Garbage powers NJ homes

Cities today are generating colossal amounts of garbage. What is to be done with this? As opinions differ, there are examples plenty of turning this stench into wealth.

In New Jersey for instance, there are 21 landfills that generate electricty to power thousands of homes. By 2020, the city authorities plan to generate 30 percent of its power from landfill methane. Methane gas is produced by microorganisms that feed on organic matter in trash.

Proposals are in the offing to combine this energy with wind and solar for firm power. "We see landfills as potential New Age energy plants, because you can combine all three and create a steady source of power - and not everybody wants a windmill in their back yard," said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club.

In the US, on the whole there are over 400 landfills generating electricity. For more, check out http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/nj/20081027_N_J__now_turning_its_garbage_into_energy.html

Any reason why we cannot do the same?

So, what say we send our legislators on a trip to NJ? So they can check out and learn something useful for a change!

Captive power generation, the answer?

Along with the staggered-holiday system for industrial areas, the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom) is thinking of asking the industries to go for captive power generation during peak hours to help tide over the power shortage, which is expected to increase further in the coming months.

The proposals to tackle power shortage also include a time of day metering to charge more for power during peak hours. Staggered holidays, energy efficiency systems, audits, etc are other measures. Regarding use of captive power, it’s a toss up between the Pune model where the industries were compensated by increasing charges on the consumers (who benefited by the industries staying away from the grid at peak hours) and the TN model that exempted the industries from tax on the fuel used.

The interesting point is that the Pune model itself is taking a beating, arising out of increased demand!

Initially mooted by some 30 CII member industries who offered to use captive power plants (CPP) to generate and consume about 80 MW power so that the power shortfall in Pune can be met, the model fell into trouble soon enough due to some conditions. And Pune went into long hours of load-shedding. It was partly solved when Tata Power Trading Company Ltd started securing additional electricity on 'day ahead' basis but soon enough MSEDCL refused to accept power on 'day ahead' basis and insisted on 'firm' power, i.e. power contracted in advance.

The potential for captive generation is around 1500 MW in Bangalore city alone. But obviously, running diesel sets for power will mean more than a tripling of costs for the companies. Not to mention the air pollution. It would make sense to go for captive generation based on renewable resources. In fact, suggestions have been made on how renewables should be made compulsory for industries.

Staggered holidays and staggered work hours is a good idea, as also time of day metering. In fact, in an article published in the Times of India on Oct 10, 2008, Enzen had advocated these measures. (Unfortunately the article is not available online. For more, visit our site http://www.enzenglobal.com/)

Are there other steps we are missing out on? If you have heard of any, do let us know.

Save $600 bn or spend $360 bn?

The output from the world’s oilfields is declining faster than believed to be. With a natural annual rate of oil output decline of 9.1 percent, India, China and other developing countries’ demand for oil will require investments of $ 360 bn each year until 2030. Even with investment, the annual rate of oil output decline is 6.4 per cent.

That is the gist of a leaked version of the International Energy Agency’s annual report.

The Financial Times that obtained a copy of the report said the watchdog's annual World Energy Outlook report, which studied the biggest fields, showed that without extra investment to raise production, the natural annual rate of output decline was 9.1 percent.

It goes on to acknowledge that current energy trends are not sustainable and that a better balance must be found between the three Es – energy security, economic development and protection of the environment. Energy, it says, must be part of the solution.

In a closely related report, the WWF warns that our global footprint now exceeds the world’s capacity to regenerate by about 30%. If our demands on the planet continue at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we will need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles.

As to how we can return to sustainability, WWF advises that we need to reduce natural resource demand by reducing population levels, individual consumption, and lowering the resources used and waste products emitted by producing goods and services.

Sustainable and efficient are clearly the keywords ringing everywhere. Mckinsey Global Institute finds that, under current policies, energy demand in developing countries will increase by 65 percent in the period to 2020, representing 80 percent of global energy demand growth. These countries currently account for 51 percent of global energy demand, and this share will rise to 60 percent in 2020 without further action.

