Followers

Friday, May 2, 2008

Inside the Tsunami Factory

The Tsunami Factory: Photo by Dan Foley/Paul Wooton

Over the past 1,300 years, the Nankai Trough, the 500-mile-long boundary between two tectonic plates off the southwestern coast of Japan, has been one of the world’s most active tsunami hotspots. Now an international team of scientists has embarked on a multiyear project to drill four miles down into the heart of this subterranean wave machine. The Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment, called Nantroseize, will be the first attempt to penetrate a tsunami-generating hotspot and could help scientists understand the source of the huge swells. “We can monitor the ocean all we want, but we’ll never understand why some earthquakes produce tsunamis and why others do not until we understand how faults work,” says geophysicist Nathan Bangs of the University of Texas.

Wave Zone : Researchers hope to explain why a part of the seafloor off the coast of Japan known as the Nankai Trough creates so many killer tsunamis. Photo by Paul Wootton
Last year, prior to drilling, researchers aboard the Chikyu, a Japanese science vessel, captured 3-D seismic images of the fault zone where one plate slips beneath the other. The images helped the scientists pick the best spots to drill, but they also revealed new, steeper faults in the rock. Bangs says these near-vertical faults could explain why the Nankai Trough produces roughly one monster earthquake (8+ on the Richter scale) every 150 years.

More answers should come in the next four years, as researchers drop a drill down to the ocean floor and send it churning into as much as 20,000 feet of rock. By dropping seismometers and other instruments into the holes, they will be able to monitor the fault zone in real time. Although most scientists doubt that they will ever truly be able to predict tsunamis, the information could help identify other potential tsunami hotspots around the globe.

The Nantroseize Experiment

How Waves Form The Nankai Trough is a subduction zone—a spot at which one tectonic plate slides beneath another. Sometimes the two plates get stuck and build up friction, which eventually causes the overriding plate to snap. The force jolts the seafloor, causing the ocean surface to jump or drop. The result: Huge waves flow outward in all directions.

Tracking Faults Typically, a major earthquake originates miles below the earth’s surface, and the energy released moves up through the fault. When the fault is more horizontal, the energy dissipates as it travels up through softer rock. But recent 3-D seismic imaging of the boundary between the two plates in the Nankai Trough reveals new, more-
vertical fractures that branch from the main fault. These steeper splits give seismic waves a shorter path to the seafloor and may produce a larger displacement of water.

The Drill The Chikyu lowers a 20-inch-wide, 1,000-foot-tall segmented pipe over the target fault. The ship then drops a 12-inch-wide drill bit down through the pipe and pumps drilling fluid along with it. As the drill churns up rock, the fluid carries the debris back to the surface between the inner pipe and its outer casing.

Rock Science Drill sensors gather data on the temperature and pressure of the rocks. The drill also retrieves rock samples. In the deeper holes, which could reach as far as 30,000 feet below the seafloor, the scientists will study rocks that have been shifting downward for millions of years and analyze them for quake-specific traits. For instance, excess water in the rocks may portend slippage, since it may lubricate the fault zone.

Listening By 2012, instruments at the bottom of the holes will listen for the first rumblings of a quake. The data will either be routed through a fiber-optic cable running from the top of the borehole to the shore, or it will be stored at the top and then retrieved and delivered to the ship by submersible.

Original here


How low will lake levels go?

Crews from The King Company of Holland work on dredging at the end of the Muskegon channel last Monday. Enlarge photo.
West Michigan residents concerned about sinking Great Lakes water levels will get a chance to share their views this week when U.S. and Canadian officials studying the issue visit Muskegon.

The International Joint Commission, a U.S.-Canadian panel that advises the two nations on Great Lakes issues, is studying water levels in lakes Michigan, Huron, Superior and Erie. A committee working on the IJC's International Upper Great Lakes Study will host a public hearing on lake levels Sunday, from 10 a.m. to noon, at Grand Valley State University's Annis Water Resources Institute, 740 W. Shoreline.


"We want to hear lots of people come out and squawk at this public meeting," said John Nevin, an IJC spokesman. "We want to hear what this issue means to people when the water is really high or really low."

IJC officials might get an earful.

Lake Michigan's water level has dropped nearly four feet since 1997, according to federal data. The low lake level has widened beaches but created safety hazards for recreational boaters and caused freighters to run aground in Muskegon, Grand Haven and other ports around the lake.

