Oil company HPCL has introduced nitrogen filling of tyres at its Millennium Outlet at Siripuram, Tamil Nadu. It guarantees tyre pressure retention for two months. According to a company spokesman, nitrogen filling results in less inflation pressure loss, cooler tyres, increases mileage and enhances tread life, reduces wheel corrosion and prevents uneven wear and no sudden loss of pressure when punctured.
Nitrogen also significantly slows down the chemical ageing process of the rubber components, says the company. Nitrogen disperses heat very quickly and thereby enhances fuel efficiency, the reason that aircraft use nitrogen in tyres.
While the oxygen in compressed air can permeate the tyre wall reducing tyre pressure, the diffusion is much slower with nitrogen. Thus nitrogen can maintain tyre pressure for a longer time and ensures safer motoring. Running with quicker heat dispersion helps in extending tread life and reduces tyre failure.
Great! A technical improvement, but do vehicles on Indian roads need this really? Or is it just another fad? Is it more suited for racing cars? Having created such a need, is this adding to the energy budget given the nitrogen production plants required?
How much does it help to decrease oxidative ageing of tyres? Aren’t tyres killed more by nails strewn on our roads than oxidation?
There are scientific reasons for using nitrogen, like avoiding corrosion due to oxygen and compressed water vapour, etc but are these reasons enough to propogate nitrogen filling in vehicle tyres? Let us know what you think.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Nuke issues
The Kaiga nuclear scare has once again put the nuclear issue on the front burner. Yes, it was not radiation leak but an equally relevant problem. Access to radiation material. Do we need nuclear in the energy mix? How well can we handle it, especially in a country notorious for fuel pilferage, corruption, and not to say the least, poverty which often drives the action?
As we had raised the question earlier, in a scenario of hundreds of reactors dotting the landscape, and given the fuel transport issue, are we competent this potent source?
Meanwhile, indigenous development of reactors that combine uranium and thorium proves India’s technological prowess. Bhabha Atomic research center in Mumbai, India offers a detailed description of the AHWR300-LEU reactor now under development.
This has significant implications for the less well developed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The design of the AHWR300-LEU contains numerous cost saving features. And India hopes to deliver these reactors to less well developed countries at a cost that will be at an order of magnitude lower than that of renewables.
AHWR300-LEU possesses several features, which are likely to reduce its capital and operating costs alongwith an emphasis on simplicity, low cost, safety and longevity. The AHWR-300-LEU will also produce a modest amount of fresh water in the cooling process.
The AHWR-300-LEU is designed primarily for export. It is provided with a double containment. Safety aspects also are taken care of with passive safety systems, removal of heat from core by natural circulation, independent shutdown systems, etc
The design of the AHWR300-LEU fuel mix prevents nuclear proliferation from spent fuel, as also minimises problems related to the long term storage of spent fuel.
As we had raised the question earlier, in a scenario of hundreds of reactors dotting the landscape, and given the fuel transport issue, are we competent this potent source?
Meanwhile, indigenous development of reactors that combine uranium and thorium proves India’s technological prowess. Bhabha Atomic research center in Mumbai, India offers a detailed description of the AHWR300-LEU reactor now under development.
This has significant implications for the less well developed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The design of the AHWR300-LEU contains numerous cost saving features. And India hopes to deliver these reactors to less well developed countries at a cost that will be at an order of magnitude lower than that of renewables.
AHWR300-LEU possesses several features, which are likely to reduce its capital and operating costs alongwith an emphasis on simplicity, low cost, safety and longevity. The AHWR-300-LEU will also produce a modest amount of fresh water in the cooling process.
The AHWR-300-LEU is designed primarily for export. It is provided with a double containment. Safety aspects also are taken care of with passive safety systems, removal of heat from core by natural circulation, independent shutdown systems, etc
The design of the AHWR300-LEU fuel mix prevents nuclear proliferation from spent fuel, as also minimises problems related to the long term storage of spent fuel.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Can WE walk out?
Perhaps there has not been such global closed-door discussions on a subject governed by science, well at least since the Montreal Protocol! However, unlike then, there seems no consensus on the need to unite and check the damage already done. From what news reports tell us, most nations are plotting on how best to protect their national interests of growth. Don’t ask us if there will be any nation without a liveable planet! Our policy makers and leaders seem to be missing that point somehow.
Who is to blame? The rich nations that are responsible for where we are now? Or the ones scrambling to do the same? Or both?
Indian prime minister claims that if the emission limits are imposed on the developing countries, they might not be able to address the issue of poverty alleviation and meet the basic needs of a large number of people. But the Economic Survey, 2009 has categorically stated that every year the nation loses lose 2.6 per cent of GDP to address the problems related to climate change. By further accelerating the carbon economy, the sufferings of those who are directly affected by climate change are bound to worsen. Urgent actions to mitigate these effects are needed and mere tokenism will not be enough.
Is the government serious about its national climate change plan? Is it enough to announce eight grand missions on one hand, and on the other continue with business-as-usual attitude? How does one reconcile with the ultra mega thermal plants of 4000 MW, and the carbon they will spew? Why are new plants being promised instead of improving the poor efficiency of the existing ones (less than 30 percent)?
Why is public transport so neglected? Given the large population and its needs, buses should have been given priority but it is the private automobile sector that is favoured, according to a CSE study.
Can we keep harping on our low per capita emission of India (1.5 tonnes compared to world average of 4.5 tonnes) when about 150 million Indians are stepping the accelerator on the lane of carbon-high lifestyles?
Will India and China accept binding emission cuts? Or will they walk out of Copenhagen as a protest against such demands? More important, will all of us sit up and start doing something about the carbon pile-up in the atmosphere? Can we walk out of this problem?
Who is to blame? The rich nations that are responsible for where we are now? Or the ones scrambling to do the same? Or both?
Indian prime minister claims that if the emission limits are imposed on the developing countries, they might not be able to address the issue of poverty alleviation and meet the basic needs of a large number of people. But the Economic Survey, 2009 has categorically stated that every year the nation loses lose 2.6 per cent of GDP to address the problems related to climate change. By further accelerating the carbon economy, the sufferings of those who are directly affected by climate change are bound to worsen. Urgent actions to mitigate these effects are needed and mere tokenism will not be enough.
Is the government serious about its national climate change plan? Is it enough to announce eight grand missions on one hand, and on the other continue with business-as-usual attitude? How does one reconcile with the ultra mega thermal plants of 4000 MW, and the carbon they will spew? Why are new plants being promised instead of improving the poor efficiency of the existing ones (less than 30 percent)?
Why is public transport so neglected? Given the large population and its needs, buses should have been given priority but it is the private automobile sector that is favoured, according to a CSE study.
Can we keep harping on our low per capita emission of India (1.5 tonnes compared to world average of 4.5 tonnes) when about 150 million Indians are stepping the accelerator on the lane of carbon-high lifestyles?
