What an irony that the UN just announced 2011 as the International Year of forests, and you have the UK government selling off its woodlands! And Brazil has given the go-ahead to the controversial $17 billion dam project at Belo Monte in the Amazonian rainforest, a massive project that will sink 588 acres of rainforest!
The UK government has already committed to selling off 15 of the public forest estates in the hope of generating an extra £100m for the exchequer. The government is proposing that English woodland be divided into four categories, ranging from "heritage" to "multi-purpose", "small timber" and "large commercial". But not many are buying this.
Do we need a year declared in order to know the value of our forests? Surely, all of us know the forests nurture our rivers? That the air we breathe, the food, water and medicines we need to survive, the variety of life on earth, the climate that shapes our present and future - they all depend on forests. Forests offer the quickest, most cost effective and largest means of curbing global emissions. Around a quarter of the income of forest-dependent communities comes from the goods and services that forests provide.
But yet, we are ready to sacrifice our forests for short-term projects. We willingly raze them down to raise plantations that fetch in quick money, even as we lose the vital biodiversity of our forests.
Will the year bring any fresh awareness on the importance of forests in our lives, however far removed from our lives they seem???
Sunday, January 30, 2011
En-eff vs En-con
We know that along with energy conservation, energy efficiency is probably the most important component of getting a handle on humanity's growing energy use and the environmental damage that currently entails.
A new study from the University of Cambridge really lays it bare again. Julian Allwood's team found that 73% of global energy use could be saved through energy efficiency improvements.
Some of these are easy and possible today, such as in the building sector, while some of the more radical energy efficiency improvements in vehicle design require bigger changes.
Fine. But one wonders how the extrapolation was done from the developed world to the developing world where industrialisation is not of the same degree yet. Time and again experts have maintained that in the developing world, energy efficiency must be improved but the gains are not of the same kind as in the developed world. Should we be focussing on efficiency or conservation?
A new study from the University of Cambridge really lays it bare again. Julian Allwood's team found that 73% of global energy use could be saved through energy efficiency improvements.
Some of these are easy and possible today, such as in the building sector, while some of the more radical energy efficiency improvements in vehicle design require bigger changes.
Fine. But one wonders how the extrapolation was done from the developed world to the developing world where industrialisation is not of the same degree yet. Time and again experts have maintained that in the developing world, energy efficiency must be improved but the gains are not of the same kind as in the developed world. Should we be focussing on efficiency or conservation?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The major culprits are big nations
When researchers looked at cities in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, they found low
emissions per person across the board. "This paper reminds us that it is the world's wealthiest cities and their wealthiest inhabitants that cause unsustainable levels of greenhouse gas emissions, not cities in general," said editor David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development.
Most cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have low emissions per person. The challenge for them is to keep these emissions low even as their wealth grows.
Researchers examined data from 100 cities in 33 nations for clues about which were the biggest polluters and why, according to the report in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization.
While cities across the world were to blame for around 71 percent of the world's
greenhouse-gas emissions, urban dwellers who can use public transportation rather than drive helped to lower per capita emissions in some cities.
For instance, the sprawling western U.S. city of Denver's per capita emissions were nearly double those in New York City, home to 8 million inhabitants and a heavily used subway system. This is mainly attributable to New York's greater density and much lower reliance on the automobile for commuting.
Time for thought.
emissions per person across the board. "This paper reminds us that it is the world's wealthiest cities and their wealthiest inhabitants that cause unsustainable levels of greenhouse gas emissions, not cities in general," said editor David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development.
Most cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have low emissions per person. The challenge for them is to keep these emissions low even as their wealth grows.
Researchers examined data from 100 cities in 33 nations for clues about which were the biggest polluters and why, according to the report in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization.
While cities across the world were to blame for around 71 percent of the world's
greenhouse-gas emissions, urban dwellers who can use public transportation rather than drive helped to lower per capita emissions in some cities.
For instance, the sprawling western U.S. city of Denver's per capita emissions were nearly double those in New York City, home to 8 million inhabitants and a heavily used subway system. This is mainly attributable to New York's greater density and much lower reliance on the automobile for commuting.
