Saturday, July 31, 2010

Algae still lagging in the race

Algae are seen as the ideal biofuel source. They feed on CO2 from the surrounding air and grow using the photosynthesis route. They can be stored and processed as biofuel.

One of the benefits to harnessing algae is that it can use waste-water and ocean water, and it is relatively harmless to the local environment should it spill or leak. Algae also have a much higher production rate per acre than soy or corn.

Some studies have shown that up to 99% of the CO2 introduced to the solution can be converted or sequestered. However, algae populations can bloom and grow so quickly that they outrun the supply of nutrients or sunlight, leading to a collapse of the population. The cost of production in terms of water and energy input is also high. Carbon emissions have also been shown to be high.

New techniques have been working around these problem areas, but more is to be done. A new study in Energy and Fuels shows that when you grow that algae in bioreactors made up of clear tubes, so much energy is required that the carbon footprint of the biofuel is over three times greater than the fossil fuel it would replace.

According to Anna Stephenson from the University of Cambridge, when algae is grown in clear-tubed bioreactors the energy required to move the algae around so that it gets enough sunlight means that per megajoule equivalent of fuel, the algae fuel has a carbon footprint of 320 grams while petro-diesel takes 86 grams. Stephenson notes that when in grown in open ponds, however, the carbon footprint drops markedly, becoming 4.5 times lower than petro-diesel. However open ponds utilise more water! And the yield of biofuel from open ponds is much low than from reactors.

Just when algae seemed to be the intelligent way to use sunlight, absorb carbon dioxide and make fuel! Not to be discouraged, some way will be worked out. That's what technology and research is all about.

Desertec on track

The deserts of Africa to generate power for Europe? - exactly what the Desertec project set out to accomplish in 10 years and now it looks, five years.

This is based around a series of huge concentrating thermal plants in the Sahara Desert and elsewhere around North Africa and the Middle East, with transmission lines bringing the power north into Europe. The figures have been impressive : by 2050, the projects are capable of generating up to 470,000 megawatts of electricity; only 0.02 percent of the land area in the region will be needed for all of the solar plants; in fact, only one percent of the entire world's desert area, if covered by solar power plants, could power, well, everything.

Tall order?? What about transmission losses across large distances? The power loss over high-voltage direct-current transmission lines is about 4 to 5 percent per 1,000kilometers of transmission; the costs associated with such losses, however, are made up by the remarkably high insolation (solar radiation energy) in the North Africa region, according to Desertec.

Costa are high and yes, the area is politically unstable, but given the target of achieving 20 percent of its power from renewables, Europe is squaring its shoulders.

The first pilot project around Morocco and surrounding cities may well take off soon.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Plug the soot

More grist for the mill - soot is inching close to carbon dioxide as a major contributer to global warming. And where does most of soot come from? - burning biomass in the developing nations, (which still do not have other means).

According to a new study by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, if we were to cut soot emissions we could drastically halt the melting ice in the Arctic. His study showed that soot is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming; putting it above other greenhouse gasses like methane. Additionally Jacobson found that soot kills over 1.5 million people prematurely each year and affects millions more with respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and asthma. (that has been well known fact.)

Jacobson found that while fossil fuel soot contributed more to global warming, the soot emitted from biofuels caused eight times the number of deaths as fossil fuel soot did. By providing electricity to rural and developing areas, the need to burn biofuels to cook and heat would drop, and possibly so too the health impacts.

Reducing soot emissions would have an immediate impact on global warming due to the magnitude with which soot is playing a part in our atmosphere, and the way in which it plays. Soot is washed out of the atmosphere within a few weeks, compared to gases that sometimes stay for decades or a century. So it is best to address this problem which we can by replacing biomass with electricity in the villages of developing nations.

Controlling the carbon emissions from all the polluting industries, power plants and vehicles has proven to be a slow and difficult task. How easier will it be to lighten million homes with electricity, and cut the soot?