Will India and China accept binding emission cuts? Or will they walk out of Copenhagen as a protest against such demands? More important, will all of us sit up and start doing something about the carbon pile-up in the atmosphere? Can we walk out of this problem?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Look, who's knocking
It is worser than we have been told. Twenty-six climatologists—including 14 IPCC members—have released a startling update to the panel’s work, reporting that sea levels could rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than the panel had anticipated.
The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.
Iif global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.
Worryingly, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990.
Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030.
Several vulnerable elements in the climate system could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century.
Now what? Can we expect some agreement at Copenhagen? Or simply a few more ‘nice, politically worded intentions’?
The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.
Iif global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.
Worryingly, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990.
Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030.
Several vulnerable elements in the climate system could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century.
Now what? Can we expect some agreement at Copenhagen? Or simply a few more ‘nice, politically worded intentions’?
Flicker of hope
Hope has been fading, despite many dubbing it as the Hopenhagen summit! Ever since the US indicated its unwillingness to get a domestic legislation on emissions through before the December meet. Ever since reports seemed to hint that Obama would not make it to Copenhagen.
Being the top polluter till recently, and still the top in per capita terms, the world naturally looks to the US to take a lead.
But now in what could be a (welcome) surprise, White House officials told the Politico that the US plans to propose a near-term emissions reduction target as part of a “meaningful submission” the country will present at the talks. Even a target could be set.
The target, according to BBC, is expected to be in line with figures contained in legislation before the Senate — a reduction of about 17-20% from 2005 levels by 2020. Nothing big but an encouraging sign, alongwith reports that Obama may still make it to the meet.
And just in case, you are seeking more conclusive evidence of global warming, researchers of the UK's National Oceanography Centre, Southampton say that the widespread loss of glacial ice in the Antarctic Peninsula is unprecedented in the past 14,000 years.
That conclusion is based on detailed analysis of the thickest Holocene sediment core yet drilled in the Antarctic Peninsula. Radiocarbon dating of which reveals the oldest sediments in the core being 14.1 to 14.8 thousand years old.
Being the top polluter till recently, and still the top in per capita terms, the world naturally looks to the US to take a lead.
But now in what could be a (welcome) surprise, White House officials told the Politico that the US plans to propose a near-term emissions reduction target as part of a “meaningful submission” the country will present at the talks. Even a target could be set.
The target, according to BBC, is expected to be in line with figures contained in legislation before the Senate — a reduction of about 17-20% from 2005 levels by 2020. Nothing big but an encouraging sign, alongwith reports that Obama may still make it to the meet.
And just in case, you are seeking more conclusive evidence of global warming, researchers of the UK's National Oceanography Centre, Southampton say that the widespread loss of glacial ice in the Antarctic Peninsula is unprecedented in the past 14,000 years.
That conclusion is based on detailed analysis of the thickest Holocene sediment core yet drilled in the Antarctic Peninsula. Radiocarbon dating of which reveals the oldest sediments in the core being 14.1 to 14.8 thousand years old.
Use less, price more?
Global demand for water already exceeds supply—about 1.1 billion people don’t have access to clean water—and the so-called water gap is increasing at an accelerating rate. That’s what a McKinsey study, commissioned by such water-dependent companies as Coca-Cola, Nestle, SAB Miller and Syngenta, along with the World Bank/International Finance Corp, says.
Cost-effective, sustainable solutions are available to close the gap, particularly if governments and business focus on reducing demand rather than trying to generate additional supply. Just as in the case of energy. There just is no additional source of freshwater as the population increases.
The other controversial issue the report touches on is about water as a “human right”. A scarce resource, water, must be priced in a way to drive conservation.
The report focuses on four countries with big but differing water issues—China, India, South Africa and Brazil. Collectively, they will account for 40% of the world’s population, 30% of global GDP and 42% of projected water demand in 2030.
At a World Bank news conference to launch the report, executives from sponsoring companies discussed the price aspect, as also other issues like biotech crops. Water for basic needs should be subsidized or free, but beyond that it must be priced adequately as in South Africa. Water for washing car, filling swimming pool, watering golf course, etc cannot be a right?
But in rural India, can pricing be the solution? True, free or subsidized electricity here contributes to water shortages because farmers have no reason not to pump as much water as they can out of the ground.
But poor farmers do not have the capital to invest in a drip irrigation system, so charging them more for water will also not help. Innovative financing is the solution.
Biotech crops also were suggested as a way out of the water scarcity. Intended to grow more food per acre, and considering that agriculture accounts for about 70% of global water use, biotech crops could have a big impact on the water gap. But, can we ignore the safety aspects? Loss of biodiversity, herbicide resistance, etc. It could well be a case of jumping from the pan into the fire.
Should we price water more adequately? Or focus on demand side management?
Cost-effective, sustainable solutions are available to close the gap, particularly if governments and business focus on reducing demand rather than trying to generate additional supply. Just as in the case of energy. There just is no additional source of freshwater as the population increases.
The other controversial issue the report touches on is about water as a “human right”. A scarce resource, water, must be priced in a way to drive conservation.
The report focuses on four countries with big but differing water issues—China, India, South Africa and Brazil. Collectively, they will account for 40% of the world’s population, 30% of global GDP and 42% of projected water demand in 2030.
At a World Bank news conference to launch the report, executives from sponsoring companies discussed the price aspect, as also other issues like biotech crops. Water for basic needs should be subsidized or free, but beyond that it must be priced adequately as in South Africa. Water for washing car, filling swimming pool, watering golf course, etc cannot be a right?
But in rural India, can pricing be the solution? True, free or subsidized electricity here contributes to water shortages because farmers have no reason not to pump as much water as they can out of the ground.
But poor farmers do not have the capital to invest in a drip irrigation system, so charging them more for water will also not help. Innovative financing is the solution.
Biotech crops also were suggested as a way out of the water scarcity. Intended to grow more food per acre, and considering that agriculture accounts for about 70% of global water use, biotech crops could have a big impact on the water gap. But, can we ignore the safety aspects? Loss of biodiversity, herbicide resistance, etc. It could well be a case of jumping from the pan into the fire.
Should we price water more adequately? Or focus on demand side management?
Your vote please!
The November issue of Scientific American carries an article titled "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" where the authors, scientists from Stanford and California university, detail a plan to shift the world completely from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The cost runs to $100 trillion and the time frame is 20 years.
Would such a move really be sustainable?
The article tells us that currently the world is consuming about 12.5 trillion watts of all forms of energy at peak consumption. In 20 years, the demand will be up 16.8 trillion watts given growth in population and living standards.
The replacement plan calls for 3.8 million 5-megawatt wind turbines, 490,000 tidal generators, 720,000 0.74 megawatt wave converters, 1.7 billion .003 megawatt rooftop photovoltaic systems, 5,300 geothermal plants, 900 1.3-megawatt hydroelectric plants, and to top it off 49,000 concentrated solar 300-megawatt power plants and 40,000 commercial photovoltaic power plants.
A totally new infrastructure has to be put in place for the manufacture of these equipment as well as for transferring energy from the place of generation to where required. Even if airplanes powered by fuel cells as also road transport become technically and commercially feasible, there will be need to build all these new vehicles.
