Whee!: Exhilarating Downhill Roller-Carting In Brazil

downhill-roller-carting.jpg

This is a video of some thrill-seekers riding a downhill roller-cart in Brazil. It’s just like an amusement park ride except you don’t have to pay $100 to get in. Plus, you know, it’s way more dangerous. And Danger is my middle name. Just kidding, but I do know a girl (Amy) whose middle name really is Danger. Her parents are cool.

“We meet to ride our roller carts every 15 days. There are calm descents which men, women, and children can enjoy, and more radical descents that are limited to adults only if they so desire. Those runs make the adrenaline run. Just be prepared for some falls as well.”

After watching the video, I’m having trouble deciding whether I’d rather ride in the front, middle, or rear of that thing. But, the more that I think about it, the more I’m leaning towards not getting anywhere near that deathtrap. How the hell do those girls still have knees?

Keep going for the video.

VIDEO

Thanks to Mattie, who agrees there should be way more knee and elbow pads involved. Oh, and wrist guards and helmets. You know what? Maybe just tie a mattress around yourself.

blog comments powered by Disqus

from Geekologie – Gadgets, Gizmos, and Awesome http://ift.tt/2x1awyN
via IFTTT

Solar now costs 6¢ per kilowatt-hour, beating government goal by 3 years

Enlarge /

From the Department of Energy: “This photo shows the construction phase of a 16.5 MW DC solar farm built in Oxford, MA. This 130-acre property was previously known as the largest piggery in Massachusetts.”


reader comments
3

On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that utility-grade solar panels have hit cost targets set for 2020, three years ahead of schedule. Those targets reflect around $1 per watt and 6¢ per kilowatt-hour in Kansas City, the department’s mid-range yardstick for solar panel cost per unit of energy produced (New York is considered the high-cost end, and Phoenix, Arizona, which has much more sunlight than most other major cities in the country, reflects the low-cost end).

Those prices don’t include an Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which makes solar panels even cheaper. The Energy Department said that the cost per watt was assessed in terms of total installed system costs for developers. That means the number is based on “the sales price paid to the installer; therefore, it includes profit in the cost of the hardware,” according to a department presentation (PDF).

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a DOE-funded lab that assesses solar panel cost, wrote that, compared to the first quarter in 2016, the first quarter in 2017 saw a 29-percent decline in installed cost for utility-scale solar, which was attributed to lower photovoltaic module and inverter prices, better panel efficiency, and reduced labor costs. Despite the plummeting costs for utility-scale solar, costs for commercial and residential solar panels have not fallen quite as quickly—just 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

In 2011, the DOE started the SunShot Initiative with the stated purpose of reducing solar panel prices to certain levels by 2020. For utility-grade solar panels, that level was six cents per kilowatt-hour. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the DOE is 85 percent of the way to meeting its SunShot goals for 2020 for residential and commercial solar panels. Although much of the decrease in solar panel cost came from market competition outside of the DOE’s control, the department contributed to those price reductions by funding panel efficiency research.

Now that utility-grade solar panels have crossed the finish line almost three years early, the DOE says that it’s setting a new goal line for 2030—those goals will focus more on reliability than affordability. Through the DOE’s Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO), the federal department says it will start funding early stage projects focusing on “grid reliability, resilience, and storage.”

From here, there are a few factors that could change how solar panels are priced in the future. NREL’s report reflects that hardware cost has come down dramatically, while “soft” costs like labor and overhead now make up the bulk of the price tag for new solar projects. “In the first quarter of 2017, soft costs accounted for 68 percent of residential system costs, 59 percent for a commercial system, and 41 percent of a utility-scale system,” NREL wrote. Further reductions in price will have to target those soft costs.

The cost of solar projects could also increase in the future. Currently the International Trade Commission (ITC) is considering a complaint from two US-based solar module manufacturers who say that foreign-made panels are unfairly driving down the price of panels in the US and threatening their business. If the two complainant solar companies win a judgment from the ITC, the industry would likely see tariffs that could raise the price of panels considerably, which could slow the growth of the solar industry. The US solar manufacturers are calling for a 40-cent-per-watt tariff on imported cells and a 78-cent-per-watt floor price for imported modules. US solar installers are firmly opposed to this tariff proposal, saying that increased panel prices would cause the US’ 260,000-person solar industry to shed 88,000 jobs.

