There was a 32% rise in green energy investments worldwide last year according to the latest annual report on renewable energy investment trends issued by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Wind farms in China and small-scale solar panels on rooftops in Europe were largely responsible for this. Investors pumped a record $211 billion into renewables -- about one-third more than the $160 billion invested in 2009, and a 540% rise since 2004.
For the first time, developing economies overtook developed ones in terms of "financial new investment"--spending on utility-scale renewable energy projects and provision of equity capital for renewable energy companies. on this measure, $72 billion was invested in developing countries vs. $70 billion in developed economies.
The report, Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011, has been prepared for UNEP by London-based Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
"The continuing growth in this core segment of the Green Economy is not happening by chance. The combination of government target-setting, policy support and stimulus funds is underpinning the renewable industry's rise and bringing the much needed transformation of our global energy system within reach," Said UNEP director Achim Steiner.
The price of PV modules per megawatt has fallen 60% since mid-2008, making solar power far more competitive in a number of sunny countries. By the end of 2010, many countries were rushing to make their PV tariffs less generous.
Nevertheless the small-scale solar market is likely to stay strong in 2011, the report suggests. Further drops in costs for solar, wind and other technologies lie ahead, the report says, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil-fuel generation sources in the next few years.
Throughout the last decade, wind was the most mature renewable energy technology and enjoyed an apparently unassailable lead over its rival power sources.Wind turbine prices have fallen 18% per megawatt in the last two years, reflecting, as with solar, fierce competition in the supply chain. In 2010, wind continued to dominate in terms of financial new investment in large scale renewables, with $94.7 billion (up 30% from 2009). However, when investments in small scale projects are added in solar is catching up, with $86 billion in 2010, up 52% on the previous year.
The sharpest percentage jumps in overall investment were seen in small-scale projects -- up 91% year-on-year at $60 billion, and in government-funded research and development, up 121% at $5.3 billion, as more of the "green stimulus" funds promised after the financial crisis arrived in the sector.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Indoor air pollution leads to cardiac problems
An estimated two billion people in the developing world heat and cook with a biomass fuel such as wood, but the practice exposes people -- especially women -- to large doses of small-particle air pollution, which can cause premature death and lung disease. And now, a study shows cardio risk too!
In a study just published online in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have associated indoor air pollution with increased blood pressure among older women.
In a remote area of Yunnan Province, China, 280 women in an ethnic minority called the Naxi wore a portable device that sampled the air they were breathing for 24 hours. By correlating exposure over 24 hours with blood pressure, the team associated higher levels of indoor air pollution with a significantly higher blood pressure among women aged 50 and over.
Small-particle pollution raises blood pressure over the short term by stimulating the nervous system to constrict blood vessels. In the long term, the particles can cause oxidative stress, which likewise raises blood pressure.
Other studies have shown that improved stoves or cleaner fuels can cut indoor air pollution by 50 to 75 percent. In fact, the researchers concluded that this reduction would translate into an 18 percent decrease in coronary heart disease and a 22 percent decrease in stroke among Asian women aged 50 to 59.
Because biomass fuels are also the primary source of energy for more than 2 billion people globally, cleaner fuels and better stoves would produce even greater cardiovascular benefits worldwide.
In a study just published online in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have associated indoor air pollution with increased blood pressure among older women.
In a remote area of Yunnan Province, China, 280 women in an ethnic minority called the Naxi wore a portable device that sampled the air they were breathing for 24 hours. By correlating exposure over 24 hours with blood pressure, the team associated higher levels of indoor air pollution with a significantly higher blood pressure among women aged 50 and over.
Small-particle pollution raises blood pressure over the short term by stimulating the nervous system to constrict blood vessels. In the long term, the particles can cause oxidative stress, which likewise raises blood pressure.
Other studies have shown that improved stoves or cleaner fuels can cut indoor air pollution by 50 to 75 percent. In fact, the researchers concluded that this reduction would translate into an 18 percent decrease in coronary heart disease and a 22 percent decrease in stroke among Asian women aged 50 to 59.
Because biomass fuels are also the primary source of energy for more than 2 billion people globally, cleaner fuels and better stoves would produce even greater cardiovascular benefits worldwide.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Natural selection to blame
On an average, human civilization consumes some 14 terawatts of power, mostly provided by burning coal, oil and natural gas. And yet, roughly two billion people lack reliable access to modern energy—whether fossil fuels or electricity—and largely rely on burning charcoal, dung or wood for light, heat and cooking.
Lighting and battery charging take a big helping of power at home, followed by television. But when talking of ghg emissions, it is the gadgets and vehicles that take the cake.In the U.S., for example, household emissions tripled between 1950 and 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, thanks to the use of electricity in the home for devices like TVs.