Time for thought.
Yes. we can! But not enough
A new study just published in Energy Policy; we've already developed advanced enough technology to power the world with clean power -- it's just a matter of finding the social and political will to deploy it. Stanford University News reports: The
researchers' plan calls for using wind, water and solar energy to generate power, with wind and solar power contributing 90 percent of the needed energy. Geothermal and hydroelectric sources would each contribute about 4 percent in their plan (70 percent of the hydroelectric is already in place), with the remaining 2 percent from wave and tidal power.
This has been a contested point with some believing that technology is not the solution as much as energy conservation. Technology is aiding the progress, but it is not enough to do the full changeover. Take for instance, a team of engineers at the Brookhaven and Los Alamos National Laboratories have created a light-absorbing material that efficiently generates charge and charge separation. The thin film material is a blend of semiconducting polymer doped with fullerenes. Under strictly controlled conditions, the concoction self-assembles into a regular pattern of micron-sized, hexagonal cells. The film thus “grows” to cover a relatively large area of several millimeters. Yet, these are technology that will take time to develop and cannot be deployed in the next couple of years.
Meanwhile according to the BBC, International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol has "said the unsayable"--during a lecture at Imperial College London noting that the utter lack of political ambition to tackle climate change and do anything meaningfully strong enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions means that 1) peaking emissions by 2020 is virtually impossible and therefore 2) we can "kiss goodbye" and hope of keeping global average temperature rise below 2°C.
So, what do we do?
researchers' plan calls for using wind, water and solar energy to generate power, with wind and solar power contributing 90 percent of the needed energy. Geothermal and hydroelectric sources would each contribute about 4 percent in their plan (70 percent of the hydroelectric is already in place), with the remaining 2 percent from wave and tidal power.
This has been a contested point with some believing that technology is not the solution as much as energy conservation. Technology is aiding the progress, but it is not enough to do the full changeover. Take for instance, a team of engineers at the Brookhaven and Los Alamos National Laboratories have created a light-absorbing material that efficiently generates charge and charge separation. The thin film material is a blend of semiconducting polymer doped with fullerenes. Under strictly controlled conditions, the concoction self-assembles into a regular pattern of micron-sized, hexagonal cells. The film thus “grows” to cover a relatively large area of several millimeters. Yet, these are technology that will take time to develop and cannot be deployed in the next couple of years.
Meanwhile according to the BBC, International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol has "said the unsayable"--during a lecture at Imperial College London noting that the utter lack of political ambition to tackle climate change and do anything meaningfully strong enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions means that 1) peaking emissions by 2020 is virtually impossible and therefore 2) we can "kiss goodbye" and hope of keeping global average temperature rise below 2°C.
So, what do we do?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Recycle everything
In a limited world, what is the best way to live, given unlimited demand? Simply recycle everything.
A new book, titled Revolutions that Made the Earth, has its authors argue that human civilisations in the future should emulate the biosphere and create what they name ‘Gaia devices’ – named after the Gaia theory that paints Earth as a self-regulating system – which recycle the materials and waste much more efficiently than is currently done.
Metals would still be mined, but not from conventional pits, but from the emerging centre - the cities with their heaps of discarded goods and scrap. Calling it a high energy, high recycling world, the authors such a revolution alone can sustain the demand from a rising population.
Give it a thought. So many computers, mobile phones, cameras, televisions, cars, etc are being dumped in the junkyard, not only forming an eyesore on the landscape but also forming a colossal waste. Isn't it time we gave a thought to recycling in a more serious manner? Even without a China restricting rare earth exports!
A new book, titled Revolutions that Made the Earth, has its authors argue that human civilisations in the future should emulate the biosphere and create what they name ‘Gaia devices’ – named after the Gaia theory that paints Earth as a self-regulating system – which recycle the materials and waste much more efficiently than is currently done.
Metals would still be mined, but not from conventional pits, but from the emerging centre - the cities with their heaps of discarded goods and scrap. Calling it a high energy, high recycling world, the authors such a revolution alone can sustain the demand from a rising population.
