One more mouth to feed

Are we seeing another energy guzzler being forced down the citizens? The changing landscape of television viewing – set top boxes – is being accused of consuming much precious energy.

With over 35% households lacking access to electricity and the remaining denied quality power, can we afford this for some quality viewing? Views differ. According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, the energy consumed by one set top box could light more than 40-50 Homes with a 5 watt LED lamp for 4- 5 hours!

With digitization of TV services, Set Top boxes will be mandatory in the entire country by end of 2014. The set top boxes available in India range from 16 w to 20 W based on manufacturer’ specifications. Calculating a 12 hour run daily , it consumes 6-8 units in the month. Even in inactive mode it consumes energy, says NRDC. These devices squander the equivalent annual energy output of six coal burning power plants (500 MW) because they are not equipped to power down when not being used.

Finds NRDC that cable high-definition digital video recorder (HD-DVR) consumes more electricity annually than the new flat panel TV to which it’s typically connected and about 40% more than its basic set-top box counterpart.  In contrast, cell phones, which also work on a subscriber basis with a need for secure connections, are able to use extremely low levels of power when not in use – primarily to preserve battery life.

However, India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has said set-top boxes (STBs) consume less power than a CFL light. The Ministry clarified in a statement that most STBs consume about 8 watts of power. It added that STBs consume even lesser electricity when they are on standby mode.

These boxes would consume only about one-fifth of a unit of electricity in a day against 1.5 units consumed by a fan, a TV or a tube light. Thus, cable STBs consume nominal electricity to the tune of 5-6 units in a month, which is insignificant in comparison with the electricity consumed by other electric appliances in a house, the Ministry said in a statement.

Whether it is 6-8 units or 5-6 units, fact is that we are adding to the monthly bill. Is this a wise decision in the times of massive power cuts ??

Re-establishing the link

Can we develop a value-based economic structure, that is not concerned solely with our material well-being, but embraces the whole human being – body and spirit – as well as the rich biodiversity of the Earth? Can we give value to the non-extractive benefits of the environment in our economic policies?

An interesting article in The Guardian talks of the need to explore ways that businesses can serve humanity in its deepest sense, rather than creating a poverty of spirit as well as an ecological wasteland – develop an awareness that the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the energy we use are not just commodities to be consumed, but part of the living fabric of a sacred Earth. Then we are making a real relationship with our environment.
Green is more than a fad. Green is what benefits us as was discovered long ago. We know we are happy when on a mountain slope or by a riverside or a forest. Yet, experiments have been done to check this, our connection to nature and how we benefit. In 2005 and 2006, a Japanese team brought a group of middle-aged Tokyo businessmen into the woods. For three days, they hiked in the morning and again in the afternoon. By the end, blood tests showed that their NK cells had increased 40 percent. A month later, their NK count was still 15 percent higher than when they started. By contrast, during urban walking trips, NK levels didn’t change. However a walk in suburban park had a similar effect! Using Japan’s forest therapy that tracks data to prove the non-extractive benefits of forests, these scientists and hikers are helping prove what we should already know: That nature is worth preserving.

Researchers at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh had used portable EEGs to monitor the brain activity of 12 healthy young adults. Different participants walked through different areas of Edinburgh -- one was an historic shopping district, one was a park-like setting, and one was a busy commercial district. The least stressed and frustrated were those in the park.

Can our policies these time-tested theories that go to show the inherent benefit nature provides us that go beyond the materialistic gains?

Cut the flab!

Hong Kong has  launched a ten-year plan to reduce waste by 40 percent per person as part of efforts to catch up with other leading Asian cities and avert a looming environmental crisis. With a population of more than 7 million, the city currently sends 1.27 kg (2.8 pounds) per person per day (or 9000 tonnes) to three huge outdoor landfill sites which are set to reach capacity by 2020.

The government's 'blueprint' document proposed reaching its reduction target by expanding recycling, levying duties on household rubbish and improving waste-related infrastructure.

The government hopes to recycle 55 percent of the city's waste, incinerate 23 percent and place 22 percent in landfills by 2022. In 2011, 52 percent of waste was put into landfills and 48 percent recycled.

But the proposal to build an incinerator is unpopular with residents and some environmentalists.

Other possible measures include an expansion of food-waste recycling, a waste separation and collection system, a charge on construction waste and landfill extensions.

Taipei is being cited as an example where a volume-based waste fee system helped reduced waste per person by 65 percent from 2000 to 2011, according to Taiwan Environmental Authority statistics. What is important as Hong King rulers realised is to involve the community in the exercise by creating awareness first. Without that, any grandiose plan remains just a plan. Look at what is happening in Bangalore. A lot of noise and what have you - many parts of Bangalore, the residents have no clue what you mean by segragation! Many others still dump their garbage in the drain...

The surge in IEA's predictions

The supply shock created by a ‘surge’ in North American oil production will be as transformative to the market over the next five years as was the rise of Chinese demand over the last 15, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual Medium-Term Oil Market Report (MTOMR) released last week. The shift will not only cause oil companies to overhaul their global investment strategies, but also reshape the way oil is transported, stored and refined.

According to the MTOMR, the effects of continued growth in North American supply – led by US light, tight oil (LTO) and Canadian oil sands – will cascade through the global oil market. Although shale oil development outside North America may not be a large-scale reality during the report’s five-year timeframe, the technologies responsible for the boom will increase production from mature, conventional fields – causing companies to reconsider investments in higher-risk areas.

