In its report Pathway to a Low Carbon Economy, McKinsey&Company has emphasized the urgency to act now and to act collectively. While there is immense potential to avert the 2 deg rise in temperature, it also cautions that ‘not only will all regions and sectors have to realise the full potential for abatement, it will not do to have deep emission cuts in a few alone.’
Total worldwide cost annually will be 200-350 billion euros. High, but ‘within long term capacity of financial banks’ and made good by energy savings down the years.
The analysis finds that ‘there is potential to reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 35 percent compared with 1990 levels, or by 70 percent compared with the levels we would see in 2030 if the world collectively made little attempt to curb current and future emissions. This would be sufficient to have a good chance of holding global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius threshold, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.’
While the report also mentions a high cost technical path as well as one borne out of a behavioural change, the focus is on technical abatement costing a lesser 60 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide. These will not cause a material effect on lifestyles (which it acknowledges as tough to expect. Another topic for the blog another day!)
By capturing all the abatements across all sectors starting 2010, the emissions in 2030 will be 35-40 percent lower than in the reference year 1990. These will be the emissions one can expect if peaking happens around 480 ppm. Good enough.
But as the study notes, this will call for change on a huge scale. Like avoiding till 2030 deforestation of around 170 m hectares as also new forests on 330 m hectares! Like ensuring low carbon power generation should rise to 70 percent of global electricity. Tough, but feasible with ‘concerted global action’.
Action must be timely. A 10 year period will not equip against the 2 deg rise warned by IPCC. By delaying action even by a year, an abatement of 1.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent is lost.
Four categories for abatement opportunities are highlighted: efficiency, low carbon energy supply, terrestrial carbon and behavioural change. But the last is only qualitatively analysed and not quantitatively.
Regarding forestation, as more than 90 percent of the potential is in developing nations with insatiable thirst for industrialization, it becomes a challenge. This is why it advocates linking the abatement to the development agenda. Similarly, to push efficiency it calls for technical norms and standards; long term incentives to push renewable energy; and support for emerging technologies.
Do you believe global collective action will be forthcoming? Will the change happen? If so, when? Most of us resist change, and when it brings along tough choices, the tendency is to put it off that much more. How do we get our governments to change their ways of thinking?
Come on, let us have your thoughts.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Agency for renewable energy
The first multinational agency focused solely on popularizing and adoption of clean energy across the globe was launched this week. Called the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the agency will help governments and private industry to expand renewable energy installments throughout the industrialized world, where investments are already on the rise, while also assist the developing world acquire the expertise to establish its own clean energy industries.
Naturally, this will be a big help for developing nations, especially in terms of technological know-how transfer. It will be interesting to see what mechanism IRENA evolves.
More than 120 delegates attended the IRENA founding conference in Bonn on Monday, and 75 nations signed the agency's treaty. Originally the initiative of Germany, Spain, and Denmark, IRENA now includes countries such as France, India, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kenya. The founding treaty becomes effective once it is ratified by 25 countries.
Although the global credit crunch has slowed many renewable energy investments, wind, solar, and geothermal industries expanded worldwide last year. About 12,000 megawatts of wind power capacity were installed in 2008 alone, bringing the global total to 106,100 megawatts, according to the World Wind Energy Association. In addition, 9,740 megawatts of cumulative solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and at least 6,000 megawatts of geothermal energy projects have been installed, according to the Worldwatch Institute and U.N. Environment Programme, respectively.
Do we need such agencies? Are these mere clean energy jingoisms? Or will they be able to give wings to a renewable sector witnessing slump in the recession? What do you think? We would love to hear.
Naturally, this will be a big help for developing nations, especially in terms of technological know-how transfer. It will be interesting to see what mechanism IRENA evolves.
More than 120 delegates attended the IRENA founding conference in Bonn on Monday, and 75 nations signed the agency's treaty. Originally the initiative of Germany, Spain, and Denmark, IRENA now includes countries such as France, India, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kenya. The founding treaty becomes effective once it is ratified by 25 countries.
Although the global credit crunch has slowed many renewable energy investments, wind, solar, and geothermal industries expanded worldwide last year. About 12,000 megawatts of wind power capacity were installed in 2008 alone, bringing the global total to 106,100 megawatts, according to the World Wind Energy Association. In addition, 9,740 megawatts of cumulative solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and at least 6,000 megawatts of geothermal energy projects have been installed, according to the Worldwatch Institute and U.N. Environment Programme, respectively.
Do we need such agencies? Are these mere clean energy jingoisms? Or will they be able to give wings to a renewable sector witnessing slump in the recession? What do you think? We would love to hear.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Energy economy
In one of his recent addresses after becoming president, Obama declared that, ‘No single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy!’ That is what we believe too. How are we addressing the challenge? Are we taking up enough measures?
A look at Obama’s ‘bold action’ to create a new American energy economy could be worth it. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is expected to put 460,000 Americans to work, with clean energy investments and double the capacity to generate alternative energy over the next three years. Double renewable energy in three years. Isn’t that worth following?
New fuel standards to reduce dependency on foreign oil which mean a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency is expected to save 2 million barrels of oil daily!
He went on to call for a global coalition to ‘protect our climate and our collective security. I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world.’ And that's how Obama plans to ‘ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours.’
Clearly, there is hint of ratifying Kyoto protocol if India and China go along. Will they? Should they? What do you think?
What recovery plan does India have?
A look at Obama’s ‘bold action’ to create a new American energy economy could be worth it. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is expected to put 460,000 Americans to work, with clean energy investments and double the capacity to generate alternative energy over the next three years. Double renewable energy in three years. Isn’t that worth following?
New fuel standards to reduce dependency on foreign oil which mean a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency is expected to save 2 million barrels of oil daily!
He went on to call for a global coalition to ‘protect our climate and our collective security. I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world.’ And that's how Obama plans to ‘ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours.’
Clearly, there is hint of ratifying Kyoto protocol if India and China go along. Will they? Should they? What do you think?
What recovery plan does India have?
Dire Straits
Going with the present trend, greenhouse gas levels around the mid-century will produce devastating long-term droughts and a sea-level rise that will persist for 1,000 years. This is regardless of how well the world curbs future emissions of carbon dioxide. Just in case you decided that we might as well continue with business as usual, from here on things are set to get worse.
Climate researchers from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France said their analysis shows that carbon dioxide will remain near peak levels in the atmosphere much longer than other greenhouse gases.
At the moment, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere stand at 385 parts per million. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has set a goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, the way we are putting out emissions place projections at 550 ppm by 2035, and then rising after that point by 4.5 percent a year.
If carbon dioxide concentrations peak at 600 ppm, several regions of the world like southwestern North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa will face major droughts as bad or worse than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Global sea levels will rise by about three feet by the year 3000. This does not factor in melting glaciers and polar ice sheets, which would add more to the sea level rise.
For the sub-tropics, a drop in precipitation by 10 percent could result even with carbon levels at 450 ppm. Big droughts will follow.
In the last five years, emissions have continued to grow despite warnings. Notably the west continues in its path while new entrant China has just beaten the US.
So what do we do? Blame each other? Ask the 'original perpetrators' to pay up? Does the planet care where the emissions come from?
Climate researchers from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France said their analysis shows that carbon dioxide will remain near peak levels in the atmosphere much longer than other greenhouse gases.
At the moment, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere stand at 385 parts per million. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has set a goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, the way we are putting out emissions place projections at 550 ppm by 2035, and then rising after that point by 4.5 percent a year.
If carbon dioxide concentrations peak at 600 ppm, several regions of the world like southwestern North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa will face major droughts as bad or worse than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Global sea levels will rise by about three feet by the year 3000. This does not factor in melting glaciers and polar ice sheets, which would add more to the sea level rise.
For the sub-tropics, a drop in precipitation by 10 percent could result even with carbon levels at 450 ppm. Big droughts will follow.
In the last five years, emissions have continued to grow despite warnings. Notably the west continues in its path while new entrant China has just beaten the US.
So what do we do? Blame each other? Ask the 'original perpetrators' to pay up? Does the planet care where the emissions come from?
Ocean's Twenty
The German government has given the go-ahead for the Indo-German scientific project LOHAFEX that saw environmental concern over geo-engineering. The reviews concluded that there were no ‘scientific or legal objections’ to the spreading of 20 tons of iron sulfate on ocean waters.
The director of the Alfred Wegener Institute said that the experiment was to understand the role of iron in climate system. He said it was not a geo-engineering option of sequestering carbon dioxide into the waters. The team has started discharging the solution into the water.
The question we would like to ask is: are scientific and legal objections alone to be considered? How inclusive of ecological considerations is our scientific view? Science has been largely viewed as a force unto itself with its sole mandate to find the truth. But when the means involves invasive methods, how benign is it?
Do we really know what 20 tons of iron sulfate across a 300 square kilometer patch in the South Atlantic ocean could mean to marine life? Perhaps the Indian team from National Institute of Oceanography can explain. The explosion of plant life, mainly planktons, that would suck in the carbon dioxide is unquestionably ocean-engineering. Could someone explain how it is not?
The director of the Alfred Wegener Institute said that the experiment was to understand the role of iron in climate system. He said it was not a geo-engineering option of sequestering carbon dioxide into the waters. The team has started discharging the solution into the water.
The question we would like to ask is: are scientific and legal objections alone to be considered? How inclusive of ecological considerations is our scientific view? Science has been largely viewed as a force unto itself with its sole mandate to find the truth. But when the means involves invasive methods, how benign is it?
