The average temperatures have increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. By 2100, the average global temperature will rise a staggering 3.2-7.1 degrees F from what it is today.
As temperatures rise and ice melts around the world, oceans will rise about 3 feet by 2100. This would be drastic as a 3 foot rise in sea levels would displace about 600 million people, or about 10% of today's worldwide population. Highly populated areas like China, Bangladesh, India, and major cities along the east coast of the U.S. would be greatly affected.
But still, people are reluctant to change behaviour whether it be in developed or developing nations. With climate change implications acknowledged, very few are willing to take personal action or ‘sacrifice’. Why? Why is it so difficult to opt for public transport or at the very least, a hybrid, instead of a SUV? Why has it not yet become a habit to shut down the computer when not in use?
An interesting article examines the reasons behind this apathy. One reason is that while our logical reasoning accepts the enormity of the problem, the experiential side is reluctant as it does not sense the effect. As in any other clear and present danger.
Even as 33 percent of a survey of Americans showed they were concerned, they did nothing about it. Not because there is no information available about the problem but because specific solutions are often missing. An energy extension service on the lines of agricultural extensions that provide solutions could help.
That apart, what is required is to mobilize the consensus which is greater than generally believed to be. This can be done through rules and norms as these influence most people. A bigger role can be played by media in its depiction of climate change and change in personal behaviour required.
How planet-friendly is your personal behaviour? Sure, this is important when you consider the energy predictions.
World energy consumption is forecast to increase by 44 percent from 2006 to 2030, with almost two-thirds of that coming from developing countries and fossil fuels that continue to dominate energy supply, according to the Energy Information Administration's 2009 outlook report just released. That increase would mean global emissions would hit 40.4 billion tonnes by 2030, compared to 29 billion tonnes in 2006.
Developing countries are projected to increase demand by 73 percent by 2030 in the outlook's base reference case whereas developed countries will grow by 15 percent, the report says. Oil prices will return to $110 per barrel in 2015 and go up to $130 per barrel in 2030 in the base reference case, although in the high-price reference case they could reach $200 per barrel, depending on supply, EIA said.
What does it take to reverse the present trend? A hefty tax on petrol? Do away with fossil fuel based power subsidies? Save energy? Let us know your thoughts.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Turning an island into diesel
The Maldives premier made it to the headlines when he said he was planning to relocate his country. He was referring to the sea level rise and the threat to his nation.
There is one another island which defies sea levels. And volunteers are pitching in efforts to torpedo the island out of existence. So to say.
Sailing adrift on the Pacific is a ship no one wants to claim ownership of, but all the same it belongs to all of us. This is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, twice the size of Texas and created from six million tonnes of discarded plastic.
Discovered in 1997 it is made of bottle caps, plastic bags and plastic chips. Broken down by sun and waves they become tiny plastic chips with huge potential attracting and poisoning marine life.
An upcoming ocean garbage expedition to the patch, dubbed Project Kaisei will explore the feasibility of collecting and recycling the garbage patch into diesel fuel. With a crew of 30, the expedition, supported by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brita, the water company, will use unmanned aircraft and robotic surface explorers to map the extent and depth of the plastic continent while collecting 40 tonnes of the refuse for trial recycling.
If the plan sounds too ambitious, a modest derelict fishing net recycling program in Hawaii proves that it is possible.
The Honolulu Derelict Net Recycling Program, in which abandoned fishing nets are brought into port, chopped into pieces, crushed, sorted, and recycled as fuel at HPower, a waste-to-electricity plant. The plant provides electricity to 40,000 homes, and it’s estimated that the recycled nets account for about 280 of them. So far about 660 tons of nets have been sent to HPower since 2006.
Compared to the 4 million tons of debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch this is nothing. But Project Kaisei is relying on sponsorships and donations to get in gear. Want to help?
There is one another island which defies sea levels. And volunteers are pitching in efforts to torpedo the island out of existence. So to say.
Sailing adrift on the Pacific is a ship no one wants to claim ownership of, but all the same it belongs to all of us. This is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, twice the size of Texas and created from six million tonnes of discarded plastic.
Discovered in 1997 it is made of bottle caps, plastic bags and plastic chips. Broken down by sun and waves they become tiny plastic chips with huge potential attracting and poisoning marine life.
An upcoming ocean garbage expedition to the patch, dubbed Project Kaisei will explore the feasibility of collecting and recycling the garbage patch into diesel fuel. With a crew of 30, the expedition, supported by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brita, the water company, will use unmanned aircraft and robotic surface explorers to map the extent and depth of the plastic continent while collecting 40 tonnes of the refuse for trial recycling.
If the plan sounds too ambitious, a modest derelict fishing net recycling program in Hawaii proves that it is possible.
The Honolulu Derelict Net Recycling Program, in which abandoned fishing nets are brought into port, chopped into pieces, crushed, sorted, and recycled as fuel at HPower, a waste-to-electricity plant. The plant provides electricity to 40,000 homes, and it’s estimated that the recycled nets account for about 280 of them. So far about 660 tons of nets have been sent to HPower since 2006.
Compared to the 4 million tons of debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch this is nothing. But Project Kaisei is relying on sponsorships and donations to get in gear. Want to help?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
More Ailas to come?
More than 100 in the Asian sub-continent have lost their lives and much damage wrought by Aila. Cyclones like Aila could be the rule rather than exception if global warming continues unabated.
Intensification of storms is directly linked to ocean temperatures. Ocean warming has penetrated to a considerable depth. One of the ways that hurricanes/cyclones are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane’s own violent action. But when the deeper water is also warm, it doesn’t weaken the hurricane but intensifies it.
Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus aggravating the hurricane in its journey from tropical depression to high category storms.
A 2005 study, “Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans,” led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans) with climate models and concluded that a warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years.
The signal is complex, and cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models.
Tropical cyclones are more closely linked with sea surface temperatures and do not form unless the temperature goes above a certain number. Is that reason enough for nations to combat climate change?! And do it not by lukewarm guidelines but mandatory rules across all sectors. Agree?
Intensification of storms is directly linked to ocean temperatures. Ocean warming has penetrated to a considerable depth. One of the ways that hurricanes/cyclones are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane’s own violent action. But when the deeper water is also warm, it doesn’t weaken the hurricane but intensifies it.
Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus aggravating the hurricane in its journey from tropical depression to high category storms.
A 2005 study, “Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans,” led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans) with climate models and concluded that a warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years.
The signal is complex, and cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models.
Tropical cyclones are more closely linked with sea surface temperatures and do not form unless the temperature goes above a certain number. Is that reason enough for nations to combat climate change?! And do it not by lukewarm guidelines but mandatory rules across all sectors. Agree?
The low-carbon platform
The Wall Street Journal reports that energy ministers from the world's eight richest nations said on May 24 they would work to create a common low-carbon technology platform as solution to climate change and energy security. And in that scheme of things, nuclear will be given a big role!
The oil-producing nations are also concerned that a future run up of the price of oil could tank global demand and with it their own investment strategies.
The meeting, held in Rome, saw the energy ministers from the Group of Eight leading nations, plus the European Commission, say, "In the opinion of a growing number of countries, the use of nuclear energy can contribute to energy security while reducing greenhouse emissions."
The group called for international collaboration among countries interested in the civil use of nuclear energy. The G8 statement was endorsed by Saudi Arabia, India and China, all fast developers of nuclear energy.
Contrast this with the recent statement of Jon Wellinghoff, the new chairman of the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Wellinghoff said that the U.S. will never need to build another coal or nuclear power plant. He claims that all of the new capacity that is required could be delivered by new wind, solar, and biomass plants.
Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive. A new nuclear power plant costs $7,000 a kilowatt, which is more than solar energy. Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, although they are not quite as expensive, as an expert put it.
To the common refrain that renewables cannot provide the baseload energy, Wellinghoff retorted that the 'baseload' concept comes from the time when we had cheap but inflexible nuclear and coal plants, and flexible but expensive natural gas plants. But when wind is the cheapest source, it will be dispatched first, and that requires a completely different approach. We will have 'distributed generation' just like we have 'distributed computing'.
Solar and wind electricity systems have been seen as disadvantageous as they must be backed-up 100 percent by other forms of energy to ensure against blackouts. But, is that true?
