Here's a question for you: which is the best place to capture solar energy?
Desert? Right, for obvious reasons. But wait, a recent study has found another more optimal place and that's the mountains!
It concludes that some of the world's coldest landscapes -- including the Himalaya Mountains, the Andes, and even Antarctica -- could become Saudi Arabias of solar. The research appears in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Many hot regions such as the U.S. desert southwest are ideal locations for solar arrays. However, they also found that many cold regions at high elevations receive a lot of sunlight -- so much so that their potential for producing power from the sun is even higher than in some desert areas.
The team found, for instance, that the Himalayas, which include Mt. Everest, could be an ideal locale for solar fields that generate electricity for the fast-expanding economy of the People's Republic of China. Chances are that the Chinese, on hearing this will start building a massive solar array for the Himalayas! The roadways and railways are almost in place anyway (in fact, the holy Kailash will soon see motorised parikrama!)
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Drops make the ocean
More than 1 billion people in poor countries around the world could have access to electricity within 20 years, if the international community is prepared to make the effort, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Monday.
Giving poor people access to electricity – more than a century after it became available to the rich – would cost about $48bn a year, and would have huge advantages in terms of health, education and economic growth, a global study for the IEA concluded. Moreover, it would not require a leap in greenhouse gas emissions, as low-carbon energy could make up a large part of the new energy sources to bring the poor into step with the modern world.
If done properly, providing electricity access to those who lack it would increase carbon dioxide emissions by about 0.7%, according to the IEA report, which it said would be "equivalent to the annual emissions of New York State but giving electricity to a population more than 50 times the size".
People with access to electricity suffer far less from indoor air pollution, mostly caused by cooking over traditional wood fires. Close to 3 billion people around the world currently have no access to clean cooking facilities, and indoor air pollution is one of the world's biggest "silent killers", causing millions of deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness every year, mostly in women and children, who are more exposed to the pollution.
The IEA calculates that of the money needed, $18bn could come from multilateral and bilateral development sources, $15bn from the governments of developing countries and $15bn from the private sector.
The United Nations has declared 2012 the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All and what better than to take up such a noble cause?
Giving poor people access to electricity – more than a century after it became available to the rich – would cost about $48bn a year, and would have huge advantages in terms of health, education and economic growth, a global study for the IEA concluded. Moreover, it would not require a leap in greenhouse gas emissions, as low-carbon energy could make up a large part of the new energy sources to bring the poor into step with the modern world.
If done properly, providing electricity access to those who lack it would increase carbon dioxide emissions by about 0.7%, according to the IEA report, which it said would be "equivalent to the annual emissions of New York State but giving electricity to a population more than 50 times the size".
People with access to electricity suffer far less from indoor air pollution, mostly caused by cooking over traditional wood fires. Close to 3 billion people around the world currently have no access to clean cooking facilities, and indoor air pollution is one of the world's biggest "silent killers", causing millions of deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness every year, mostly in women and children, who are more exposed to the pollution.
The IEA calculates that of the money needed, $18bn could come from multilateral and bilateral development sources, $15bn from the governments of developing countries and $15bn from the private sector.
The United Nations has declared 2012 the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All and what better than to take up such a noble cause?
Monday, October 10, 2011
Battle lines re-drawn
The Kyoto Protocol was once again in focus at climate negotiations in Panama last week, indicating that a fight is brewing ahead of Durban's COP17 climate change talks. The Panama talks are the last round of official United Nations climate change negotiations ahead of COP17 at the end of November in Durban.
In Panama, old battle lines were redrawn when Japan, Russia, Canada and the United States insisted they would not sign up to a second commitment period for Kyoto when it expires at the end of next year.
But many developing countries that have rallied behind the Group of 77 and China insisted that Kyoto should not die.
The chairman of the least developed countries group, Pa Ousman Jarju of Gambia, stressed that poor countries needed the financial mechanisms embedded in Kyoto to help them cope with climate change. Meanwhile, the EU is discussing proposals that would extend Kyoto without dealing directly with the protocol in name, providing the financial mechanisms developing countries want.
Industrialised countries have pledged to provide $30bn of fast-start funding between 2011 and 2013 to support climate adaptation and emission-reduction projects in developing countries.
However, there have been consistent complaints from developing countries that not all the money has been awarded, and there has been absence of transparency over how the cash has been distributed.
Poorer nations are also increasingly concerned that there are no firm commitments on funding for post-2013 beyond a pledge delivered in Cancun to investigate providing up to £100bn a year in funding from 2020.
From such indications, it is clear that Durban will not make a big change!
In Panama, old battle lines were redrawn when Japan, Russia, Canada and the United States insisted they would not sign up to a second commitment period for Kyoto when it expires at the end of next year.