Do we really know what 20 tons of iron sulfate across a 300 square kilometer patch in the South Atlantic ocean could mean to marine life? Perhaps the Indian team from National Institute of Oceanography can explain. The explosion of plant life, mainly planktons, that would suck in the carbon dioxide is unquestionably ocean-engineering. Could someone explain how it is not?
Meanwhile, a study on geo-engineering says, ocean fertilization options are “only worthwhile if sustained on a millennial timescale and phosphorus addition probably has greater long-term potential” than either iron or nitrogen”. Can the planet take all those experiments of different groups?
The study looks at ideas like sun shades in the sky, aerosol spraying, etc and concludes that if present trends continue, by 2050, only stratospheric aerosol injections or sunshades in space have the potential to cool the climate back toward its pre-industrial state.
Costs will be high and it is best to avoid adding to the problem instead of looking at ways to doctor ecosphere. Unless we mend our ways drsatically, we will need to do some altering our environment.
What are your views? Is that a better idea? Instead of giving up on those 'dreams of a luxurious life, is it better to change the planet?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Customer makes the choice
Things are looking up in the US for renewable energy, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency just released “Electric Power Industry 2007: Year in Review,” and for the first time, renewables (not including hydro-electric power) led the way in new electric generation capacity in the U.S.
Wind accounted for more than half of the new added capacity.
However, carbon dioxide emissions by electric generators and combined heat and power facilities increased by 2.3 percent in 2007, to 2.52 billion metric tons, up from 2.460 billion. That reverses a decline in CO2 emissions reported for 2006.
But the EIA report isn’t all about utility-scale power. The report also talks about some new experiments like homes feeding small scale renewable energy into the grid. With net metering, people get paid for electricity they feed into the grid. In the US during last year, there were over 40,000 people taking part in this experiment. In yet another ‘green pricing program’ users, both residential and industrial, bought green power from their utility.
Isn’t that a good way of encouraging green power? But if the prices are costlier than regular grid power, how many ‘conscientious’ buyers will the scheme see in a price conscious place? Maybe tagging along an incentive will help? Anyone out there with customer experiences care to tell us what you think?
Wind accounted for more than half of the new added capacity.
However, carbon dioxide emissions by electric generators and combined heat and power facilities increased by 2.3 percent in 2007, to 2.52 billion metric tons, up from 2.460 billion. That reverses a decline in CO2 emissions reported for 2006.
But the EIA report isn’t all about utility-scale power. The report also talks about some new experiments like homes feeding small scale renewable energy into the grid. With net metering, people get paid for electricity they feed into the grid. In the US during last year, there were over 40,000 people taking part in this experiment. In yet another ‘green pricing program’ users, both residential and industrial, bought green power from their utility.
Isn’t that a good way of encouraging green power? But if the prices are costlier than regular grid power, how many ‘conscientious’ buyers will the scheme see in a price conscious place? Maybe tagging along an incentive will help? Anyone out there with customer experiences care to tell us what you think?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Hope in the air
In what is now the talk of the globe - yes, the Obama speech - if there is one phrase that could sum up the essence of that well-thought out, comprehensive and restrained address, it is the call for ‘a new foundation for growth’.
In all that he spoke, the American economy, foreign affairs or global warming, the new US president Barack Obama set a new line of thought going. On rolling ‘back the spectre of global warming’ and restoring ‘science to its rightful place’… and wielding technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost, it was a new foundation.
Especially in the field of energy, the address saw him talk of harnessing ‘the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.’
Obama has earlier too called for an effort to overhaul US energy policy on the scale of the Apollo . His plan includes unleashing 150 billion dollars over 10 years to create five million new green jobs, an 80-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and ensuring that 10 percent of US energy consumed comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025.
Obama's stimulus plan revealed last week called for doubling the production of renewable energy in three years. It envisages energy-efficient retrofits for 75% of government office buildings, and weather-proofing for two million homes.
At an Ohio factory that makes components for wind turbines, he said, "A renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future…it’s happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."
But the task of convincing Congress to pass a law restricting emissions will be difficult. Especially to negotiate a specific target and reach a full and final agreement in the few months before Copenhagen may be tough. Experts are suggesting an intermediary agreement that talks of a post 2012 framework, but not specific commitments from each country.
This is important because developing nations like India and China that have not ratified Kyoto protocol will act according to what the US does.
But Obama also said 'we will not apologize for our way of life'! even if he added '…each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet…'
Again a message in that? And if the Americans will not change their way of life, why should the aspiring developing world not aim for that?
Either way, the world will be watching Obama closely. Perhaps new foundations for growth will spring up in more than the US.
In all that he spoke, the American economy, foreign affairs or global warming, the new US president Barack Obama set a new line of thought going. On rolling ‘back the spectre of global warming’ and restoring ‘science to its rightful place’… and wielding technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost, it was a new foundation.
Especially in the field of energy, the address saw him talk of harnessing ‘the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.’
Obama has earlier too called for an effort to overhaul US energy policy on the scale of the Apollo . His plan includes unleashing 150 billion dollars over 10 years to create five million new green jobs, an 80-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and ensuring that 10 percent of US energy consumed comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025.
Obama's stimulus plan revealed last week called for doubling the production of renewable energy in three years. It envisages energy-efficient retrofits for 75% of government office buildings, and weather-proofing for two million homes.
At an Ohio factory that makes components for wind turbines, he said, "A renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future…it’s happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."
But the task of convincing Congress to pass a law restricting emissions will be difficult. Especially to negotiate a specific target and reach a full and final agreement in the few months before Copenhagen may be tough. Experts are suggesting an intermediary agreement that talks of a post 2012 framework, but not specific commitments from each country.
This is important because developing nations like India and China that have not ratified Kyoto protocol will act according to what the US does.
But Obama also said 'we will not apologize for our way of life'! even if he added '…each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet…'
Again a message in that? And if the Americans will not change their way of life, why should the aspiring developing world not aim for that?
Either way, the world will be watching Obama closely. Perhaps new foundations for growth will spring up in more than the US.
To ban or not to ban?
The EU is placing checks on home energy use. First it was a ban on incandescent bulbs starting 2010, now it plans to effectively ban large plasma TVs. The new standards, which will go into effect soon will pull the least efficient TVs from the shelves and start a labeling system that ranks the efficiency of the remaining models.
The California Energy Commission too has proposed state standards that would require TVs to use 50 percent less energy by 2013. The California proposal is even more stringent than the EU standards.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a 42-inch plasma set consumes more electricity than a full-size refrigerator, even when switched on for a few hours only. If a CRT set consumes 150 watts, a plasma Tv consumes up to 600 W. In terms of carbon emissions, older-style TVs produce 100kg of climate-warming CO2 per year - while larger, plasma screens pump out 400kg.
But is it a good idea to ban products that consume huge amounts of power? After all, there was a demand for the technology which delivers on high-resolution image and sound. Should we then be looking at banning high-end cars and SUVs? Would it not be a better idea to impose a cess? But, is that going to deter buyers? Is a cess the solution in a power deficit scenario or a ban? Let us have your thoughts.
The California Energy Commission too has proposed state standards that would require TVs to use 50 percent less energy by 2013. The California proposal is even more stringent than the EU standards.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a 42-inch plasma set consumes more electricity than a full-size refrigerator, even when switched on for a few hours only. If a CRT set consumes 150 watts, a plasma Tv consumes up to 600 W. In terms of carbon emissions, older-style TVs produce 100kg of climate-warming CO2 per year - while larger, plasma screens pump out 400kg.
But is it a good idea to ban products that consume huge amounts of power? After all, there was a demand for the technology which delivers on high-resolution image and sound. Should we then be looking at banning high-end cars and SUVs? Would it not be a better idea to impose a cess? But, is that going to deter buyers? Is a cess the solution in a power deficit scenario or a ban? Let us have your thoughts.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Too windy?
Meanwhile, offshore wind markets are facing a downslide with major players pulling out of projects. Like Masdar of Abu Dhabi, which may pull out of London Array, which was in the news as UK’s answer to beat Denmark with largest number of offshore plants.
The 341-turbine London Array, along with the smaller 100-turbine Thanet wind farm which was also approved, will supply 1.3 gigawatts of electricity -- enough to power one million homes. Each turbine could be as tall as 850 feet and power 8000 homes.
The Masdar move comes after BP and Shell have pulled out of wind projects in the UK, China, India and Turkey to go for the more favourable climate in the US. In the UK there has been opposition to wind projects from environment groups as well as the defence ministry over radar interference.
Meanwhile, the US has the largest potential wind market in the world, with the industry on track to install a total of 7,500 megawatts this year, up from 5,249 in 2007.
The costs of offshore wind plants are almost double as onshore plants. The technical needs too are more complex as these stand in deep ocean waters and need deepsea cables to transmit the energy.
The main attraction of going offshore is the enormous wind resource available. Average wind speeds can be 20 percent higher than on land, and the resulting energy yield from wind farms as much as 70 percent higher.
Offshore wind-power capacity, though currently small, is growing faster than onshore capacity. The 20 countries that are members of IEA Wind, a branch of the International Energy Agency, increased offshore wind capacity by 26 percent in 2007 from 2006, compared with a 21-percent increase for onshore capacity.
In India, the TN government has evinced interest in offshore wind plants. Not much has been done. Is it unfavourable investment regulations? Or formidable costs? Is it worth taking up?
The 341-turbine London Array, along with the smaller 100-turbine Thanet wind farm which was also approved, will supply 1.3 gigawatts of electricity -- enough to power one million homes. Each turbine could be as tall as 850 feet and power 8000 homes.