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Green is healthy

Some things are well known by instinct. Yet when research backs what we already know, we feel good about it, right? So, now that yet another study tells us that forests and other natural, green settings can reduce stress, improve moods, reduce anger and aggressiveness and increase overall happiness, we agree.

Forest visits may also strengthen our immune system by increasing the activity and number of natural killer cells that destroy cancer cells, says a study by Finnish Forest Research Institute, Metla.

Many studies show that after stressful or concentration-demanding situations, people recover faster and better in natural environments than in urban settings. Blood pressure, heart rate, muscle tension and the level of "stress hormones" all decrease faster in natural settings. Depression, anger and aggressiveness are reduced in green environments and ADHD symptoms in children reduce when they play in green settings.

Preserving green areas and trees in cities is very important to help people recover from stress, maintain health and cure diseases. There is also monetary value in improving people's working ability and reducing health care costs, as one of the team says.

But in the final reckoning, trees in cities are giving way to wider and wider roads to facilitate more vehicles. We seem to be wantonly destroying that which is beneficial to our health.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Solar advances


Sicily has just announced the opening of the world’s first concentrated solar power (CSP) facility that uses molten salt as a heat collection medium. Since molten salt is able to reach very high temperatures (over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and can hold more heat than the synthetic oil used in other CSP plants, the plant is able to continue to produce electricity even after the sun has gone down.

While photovoltaic solar panels work by directly producing electricity from sunlight, CSP plants use mirrors to concentrate sunlight and produce high temperatures in order to drive a turbine to generate electricity. CSP plants have been in existence for many years, but the Archimede plant is the first instance of a facility that uses molten salt as the collection medium.

Some existing CSP plants have used molten salt storage in order to extend their operation, but the collectors have relied on oil as the heat collection medium. This has necessitated two heat transfer systems (one for oil-to-molten-salt, and the other for molten-salt-to-steam) which increases the complexity and decreases the efficiency of the system.

The Archimede plant has a capacity of 5 megawatts with a field of 30,000 square meters of mirrors and more than 3 miles of heat collecting piping for the molten salt. The cost for this initial plant was around 60 million Euros.

Cost is one thing, the other being maintenance of the wide-spread unit. Huge tracts of land are required for CSP units plus, the use of salt could lead to some problems in cleaning when the salt freezes. Still, CSP could be the technology for desert or waste lands? How would it compare with biofuels used on the same land? Any comparisons?

The U.S. Senate Energy Committee meanwhile advanced a big piece of solar energy legislation recently. This bill is aimed at getting 10 million new solar systems on U.S. roofs in the next 10 years. The U.S. Department of Energy claims that combined with existing solar energy incentives, the 10 Million Solar Roofs bill could exceed its goal of 10 million new solar systems in 10 years.

Hold on to sewage

What is scarce? - Energy, power. What is abundant? - Waste. And if you can convert the abundant into the scarce, what joy!

Engineers at Oregon State University have made a significant advance toward producing electricity from sewage, by the use of new coatings on the anodes of microbial electrochemical cells that increased the electricity production about 20 times.

The findings, just published online in Biosensors and Bioelectronics, a professional journal, bring the researchers one step closer to technology that could clean biowaste at the same time it produces useful levels of electricity -- a promising new innovation in wastewater treatment and renewable energy.

Engineers found that by coating graphite anodes with a nanoparticle layer of gold, the production of electricity increased 20 times. Coatings with palladium produced an increase, but not nearly as much. And the researchers believe nanoparticle coatings of iron -- which would be a lot cheaper than gold -- could produce electricity increases similar to that of gold, for at least some types of bacteria.

In this technology, bacteria from biowaste such as sewage are placed in an anode chamber, where they form a biofilm, consume nutrients and grow, in the process releasing electrons. Sewage is the fuel for electricity production.

The treatment of wastewater could be changed from an energy-consuming technology into one that produces usable energy. The technology already works on a laboratory basis, researchers say, but advances are necessary to lower its cost, improve efficiency and electrical output, and identify the lowest cost materials that can be used.