Big nuclear and coal plants require more 'back-up' than wind farms, say some. The spinning reserve on the grid must indeed be tuned to the size of the biggest single generator. If that generator unexpectedly drops out, back-up should still be provided. If wind farms are spread over a large enough geographical area, they are less likely to drop out all at once and thus require less back-up.
Is nuclear being given undue prominence? Is the ‘clean’ aspect of its zero emissions balanced out by its costs and timeframes?
The oil-producing nations are also concerned that a future run up of the price of oil could tank global demand and with it their own investment strategies.
The meeting, held in Rome, saw the energy ministers from the Group of Eight leading nations, plus the European Commission, say, "In the opinion of a growing number of countries, the use of nuclear energy can contribute to energy security while reducing greenhouse emissions."
The group called for international collaboration among countries interested in the civil use of nuclear energy. The G8 statement was endorsed by Saudi Arabia, India and China, all fast developers of nuclear energy.
Contrast this with the recent statement of Jon Wellinghoff, the new chairman of the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Wellinghoff said that the U.S. will never need to build another coal or nuclear power plant. He claims that all of the new capacity that is required could be delivered by new wind, solar, and biomass plants.
Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive. A new nuclear power plant costs $7,000 a kilowatt, which is more than solar energy. Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, although they are not quite as expensive, as an expert put it.
To the common refrain that renewables cannot provide the baseload energy, Wellinghoff retorted that the 'baseload' concept comes from the time when we had cheap but inflexible nuclear and coal plants, and flexible but expensive natural gas plants. But when wind is the cheapest source, it will be dispatched first, and that requires a completely different approach. We will have 'distributed generation' just like we have 'distributed computing'.
Solar and wind electricity systems have been seen as disadvantageous as they must be backed-up 100 percent by other forms of energy to ensure against blackouts. But, is that true?
Big nuclear and coal plants require more 'back-up' than wind farms, say some. The spinning reserve on the grid must indeed be tuned to the size of the biggest single generator. If that generator unexpectedly drops out, back-up should still be provided. If wind farms are spread over a large enough geographical area, they are less likely to drop out all at once and thus require less back-up.
Is nuclear being given undue prominence? Is the ‘clean’ aspect of its zero emissions balanced out by its costs and timeframes?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Touch Me Not
From The World is Flat, globalised view of the world of trade and commerce, and the level playing field it advocated for all players to stay in the contention, to the Why Your World is Going to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, and the end of Globalisation, that focuses on protectionism, it has been a brief flirtation indeed with the global village!
Where Friedman saw immense possibilities in a globalised market, economist Jeff Rubin now sees the beginning of regionalism and shrinking markets. Thanks to oil prices that the IEA predicts will skyrocket when demand picks up, and supply can’t match.
The ‘incredible appetite the Chinese have for oil’ (look who’s talking!), ultra-cheap cars to appear in India and spread globally, excessive consumption and local subsidies in the Middle East, are among reasons cited by Rubin for the crunch. Oil price will be so high that few can afford, suburbs will suffer and cities get denser, local agriculture will sprout, domestic manufacturing will override cheap foreign labour, and all this will start happening in 18 months!
Carbon tariffs are absolutely necessary, says Rubin and are the first thing countries like Canada and the United States should put in place if they’re going to impose carbon caps on their own industry. Stern, who warned against tariffs as a protectionist measure, is living in a fantasy land if he thinks we have to time to negotiate international agreements, adds Rubin. ‘We have no time, he said, adding that it’s time to start playing hardball with countries like China.’
This is exactly the kind of language that will vitiate the international climate of co-operation. Is equity important or equal commitments? Can the west afford to play ‘hardball’ when it has been the perpetrator of climate change? How come protectionism that was once a dirty word is no more so?
Talking of carbon tariffs on products and services, and focusing on licence fees from new technologies rather than facilitating tech transfer to the poor nations, is tantamount to bullying. A people that have refused to ‘compromise on their lifestyle’ except when depression forced it upon them, is asking a people who never had a lifestyle to talk about, to start paying up!
What do you think? Let us know. Lifestyle apart, there are other questions too.
Is the developing world aware of what is happening or expected to happen in the west? How prepared is it to go self-reliant? Do governments realize the growing significance of domestic market and do they have a game plan in mind?
Have we had enough of globalisation? Can we survive as small, isolated entities?
Where Friedman saw immense possibilities in a globalised market, economist Jeff Rubin now sees the beginning of regionalism and shrinking markets. Thanks to oil prices that the IEA predicts will skyrocket when demand picks up, and supply can’t match.
The ‘incredible appetite the Chinese have for oil’ (look who’s talking!), ultra-cheap cars to appear in India and spread globally, excessive consumption and local subsidies in the Middle East, are among reasons cited by Rubin for the crunch. Oil price will be so high that few can afford, suburbs will suffer and cities get denser, local agriculture will sprout, domestic manufacturing will override cheap foreign labour, and all this will start happening in 18 months!
Carbon tariffs are absolutely necessary, says Rubin and are the first thing countries like Canada and the United States should put in place if they’re going to impose carbon caps on their own industry. Stern, who warned against tariffs as a protectionist measure, is living in a fantasy land if he thinks we have to time to negotiate international agreements, adds Rubin. ‘We have no time, he said, adding that it’s time to start playing hardball with countries like China.’
This is exactly the kind of language that will vitiate the international climate of co-operation. Is equity important or equal commitments? Can the west afford to play ‘hardball’ when it has been the perpetrator of climate change? How come protectionism that was once a dirty word is no more so?
Talking of carbon tariffs on products and services, and focusing on licence fees from new technologies rather than facilitating tech transfer to the poor nations, is tantamount to bullying. A people that have refused to ‘compromise on their lifestyle’ except when depression forced it upon them, is asking a people who never had a lifestyle to talk about, to start paying up!
What do you think? Let us know. Lifestyle apart, there are other questions too.
Is the developing world aware of what is happening or expected to happen in the west? How prepared is it to go self-reliant? Do governments realize the growing significance of domestic market and do they have a game plan in mind?
Have we had enough of globalisation? Can we survive as small, isolated entities?
Friday, May 22, 2009
A price for ideas - fair?
The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests ways for countries to stem global warming also by sharing clean-energy technology. Richer nations were urged to aid developing economies in adapting to effects of rising temperatures. The text will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal.
As has been noted in our blog earlier, technology transfer has not been happening at the desired pace and between the desired parties. A large portion of it has been between developed nations.
Is there a reluctance to part with technology? Is it linked to the price of innovation? An interesting debate in the west today is on the same topic.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is expressing growing concern that moves to spread new energy technologies to developing countries could erode the intellectual property rights that have driven commercial efforts to innovate for generations.
The group and representatives of General Electric, Microsoft and Sunrise Solar gathered in Washington to launch the Innovation, Development & Employment Alliance, or I.D.E.A. The initiative is aimed at pressing Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that global climate-treaty talks don’t weaken protections on who can profit from new technologies that provide abundant energy without abundant pollution.
This issue came up in a recent question-and-answer session by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, in which he proposed that — at least on vital large-scale technologies like systems for capturing and storing carbon dioxide — intellectual property rights issues might best be dropped to foster international cooperation.
That didn’t go over well at the time with a top official from General Electric.
Should profits come first, or the larger benefit to the planet? Will innovation happen only if there is assured incentive?
As has been noted in our blog earlier, technology transfer has not been happening at the desired pace and between the desired parties. A large portion of it has been between developed nations.
Is there a reluctance to part with technology? Is it linked to the price of innovation? An interesting debate in the west today is on the same topic.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is expressing growing concern that moves to spread new energy technologies to developing countries could erode the intellectual property rights that have driven commercial efforts to innovate for generations.
The group and representatives of General Electric, Microsoft and Sunrise Solar gathered in Washington to launch the Innovation, Development & Employment Alliance, or I.D.E.A. The initiative is aimed at pressing Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that global climate-treaty talks don’t weaken protections on who can profit from new technologies that provide abundant energy without abundant pollution.
This issue came up in a recent question-and-answer session by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, in which he proposed that — at least on vital large-scale technologies like systems for capturing and storing carbon dioxide — intellectual property rights issues might best be dropped to foster international cooperation.
That didn’t go over well at the time with a top official from General Electric.
Should profits come first, or the larger benefit to the planet? Will innovation happen only if there is assured incentive?
Charging licence fees would bring in the profits for the developer but can the poor nations afford do? The better choice to them will seem to be that of using the existing technology and keep polluting.