By choosing more energy-efficient cars and appliances, improving insulation in buildings, and selecting lower-energy-consuming lighting and production technologies, developing countries could cut their annual energy demand growth by more than half from 3.4 to 1.4 percent over the next 12 years. This would leave energy consumption some 22 percent lower than otherwise, says MGI.

All this can be achieved by using solely existing technologies. Consumers and businesses in developing countries could secure savings of an estimated $600 billion a year by 2020. Far from costing money, investing in energy productivity generates energy savings that could ramp up to $600 billion annually by 2020 across all developing regions.

Is there any reason why there are no takers? Are there hidden issues?

Cricket, or the moon?

As the Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft has entered deep space after crossing the 2,67, 000 km (one and a half lakh km) distance mark from the Earth after today's orbit manouevre, an interesting debate has found echoes at home and abroad. While in India the concern is mostly around the costs, elsewhere it is about plans of ‘prospecting for uranium’!

The costs, as explained in a yahoo group forum, are hardly one-fifth of a similar exercise if undertaken by Nasa, and one-tenth of that paid by Sony for IPL rights! As chairman Isro put it, the costs could be cut down simply by optimisation. (Optmisation is also the mantra we chant at Enzen!)

For more on the moon mission, subscribe yourself to indianspacetalk@groups.indianspace.in

But what is more interesting is the blog posted on worldchanging.com where it refers to a New York Times article on India’s moon mission and successful launch.

The craft is expected to remain in space for two years. During that time, it will do something undeniably cool:
prepare a 3-D atlas of the moon.
The other part of its mission, however, is something I find pretty unsettling:
and prospect the lunar surface for natural resources, including uranium, a coveted fuel for nuclear power plants

The blog kicks up a lot of dust by way of comments reflecting the different ways we earthlings view things. But the fact that the Outer Space Treaty governing rules for space faring nations is pretty outdated and has many loopholes, plus the fact that Nasa very recently deleted a crucial line from its mission statement, viz, ‘to understand and protect our home planet’ is telling on how space exploration has subtly become space exploitation!

As an energy starved planet looks at ways to ‘create’ energy, is it a natural solution to ‘fish in the sea of space’? Even if Isro maintains that the geological and chemical mapping of the moon for minerals will help identify different geological units, and test the hypothesis for the origin and early evolutionary history of the moon, anyone can fill in the unspoken words.

If we find any useful minerals, and in useful quantities, it will be high time the nations sit down and cobble up a meaningful pact on how we are to use these. Incidentally, the Moon Treaty that talks of equal rights for all earthlings to celestial wealth, and bans any individual claims by nations or people, has been signed by nations but not ratified by most space faring nations, including India!

It is still too early to crow about our success but India has proven its launch and orbit manoeuvre capabilities already. In another few days, with one more orbit manouevre left, the craft will be nudged into the moon orbit. Having launched umpteen satellites into the communication orbit around earth, including one for Israel recently, India has the expertise. This was all thanks to the enforced sanctions following its testing of nuclear weapons. The ban on dual-use technology transfer meant the space programme had to rely on inside expertise.

The moon mission took the space organization into stretches of space three times beyond its familiar arena. Extra thrusters, a design to withstand the hot and cold climates there, accommodation of all the payloads, etc were a first time experience.

This if anything proves that there is the capacity to innovate and indigenize. Why then do we not see similar thrust in other crucial areas, like energy?

Is it a lack of incentives for research, or the missing need, that is to be blamed?

Each to his own

It may be no exaggeration to say that our cities could soon have more vehicles than humans. If you have the time, just stand and watch the traffic on the roads and you are sure to see the ‘traffic beast’ grow in strength every day.

Everywhere in India’s major cities, private vehicles have taken over the road. Congestion has peaked. Despite city governments adding road width and flyovers, the time it takes to drive has increased. Bangalore has over 2.5 million private vehicles but city buses number only about 4,185. Since 2003, more than 400,000 private vehicles are added to its roads every year, while the number of city buses increased by only about 300.