Now this is what makes more sense than trying to discover new sources of energy, right?

Friday, July 23, 2010

Renewable gas

National Grid, which distributes gas and electricity in northeastern US and the UK, says that renewable gas could meet 16% of demand.

Published in a white paper, Renewable Gas - Vision for a Sustainable Gas Network, the company research shows how biomethane produced from waste could meet the needs of its US customers in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. With investment of around $7 billion across the four states it covers, National Grid says renewable gas could meet up to 25% of demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 16 million tons a year.

Unconventional sources such as dairy farms, waste water treatment plants, landfills, wood waste and food waste plants will get linked into the grid. In fact, any unit that generates biodegradable waste can be a potential source. An excellent way to get rid fo colossal waste we generate too.

In the UK, National Grid has joined forces with British Gas and a local brewer, Adnams, to use waste from the brewing process to produce biomethane and inject it directly into the UK’s gas network. The remaining waste is an effective manure material.

Sun on my roof


Solar PV has more than its share of detractors but one cannot simply ignore the way it is bringing light into people's lives. Take for instance in Bangaldesh, where Faroukh lives miles from the nearest mains power. His mobile, like the lights in his home and in his wife’s sewing workshop, are charged by solar electricity, courtesy of a small PV panel attached to his roof. He bought it from Grameen Shakti (‘village energy’) – an offshoot of the hugely successful Grameen Bank.

The savings on fuel costs of kerosene lanterns easily cover the monthly repayments. The clean, bright solar lamps mean that he and his wife can work into the evenings – more than doubling their income as a result – while the phone grants them access to the wider economy in a way unimaginable just a decade ago. Now, when Faroukh hauls in his nets, the first thing he does is ring round various ports to get the best possible price for his catch: a small example of low-carbon development redistributing economic power in favor of the poor.

Grameen Shakti has now installed close on half a million solar home systems across the country, and confidently expects to hit one million by 2012. With over 30 million families marooned off grid in Bangladesh alone, the potential for future growth is enormous.

Another organisation Shidulai has a fleet of solar boats, which double as all-purpose advice centers, connected by webcam to health and agricultural experts hundreds of miles away.

Now, isn't that somehting if more and more organisations could get into the job? Instead of aiming at getting everyone into the grid, such units are more easily set up and renewable energy-based.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Clean energy partnerships

Ministers from 24 countries unveiled about a dozen clean energy partnerships two days ago in an event that avoided the topic of climate talks, even as the participants make up more than 80 percent of world energy use. When the ministers met privately, they crafted a group of clean-energy initiatives in smart grid, carbon capture and sequestration, electric cars, efficient appliances and more.
If these programs reach their full potential, the US Department of Energy said, the world could skip building 500 mid-size power plants between now and 2030.

By DOE's calculations, that's about 1,500 terawatt-hours of power that won't be needed. By 2030, however, the world is on pace to add more than 14,000 terawatt-hours of power, according to the International Energy Agency. So 1500 is but a drop!)

India has signed onto four energy-efficiency projects. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of India's Planning Commission and the head of its delegation, said of the meeting, "this has nothing to do with international negotiations."

He said the climate talks focus on topics like what national targets should be, how to verify what countries are doing, and how some countries should compensate others. The ministerial, to his mind, was more about sharing knowledge in areas where India is already committed to act.

India will help lead one program to replace old, inefficient televisions and light bulbs with efficient ones. According to DOE, these appliances make up 15 percent of household electricity use worldwide; efficient TVs could save about 80 power plants' worth of energy. California and much of Europe are in the process of banning/discouraging huge LCD sets.

Given the increasing sizes of TVs in Indian homes as also the number of sets per home, it becomes imperative that some efficiency standard be set. Surprisingly, the BEE has not yet started labelling TV sets.

It is a telling comment that such a meet avoided the subject of climate change - indiaction of how unwilling governments are to take action! Hopefully, some of the clean energy initiatives will indirectly help check the global warming crisis.