Will there be enough of specialized materials - particularly exotic ones such as neodymium, tellurium, indium and lithium that would be necessary for the magnets of wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and high capacity vehicle batteries? What alternative ways are there to make the components? Won’t we need to wait for technology to progress? Is recycling enough to meet all the demand?
With hydro (including tides, waves, and flowing rivers) and geothermal providing a base, wind and solar would provide the bulk of the load. This calls for a specialized grid to move the power. Yes, the Obama administration is awarding $3.4 billion in grants to modernize the national electric grid. How many in the developing world can afford to?
A smart grid to transfer power over long distances will involve miles of lines. Take for instance, the world’s largest renewable energy project, Desertec. The project now has a core group of backers and a signed agreement between 12 companies wanting to move forward with the $555 billion renewable energy belt. The DESERTEC Foundation vision is to install 100 GW of solar power throughout Northern Africa, with the goal of supplying 15% of Europe’s energy demand with clean renewable power.
Is such a total transformation from fossils to renewables possible? In such a short time?
How will governments finance the change? Even to raise $2 trillion in the US would mean increasing tax to more than 50 percent of current numbers. What about the rest of the world?
Would it be better to go for smaller local projects with local materials? In the ‘long run’ (pun intended!) what is better? A massive global project, or small local units? A total transformation or a gradual change?
Join the discussion, let us make it lively!
Would such a move really be sustainable?
The article tells us that currently the world is consuming about 12.5 trillion watts of all forms of energy at peak consumption. In 20 years, the demand will be up 16.8 trillion watts given growth in population and living standards.
The replacement plan calls for 3.8 million 5-megawatt wind turbines, 490,000 tidal generators, 720,000 0.74 megawatt wave converters, 1.7 billion .003 megawatt rooftop photovoltaic systems, 5,300 geothermal plants, 900 1.3-megawatt hydroelectric plants, and to top it off 49,000 concentrated solar 300-megawatt power plants and 40,000 commercial photovoltaic power plants.
A totally new infrastructure has to be put in place for the manufacture of these equipment as well as for transferring energy from the place of generation to where required. Even if airplanes powered by fuel cells as also road transport become technically and commercially feasible, there will be need to build all these new vehicles.
Will there be enough of specialized materials - particularly exotic ones such as neodymium, tellurium, indium and lithium that would be necessary for the magnets of wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and high capacity vehicle batteries? What alternative ways are there to make the components? Won’t we need to wait for technology to progress? Is recycling enough to meet all the demand?
With hydro (including tides, waves, and flowing rivers) and geothermal providing a base, wind and solar would provide the bulk of the load. This calls for a specialized grid to move the power. Yes, the Obama administration is awarding $3.4 billion in grants to modernize the national electric grid. How many in the developing world can afford to?
A smart grid to transfer power over long distances will involve miles of lines. Take for instance, the world’s largest renewable energy project, Desertec. The project now has a core group of backers and a signed agreement between 12 companies wanting to move forward with the $555 billion renewable energy belt. The DESERTEC Foundation vision is to install 100 GW of solar power throughout Northern Africa, with the goal of supplying 15% of Europe’s energy demand with clean renewable power.
Is such a total transformation from fossils to renewables possible? In such a short time?
How will governments finance the change? Even to raise $2 trillion in the US would mean increasing tax to more than 50 percent of current numbers. What about the rest of the world?
Would it be better to go for smaller local projects with local materials? In the ‘long run’ (pun intended!) what is better? A massive global project, or small local units? A total transformation or a gradual change?
Join the discussion, let us make it lively!
Friday, November 20, 2009
The moral dilemma
Now it is the UN calling attention to the connection between population rise and climate change! “Slower population growth ... would help build social resilience to climate change’s impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in the future,” the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) says.
Today, the world’s population stands at around 6.8 billion. By mid-century, it will range between 7.959 billion to 10.461 billion, with a mid-estimate of 9.15 billion, according to U.N. calculations.
And, the difference between 8 billion and 9 billion is between one and two billion tons of carbon per year, according to research cited in the report.
That would be comparable to savings in emissions by 2050 if all new buildings were constructed to the highest energy-efficiency standards and if two million one-gigawatt wind turbines were built to replace today’s coal-fired power plants.
The report, the 2009 State of World Population, is seen as a rare departure from the UN's stand so far regarding population.
This is a key debate point to emerge at Copenhagen. Negotiators, including the European Union, have tentatively suggested that the question be considered in talks.
This has been a bone of contention between two sides. Is it population or overconsumption that has caused the problem?
Overconsumption is by far the bigger culprit, with Americans way out in the lead. The Washington, D.C., area, according to an expert, produces 25% more CO2 than all of Sweden, which has nearly twice as many people!
Population growth did not cause the climate crisis but yes, it can aggravate it. How does one stabilize the population at 8 billion instead of 9 billion? Pay people for not having children? Impose carbon tax on number of kids?! Who decides for everyone?
You bet, this is one helluva moral issue that calls for political rightness. Any bright ideas?
Today, the world’s population stands at around 6.8 billion. By mid-century, it will range between 7.959 billion to 10.461 billion, with a mid-estimate of 9.15 billion, according to U.N. calculations.
And, the difference between 8 billion and 9 billion is between one and two billion tons of carbon per year, according to research cited in the report.
That would be comparable to savings in emissions by 2050 if all new buildings were constructed to the highest energy-efficiency standards and if two million one-gigawatt wind turbines were built to replace today’s coal-fired power plants.
The report, the 2009 State of World Population, is seen as a rare departure from the UN's stand so far regarding population.
This is a key debate point to emerge at Copenhagen. Negotiators, including the European Union, have tentatively suggested that the question be considered in talks.
This has been a bone of contention between two sides. Is it population or overconsumption that has caused the problem?
Overconsumption is by far the bigger culprit, with Americans way out in the lead. The Washington, D.C., area, according to an expert, produces 25% more CO2 than all of Sweden, which has nearly twice as many people!
Population growth did not cause the climate crisis but yes, it can aggravate it. How does one stabilize the population at 8 billion instead of 9 billion? Pay people for not having children? Impose carbon tax on number of kids?! Who decides for everyone?
You bet, this is one helluva moral issue that calls for political rightness. Any bright ideas?
Whirring away
Guess the new entrants in the biannual list of the world’s 500 fastest computers? Saudi Aramco! It had two new entries and both are Dell clusters, running Intel processors and are very fast.
The national oil company of Saudi Arabia pumps about 10 million barrels of oil a day, about four times as much as Exxon Mobil Corp.
The oil industry uses Concorde-jet speed computing to aid it understanding underground reservoirs and to look for new sources of oil and gas. Aramco used another computer cluster to build a “full field model” of the Safaniya oilfield in 2008.
Whay is Aramco taking a sophisticated approach to understanding its remaining oil resources? A sign of worry about the future?
The world’s fifth-fastest supercomputer – Tianhe-1 in Tianjin, China – will be used in part for “petroleum exploration.” Not only is the oil adding to the warming, but also the supercomputers.
