Can technology do it? As the human race heads to the 9 bn mark by mid-century, the challenge of feeding the billions raises the same question again. Will technology, as evilly cast as GM foods, help? Or is it just another chance we have to take? Even if the consequences are far worser than what we face now in the aftermath of the Green revolution?
Can technology take us of the fuel impasse? Provide more fuel for our dreams? can technology in the form of geo-engineering help us continue burning our fossil fuels?
Or is it time to change our outlook on what we call progress? But can we lay down the comforts that 'abundant' energy and resources had afforded? can we dump the GDP? After all, it reveals nothing about income distribution, non-monetary transactions or people’s overall well-being. For example, if you eat at home instead of at restaurants and grow your own food rather than buying it, you’re hurting GDP even as you practice thrift and self-reliance.
Even as the UN Security Council failed at a consensus in terming climate change a direct threat to peace and security, Achim Steiner from the UN Environment Program said climate change would also “exponentially” increase the scale of natural disasters.
Have we reached the 'critical mass' point of drastic transformation that experts are talking of? A transformation that can spell doom on the unlimited growth incline, or one that will bring a change in the collective human consciousness?
Which option would you prefer? Why?
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
A feather in the PV cap
Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, have discovered an added benefit to solar panels: In summer, they cool the buildings on which they are installed. Using thermal imaging, the scientists found that solar photovoltaic panels act like giant sun shades and that building ceilings under the panels were 5 degrees F cooler than top-floor ceilings of buildings with exposed roofs.
Reporting in the journal Solar Energy, the researchers also found that tilting the solar panels allowed for the efficient passage of air underneath, further cooling the buildings.
In winter, the solar panels prevent some sunlight from warming buildings, but at night the panels trap heat and warm buildings, essentially offsetting any reduction of solar heating during the day. Solar panels reduced the amount of heat reaching the roof by 38 percent, the study said.
Overall, the study said that the energy savings from the cooling effect of solar panels amounted to getting a 5 percent discount on the price of the panels. Isn't that cool?
Reporting in the journal Solar Energy, the researchers also found that tilting the solar panels allowed for the efficient passage of air underneath, further cooling the buildings.
In winter, the solar panels prevent some sunlight from warming buildings, but at night the panels trap heat and warm buildings, essentially offsetting any reduction of solar heating during the day. Solar panels reduced the amount of heat reaching the roof by 38 percent, the study said.
Overall, the study said that the energy savings from the cooling effect of solar panels amounted to getting a 5 percent discount on the price of the panels. Isn't that cool?
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Do it for your country!
Growth, some believe, is inextricably tied with energy. But is it? Does increased energy consumption lead to better quality of life? Or does cheap, abundant (seemingly!) fuel cause indirectly obesity and diabetes, pollution, waste, etc?
Take for instance Europe with a collective economy larger than that of the US.
It has considerably lower levels of inequality; provides universal health care with better overall outcomes; and enforces stricter environmental, health and safety regulations--all on half the energy per person as in the US.
Vaclav Smil illustrates this phenomenon in a recent article entitled "Science, energy, ethics, and civilization." He notes that there is an inflection point for many quality of life measures at around 100 gigajoules/year per person. Above that, indicators improve very little. For comparison the United States uses 330 gigajoules/year per person. Smil thinks consumption above 200 gigajoules is actually counterproductive.
Humans are energy-gathering machines. If they did not gather more energy than they expend, they would instantly die out. Every organism on the planet seeks to maximize its energy gain. But as with any adaptive strategy, it eventually becomes maladaptive. If an organism cannot evolve to match changing conditions--in this case, rapid fossil fuel depletion, climate change, soil degradation and so on--then dieoff or extinction can follow.
One way around this, according to experts like Kurt Cobb, is to use some strong attachment of the race, like nation or God! 'To say one needs to use less energy for the good of humanity has very limited appeal. To say one needs to do it for God, king and country is a move in the right direction.'
Take for instance Europe with a collective economy larger than that of the US.
It has considerably lower levels of inequality; provides universal health care with better overall outcomes; and enforces stricter environmental, health and safety regulations--all on half the energy per person as in the US.
Vaclav Smil illustrates this phenomenon in a recent article entitled "Science, energy, ethics, and civilization." He notes that there is an inflection point for many quality of life measures at around 100 gigajoules/year per person. Above that, indicators improve very little. For comparison the United States uses 330 gigajoules/year per person. Smil thinks consumption above 200 gigajoules is actually counterproductive.
Humans are energy-gathering machines. If they did not gather more energy than they expend, they would instantly die out. Every organism on the planet seeks to maximize its energy gain. But as with any adaptive strategy, it eventually becomes maladaptive. If an organism cannot evolve to match changing conditions--in this case, rapid fossil fuel depletion, climate change, soil degradation and so on--then dieoff or extinction can follow.
One way around this, according to experts like Kurt Cobb, is to use some strong attachment of the race, like nation or God! 'To say one needs to use less energy for the good of humanity has very limited appeal. To say one needs to do it for God, king and country is a move in the right direction.'
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Hold on to that green cover
Forests play an even greater role in Earth’s climate system than previously known, according to the most comprehensive assessment yet of the carbon storage potential of the world’s wooded areas.
Between 1990 and 2007, the planet’s tropical, temperate, and boreal forests absorbed about 2.4 billion tons of carbon annually, or the equivalent of about one-third of fossil fuel emissions, and re-growth of trees in previously cleared lands absorbed an additional 1.6 billion tons, according to a study published in the journal Science.
During the same period, however, rampant deforestation — particularly in the world's tropical regions — released 2.9 billion tons of carbon annually. Overall, the planet’s forests provide a net carbon sink of about 1.1 billion tons of carbon, or the equivalent of about 13 percent of the emissions produced by humankind annually.