Simple enlightenment

Given the lack of response to the blog, it's time to lighten the mood and go for a story, perhaps. This one has a moral, dear to our beliefs. So here goes...

Buddha, one day, was in deep thought about worldly activities and the ways of instilling goodness in human beings.


One of his disciples approached him and said humbly "Oh my teacher ! While you are so much concerned about the world and others, why don't you look in to the welfare and needs of your own disciples also."

Buddha: "OK.. Tell me how I can help you"

Disciple: "Master! My attire is worn out and is beyond the decency to wear the same. Can I get a new one, please?"

Buddha found the robe indeed was in a bad condition and needed replacement. He asked the store keeper to give the disciple a new robe to wear on. The disciple thanked Buddha and retired to his room.

A while later, Buddha went to his disciple's place and asked him "Is your new attire comfortable? Do you need anything more?"

Disciple: "Thank you my Master. The attire is indeed very comfortable. I need nothing more"

Buddha: "Having got the new one, what did you do with your old attire?"

Disciple: "I am using it as my bed spread"

Buddha: "Then.. hope you have disposed off your old bed spread"

Disciple: " No.. no.. master. I am using my old bedspread as my window curtain"

Buddha: " What about your old Curtain?"

Disciple: "Being used to handle hot utensils in the kitchen"

Buddha: "Oh.. I see.. Can you tell me what did they do with the old cloth they used in Kitchen"

Disciple: "They are being used to wash the floor."

Buddha:" Then, the old rug being used to wash the floor...?"

Disciple: "Master, since they were torn off so much, we could not find any better use, but to use as a twig in the oil lamp, which is right now lit in your study room...."

Buddha smiled in contentment and left for his room.


Can we even begin to try this in our homes and workplace? The world would be a lighter and cleaner place.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

A long wait

Solar has seen some major discussions in expert circles. Is it worth going for solar power production, or better to stick to solar thermal applications? Cost of PV panels, vast land requirement and the poor conversion ratio of sunlight into power are cited as some reasons to avoid the power path.

Others cite the low gestation period and zero maintenance as reasons to opt for solar power. The technology is advancing in leaps, they say.

For instance, one team of materials scientists is developing microcells that could be rubber-stamped by the millions onto a yard of fabric. When such cells shrink in size — but not efficiency —it becomes hard to imagine what they couldn’t electrify. Foldable and moldable modules crammed full of photovoltaic cells could directly power devices or recharge batteries.

At Sandia Labs in the US, 20 micrometer thick cells have been developed that are less than 10 percent as chunky as the ones used in conventional photovoltaic devices. By studding minute refractive lenses into glass or plastic plates, each lens concentrates sunlight onto a solar cell, nearly as small as a pinpoint, that sits directly below.

Silicon is needed only at the focal point of each lens, further diminishing the required quantity to about 1 percent of what’s needed per unit of light-collecting area with commercial photovoltaics. But making modules out of individual cells are just beginning. SO it will take time.

Time, that's the catch-word! What do you think, is it worth pursuing solar power and granting huge subsidies? Or focus on a mix with solar thermal, biogas and wind in tandem with conventional power?

Monday, July 19, 2010

Blowing hot and cold

Did you know that the earth's magnetic field is weakening? Did you know that it has already reached nil in certain areas across the Atlantic? And that this is a process that will soon spread to other regions? And then what? Catastrophe of course. This magnetic field that originates in the earth's metallic core due to the dynamo effect created by a spinning, conducting earth, protects us from the harmful effects of cosmic particles and solar radiation. Without it, our whole electronic system will go haywire...

And now, Nasa says the Earth's upper atmosphere has had a record breaking collapse. The collapse occurred during a period of low solar activity known as a "solar minimum." During a solar minimum, sunspots and solar flare activity heavily diminish. This collapse occurred during the 2008-2009 solar minimum. While these minimums are known to cool and contract the thermosphere, this collapse was 3-times greater than low solar activity could explain.