Ironically, the computers used by people studying climate change are doing their bit to heat up the atmosphere! On the list, supercomputers No. 89 and No. 90 belong to the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. They use IBM-powered clusters to study and predict climate change patterns. The Met’s supercomputer generates about 12,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, making it one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters in the nation.
A vicious circle where the very means of enquiry is adding to the problem! What do you say? Should we do away with such energy-guzzling computers, just like California has planned to do away with guzzler TVs?
The national oil company of Saudi Arabia pumps about 10 million barrels of oil a day, about four times as much as Exxon Mobil Corp.
The oil industry uses Concorde-jet speed computing to aid it understanding underground reservoirs and to look for new sources of oil and gas. Aramco used another computer cluster to build a “full field model” of the Safaniya oilfield in 2008.
Whay is Aramco taking a sophisticated approach to understanding its remaining oil resources? A sign of worry about the future?
The world’s fifth-fastest supercomputer – Tianhe-1 in Tianjin, China – will be used in part for “petroleum exploration.” Not only is the oil adding to the warming, but also the supercomputers.
Ironically, the computers used by people studying climate change are doing their bit to heat up the atmosphere! On the list, supercomputers No. 89 and No. 90 belong to the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. They use IBM-powered clusters to study and predict climate change patterns. The Met’s supercomputer generates about 12,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, making it one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters in the nation.
A vicious circle where the very means of enquiry is adding to the problem! What do you say? Should we do away with such energy-guzzling computers, just like California has planned to do away with guzzler TVs?
Rising tigers
Asia is poised to dominate the fast-growing clean energy industry by outspending the United States by at least three-to-one on infrastructure and technology, according to a new report, Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant, which was released by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
"Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" is the first report to comprehensively benchmark clean energy competitiveness and government investments in clean tech by China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These Asian governments will invest $519 billion in clean technology between 2009 and 2013, compared to $172 billion by the U.S. government.
Investment bank giant Deutsche Bank recently concluded that "generous and well-targeted [clean energy] incentives" in China and Japan will create a low-risk environment for investors and stimulate high levels of private investment in clean energy because those nations rely on a "comprehensive and integrated government plan, supported by strong incentives."
"Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" is the first report to comprehensively benchmark clean energy competitiveness and government investments in clean tech by China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These Asian governments will invest $519 billion in clean technology between 2009 and 2013, compared to $172 billion by the U.S. government.
Investment bank giant Deutsche Bank recently concluded that "generous and well-targeted [clean energy] incentives" in China and Japan will create a low-risk environment for investors and stimulate high levels of private investment in clean energy because those nations rely on a "comprehensive and integrated government plan, supported by strong incentives."
Needed: new ways to farm
Coming after the International Energy Agency’s new World Energy Outlook published last week which expects the global demand for oil to rise from 85m barrels a day in 2008 to 105m in 2030, a paper published by the Uppsala University in Sweden in the journal Energy Policy, anticipates that maximum global production of all kinds of oil in 2030 will be 76m barrels per day.
As the UK Energy Research Centre noted, the date of peak oil will be determined not by the total size of the global resource but by the rate at which it can be exploited. New discoveries would have to be implausibly large to make a significant difference. A field the size of all the oil reserves ever struck in the USA can delay the date of peaking by only four years. Clearly, if we fail to replace oil before the supply peaks then crashes, the global economy is doomed.
A report commissioned by the US Department of Energy shows, an emergency programme to replace current energy supplies or equipment to anticipate peak oil would need about 20 years to take effect. Columnist George Monbiot is among those who sees no hope for world economy, “but at least we could save farming”.
According to farm scientists at Cornell University, cultivating one hectare of maize in the United States requires 40 litres of petrol and 75 litres of diesel. The amazing productivity of modern farm labour has been purchased at the cost of a dependency on oil, says Monbiot. “Unless farmers can change the way it’s grown, a permanent oil shock would price food out of the mouths of many of the world’s people.”
What are the solutions? He cites two possible options: either the mass replacement of farm machinery or the development of new farming systems, which don’t need much labour or energy.
Labour is of course not as much an issue as energy in the developing world.
How fast all this can be done depends on whether we and our policy makers believe the crash will happen, and soon.
Share your ideas on how to wean farming from energy and water.
As the UK Energy Research Centre noted, the date of peak oil will be determined not by the total size of the global resource but by the rate at which it can be exploited. New discoveries would have to be implausibly large to make a significant difference. A field the size of all the oil reserves ever struck in the USA can delay the date of peaking by only four years. Clearly, if we fail to replace oil before the supply peaks then crashes, the global economy is doomed.
A report commissioned by the US Department of Energy shows, an emergency programme to replace current energy supplies or equipment to anticipate peak oil would need about 20 years to take effect. Columnist George Monbiot is among those who sees no hope for world economy, “but at least we could save farming”.
According to farm scientists at Cornell University, cultivating one hectare of maize in the United States requires 40 litres of petrol and 75 litres of diesel. The amazing productivity of modern farm labour has been purchased at the cost of a dependency on oil, says Monbiot. “Unless farmers can change the way it’s grown, a permanent oil shock would price food out of the mouths of many of the world’s people.”
What are the solutions? He cites two possible options: either the mass replacement of farm machinery or the development of new farming systems, which don’t need much labour or energy.
Labour is of course not as much an issue as energy in the developing world.
How fast all this can be done depends on whether we and our policy makers believe the crash will happen, and soon.
Share your ideas on how to wean farming from energy and water.
Drying up
Indian NGO Navdanya has come up with a study showing the effects of global warming on the Himalayan region, some of which are already directly impacting the lives of people.
In the Uttarakhand region, the Navdanya research shows that in the past ten years 34% of some 809 perennial streams in the region have become seasonal or completely dried up. On average, water discharge has dropped 67%.
Combined with decreasing precipitation, drought caused 50-60% crop failure in the middle to lower mountain regions in 2007-2008; in 2009 that figure increased to 90% in rain-fed subtropical areas. In Ladakh, a high altitude desert, unprecedented rainfall has led to flash floods and washing away of villages (documented in the film “The Third Pole).
Contrast this with the Ministry of Environment report “Himalayan Glaciers: A State of the Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change” by geologist V.K. Raina. It calls the changes a natural increase of temperature and loss of ice.
Whether it be the Drung Drung glacier, or the Siachen glacier or Gangotri, the report calls the retreat as small and indicative of “poor response to global warming”.
It talks of the topographic theory that maintains that because the temperature decreases with the altitude, mountain uplift causes glaciations, Himalayas should always retain glaciers in one form or the other.
Navdanya wonders how then the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro disappeared, and how there could have been snow in the Arctic!
Finally, it assures there is no need to worry as the monsoon accounts for most of the flow of the Ganges. Navdanya counters that the monsoons account for most the river flow in the monsoons, the glacial melt accounts for flow in the lean season when it is most needed. With reducing glacial melt, the Ganges will become a seasonal river, not the perennial river that it is.
What does one make of such controversial reports? Who validates them?
In the Uttarakhand region, the Navdanya research shows that in the past ten years 34% of some 809 perennial streams in the region have become seasonal or completely dried up. On average, water discharge has dropped 67%.