Is this debate a typical reflection of the growth-profit-motive vision of capitalism that expects rewards for contributions to society? Is there a need to focus on the moral compass in the issue of global warming where the west cannot deny its role as the main cause?
Can the developing nations arm-twist technology and economic aid out of the rich world?
The posturing begins
China has asked for the world's wealthiest nations to cut their 1990 emissions by 40 percent. And do it by 2020. In a document written by the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which handles the country's climate change policy, the NDRC document called for the same nations to give 0.5 to 1.0 percent of their annual economic worth to combat climate change.
China, which is the biggest emitter now, plans to have 35% of its power come from clean energy sources by 2020. The country’s electricity capacity would double by 2020 to about 1,600 gigawatts, and 35% of that would come from “low-emission” power sources.
China would boast about 570 gigawatts of “clean energy” by the end of the next decade, said Liu Zhenya, head of China’s state electricity network operator.
But as WallStreet Journal puts it, there is a missing 100 GW somewhere! ‘We know China plans to have 300 gigawatts of hydroelectric power by then. And we know the official targets for wind power have been raised to 100 gigawatts. Nuclear optimists in Beijing now talk about 60 gigawatts by 2020. Solar enthusiasts talk of a target between 2 and 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2020. Being generous, that’s 470 gigawatts of low-emissions electricity capacity. There’s 100 gigawatts missing somewhere.’
Meanwhile, what is causing the nightmares is the 65 percent of China’s energy mix. Around 1000 GW of coal-fired electricity!
Figures may not be that important in what is now building up into a strategy game, with Copenhagen closing in. Each player is pitching his bait and threats. Who will win? Hopefully ,the planet.
The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests goals such as the near elimination of greenhouse-gas emissions by mid-century in developed countries including the U.S. and Japan.
China, India and other emerging economies would have to aim for a 25 percent reduction of heat-trapping gases, under a separate option that would mark the first-ever target for developing nations.
The 53-page text, posted on the Web site of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol climate-protection treaty.
China, which is the biggest emitter now, plans to have 35% of its power come from clean energy sources by 2020. The country’s electricity capacity would double by 2020 to about 1,600 gigawatts, and 35% of that would come from “low-emission” power sources.
China would boast about 570 gigawatts of “clean energy” by the end of the next decade, said Liu Zhenya, head of China’s state electricity network operator.
But as WallStreet Journal puts it, there is a missing 100 GW somewhere! ‘We know China plans to have 300 gigawatts of hydroelectric power by then. And we know the official targets for wind power have been raised to 100 gigawatts. Nuclear optimists in Beijing now talk about 60 gigawatts by 2020. Solar enthusiasts talk of a target between 2 and 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2020. Being generous, that’s 470 gigawatts of low-emissions electricity capacity. There’s 100 gigawatts missing somewhere.’
Meanwhile, what is causing the nightmares is the 65 percent of China’s energy mix. Around 1000 GW of coal-fired electricity!
Figures may not be that important in what is now building up into a strategy game, with Copenhagen closing in. Each player is pitching his bait and threats. Who will win? Hopefully ,the planet.
The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests goals such as the near elimination of greenhouse-gas emissions by mid-century in developed countries including the U.S. and Japan.
China, India and other emerging economies would have to aim for a 25 percent reduction of heat-trapping gases, under a separate option that would mark the first-ever target for developing nations.
The 53-page text, posted on the Web site of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol climate-protection treaty.
Goats to the rescue
At least in energy-hit US, it looks like it’s a return to nature. The latest fad has been set off by Google that is tinkering with replacing gas-guzzling lawnmowers with – Goats!!Google’s official blog says: A herder brings about 200 goats and they spend roughly a week with us at Google, eating the grass and fertilizing at the same time. The goats are herded with the help of Jen, a border collie. It costs us about the same as mowing, and goats are a lot cuter to watch than lawn mowers.
For urbanites, goats are a novelty! The goats' services, it is reported, were several thousand dollars cheaper -- and a lot more eco-friendly -- than a weed whacking crew.In addition to saving money, the goats also just do a better job than polluting machines.
Not only that, they will eat just about anything resembling a plant. They can clear vegetation from hard-to-reach places, and they'll eat the seeds that pesticides and mowing leave behind, preventing vegetation from coming back next year!
Maybe it’s time to replace tractors with bullocks, next?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Nuclear summer
According to an April 2009 assessment at the World Nuclear Organization, India has set a nuclear power development target of 40 GW over the next several decades. Some indications of the seriousness of the nation can be seen in the deals signed in the last few months.
Like, last November Russia inked a huge deal with India to build four new reactors at Kudankulam with a combined generating capacity of 4,400 MW. Areva signed a deal in February 2009 for at least two 1,600 MW EPR reactors plus fuel to run them for 60 years. GE-Hitachi signed an agreement with Indian companies to build reactors in March 2009.
What are the hurdles on the nuke road? And what must be done to convert intentions into realizations? As we have earlier posted here, the nuclear sanctions have meant that the country has been caught in a technology warp with most reactors sporting old designs and operating at half capacities. A monopoly of the government, the nuclear arena will open out to foreign players and private participation if expectations that the atomic act will be revised come true.
It could well be worth the time for those concerned to take a few leaves from the Chinese tactics. Players must negotiate for transfer of design information even as they allow outside participation; opt for standard design that could result in high efficiencies in maintenance and construction; include training of staff as part of the deal in building reactors, so on.
However, it is still unsure how willing the government and scientific community will be to suspend uranium enrichment capability or spent fuel reprocessing, and opt for total fuel import. Will smaller reactors that are cost-effective and quicker to build be a better option? Is it better to borrow from available technology instead of self-reliance? Is it feasible to achieve the 40 GW target?
Another interesting study on nuclear power with some relevance as India rushes into the nuclear game: MIT just updated its seminal 2003 study on the role nuclear power could play in America’s energy mix. The upshot: No real progress in the U.S. Building nuclear plants is still a lot more expensive than building coal- or gas-fired plants, and nuclear-generated electricity is still more expensive than either fossil-fuel option: 8.8 cents a kilowatt for nuclear versus 6.2 cents for coal and 6.5 cents for gas.
Nuclear plants have a history of running behind schedule and facing cost overruns. Solving the “risk premium” that penalizes nuclear power requires building a few plants on time and on budget, MIT says.
The MIT study is bullish about uranium supplies, reiterating its earlier view that supplies will support the construction of at least 1,000 reactors. It’s less optimistic about fuel reprocessing, citing both sketchy economics and questionable environmental benefits.
Like, last November Russia inked a huge deal with India to build four new reactors at Kudankulam with a combined generating capacity of 4,400 MW. Areva signed a deal in February 2009 for at least two 1,600 MW EPR reactors plus fuel to run them for 60 years. GE-Hitachi signed an agreement with Indian companies to build reactors in March 2009.
What are the hurdles on the nuke road? And what must be done to convert intentions into realizations? As we have earlier posted here, the nuclear sanctions have meant that the country has been caught in a technology warp with most reactors sporting old designs and operating at half capacities. A monopoly of the government, the nuclear arena will open out to foreign players and private participation if expectations that the atomic act will be revised come true.
It could well be worth the time for those concerned to take a few leaves from the Chinese tactics. Players must negotiate for transfer of design information even as they allow outside participation; opt for standard design that could result in high efficiencies in maintenance and construction; include training of staff as part of the deal in building reactors, so on.
However, it is still unsure how willing the government and scientific community will be to suspend uranium enrichment capability or spent fuel reprocessing, and opt for total fuel import. Will smaller reactors that are cost-effective and quicker to build be a better option? Is it better to borrow from available technology instead of self-reliance? Is it feasible to achieve the 40 GW target?
Another interesting study on nuclear power with some relevance as India rushes into the nuclear game: MIT just updated its seminal 2003 study on the role nuclear power could play in America’s energy mix. The upshot: No real progress in the U.S. Building nuclear plants is still a lot more expensive than building coal- or gas-fired plants, and nuclear-generated electricity is still more expensive than either fossil-fuel option: 8.8 cents a kilowatt for nuclear versus 6.2 cents for coal and 6.5 cents for gas.
Nuclear plants have a history of running behind schedule and facing cost overruns. Solving the “risk premium” that penalizes nuclear power requires building a few plants on time and on budget, MIT says.