Earth's thermosphere ranges in altitude from 55 miles to 370 miles above ground, so it is heavily affected by solar activity. This layer is responsible for intercepting extreme ultraviolet light (EUV) before it hits the Earth's surface.

How about targetting the favourite villain - carbon dioxide? After all it does act as a coolant, shedding heat through infrared radiation. This cooling may be magnified during a solar minimum. No luck, factoring in the gas didnt help the calculations!

So what's going on up there, and down under?? We still do not know lots about our planet. Just enough to realise that it has evolved in the right way to sustain life. But, for how long?

Where is all the water going?


How much can a glacier change within a century? Take a look at the picture. Its shows view of West Rongbuk Glacier and Mount Everest, taken in 1921 (top) by Major E.O. Wheeler and in 2009 (bottom) by David Breashears. (Photo courtesy of the Royal Geographical Society). David Breashears who has climbed the Everest more than twice was in for a surprise when he revisited the area in 2009.

The loss of these frozen reservoirs of water will have a huge impact, as the glaciers provide seasonal flows to nearly every major river system in Asia. From the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra in South Asia, to the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers in China, hundreds of millions of people are partially dependent on this vast arc of high-altitude glaciers for water.

As the glaciers recede and release stored water, flows will temporarily increase. But once these ice reservoirs are spent, the water supply for a sprawling, overpopulated continent will be threatened, and the impacts on water resources and food security could be dire. We do not seem to recognise the significance of this.

It shows, in the recent news that a Texan company is planning to ship Alaskan water from the Blue Lake reservoir to India! To be sold at a penny a gallon, the firm will make $26 million annually for the city. The best way out of water scarcity???!

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Sea level in Indian Ocean rising

Newly detected rising sea levels in parts of the Indian Ocean, including the coastlines of the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka, Sumatra and Java, appear to be at least partly a result of human-induced increases of atmospheric greenhouse gases, says a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The study, which combined sea surface measurements going back to the 1960s and satellite observations, indicates anthropogenic climate warming likely is amplifying regional sea rise changes in parts of the Indian Ocean, threatening inhabitants of some coastal areas and islands.

The sea level rise -- which may aggravate monsoon flooding in Bangladesh and India --could have far-reaching impacts on both future regional and global climate.

The key player in the process is the Indo-Pacific warm pool, an enormous, bathtub-shaped area of the tropical oceans stretching from the east coast of Africa west to the International Date Line in the Pacific. The warm pool has heated by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, or 0.5 degrees Celsius, in the past 50 years, primarily caused by human-generated increases of greenhouse gases.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Bleak outlook on climate change

Engineer M. Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University, climate scientist Kirsten Zickfeld of the University of Victoria in British Columbia and physicist David Frame of the University of Oxford in England interviewed 14 "leading climate scientists" about three possible climate scenarios to ascertain what might happen depending on how much heat greenhouse gases end up adding.

The aim was to round up the most senior climate experts and gauge their opinions on what is most likely to happen under three scenarios: a high degree of warming, a moderate amount of warming and relatively little warming—as well as to judge when, if ever, the global climate might reach a "tipping point" into a completely altered state.

One main point from the result published in the June 28 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: What was most uncertain to all 14 experts was clouds—specifically, whether clouds would exacerbate climate change by trapping more heat or ameliorate it by reflecting more sunlight. Regardless of the unknown effects of clouds, 13 of the 14 judged the odds better than even that if the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases peaked and leveled off at seven watts per meter-squared by 2200—we would see an entirely new climate.

In fact, nine of the experts judged the probability of such a "basic state change" in the atmosphere to be at least 90 percent, or more. That corresponds to a warming of as much as 12.5 degrees Celsius—a worst case scenario.

Fortunately, the human-induced extra heat at present hovers at about 1.2 watts per meter squared.

The interviewed experts don't expect to be any more able to understand clouds and the other uncertainties by 2030—even if funding for such research were tripled in the next 20 years.