Give it a thought. So many computers, mobile phones, cameras, televisions, cars, etc are being dumped in the junkyard, not only forming an eyesore on the landscape but also forming a colossal waste. Isn't it time we gave a thought to recycling in a more serious manner? Even without a China restricting rare earth exports!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Trapping heat
The promise of nanotechnology again! Researchers at Northwestern University have placed nanocrystals of rock salt into lead telluride, creating a material that can harness electricity from heat-generating items such as vehicle exhaust systems, industrial processes and equipment and sun light more efficiently than scientists have seen in the past. The automotive, chemical, brick, glass and any industry that uses heat to make products could make their system more efficient with the use of this scientific breakthrough.
The material exhibits a high thermoelectric figure of merit that is expected to enable 14 percent of heat waste to electricity, a scientific first. Chemists, physicists and material scientists at Northwestern collaborated to develop the material. The results of the study are published by the journal Nature Chemistry.
The new material was obtained by dispersing nanocrystals of rock salt (SrTe) into the material lead telluride (PbTe). Past attempts at this kind of nanoscale inclusion in bulk material have improved the energy conversion efficiency of lead telluride, but the nano inclusions also increased the scattering of electrons, which reduced overall conductivity.
This is the first time nanostructures were used in lead telluride to reduce electron scattering and increase the energy conversion efficiency of the material.
The material exhibits a high thermoelectric figure of merit that is expected to enable 14 percent of heat waste to electricity, a scientific first. Chemists, physicists and material scientists at Northwestern collaborated to develop the material. The results of the study are published by the journal Nature Chemistry.
The new material was obtained by dispersing nanocrystals of rock salt (SrTe) into the material lead telluride (PbTe). Past attempts at this kind of nanoscale inclusion in bulk material have improved the energy conversion efficiency of lead telluride, but the nano inclusions also increased the scattering of electrons, which reduced overall conductivity.
This is the first time nanostructures were used in lead telluride to reduce electron scattering and increase the energy conversion efficiency of the material.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Join the discussion
Time to get some discussion into this forum! How about taking on the 'hottest' topic these days? The Jaitapur nuclear park!
A sseries of six nuclear plants to be set up by French company Areva, this will generate 10,000 MW of power and will get going by 2014, claims the government.
India with its 19 nuclear power plants is just about able to produce 4000 mw of power. In contrast to this, the proposed park will double the production of nuclear energy in next four years.
The cost will come to Rs 60,000 crore or about Rs 9 per unit of power.
First, there are the accusations that the park is to come up in a biodiversity hotspot like the Western Ghats. The environment ministry has called for certain safeguards but how much will be adhered to, has to be seen.
As the nation gets ready to go nuclear power shopping in a big way, what do you think? Is it a good idea?
We need power, yes. But is nuclear fission the best way to heat water and send the turbines rotating?
How clean is nuclear? It does not emit carbon dioxide. But what about the waste it generates? If we plan to increase generation in this route, how much waste can we handle?
How safe is it to transport nuclear material across the nation?
Join in with your thoughts.
A sseries of six nuclear plants to be set up by French company Areva, this will generate 10,000 MW of power and will get going by 2014, claims the government.
India with its 19 nuclear power plants is just about able to produce 4000 mw of power. In contrast to this, the proposed park will double the production of nuclear energy in next four years.
The cost will come to Rs 60,000 crore or about Rs 9 per unit of power.
First, there are the accusations that the park is to come up in a biodiversity hotspot like the Western Ghats. The environment ministry has called for certain safeguards but how much will be adhered to, has to be seen.
As the nation gets ready to go nuclear power shopping in a big way, what do you think? Is it a good idea?
We need power, yes. But is nuclear fission the best way to heat water and send the turbines rotating?
How clean is nuclear? It does not emit carbon dioxide. But what about the waste it generates? If we plan to increase generation in this route, how much waste can we handle?
How safe is it to transport nuclear material across the nation?
Join in with your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
