By Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney

Solar power uses radiant energy from the sun for heating water, air, and making electricity. It’s certainly not a bad idea in terms of renewable solutions to our energy crisis given the source isn’t burning out anytime soon, but of course, this technology isn’t right for everyone. On the local scale, it depends a good deal on location, time of day and year, and weather conditions. In other words, outfitting your home with solar panels may be a good idea in California or Arizona, but not so effective in say, Alaska and Washington.

Still, according to Scientific American, a massive transition to solar power plants may be able to supply 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of our total energy by 2050. This would require large-scale infrastructure involving photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs over huge tracts of land–including the construction of a direct-current transmission backbone to transfer stored energy efficiently.

And it may not be all that far off from becoming reality. The New York Times reports over 3,400 companies are already in the solar industry employing 25,000-35,000 installers, distributors, manufacturers, developers and suppliers. The industry expects these numbers to more than triple as more folks grow interested in limiting both our greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on foreign oil. And now that government subsidies are making the switch affordable, it’s no suprise that the United States has experienced a 45 percent increase in installed solar energy systems in a single year.

Signs of a sunny spot in in today’s troubled economy.

By Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney

The box jellyfish. A fascinating critter with powerful venom, this one’s not for the faint of heart.

Alternatively known as sea wasps and marine stingers, these animals serve up a frightening cocktail of toxins that attack the nervous system, heart, and skin. Generally they prey on fish and shrimp, but humans have also been killed as the result of encounters, which can lead to heart failure, shock, and drowning. Those who survive suffer through weeks of severe pain and scarring.

Box jellies are unique because they can move at up to four knots through the water, whereas most other jellyfish species simply drift. Their 24 eyes (six on each side of the bell) are made up of a lens, retina, iris and cornea, but with no central nervous system, scientists still aren’t sure how they process visual information. They have as many as 15 tentacles, which reach up to 10 feet in length and harbor an estimated 5,000 stinging cells each. Needless to say, box jellyfish are beautiful to watch…from a distance.

But these inverts came too close for comfort over the past weekend in Hawaii, when thousands arrived at Waikiki and Ala Moana beaches. Over 20 stings have been reported, and shores are temporarily closed in some areas. A reason for alarm? Probably not…yet. Such Hawaiian box jellyfish invasions are common events in the region, regularly occurring 7 to 11 days after a full-moon.

Still, it’s a reminder that jellyfish numbers around the world are on the rise. Earlier this year, The New York Times and The Economist reported exploding populations linked to global warming, overfishing and ocean pollution.

Wondering why you should care? Well, we’re all connected: oceans, land, and atmosphere. Humans are a single component of the vast array of biodiversity on the planet. What alters one species impacts the rest of system. So in other words, there’s a lot more to this story than a few extra jellyfish…

Today marks the launch of the National Academy of Sciences’ Science and Entertainment Exchange, an initiative that will work to connect producers, directors, writers and others in need of scientific information for their productions with science, medical and engineering experts. We’re here in Los Angeles headed to the first symposium. So will this initiative–to be directed by Physics of the Buffyverse author Jennifer Ouellette–correct everything that’s problematic in the entertainment media’s portrayal of science? Of course not. But it’s a very important start.

We love Star Wars, HBO’s True Blood, The Lord of The Rings, and many, many other entertainment industry products. And it seems to us that television and film do amazing things with story lines that stretch beyond possible to embrace fantasy and science fiction.

Yet at the same time, we’ve noticed how often the on-screen depiction of scientists casts them as socially inept nerds, “mad” villains, or emotionless misfits. Scooby Doo excepted, entertainment plots also tend to celebrate credulous believers who think they saw the ghost or monster, while criticizing science minded skeptics who scoff.

Are these trends problematic? While we recognize the need for people to be entertained, there are reasons to think such recurrent images foster an unrealistic (possibly dangerous) idea of the relationship between science and the rest of society. That’s not a very good idea to be cultivating in these uncertain times, when we depend on science for solutions to 21st century energy, water, health, and climate challenges.

But how might we begin to improve the often rocky relationship between science and the entertainment industry? That’s what we’re going to find out, and we’ll be reporting back shortly….

By Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney

Amid a flurry of last minute rule changes introduced by President George W. Bush on his way out of office came last week’s announcement of a plan to sell the rights to oil and gas off Virginia’s coast.