In a telling and indicting survey taken recently among car-owning Bangaloreans, it was shown that fuel conservation or any related climate concerns hardly bothered many. Covering those who earned between Rs 20-40,000 per month, only 22% of those polled have practiced car pooling. There is also not much to look forward to on that front; almost half (47%) the respondents said they are ‘comfortable traveling alone’. Not many are trying / willing to try public transport either. More than 50% have not even thought of using Public Transport services. Reasons cited included over crowded buses, poor frequency, poor quality of buses etc. At the same time, 43% are not willing try Public Transport even if service standards ‘improve’.

A study by the ministry of urban development has found the share of public transport declined between 1994 and 2007 in all cities except Kochi, where it is 51 per cent. The irony is that private vehicles meet only 20 per cent of the travel demand, public transport buses meet 60 per cent of the city’s travel demand. The study projects a significant decline in public transport and sharp increase in private vehicles in the future, especially in the metros.

Forget incentives to public transport, there actually are disincentives. With an excise duty which was more than for cars till recently, and is now on par that for small cars, public transport is burdened with passenger tax, etc. The road tax is three times that for cars and unlike the latter’s case where it is a one-time tax, for public transport is slapped annually! In fact, CSE has been campaigning against this step-motherly treatment of public transport since some time.

There is cause for concern here. Not only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but also pollution related health. Transport sector accounts for nearly 22 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and of this 74 percent by road sector, according to International Energy Agency.

In a first of its kind study, the greenhouse gas inventory for Bangalore’s transport sector prepared by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Enzen Global Solutions, had placed the annual emission figure for the city at 2.2 million tones. This is poised to cross 4 million tones in the next ten years, the study projected.

Now in a continuation of the study, the inventory for seven other southern districts has been prepared. While emissions are lower compared to Bangalore, the trend is disturbing. Mysore and Bangalore Rural boast of emission figures between 0.2 to 0.3 million tones. A majority of the districts show increase in number of cars and jeeps, indicating a clear shift to private transport!

Is this the right direction to take?

Allow your citizens to have the right to spend money as they want, whether it be in buying SUVs or high energy embodied homes. But the least a wise government should do is to smoothen the road for public transport.

A differential pricing for diesel which was made cheap to cater to public transport, but now being increasingly used by big cars; dedicated bus lanes; more buses; congestion charge as collected in London on private vehicles, etc can easily tilt the balance in favour of public transport.

As the world shrinks further and further into a small village, the unfortunate tendency is that the human race is withdrawing into smaller, narrower units. Who knows, traveling together may forge new bonds!

Why this lethargy?

Without problems, there are no solutions. The human race has time and again proven its ingenuity in breaking every hurdle in its relentless quest to achieve a better quality of life on earth. While solar energy is raining abundantly on the planet, it has been a challenge how best to convert most of this to useful work. Efficiency, cost and storage problems dog solar. But research is fast catching up.

Scientists at the Ohio State Institute for Materials Research recently announced that they have developed a new hyper-efficient solar material that is able to capture light from every spectrum of the rainbow. Whereas most photovoltaics are limited to collecting energy from a small range of frequencies, the new material is able to absorb energy from all spectrums of visible light at once. The breakthrough development heralds a new breed of extremely efficient solar panels on the horizon.

The new electrically-conductive plastic includes materials such as molybdenum and titanium. It operates upon the same principles as standard photovoltaic materials, wherein light energizes the atoms of the material and knocks electrons free to generate a current. Whereas in traditional photovoltaics the electrons are removed for a fraction of a second, in the new hybrid material the electrons are excited for much longer (7 million times) than before.

Elsewhere, a company Sionyx, have found that ‘black silicon’ is more efficient as a material in PVs. Blasted by laser energy on its surface, in the presence of sulphur and other dopants, silicon is transformed into more sensitive material that can detect photons of various frequencies which otherwise pass through it. More photons absorbed means more electrons kicked into motion, and so more current.

Meanwhile, the search for cheap, clean, unlimited energy has seen much research in the field of algae and their use as a biofuel. GreenFuel Technologies, the Cambridge, MA-based developer of algae bioreactor systems that convert carbon dioxide emissions into clean-burning biofuels, announced today that it had launched the second phase of a major project with Spanish renewable energy firm Aurantia to build a large-scale algae farming plant adjacent to a CO2-spewing cement plant near Jerez, Spain.