The MIT study is bullish about uranium supplies, reiterating its earlier view that supplies will support the construction of at least 1,000 reactors. It’s less optimistic about fuel reprocessing, citing both sketchy economics and questionable environmental benefits.
The situation is no better in Europe, according to Steven Thomas, a professor of energy studies at the University of Greenwich in London: Finland cannot complete its new reactor; the U.K. has yet to get started on any projects; and a new nuclear reactor in France, after 18 months of construction, is 20 percent overbudget and requires complete subsidy by the French government.
Nor has there been a solution to the issue of nuclear waste. In the U.S., the plan to use Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert as a repository for spent nuclear fuel rods is in limbo, opposed by the Obama administration. Reprocessing nuclear fuel, currently underway only in France, has proved prohibitively expensive, and it raises concerns about the proliferation of plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Ultimately, the M.I.T. authors warned, "if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation."
Do you think where the mighty have stumbled, India must explore? Is it worth the money and time?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Running out of coal?
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of Washington have come to the conclusion that the world's coal supply has been vastly overestimated. The researchers believe that coal production could start dwindling as early as 2025.
The researchers have found that minable coal reserves have been overestimated by at least four times what is actually minable.
David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology analyzed the coal production patterns of five regions around the world -- eastern Pennsylvania, France, Germany's Ruhr Valley, the United Kingdom and Japan -- each of which was producing at less than a tenth of its peak levels.
The bell curve of production obtained when applied to coal data from around the world shows that the IPCC’s estimate for extractable coal at 3400 billion tons is far above the latest calculation at 666 billion tons.
Overestimation of reserves, as also a clubbing of resources and reserves, is said to be the reason for this over-estimation.
The other consequence of this overestimation of coal is overestimation of emissions. The committee's projections call for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to approach 500 parts per million by 2050, if emissions continue on their current trend. But Rutledge's work suggest that even if humans burn all the coal and oil we can get our hands on, we won't be able to push CO2 past 450 ppm.
Will a two degree rise affect climate drastically? Some say no, while others point to climate sensitivity. But both sides agree to an impending energy scarcity from fossil fuels.
India, China and the US are relying on coal reserves to a large extent when planning growth. Will this study make any difference in the way the governments review the energy mix?
The researchers have found that minable coal reserves have been overestimated by at least four times what is actually minable.
David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology analyzed the coal production patterns of five regions around the world -- eastern Pennsylvania, France, Germany's Ruhr Valley, the United Kingdom and Japan -- each of which was producing at less than a tenth of its peak levels.
The bell curve of production obtained when applied to coal data from around the world shows that the IPCC’s estimate for extractable coal at 3400 billion tons is far above the latest calculation at 666 billion tons.
Overestimation of reserves, as also a clubbing of resources and reserves, is said to be the reason for this over-estimation.
The other consequence of this overestimation of coal is overestimation of emissions. The committee's projections call for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to approach 500 parts per million by 2050, if emissions continue on their current trend. But Rutledge's work suggest that even if humans burn all the coal and oil we can get our hands on, we won't be able to push CO2 past 450 ppm.
Will a two degree rise affect climate drastically? Some say no, while others point to climate sensitivity. But both sides agree to an impending energy scarcity from fossil fuels.
India, China and the US are relying on coal reserves to a large extent when planning growth. Will this study make any difference in the way the governments review the energy mix?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
UK to go 'smart'
A long-delayed UK government announcement on smart meters has finally been delivered. But the question remains: will this lead to reductions in energy use?
A 2006 study for Defra (the UK Government’s environment department) by the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute suggested energy savings of 5-15 per cent. This was challenged by the Government’s energy regulator, Ofgem, which back in 2006 offered a “conservative assumption of a 1 per cent reduction”, and which now recommends a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) assessment of 2.8 per cent savings for electricity and 4.5 per cent for gas.
Why the difference?
The answer is that smart meters can only be half the story. The other half is the consumer and how the behavious at that end changes, or not. While smart meters will supply real-time, accurate figures on a household’s energy, whether any energy is saved depends on whether the consumer acts on the information that the meter supplies.
Will it simply see another gadget added to the menagerie? Will people shift the time when they choose to use gadgets at home? To a time when the energy is cheaper? If so, how will there be a reduction of overall use? So if households are still using almost the same amount of energy overall, how do smart meters help? And what if cheap energy only invites more of it to be spent??
But as the article explains, the reduction or energy savings come in the form of power stations that are always on to cope with an uncertain demand. At off-peak times this energy is wasted.
Reducing peak demand levels and spreading energy use more evenly makes the system more efficient, meaning that the UK needs to build fewer power stations. General Electric estimates that this process can reduce overall energy demand by 5 per cent.
But people will make a shift in timing only if there is a considerable change in the time of the day pricings.
The other way to look at it is that utilities will have more control over homes. Rationing energy supplies will become more real. Whether it is under a central authority or not, power companies will be given some control. It will take some more time before the consumer can actually ‘buy’ energy like anything else in the market, but he will be able to sell it should he choose to generate.
Is smart meter a good decision?
A 2006 study for Defra (the UK Government’s environment department) by the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute suggested energy savings of 5-15 per cent. This was challenged by the Government’s energy regulator, Ofgem, which back in 2006 offered a “conservative assumption of a 1 per cent reduction”, and which now recommends a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) assessment of 2.8 per cent savings for electricity and 4.5 per cent for gas.
Why the difference?
The answer is that smart meters can only be half the story. The other half is the consumer and how the behavious at that end changes, or not. While smart meters will supply real-time, accurate figures on a household’s energy, whether any energy is saved depends on whether the consumer acts on the information that the meter supplies.
Will it simply see another gadget added to the menagerie? Will people shift the time when they choose to use gadgets at home? To a time when the energy is cheaper? If so, how will there be a reduction of overall use? So if households are still using almost the same amount of energy overall, how do smart meters help? And what if cheap energy only invites more of it to be spent??
But as the article explains, the reduction or energy savings come in the form of power stations that are always on to cope with an uncertain demand. At off-peak times this energy is wasted.
Reducing peak demand levels and spreading energy use more evenly makes the system more efficient, meaning that the UK needs to build fewer power stations. General Electric estimates that this process can reduce overall energy demand by 5 per cent.
But people will make a shift in timing only if there is a considerable change in the time of the day pricings.
The other way to look at it is that utilities will have more control over homes. Rationing energy supplies will become more real. Whether it is under a central authority or not, power companies will be given some control. It will take some more time before the consumer can actually ‘buy’ energy like anything else in the market, but he will be able to sell it should he choose to generate.
Is smart meter a good decision?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Clear and Present Danger
In what has been often mentioned, but probably not accorded enough attention, the connection between climate and health has been brought to the notice of all concerned.
The Lancet medical journal and the University College London (UCL) Institute for Global Health have just released the final report of their year-long commission, noting that ‘Climate change will have devastating consequences for human health globally and during our children’s times, not some distant future. This will come from:
changing patterns of infections and insect-borne diseases, and increased deaths due to heat waves
reduced water and food security, leading to malnutrition and diarrhoeal disease
an increase in the frequency and magnitude of extreme climate events (hurricanes, cyclones, storm surges) causing flooding and direct injury
increasing vulnerability for those living in urban slums and where shelter and human settlements are poor
large scale population migration and the likelihood of civil unrest .
The carbon footprint of the poorest 1 billion people is around 3% of the world’s total footprint; yet, these communities are affected the most by climate change. Estimates show that small increases in the risk for climate-sensitive conditions, such as diarrhoea and malnutrition, could result in very large increases in the total disease burden. Malaria, tick-borne encephalitis, and dengue fever will become increasingly widespread.
The report calls to add health to the mitigation debate, by involving all players in health, science, technology, politics and civil society.
The six aspects of the climate-health connection - changing patterns of disease and mortality, food, water and sanitation, shelter and human settlements, extreme events, and population and migration - have been considered in relation to five key challenges to form a policy response framework: informational, poverty and equity-related, technological, sociopolitical, and institutional.
The Lancet medical journal and the University College London (UCL) Institute for Global Health have just released the final report of their year-long commission, noting that ‘Climate change will have devastating consequences for human health globally and during our children’s times, not some distant future. This will come from:
changing patterns of infections and insect-borne diseases, and increased deaths due to heat waves
reduced water and food security, leading to malnutrition and diarrhoeal disease
an increase in the frequency and magnitude of extreme climate events (hurricanes, cyclones, storm surges) causing flooding and direct injury
increasing vulnerability for those living in urban slums and where shelter and human settlements are poor
large scale population migration and the likelihood of civil unrest .