The MTOMR forecasts North American supply to grow by 3.9 million barrels per day (mb/d) from 2012 to 2018, or nearly two-thirds of total forecast non-OPEC supply growth of 6 mb/d. World liquid production capacity is expected to grow by 8.4 mb/d – significantly faster than demand – which is projected to expand by 6.9 mb/d. Global refining capacity will post even steeper growth, surging by 9.5 mb/d, led by China and the Middle East.

So is it time to rejoice, having found the silver bullet??

Experts see a controversy in IEA’s stance across a few months. Its 2012 World Energy Outlook released in November prophesied that world demand would reach 99.7 mbpd by 2035. The MTOMR now projects that world demand will reach 96.7 mbpd just five years from now, implying a growth trajectory far in excess of that projected in the agency's 2012 report.

The IEA makes no attempt to understand the effect that high prices have on the world economy and its ability to grow under such circumstances. Nor does it address the dampening effect of high prices on demand, calling into question its projection of rapid increases in demand, say some.

Above all, what about climate change concerns?? Burning all the known reserves of fossil fuels would put us on a path to a climate catastrophe, something the IEA acknowledged in the executive summary of its 2012 World Energy Outlook saying, "No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2°C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed." How come it is now singing to the shale tune?? How did the media miss all the controversies? Was it carried away by promises of plenty from ‘surging’oil and natural gas supplies in North America?? 

Death knell for Utilities??

As rooftop solar multiplies, Utilities in the US are feeling threatened. The EEI, a trade group that represents most investor owned utilities in the US, said solar PV and battery storage were two technologies (along with fuel cells and storage from electric vehicles) that could “directly threaten the centralised utility model” that has prevailed for a century or more.

The ability of rooftop solar, battery storage and energy efficiency programs to reduce demand from the grid would likely translate into lower prices for wholesale power and reduced profits. Worse still, customers were just as likely to “leave the system entirely” if a more cost-competitive alternative is available.

Meanwhile a lobbying group in the US called the Alliance for Solar Choice to combat efforts by “monopoly utilities” to quash programs that support renewable energy in 43 states. The alliance is seeking initially to preserve net metering policies that require utilities to purchase surplus electricity at retail rates from customers with rooftop solar systems, and says it is responding to “the coordinated utility attack on net metering throughout the country.”

While tariff restructuring can be used to mitigate lost revenues, the longer-term threat of fully exiting from the grid (or customers solely using the electric grid for backup purposes) raises the potential for irreparable damages to revenues and growth prospects.”

In the US, utilities are now seeking to protect their business models by pushing hard against net metering and seeking to influence the pace and manner of deployment of other technologies and new energy market concept that don’t fit the decades old model.

Similar trends have been seen in Australia too. A new solar campaign initative known as “Solar Citizens” is being launched to ensure the interests of solar owners are protected from changes to laws and policies by power companies and governments.

Solar Citizens sees its mandate as helping existing and would-be solar owners to advocate for their rights as energy investors and aims to push for panels on every Australian rooftop.

About 2.5 million Australians now live under a solar roof (one million homes have rooftop solar PV systems), and have invested about $8 billion. Some forecasts expect those numbers to triple by 2020.

Green to grey

According to a recent state-by-state US Forest Service study, urban forests are responsible for storing 708 million tons of carbon. As an environmental service necessary to clean air and stabilize climate, this carbon sequestration has an estimated value of $50 billion. Each year, our leafy friends capture an additional 21 million tons of carbon to the tune of a $1.5 billion benefit. Led by Dave Nowak, the research was published in the journal, Environmental Pollution.

The team took field data from 28 cities, six states, and national tree coverage information to calculate the carbon storage in urban areas of the United States. In a previous study done in 2008, total carbon storage from forest land was determined to be 22.3 billion tons. Adding city trees, the number increased to 22.7 billion tons. Rates of sequestration vary across the states depending on the amount of tree cover and growth rate.

The amount of carbon stored in urban trees is expected to increase as cities expand. Urban areas grew from 2.5% of land in 1990 to 3.1% in 2000. However, more development does not always directly translate into more trees being planted. It has already been shown that tree cover helps bring down temperature. As we cut the trees, the heat builds up, requiring more air-conditioners which in turn spew hot air outside, which in turn breeds high humidity, and so on and on. It all begins with a tree that falls down!

It is happening now

The Global Estimates report reveals that 32.4 million people were forced to flee their homes in 2012 by disasters such as floods, storms and earthquakes. While Asia and west and central Africa bore the brunt, 1.3 million were displaced in rich countries, with the USA particularly affected.

98% of all displacement in 2012 was related to climate- and weather-related events, with flood disasters in India and Nigeria accounting for 41% of global displacement in 2012. In India, monsoon floods displaced 6.9 million, and in Nigeria 6.1 million people were newly displaced. While over the past five years 81% of global displacement has occurred in Asia, in 2012 Africa had a record high for the region of 8.2 million people newly displaced, over four times more than in any of the previous four years.

It is increasingly likely that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced from their homelands in the near future as a result of global warming. That is the stark warning of economist and climate change expert Lord Stern following the news last week that concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere had reached a level of 400 parts per million (ppm). Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and animals will have died. The trouble will come when they try to migrate into new lands, however. That will bring them into armed conflict with people already living there. Nor will it be an occasional occurrence. It could become a permanent feature of life on Earth.”