The carbon dioxide from the plants sustains and boosts growth of algae which takes it in using photosynthesis to produce an oil and manure. Compared with second generation biofuels, algae are high-yield high-cost (30 times more energy per acre than terrestrial crops) feedstocks to produce biofuels. The biomass left-over from oil-pressing can either be fed to cattle as a protein supplement, or fermented into ethanol.

On top of those advantages, algae — at least in theory — should grow even better when fed extra carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) and organic material like sewage, says ScienceDaily. If so, algae could produce biofuel while cleaning up other problems.

The big problem has been figuring out how to collect and press the algae, and in the case of open ponds, to prevent contamination by invasive species. The scaleability and costs of harvesting algae are some of the other challenges.

But ideally, this is one technology which will see more investments and research going into it given its twin advantages. In India, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) has inked a memorandum of understanding with Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) to develop a pilot plant technology for biodiesel production from algae.

There is no doubt anymore about the need for renewables if we are to meet the growing energy demand. The amount of research globally is evidence of the importance being given to this area. But a question that begs an answer here is: why is India lagging behind? Especially given that it is here that one of the largest demands for energy is going to come from.

Is innovation in technology simply not in our genes? There is after all no dearth of research institutions here. Or is it the sad plight of our education system that needs to be blamed for this? A system that stymies fresh thinking and is happy to reward rote-learning.

Would it be a good idea for some institutions to go to our schools and offer a big prize for children to think of totally new ways to find our way out of present problems? Be it in energy, or food or water. A revolution could be in the waiting!

Any thoughts, anybody?

Tapping the moon's energy

This could be a ‘giant leap’ for India. Tomorrow in the early hours of Wednesday, Chandrayaan 1, the spacecraft that will orbit moon, will be launched by the launch vehicle PSLV C11. Weighing 1304 kgs, the spacecraft will first be put into a 240 x 24,000 km orbit around earth from where gradually it will be drawn by the moon’s gravity into an orbit of 100 kms. There it will stay for 2 years taking pictures of polar regions of the moon, never taken before.

But is that all? NO. Like every other space faring nation, we would also be looking for signs of the fuel gold, Helium 3 first spotted by Apollo astronauts in 1969.

Helium could be the answer to the world’s energy crisis. It is non-polluting and has no radioactive byproducts, plus in a fusion reaction with deuterium, the resulting neutrons can be easily controlled at low cost. There is believed to be 1 million tons of the stuff on moon, produced by the solar wind on striking the moon’s surface.

However, experts ‘believe’ that one would have to strip-mine large areas to get substantial helium from the lunar soil. It would mean blasting million tons of the soil to 800 deg C to obtain 70 tons of Helium. Others believe (?) it would not require more than mining small areas.

Helium aside, the Chandrayaan will also look for clues of water. Once water and fuel are established, colonies will naturally follow.

At this point, one needs to stop and think a bit. Where is this unlimited hunger for energy leading us? As one writer said, to a world of increasing entropy (potential for further work decreases) where energy degradation will lead on to worser scenarios? Should we then be looking at ways to use energy efficiently instead of constantly looking at newer sources?

For now, let’s stop at wishing India’s moon mission success. It will place the country in an esteemed list of four other nations, US, Russia, China and Japan.

Are YOU eating oil, spewing GHGs?

A sector that does not get mentioned often in climate change talks is the food sector. That is, besides its consumption of energy vis a vis pumpsets, and water usage. But this is one sector of the economy that guzzles fossil fuels most, coming second only after cars. While energy usage is at 19 percent, the greenhouse gas emitted by this sector is almost 37 percent.

An interesting article in the New York Times looks at ‘solar farming’ as a viable alternative to industrial farming. From clearing crops after harvest, to tilling, chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm machinery, modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food.

As Michael Pollan puts it in his open letter to the US President, when we consume industrially manufactured foods, we are ‘eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases’. But this cannot continue. As population touches the 9 billion in a few more years, demand will double and triple. But equally deterring will be the unavailability of energy. Cheap energy had ‘underwritten a globalised food economy’ where salmon caught in Alaska was shipped to China to be filleted and shipped back to California to be consumes!