The carbon footprint of the poorest 1 billion people is around 3% of the world’s total footprint; yet, these communities are affected the most by climate change. Estimates show that small increases in the risk for climate-sensitive conditions, such as diarrhoea and malnutrition, could result in very large increases in the total disease burden. Malaria, tick-borne encephalitis, and dengue fever will become increasingly widespread.
The report calls to add health to the mitigation debate, by involving all players in health, science, technology, politics and civil society.
The six aspects of the climate-health connection - changing patterns of disease and mortality, food, water and sanitation, shelter and human settlements, extreme events, and population and migration - have been considered in relation to five key challenges to form a policy response framework: informational, poverty and equity-related, technological, sociopolitical, and institutional.
Gimme more...
Communication gadgets and other consumer electronics burn up 15% of all the electricity consumed in households around the world, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.
If the use of electronics continues to spread at the current pace, their energy draw could double by 2022 and triple by 2030. At that point, they would absorb as much electricity as all houses in the U.S. and Japan today.
That could well be the paradox of our times. Even as technology has made gadgets more efficient, there are too many devices drawing power to do tasks that once were manual or did not require power.for what once was a manual job?
True they have released more time which can be used for for productive work. But if all the tasks we do now do expending biochemical and physical energy, were to be taken over by gadgets running on power, is that development?
Are we ending up conserving our energy for all the wrong reasons – conversion to mass!
And where will all the power come from, faced as we are with a crunch? Any bright ideas?
If the use of electronics continues to spread at the current pace, their energy draw could double by 2022 and triple by 2030. At that point, they would absorb as much electricity as all houses in the U.S. and Japan today.
That could well be the paradox of our times. Even as technology has made gadgets more efficient, there are too many devices drawing power to do tasks that once were manual or did not require power.for what once was a manual job?
True they have released more time which can be used for for productive work. But if all the tasks we do now do expending biochemical and physical energy, were to be taken over by gadgets running on power, is that development?
Are we ending up conserving our energy for all the wrong reasons – conversion to mass!
And where will all the power come from, faced as we are with a crunch? Any bright ideas?
Of course, more efficient devices could be part of the solution as advocated by the IEA. But as a recent study says, energy efficiency could see ‘rebound effects’ where improvements are offset by behaviour changes. Like, getting more miles to the gallon might just make people drive more miles. Cheaper energy from making devices efficient could result in more people using more of it!
Called the Jevons Paradox, this was first applied to 19th century British use of coal where it was seen that the more efficient factories became at using the stuff, the more factories there’d be wanting to use it, pushing up overall consumption.
That should set the discussion going on energy efficiency!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Life without Internet!
It takes 850 Google searches to make a newspaper and 15,000 Google searches for a cheeseburger. On Google’s blog, the company’s senior vice president of operations compares the energy expended for a typical Google search to many such actions to show that the energy consumption of Google searches pales in comparison.
That aside, an interesting article digs into the energy roots of the information economy to predict that the future could well be one without the Internet, or one with no more free access!
A Google search may still leave some energy for a few burgers and coffees but the bigger picture the author reveals is that of a guzzler. The two big server farms that keep Yahoo’s family of web services online use more electricity between them than all the televisions on Earth put together.
‘Multiply that out by the tens of thousands of server farms that keep today’s online economy going, and the hundreds of other energy-intensive activities that go into the internet, and it may start to become clear how much energy goes into putting these words onto the screen where you’re reading them.’
With the age of cheap abundant energy having come to a quick, abrupt end, he predicts that the economics of the internet could take a very different shape. One in which very few will have access and even that comes at a big price.
Come to think of it, that is a very scary prospect. The information supply and storage we have taken for granted could be taking its last few breaths.
The author brings in a eerie comparison to E M Forster’s novella The Machine Stops, which talks of a cyberculture dependent on the machine for its lives. When the machine stops, so do their lives.
In our world, when the energy stops feeding into the machine, it grinds to a halt. And if the Internet is no more, what happens next?? Can libraries step in to fill the vacuum? Do you think this is a fictitious scenario? What would your world be without the Net? Send in your reply.
That aside, an interesting article digs into the energy roots of the information economy to predict that the future could well be one without the Internet, or one with no more free access!
A Google search may still leave some energy for a few burgers and coffees but the bigger picture the author reveals is that of a guzzler. The two big server farms that keep Yahoo’s family of web services online use more electricity between them than all the televisions on Earth put together.
‘Multiply that out by the tens of thousands of server farms that keep today’s online economy going, and the hundreds of other energy-intensive activities that go into the internet, and it may start to become clear how much energy goes into putting these words onto the screen where you’re reading them.’
With the age of cheap abundant energy having come to a quick, abrupt end, he predicts that the economics of the internet could take a very different shape. One in which very few will have access and even that comes at a big price.
Come to think of it, that is a very scary prospect. The information supply and storage we have taken for granted could be taking its last few breaths.
The author brings in a eerie comparison to E M Forster’s novella The Machine Stops, which talks of a cyberculture dependent on the machine for its lives. When the machine stops, so do their lives.
In our world, when the energy stops feeding into the machine, it grinds to a halt. And if the Internet is no more, what happens next?? Can libraries step in to fill the vacuum? Do you think this is a fictitious scenario? What would your world be without the Net? Send in your reply.
Super cables
This could be the answer for efficient transmission of electricity across short distances in dense urban settings. Superconducting cables are going to be deployed on a pilot case across a few miles in the US.
These are cables that house low resistance wire in the pipes chilled with liquid nitrogen, to temperatures of – 321 deg F when the wires offer least resistance to the current. Hence, they are able to move large amounts of energy in a small space and more efficiently.
Superconductors are materials whose resistance to flow of current suddenly drops to near zero at low temperatures. Research has been looking at materials that can exhibit this property at room temperatures.
Power losses are said to be reduced by about two thirds with superconducting. Currently, wire designed by American Superconductor is being used by three utilities — Long Island Power Authority, American Electric Power Co. and National Grid—in small projects in New York and Ohio. The distances are short and voltages aren’t as high as what would be necessary to move large sums of electricity as from wind farms on the Great Plains to large cities.
Being underground, these cables would not require land clearance through its path.
Costing $8 million per mile for a single superconducting cable capable of carrying 5,000 megawatts of electricity and $13 million per mile for two pipes able to move 10,000 megawatts, the cost of 765-kv transmission towers and lines is estimated at $7 million to $10 million per mile.
Cutting losses is one way of conserving power, cutting consumption is another. And that is where innovations like the rice husk refrigerator could score one up over superconducting cables. What would you say?
These are cables that house low resistance wire in the pipes chilled with liquid nitrogen, to temperatures of – 321 deg F when the wires offer least resistance to the current. Hence, they are able to move large amounts of energy in a small space and more efficiently.
Superconductors are materials whose resistance to flow of current suddenly drops to near zero at low temperatures. Research has been looking at materials that can exhibit this property at room temperatures.
Power losses are said to be reduced by about two thirds with superconducting. Currently, wire designed by American Superconductor is being used by three utilities — Long Island Power Authority, American Electric Power Co. and National Grid—in small projects in New York and Ohio. The distances are short and voltages aren’t as high as what would be necessary to move large sums of electricity as from wind farms on the Great Plains to large cities.
Being underground, these cables would not require land clearance through its path.
Costing $8 million per mile for a single superconducting cable capable of carrying 5,000 megawatts of electricity and $13 million per mile for two pipes able to move 10,000 megawatts, the cost of 765-kv transmission towers and lines is estimated at $7 million to $10 million per mile.
Cutting losses is one way of conserving power, cutting consumption is another. And that is where innovations like the rice husk refrigerator could score one up over superconducting cables. What would you say?
Scaling up - is it needed?
In an average home, the refrigerator is a big power consumer and can account for over 25 percent of the electricity bill. While simple measures like keeping compressor coils clean, covering food, checking the seal and filling the fridge with water jugs can help save energy, a new innovation makes it more efficient and roomier. And how? By using rice husk as the insulating material!