But many developing countries that have rallied behind the Group of 77 and China insisted that Kyoto should not die.
The chairman of the least developed countries group, Pa Ousman Jarju of Gambia, stressed that poor countries needed the financial mechanisms embedded in Kyoto to help them cope with climate change. Meanwhile, the EU is discussing proposals that would extend Kyoto without dealing directly with the protocol in name, providing the financial mechanisms developing countries want.
Industrialised countries have pledged to provide $30bn of fast-start funding between 2011 and 2013 to support climate adaptation and emission-reduction projects in developing countries.
However, there have been consistent complaints from developing countries that not all the money has been awarded, and there has been absence of transparency over how the cash has been distributed.
Poorer nations are also increasingly concerned that there are no firm commitments on funding for post-2013 beyond a pledge delivered in Cancun to investigate providing up to £100bn a year in funding from 2020.
From such indications, it is clear that Durban will not make a big change!
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Costs play dampener on CCS
After the brake on the US FutureGen project and closure of a CCS unit in West Virginia, now it is the turn of UK to face some truths in the area.
A major carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project planned in Scotland may soon bite the dust. The project, slated for the Longannet coal power station, to the northeast of Edinburgh, has been heavily supported by the government, but apparently the price tag might be too high in current economic and political conditions.
The Longannet station owned by ScottishPower, has a massive generating capacity of more than 2300 megawatts. The idea was to capture some of the CO2 emissions and bury them under the North Sea. But the report in The Guardian noted: "The investment case for CCS remains uncertain due to the absence of a firm timetable and a clear roadmap for how these demonstrations will enable and form part of a large scale deployment of CCS in the UK."
The report also notes that most likely 20 to 30 gigawatts of CCS-fitted power plants must be in operation by 2030 in order to meet emissions targets and a growing energy demand.
Perhaps CCS is an idea before its time, at least for now!
A major carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project planned in Scotland may soon bite the dust. The project, slated for the Longannet coal power station, to the northeast of Edinburgh, has been heavily supported by the government, but apparently the price tag might be too high in current economic and political conditions.
The Longannet station owned by ScottishPower, has a massive generating capacity of more than 2300 megawatts. The idea was to capture some of the CO2 emissions and bury them under the North Sea. But the report in The Guardian noted: "The investment case for CCS remains uncertain due to the absence of a firm timetable and a clear roadmap for how these demonstrations will enable and form part of a large scale deployment of CCS in the UK."
The report also notes that most likely 20 to 30 gigawatts of CCS-fitted power plants must be in operation by 2030 in order to meet emissions targets and a growing energy demand.
Perhaps CCS is an idea before its time, at least for now!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Riding merry on fossil fuels
Global fossil fuel consumption subsidies rose in 2010 despite a pledge by G-20 nations to take steps to reduce them in coming years, according to a new analysis.
The International Energy Agency estimated that subsidies that artificially lower fuel prices reached $409 billion in 2010, an increase of almost $110 billion above 2009 levels.
The changes “closely tracked the sharp rise in international fuel prices,” according to the IEA.
The IEA’s top economist told reporters in Paris that subsidies could reach $660 billion in 2020 absent better reforms, according to Reuters.
The Paris-based IEA and the OECD released a joint analysis that follows the G-20’s 2009 pledge to phase-out subsidies that encourage waste, hinder energy security, and impede development of renewables and climate change initiatives.
The International Energy Agency estimated that subsidies that artificially lower fuel prices reached $409 billion in 2010, an increase of almost $110 billion above 2009 levels.
The changes “closely tracked the sharp rise in international fuel prices,” according to the IEA.
The IEA’s top economist told reporters in Paris that subsidies could reach $660 billion in 2020 absent better reforms, according to Reuters.
The Paris-based IEA and the OECD released a joint analysis that follows the G-20’s 2009 pledge to phase-out subsidies that encourage waste, hinder energy security, and impede development of renewables and climate change initiatives.
Tech boomerangs
China with its aspirations may have overtaken the US in emissions but the US continues to be bullish about fossil fuels and emissions. Climate change deniers and a populace unwilling to let go on a carbon rich lifestyle have fuelled a feeling that life simply has to go on, in the same track.
Hence the new interest in geo-engineering. The idea being, let us pollute and then clean up the atmosphere. A panel is recommending that the government begin researching the possibility of directly manipulating the Earth’s climate to lower the temperature. This despite the fact that a few days ago, the UK-based Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project, or “SPICE,” a project aimed at cooling the earth’s climate, was delayed due to environmental concerns.