On the flip side, record-high lake levels in 1986 caused severe beach erosion that sent several Grand Haven cottages tumbling into the lake.

People standing on Muskegon's south pierhead watch the Indiana Harbor freighter after it ran aground last August. The freighter was headed for Consumer Energy's B.C. Cobb plant. Enlarge photo.

The IJC study is focused on two issues: Whether dredging in the St. Clair River over the past century has caused excessive lowering of water levels in lakes Michigan and Huron; and if the volume of water flowing out of Lake Superior daily through control structures in the St. Marys River should be adjusted to account for below-average precipitation and global warming, which some studies suggest could lower lake levels by several feet over the next century.

The study could prompt changes, such as the construction of a water control structure in the St. Clair River, that would affect water levels in lakes Michigan and Huron, said Gene Stakhiv, co-chair of the International Upper Lakes Study Board.

"There are a whole range of changes in the regulation of flow and physical structures in the (Great Lakes) system that could help us control water levels," Stakhiv said. "But we don't know yet if there is a need for that."

A growing chorus of critics -- from scientists and shoreline property owners in Lake Huron's Georgian Bay, to marina owners and shipping interests -- want the U.S. and Canadian governments to plug what amounts to an unnaturally large drain hole in the St. Clair River.

Studies have shown that dredging in the St. Clair River between 1900 and 1962 caused water levels in lakes Michigan and Huron to drop by at least 15 inches. The lower water levels have forced freighters to lighten loads, caused some ships to run aground, made recreational boating dangerous and left some islands in Georgian Bay high and dry.

Nearly all the water in lakes Michigan and Huron, which are technically one lake, drains into the St. Clair River, which flows into the Detroit River and Lake Erie. Michigan and Huron are the only Great Lakes without manmade structures to control water flow and lake levels.

Lake Michigan's water level has dropped nearly four feet over the past decade and Lake Superior dipped to a record low last year. The plunging water levels have some Great Lakes scientists and residents wondering whether factors other than weather conditions are causing lake levels to drop.

This year's hard winter, which delivered above average precipitation to the region, has slightly elevated lake levels, but the water level in Lake Michigan-Huron remains 21 inches below its long term average. Lake Superior's level is 11 inches below average but Lake Erie, the recipient of water from lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron, is eight inches above average, according to government data.

The American Integrity freighter is pictured near Muskegon's south pierhead after it ran aground last September just outside of the channel breakwall. The freighter was headed for Consumer Energy's B.C. Cobb plant. Enlarge photo.

A recent study commissioned by the Ontario-based Georgian Bay Association claimed a 1962 dredging project in the St. Clair River caused the river bottom to erode to twice its natural depth, effectively creating a larger drain hole for lakes Michigan and Huron.

The deeper channel is siphoning off 2.5 billion gallons of water daily out of the two lakes, according to the group's study. That water flows through Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River en route to the Atlantic Ocean.

Roger Gauthier, a hydrologist with the Great Lakes Commission, said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could fix the excessive loss of water down the St. Clair River within a year by installing flow control structures near Port Huron.

"They could control erosion in the St. Clair River with underwater speed bumps -- inflatable bladders that could hold back water (in Lake Huron) when water levels are low," Gauthier said.

When the Corps of Engineers deepened the St. Clair River channel in 1962, the agency drafted blueprints for a concrete weir on the river bottom to control water levels in lakes Huron and Michigan. But the weir was never built because lake levels were generally above average from 1964 through about 1997; water levels have dropped like a stone since 1997.

Kay Felt, the U.S. co-chair of an advisory group working on the Upper Great Lakes Study, said it makes no sense to consider possible remedies before the $14.5 million study is completed.

"There are a lot of people who want a quick and dirty fix," Felt said. "It may sound like a good idea to go right to a solution but that's not an appropriate thing to do at this point -- people don't want a truncated solution, they want a solution based on science."

The St. Clair River portion of the study is scheduled to be finished in June 2009; the Lake Superior study will be completed in 2011.