Pointing to the fact that we dont know 'more than what we knew in 1975 regarding climate sensitivity'. So what is the lesson here, any guesses?

Sunday, July 11, 2010

The green myth

A green myth is on the march. It wants to blame the world's overbreeding poor people for the planet's peril. It stinks. And on World Population Day, I encourage fellow environmentalists not to be seduced. That is how noted author and journalist Fred Pearce puts it in a recent write-up.

Citing how the number of children per woman has come down by half in 40 years, Pearce notes that the ‘big story is that rich or poor, socialist or capitalist, Muslim or Catholic, secular or devout, with tough government birth-control policies or none, most countries tell the same story: Small families are the new norm. Rising consumption today is a far bigger threat to the environment than a rising head count. And most of that extra consumption is still happening in rich countries that have long since given up growing their populations.’

Virtually all of the remaining population growth is in the poor world, and the poor half of the planet is only responsible for 7 percent of carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians. ‘How dare rich-world greens blame the poor world for the planet's perils?’

'The population bomb is being defused right now -- by the world's poor women. Sadly, the consumption bomb is still primed and ever more dangerous. Now that would be a proper target for environmentalists.'

One can't but agree wih Pearce. But that is not to say that population issue can be forgotten as being over. However, it is the rising consumption, both in rich and poor nations, as also the rising waste, that is the real problem. In sub-Saharan Africa, at least 265 million people are hungry, heightening the travesty of the food waste problem. More than a quarter of the food produced in Africa spoils before it is eaten. In the US, about 4-10% of food purchases become waste in restaurants before ever reaching the customer. Volunteers visiting farms after a harvest to glean, or pick up, the perfectly good produce left behind could save and distribute 15.7 million pounds of produce in 2009!

As to controlling consumption, not many takers will be found given how consumption is linked to growth in our capitalist society. Right?

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

IEA happy with tech development

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says the first green shoots of an energy revolution are starting to appear. According to the IEA’s latest study, Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) 2010, global investment in renewable electricity generation reached an all-time high of $112 billion in 2008 and remained largely stable in 2009.

Funding for research, development and deployment also increased by a third between 2005 and 2008, reversing the decline that had begun in the 1980s.

And the rate of energy efficiency improvement in OECD countries has increased to nearly 2% a year – more than double the rate a decade ago.

The report emphasises the gulf between a business-as-usual approach, which would see energy-related CO2 emissions double by 2050, and the IEA’s ‘BLUE Map’ scenario of a ‘least-cost’ path to halve emissions by 2050 compared with 2005 levels.

To achieve this – and limit long-term temperature rise to 2-3°C – IEA’s Tanaka says a rapid large-scale deployment of low-carbon technologies is needed, decarbonising the energy system and leading to a ‘new age’ of electrification.

Increasing energy efficiency will be of the highest priority, says the IEA, offering as it does a low-cost and by and large existing means of actually reducing consumption.

The cost of the ‘revolution’ – the IEA’s BLUE Map scenario – will be an extra $46 trillion over the business-as-usual model, but this could be offset by fuel savings of an estimated $112 trillion.

Fast-growing economies – such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Russia – will have to become major technology developers and cut their own emissions by around 30%, while OECD nations will have to make major cuts in emissions of 70-80% compared to current levels.

The breathing Gaia

Trying to understand the intricate ways in which the ecosystem responds to variations of tempearature (or carbon) is a complex job, but studies are making some progress. Two recent studies bear that out.

The first study was conducted by a team at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, along with colleagues from 10 other countries around the world, and looked at Earth’s Gross Primary Production, or GPP, which refers to the total amount of carbon dioxide that plants on the surface of the planet breathe in through photosynthesis each year.

The researchers found that Earth’s tropical forests are responsible for 34% of the carbon dioxide inhaled from the atmosphere, while the savannas account for 26%. Both figures look promising, but when you consider that savannas occupy twice as much surface area as the tropical forests do, the numbers start to look a little different.