Combined with decreasing precipitation, drought caused 50-60% crop failure in the middle to lower mountain regions in 2007-2008; in 2009 that figure increased to 90% in rain-fed subtropical areas. In Ladakh, a high altitude desert, unprecedented rainfall has led to flash floods and washing away of villages (documented in the film “The Third Pole).
Contrast this with the Ministry of Environment report “Himalayan Glaciers: A State of the Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change” by geologist V.K. Raina. It calls the changes a natural increase of temperature and loss of ice.
Whether it be the Drung Drung glacier, or the Siachen glacier or Gangotri, the report calls the retreat as small and indicative of “poor response to global warming”.
It talks of the topographic theory that maintains that because the temperature decreases with the altitude, mountain uplift causes glaciations, Himalayas should always retain glaciers in one form or the other.
Navdanya wonders how then the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro disappeared, and how there could have been snow in the Arctic!
Finally, it assures there is no need to worry as the monsoon accounts for most of the flow of the Ganges. Navdanya counters that the monsoons account for most the river flow in the monsoons, the glacial melt accounts for flow in the lean season when it is most needed. With reducing glacial melt, the Ganges will become a seasonal river, not the perennial river that it is.
What does one make of such controversial reports? Who validates them?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Looming crisis
The World Summit on Food Security convenes next week in Rome. What will it take to produce enough food to feed the world? More food? But with agriculture turning less and less profitable, given fluid conditions of soil and water, things are not exactly conducive for increasing production.
According to Reuters, a hotspot for food security in the 21st century is India. Here, agriculture's share of India's economy continues to shrink, down to 17.5 percent from almost 30 percent in the 1990s. With no changes in farming practices, things have been a status quo. The National Sample Survey Organization found that 40 percent of Indian farmers would quit farming, if they could.
Should a second Green Revolution be ringed in by biotechnology? Or will it require a change in cropping patterns and crops?
Environmental damage from pesticides and fertilizers, over exploitation of groundwater, have made the going tough. The lessons from the Green Revolution have most experts wary of jumping into GM crops. Loss of biodiversity apart, have we enough evidence of safety? Should groundwater be regulated?
Will urban farming become a reality? If we can grow potatoes and tomatoes and a few other vegetables in our backyard in big cans, can it not help? Pitch in with your ideas on how to produce more, at less cost to the environment.
According to Reuters, a hotspot for food security in the 21st century is India. Here, agriculture's share of India's economy continues to shrink, down to 17.5 percent from almost 30 percent in the 1990s. With no changes in farming practices, things have been a status quo. The National Sample Survey Organization found that 40 percent of Indian farmers would quit farming, if they could.
Should a second Green Revolution be ringed in by biotechnology? Or will it require a change in cropping patterns and crops?
Environmental damage from pesticides and fertilizers, over exploitation of groundwater, have made the going tough. The lessons from the Green Revolution have most experts wary of jumping into GM crops. Loss of biodiversity apart, have we enough evidence of safety? Should groundwater be regulated?
Will urban farming become a reality? If we can grow potatoes and tomatoes and a few other vegetables in our backyard in big cans, can it not help? Pitch in with your ideas on how to produce more, at less cost to the environment.
Who has the battle plan?
A new study from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) says that achieving the UK’s target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 is unlikely and other approaches will be needed to mitigate climate change.
Applauding the Government’s emission reduction targets, it says that to achieve them would require decarbonising at a rate never seen before. (And that is pretty much the story for any nation!)
Between 2001 and 2006, the UK reduced carbon output per unit of GDP by 1.3% annually. But the rate necessary to achieve the Government’s emission reduction targets would have to top 5% annually until 2050.
To get the UK on track, says the report, would require the construction and operation of around 30 new nuclear power stations in the next five years and the retiring of a similar amount of coal-fired power generation. The country would have to increase its number if wind turbines more than ten-fold from 2600 to 27,000 by 2030 and a further 13,000 by 2050.
The report calls on the Government to adopt a ‘battle plan’ that would also include geo-engineering projects. Schemes suggested in the report include building 100,000 artificial trees to absorb CO2.
Surprisingly, energy conservation does not seem to be on anyone’s list of recommendations!
Applauding the Government’s emission reduction targets, it says that to achieve them would require decarbonising at a rate never seen before. (And that is pretty much the story for any nation!)
Between 2001 and 2006, the UK reduced carbon output per unit of GDP by 1.3% annually. But the rate necessary to achieve the Government’s emission reduction targets would have to top 5% annually until 2050.
To get the UK on track, says the report, would require the construction and operation of around 30 new nuclear power stations in the next five years and the retiring of a similar amount of coal-fired power generation. The country would have to increase its number if wind turbines more than ten-fold from 2600 to 27,000 by 2030 and a further 13,000 by 2050.
The report calls on the Government to adopt a ‘battle plan’ that would also include geo-engineering projects. Schemes suggested in the report include building 100,000 artificial trees to absorb CO2.
Surprisingly, energy conservation does not seem to be on anyone’s list of recommendations!
Cloudy plans
The official launch of India’s solar mission has been delayed due to opposition from coal and power ministries to the financial scheme. Discussions are on to arrive at some agreement. Meanwhile, India has also put off until 2022, from the targeted 2020, its grand plan to produce 20,000 MW from solar power. This is presumably to bring it in line with the fiver year plan cycle!
The mission slated as an ambitious one given that present solar generation is around 200 MW has had its critics from the hurried announcement earlier this year. For one, it was far too unrealistic, they said. Plus, was it just another gimmick to show off at Copenhagen?
The ministries of coal and power opposed a proposal to levy a cess of four paise a tonne of coal mined for research and development on solar energy. The main bottleneck in spreading solar energy today is cost. While it costs Rs.3-4 to generate one unit of electricity from coal (without factoring in environmental costs), it costs Rs.14 to do so from solar photovoltaic cells. Even after removing subsidies and factoring in costs, coal power is still cheaper.
But the advantage is that solar technology has been improving rapidly unlike coal powered plants. From Rs.27 to produce one unit of electricity from solar photovoltaic cells to Rs 14 in a few years tells the story.
Again, as we have been saying, the grandiose mission will need more than equal partnership from private players. How can the government make it attractive to investors, that is the big question? Any answers?
The mission slated as an ambitious one given that present solar generation is around 200 MW has had its critics from the hurried announcement earlier this year. For one, it was far too unrealistic, they said. Plus, was it just another gimmick to show off at Copenhagen?
The ministries of coal and power opposed a proposal to levy a cess of four paise a tonne of coal mined for research and development on solar energy. The main bottleneck in spreading solar energy today is cost. While it costs Rs.3-4 to generate one unit of electricity from coal (without factoring in environmental costs), it costs Rs.14 to do so from solar photovoltaic cells. Even after removing subsidies and factoring in costs, coal power is still cheaper.
But the advantage is that solar technology has been improving rapidly unlike coal powered plants. From Rs.27 to produce one unit of electricity from solar photovoltaic cells to Rs 14 in a few years tells the story.