The Masdar move comes after BP and Shell have pulled out of wind projects in the UK, China, India and Turkey to go for the more favourable climate in the US. In the UK there has been opposition to wind projects from environment groups as well as the defence ministry over radar interference.
Meanwhile, the US has the largest potential wind market in the world, with the industry on track to install a total of 7,500 megawatts this year, up from 5,249 in 2007.
The costs of offshore wind plants are almost double as onshore plants. The technical needs too are more complex as these stand in deep ocean waters and need deepsea cables to transmit the energy.
The main attraction of going offshore is the enormous wind resource available. Average wind speeds can be 20 percent higher than on land, and the resulting energy yield from wind farms as much as 70 percent higher.
Offshore wind-power capacity, though currently small, is growing faster than onshore capacity. The 20 countries that are members of IEA Wind, a branch of the International Energy Agency, increased offshore wind capacity by 26 percent in 2007 from 2006, compared with a 21-percent increase for onshore capacity.
In India, the TN government has evinced interest in offshore wind plants. Not much has been done. Is it unfavourable investment regulations? Or formidable costs? Is it worth taking up?
Waste oil no more
Owl Power’s founder and CEO, James Peret, has developed and launched a product called Vegawatt, a fully automated cogeneration system for restaurants, designed to run on waste vegetable oil.
The device, which is about the size of consumer-size refrigerator, includes a turn-key waste vegetable oil (WVO) refinery that automatically transforms even the most used cooking oil into fuel that generates up to 25% of the electrical power a restaurant requires for lights and hot water.
This requires no fossil fuel for start up. The 5kW unit developed by the company is based on the amount of waste oil most restaurants produce in a week (50-80 gallons). A larger unit for supermarkets is being developed.
Rather than look for ways of increasing power generation by straining limited resources, it seems to make sense to have self-reliance built into small and large units. If even lighting requirements of hotels are taken off the grid, that would be a big load off. Add hospitals, schools, government buildings. So also, at individual home levels. This is similar to using recycled grey water for washing purposes and tap water for drinking and cooking.
The big question again: as long as cheap power is available from the grid, who would make such a move? As long as water is cheap, who will think of recycling water? Would it help to provide incentives? Real big ones? What do you say?
The device, which is about the size of consumer-size refrigerator, includes a turn-key waste vegetable oil (WVO) refinery that automatically transforms even the most used cooking oil into fuel that generates up to 25% of the electrical power a restaurant requires for lights and hot water.
This requires no fossil fuel for start up. The 5kW unit developed by the company is based on the amount of waste oil most restaurants produce in a week (50-80 gallons). A larger unit for supermarkets is being developed.
Rather than look for ways of increasing power generation by straining limited resources, it seems to make sense to have self-reliance built into small and large units. If even lighting requirements of hotels are taken off the grid, that would be a big load off. Add hospitals, schools, government buildings. So also, at individual home levels. This is similar to using recycled grey water for washing purposes and tap water for drinking and cooking.
The big question again: as long as cheap power is available from the grid, who would make such a move? As long as water is cheap, who will think of recycling water? Would it help to provide incentives? Real big ones? What do you say?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Innovation mode
World Future Energy Summit 2009 in Abu Dhabi, ongoing this week, is perhaps an indicator of how the oil rich region is getting wise on its act. Who can know better that energy rules growth than the Opec nations.
No wonder there is a scramble for green tech in most of these nations, with solar leading the way. In Dubai that was putting on show some of the world’s biggest, or largest, buildings has had to put on hold many of these, due to the recession. That nation too is pursuing renewable energy.
Abu Dhabi with its zero carbon city, Masdar, has big plans. Among the sprawling campus is an institute being developed in cooperation with MIT. This institute is not some long-term program but is expected to open this year. Masdar hopes to attract the top students from all over to power innovation for the future. Because as Energy Collective puts it, in the long run, the hope of Abu Dhabi and Masdar is to invent, develop and export clean technology. How about that for a sound energy vision for tomorrow?!
When you plan, it is best to plan BIG. Perhaps it is also the urgency of the energy situation that is prompting nations to take a leap.
What do you think? Is it advisable, or is it better to hop and then leap?
No wonder there is a scramble for green tech in most of these nations, with solar leading the way. In Dubai that was putting on show some of the world’s biggest, or largest, buildings has had to put on hold many of these, due to the recession. That nation too is pursuing renewable energy.
Abu Dhabi with its zero carbon city, Masdar, has big plans. Among the sprawling campus is an institute being developed in cooperation with MIT. This institute is not some long-term program but is expected to open this year. Masdar hopes to attract the top students from all over to power innovation for the future. Because as Energy Collective puts it, in the long run, the hope of Abu Dhabi and Masdar is to invent, develop and export clean technology. How about that for a sound energy vision for tomorrow?!
When you plan, it is best to plan BIG. Perhaps it is also the urgency of the energy situation that is prompting nations to take a leap.
What do you think? Is it advisable, or is it better to hop and then leap?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
To Paradise through Hell
Are you a ‘deep’ ecologist or a shallow one? That is an interesting thought after our last post.
Do you believe in non-interference in the natural world, or are you a ‘technology fixer’ who believes technology has all the answers, and that everything has to be measured in terms of its use to the human race? Let us hear your arguments either way.
In DotEarth, Revkin pays homage to Norwegian Arne Naess, mountaineer and philosopher who divided ecological thinking and action into deep and shallow. In what he coined as deep ecology, Naess believed all living beings have their value and have to be protected from destruction at the hands of humans.
Diversity of life forms on earth must be preserved and humans have no right to tamper with this, is a tenet of deep ecology. Life quality should be given more primacy than a high standard of living. Above all, if you believed in all this, you are obliged to work towards this goal.
A few months ago the Swiss Government's Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology concluded that plants have rights, and have to be treated appropriately. The Ecuadorian population has now voted to change their constitution to proclaim that nature has “the right to the maintenance and regeneration of its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”
Ecuador drafted the changes with the help of the U.S. based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. Along with its work in Ecuador the Fund "has assisted more than a dozen local municipalities with drafting and adopting local laws recognizing Rights of Nature." The basis of these rights "change the status of ecosystems from being regarded as property under the law to being recognized as rights-bearing entities."
As revolutionary or impractical as they seem, these are small jerks that show there are people inclined towards ‘deep ecology’ and the connectedness of the world. The realization could well trigger a way of life which is in sync with nature.
Incidentally, Naess who was pessimistic about the 21st century saw hope in the 23rd by when, he predicted, population control would show results, technology would be noninvasive and children would grow up in a natural environment. “We are back in the direction of paradise.”
Do you believe in non-interference in the natural world, or are you a ‘technology fixer’ who believes technology has all the answers, and that everything has to be measured in terms of its use to the human race? Let us hear your arguments either way.
In DotEarth, Revkin pays homage to Norwegian Arne Naess, mountaineer and philosopher who divided ecological thinking and action into deep and shallow. In what he coined as deep ecology, Naess believed all living beings have their value and have to be protected from destruction at the hands of humans.
Diversity of life forms on earth must be preserved and humans have no right to tamper with this, is a tenet of deep ecology. Life quality should be given more primacy than a high standard of living. Above all, if you believed in all this, you are obliged to work towards this goal.
A few months ago the Swiss Government's Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology concluded that plants have rights, and have to be treated appropriately. The Ecuadorian population has now voted to change their constitution to proclaim that nature has “the right to the maintenance and regeneration of its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”
Ecuador drafted the changes with the help of the U.S. based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. Along with its work in Ecuador the Fund "has assisted more than a dozen local municipalities with drafting and adopting local laws recognizing Rights of Nature." The basis of these rights "change the status of ecosystems from being regarded as property under the law to being recognized as rights-bearing entities."
As revolutionary or impractical as they seem, these are small jerks that show there are people inclined towards ‘deep ecology’ and the connectedness of the world. The realization could well trigger a way of life which is in sync with nature.
Incidentally, Naess who was pessimistic about the 21st century saw hope in the 23rd by when, he predicted, population control would show results, technology would be noninvasive and children would grow up in a natural environment. “We are back in the direction of paradise.”
Experimenting or tampering?
An international experiment to fertilise a swathe of the Southern Ocean has run into trouble.
Tonnes of iron dust were to be dumped into the sea from an Indo-German research ship across a 300 square kilometre area near the Antarctic in an experiment to test its possible use in absorbing a greenhouse gas. Earlier attempts have been made to check if this can increase marine algal blooms which in turn increases the ocean’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. But this expedition, Lohafex, was on a larger scale.
Under pressure from environmentalists, the German science ministry has suspended approval to the expedition. The Ocean Iron Fertilisation is just one of the many examples of geo-engineering our way out of troubles.
Nature online reported that the German science ministry has asked Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), the research body behind the expedition (along with India's National Institute of Oceanography), to commission an independent assessment of the study's environmental safety.
The experiment will flout an agreement signed by 191 countries at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2008. Besides, there is fear of unknown side-effects from the dumping of iron.
The scientists insist all "signatures'' of the iron seeding will be quickly erased by the ocean. (Naturally, the ocean is wide and the seeded material will fast be dispersed, removing it from detection!?) They also point to an international meet permitting scientific research on ocean fertilization that had, in effect, made the CBD declaration irrelevant.
The point to be raised here is: should we be attempting geo-engineering to solve problems we have ourselves caused? Sprinkling aerosols in the atmosphere to ward off warming was one such idea mooted. Tackling an alien plant species by introducing yet another alien seems simple enough, but is not. Or even, geothermal energy tapping when undertaken on a massive scale.
Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management approved 18 geothermal drilling permits. That number more than doubled in 2007 and has nearly quadrupled this year. The government leased a staggering 244,000 acres for geothermal development in the past 18 months. Another 146,339 acres went up for bid Friday in Utah, Oregon and Idaho. All of it was claimed.
Do we have any idea what such extensive deep drilling could unleash? Is it safe? can some geologist let us know?
Isn’t there a danger of continuing with business as usual with the arrogant assurance of an eraser near at hand? Fully knowing the eraser could well cause new problems! Can we afford to take risks without knowing possible outcomes?
Should man learn to abide by Nature’s rules or try to change Nature? Do log in your comments.
Tonnes of iron dust were to be dumped into the sea from an Indo-German research ship across a 300 square kilometre area near the Antarctic in an experiment to test its possible use in absorbing a greenhouse gas. Earlier attempts have been made to check if this can increase marine algal blooms which in turn increases the ocean’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. But this expedition, Lohafex, was on a larger scale.
Under pressure from environmentalists, the German science ministry has suspended approval to the expedition. The Ocean Iron Fertilisation is just one of the many examples of geo-engineering our way out of troubles.
Nature online reported that the German science ministry has asked Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), the research body behind the expedition (along with India's National Institute of Oceanography), to commission an independent assessment of the study's environmental safety.
The experiment will flout an agreement signed by 191 countries at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2008. Besides, there is fear of unknown side-effects from the dumping of iron.
The scientists insist all "signatures'' of the iron seeding will be quickly erased by the ocean. (Naturally, the ocean is wide and the seeded material will fast be dispersed, removing it from detection!?) They also point to an international meet permitting scientific research on ocean fertilization that had, in effect, made the CBD declaration irrelevant.
The point to be raised here is: should we be attempting geo-engineering to solve problems we have ourselves caused? Sprinkling aerosols in the atmosphere to ward off warming was one such idea mooted. Tackling an alien plant species by introducing yet another alien seems simple enough, but is not. Or even, geothermal energy tapping when undertaken on a massive scale.
Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management approved 18 geothermal drilling permits. That number more than doubled in 2007 and has nearly quadrupled this year. The government leased a staggering 244,000 acres for geothermal development in the past 18 months. Another 146,339 acres went up for bid Friday in Utah, Oregon and Idaho. All of it was claimed.
Do we have any idea what such extensive deep drilling could unleash? Is it safe? can some geologist let us know?
Isn’t there a danger of continuing with business as usual with the arrogant assurance of an eraser near at hand? Fully knowing the eraser could well cause new problems! Can we afford to take risks without knowing possible outcomes?
Should man learn to abide by Nature’s rules or try to change Nature? Do log in your comments.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Toxic panels
Even while the solar industry struggles to stay afloat in times of recession, a report from a toxics coalition warns of dangers of unregulated solar growth! The report from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition talks of the e-waste it generates, comparing it to the ‘mistakes made by the microelectronics industry.’
Making solar panels, in ways similar to semiconductors, also produces toxic byproducts like silicon tetrachloride, dusts and nanoparticles like kerf (a remnant from cutting silicon ingots), besides greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride. Many of these can have deleterious effects on the ecosystem, says the report.
For instance, silicon tetrachloride makes land unsuitable for growing crops. And for each ton of polysilicon produced, four tons of silicon tetrachloride is generated.
The group goes on to advocate a systems thinking approach to products and their entire life cycle from cradle to grave. It suggests regulations on manufacture that force a manufacturer to weigh the risks of using the ingredients against the benefits.
Most customers would naturally go for the cheaper versions and these will obviously have more toxic components. Given that costs plague the solar sector, will regulations affect the industry adversely? Is that a reason not to have regulations?
Alternately, could recycling be made mandatory? Experience shows this route often fails even in the short term. When looking at 20-25 year lifespan, what we will have is tons and tons of junk, some of it toxic too.
This is something we need to think about now, before we go around making new mistakes. Renewable energy from sun and wind will need a lot of manufacture to go beyond the miniscule percentages of the energy pie they occupy now. This manufacture will mean more fossil fuels burnt. Not only that, once these equipment run their lives, they will be pile up the junk on scales we haven’t seen from fossil fuels.
Do we have a plan drawn up on how we deal with all that scrap? In our hurry to escape from one kind of imbroglio, are we rushing into another?
Should we be discussing this at all? Is this making a mountain out of a panel heap? We would love to hear from you.
Making solar panels, in ways similar to semiconductors, also produces toxic byproducts like silicon tetrachloride, dusts and nanoparticles like kerf (a remnant from cutting silicon ingots), besides greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride. Many of these can have deleterious effects on the ecosystem, says the report.
For instance, silicon tetrachloride makes land unsuitable for growing crops. And for each ton of polysilicon produced, four tons of silicon tetrachloride is generated.
The group goes on to advocate a systems thinking approach to products and their entire life cycle from cradle to grave. It suggests regulations on manufacture that force a manufacturer to weigh the risks of using the ingredients against the benefits.
Most customers would naturally go for the cheaper versions and these will obviously have more toxic components. Given that costs plague the solar sector, will regulations affect the industry adversely? Is that a reason not to have regulations?
Alternately, could recycling be made mandatory? Experience shows this route often fails even in the short term. When looking at 20-25 year lifespan, what we will have is tons and tons of junk, some of it toxic too.
This is something we need to think about now, before we go around making new mistakes. Renewable energy from sun and wind will need a lot of manufacture to go beyond the miniscule percentages of the energy pie they occupy now. This manufacture will mean more fossil fuels burnt. Not only that, once these equipment run their lives, they will be pile up the junk on scales we haven’t seen from fossil fuels.
Do we have a plan drawn up on how we deal with all that scrap? In our hurry to escape from one kind of imbroglio, are we rushing into another?
Should we be discussing this at all? Is this making a mountain out of a panel heap? We would love to hear from you.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Can we change?
We saw the panic that a few days of shut down petrol bunks generated. It meant that the way we move goods, as essential as grains and vegetables, milk and fruits, is defined by a single commodity that we largely import. So also the way we reach our workplace, or take a sick person to the hospital.
What happens when Peak Oil finally arrives at our doorstep, signaling the point of petrol stocks falling steeply? Life comes to a halt? Can we allow that? Should we?
How can we avert such a situation? How do we ensure prosperity that is tagged with sustainability? It will call for some changes in the way we live. In the way we define prosperity. As encapsulated beautifully by Alex in his address at Seattle where he touches upon the pitfalls of ‘vertical emulation’. The developing world wants the Baywatch kind of life, and the Americans know the damage it has wrought.
Incidentally, Alex Steffen believes the best brains are in the US and calls on them to come up with new ways to ensure prosperity using One Planet.
First, we need urban, dense and self-sufficient communities. While that may come as a surprise, Alex explains how this will reduce the need for cars and travel becomes more of a feat for the legs. For as he says, cars are cars whether green or not. Because they bring with a whole system that sucks energy. The roads, the parking lots, the meters, etc. Doing away with them is a better thing.
And then, efficiency in the way we build our buildings or operate things, energy meters that allow us to actually see how much we are consuming and hence need to cut down, technology that brings in precision, etc are some of the things he points to as factors to make lives sustainable.
But behavioural change is most important. To think twice before buying. To opt for sharing. Increasingly people are beginning to realize that one does not need to own to enjoy the comforts of things. Why do we buy things in the vague notion that they will be 'useful one day'? Why indeed? Let us know if any of you have no such accumulated junk at home. We would like to congratulate you.
Car sharing means people know the exact time they have borrowed the car for, and will plan things better than in random ways. Bicycle sharing in Barcelona has seen a spurt of users in one year with 6000 cycles and 400 stations in the city. Tool sharing is a great idea instead of homes stocking up on unnecessary ‘essentials’. In London, local paper is recycled and delivered back to the same address so that ‘last week’s memo becomes this week’s memo!’
Interestingly, here in Bangalore too, we have a group that is into sharing stuff. Called Bangalore reuse, posts from members alert members of the yahoogroup of goods that can be had for free. Essentially finding a user for some thing you have but are not using. Subscribe to BangaloreReuse@yahoogroups.com
We also hear that the trend in our metros these days is to hire things on rent, beginning from furniture to your TV and fridge. No accumulated junk, yet no comforts denied. For people on the move, an excellent choice. The shift from possession to sharing is slow. But happening.
All this calls for a drastic change in attitudes. For those who have had a taste of the ‘good life’ and for those have been slogging to reach there. How content or happy are the people who ‘have it all’?
What do you think? Are we being fooled? Or is it time to change directions?
What happens when Peak Oil finally arrives at our doorstep, signaling the point of petrol stocks falling steeply? Life comes to a halt? Can we allow that? Should we?
How can we avert such a situation? How do we ensure prosperity that is tagged with sustainability? It will call for some changes in the way we live. In the way we define prosperity. As encapsulated beautifully by Alex in his address at Seattle where he touches upon the pitfalls of ‘vertical emulation’. The developing world wants the Baywatch kind of life, and the Americans know the damage it has wrought.
Incidentally, Alex Steffen believes the best brains are in the US and calls on them to come up with new ways to ensure prosperity using One Planet.
First, we need urban, dense and self-sufficient communities. While that may come as a surprise, Alex explains how this will reduce the need for cars and travel becomes more of a feat for the legs. For as he says, cars are cars whether green or not. Because they bring with a whole system that sucks energy. The roads, the parking lots, the meters, etc. Doing away with them is a better thing.