Pollan goes on to lay simple guidelines for the American government to adopt. But as he says, change is required in the way food is grown in the field, processed, cooked and eaten!

Crop bio-diversity that removes dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, and is supported by subsidies given on the number of different crops the farmer grows; crop plants and animals must once again ‘be married on the farm’; focus on quality than quantity (yield); regionalizing food system; educating children on growing crops, kitchen gardens in schools, etc are some steps he advocates.

What is highly relevant for a ‘once-predominantly’ agricultural nation like India from such a ‘sun-based agriculture’ that Pollan proposes is that it is highly labour-intensive. It has the potential to generate ‘green’ jobs that will be at the forefront of the economy.

Rising prices and increasing imports are sure indications of the aggravating food crisis. Food security should come above any other securities. After all, without the daily ration of rice, what use would chips and cars be to anyone?

Time for Shastang Surya Namaskar

Guess who said this: ‘We should not give in to those who say environment goals should take a back seat till economy improves… that would be short-sighted.’

That was California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, addressing a solar energy conference. Under his leadership, the state has been leading in green initiatives. The above quote was at a time the US markets were at the peak of their fall.

Such conviction is as much a booster to the renewable energy sector as the recent tax incentive legislation that was made a law. The extension of tax credits in the US has seen maximum advantage to the solar sector with eight years while wind, hydro, etc got between 1-2 years. Tax credits can cover around 30 percent of project costs for solar. Homeowners in the US with solar PVs installed also can avail 30 percent tax credit.

The whole exercise amounts to $18 billion which is to be paid by closing tax loopholes for oil and gas industry.

India has also announced a number of incentives like subsidy, soft loan, 80 percent accelerated depreciation, confessional duty on import of raw materials and certain products, excise duty exemption on certain devices/systems etc. for the production and use of solar energy systems. The Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency provides revolving fund to financing and leasing companies offering affordable credit for purchase of PV systems.

India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) is likely to become a significant driver of new investment opportunities in the country’s renewable energy portfolio, and in solar generation in particular. Its national Solar Mission to be ready this year end will chart the route for boosting solar PV production by 1000 MW annually by 2017, and another 1000 MW from CSP by the same period.

A generation based incentive has been offered for solar since this year. The generator claims subsidies based on the power it supplies to the grid. A financial assistance of Rs 12 per kilowatt hour in case of solar photovoltaic and Rs 10 per kilowatt hour in case of solar thermal power is being given by the MNRE. Financial incentives for the semiconductor industry is also expected to aid the solar sector.

But doubts still persist.

For the capital intensive sector that it is, linking subsidies to performance could deter investors. But making it capital based would mean that higher the capital, more the subsidy and hence there is no effort to keep costs down. That has been the evidence due to which the new generation based subsidy is being tried out. It had also been seen that high thresholds for capital subsidies meant few players could enter the arena.

Low interest long-term finance is what many seek. Others believe interest subsidies along with generation subsidies will be a sure recipe for wooing many.

It is calculated that India receives 5000 trillion kilowatt-hours of solar energy annually, and that even 1 percent of this harnessed could meet all the energy demands required in 2030! What stops us then?

In an industry that has focused on manufacture and exports instead of adoption, lack of infrastructure has been a big deterrent. Evacuation networks or networks that carry the power generated into the grid need to be put in place. At present hardly 2 MW of solar power is grid-linked.

Perhaps as manufacturing that caters to growing domestic demand picks up (with many companies like Signet Solar, Tata BP Solar, Moser Baer, investing thousands of crores into their plants,) costs will come down. But what many advocate is a feed-in tariff, where an assured and high rate, is fixed for power fed into the grid. That is believed to have been behind the success of solar in Germany where rates three and four times that of market rate was offered. It hardly meant a 2 percent rise in bills for customers.

Any reason why India should not opt for this? Besides the fact that UK still believes it is too 'interventionist' and prefers to go by RPOs. Lol! we still look up there for guidance, right?

Which is the lesser evil?

