If the average fuel economy of all new cars on the world’s roads improved 50 percent by 2020, it could save more than 6 billion barrels of oil per year. The International Energy Agency, the UN Environment Program and others believe it can be achieved with existing technology and a few key policies. By 2050, they want to see fuel economy of the entire global fleet (not just new cars) improve by 50 percent.
The agencies have just launched a campaign — the Global Fuel Economy Initiative — at the Geneva Motor Show, and unveiled a roadmap for reaching their target. If implemented, the plan could create new opportunities for PHEV conversion startups, battery developers and electric car makers.
To start, the group is urging long-term, international standards for fuel economy or vehicle emissions as a way to encourage investment in fuel efficiency. Programs to promote tire replacement, fuel efficient driving and better vehicle maintenance and incentives along these lines could conceivably be a boon to PHEV conversion companies.
In India, consumers can soon (?) expect to see voluntary labels on vehicles on mileage details. This is expected to be mandatory by 2010. It is not sure whether the mandatory norms will make vehicles costlier. Emissions regulations is another thing and is not being taken up now because the BEE feels that the common man does not understand the climate concerns as much as where the rupee pinches (in the mileage).
The question then is: does enforcing fuel standards stop at mileage? Can the automobile manufacturers not be forced to comply with international standards in emission?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Staying power
Another question on climate change: How long, after we are done with fossil fuels, will the CO2 hang around?
Popular notion has been that the lifetime of CO2 typically say it lasts “a century or more” or “more than a hundred years”. Bad enough. But now, scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California are saying it will last much longer!
In an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences they say the gas and hence the warming will linger far into the future. University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study, says in his new book The Long Thaw, “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this”.
Perhaps this calls for another revision for what is the safe level of the gas if the planet is to have another chance, or rather, the race is to survive! We brought down the number from 550ppm to 450ppm to 350ppm to realize recently the way we are going, we just cannot prevent a 2-3 degree rise!
Now there are serious thoughts being given to how we tackle the problem, whose consequences can be seen very soon, within our lifetimes. Do we resort to geo-engineering, where we put in place sunshades and aerosols up there in the atmosphere?? Interfering with nature. Bad as it is, some see it as inevitable. Though no one knows for sure what damage we will add in the process!
Is it that difficult for us to cut down emissions? Yes, at least some think so.
Going by the choice of words used by Todd Stern, Obama’s top climate change negotiator, the US, whom the rest of the world was looking up to, may take its time. ‘We need to be very mindful of what the dictates of science are, and of the art of the possible,” he said. About the Bali targets – a 25% to 40% cut by industrialized nations by 2020 – he said that it is not possible to get that kind of number. ‘It’s not going to happen.’
So?? Are we going to sit around and be cooked up? A nice allegory in a recent article likened what we are doing to the planet, to a man who finds the cold too unbearable and sets his home on fire, for warmth!
Popular notion has been that the lifetime of CO2 typically say it lasts “a century or more” or “more than a hundred years”. Bad enough. But now, scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California are saying it will last much longer!
In an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences they say the gas and hence the warming will linger far into the future. University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study, says in his new book The Long Thaw, “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this”.
Perhaps this calls for another revision for what is the safe level of the gas if the planet is to have another chance, or rather, the race is to survive! We brought down the number from 550ppm to 450ppm to 350ppm to realize recently the way we are going, we just cannot prevent a 2-3 degree rise!
Now there are serious thoughts being given to how we tackle the problem, whose consequences can be seen very soon, within our lifetimes. Do we resort to geo-engineering, where we put in place sunshades and aerosols up there in the atmosphere?? Interfering with nature. Bad as it is, some see it as inevitable. Though no one knows for sure what damage we will add in the process!
Is it that difficult for us to cut down emissions? Yes, at least some think so.
Going by the choice of words used by Todd Stern, Obama’s top climate change negotiator, the US, whom the rest of the world was looking up to, may take its time. ‘We need to be very mindful of what the dictates of science are, and of the art of the possible,” he said. About the Bali targets – a 25% to 40% cut by industrialized nations by 2020 – he said that it is not possible to get that kind of number. ‘It’s not going to happen.’
So?? Are we going to sit around and be cooked up? A nice allegory in a recent article likened what we are doing to the planet, to a man who finds the cold too unbearable and sets his home on fire, for warmth!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Mercury rising
If you happen to be a prolific Net surfer, you probably will have sensed the heat picking up once again over climate change – whether it exists! Both sides claim the other is backed by a lobby that stands to gain from the argument, be it oil, biofuel, coal or solar.But for anyone curious to know, the facts are out there. Provided visually by organizations like Nasa and others. Tales of shrinking Arctic ice are facts.
Take for instance the image produced by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. The pink outline shows the earlier ice cover, a mere couple of years ago.