And then, efficiency in the way we build our buildings or operate things, energy meters that allow us to actually see how much we are consuming and hence need to cut down, technology that brings in precision, etc are some of the things he points to as factors to make lives sustainable.
But behavioural change is most important. To think twice before buying. To opt for sharing. Increasingly people are beginning to realize that one does not need to own to enjoy the comforts of things. Why do we buy things in the vague notion that they will be 'useful one day'? Why indeed? Let us know if any of you have no such accumulated junk at home. We would like to congratulate you.
Car sharing means people know the exact time they have borrowed the car for, and will plan things better than in random ways. Bicycle sharing in Barcelona has seen a spurt of users in one year with 6000 cycles and 400 stations in the city. Tool sharing is a great idea instead of homes stocking up on unnecessary ‘essentials’. In London, local paper is recycled and delivered back to the same address so that ‘last week’s memo becomes this week’s memo!’
Interestingly, here in Bangalore too, we have a group that is into sharing stuff. Called Bangalore reuse, posts from members alert members of the yahoogroup of goods that can be had for free. Essentially finding a user for some thing you have but are not using. Subscribe to BangaloreReuse@yahoogroups.com
We also hear that the trend in our metros these days is to hire things on rent, beginning from furniture to your TV and fridge. No accumulated junk, yet no comforts denied. For people on the move, an excellent choice. The shift from possession to sharing is slow. But happening.
All this calls for a drastic change in attitudes. For those who have had a taste of the ‘good life’ and for those have been slogging to reach there. How content or happy are the people who ‘have it all’?
What do you think? Are we being fooled? Or is it time to change directions?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Education woes
All it took for Emily Cummins to deliver a solar powered fridge was knowing her basics in science. That cooling happens when there is evaporation, just like when you sweat! Student inventor and entrepreneur Emily is now known in parts of Africa that she visited during the trials as the ‘Fridge lady’. All thanks to her cheap, simple invention.
Employing a combination of conduction and convection, the refrigerator requires no electricity and can be made from commonly available materials like cardboard, sand, and recycled metal. Simply place perishable foods or temperature-sensitive medications in the solar refrigerator’s interior metal chamber and seal it. In-between the inner and outer chamber, organic material like sand, wool or soil is then saturated with water. As the sun warms the organic material, water evaporates, reducing the temperature of the inner chamber to a cool, 6 ºC [43 ºF] for days at a time!
Schools in your city have science exhibitions and you can see students displaying many exhibits. But chances are you will find the same ubiquitous volcanoes, solar systems, human body models, etc. Not to demean these, but we need to do some introspection why we do not see more meaningful exhibits.
The answer could be as simple as: we do not train our kids to think independently. Books and teachers and now, the Internet simply help them download info. The basics are buried. How do we correct this? Can it be done in a piecemeal manner as is being done by some educationists? Or do we need a thorough rehaul of the system, initiated by the ministry?
Employing a combination of conduction and convection, the refrigerator requires no electricity and can be made from commonly available materials like cardboard, sand, and recycled metal. Simply place perishable foods or temperature-sensitive medications in the solar refrigerator’s interior metal chamber and seal it. In-between the inner and outer chamber, organic material like sand, wool or soil is then saturated with water. As the sun warms the organic material, water evaporates, reducing the temperature of the inner chamber to a cool, 6 ºC [43 ºF] for days at a time!
Schools in your city have science exhibitions and you can see students displaying many exhibits. But chances are you will find the same ubiquitous volcanoes, solar systems, human body models, etc. Not to demean these, but we need to do some introspection why we do not see more meaningful exhibits.
The answer could be as simple as: we do not train our kids to think independently. Books and teachers and now, the Internet simply help them download info. The basics are buried. How do we correct this? Can it be done in a piecemeal manner as is being done by some educationists? Or do we need a thorough rehaul of the system, initiated by the ministry?
Choose your globe
Our oceans have been soaking in the carbon dioxide at 11 billion tonnes every year, which is almost a quarter that we throw out to the atmosphere. But as the oceans get warmer, this soaking capacity gets reduced. For instance, latest study shows the Sea of Japan has lost half its capacity to absorb CO2.
However, such arcane nuts and bolts of our planet’s chemistry are not typically something that grab a lot of headlines. For instance, 'this frightening research was published in the rather obscure publication Geophysical Research Letters and was picked up in only three on-line publications. In contrast, last night’s Golden Globe awards generated 4,791 Google news hits, but admittedly Eva Longoria’s maraschino-red Reem Acra dress did look fabulous!'
Kitack Lee, an associate professor at Pohang University of Science and Technology, who led the research, says the discovery is the "very first observation that directly relates ocean CO2 uptake change to ocean warming".
With less carbon dioxide being soaked up by warming oceans, we need to drastically reduce future carbon to avoid things getting dangerously out of control. The other nasty side effect of loading our oceans with 11 billion additional tonnes of carbon dioxide every year is that they are becoming more acidic. This in turn means danger for marine life, especially corals, plankton and algae that need dissolved calcium carbonate to make their shells. As acidity increases, this job gets tough.
Since the industrial revolution, the oceans have become 30 percent more acidic. Even at today's level of 380 ppm, nearly half of the world's coral population lives in perilous waters low on calcium carbonate. As this figure increases, the carbonic acid levels will mean lower pH and lesser dissolved carbonate.
Already, a study, published in Science and spearheaded by 39 scientists from 14 countries, revealed that 231 of the 704 reef-building corals studied fell within the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's three most-threatened categories.
Do we care? For the real globe, as much as we do for Golden Globes?
However, such arcane nuts and bolts of our planet’s chemistry are not typically something that grab a lot of headlines. For instance, 'this frightening research was published in the rather obscure publication Geophysical Research Letters and was picked up in only three on-line publications. In contrast, last night’s Golden Globe awards generated 4,791 Google news hits, but admittedly Eva Longoria’s maraschino-red Reem Acra dress did look fabulous!'
Kitack Lee, an associate professor at Pohang University of Science and Technology, who led the research, says the discovery is the "very first observation that directly relates ocean CO2 uptake change to ocean warming".
With less carbon dioxide being soaked up by warming oceans, we need to drastically reduce future carbon to avoid things getting dangerously out of control. The other nasty side effect of loading our oceans with 11 billion additional tonnes of carbon dioxide every year is that they are becoming more acidic. This in turn means danger for marine life, especially corals, plankton and algae that need dissolved calcium carbonate to make their shells. As acidity increases, this job gets tough.
Since the industrial revolution, the oceans have become 30 percent more acidic. Even at today's level of 380 ppm, nearly half of the world's coral population lives in perilous waters low on calcium carbonate. As this figure increases, the carbonic acid levels will mean lower pH and lesser dissolved carbonate.
Already, a study, published in Science and spearheaded by 39 scientists from 14 countries, revealed that 231 of the 704 reef-building corals studied fell within the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's three most-threatened categories.
Do we care? For the real globe, as much as we do for Golden Globes?
Microbe power
Microbes have ruled the planet much before humans raised their heads. They have adapted in zillion ways to the myriad conditions on earth to survive and multiply. Smart as we humans think we are, it would be a good idea to learn a few tricks from these organisms.
Exactly what Luca Technologies did when they coaxed a few microorganisms to feed on coal and produce methane! According to a professor of economic geology at the University of Texas, all it requires would be one-hundredth of 1 percent of the coal in the US to generate natural gas demands in this way.
The company has raised $76 million to scale up a process that uses coal-digesting microorganisms to convert coal into methane. The methane produced, (the key component of natural gas) can then be pumped out and used to generate electricity or power vehicles. Once the process proves economical, it could even help reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. This is because burning natural gas releases half as much carbon dioxide as does burning coal.
There is more than one family of microbes at work here. While one breaks the hydrocarbon bonds, the other converts it into organic acids and alcohols. And another family produces the methane. By adding various nutrients, the researchers were able to increase the organism’s output of methane. They have done this in the lab and in coal beds.
A few months ago, research done at Montana State University discovered a fungus, Gliocladium roseum, which grows inside a tree in the Patagonian rainforest and naturally produces chemicals which are “remarkably similar to diesel” fuel. The organism produces an important combination of fuel substances. The chemical mixture ‘mycodiesel’, can be used in a modern diesel engine without modification according to the researchers. In fact, the genes of the fungus are just as useful as the fungus itself in the development of new biofuels.
These are findings which are still in initial stages and commercialization is still a far way off. But that’s about as much as a groping civilization in search of endless energy can do – clutch all straws! And hope some will keep us afloat.
Research into energy is the need of the hour and this has been recognized by India’s integrated energy policy as well, with its announcement of an energy fund with initial Rs 1000 crore allocation.
But perhaps more important is the need to develop academic institutions as centres of excellence in energy research. Universities could take a lead in this, taking a leaf from Stanford University which has raised $100 million to create a new research center focused on combating global warming and developing cleaner sources of energy.
The new Precourt Institute for Energy will focus on research related to improving energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, studying national energy policy and developing renewable power sources such as wind, solar and biomass.
We would love to hear about any research work from our institutions. There are a few projects ongoing at some of the IITs. Please let us know if you have heard of any.
Exactly what Luca Technologies did when they coaxed a few microorganisms to feed on coal and produce methane! According to a professor of economic geology at the University of Texas, all it requires would be one-hundredth of 1 percent of the coal in the US to generate natural gas demands in this way.
The company has raised $76 million to scale up a process that uses coal-digesting microorganisms to convert coal into methane. The methane produced, (the key component of natural gas) can then be pumped out and used to generate electricity or power vehicles. Once the process proves economical, it could even help reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. This is because burning natural gas releases half as much carbon dioxide as does burning coal.