Again, as we have been saying, the grandiose mission will need more than equal partnership from private players. How can the government make it attractive to investors, that is the big question? Any answers?
Biding time
Asian Pacific countries gathering in Singapore are backing off their pledge to cut emissions by 50 percent by 2050. APEC includes the top two greenhouse gas emitters -- China and the United States.
With most global leaders acknowledging that hopes for a deal at Copenhagen are as good as gone, and that “the Copenhagen agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion", the saga continues.
After two decades of treaty negotiations and a pledge by negotiators at climate talks in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007 to seal a deal in Denmark this December, nothing will happen? Will legal negotiations be anything better? As international politics plays its cards, how much long does the earth have before irreversible change? Very, very less, as science says. Not many leaders are willing to act by that.
The issues have ranged from resolving how much the rich North should pay the poor South to boost its resilience to climate hazards, to figuring out an acceptable process for all countries to measure and get credit for domestic actions that trim emissions.
Meanwhile, Forbes.com has come out with a compilation of polluting power plants. Sixty percent of the world’s electricity comes from plants burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon. Many of the highest-emission plants are concentrated in the United States and East Asia. Taiwan’s plant emits 40 million tons of carbon dioxide every year and is the dirtiest!
Going by per capita numbers Australia at 20.58 tons is leading the pack, and the US at 19.78 comes second. Taiwan emitted just 13.19 tons.
It is business as usual everywhere.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Trade your solar credits
It is common knowledge about how Germany’s feed-in-tariff has helped spur solar power in a big way. With about one-fourth the United States’ population, it has six times more solar installed, including more than 300,000 residential rooftop systems, along with multi-megawatt commercial systems. That amounts to half the world’s total solar capacity.
New Jersey is emerging a close second. Solar panels are not only appearing on residential rooftops, but on schools, churches, convention centers, and gyms, and as electricity-generating roofs over stretches of paved parking lots.
In both New Jersey and Germany, it was incentives that did the trick. Early adopters were provided with solid guarantees of economic returns on their investments. Taxes were not raised to accomplish this. Instead, utilities were allowed to raise rates minimally on all rate payers in order to subsidize those who were ready to move on installing solar systems.
New Jersey has turned to a different approach, issuing credits that can be traded like stocks or bonds on a free-floating market. Direct subsidy on every kilowatt hour of power fed into the grid or feed in tariff was what first made a dent. Since then various cities have adopted different approaches.
When the state kicked off its solar program in 2002, it relied on a small “societal benefits” charge on all ratepayers’ bills to provide a simple, straightforward rebate that amounted to about 60 percent on solar installations, combined with a full retail net metering (backwards-meter) mandate. But by 2007, the program had become so popular that it was overwhelming available funds. The state has turned not to a tariff-style guarantee, but to a complex approach that relies on a floating, market for tradable solar renewable energy credits (SRECs).
The credits are actually sold by brokers on an electronic market, like stocks or bonds, at whatever price the market will bear. At the moment, the market is bearing a fabulous price. SRECs are expected to decline in value over time, but could still be worth multiple thousands of dollars annually to the owner of a residential solar system.
That looks like a win-win situation for all. Write in to us on what you think.
New Jersey is emerging a close second. Solar panels are not only appearing on residential rooftops, but on schools, churches, convention centers, and gyms, and as electricity-generating roofs over stretches of paved parking lots.
In both New Jersey and Germany, it was incentives that did the trick. Early adopters were provided with solid guarantees of economic returns on their investments. Taxes were not raised to accomplish this. Instead, utilities were allowed to raise rates minimally on all rate payers in order to subsidize those who were ready to move on installing solar systems.
New Jersey has turned to a different approach, issuing credits that can be traded like stocks or bonds on a free-floating market. Direct subsidy on every kilowatt hour of power fed into the grid or feed in tariff was what first made a dent. Since then various cities have adopted different approaches.
When the state kicked off its solar program in 2002, it relied on a small “societal benefits” charge on all ratepayers’ bills to provide a simple, straightforward rebate that amounted to about 60 percent on solar installations, combined with a full retail net metering (backwards-meter) mandate. But by 2007, the program had become so popular that it was overwhelming available funds. The state has turned not to a tariff-style guarantee, but to a complex approach that relies on a floating, market for tradable solar renewable energy credits (SRECs).
The credits are actually sold by brokers on an electronic market, like stocks or bonds, at whatever price the market will bear. At the moment, the market is bearing a fabulous price. SRECs are expected to decline in value over time, but could still be worth multiple thousands of dollars annually to the owner of a residential solar system.
That looks like a win-win situation for all. Write in to us on what you think.
Big savings from efficiency
The US division of National Grid is planning a three-fold expansion of its energy efficiency programmes over the next two years. This include a new combined heat and power (CHP) programme, incentives for customers implementing energy efficiency measures, community schemes and the use of new smart metering technologies.
The savings in electricity would add up to 1.2 million MWh – enough to power 150,000 homes for a year – and 33 million therms of gas – sufficient to heat 33,000 homes for a year.
The company, which serves over 3 million customers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, has submitted the plans as part of a statewide effort on energy efficiency.
The funding is to come from an increase in customers’ bills, although ultimately the company says that the plans would help save around 2% in gas and electricity over the next two years, amounting to around $2 billion on energy costs over the lifetime of the implemented measures. Quite something?
The savings in electricity would add up to 1.2 million MWh – enough to power 150,000 homes for a year – and 33 million therms of gas – sufficient to heat 33,000 homes for a year.
The company, which serves over 3 million customers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, has submitted the plans as part of a statewide effort on energy efficiency.
The funding is to come from an increase in customers’ bills, although ultimately the company says that the plans would help save around 2% in gas and electricity over the next two years, amounting to around $2 billion on energy costs over the lifetime of the implemented measures. Quite something?
Do we need nuclear?
UK Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband recently unveiled the Government’s long-awaited National Policy Statements (NPSs), which promise an expansion of renewables, nuclear power and clean coal technology. Quoting the threat of climate change, he called for a transition from a system that relies heavily on high carbon fossil fuels, to a radically different system that includes nuclear, renewable and clean coal power.
One of the statements deals with clean coal as per which any new coal power station over 300 MW will have to demonstrate full carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be allowed.
However, environmental groups are unhappy about the ambitions to expand nuclear generation capacity. How does one justify building more nuclear power stations when there is no solution to radioactive waste and when international regulators are saying there are huge uncertainties surrounding the basic safety of new reactor designs, they ask.
Of late there has also been a global call for nuclear supplying ‘clean’ base load power. How necessary is this baseload?
Any modern electricity system doesn’t rely on any plant’s ability to run continuously; rather, all plants together supply the grid, and the grid serves all loads. All power plants fail, varying only in their failures’ size, duration, frequency, predictability, and cause. Not just renewables.
Intermittence of coal and nuclear plants also occur, except that it affects less capacity at once, more briefly, far more predictably, and is easier and cheaper to manage, point experts.
Instead of building a surplus which is left idle often, a better idea may be to go for diverse sources spread over large geographical areas but managed by a reliable, intelligent power grid.