The $200,000 MIT Clean Energy Prize was recently awarded to a Michigan startup, Husk Insulation, the company’ whose patented technology could increase refrigerator efficiency by up to 50 percent. The thermal properties of this agricultural byproduct mean that a 1-inch-thick panel containing rice husk ash provides as much insulation as a 4-inch-thick panel filled with polystyrene. So refrigerators made with the new material could have 20 percent more interior space on the same footprint.
One such simple fridge did emerge in rural India a couple of years ago. Mitti Cool is a refrigerator made entirely from clay that keeps water cool and preserves fruits, vegetables and milk for days. It was the invention of a grassroots innovator Mansukhbhai Prajapati, a potter and clay baker from Gujarat in India. Costing about Rs 2750 for a company to manufacture, the unit made a few ripples in media and disappeared.
Today, with the power scenario bleak in the country, one hears many people sigh and wish that Mitti Cool was available in the market. It is not.
Another invention was a double layered pot with water placed in between keeps the pot cool when the water evaporates. A simple gadget that cashes in on the latent heat of evaporation theory!
Few of these ideas reach the urban market where there is a big demand. Why? Is it lack of scaling up? Do you think we need to do that? If so how do we network such knowledge? Can universities play a role?
The World bank believes a cross pollination of such local innovations could send the GDP up by few points. But it will call for some actions.
Or are such innovations best for regional adoption? Is scaling up really needed - the kind of model where big corporations alone stand to gain?
Finally, do we have enough innovations? If not, why?
Share your thoughts. We look forward to the same.
The $200,000 MIT Clean Energy Prize was recently awarded to a Michigan startup, Husk Insulation, the company’ whose patented technology could increase refrigerator efficiency by up to 50 percent. The thermal properties of this agricultural byproduct mean that a 1-inch-thick panel containing rice husk ash provides as much insulation as a 4-inch-thick panel filled with polystyrene. So refrigerators made with the new material could have 20 percent more interior space on the same footprint.
One such simple fridge did emerge in rural India a couple of years ago. Mitti Cool is a refrigerator made entirely from clay that keeps water cool and preserves fruits, vegetables and milk for days. It was the invention of a grassroots innovator Mansukhbhai Prajapati, a potter and clay baker from Gujarat in India. Costing about Rs 2750 for a company to manufacture, the unit made a few ripples in media and disappeared.
Today, with the power scenario bleak in the country, one hears many people sigh and wish that Mitti Cool was available in the market. It is not.
Another invention was a double layered pot with water placed in between keeps the pot cool when the water evaporates. A simple gadget that cashes in on the latent heat of evaporation theory!
Few of these ideas reach the urban market where there is a big demand. Why? Is it lack of scaling up? Do you think we need to do that? If so how do we network such knowledge? Can universities play a role?
The World bank believes a cross pollination of such local innovations could send the GDP up by few points. But it will call for some actions.
Or are such innovations best for regional adoption? Is scaling up really needed - the kind of model where big corporations alone stand to gain?
Finally, do we have enough innovations? If not, why?
Share your thoughts. We look forward to the same.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Giddily racing ahead
In its latest annual report last November, the IEA cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. A paradox for some! But more than ever before, it is being proved that economy and environment go hand in hand.
In an article in The New York Times, read more about the technological leaps China is taking to address energy needs. Even as the west still relies heavily on outdated, inefficient coal-fired power plants that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide, China has begun requiring power companies to retire older, more polluting power plant.
Costs are more but in the overall view, it is all about planning for an economy with big plans it does not want to let go.
With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent. In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China.
By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.
But even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant. That is where carbon capture and sequestration could help but the technology is still not commercially ready.
Just last year, China overtook the United States as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. By 2030, the International Energy Agency says China's emissions will be 41 percent greater than those of the United States.
Which is perhaps why China is redoubling efforts on the renewable side. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment.
Do you think what China is doing is the way ahead for developing economies? Should coal continue to be in the energy mix? Can renewable energy meet base load demand?
In an article in The New York Times, read more about the technological leaps China is taking to address energy needs. Even as the west still relies heavily on outdated, inefficient coal-fired power plants that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide, China has begun requiring power companies to retire older, more polluting power plant.
Costs are more but in the overall view, it is all about planning for an economy with big plans it does not want to let go.
With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent. In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China.
By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.
But even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant. That is where carbon capture and sequestration could help but the technology is still not commercially ready.
Just last year, China overtook the United States as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. By 2030, the International Energy Agency says China's emissions will be 41 percent greater than those of the United States.
Which is perhaps why China is redoubling efforts on the renewable side. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment.
Do you think what China is doing is the way ahead for developing economies? Should coal continue to be in the energy mix? Can renewable energy meet base load demand?
Monday, May 11, 2009
How transparent is that cloth?
The wool in your sweater, the lithium in your mobile, the paper in the book you just purchased, they all have a history tracing them back to their origins. How much water, energy or minerals did they consume?
Companies are now showcasing this history to show they are serious about sustainability! ‘Supply chain transparency’ is the latest in the game. It requires companies to understand and provide details of their entire supply chains.
A British company called Historic Futures that specializes in traceability, tracks such commodities as cotton and gold through the supply chains of Wal-Mart, Gap and Patagonia, etc using Internet-based systems and RFID tags.
Icebreaker is a company that makes clothing from New Zealand merino wool and invites customers to trace their garments back to the farmers who raised the sheep that made it using a Baacode! Your Baacode will let you see the living conditions of the high country sheep that produced the merino fibre in your Icebreaker garment, meet the farmers who are custodians of this astonishing landscape, and follow every step of the supply chain.
Wal-Mart's "Love, Earth" brand of gold and silver jewelry invites consumers to visit a website to find the source of their precious metals and to be assured that it's not a dirty mine in a poor country.
Patagonia's "Footprint Chronicles" website tracks the journey of a T-shirt through the global economy, revealing its carbon footprint, water usage and miles traveled.
The wood that went to make your furniture – was it the consequence of illegal logging in a forest or from a plantation?
Wal-Mart and Tesco have vowed not to buy clothing made with cotton farmed in Uzbekhistan, where child labor is rampant, requiring them to ask all their suppliers to know where their cotton is sourced.
For sure this move will help when the consumer is sensitive to the issues at hand. Not otherwise. It could well end as an interesting gimmick or fad to catch the consumer’s attention.
Would it make a difference to YOU if you knew where your stuff came from? Let us know.
Companies are now showcasing this history to show they are serious about sustainability! ‘Supply chain transparency’ is the latest in the game. It requires companies to understand and provide details of their entire supply chains.
A British company called Historic Futures that specializes in traceability, tracks such commodities as cotton and gold through the supply chains of Wal-Mart, Gap and Patagonia, etc using Internet-based systems and RFID tags.
Icebreaker is a company that makes clothing from New Zealand merino wool and invites customers to trace their garments back to the farmers who raised the sheep that made it using a Baacode! Your Baacode will let you see the living conditions of the high country sheep that produced the merino fibre in your Icebreaker garment, meet the farmers who are custodians of this astonishing landscape, and follow every step of the supply chain.
Wal-Mart's "Love, Earth" brand of gold and silver jewelry invites consumers to visit a website to find the source of their precious metals and to be assured that it's not a dirty mine in a poor country.
Patagonia's "Footprint Chronicles" website tracks the journey of a T-shirt through the global economy, revealing its carbon footprint, water usage and miles traveled.
The wood that went to make your furniture – was it the consequence of illegal logging in a forest or from a plantation?
Wal-Mart and Tesco have vowed not to buy clothing made with cotton farmed in Uzbekhistan, where child labor is rampant, requiring them to ask all their suppliers to know where their cotton is sourced.
For sure this move will help when the consumer is sensitive to the issues at hand. Not otherwise. It could well end as an interesting gimmick or fad to catch the consumer’s attention.
Would it make a difference to YOU if you knew where your stuff came from? Let us know.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Tree power
Do forests bring rain? Or does rain bring up forests?
A paper in BioScience Magazine called How Forests Attract Rain discusses a mostly overlooked hypothesis that explains how big rainforests actually drive the entire global water cycle. Forests pull in large amounts of water vapor from surrounding regions and from nearby bodies of water. As the vapor condenses into rain, the local atmospheric pressure drops. This sucks in more water vapor from outside the forest. It rains and the process goes on.
The whole rainforest-water vapor system is called a biotic pump because the living forest matter is what’s moving the water.