There is more than one family of microbes at work here. While one breaks the hydrocarbon bonds, the other converts it into organic acids and alcohols. And another family produces the methane. By adding various nutrients, the researchers were able to increase the organism’s output of methane. They have done this in the lab and in coal beds.
A few months ago, research done at Montana State University discovered a fungus, Gliocladium roseum, which grows inside a tree in the Patagonian rainforest and naturally produces chemicals which are “remarkably similar to diesel” fuel. The organism produces an important combination of fuel substances. The chemical mixture ‘mycodiesel’, can be used in a modern diesel engine without modification according to the researchers. In fact, the genes of the fungus are just as useful as the fungus itself in the development of new biofuels.
These are findings which are still in initial stages and commercialization is still a far way off. But that’s about as much as a groping civilization in search of endless energy can do – clutch all straws! And hope some will keep us afloat.
Research into energy is the need of the hour and this has been recognized by India’s integrated energy policy as well, with its announcement of an energy fund with initial Rs 1000 crore allocation.
But perhaps more important is the need to develop academic institutions as centres of excellence in energy research. Universities could take a lead in this, taking a leaf from Stanford University which has raised $100 million to create a new research center focused on combating global warming and developing cleaner sources of energy.
The new Precourt Institute for Energy will focus on research related to improving energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, studying national energy policy and developing renewable power sources such as wind, solar and biomass.
We would love to hear about any research work from our institutions. There are a few projects ongoing at some of the IITs. Please let us know if you have heard of any.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Pinning energy
A wheel inside a wheel, or energy from energy! That kind of sums up plans by UK’s National Grid and a startup 2OC to tap energy from the gas grid in additional ways. By installing mini turbines inside the gas pipeline grid later this year, the set-up will be tested in east London and should produce 20MW by 2010.
If successful, future installations across the country could produce up to 1GW. That’s the same amount of power produced by a coal or nuclear power station. The turbo expanders will generate electricity by expanding when gas pressure is reduced. Going along, the turbo expander will be used with a combined heat and power (CHP) engine to boost its efficiency to over 70 percent.
As we have spoken of in the blog, there is a rush to tap energy from any kind of movement, like the swivelling doors at a mall or that of rushing feet on a pavement! Capturing energy even as we spend it!
Nothing complex about the concept. Drawing energy from flowing gas is just another dimension of say, tidal energy. Right? That's the beauty of concepts, they can be applied anywhere.
Going one step further would be to generate energy from virtual movements on cyberspace. (Reminds one of the scifi tales spun from taking chaos theory across time domains!) Wouldn’t Google love that? The innovator company stands accused of drawing as much power for two searches on its search engine as used to boil water in a kettle!
The power consumption of a Google search-query is so high because the company’s process sends data to numerous competing servers, sometimes thousands of miles away, in order to bring back the result as fast as possible. Is there a way to provide results at a slightly slower speed at certain times of day when search volume is lowest?
A later piece in techcrunch.com puts the whole thing in perspective by comparing emissions from a single book or a hamburger. This is the kind of pitfall when emissions alone are considered without placing it in context. What is a search on google equivalent to, in terms of a ride to the library for a book? Should emissions per se be sacrosanct? What do you think?
Meanwhile send in your suggestions for generating energy in simple ways, and we will feature them here in our blog.
If successful, future installations across the country could produce up to 1GW. That’s the same amount of power produced by a coal or nuclear power station. The turbo expanders will generate electricity by expanding when gas pressure is reduced. Going along, the turbo expander will be used with a combined heat and power (CHP) engine to boost its efficiency to over 70 percent.
As we have spoken of in the blog, there is a rush to tap energy from any kind of movement, like the swivelling doors at a mall or that of rushing feet on a pavement! Capturing energy even as we spend it!
Nothing complex about the concept. Drawing energy from flowing gas is just another dimension of say, tidal energy. Right? That's the beauty of concepts, they can be applied anywhere.
Going one step further would be to generate energy from virtual movements on cyberspace. (Reminds one of the scifi tales spun from taking chaos theory across time domains!) Wouldn’t Google love that? The innovator company stands accused of drawing as much power for two searches on its search engine as used to boil water in a kettle!
The power consumption of a Google search-query is so high because the company’s process sends data to numerous competing servers, sometimes thousands of miles away, in order to bring back the result as fast as possible. Is there a way to provide results at a slightly slower speed at certain times of day when search volume is lowest?
A later piece in techcrunch.com puts the whole thing in perspective by comparing emissions from a single book or a hamburger. This is the kind of pitfall when emissions alone are considered without placing it in context. What is a search on google equivalent to, in terms of a ride to the library for a book? Should emissions per se be sacrosanct? What do you think?
Meanwhile send in your suggestions for generating energy in simple ways, and we will feature them here in our blog.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Walls of blue jeans, and coffee cups!
Reduce, reuse and recycle. Three ways to save ourselves! If that sounds like hyperbole, it isn’t. Natural resources are not increasing, not all of them can. The minerals we need for our things are limited. Trees can be increased. Water is fixed. If all of us want to live life the way Americans or Europeans have been living, with big homes all fitted with gadgets at every step, cars and big cars with more than one per home, use more of paper containers and throw them after single use, and so on, we will need three planets.
Instead, if we learn to reduce our consumption, reuse things and finally recycle them, there is hope still.
This wisdom is dawning in the west. Imagination is running riot in thinking of ways to reuse and recycle, even if not reduce.
For instance, think of recycled blue jeans used as insulation material in the walls of the new California Academy of Sciences! Yes, the cotton in the jeans is a good heat insulator. The academy has gone for radiant floor heating, heat recovery systems, motorized windows, photosensors, etc. It has a 2.5 acre living green roof that is home to 1.7 million plants!
Homes made of recycled coffee cups and packaging material! And floating too. And sucking in carbon dioxide on the roofs! How about that? EPS, or expanded polystyrene is one of the most tough waste materials on our planet. On average it takes up to 90 years to biodegrade a polystyrene coffee cup or hamburger shell. In this new avatar, they form excellent insulating materials. Moreover, the product is easy to recycle.
TerraCycle has been using e-waste to make urban pots. Computers and fax machines which would have landed in the landfill are now turned out as savvy pots! Handling e-waste is tough as it's like 30 different polymers together. And typically, recycling centers have trouble recycling a bunch of different polymers but TerraCycle has worked around this.
Motorola is doing its bit to tackle the massive problem of consumer e-waste with the release of the world’s first carbon neutral cellphone, the Renew W233.
The plastic used is from 100 percent recycled water bottles! By investing in renewable energy and reforestation, through its partnering with Carbonfund.org, the company offsets emissions during the manufacture, distribution and operation of the set. And the phone is totally recycleable!
Of course, here in Bangalore we have seen plastic laid on the roads alongwith the tar. Reuse of one big waste.
What do you think? Are such attempts more of hype than really tackling the problem? What can we do to reduce the burden on the planet? Any bright ideas? They could be small ones with big implications. Hint: think of the waste we most generate and then think of a reuse.
Instead, if we learn to reduce our consumption, reuse things and finally recycle them, there is hope still.
This wisdom is dawning in the west. Imagination is running riot in thinking of ways to reuse and recycle, even if not reduce.
For instance, think of recycled blue jeans used as insulation material in the walls of the new California Academy of Sciences! Yes, the cotton in the jeans is a good heat insulator. The academy has gone for radiant floor heating, heat recovery systems, motorized windows, photosensors, etc. It has a 2.5 acre living green roof that is home to 1.7 million plants!
Homes made of recycled coffee cups and packaging material! And floating too. And sucking in carbon dioxide on the roofs! How about that? EPS, or expanded polystyrene is one of the most tough waste materials on our planet. On average it takes up to 90 years to biodegrade a polystyrene coffee cup or hamburger shell. In this new avatar, they form excellent insulating materials. Moreover, the product is easy to recycle.
TerraCycle has been using e-waste to make urban pots. Computers and fax machines which would have landed in the landfill are now turned out as savvy pots! Handling e-waste is tough as it's like 30 different polymers together. And typically, recycling centers have trouble recycling a bunch of different polymers but TerraCycle has worked around this.
Motorola is doing its bit to tackle the massive problem of consumer e-waste with the release of the world’s first carbon neutral cellphone, the Renew W233.
The plastic used is from 100 percent recycled water bottles! By investing in renewable energy and reforestation, through its partnering with Carbonfund.org, the company offsets emissions during the manufacture, distribution and operation of the set. And the phone is totally recycleable!
Of course, here in Bangalore we have seen plastic laid on the roads alongwith the tar. Reuse of one big waste.
What do you think? Are such attempts more of hype than really tackling the problem? What can we do to reduce the burden on the planet? Any bright ideas? They could be small ones with big implications. Hint: think of the waste we most generate and then think of a reuse.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Eco costs of businesses
A few days ago, the U.S. Agriculture Secretary announced that there will be a new office in the USDA called the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets. This office will assist the Secretary of Agriculture in the development of new technical guidelines and science-based methods to assess environmental service benefits which will in turn promote markets for ecosystem services including carbon trading to mitigate climate change
Ecosystem services, as World Changing site explains, are a means of connecting economic systems to ecological systems. All businesses are in some way connected to nature and it makes sense to put a price on the kind of service provided for free till now. When these environmental costs and benefits are missed out, companies are actually taking a risk in evaluating future costs and benefits associated with a project. By placing monetary values on the services that ecosystems provide, decision making becomes more complete.