Not only is geo-engineering a distraction from climate change mitigation, it also presents ethical and political challenges. But more important, it presents the problem of unintended consequences. For instance, sulphate clouds could alter weather patterns and cause droughts. We have enough instances of technology turning the trigger backwards.
In early last century, Thomas Midgley helped stop engines from “knocking” by adding lead to gasoline. This was good for the engines, though highly toxic to humans and the environment. Advocates called for regulation, but catalytic converters ultimately came to the rescue. The converters couldn’t handle the lead, and so the lead was dropped.
Midgley went on to help solve the refrigeration problem presented by the highly flammable and/or toxic refrigerants of the day – ammonia, sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride and butane. He worked his way through the periodic table to discover that CFCs which were then used till found to affect the ozone layer. They were replaced by HFCs till it was found that HFCs are greenhouse gases!
When using sulphate to cool, we do not know the consequences besides the theoretical and lab based cooling.
Is it wise to continue on a carbon rich energy path or shift? What do you think?
Hence the new interest in geo-engineering. The idea being, let us pollute and then clean up the atmosphere. A panel is recommending that the government begin researching the possibility of directly manipulating the Earth’s climate to lower the temperature. This despite the fact that a few days ago, the UK-based Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project, or “SPICE,” a project aimed at cooling the earth’s climate, was delayed due to environmental concerns.
Not only is geo-engineering a distraction from climate change mitigation, it also presents ethical and political challenges. But more important, it presents the problem of unintended consequences. For instance, sulphate clouds could alter weather patterns and cause droughts. We have enough instances of technology turning the trigger backwards.
In early last century, Thomas Midgley helped stop engines from “knocking” by adding lead to gasoline. This was good for the engines, though highly toxic to humans and the environment. Advocates called for regulation, but catalytic converters ultimately came to the rescue. The converters couldn’t handle the lead, and so the lead was dropped.
Midgley went on to help solve the refrigeration problem presented by the highly flammable and/or toxic refrigerants of the day – ammonia, sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride and butane. He worked his way through the periodic table to discover that CFCs which were then used till found to affect the ozone layer. They were replaced by HFCs till it was found that HFCs are greenhouse gases!
When using sulphate to cool, we do not know the consequences besides the theoretical and lab based cooling.
Is it wise to continue on a carbon rich energy path or shift? What do you think?
Monday, October 3, 2011
Gadgets in the times of scarcity
Go visiting a friend and chances are that the talk will veer around to some new acquisition, a gadget. Guest and host will discuss the new models, the tricks it has up its sleeve, the price, and so on. Very rarely will the discussion touch on the aspect of efficiency or power use!
In developed countries this is more so, but developing nations with fast rising aspirations are catching up on their electric toothbrushes, smartphones, big fridges, flatscreen TV, tablet PCs. In the UK, a report from the Energy Savings Trust has warned of the nation falling below meeting its target on reducing emissions if this gadget craze continues.
The number of domestic gadgets and appliances in the average UK household increased by three and a half times between 1990 and 2009, according to the report, and overall energy consumption from consumer electronic goods rose by more than 600% between 1970 and 2009.
The new report finds that despite householders' efforts to switch to energy-efficient products, we are actually consuming more energy than five years ago, with almost a third of all the UK's carbon emissions coming from the home.
The proliferation of new gadgets such as laptops, tablets and powerful desktops shows no sign of abating, however. Between 2000 and 2009 electricity use from home computing more than doubled, and the number of devices in Britain's homes rose from 30,000 to 65,000!
This could well be the truth for most cities across the globe. The cost of running gadgets is often forgotten given the cheap and subsidised rate of fossil backed power. This awareness must be strengthened if homes are to stop being energy guzzlers.
In developed countries this is more so, but developing nations with fast rising aspirations are catching up on their electric toothbrushes, smartphones, big fridges, flatscreen TV, tablet PCs. In the UK, a report from the Energy Savings Trust has warned of the nation falling below meeting its target on reducing emissions if this gadget craze continues.
The number of domestic gadgets and appliances in the average UK household increased by three and a half times between 1990 and 2009, according to the report, and overall energy consumption from consumer electronic goods rose by more than 600% between 1970 and 2009.
The new report finds that despite householders' efforts to switch to energy-efficient products, we are actually consuming more energy than five years ago, with almost a third of all the UK's carbon emissions coming from the home.
The proliferation of new gadgets such as laptops, tablets and powerful desktops shows no sign of abating, however. Between 2000 and 2009 electricity use from home computing more than doubled, and the number of devices in Britain's homes rose from 30,000 to 65,000!
This could well be the truth for most cities across the globe. The cost of running gadgets is often forgotten given the cheap and subsidised rate of fossil backed power. This awareness must be strengthened if homes are to stop being energy guzzlers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
