Smart meters to monitor and provide real time info on the power you consume have been in the news for some time now. Some hitches here and there. But still, there is progress.
If energy should be conserved, should water be neglected? How about water smart meters? Something that can detect leaks, tell you the water going down the drain as you have bath, and even allow utilities to collect info remotely.
But even in an economy like the US, a survey found that 64 percent have no plans to install smart water meters, however smart they be. The reason was money. With most water providers being public agencies, many short on funds, who will underwrite the costs?
Will it make any difference to have a gadget reeling numbers of gallons/litres? Probably, it will be just another energy drwaing unit! Guess, the push will have to come with a realistic pricing of water.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The good, bad and ugly
The recent environment performance index compiled by researchers at Yale and Columbia universities places Iceland, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, and Norway in the top, US somewhere in the middle, India and China near the bottom, with African nations at the bottom.
The Index ranks countries based on 10 main categories such as environmental health, air quality, water management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry, and climate change. Iceland ranked at the top because of its excellent environmental public health and reliance on renewable sources of energy such as geothermal and hydropower. (Of course population counts!) Although national income was a key factor in the rankings, other factors such as good governance and natural resource management were important.
While the U.S. was placed high in categories such as safe drinking water and forest sustainability, it ranked 61st overall because of its massive greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution problems. The low rankings of India and China are cited as being due to the severe environmental strain brought about by overpopulation and rapid economic growth.
The Index ranks countries based on 10 main categories such as environmental health, air quality, water management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry, and climate change. Iceland ranked at the top because of its excellent environmental public health and reliance on renewable sources of energy such as geothermal and hydropower. (Of course population counts!) Although national income was a key factor in the rankings, other factors such as good governance and natural resource management were important.
While the U.S. was placed high in categories such as safe drinking water and forest sustainability, it ranked 61st overall because of its massive greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution problems. The low rankings of India and China are cited as being due to the severe environmental strain brought about by overpopulation and rapid economic growth.
Crucial role for businesses
A recent Mckinsey analysis on how businesses can play the climate challenge brings out several points of concern.
The author is hopeful that there will be a portfolio of policy interventions aimed at broad economic considerations under the present climate. A number of them will “prove to be, frankly, pretty inefficient. But they will be there, and they will create, in effect, very strong signals to shift and reallocate capital over time.”
It is a time for transition whether one subscribes to the climate change theory or not. There are going to be big opportunities during the transition and this will “create winners and will create losers. We are going to enter a phase of creative destruction that will cut across multiple sectors.”
He advocates that businesses should pay particular attention to getting the timing right on their portfolio choices. To go slow and just wait until the policies have fully matured before making capital reallocation positions or risk going too fast?
But above all, the point of concern he raises, which increasingly is becoming evident is that as policy interventions play out, they will translate into the risk of real protectionism. Some of that protectionism will be very overt, as he says, in the form of trade protection masquerading as climate action. Other forms of protectionism will be much more implicit, through highly differentiated local standards that benefit local players.
So what’s the big deal? Will that not be good for local players? Yes, but it will, frankly, raise the costs of the transition. And it will raise the costs for businesses who want to play globally. Is that good?
Can businesses take actions to encourage efficient policy action and to discourage the voices of protectionism?
The author is hopeful that there will be a portfolio of policy interventions aimed at broad economic considerations under the present climate. A number of them will “prove to be, frankly, pretty inefficient. But they will be there, and they will create, in effect, very strong signals to shift and reallocate capital over time.”
It is a time for transition whether one subscribes to the climate change theory or not. There are going to be big opportunities during the transition and this will “create winners and will create losers. We are going to enter a phase of creative destruction that will cut across multiple sectors.”
He advocates that businesses should pay particular attention to getting the timing right on their portfolio choices. To go slow and just wait until the policies have fully matured before making capital reallocation positions or risk going too fast?
But above all, the point of concern he raises, which increasingly is becoming evident is that as policy interventions play out, they will translate into the risk of real protectionism. Some of that protectionism will be very overt, as he says, in the form of trade protection masquerading as climate action. Other forms of protectionism will be much more implicit, through highly differentiated local standards that benefit local players.
So what’s the big deal? Will that not be good for local players? Yes, but it will, frankly, raise the costs of the transition. And it will raise the costs for businesses who want to play globally. Is that good?