But looking for alternate energy also means more mining and energy use for rare-earth elements for electric motors; more pollution from purifying process for wafers, etc. Biggest challenge is that of dwindling resources. Minerals, food, water...
So, do we blame it all on population? Taking a different line recently was Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve at a lecture. He pointed the finger at natural selection, saying that this principle which drives us to reproduce and advance our genes operates "on the here and now level" and pays no heed to imminent food, energy and resource crises.
Our ancestors in the Central African forests and savannahs evolved to embrace intra-group selfishness and inter-group hostility as a matter of survival, he said.
Humans are the only species that have the ability to act against natural selection, he said. "If we don't act soon to overcome our genetic tendency to intra-group selfishness and inter-group hostility, the future of humanity and of much of life on Earth will be gravely endangered, possibly leading to total extinction under conditions that can only be visualized as apocalyptic."
Lighting and battery charging take a big helping of power at home, followed by television. But when talking of ghg emissions, it is the gadgets and vehicles that take the cake.In the U.S., for example, household emissions tripled between 1950 and 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, thanks to the use of electricity in the home for devices like TVs.
But looking for alternate energy also means more mining and energy use for rare-earth elements for electric motors; more pollution from purifying process for wafers, etc. Biggest challenge is that of dwindling resources. Minerals, food, water...
So, do we blame it all on population? Taking a different line recently was Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve at a lecture. He pointed the finger at natural selection, saying that this principle which drives us to reproduce and advance our genes operates "on the here and now level" and pays no heed to imminent food, energy and resource crises.
Our ancestors in the Central African forests and savannahs evolved to embrace intra-group selfishness and inter-group hostility as a matter of survival, he said.
Humans are the only species that have the ability to act against natural selection, he said. "If we don't act soon to overcome our genetic tendency to intra-group selfishness and inter-group hostility, the future of humanity and of much of life on Earth will be gravely endangered, possibly leading to total extinction under conditions that can only be visualized as apocalyptic."
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Warming up
For those of you surfing regularly (the Net), pictures of the dust storm in Phoenix in the US give some amazing real footage. The stuff of photoshop, but this one is for real!
Such extreme events are becoming the norm. And there is consensus that this is a direct outcome of climate change. In this year alone, tornadoes have ripped through the nation, mighty rivers like the Mississippi and Missouri have flowed over their banks, and floodwaters have covered huge swaths of Australia as well as displaced more than five million people in China and devastated Colombia. Last year there were the record floods in Nashville, Tenn., and Pakistan monsoon that killed 1,500 people and left 20 million more homeless, and Russia's crippling heat wave.
Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the world's most comprehensive database of natural disasters, reaching all the way back to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Researchers at the company add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year. The data indicates a small increase in geologic events like earthquakes since 1980 because of better reporting. But the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger.
The second line of evidence comes from a nascent branch of science called climate attribution. The idea is to examine individual events like a detective investigating a crime, searching for telltale fingerprints of climate change. Those fingerprints are showing up—in the autumn floods of 2000 in England and Wales that were the worst on record, in the 2003 European heat wave that caused 14,000 deaths in France, in Hurricane Katrina.
Global warming is warming up and getting real close.
Such extreme events are becoming the norm. And there is consensus that this is a direct outcome of climate change. In this year alone, tornadoes have ripped through the nation, mighty rivers like the Mississippi and Missouri have flowed over their banks, and floodwaters have covered huge swaths of Australia as well as displaced more than five million people in China and devastated Colombia. Last year there were the record floods in Nashville, Tenn., and Pakistan monsoon that killed 1,500 people and left 20 million more homeless, and Russia's crippling heat wave.
Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the world's most comprehensive database of natural disasters, reaching all the way back to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Researchers at the company add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year. The data indicates a small increase in geologic events like earthquakes since 1980 because of better reporting. But the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger.
The second line of evidence comes from a nascent branch of science called climate attribution. The idea is to examine individual events like a detective investigating a crime, searching for telltale fingerprints of climate change. Those fingerprints are showing up—in the autumn floods of 2000 in England and Wales that were the worst on record, in the 2003 European heat wave that caused 14,000 deaths in France, in Hurricane Katrina.
Global warming is warming up and getting real close.
What's good for you is bad for another
Well, the debate over fracking for shale gas continues. The French parliament voted on June 30 to ban the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from shale rock deposits known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This, even as the New York state in US considers revoking a ban!
Companies that currently own permits for drilling in oil shale deposits on French land will have two months to notify the state what extraction technique they use. If they declare to be using fracking, or if they fail to respond, their permits will be automatically revoked.
Fracking requires the injection of vast quantities of water and potentially hazardous chemicals into the ground to force the release of natural gas. The U.S. government is investigating the environmental impact of the technique, which critics say produces toxic waste and pollutes water wells.