According to researchers, the findings suggest that forest protection should play an even more important role in strategies to protect the planet’s climate, including the emergence of carbon markets.
Between 1990 and 2007, the planet’s tropical, temperate, and boreal forests absorbed about 2.4 billion tons of carbon annually, or the equivalent of about one-third of fossil fuel emissions, and re-growth of trees in previously cleared lands absorbed an additional 1.6 billion tons, according to a study published in the journal Science.
During the same period, however, rampant deforestation — particularly in the world's tropical regions — released 2.9 billion tons of carbon annually. Overall, the planet’s forests provide a net carbon sink of about 1.1 billion tons of carbon, or the equivalent of about 13 percent of the emissions produced by humankind annually.
According to researchers, the findings suggest that forest protection should play an even more important role in strategies to protect the planet’s climate, including the emergence of carbon markets.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Cities need those old trees
At a time when cities are committing hara-kiri and cutting down trees to widen roads, here is something to think over.
Vegetation in towns and cities can make a significant contribution to carbon storage and, ecologists say, could lock away even more carbon if local authorities and gardeners planted and maintained more trees. The study was published week in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology.
Using satellite data and information gathered by visiting local parks and gardens, the researchers surveyed vegetation across Leicester, including domestic gardens and council-owned parks, golf courses, abandoned industrial land, road verges and river banks.
They found 231,000 tonnes of carbon (C) locked up in Leicester's above-ground vegetation, equivalent to 3.16 kg C per square metre of the city, an order of magnitude greater than current national estimates. Most of this carbon pool is associated with trees.
Large trees are especially important carbon stores, said the team leader. Trees, particularly large ones, should be protected and maintained and if more trees are planted in urban areas for their carbon storage value, they must be the right kind of tree planted in the right place so that they have a long, productive life span, and when trees die they should be replaced.
Are our city planners listening?
Vegetation in towns and cities can make a significant contribution to carbon storage and, ecologists say, could lock away even more carbon if local authorities and gardeners planted and maintained more trees. The study was published week in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology.
Using satellite data and information gathered by visiting local parks and gardens, the researchers surveyed vegetation across Leicester, including domestic gardens and council-owned parks, golf courses, abandoned industrial land, road verges and river banks.
They found 231,000 tonnes of carbon (C) locked up in Leicester's above-ground vegetation, equivalent to 3.16 kg C per square metre of the city, an order of magnitude greater than current national estimates. Most of this carbon pool is associated with trees.
Large trees are especially important carbon stores, said the team leader. Trees, particularly large ones, should be protected and maintained and if more trees are planted in urban areas for their carbon storage value, they must be the right kind of tree planted in the right place so that they have a long, productive life span, and when trees die they should be replaced.
Are our city planners listening?
Coal rush
Indian coal companies are trying to earn hundreds of millions of carbon credits from the coal expansion, much to the concern of international watchdogs, who believe they are not fully equipped.
Seven major and more than 30 smaller coal-powered power stations are planned in Andhra Pradesh alone, together intended to have a capacity of 56GW. The largest plant, expected to be opened in two years, will be the $4bn Krishnapatnam power station, India's first "ultra-mega" class of coal-fired power station. With 4GW, capacity it will be one of the world's 25 biggest electricity sources, capable of powering 7m middle-class homes.
The Krishnapatnam plant has been registered with the UN clean development mechanism (CDM) and, if approved, could generate 3.5m carbon credits a year.
India last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia, Indonesia and southern Africa, but applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.
Will the CDM encourage more such mega plants? Is it good in the long run for the environment and human health? Write in.
Seven major and more than 30 smaller coal-powered power stations are planned in Andhra Pradesh alone, together intended to have a capacity of 56GW. The largest plant, expected to be opened in two years, will be the $4bn Krishnapatnam power station, India's first "ultra-mega" class of coal-fired power station. With 4GW, capacity it will be one of the world's 25 biggest electricity sources, capable of powering 7m middle-class homes.
The Krishnapatnam plant has been registered with the UN clean development mechanism (CDM) and, if approved, could generate 3.5m carbon credits a year.
India last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia, Indonesia and southern Africa, but applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.
Will the CDM encourage more such mega plants? Is it good in the long run for the environment and human health? Write in.
Friend or foe?
Can natural gas be the best transition fuel for an economy going green? Yes and no, say sources. The latest report from Canada says that natural gas could delay action on climate change.
Taking the case of Canada, it notes how switching from coal to natural gas could help meet Canada's short-term goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. But if that's the only change Canada makes, the 2050 targets — an 80 per cent greenhouse gas reduction — would be almost impossible to achieve.
The David Suzuki Foundation recommends the government bring in an emissions-reduction plan that emphasizes energy-efficiency measures and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro.
The report also found other problems with the increased development and production of natural gas. Among them are environmental impacts unrelated to climate change. Like fracking!
Shale gas, it points, requires a tremendous number of wells to be drilled. A typical shale gas region could be drilling in the thousands of new wells every year. You're looking at a well-site every square mile. Game?
Taking the case of Canada, it notes how switching from coal to natural gas could help meet Canada's short-term goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. But if that's the only change Canada makes, the 2050 targets — an 80 per cent greenhouse gas reduction — would be almost impossible to achieve.
The David Suzuki Foundation recommends the government bring in an emissions-reduction plan that emphasizes energy-efficiency measures and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro.
The report also found other problems with the increased development and production of natural gas. Among them are environmental impacts unrelated to climate change. Like fracking!
Shale gas, it points, requires a tremendous number of wells to be drilled. A typical shale gas region could be drilling in the thousands of new wells every year. You're looking at a well-site every square mile. Game?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