The NSIDC has just released a new report finding: "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for the month of February was 14.84 million square kilometers (5.73 million square miles). February extent was 800,000 square kilometers (309,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average, and 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) less than for February 2008."
Already emissions are outside the envelope of possibilities considered by IPCC in its 2007 report. That is how fast and how determined the human race seems to be to consume itself out of existence.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change is the latest whose study shows temperatures are likely to step up by 5 deg by the end of the century.
In their recent global model simulatations, they have proof that ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower.
And, rather than interacting additively, these different affects appear to interact multiplicatively, say the group.
Still have doubts? Why not do a simple experiment yourself? Check out agri yields, from your nearest farm land. Or the water availability. Not in the cities, which we know is simply decreasing due to multifold increase in numbers of people. But out there in the suburbs.
Chances are you will find a dip in both. What do you think are the reasons? Mismanagement? Perhaps. But what about the yields of grains? The Swaminathan Research Foundation has shown a fall. This is despite all modern inputs. Clearly a sign of rising temperatures.
What should we do? Let us hear from you.
Ra powers Eleanor!
A car that runs on solar power with batteries that can take on 200 miles on a cloudy day in one stretch is what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Solar Electric Vehicle Team is.Called “Eleanor,” the solar car has a cruising speed of 55 miles per hour — on a sunny day. The car is set to compete in the World Solar Challenge race across Australia in October.
Even though there’s only room for one in the car, the ‘driver won’t be completely alone. The car, which is powered by about 20 square feet of monocrystalline silicon solar cells, is equipped with wireless monitors so the team’s lead and chase vehicles can keep an eye on the car’s performance in real time’.
The driver also gets to sit up this time around. Previous solar cars have been almost flat, to cut down on drag.
While on vehicles, India’s Reva went across the country in a 3500 km trek as part of the Indian Youth Climate Network. For more, read http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/03/03/solar-powered-revas-trek-across-india/
For more news on EVs, Indian car company Tata has revealed that it may launch its Indica Vista EV all-electric car in Europe by the end of the year, making it the first ‘mainstream’ company to bid for a slice of the continent’s potentially lucrative zero-emission vehicles market. According to Tata, the Indica will be capable of travelling 200km (125miles) on a full charge and accelerate from 0-60kph (0-38mph) in less than ten seconds, with a respectable top speed of 130kph (80mph).
Proof enough that eco-friendly vehicles are not a drag?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
What's your water print?
According to a report released February 26 by the Pacific Institute and Ceres, industries and investors are not paying sufficient attention to their water uses and needs. This spans the range from tourism, beverage, agriculture, power and chipmakers, all of which are water intensive.
While carbon footprint seems to be picking up (as a fashion?) not much is being done about water. Considering that one of the most painful fallouts of climate change will be water scarcity, this is unfortunate.
The Pacific Institute notes how water inventories are an absolute must if we are to manage this most precious resource. Only then can reduction and conservation measures be implemented. Indirectly by managing well, associated energy costs can be reduced.
Of the 190 water-intensive companies interviewed, only 20% looked at real risks of water shortages, and only 10% looked at supply chain risks. Almost no companies disclosed water use or looked at climate change impacts to water use.
The report outlines specific actions for companies to practice responsible water management and increase disclosures regarding water use to shareholders.
The jean company Levi Strauss & Co. has been a leader in supply chain analysis and reduced the amount of water used to make jeans by insisting that laundries that pre-wash their jeans meet strict water conservation guidelines. Some others like Coca-Cola and Intel have begun to disclose the amount of water they use in financial reports.
It is up to the public to demand to know such details as the world gets ready to face a water-stressed tomorrow. A chip making unit, to set up which many of the cities in India made a bid, was expected to use up almost three times the water daily as used by an average city. If this detail had been available to the public, would it have allowed such a unit to be set up?
Not to say we do not need such units but there must be every effort to recycle and conserve water as also energy.
What, for instance, is your company’s water footprint?
While carbon footprint seems to be picking up (as a fashion?) not much is being done about water. Considering that one of the most painful fallouts of climate change will be water scarcity, this is unfortunate.
The Pacific Institute notes how water inventories are an absolute must if we are to manage this most precious resource. Only then can reduction and conservation measures be implemented. Indirectly by managing well, associated energy costs can be reduced.
Of the 190 water-intensive companies interviewed, only 20% looked at real risks of water shortages, and only 10% looked at supply chain risks. Almost no companies disclosed water use or looked at climate change impacts to water use.
The report outlines specific actions for companies to practice responsible water management and increase disclosures regarding water use to shareholders.
The jean company Levi Strauss & Co. has been a leader in supply chain analysis and reduced the amount of water used to make jeans by insisting that laundries that pre-wash their jeans meet strict water conservation guidelines. Some others like Coca-Cola and Intel have begun to disclose the amount of water they use in financial reports.