When going in for large-scale mining, for instance, a company is investing in its future by taking the sustainability aspects into account while drawing a balance sheet. For a company that depends on timber for its products should be looking at long-term afforestation plans. Even a thermal plant stands to gain in making sure that the use of water or treatment of its waste is done in ways that are ecologically sound in addition to making economic sense.
For businesses not directly involved too, as the article suggests, healthy employees ensure high productivity. And healthy surroundings alone can ensure healthy people. The quality of air, water, etc comes into question.
We have a MoEF which basically is empowered to ensure that projects do not harm the environment in any way. But as EIAs in the country have shown, other interests more often take over. Is it a good idea to factor in eco costs into businesses? Do we have any standards? How does one quantify ecosystem services?
Ecosystem services, as World Changing site explains, are a means of connecting economic systems to ecological systems. All businesses are in some way connected to nature and it makes sense to put a price on the kind of service provided for free till now. When these environmental costs and benefits are missed out, companies are actually taking a risk in evaluating future costs and benefits associated with a project. By placing monetary values on the services that ecosystems provide, decision making becomes more complete.
When going in for large-scale mining, for instance, a company is investing in its future by taking the sustainability aspects into account while drawing a balance sheet. For a company that depends on timber for its products should be looking at long-term afforestation plans. Even a thermal plant stands to gain in making sure that the use of water or treatment of its waste is done in ways that are ecologically sound in addition to making economic sense.
For businesses not directly involved too, as the article suggests, healthy employees ensure high productivity. And healthy surroundings alone can ensure healthy people. The quality of air, water, etc comes into question.
We have a MoEF which basically is empowered to ensure that projects do not harm the environment in any way. But as EIAs in the country have shown, other interests more often take over. Is it a good idea to factor in eco costs into businesses? Do we have any standards? How does one quantify ecosystem services?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Label or cess?
California wants to get tough on power-hungry LCD and Plasma TVs, telling retailers that they can only sell energy efficient models starting in 2011.
State regulators are starting to draft the first set of rules that would give energy sucking LCDs and Plasmas the boot from California retail stores, reports the TreeHugger. The regulations are expected to pass in mid-2009.
At any peak viewing time, it has been calculated that TVs draw 40 percent of the power generated by the nuclear power station in the state and electricity bills make 10 percent of the consumer’s monthly bill.
Efficiency standards for household appliances have been put in place by the Energy Commission and many television makers are meeting these standards.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator. While the old CRT (cathode ray tube) models use up 100 watts, the LCD uses between 100 and 200 while the plasma TV can draw up to 600 watts.
In India, our efficiency standards have been restricted to the BEE’s labeling for few items like refrigerators, ACs, electric motors up to 100 KW, distribution transformers, etc. These have been chosen based on their energy intensity and usage, as also contribution to peak demand and potential for savings (as their website says). Minimum energy performance standards are also to be specified. How good are these minimum standards?
Why are televisions being left out? Given their wide usage? And of late, there is the trend to go for plasma TVs and LCDs. Is there any monitoring of their efficiencies?
Would merely labeling help in India? Are people really energy conscious? Is it a better idea to put a cess on the high-end gadgets?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Young inventors
The oil HFO used by most industrial units not only releases harmful emissions but also gives out toxic effluents. A research team at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan have found a way to reduce the emissions by using wastewater!
They mixed 80% HFO with 19.9% wastewater and 0.1% surfactant, then burned it in a boiler, and carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 84% compared to the emissions generated by burning standard heavy petroleum oil in the same boiler. All other emissions such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organics are also reduced.
In the New York Times’ Education Life special section, read about a teenager who came back from a trip to China appalled by pollution and traffic and put together a prototype ultra-compact electric motorcycle.
Another young tinkerer has figured out how to harvest the energy in exhaust-pipe heat on a hybrid car. Yet another team of Indian business students has figured out a way to electrify around 300 homes by heating rice husk in a certain way that releases a gas, plus a by-product used in cement industry.
The young perhaps realize the immensity of the world we leave for them where food, energy and water are scarce, and require stretching imagination in all dimensions to deliver.
We should be hearing more of such experiments. But we don’t. Besides a few random half-hearted projects set up as part of the curriculum, students are not motivated. Why?
Is it because we haven’t raised energy consciousness to the levels we should have? How many of our children are aware of the fact that the water running from the taps could soon run dry? Are we talking enough on these topics in schools and at home?
If you have heard of any such innovative experiments at the school or college nearby, do let us know and we will feature the inventors here. They need all the applauses and visibility.
They mixed 80% HFO with 19.9% wastewater and 0.1% surfactant, then burned it in a boiler, and carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 84% compared to the emissions generated by burning standard heavy petroleum oil in the same boiler. All other emissions such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organics are also reduced.
In the New York Times’ Education Life special section, read about a teenager who came back from a trip to China appalled by pollution and traffic and put together a prototype ultra-compact electric motorcycle.
Another young tinkerer has figured out how to harvest the energy in exhaust-pipe heat on a hybrid car. Yet another team of Indian business students has figured out a way to electrify around 300 homes by heating rice husk in a certain way that releases a gas, plus a by-product used in cement industry.
The young perhaps realize the immensity of the world we leave for them where food, energy and water are scarce, and require stretching imagination in all dimensions to deliver.
We should be hearing more of such experiments. But we don’t. Besides a few random half-hearted projects set up as part of the curriculum, students are not motivated. Why?
Is it because we haven’t raised energy consciousness to the levels we should have? How many of our children are aware of the fact that the water running from the taps could soon run dry? Are we talking enough on these topics in schools and at home?
If you have heard of any such innovative experiments at the school or college nearby, do let us know and we will feature the inventors here. They need all the applauses and visibility.
Population, oil production nexus
Food production is increasing but food per person is not. Oil production is increasing but oil per person is not. The population figures in a big way when one looks at the big picture.
Overpopulation and oil depletion are two gigantic forces that will define the course of the human civilization, according to an expert.
Try this one for understanding the close relation between population and oil production as one of cause and effect. While human population was always matched to the planet’s carrying capacity, the age of oil tilted the balance. Before the year 2050 there will be about 3 billion deaths above normal, with a grand total of about 4 billion by the end of the century.
The skyrocketing of population is caused by the skyrocketing of oil production, he argues. Abundant oil means a large population. And the opposite too!
But as carrying capacity of the planet does not increase, as population rises, the strain on the environment too rises. Hence, a job that required only 1 barrel per person in 1940 required 4 barrels per person in 1990.
The problem of oil depletion then turns out to be ‘a sudden catastrophe’.
Interestingly, he brings in the results of urbanization with ‘forgotten pockets of habitable land abandoned as urbanites regarded rural life as too difficult, and traded their peasant smocks for factory overalls.’
There are still areas of the planet’s surface that are sparsely occupied although they are habitable or could be made so. ‘Over the next few years, human ingenuity must be devoted to refining our understanding of these geographic and demographic matters, so that at least a few can escape the tribulation’.
A lesson for India there?
Can our cities handle any more? Should we impose barriers to this growth or deploy funds in the rural scenario?
Now look at some of these statistics:
v America represents 5% of the world’s population and consumes 24% of the world’s oil.
v Middle East oil use is growing more rapidly than China’s.
v China now uses 8 million barrels per day versus 3.5 million barrels per day in 1997.
v China now consumes 2 barrels per person versus 24 barrels per person in the U.S.
v The U.S. has 220 million automobiles for 305 million people. China has 32 million cars for 1.3 billion people.
v Peak supply of 86 million barrels of oil per day has been reached. Demand will grow to 115 million to 125 million barrels per day in the next 20 years.
Finally, supply has topped out at 86 million barrels per day. Mature oil fields throughout the world are in decline. Projects can take decades to bring on-line.
How ready are we to face tomorrow? What will we do with all our automobiles when there is no oil? Yes perhaps there will be other fuels but do you see the same bodies being used? Or will there be mountains of waste?
Overpopulation and oil depletion are two gigantic forces that will define the course of the human civilization, according to an expert.
Try this one for understanding the close relation between population and oil production as one of cause and effect. While human population was always matched to the planet’s carrying capacity, the age of oil tilted the balance. Before the year 2050 there will be about 3 billion deaths above normal, with a grand total of about 4 billion by the end of the century.
The skyrocketing of population is caused by the skyrocketing of oil production, he argues. Abundant oil means a large population. And the opposite too!
But as carrying capacity of the planet does not increase, as population rises, the strain on the environment too rises. Hence, a job that required only 1 barrel per person in 1940 required 4 barrels per person in 1990.
The problem of oil depletion then turns out to be ‘a sudden catastrophe’.
Interestingly, he brings in the results of urbanization with ‘forgotten pockets of habitable land abandoned as urbanites regarded rural life as too difficult, and traded their peasant smocks for factory overalls.’
There are still areas of the planet’s surface that are sparsely occupied although they are habitable or could be made so. ‘Over the next few years, human ingenuity must be devoted to refining our understanding of these geographic and demographic matters, so that at least a few can escape the tribulation’.
A lesson for India there?
Can our cities handle any more? Should we impose barriers to this growth or deploy funds in the rural scenario?
Now look at some of these statistics:
v America represents 5% of the world’s population and consumes 24% of the world’s oil.
v Middle East oil use is growing more rapidly than China’s.
v China now uses 8 million barrels per day versus 3.5 million barrels per day in 1997.
v China now consumes 2 barrels per person versus 24 barrels per person in the U.S.
v The U.S. has 220 million automobiles for 305 million people. China has 32 million cars for 1.3 billion people.
v Peak supply of 86 million barrels of oil per day has been reached. Demand will grow to 115 million to 125 million barrels per day in the next 20 years.