Forests also extract water and minerals from the soil, much of the water is transpired as a bi-product of photosynthesis. This makes the forest a moist damp area and keeps it cool during the day. During the night the moist air that is not generally blown away, starts condensing the moisture as dew, returning the water to the soil and keeping the night temperature warmer than it otherwise would have been. It takes time for the soil to develop its water cycle.
Planting of trees should help in bringing rains to an area, but caution is needed not to opt for monoculture.
The study explains why we see heavy downpours in the tropics as compared to the temperate or arid zones.
Anyway, Indonesia has hit upon a novel idea to reforestation – get every couple tying the knot to plant 10 saplings. And every pair that divorces has to plant 50 more saplings!
Two years ago, Indonesia was noted in the Guinness Book of Records for a dubious distinction--achieving the world's fastest rate of deforestation, cutting down an area the size of 300 soccer fields every hour, for a total of 4.4 million acres a year. The result was disastrous.
Well, it is clear that we need trees more than they need us. They give us the oxygen we need. They absorb carbon dioxide. They keep the soil intact. They bring rains. Any doubts why we must save them?
Boys' Toys?
Energy storage is an area that will probably see a lot of research as clean energy gathers steam. In fact it will have to be developed alongside new energy source technologies. Are we doing enough?
Most renewable sources are infirm and not available when the demand is at its peak. It makes sense to look at storage. Storage means a good energy density, storage capacity and speed of discharge.
Energy densities of batteries and capacitors are much lower than that of fossil fuels. From lead acid to lithium ion to silicon based, the density rises but is still limited. Combining the storage capacity of batteries and discharge speed of capacitors will yield the perfect energy storage. Nanotech capacitors are promising but will take time. That is where simple technologies like flywheels and compressed air could come in.
Where flywheels work on the inertia principle and keep spinning when small amount of electricity is supplied, when the power is gone they keep spinning. But not for too long. At most they can provide power for a few minutes. But innovation is at work in reducing friction, using lighter materials, etc.
Perhaps compressed air can provide a longer period of stored power? Compressed air energy storage technology basically takes excess energy from a power plant or renewable energy and is used to run air compressors, which pump air into an underground cave where it is stored under pressure. When the air is released, it powers a turbine, creating electricity.
The problem here is finding the right place underground. Read more.
As is clear, these are all simple concepts, and work like toys that most boys like. Right?
Most renewable sources are infirm and not available when the demand is at its peak. It makes sense to look at storage. Storage means a good energy density, storage capacity and speed of discharge.
Energy densities of batteries and capacitors are much lower than that of fossil fuels. From lead acid to lithium ion to silicon based, the density rises but is still limited. Combining the storage capacity of batteries and discharge speed of capacitors will yield the perfect energy storage. Nanotech capacitors are promising but will take time. That is where simple technologies like flywheels and compressed air could come in.
Where flywheels work on the inertia principle and keep spinning when small amount of electricity is supplied, when the power is gone they keep spinning. But not for too long. At most they can provide power for a few minutes. But innovation is at work in reducing friction, using lighter materials, etc.
Perhaps compressed air can provide a longer period of stored power? Compressed air energy storage technology basically takes excess energy from a power plant or renewable energy and is used to run air compressors, which pump air into an underground cave where it is stored under pressure. When the air is released, it powers a turbine, creating electricity.
The problem here is finding the right place underground. Read more.
As is clear, these are all simple concepts, and work like toys that most boys like. Right?
Ideas bazaar buzzing
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Useful ideas are rare. Feasible ones are rarer still. But does that mean we throw away most ideas?
Treehugger had an interesting post on making a solar cooker with redundant CDs and cast away dish antennas! (see pic) The CDs placed on the dish serve as mirrors focusing sunlight at the focal point where a cooker can be placed. Temperatures can go very high, we are warned, and it is better to place your hand at the focus well-guarded.
Then we have the mobike that moves on air pressure designed by engineering students in India. Equipped with two compressed air cylinders, the 100cc bike currently runs at a speed of 18km per hour, but the students hope to make it faster.
Solar thermal is very promising but to generate a sizeable chunk of power, there is need to spread out equipment across vast areas. This may be possible in desert areas but the cooling required for the equipment mean availability of water! Hence the search for optimizing on land and equipment required.
Skyline Solar, a startup claims to have developed a cheaper way to harvest energy from the sun. The company's solar panels concentrate sunlight onto a small area, reducing the amount of expensive semiconductor material needed to generate electricity. Attempts to concentrate sunlight on smaller solar cells have been reported earlier. But this one combines two technologies.
In thermal plants, the troughs concentrate light on tubes, heating up a fluid inside them that, in turn, is used to drive power-generating turbines. Skyline Solar has replaced those tubes with narrow solar panels, adding a heat sink to keep them from getting too hot. The troughs concentrate the light by about a factor of 10, increasing the power output of the panels by about the same amount as conventional solar panels without concentrators
These are designed for medium range installations in the 1-to-10-megawatt range in suburban areas as part of distributed power for food-processing, water-treatment, etc.
Combining wave power and offshore wind is another experiment that is on. Yes, many great-seeming ideas flunk in the commercialisation exam, but some make it through. We will keep bringing you many of these stories. Let us know what you think, and also let us know if you hear of exciting, workable ideas. If you notice, most are SIMPLE.
Treehugger had an interesting post on making a solar cooker with redundant CDs and cast away dish antennas! (see pic) The CDs placed on the dish serve as mirrors focusing sunlight at the focal point where a cooker can be placed. Temperatures can go very high, we are warned, and it is better to place your hand at the focus well-guarded.
Then we have the mobike that moves on air pressure designed by engineering students in India. Equipped with two compressed air cylinders, the 100cc bike currently runs at a speed of 18km per hour, but the students hope to make it faster.
Solar thermal is very promising but to generate a sizeable chunk of power, there is need to spread out equipment across vast areas. This may be possible in desert areas but the cooling required for the equipment mean availability of water! Hence the search for optimizing on land and equipment required.
Skyline Solar, a startup claims to have developed a cheaper way to harvest energy from the sun. The company's solar panels concentrate sunlight onto a small area, reducing the amount of expensive semiconductor material needed to generate electricity. Attempts to concentrate sunlight on smaller solar cells have been reported earlier. But this one combines two technologies.
In thermal plants, the troughs concentrate light on tubes, heating up a fluid inside them that, in turn, is used to drive power-generating turbines. Skyline Solar has replaced those tubes with narrow solar panels, adding a heat sink to keep them from getting too hot. The troughs concentrate the light by about a factor of 10, increasing the power output of the panels by about the same amount as conventional solar panels without concentrators
These are designed for medium range installations in the 1-to-10-megawatt range in suburban areas as part of distributed power for food-processing, water-treatment, etc.
Combining wave power and offshore wind is another experiment that is on. Yes, many great-seeming ideas flunk in the commercialisation exam, but some make it through. We will keep bringing you many of these stories. Let us know what you think, and also let us know if you hear of exciting, workable ideas. If you notice, most are SIMPLE.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Shut down your PC when done
One unit of power saved is equivalent to three units generated. That is no mere rhetoric. As the energy crisis deepens and new sources still in the lab stage, the prudent way to adjust demand and supply is to conserve. This is something governments, institutions and individuals can do.
For instances, most offices use computers today. The CPU of any computer if shut off from the cabinet switch, still consumes around 5-7 watts. According to a post in the IAEMP group, any computer that is in use for say 10 hrs (14 hrs idle) consumes around 35 kWh in one year for no work.
This also means an additional 12 to 15 kWh for air-conditioning load to take this heat out. So it means almost 50 kWh wasted per computer per year. Multiply that with the number of computers left idling and you have a power surge!
For big companies, the power saved thus could be used to light at least one of those un-electrified villages! The same goes for UPS as well.
And if you want your computer to continue receiving updates, or transmit/receive information of any kind during the wee hours of the night, you need to leave it on. But even the lowest power settings generally burn more power than you need to do that minimal amount of computing.
Computer scientists at UC San Diego and Microsoft Research have created a plug-and-play hardware prototype for personal computers that induces a new energy saving state known as "sleep talking."
Normally PCs can be in either awake mode—where they consume power even if they are not being used, or in a low power sleep mode—where they save substantial power but are essentially inactive and unresponsive to network traffic. The new sleep talking state provides much of the energy savings of sleep mode and some of the network-and-Internet-connected convenience of the awake mode.