It is up to the public to demand to know such details as the world gets ready to face a water-stressed tomorrow. A chip making unit, to set up which many of the cities in India made a bid, was expected to use up almost three times the water daily as used by an average city. If this detail had been available to the public, would it have allowed such a unit to be set up?
Not to say we do not need such units but there must be every effort to recycle and conserve water as also energy.
What, for instance, is your company’s water footprint?
Let us do our bit
Care to imagine the amount of waste we produce every month, and then every year? As consumption increases, so does waste. Imagine dumps and more dumps around the cities, growing every day.
According to the CES, IIsc round 3600 tonnes of solid waste is generated in Bangalore EVERY day. This is pretty much the same of most big cities.
Much of the biodegradable waste generated is high in organic content and with humidity content becomes difficult to incinerate. A better option would be biomethanation where bacteria degrade the waste to produce methane, or even simply composting the waste.
However, not much is done. Most of the waste is carried out of the cities to be dumped in the suburbs, or if they make it to the dumps, they are forgotten and end up polluting the soil and water. No real land-filling (covering the waste with soil) happens and the biodegradation takes a long time.
A far cry from recovering wealth from waste or reducing to zero waste! For example, 70 percent of San Francisco's waste stream is being diverted from landfills through a combination of strategies including waste avoidance, waste reduction, composting and recycling. The city's goal is to divert 75 percent by 2010, and to achieve zero waste by 2020.
The city's composting program (see picture) is the largest in the US, and began accepting food and yard waste in 1999. The majority of the compost created goes to area vineyards, and the rest to small farms and landscape suppliers.
What does it take to make our municipal authorities aware of the immense wealth in the waste?!
Recyclable materials are taken to the material recovery facility at Pier 96 where over 182,000 tons of material is processed each year. Of course, as we know and are t the receiving end, much of the recycled materials are shipped thousands of miles to the developing world where cheap labour sorts them out with bare hands!
While authorities wrangle over whose responsibility waste is, or which method or which contractor is best, there are simple things each one of us can do to help in the waste problem.
How about reducing the waste generated in our homes? All it requires is to make just adequate food. Next, segregate the waste and use the organic part in a small pit in the garden. This is something that can be done even inside. All you need is one small pot with a lid. Dump your wastes there and cover with a thin layer of soil. After few days the manure it yields could help the kitchen garden immensely.
Approximately we generate 2.5 kgs of waste per average household. Think of what a good idea it is to use this for a good purpose and save our countryside from swelling dumps.
Check out this interesting post at Treehugger.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/what-really-happens-at-a-landfill.php
Monday, March 2, 2009
The power broadband
Experts equate it to the powergrid’s equivalent of Internet broadband and China is aggressively pursuing leadership in this field. We refer to UHVDC or ultra high voltage direct current transmission of electricty across large distances.
When ready, China has plans to link its far flung west and east in a move to take power from renewable rich west to the power deficient east. Some see this as the technology that can eventually link Australia to Asia.
UHVDC is seen as best option to push large amounts of electricity across long distances with least loss. This will mean pumping above 800 kv along the lines and even beyond 10,000 MW soon, as planned in China. Losses can be as low as about 3% per 1000 km. High-voltage direct current transmission allows efficient use of energy sources remote from load centers.
To increase capacity of existing grid, reducing line cost (no need to support multiple phases and use of thin conductors), synchronise different AC systems, undersea cables, etc the HVDC is a good option.
However, HVDC would not be ideal for short distances and the inverters can be costly. Plus the technical difficulty in building DC ciruit breakers, are seen as some disadvantages.
There are two ways to view the situation. One, is to generate power where required using available resources. That is distributed decentralised generation. Two, generate where the resource is in plenty, be it wind or sun, and make it available where demand is most. That is where HVDC could play a big role.
What path should India opt for? Especially if we earnestly intend to increase the share of renewables.
Let us hear what the experts think on this.
When ready, China has plans to link its far flung west and east in a move to take power from renewable rich west to the power deficient east. Some see this as the technology that can eventually link Australia to Asia.
UHVDC is seen as best option to push large amounts of electricity across long distances with least loss. This will mean pumping above 800 kv along the lines and even beyond 10,000 MW soon, as planned in China. Losses can be as low as about 3% per 1000 km. High-voltage direct current transmission allows efficient use of energy sources remote from load centers.
To increase capacity of existing grid, reducing line cost (no need to support multiple phases and use of thin conductors), synchronise different AC systems, undersea cables, etc the HVDC is a good option.
However, HVDC would not be ideal for short distances and the inverters can be costly. Plus the technical difficulty in building DC ciruit breakers, are seen as some disadvantages.
There are two ways to view the situation. One, is to generate power where required using available resources. That is distributed decentralised generation. Two, generate where the resource is in plenty, be it wind or sun, and make it available where demand is most. That is where HVDC could play a big role.
What path should India opt for? Especially if we earnestly intend to increase the share of renewables.
Let us hear what the experts think on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