Original here

Loss of fuel economy from ethanol-blended gasoline hits motorists in the wallet

One motorist who has noticed the effect that ethanol has on mileage is Cleo Campbell of Stewartsville, Mo. “I’ve been driving a long time,” he said, “and I know what I normally get, and I don’t get that now.”
One motorist who has noticed the effect that ethanol has on mileage is Cleo Campbell of Stewartsville, Mo. “I’ve been driving a long time,” he said, “and I know what I normally get, and I don’t get that now.”
Charles Kigar doesn’t think twice when he has a choice of buying a gallon of conventional gasoline or a gallon of gas that contains ethanol at the same price.

He buys the gas without ethanol.

The reason is a simple matter of science. Conventional gas delivers more energy than a gallon that contains ethanol.

If it’s a gallon of E-10, which is a blend of 10 percent ethanol and conventional gas now widely available in the Kansas City area, there’s an energy difference of about 3.4 percent.

Now that may not seem like much when you’re topping off the tank this week. But over the course of a year of normal driving, it would take an additional 40 gallons of E-10 to go the same distance as conventional gas. If they were both priced the same, it would mean an extra $120.

If it’s E-85, a blend containing 85 percent ethanol that can be used in specially equipped vehicles, the energy loss soars and more than offsets its lower cost, even though E-85 is about 60 cents per gallon less at retail than conventional gas.

Mileage can suffer by about 25 percent with E-85, according to AAA. Over the course of a year, that amounts to an extra 300 gallons of E-85 to go the same distance as when using conventional gas. That means an average household, when the total cost of conventional gas and E-85 are compared, would spend nearly $100 more per year for E-85.

To Kigar, an Overland Park computer programmer and self-described “car nut,” a consumer can’t make an informed decision about gas without taking into consideration its energy content. Even if ethanol-blended gas is cheaper, it can still end up costing you more because you’re getting less energy.

“That fact has not been made clear to people,” he said. “In effect, you can end up paying more for less.”

Mileage mysteries

The growing use of ethanol is making energy content more of an issue — particularly as record fuel prices crimp consumers.

The Energy Information Administration is keeping track of how ethanol is affecting average fuel economy in the United States. The federal agency projects that additional ethanol usage this year will cause average fuel economy to decline by an extra 0.5 percent.

Moreover, the ethanol impact is expected to increase because the federal government approved an energy bill last year that encourages a sharp increase in ethanol production.

In Missouri, we’re already there. Since January, E-10 has been required for regular and midgrade gasoline. Premium gas sold in the state can also contain 10 percent ethanol, but it is not required.

Ronald Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, said the energy content of ethanol was a “policy issue for others to decide.” His association helped get the law changed from how it was originally proposed so that ethanol-blended fuels would not have to be sold if their wholesale price was more than conventional fuel.

In Kansas, there is no requirement to sell fuel with ethanol, but more than 50 percent of the gasoline sold in the state now contains ethanol. That is expected to increase next year when gas retailers in the state that sell E-10 will be eligible for tax credits.

Some motorists say they are already seeing the effect of ethanol on gas mileage.

“I’ve been driving a long time, and I know what I normally get, and I don’t get that now,” said Cleo Campbell of Stewartsville, Mo.

Many drivers say their mileage has declined 10 percent or more since they began using E-10.

Several farmers near Harrisonville say they have noticed a difference in gas mileage since January.

Initially, there was confusion among the farmers who gather many mornings at the local cafe or welding shop, said Melvin Browning, a farmer and former Kansas City fire battalion chief.

Browning said he has two three-quarter-ton pickup trucks, and his wife has a 2005 Chevrolet Malibu. He said all three vehicles showed that they were getting about 3 miles per gallon less than last year.

“That is backed up by the paperwork,” Browning said.

Experts say it’s difficult to blame E-10 for that much of a decline. Figuring out the ethanol effect on your vehicle can be squishy, since mileage can be affected by a variety of factors ranging from the amount of air in your tires to the temperature of the fuel.

But experts say ethanol undoubtedly has an effect, since there is a connection between energy content and mileage.

British thermal units measure energy content. A gallon of ethanol has 76,000 Btu. Conventional gasoline, in contrast, has 115,000 Btu. If you purchase a blended gallon of gas that contains 10 percent ethanol, you get 111,100 Btu.

That amounts to a 3.4 percent reduction in energy. So if you have a car that gets 20 miles per gallon, you’ll likely end up losing seven-tenths of a mile per gallon because of the energy content loss.

