. As an example, air travel could become too expense for tourists, taking away the single biggest revenue stream for many small countries. Entire industries, such as manufacturing of cars and airplanes, may collapse. Globalisation has made many industries dependent on access to resources and products that come from halfway around the world, while the cost of transport is likely to go up.

Again, such economic collapse may set the scene for dictatorship in many areas, increasing the risk of war and of wrong decisions being taken in general.

Conscription 

7. War and civil unrest.

The above points should increase our concerns about the risk of wars and civil unrest. Production of weapons is one of the biggest industries worldwide, with the clout to influence governments. The oil industry is often regarded as the most powerful influence of global politics. Some countries will want quick and dramatic changes, while other countries may resist all calls for change or may want entirely different changes, setting up confrontation at a global scale and setting the scene for World War III. Within most countries, there will also be opposing groups. The smartest people, who we now need more than ever, may be killed, may end up in prison or may otherwise be silenced, while dictators seek to grab power without any intention of solving the problems.

Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP 

8. Pollution, in particular as a result of nuclear war, fallout and waste.

The Nuclear Delusion 

As concerns about emissions of carbon and methane increase, industry may - in efforts to avoid emissions of greenhouse gases - cause other types of pollution instead, such as soot and sulfur by diesel engines.

The air will get more polluted in cities, as their population and traffic grow. Global warming causes hot summer days to get hotter, especially where there are Urban Heat Islands, increasing ground-level ozone, which exacerbates smog.

The nuclear industry may present itself as a "green" alternative, whereas nuclear fallout and waste should count as some of the biggest pollution dangers. As concerns about carbon emissions sink in, more countries may consider using nuclear power for electricity, despite its high cost, while many countries may seek to develop nuclear weapons in response to perceived increased risk of war in the light of the above points. The secrecy under which such development takes place gives cause to concern about global safety and security.

9. Tipping points.

Will America be a desert by 2100? 

One of the biggest dangers is that, without dramatic action, Earth will reach certain tipping points beyond which sudden dramatic and catastrophic changes take place that are irreversable in the short term.

Droughts and fire could destroy the Amazon. The Arctic may lose all of its sea ice within years. Global warming may cause earthquakes, which can come with tsunamis and shockwaves that can also disturb submarine hydrates, causing them to release huge amounts of methane. While droughts, earthquakes and more turbulent weather come with loss of lives, infrastructure and fertile land, global warming can also cause tipping points to be crossed, making the greenhouse effect even worse.

So, instead of facing gradual changes that can be mitigated by planned action, we may suddenly face a future in which many if not most people will have little or no access to food, water, medicines, electricity and shelter, while diseases go rampant and gangs and warlords loot and devastate the few livable areas left. Human beings as a species will face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear.

10. Panic.

The Scream 

While each of the above points is sufficient reason for concern, many people are still in denial about the severity of the problem of global warming, the accumulation of dangers and their progression.

Once they do get the message, though, there's a risk of over-reaction edging into panic. This may result in people buying up all the food they can get hold of, trying to get their hands on weapons, etc. Unscrupulous companies may exploit the situation by deliberately creating scarcity of medicines, etc.

This is another reason to be open about these concerns and to come up with planning that makes sense.




Background: This post is an illustrated version - with minor editorial edits - of the original post of March 7, 2007, which was followed on April 8, 2007, by Ten Recommendations to deal with global warming. By early 2013, these two posts, together with another 2007 post at Gather (on the Hydrogen Economy) had been viewed by some 100,000 individual visitors. 

For more background, view cutting-edge developments and proposals at the following two blogs, which have jointly received well over 1,000,000 views:
Geo-engineering blog
Arctic-news blog