Finally, supply has topped out at 86 million barrels per day. Mature oil fields throughout the world are in decline. Projects can take decades to bring on-line.
How ready are we to face tomorrow? What will we do with all our automobiles when there is no oil? Yes perhaps there will be other fuels but do you see the same bodies being used? Or will there be mountains of waste?
Food for thought
A new diet, sustainable and equitable has been called for by food expert Professor Lang of UK’s newly formed Food Council. He has called for a new approach that addresses fundamentals like biodiversity, energy, water and urbanization.
Food production is dropping, and food is increasingly tied to an oil economy with much of what we eat traveling miles from where it is produced. Feeding a projected nine billion people by 2050 is going to be a big challenge when resources are from the same dwindling pool. To increase production, we have the knowledge and the technology required, but environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity threaten our ability to succeed.
Producing food and transporting consumes energy, water and time. In this context, experts believe the way forward is to encourage more people to grow food in their backyard. (Backyards are a luxury in Indian urban space!)
The Food Council in its advice to the British consumer calls for them to make a choice between an apple that is Chinese, French or English one! ‘They are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one. They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting.”
That is where exports will take a beating. Markets that made a killing once by growing exotic flowers or food, and depleting resources back home will have to rethink now.
Do we need a food council to do some thinking-ahead for us? Are we using optimum water and energy for our food production? Is anyone thinking of food production and food security in the second populous nation of the world? Why is it there is not the same emphasis on agriculture as on industry here? Any bright ideas?
Food production is dropping, and food is increasingly tied to an oil economy with much of what we eat traveling miles from where it is produced. Feeding a projected nine billion people by 2050 is going to be a big challenge when resources are from the same dwindling pool. To increase production, we have the knowledge and the technology required, but environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity threaten our ability to succeed.
Producing food and transporting consumes energy, water and time. In this context, experts believe the way forward is to encourage more people to grow food in their backyard. (Backyards are a luxury in Indian urban space!)
The Food Council in its advice to the British consumer calls for them to make a choice between an apple that is Chinese, French or English one! ‘They are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one. They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting.”
That is where exports will take a beating. Markets that made a killing once by growing exotic flowers or food, and depleting resources back home will have to rethink now.
Do we need a food council to do some thinking-ahead for us? Are we using optimum water and energy for our food production? Is anyone thinking of food production and food security in the second populous nation of the world? Why is it there is not the same emphasis on agriculture as on industry here? Any bright ideas?
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Gorging on the common menu
Oil prices are going down and will continue to. This is mostly due to a combination of inflation and cut in production. However, lulled by this, people are back to splurging on road travel and buying cars, not only in India but also in ‘depressed’ US!
This is where we need farsighted leaders to act in unpopular ways and impose bigger taxes on oil and automobiles. Not only will this reduce oil consumption but also help slowdown global warming. Oil is a fast depleting resource and making it cheap will only see it vanish faster. Do we leave some for the future generations or drink it all up?
As Daryl Siry, former marketing officer with Tesla Motors, puts it, ‘Global warming and concern about CO2 emissions is a global, social problem that has extraordinary long term impacts but when you look at it on an individual level, the marginal returns that a selfish individual can gain by ignoring the greater good far exceeds the marginal cost to that individual in the short run. In the long run, though, everyone pays more.’
He gives a very apt analogy that hits the hammer on the nail! ‘For those not familiar with this concept of economics, an example that everyone has experienced is the group dinner where everyone agrees to split the bill. Relieved of their individual accountability to pay for only what they use, each person orders more than what they would normally order, knowing that the additional costs will be borne by the group. The individual also reasons that if they alone behave responsibly, they will not be rewarded with a lower bill but rather will still have to bear the higher cost of the average bill.
‘The predictable result is that the average bill is much higher than if each paid their own way. A nasty side effect is paranoia and suspicion, as people watch what their friends are ordering and get angry at the irresponsibility of each other.’
He goes on to conclude on a pessimistic (but realistic) note why the coming months will see environmentalism buckling under popular pressures, as every one proceeds to gorge on the planet’s resources.
There is no dearth of climate science nay-sayers even today. Petitions by scientists and their following are passé.
Somehow these people seem to be missing a bigger point. The path of unrestrained consumption they promote is just not sustainable, climate included or not! It simply will not be enough for too long unless we cut down our consumption and waste.
On the subject of tax, and why consumption taxes are better than income taxes, read what a professor of economics at Harvard University has to say in his blog. ‘Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes.’
Should the price on petrol and diesel be slashed or taxed further? Would it not be a good idea to slash personal income taxes and up the consumption gas on fuel? Let us know what you think.
This is where we need farsighted leaders to act in unpopular ways and impose bigger taxes on oil and automobiles. Not only will this reduce oil consumption but also help slowdown global warming. Oil is a fast depleting resource and making it cheap will only see it vanish faster. Do we leave some for the future generations or drink it all up?
As Daryl Siry, former marketing officer with Tesla Motors, puts it, ‘Global warming and concern about CO2 emissions is a global, social problem that has extraordinary long term impacts but when you look at it on an individual level, the marginal returns that a selfish individual can gain by ignoring the greater good far exceeds the marginal cost to that individual in the short run. In the long run, though, everyone pays more.’
He gives a very apt analogy that hits the hammer on the nail! ‘For those not familiar with this concept of economics, an example that everyone has experienced is the group dinner where everyone agrees to split the bill. Relieved of their individual accountability to pay for only what they use, each person orders more than what they would normally order, knowing that the additional costs will be borne by the group. The individual also reasons that if they alone behave responsibly, they will not be rewarded with a lower bill but rather will still have to bear the higher cost of the average bill.
‘The predictable result is that the average bill is much higher than if each paid their own way. A nasty side effect is paranoia and suspicion, as people watch what their friends are ordering and get angry at the irresponsibility of each other.’
He goes on to conclude on a pessimistic (but realistic) note why the coming months will see environmentalism buckling under popular pressures, as every one proceeds to gorge on the planet’s resources.
There is no dearth of climate science nay-sayers even today. Petitions by scientists and their following are passé.
Somehow these people seem to be missing a bigger point. The path of unrestrained consumption they promote is just not sustainable, climate included or not! It simply will not be enough for too long unless we cut down our consumption and waste.
On the subject of tax, and why consumption taxes are better than income taxes, read what a professor of economics at Harvard University has to say in his blog. ‘Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes.’
Should the price on petrol and diesel be slashed or taxed further? Would it not be a good idea to slash personal income taxes and up the consumption gas on fuel? Let us know what you think.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Cut the flab
One aspect of productive energy is cutting down waste, the other is of finding ways to obtain maximum work from minimum energy.
Waste can be as visible as in waste heat generated in industrial units. Globally, there are attempts to capture this and recycle it into the energy cycle in CHP plants. A more subtle, and often unnoticed part of energy waste is in the use of materials. Especially materials with a life-cycle cost of energy that is huge.
In the west, the focus by greens is on one such waste - the packaging, or rather, over-packaging! Any average Indian who has been to the US for the first time will come back to tell family about the use and throw culture. Plastic and paper containers, tissues, packaging, etc that any Indian would love to preserve is dumped after single use. A visit to a mall will show buyers wrapping every single apple in a separate plastic wrapper!
Using more cardboard, paper, plastic, space, and fossil fuels, more than necessary to get things from one place to another is the done thing. Perhaps, these are hangovers from the days of plenty.
TreeHugger gives seven stark instances--illustrated in a photo gallery--of when packaging has gone awry. Like the picture that shows the shipment of a single ink cartridge which wasted a whole lot of cardboard, space and fossil fuels. A waste of energy from the shipping of initial raw materials, manufacture and shipping out.
And then again, 40 per cent of American households own at least one video game console. The Wii, XBox 360and Playstation3 all consume vastly different amounts of power but, all together, gaming consoles eat up enough energy to power the city of San Diego! New ways of powering these luxuries are now being suggested.
Most times, all it may require is a small tinkering of a small circuit somewhere to cut the waste from our myriad gadgets. Some little rethinking.
For instance, LG Display has introduced a new LCD panel that can be illuminated by sunlight when outdoors instead of the backlight. The LCD panel uses "backlight data signal switching technology," which means the backlight panels can be switched between reflective mode in sunlight to transmissive mode indoors. When the outdoor mode is in use, energy consumption falls by 75%.
HP users can expect to see laptops more environmentally-friendly by upgrading to Boston Power’s next-generation Sonata Lithium-ion batteries. The Sonata battery lasts for 1,000 charging cycles (3 years), compared to the 300 cycle limit of a conventional Li-ion battery. The powerful battery takes only half an hour to charge up to 80 percent capacity, while conventional batteries take two hours.
Another example is the energy efficient supercomputer in Argonne National Laboratory. The Blue Gene/P high-performance computer runs at an awe-inspiring 557 teraflops (557 trillion calculations per second) and uses only 1 MW of power— about a third of that used by a conventionally built supercomputer of comparable size. How it does this is simply by using six air handlers that move 300,000 cubic feet of air per minute under the facility floor. Other supercomputer facilities use large air conditioners that require significantly more energy.
A little tinkering with the system in hand. But prior to that, one needs a big rewiring in the way we look at energy and resources! As long as it is almost free, and seemingly continuous, not many will bother about the tinkering.
Can we have some suggestions for five small changes at work that could cut down on energy use? (NOT power alone.) Just five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