This attempted policy change doesn’t represent a big surprise, given the strong influence of fossil fuel interests during Bush’s two terms. These last minute regulations are plainly motivated by the desire to reward the President’s campaign contributors and corporate interests. The Virginia plan provides no benefits, royalties, or choice to residents. Furthermore, the state does not have much energy available off its coast to begin with; rather, Bush’s decision was largely intended to serve as an example. Offshore platforms in the Old Dominion would be a kind of gateway regulation, opening the door to similar measures across the U.S. east and west coasts.

The principal problem with all of this is that the ‘Drill Baby Drill’ mentality addresses supply rather than demand. Many continue to portray offshore development as a means to make America energy independent, but the truth is that it will not result in much difference. Our current supply of drilling ships means extracted offshore oil won’t make it to the market for seven years. Furthermore, what is available won’t meet our consumption needs for more than a handful of years.

But don’t lose heart: Barack Obama is expected to to reverse this action before it takes effect. Still, Bush’s latest move is a reminder that we must stay vigilant about protecting our environment as the outgoing administration seeks to enact an onslaught of last minute rule changes.

NASA satellites made possible for Nalini Nadkarni at Evergreen State College in Washington to estimate the number of trees on planet earth. Because they reflect sunshine in particular patterns, it’s possible for biologists to determine coverage and look at numbers. The result? Approximately 400,246,300,201 trees in the world.

But what does that mean? Well, using the latest estimates for our human population, Nadkarni calculated we ‘have‘ roughly 61 trees each. Is that adequate? Hard to say. How many trees do we each ‘use‘ in our lifetime? Just consider your dependence on paper, construction materials, firewood, toothpicks, and so on. We also likely consume more per person here in the US than in places like India and Africa.

Now keep in mind trees are pretty important. They soak up excess carbon we emit and provide habitat for much of the world’s biodiversity. Seventy percent of the Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests and The World Resources Institute reports that over 80 percent of these areas have already been destroyed.

That said, the good thing about this story is that trees are a renewable resource. So let’s make sure we continue planting them and do a better job of preserving the forests we have. Otherwise, it will play out as the classic situation where we won’t know what we’ve got til it’s gone…

By Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

People keep emailing us about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. There is a rumor swirling that he may get a high level position in the Obama administration relating to the environment, such as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. We suppose we’re getting emailed because one of us–Chris–wrote a little book called “The Republican War on Science,” and some people feel that a Kennedy appointment would signal a Democratic equivalent.

The reason is the vaccines-autism issue, where Kennedy’s views are extremely controversial, to say the least, and would certainly become more so were he to be appointed. For all the details, see the great blog Respectful Insolence.

Chris has also been on Kennedy’s radio show, Ring of Fire, several times to discuss his books, and greatly enjoyed the experience. They did not discuss vaccines and autism, where we’re both highly skeptical of Kennedy’s position.

But for now, rumors are just rumors. We’ll have more to say about a Kennedy appointment if and when it happens. We can’t seriously imagine the Obama administration would want to deal with such a distracting argument right now, however. And until this appointment is real, there’s no “Democratic War on Science” that we can see.

Meanwhile, as the rumors continue to fly, check out all the important science positions that this next administration has to fill–and fast. Those concerned about a Kennedy appointment have one thing right for certain: In filling these science-related posts, the Obama administration will most definitely set a powerful tone about how it plans to do things.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress, senior correspondent for The American Prospect magazine and author of The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. In 2005 he was named one of Wired magazine’s ten “sexiest geeks” (which Sheril has subsequently never stopped teasing him about!). Look for posts from Chris on science, policy, media, and more.

Sheril Kirshenbaum is a marine biologist at Duke after serving in Congress as an environmental fellow to Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). In grad school she studied the ever charismatic sea cucumber and also spent a few years as a Top 40 radio personality. Long ago, she studied Classics and has been known to tear things up on the drum set. Sheril often writes about oceans, energy, conservation, climate change, women in science, and politics.

Together we started collaborating at The Intersection in May of 2007 and shortly thereafter got involved in all sorts of mischief both in and out of the blogosphere. Last year we helped to launch an initiative called ScienceDebate2008, calling for the presidential candidates to prioritize science, technology, and research innovation on the campaign trail. We’re also presently completing a book called Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future about the growing disconnect between science and American culture–and what we can do about it.

Talking Science will be a great forum for exploring ideas in the biweekly Intersection edition, which we’ll be writing on Monday and Wednesday (next post just after the election!) and readers are encouraged to share topics you’re most interested to see covered below in comments.

- Sheril and Chris