Damned if you do, and more damned if you don’t. That is the kind of situation facing renewable energy globally. Even as we know that fossil fuels are depleting, forget bad for the planet, we also know we simply cannot do without energy. Increasing quantities of that, as aspirations and reach grow. Renewable is where we need to turn to, but while this is a clean, plentiful source, it is not without problems. These include technical, operational ones too but above these is the environmental opposition. Ironical actually, as these are also about eco-preservation.

Take wind farms. From accusations of noise pollution that even lead to heart attacks, to causing death of many birds by the turning blades, wind energy has seen some bitter opposition.

Environmentalists have pointed to how the wind currents ‘stolen’ by wind mills are crucial for navigating birds. Optimum locations atop hills have had naturalists oppose projects that mar the scenic beauty. It can be understood once you have a look at some of these projects. They do strut across the land ruthlessly. Aesthetically, they are a no-no. But, it depends on how you look at it. To some it could well be objects of simple technological wonder. To energy starved village it could be ‘god-sent’.

Solar PVs also demand large spaces to account for any substantial energy. Large arrays spread across expanses are again seen as a blot on the landscape.

But by far, the loudest cry has been against hydel plants. They submerge vast tracts of land, take away people’s homes and livelihoods, and of course, ‘tamper’ with the natural flow of rivers. This is so whether it is river Teesta in India, or the Amazon in Brazil or the Yangtze in China. The latest in big, river engineering projects is the Severn Barrage tidal project that will see a dam straddle the Severn Estuary connecting English and Wales coasts. What will be the damage to the estuary? For now, the builders claim that there are none.

An interest example of river engineering that has bounced back is that of Kushiro river in Japan. Parts of the river were straightened out to industrially develop areas around and prevent flooding. But new think on ecological angles have now realized the damage to a crucial wetland of the river which was being dried out in the process. So now the authorities are ‘putting the curves back’ on the straightened river! Critics see it as a mere public works job creation.

Similar was the case with the Mississippi across which a series of levees were built to avoid flooding. As recent as this year the river broke through one of the levees leaving seven dead. In a realization that the levee system is washing away precious sediment , running into 24 sq metres of land, into the sea a $50 billion project now intends to let it flow out of the levees in certain places.

What should one make of the river linking project touted in India – lifting water from the Ganges over 450 metres, to deliver 60,000 cusecs of water across 2640 kms at Rs 5,60,000 crores cost!
So, should we tamper with rivers to provide water or energy? But then where do we get all the energy we need, to grow our crops, to travel, to build homes and all the gadgets we depend on? Nuclear? But then, remember the waste problem.

It boils down to choosing the lesser evil or the milder toxin!

Perhaps run of the river projects with not much storage should be the option. The sites could be selected so that there is not too large a tract of river in between the point of diversion and rejoining. Perhaps in areas where submergence causes loss of forests, the company should be made to do some mandatory compensatory planting well before time so that by the time the project is commissioned, the trees are in good health.

Or maybe the time has come to go all out for off shore wind farms. Or..? Or...?

We don’t need to wait for a time when renewables will totally replace fossil fuel energy. It can be done in a piecemeal manner. If overhead solar PV panels fitted on rooftops of houses could cater to all the lighting, that alone would take a load off the grid. Tesco’s HSC centre at Whitefield in Bangalore has placed a windmill on the terrace and that takes care of the reception room lighting.

There are choices aplenty for various scenarios. It only takes some visionary policies that propel the energy demand in this direction.

Who will bell the cat?

The three Fs!

Funny. But there seems to be some kind of comradeship in the world of words too, going by the crises we are seeing. These are in the areas of - food, fuel and finance! Which came first, is a tough question. But what is welcome is a recognition of the linked nature of the three fs.

A Green Economy Initiative to be spearheaded by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) will be launched soon in London. It aims to create millions of jobs, revive the world economy, slash poverty and avert environmental disaster, as financial markets plunge in the west.

The new multimillion dollar initiative – which is being already funded by the German and Norwegian Governments and the European Commission – arises out of a study commissioned by world leaders at the 2006 G8 summit into the economic value of ecosystems. It argues that the world is caught up in not one, but three interlinked crises, with the food and fuel crunches accompanying and intensifying the financial one.