Do we need to go for massive expansion of nuclear plants? Has anyone thought about the security implications, say during the transport of fuel? Especially in a country like India where waylaying and siphoning fuel from tankers is a well-known occurrence?
One of the statements deals with clean coal as per which any new coal power station over 300 MW will have to demonstrate full carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be allowed.
However, environmental groups are unhappy about the ambitions to expand nuclear generation capacity. How does one justify building more nuclear power stations when there is no solution to radioactive waste and when international regulators are saying there are huge uncertainties surrounding the basic safety of new reactor designs, they ask.
Of late there has also been a global call for nuclear supplying ‘clean’ base load power. How necessary is this baseload?
Any modern electricity system doesn’t rely on any plant’s ability to run continuously; rather, all plants together supply the grid, and the grid serves all loads. All power plants fail, varying only in their failures’ size, duration, frequency, predictability, and cause. Not just renewables.
Intermittence of coal and nuclear plants also occur, except that it affects less capacity at once, more briefly, far more predictably, and is easier and cheaper to manage, point experts.
Instead of building a surplus which is left idle often, a better idea may be to go for diverse sources spread over large geographical areas but managed by a reliable, intelligent power grid.
Do we need to go for massive expansion of nuclear plants? Has anyone thought about the security implications, say during the transport of fuel? Especially in a country like India where waylaying and siphoning fuel from tankers is a well-known occurrence?
Sky the limit
There have been some vague ideas floating around, about solar space stations in space. The Japanese space agency has gone a step ahead and placed it on their mission statement for 2030!
Under the plan, known as the Space Solar Power System (SSPS), floating photovoltaic dishes several square miles across would hover in geostationary orbit outside the Earth’s atmosphere to collect solar energy and beam it down using lasers and microwave.
To prove seriousness of intent, the Japanese government has also chosen a consortium of companies and scientists charged with making the multi-billion-dollar dream of unlimited clean energy a reality in as little as 20 years. The team, called the Institute for Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer (USEF), also includes Mitsubishi Electric, NEC, Fujitsu and Sharp.
Giant solar cells would harvest solar energy, which is at least five times stronger in space than on Earth, and beam it down to terra firma through clusters of lasers or microwaves.
The consortium are hoping to create a one gigawatt system, equivalent to a medium-sized nuclear power plant, that would produce electricity at eight yen (nine cents) per kilowatt-hour, six times cheaper than the current cost in the country.
Will the lasers or microwaves roast birds and insects or even aircraft? JAXA maintains that the transmission technology would be safe. Time will tell.
Meanwhile who will apportion the atmosphere space between nations which will all want chunks of the abundant energy? Is it ‘asking for the sky’ when seeking an international pact on the usage of space? Especially when a pact on ground is fast disintegrating?
Slippery grounds
If one is to believe a whistleblower at the IEA, the world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit. The International Energy Agency has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying as also displeasing the US, he said.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The organisation’s World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply is soon to be published and forms the basis for many governments’ actions and policies. The prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels, is being questioned by many. There is no firm evidence to prove this and the world has already passed its peak in oil production, they claim.
The Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources, was what the source said.
The growing consensus that we are close to the peak or even crossed over makes it even more important that nations make some deal at Copenhagen. A shift in economy which is not so carbon dependent is imperative to avoid severe economic dislocation, it would seem.
Just juxtapose that with the ADB report on energy demand in the Asia-pacific. Energy demand across the region is growing at an annual rate of 2.4%, compared with the world average of 1.5%. And nearly 80% of this energy need will have to be met by fossil fuels. The region currently consumes about a third of the world’s total energy supply, says the report.
The region will have to invest from $7 trillion to $9.7 trillion between 2005 and 2030 to meet the growing energy demand. Oil makes up more than 35 percent of the global energy pie.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The organisation’s World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply is soon to be published and forms the basis for many governments’ actions and policies. The prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels, is being questioned by many. There is no firm evidence to prove this and the world has already passed its peak in oil production, they claim.
The Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources, was what the source said.
The growing consensus that we are close to the peak or even crossed over makes it even more important that nations make some deal at Copenhagen. A shift in economy which is not so carbon dependent is imperative to avoid severe economic dislocation, it would seem.
Just juxtapose that with the ADB report on energy demand in the Asia-pacific. Energy demand across the region is growing at an annual rate of 2.4%, compared with the world average of 1.5%. And nearly 80% of this energy need will have to be met by fossil fuels. The region currently consumes about a third of the world’s total energy supply, says the report.
The region will have to invest from $7 trillion to $9.7 trillion between 2005 and 2030 to meet the growing energy demand. Oil makes up more than 35 percent of the global energy pie.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Lying on the ground
Coming back to energy efficiency, why despite so many studies that talk of existing technology, has efficiency remained on the back bench? What prevents these technologies from being used?
Why are energy-efficiency programs around the world languishing?. Despite financial incentives for adopting energy-saving, cost-effective technology, and trust that consumers will follow their self-interest, consumers don’t seem to act like fully informed, rational decision-makers when they make energy choices.
Is this because change in behaviour and decision making have not accompanied the programs? Can we blame it on market failures?
Market barriers like the fact that the purchaser of the energy using technology is not the same as the purchaser of the energy itself could be to blame. Like hotel guests who don’t have to pay for their energy consumption, or landlords who buy cheap, inefficient technology because the tenants pay the utility bills.
Or is the answer more simple: that energy is too cheap. There is no incentive to change as status quo is comfortable.
Opinion is divided. What is your take? What can be done to pick the low hanging fruit which has since long fallen to the ground?
Why are energy-efficiency programs around the world languishing?. Despite financial incentives for adopting energy-saving, cost-effective technology, and trust that consumers will follow their self-interest, consumers don’t seem to act like fully informed, rational decision-makers when they make energy choices.
Is this because change in behaviour and decision making have not accompanied the programs? Can we blame it on market failures?
Market barriers like the fact that the purchaser of the energy using technology is not the same as the purchaser of the energy itself could be to blame. Like hotel guests who don’t have to pay for their energy consumption, or landlords who buy cheap, inefficient technology because the tenants pay the utility bills.
Or is the answer more simple: that energy is too cheap. There is no incentive to change as status quo is comfortable.
Opinion is divided. What is your take? What can be done to pick the low hanging fruit which has since long fallen to the ground?
Car-free towns
Vauban in Germany is one of the largest car-free neighbourhoods in Europe, home to more than 5,000 people. If you own a car here, you must buy a space in a multi-storey car park on the edge of the district. Vehicles are allowed down the residential streets at walking pace to pick up and deliver, but not to park. Streets have been taken over by kids as young as four or five, playing, skating and unicycling without direct supervision.
Most of the European car-free areas prevent vehicles from entering the streets where people live. Exceptions are made for emergency vehicles and removals vans but not for normal deliveries, which are made on foot, trolley or cycle trailer. Cycling is a vital means of transport.
That seems a contrast from cities in developing nations where everybody is on a car-buying spree. More cars on the road, and most single occupants, mean roads to be widened and that means trees face the axe! Cities are beginning to look like desert landscapes. Goes without saying car-free cities/towns will need certain infrastructure in place.