According to NREL, “Approximately 13.7 gigawatts (GW) of new PV systems were installed in the US last year, with the largest share coming from 10.2 GW in the utility-scale sector.”

from Ars Technica http://ift.tt/2xyXlGG
via IFTTT

Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good

Enlarge /

The fruit that produces wake-up juice.


reader comments
0

This is serious: climate change could put your caffeine supply at risk. Coffee is notorious for being picky about its climate conditions, with the most popular varieties only growing at specific altitudes in the tropics. That alone makes coffee susceptible to climate change, but the plants are also fussy about their pollinators, which will also be affected by the changing climate.

A new analysis suggests that climate change on its own could cause coffee producing areas in the Americas to drop production by roughly 80 percent. But the remaining productivity might drop even further unless we ensure the crops have access to pollinators.

Coffee and climate

Only two varieties of coffee are cultivated. One is called “robusta;” as its name implies, it’s more tolerant of heat and holds up better to insect pests, so it can be grown across a lot of the tropics. Unfortunately, robusta is uniformly acknowledged to not taste that great. Complicating matters further, its caffeine content is high enough to set off heart palpitations at nearly double the levels found in the other major coffee variety.

That variety is “arabica,” which provides the rich, complicated flavor most of us associate with coffee. But arabica is extremely fussy about its conditions. At the equator, it only grows at altitudes above a kilometer, and it can tolerate a variety of rainfall patterns. Farther from the equator, it grows at altitudes between 500 meters and a kilometer, and it relies on specific rainfall patterns.

A few robusta-arabica hybrid strains have been developed, but plants take roughly four years to start producing beans, so improving the crop through breeding is a long-term endeavor.

Obviously, for a crop this sensitive to climate variations, climate change poses a challenge. In most of the existing growing regions, rising temperatures would push the crop uphill. Obviously, there’s less land as you go up a mountain, so this means less land available for the crop. That problem would be partly offset by areas farther from the equator that warm up enough to allow the arabica to grow there. But, overall, global analyses have suggested the area where arabica could be cultivated would be cut in half by the middle of the century.

High resolution + bees

The new analysis extends the earlier work by focusing on the Americas and massively increasing the resolution. The team used two different emissions scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The future climate, averaged between the years 2040 and 2060, was analyzed using a total of 36 different climate models. Nineteen different climate variables—things like temperature and precipitation—that influence coffee production were extracted from the models. And, critically, the analysis was performed at a very high spatial resolution, with the landscape broken up into squares one kilometer on a side.

This higher resolution makes a big difference. Rougher estimates suggested that the amount of coffee-producing land would drop by about 30 percent. But the new work suggests that the numbers are much higher, with suitable land going down by more than 70 percent and perhaps as much as 88 percent at higher levels of warming.

Coffee is also dependent upon pollinators. While domesticated bees are important contributors to coffee pollination, past studies have shown that having access to more pollinator species increases the yield. Many of the local bee species are sensitive to climate change, so the researchers included them in the analysis.

Here, the news was a bit better. Across South America, the species diversity of bees goes down considerably due to the changing climate. Only about five percent of the continent sees an increase in species diversity; it drops in 65 percent of the terrain. But coffee-growing regions happen to start with very high diversity, with an average of 13 different species. While climate change causes that number to drop slightly, crops will still have plenty of pollination options; even the worst-hit regions will still have at least five bee species that like the climate.

What the authors suggest is that pollinators could become critical in areas that haven’t previously supported coffee production. As farmers expand into these areas, they could engage in practices that create good habitats for wild bees.

Aside from the obvious worries about the global coffee supply, the analysis indicates that there may be some specific national issues. Countries like Honduras and Nicaragua, for example, already grow coffee on the highest parts of their terrain. As the planet warms and optimal growing areas move uphill, there will be almost no place for them to go here. And as coffee is a major source of income for small farmers in these countries, it’ll be important to adjust policy well in advance of crop failures.

PNAS, 2017. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1617940114  (About DOIs).

from Ars Technica http://ift.tt/2x0SvAz
via IFTTT