Soaring prices of grain and oil, it stresses, have stemmed from outdated economic priorities that have concentrated on short term exploitation of the world's resources, without considering how they can be used to sustain prosperity in the long term. Over the last quarter of a century, says UNEP, world growth has doubled, but 60 per cent of the natural resources that provide food, water, energy and clean air have been seriously degraded.

Achim Steiner, UNEP's Executive Director, adds that new research shows that every year, for example the felling of forests deprives the world of over $2.5 trillion worth of such services in supplying water, generating rainfall, stopping soil erosion, cleaning the air and reducing global warming . By comparison, he points out, the global financial crisis is so far estimated to have cost the world the smaller one-off sum of $1.5 trillion.

The economy driven so far by finance capital will now have to shift gears to one driven by natural resource capital, says UNEP.

The initiative will be launched in London on October 22nd, with the announcement of three projects, concentrating on how investing in the world's natural systems, in renewable energy and in other green technologies would stimulate growth and provide jobs.

Finally, there seems to be global acknowledgement of the crucial role played by eco-resources in the well being of people and nations. While organisations have taken admirable lead to show the way, a la Google, individuals too have not lagged behind. Blogs and new websites show a new level of interest in 'saving the planet'.

Innovative ideas have not only seen the development of PV paints on steel that replicate photosynthesis, or inflatable floating ballons that concentrate sunlight onto the PV panel, harnessing tidal power, and geothermal power; but also show up in awareness portals like http://www.350.org/ that is whipping up energy and enthusiasm through arts, dance and music to send across the message of global warming. Participants are from across the world.

Which brings us to yet another welcome sign, that of global partnerships and cooperation. Perhaps it is a recognition of scarce resources left, or the urgency to act together, but businesses and people are getting together on their acts. There is after all more sense in pooling up resources and knowledge. Patents are another thing but over and above them is the need being felt to share expertise and share profits.

It took a heated planet to get that message across.

Thinking big, thinking new

The time for green has arrived. If in Scotland it is tidal power that will be harnessed to provide 60 MW to power 40,000 homes by 2011, in the Dutch city of Heerlen the first geothermal power station went operational two days ago. The plant circulates water from its mines to heat and cool 350 homes and in the process helps save 50 percent carbon emissions as would have been emitted from a conventional power station. Elsewhere, the GSM association of mobile phone companies has a programme to power 118,000 base stations with renewable energy that will save 600 million gallons of diesel every year.

Google has just taken what could be a giant leap for the planet with its ‘clean energy 2030’ proposal to reduce US dependence on fossil fuels. The grandiose plan hopes to reduce fossil fuel-based electrical generation by 88%, transportation oil consumption by 38%, foreign oil imports by 33% and in the process cut carbon emissions from electric sector by 95 percent, 38 in personal vehicle sector and overall US emissions by 48 percent.

To appreciate all this, a quick look at some projections.

In the IEO 2008 projections, total world consumption of marketed energy is projected to increase by 50 percent from 2005 to 2030. The largest projected increase in energy demand is for the non-OECD economies. Notching it a bit higher is a US study that predicts a growth of 54 percent over the next two decades.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration's long-term forecast for the year 2025 projects the strongest growth in energy use from developing countries, especially China and India, where buoyant economies will boost demand. Energy use in developing countries is forecast to soar by 91 percent over the next two decades, while rising 33 percent in industrialized nations.

Where will this energy come from? The oil peak theory that is gaining wide acceptance already sees the beginning of the drop in the curve. Coal reserves will hardly last a few decades if we continue with the current merry trend of burning coal.

Does it mean it is time to scrimp and save? To switch off the lights and take long walks? Not immediately, at least!

Some respite comes from a McKinsey research which shows that the growth of worldwide energy demand can be cut in half or more over the next 15 years, without reducing either the benefits that end users enjoy or economic growth. The key, as the authors see it, is a concerted global effort to boost energy productivity. Or getting more energy out of a litre or tonne of fuel than we have been obtaining.