In most offices, the air conditioner is set to 18 to 23 deg C while a 24 or 25 deg C is more than sufficient and comfortable. In the process energy and money can be saved. If you have two lifts in your office, why not assign them for alternate floors? This will save energy and time.
For instances, most offices use computers today. The CPU of any computer if shut off from the cabinet switch, still consumes around 5-7 watts. According to a post in the IAEMP group, any computer that is in use for say 10 hrs (14 hrs idle) consumes around 35 kWh in one year for no work.
This also means an additional 12 to 15 kWh for air-conditioning load to take this heat out. So it means almost 50 kWh wasted per computer per year. Multiply that with the number of computers left idling and you have a power surge!
For big companies, the power saved thus could be used to light at least one of those un-electrified villages! The same goes for UPS as well.
And if you want your computer to continue receiving updates, or transmit/receive information of any kind during the wee hours of the night, you need to leave it on. But even the lowest power settings generally burn more power than you need to do that minimal amount of computing.
Computer scientists at UC San Diego and Microsoft Research have created a plug-and-play hardware prototype for personal computers that induces a new energy saving state known as "sleep talking."
Normally PCs can be in either awake mode—where they consume power even if they are not being used, or in a low power sleep mode—where they save substantial power but are essentially inactive and unresponsive to network traffic. The new sleep talking state provides much of the energy savings of sleep mode and some of the network-and-Internet-connected convenience of the awake mode.
In most offices, the air conditioner is set to 18 to 23 deg C while a 24 or 25 deg C is more than sufficient and comfortable. In the process energy and money can be saved. If you have two lifts in your office, why not assign them for alternate floors? This will save energy and time.
A bit of both
The Brazilian government plans to overhaul the country's energy basket with more emphasis on renewable resources, while continuing to plan for future expansion of local production of traditional fossil fuels.
Seventy-five percent of Brazil's energy comes from hydroelectric power, and the government plans to build more such stations, but without causing further deforestation. This will be done by siting more carefully, as also by using underwater river turbines. The government expects to produce 50 million megawatts from this kind of hydroelectric plant in the next two years. The Environment Ministry now requires new thermoelectric plants fuelled by coal or diesel to compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees.
The government will invest more in renewable energy. Already 46 percent of the Brazilian energy mix is based on renewable sources, while ethanol accounts for 16 percent. Use of flex-fuel motors in new vehicles is claimed to have cut Brazil's emissions of carbon dioxide by 50 million tonnes since 2003.
The criticism against biofuels and how the process of farming crops like sugarcane in Brazil and maize in the United States releases amounts of nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas, that more than counteract the benefit of lowering emissions of carbon dioxide generated by burning ethanol instead of gasoline is countered by an argument that it is degraded and arid land that is being used.
According to the government, only one percent of the land suitable for agriculture in Brazil is used to grow sugarcane. Ethanol production notwithstanding, neither the government nor Petrobras are willing to stop producing oil and natural gas, or even to increase output. Petrobras currently produces 1.9 million barrels of crude per day.
Studies may keep calling attention to the hard facts of fossil fuels and climate change, is it going to make any change to nations that see independent reserves as their lifeline to rapid growth?
Seventy-five percent of Brazil's energy comes from hydroelectric power, and the government plans to build more such stations, but without causing further deforestation. This will be done by siting more carefully, as also by using underwater river turbines. The government expects to produce 50 million megawatts from this kind of hydroelectric plant in the next two years. The Environment Ministry now requires new thermoelectric plants fuelled by coal or diesel to compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees.
The government will invest more in renewable energy. Already 46 percent of the Brazilian energy mix is based on renewable sources, while ethanol accounts for 16 percent. Use of flex-fuel motors in new vehicles is claimed to have cut Brazil's emissions of carbon dioxide by 50 million tonnes since 2003.
The criticism against biofuels and how the process of farming crops like sugarcane in Brazil and maize in the United States releases amounts of nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas, that more than counteract the benefit of lowering emissions of carbon dioxide generated by burning ethanol instead of gasoline is countered by an argument that it is degraded and arid land that is being used.
According to the government, only one percent of the land suitable for agriculture in Brazil is used to grow sugarcane. Ethanol production notwithstanding, neither the government nor Petrobras are willing to stop producing oil and natural gas, or even to increase output. Petrobras currently produces 1.9 million barrels of crude per day.
Studies may keep calling attention to the hard facts of fossil fuels and climate change, is it going to make any change to nations that see independent reserves as their lifeline to rapid growth?
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Planet flu
The UK must pursue energy efficiency more aggressively to meet its target of an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, according to a new report from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). It is possible to halve the energy used in the country’s homes through a mixture of energy efficiency improvements and modest lifestyle changes, the centre says.
Decarbonising would require measures like nuclear and CCS technology in addition to renewables, which alone cannot meet the demand in time.
For India, an investment of $10 billion in energy efficiency improvements could result in gigantic energy savings, a new World Resource Institute (WRI) report states. According to Powering Up: The Investment Potential of Energy Service Companies in India, the energy service company sector (ESCO) could help the country save from than 183.5 billion kilowatt hours, while turning a profit.
The large and energy-intensive Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai hired Sudnya Industrial Services, an ESCO, to undertake an analysis. The results showed that the air-conditioning system comprised 60 percent of the hospital’s energy usage and that an upgrade was necessary. The entire investment of the hospital to do this upgrade was US$12,000, the annual savings are US$17,000, and the payback time was nine months.
Meanwhile the Indian envoy to a two-day meeting in Washington of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, Shyam Saran ruled out a cap on development , preferring a rapid deployment of technology to make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. What exactly does the 'cap on development' being talked about? Anyone know?
India had been able to achieve 8-9 percent growth with energy use growing by only 3-3.5 percent, he said.
Meanwhile, on the issue of fossil fuels, it looks like we better let the fuels remain fossils, at least most of what is left!
Two new studies published in Nature note that there is very little space left for wiggling out of a 2 deg rise. The two studies, one from the U.K. and one from Germany, measure total emissions into the atmosphere, rather than atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Humanity can only emit 1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2050 to have a 75% chance of limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees celsisus. Since we already pumped out about 234 billion tons through 2006, that leaves only about 760 billion tons in the piggy bank, as it were. We need to stop using fossil fuels long before we run out of them. This may be a 'pandemic' we are refusing to acknowledge.
Winding up the weekend, some good news for clean energy followers. The new search engine for renewable energy, reegle aggregates energy news, has a map detailing renewable energy projects around the world and provides links for energy industry players in government, business, media and academia.
Decarbonising would require measures like nuclear and CCS technology in addition to renewables, which alone cannot meet the demand in time.
For India, an investment of $10 billion in energy efficiency improvements could result in gigantic energy savings, a new World Resource Institute (WRI) report states. According to Powering Up: The Investment Potential of Energy Service Companies in India, the energy service company sector (ESCO) could help the country save from than 183.5 billion kilowatt hours, while turning a profit.
The large and energy-intensive Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai hired Sudnya Industrial Services, an ESCO, to undertake an analysis. The results showed that the air-conditioning system comprised 60 percent of the hospital’s energy usage and that an upgrade was necessary. The entire investment of the hospital to do this upgrade was US$12,000, the annual savings are US$17,000, and the payback time was nine months.
Meanwhile the Indian envoy to a two-day meeting in Washington of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, Shyam Saran ruled out a cap on development , preferring a rapid deployment of technology to make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. What exactly does the 'cap on development' being talked about? Anyone know?
India had been able to achieve 8-9 percent growth with energy use growing by only 3-3.5 percent, he said.
Meanwhile, on the issue of fossil fuels, it looks like we better let the fuels remain fossils, at least most of what is left!
Two new studies published in Nature note that there is very little space left for wiggling out of a 2 deg rise. The two studies, one from the U.K. and one from Germany, measure total emissions into the atmosphere, rather than atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Humanity can only emit 1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2050 to have a 75% chance of limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees celsisus. Since we already pumped out about 234 billion tons through 2006, that leaves only about 760 billion tons in the piggy bank, as it were. We need to stop using fossil fuels long before we run out of them. This may be a 'pandemic' we are refusing to acknowledge.
Winding up the weekend, some good news for clean energy followers. The new search engine for renewable energy, reegle aggregates energy news, has a map detailing renewable energy projects around the world and provides links for energy industry players in government, business, media and academia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