More of the metal story follows. India is drowning under 4,20,000 tons of e-waste a year which is growing at 10-15 percent a year. Pollution control officials says there are only six regular recycling units in India, with an annual capacity of 27,000 tonnes.
Without recycling facilities that can handle the loads of e-waste that need to be process,97% of the waste gets recycled in hazardous conditions, where workers are exposed to toxins like barium, cadmium, copper and lead.
Health conditions apart, the problem points to a scenario where too many new and unnecessary gadgets keep pouring into the market place, displacing old but perfectly usable gadgets pouring into dumps and recycling facilities!
The fancy with gadgets is all too visible with the middle class joining the upper classes. Lessons in recycling and reducing waste are yet to pick up in the collective consciousness. Perhaps nothing short of a movement can address the problem.
Are you doing something in your community?
Most of the European car-free areas prevent vehicles from entering the streets where people live. Exceptions are made for emergency vehicles and removals vans but not for normal deliveries, which are made on foot, trolley or cycle trailer. Cycling is a vital means of transport.
That seems a contrast from cities in developing nations where everybody is on a car-buying spree. More cars on the road, and most single occupants, mean roads to be widened and that means trees face the axe! Cities are beginning to look like desert landscapes. Goes without saying car-free cities/towns will need certain infrastructure in place.
More of the metal story follows. India is drowning under 4,20,000 tons of e-waste a year which is growing at 10-15 percent a year. Pollution control officials says there are only six regular recycling units in India, with an annual capacity of 27,000 tonnes.
Without recycling facilities that can handle the loads of e-waste that need to be process,97% of the waste gets recycled in hazardous conditions, where workers are exposed to toxins like barium, cadmium, copper and lead.
Health conditions apart, the problem points to a scenario where too many new and unnecessary gadgets keep pouring into the market place, displacing old but perfectly usable gadgets pouring into dumps and recycling facilities!
The fancy with gadgets is all too visible with the middle class joining the upper classes. Lessons in recycling and reducing waste are yet to pick up in the collective consciousness. Perhaps nothing short of a movement can address the problem.
Are you doing something in your community?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Technology is king
Hope never dies. New modelling shows that a better than even chance of avoiding 2 degree warming is still possible BUT only if agreement is reached and implemented within the next twelve months. Researchers from Victoria University have warned that if the world acts now, it may be possible to have global emissions peaking at about 2060 and temperatures beginning to decline by century’s end.
This can be achieved by advanced economies reducing their emissions by 80 per cent between now and 2050, with the developing countries coming on board between 2015 and 2030. Achieving this result will mean the elimination of all greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries within 50 years and from developing countries in a slightly longer timeframe.
What this will do is generate a new industrial revolution with huge investment in new technologies, industries and communities.
In a related event, India hosted a high-level technology summit in Delhi, supporting progress toward a global agreement on "climate-friendly" technologies. Technology innovation centers across the globe that allow globally available technologies to be adapted to local conditions and situations were mooted. Also proposed was the creation of a "hub and core" of expertise and best practice that could become a global resource for policymakers and implementers to exchange information and experience.
Cooperative clean energy relationships saw a start at the meeting. These included a technology cooperation agreement between India and Norway, a memorandum of understanding on smart-grid collaboration between British and Indian industry, and an announcement by Philip Hunt, Minister of State for the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change, that his country intends to establish three centers of innovation worldwide, including one in India.
On the question of new technology and IPR, India feels that climate-friendly and environmentally sound technologies should be viewed as global public goods, and hence IPR should balance rewards for innovators with the need for the common good of mankind. To this end, India restated its proposal for the establishment of a global fund to purchase such IPRs and distribute them as global goods where they are needed.
And if glaciers and hurricanes seem a distant threat, and if you want to know how climate change will affect your part of the world simply click on a link and see. The UK government has set up a climate change impact map.
Finally it is all about being aware of the problem and doing something about it instead of waiting for apocalypse to happen! If US consumers used existing technology to its fullest, a whole France-worth of carbon emissions can be saved, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. To change behaviour, incentives and rebates could be used but unless these are substantial, change will take a long time.
And while on climate change, a word on the ethics. Amartya Sen has a moot point to make when he warns the fast developing nations against the same mistakes the west made. India and China should now make sure that non-polluting countries in Africa are dealt with the same standards of fairness and justice that they seek from the western world in any environment related settlement, he told a conference on "Trade, Urbanization and the Environment" organized by the Peking University and the Veolia Environment Institute. It would be a mistake to divide the world into old polluters and new polluters. If that was so, non-polluting in Africa will blame India and China one day for not doing enough to protect the environment when they could do so.
Clearly, some believe in technology and others in behavioural changes. What is your take?
This can be achieved by advanced economies reducing their emissions by 80 per cent between now and 2050, with the developing countries coming on board between 2015 and 2030. Achieving this result will mean the elimination of all greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries within 50 years and from developing countries in a slightly longer timeframe.
What this will do is generate a new industrial revolution with huge investment in new technologies, industries and communities.
In a related event, India hosted a high-level technology summit in Delhi, supporting progress toward a global agreement on "climate-friendly" technologies. Technology innovation centers across the globe that allow globally available technologies to be adapted to local conditions and situations were mooted. Also proposed was the creation of a "hub and core" of expertise and best practice that could become a global resource for policymakers and implementers to exchange information and experience.
Cooperative clean energy relationships saw a start at the meeting. These included a technology cooperation agreement between India and Norway, a memorandum of understanding on smart-grid collaboration between British and Indian industry, and an announcement by Philip Hunt, Minister of State for the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change, that his country intends to establish three centers of innovation worldwide, including one in India.
On the question of new technology and IPR, India feels that climate-friendly and environmentally sound technologies should be viewed as global public goods, and hence IPR should balance rewards for innovators with the need for the common good of mankind. To this end, India restated its proposal for the establishment of a global fund to purchase such IPRs and distribute them as global goods where they are needed.
And if glaciers and hurricanes seem a distant threat, and if you want to know how climate change will affect your part of the world simply click on a link and see. The UK government has set up a climate change impact map.
Finally it is all about being aware of the problem and doing something about it instead of waiting for apocalypse to happen! If US consumers used existing technology to its fullest, a whole France-worth of carbon emissions can be saved, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. To change behaviour, incentives and rebates could be used but unless these are substantial, change will take a long time.
And while on climate change, a word on the ethics. Amartya Sen has a moot point to make when he warns the fast developing nations against the same mistakes the west made. India and China should now make sure that non-polluting countries in Africa are dealt with the same standards of fairness and justice that they seek from the western world in any environment related settlement, he told a conference on "Trade, Urbanization and the Environment" organized by the Peking University and the Veolia Environment Institute. It would be a mistake to divide the world into old polluters and new polluters. If that was so, non-polluting in Africa will blame India and China one day for not doing enough to protect the environment when they could do so.
Clearly, some believe in technology and others in behavioural changes. What is your take?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