Can businesses take actions to encourage efficient policy action and to discourage the voices of protectionism?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Cars vs. food
The 107 million tons of grain that went to U.S. ethanol distilleries in 2009 was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels. More than a quarter of the total U.S. grain crop was turned into ethanol to fuel cars last year. With 200 ethanol distilleries in the country set up to transform food into fuel, the amount of grain processed has tripled since 2004.
The hungry crossed 1 billion mark. When the growing demand for corn for ethanol helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008, people in low-income grain-importing countries were hit the hardest.
The amount of grain needed to fill the tank of an SUV with ethanol just once can feed one person for an entire year. The average income of the owners of the world's 940 million automobiles is at least ten times larger than that of the world's 2 billion hungriest people.
That is a clear indictment against food crops being turned into biofuel.
The United States is the world's leading grain exporter. The automotive hunger for crop-based fuels is increasing. The Earth Policy Institute has noted that even if the entire U.S. grain crop were converted to ethanol (leaving no domestic crop to make bread, rice, pasta, or feed the animals from which we get meat, milk, and eggs), it would satisfy at most 18 percent of U.S. automotive fuel needs.
Truly a funny world we inhabit today, where cars can take away the food from a hungry populace. There seems to be nothing much that will change, at least in “Corporate America’ which has just seen the Supreme Court giving more powers to corporate entities to use money power and influence political decisions.
Should we be looking at other ways to fuel our vehicles? Like EVs? True, the electricity that drives them comes at present from fossil fuel plants. But as the shift to renewables happens, that could be a better option. If only the subsidies were in the right place, things can shift. Look at how a Danish island is totally powered by renewable energy.
All it requires is the will.
The hungry crossed 1 billion mark. When the growing demand for corn for ethanol helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008, people in low-income grain-importing countries were hit the hardest.
The amount of grain needed to fill the tank of an SUV with ethanol just once can feed one person for an entire year. The average income of the owners of the world's 940 million automobiles is at least ten times larger than that of the world's 2 billion hungriest people.
That is a clear indictment against food crops being turned into biofuel.
The United States is the world's leading grain exporter. The automotive hunger for crop-based fuels is increasing. The Earth Policy Institute has noted that even if the entire U.S. grain crop were converted to ethanol (leaving no domestic crop to make bread, rice, pasta, or feed the animals from which we get meat, milk, and eggs), it would satisfy at most 18 percent of U.S. automotive fuel needs.
Truly a funny world we inhabit today, where cars can take away the food from a hungry populace. There seems to be nothing much that will change, at least in “Corporate America’ which has just seen the Supreme Court giving more powers to corporate entities to use money power and influence political decisions.
Should we be looking at other ways to fuel our vehicles? Like EVs? True, the electricity that drives them comes at present from fossil fuel plants. But as the shift to renewables happens, that could be a better option. If only the subsidies were in the right place, things can shift. Look at how a Danish island is totally powered by renewable energy.
All it requires is the will.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Small and reliable
We have been saying it all along but would like to hear what you think. Is distributed decentralized generation the way to go in developing nations? Instead of setting up new costly infrastructure aimed at generating and distributing power across vast distances, does it make better sense to look at local options and off grid energy that are more workable and can happen sooner?
Even the developed nations are realising this. Perhaps it is better to learn from them and skip a few steps?
Just as with a BRT that does away with the need for more flyovers and road expansion, so also with power? With 600 million outside the grid and even the rest having to contend with unreliable supply, should the focus be on building local units?
Already a few companies have set shop in India and are catering to the rural need through a hybrid combination of sources. It could be LEDs powered by solar or even mobile phone chargers, or biogassifier kitchens that are used by a community. People are buying the gadgets not because they are worried about climate change, but because it makes sense to them.
Write in to us on what you think.
Even the developed nations are realising this. Perhaps it is better to learn from them and skip a few steps?
Just as with a BRT that does away with the need for more flyovers and road expansion, so also with power? With 600 million outside the grid and even the rest having to contend with unreliable supply, should the focus be on building local units?
Already a few companies have set shop in India and are catering to the rural need through a hybrid combination of sources. It could be LEDs powered by solar or even mobile phone chargers, or biogassifier kitchens that are used by a community. People are buying the gadgets not because they are worried about climate change, but because it makes sense to them.
Write in to us on what you think.
Cheers to Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad has done Gujarat and India and developing nations proud again. This time by winning the 2010 Sustainable Transport Award. By adopting eco-friendly transit solutions like the Bus Rapid Transit, it has helped increase mobility for residents while reducing emissions and pollution.
The five other nominees were Cali, Colombia; Curitiba, Brazil; Guadalajara, Mexico; and Johannesburg, South Africa.