A UK panel had found that fracking does not cause damage to the surroundings, especially to water. But not everyone is convinced.
And as though to commemmorate the BP oil spill, we have yet another spill as a pipeline ruptured and sent oil into the Yellowstone river!
Looks like we humans are hell bent on messing up the place - digging up muck, throwing our waste around, making gashes and ravines on the surface as we go searching for all the things we need. Or rather, believe we need! Any opinions on that?
Companies that currently own permits for drilling in oil shale deposits on French land will have two months to notify the state what extraction technique they use. If they declare to be using fracking, or if they fail to respond, their permits will be automatically revoked.
Fracking requires the injection of vast quantities of water and potentially hazardous chemicals into the ground to force the release of natural gas. The U.S. government is investigating the environmental impact of the technique, which critics say produces toxic waste and pollutes water wells.
A UK panel had found that fracking does not cause damage to the surroundings, especially to water. But not everyone is convinced.
And as though to commemmorate the BP oil spill, we have yet another spill as a pipeline ruptured and sent oil into the Yellowstone river!
Looks like we humans are hell bent on messing up the place - digging up muck, throwing our waste around, making gashes and ravines on the surface as we go searching for all the things we need. Or rather, believe we need! Any opinions on that?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Cooled by pollution!
Hold it, things are worser than we thought. A new study says rising sulfur emissions from the growth of Asian industry triggered a cooling effect that partially offset the effects of global warming for a decade. While carbon dioxide emissions increased by nearly a third from 1998 to 2008, global surface temperatures did not rise sharply during that period.
A key reason, researchers say, is that increased sulfur emissions — particularly from coal combustion in Asia, which grew by more than 100 percent during the decade —allowed the formation of aerosols that reflect the sun’s heat back into space, cooling the surface of the Earth. Such effects have long been recognized by scientists studying volcanic eruptions, which in the past have caused cooling and significant crop failures.
Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role, according to the paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That natural cooling effect may abate, however, when nations impose stricter emissions standards, and could release a rapid, pent-up climate change, according to the researchers.
A key reason, researchers say, is that increased sulfur emissions — particularly from coal combustion in Asia, which grew by more than 100 percent during the decade —allowed the formation of aerosols that reflect the sun’s heat back into space, cooling the surface of the Earth. Such effects have long been recognized by scientists studying volcanic eruptions, which in the past have caused cooling and significant crop failures.
Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role, according to the paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That natural cooling effect may abate, however, when nations impose stricter emissions standards, and could release a rapid, pent-up climate change, according to the researchers.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
New terrain, old questions
Is all energy development at the cost of environment? Should we go ahead despite the eco-risks? Or is it time for a serious re-look at what we call 'development'? Is this taking us forward in terms of actual well-being, or is it merely physical comfort we are calling 'development'?
The Sand Hills of Nebraska are a unique Great Plains prairie ecosystem. The grasses and wildflowers, and ponds and lakes that feed the acquifer - should these be valued at all or only the oil from the tar sands that lie below? Roughly 173 billion barrels of Alberta tar sands reserves, worth more than $15 trillion, underlay an area the size of Florida, making it by far the largest petroleum deposit in North America.
Should we continue expanding supplies of planet-warming fossil fuels, especially when the tar sands project has razed hundreds of square miles of boreal forest, led to the creation of dozens of toxic tailings ponds, and released vast quantities of CO2?
Should we exploit the Arctic that contains almost one-quarter of the undiscovered, technically recoverable, hydrocarbons in the world? Amounting to 90bn barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44bn barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum.
A single spill can have disastrous impact on marine life in the area. But do we care (beyond rhetoric) about marine life when the issue is about energy security and scarce resources? Will nations take the long-term view or seize the 'opportunity' of unexploited, vast terrains?
The Sand Hills of Nebraska are a unique Great Plains prairie ecosystem. The grasses and wildflowers, and ponds and lakes that feed the acquifer - should these be valued at all or only the oil from the tar sands that lie below? Roughly 173 billion barrels of Alberta tar sands reserves, worth more than $15 trillion, underlay an area the size of Florida, making it by far the largest petroleum deposit in North America.
Should we continue expanding supplies of planet-warming fossil fuels, especially when the tar sands project has razed hundreds of square miles of boreal forest, led to the creation of dozens of toxic tailings ponds, and released vast quantities of CO2?
Should we exploit the Arctic that contains almost one-quarter of the undiscovered, technically recoverable, hydrocarbons in the world? Amounting to 90bn barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44bn barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum.
A single spill can have disastrous impact on marine life in the area. But do we care (beyond rhetoric) about marine life when the issue is about energy security and scarce resources? Will nations take the long-term view or seize the 'opportunity' of unexploited, vast terrains?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