But that only addresses the demand side, and temporarily. There is the other serious side – of growing emissions. To keep temperature rise at 2 deg C we have to reduce emissions by 2050 to 90 percent of what they are today. But Kyoto and IPCC findings notwithstanding, the world continues to spew greenhouse gases at growing rates!

A recent study by the Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows that despite all the sound and noise about climate change, annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement have grown 38 percent since 1992, from 6.1 billion tons of carbon to 8.5 billion tons in 2007.

The source of emissions has shifted dramatically as energy use has been growing slowly in many developed countries but more quickly in some developing countries, most notably in rapidly developing Asian countries such as China and India. These are countries that are in no mood to give up on their high-energy trajectories, perceived as necessary for realizing growth targets.

That is where renewables could play a big role. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) report assumes significance. It estimates that nearly 50% of global electricity supplies will have to come from renewable energy sources if we want to halve CO2 emissions by 2050 in order to minimise significant and irreversible climate change impacts.

This goal can be achieved only if backed by matching policies that give substantial incentives for adoption and impose taxes on fossil fuel use, rather than subsidizing. Increasing tax for high carbon real estate would release a large amount. Increasing carbon efficiency of existing assets like infrastructure, supply chain goods like vehicles, PCs, TVs, etc makes another big leap. Equally important would be for businesses to take part and set targets at work for reducing carbon footprints. All this can bring down consumption by 25 percent by 2020, and a subsequent 27 percent drop in carbon emissions according to McKinsey.

The IEA study found widespread non-economic barriers to the deployment of renewable energy, including administrative hurdles, obstacles to electricity grid access and a lack of information and training. It strongly recommended that these should be removed.

The IEA also stressed the need for a predictable and transparent support framework to attract investment in renewable energy and for “transitional incentives”, decreasing over time, to foster technological innovation.

In India, the power ministry had, way back in 2001, predicted that end-use efficiency and demand side management can save the country 25,000 MW. Basically these would involve energy conservation measures, energy efficiency, load shifting and peak shaving.

However, not much has been done. Loud voices heard are still all about increasing supply, and by using the coal route. The building code was made mandatory for commercial buildings while leaving out government buildings! A draft on trading of energy efficiency certificates is on the cards. But RPOs are still not a part of many of the SEBs.

Costs have inhibited the growth of RE sector in India. That again has been due to poor incentives for manufacture, as also supply constraints in resources and a lack of spur to R&D.

All that could be dealt with, perhaps, if someone like Google could take the mantle here in India and set a high-reaching target. It will not be easy but an inspiring leader could make aiming for the sky seem a child’s play.

Even Google’s Clean Energy 2030 proposal has vast scope for improvement. For one, is it practical to phase out all fossil fuels? Some calculations made by commentators show that requirements to do this using wind energy alone would take over 100 years. Not to forget the costs for the 2030 plan which hover around $4.5 trillion, even if potential savings over time will be over $1 trillion! It has once again triggered debate over nuclear versus wind and solar. Suggestions for small nuclear plants situated near consumers and allow heat generated to be used, and Google’s own tie-up with GE to smarten up transmission grids make for enlightening news.

As always, there are the lobbies visible for wind, solar or nuclear. Things are sure to get confusing as others pitch in.

But it will still be a victory for Google, to have initiated a large public debate on a crucial area. When a well-known name like Google is associated with such a venture, people are bound to look up and make contributions to the debate. Whether anything comes out of it or not, the bigger success will be if Google can bring in a culture of innovative thinking and energy awareness.

Google’s envisioning of a smart grid comes as a trend-setting example in this. It talks of: ‘‘We all receive an electricity bill once a month that encourages little except prompt payment. What if, instead, we had access to real-time information about home energy use? What if our flat screen TVs, electronic equipment, lights and appliances were programmed to automatically adjust to save money and cut energy use? What if we could push a button and switch the source of our homes' electricity from fossil fuels to renewable energy? What if the car sitting in our garage ran on electricity – the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline – and was programmed to charge at night when electricity is cheapest?’

Can we set a Vision for India that unleashes such futuristic thinking? Anyone ready?