City residents have embraced their new BRT system; 18,000 daily passengers use Janmarg to commute to work, to school and elsewhere. In just a few months of operation, Janmarg has transformed the delivery of transit in Ahmedabad.
Bus stations feature passive solar design, an inexpensive way to keep stations naturally cool. The city is making continued efforts to be a leader in sustainable transport, including incorporating high-quality pedestrian facilities in some corridors, as well as bicycle lanes. Ahmedabad has initiated car-free days and recently announced more. Three cheers!
While on cycling, let us hear what Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (seen in the picture above) has to say. “The perception that cycling is a slow way of commuting is bogus and the idea that increased car ownership is a sign of progress is silly.”
The Nobel laureate's only vehicle has just two wheels. "I get to exercise every day, regardless of whether I take time out to exercise or not... You get up in the morning and you go on a bicycle; [when you get] to work, you are awake and not stressed out. At the end of the day, by the time you go home, you are fully relaxed. It is a great lifestyle."
"The whole world is running out of gasoline. There is global warming and all sorts of reasons that you need to be concerned about. Apart from that, people are stressed out; you always have to be alert [when driving]... Cycling is enjoyable and it is fun. But unfortunately, it cannot co-exist with so much traffic."
Read more on the link attached on reasons why the scientist advocates cycling, and what he thinks the Indian government needs to do, but here’s a question for you: Is owning a car a status symbol for you or not?
Would you take a bus if your city had a lane dedicated for buses alone? (Imagine buses zooming along as you remain stuck in the car lane!) Any ideas on why a BRT succeeds in Ahmedabad and fails in a Delhi or Pune?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Business as usual
The US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) latest Short-Term Energy Outlook says that economic recovery means US carbon emissions will rise over the next two years, so forget meeting the target of cutting emissions by 17 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020. Increased use of coal in the electric power sector and continued economic growth, along with the expansion of travel-related petroleum consumption, leads to a 1.7 per cent increase in CO2 emissions in 2011.
The good news is that UK is on course to over-achieve on its carbon reduction target of 34% and cut emissions by 36% on 1990 levels by 2020, according to the Government. No new coal power stations will now go ahead in the UK without carbon capture and storage, investment is being made in the electricity grid to bring online new renewable energy sources and the Government’s draft National Policy Statements covering a low carbon energy infrastructure has been published.
Meanwhile, scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost. Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
Previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year.
Researchers have known for years that the Arctic landscape is being transformed by rising temperatures. Now, scientists are amassing growing evidence that major events precipitated by warming are leading to the loss of tundra in the Arctic.
Much of the Arctic has experienced temperature increases of 3 to 5 degrees F in the past half-century and could see temperatures soar 10 degrees F above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
In a new book, The Rising Sea, the authors build the case for how governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a seven-foot rise in sea level. This number is is the most prudent, conservative long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities, especially for the siting of major infrastructure.
Among research used is how scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the entire ice cap melts).
Any way out? Most of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases is in the ocean, so can this be tapped some way? Can the rising waters be used to irrigate deserts? Or can the heat be tapped through ocean thermal energy conversion, which is a method of generating electricity using the temperature difference between deep ocean water, and shallow ocean waters?
The good news is that UK is on course to over-achieve on its carbon reduction target of 34% and cut emissions by 36% on 1990 levels by 2020, according to the Government. No new coal power stations will now go ahead in the UK without carbon capture and storage, investment is being made in the electricity grid to bring online new renewable energy sources and the Government’s draft National Policy Statements covering a low carbon energy infrastructure has been published.
Meanwhile, scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost. Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
Previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year.
Researchers have known for years that the Arctic landscape is being transformed by rising temperatures. Now, scientists are amassing growing evidence that major events precipitated by warming are leading to the loss of tundra in the Arctic.
Much of the Arctic has experienced temperature increases of 3 to 5 degrees F in the past half-century and could see temperatures soar 10 degrees F above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
In a new book, The Rising Sea, the authors build the case for how governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a seven-foot rise in sea level. This number is is the most prudent, conservative long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities, especially for the siting of major infrastructure.
Among research used is how scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the entire ice cap melts).
Any way out? Most of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases is in the ocean, so can this be tapped some way? Can the rising waters be used to irrigate deserts? Or can the heat be tapped through ocean thermal energy conversion, which is a method of generating electricity using the temperature difference between deep ocean water, and shallow ocean waters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