That’s enough to matter to Kigar, the computer programmer. He drives a Smart car, a two-seater vehicle recently introduced in the United States.

It’s possible to purchase premium with or without ethanol at the same price. In that situation, purchasing the fuel without the ethanol effectively can save him about 14 cents per gallon because of the extra energy he’s getting. For an average household, that can amount to about $168 a year.

“I’m just a tough shopper,” Kigar said. “I’m watching my pennies, and I’m trying to get the most for my money.”

Just how problematic it is to purchase fuel without considering its energy content is especially evident with it comes to E-85, the blend that contains 85 percent ethanol. Only a few stations in the Kansas City area now sell E-85, but the number is expected to grow.

To those that have the flex-fuel vehicles that can use the fuel, it’s tempting to purchase E-85 because at first glance it appears to be a great deal compared with conventional gasoline. But at least for now, it isn’t.

AAA now calculates a price for E-85 to adjust for its energy content. The national average pump price for the fuel on Thursday was $2.91 per gallon; regular gasoline was $3.56. But adjusted for its energy content, the price for E-85 jumps to $3.83, or 27 cents more than regular.

“We did it to inform the consumer,” said Mike Right, a spokesman for AAA Auto Club of Missouri. “You have to consider the effect of fuel economy.”

Ethanol economics

In fact, it’s now tough for ethanol, because of the energy loss, to be priced at a level so it can beat the price of conventional gasoline. That’s because a growing share of the nation’s corn production is being diverted to producing ethanol, which has been a contributing factor in driving corn prices over $6 a bushel.

The energy economics of ethanol are a matter of concern to automakers such as General Motors Corp., which is counting on ethanol-fueled cars to give it time to develop other cars that can use other alternative fuels such as hydrogen.

So far, GM has produced 3 million vehicles that can use conventional fuel or E-85. The price of E-85 needs to at least be competitive, after being adjusted for its energy content, with conventional gas to ensure that more of it is used, the automaker says.

“Price equalization is really important,” said Alan Holder, manager of biofuels communications at GM.

The ethanol industry’s reaction, at least in some instances, appears to be to ignore the issue of energy content.

The Missouri Corn Growers Association last week released a study that estimated E-10 prices over the next 10 years would be 7.2 cents per gallon cheaper than conventional gas — resulting in an annual statewide savings of $214 million, or $54 per driver.

But the study did not account for the energy loss.

The author of the study, John Urbanchuk, director of LECG, a consulting firm in Wayne, Pa., said the loss was so insignificant it was in the “noise category.”

“It’s really a negligible loss,” he said.

At current pricing, though, that energy loss more than wipes out the savings that the study says consumers will reap by using ethanol-blended fuel.

But what if the energy loss from ethanol isn’t as great as most think it is? That idea is being broached by some in the ethanol industry who are arguing that the way ethanol burns overcomes at least some of the energy loss.

One study, released in December, even claimed that E-20 or E-30 blends in some instances got better mileage than conventional fuel.

“Initial findings indicate that we as a nation haven’t begun to recognize the value of ethanol,” said Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol.

Those findings were met with considerable skepticism. An official with the Union of Concerned Scientists said the conclusion that E-20 or E-30 gave improved mileage wasn’t convincing. Others have also questioned the findings.

“We don’t believe that study,” said Adler, the GM spokesman.

Some research suggests older cars that don’t have computers and sensors to adjust for fuels which have more oxygen, like an ethanol blend, might experience less energy loss. The reasoning is that some of those cars could be burning a richer mixture of fuel and air and that it is made leaner with ethanol.

Overall, though, there is a direct connection between energy content and mileage. That conclusion was reached by the Environmental Protection Agency in a study in the 1990s that looked at ethanol-blended fuel and gasoline with the additive MTBE, which also caused an energy loss.

EPA officials say their position remains the same about the effect on mileage of such fuels.

“Yes, there is a correlation between energy content and miles per gallon,” said Margo Oge, director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

Meanwhile, questions about ethanol are rising among some consumers.

Gary Edwards of Lake Lotawana makes a daily 90-mile round to his job at Kansas City International Airport. Lately, he has posted gas mileage that is 1 to 2 mpg less than he once did.

To Edwards, conventional gas isn’t looking quite so bad.

“As a consumer I wish I had a choice.” he said.

Original here