The second study also from the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, as well as an international team of researchers show that the sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to temperature variations seems to be independent from external factors and constant across ecosystems. In other words, they found a general relationship between variation in temperature and ecosystem respiration.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Big savings through energy efficiency

A new study indicates that switching off lights and electrical appliances when not in use, as well as choosing more efficient models, has more impact on reducing CO2 emissions than previously thought.

Adam Hawkes of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London looked at the estimated figure for emission rates that the UK Government uses to calculate the impact of energy efficiency measures. His analysis shows that this estimated figure could be up to 60% too low.

The argument centres on how the estimated figure is determined. Currently, the Government uses an average across all forms of generation to come up with a value of 0.43 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed.

This figure includes low-carbon energy sources such as wind and nuclear. These energy sources, however, are not able to respond to instantaneous fluctuations in electricity demand – which is where fossil fuel power plants come in.

Hawkes calculates that the actual rate observed between 2002 and 2009 is 0.69 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Meanwhile, the Indian government's Cabinet approved the implementation plan of the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE) with a budgetary support of Rs.235.38 crore required for implementation of the Mission with effect from 2010-11.
These initiatives will avoid capacity addition of about 19,598 MW. It would result in fuel savings of around 23 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE) and reduction in Green House Gasses (GHG) emissions of 98.55 million tonnes.

The National Mission seeks to create and sustain markets for energy efficiency in the entire country which will benefit the country and the consumers. It is estimated that this will unlock new and innovative forms of market for energy efficiency estimated at Rs.74,000 crore.

Air travel as last resort


Germany's Chancellor Merkel has presented an austerity plan that includes an eco-tax on air travel. Advocates hope for new revenues of 1 billion euros from the eco-tax on air travel. The opposition claims the German government is using the environment as a lame excuse to raise taxes.

The proposal offers solidarity with Great Britain, which started air travel duties in 2007 and will raise the air tax significantly later this year. Although the details are not yet clear, it is expected that Germany will follow Britain's model, applying lower duties to shorter flights and penalizing long flights more severely, in relation to their higher emissions.

Is it a eco-tax or merely a way of tapping extra revenue? As the airlines point out (correctly) taking a modern plane is more fuel efficient than driving alone in a car. Is it really necessary to discourage flying?The problem with flying is that the emissions are released high in the atmosphere, where they can cause more problems than an equal amount of emissions from a car on the ground. Furthermore, this overlooks the option of train travel.

Should air travel be the last resort or be treated as a form of mass transport? Will such move merely divert traffic to other nations, or to people taking many short flights instead of one long flight? How else can we price externalities into air travel which is a concern for climate change issues?

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Cities getting hotter

More concrete, more steel, skyscrapers reconfiguring wind, less trees and soils loaded with asphalt and vehicles - all this leads to more heat trapped in cities.

This stored heat will only get worse with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, says Mark McCarthy, lead author and a research scientist with the Climate Impacts team at the Met Office, the United Kingdom's weather service. The research finds that "urban areas are warming faster" than rural ones, in response to rising levels of carbon dioxide.

In a world with carbon dioxide concentrations of 645 ppm, cities such as Los Angeles; Tehran, Iran; and Delhi, India, will experience about three times as many hot nights than in one with half as much carbon dioxide.

Their models predict that urban daytime temperatures will rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit in most parts of the world when carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reach 645 parts per million, a figure possible as early as 2050. By then, more than 68 percent of the world's population will reside within urban areas -- up from 50 percent in 2009.

Plan to check out that suburban land you almost thought of buying??

Smart is not enough

The campaign to conserve electricity in the home needs to pay more attention to consumers and not just fix on the gee-whiz technology of smart meters, a US energy conservation advocacy organization says.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) released a report summarizing 57 pilot tests of household energy conservation strategies in this country and abroad, finding that annual electricity savings ranged from 4 to 12 percent.

The good news from the tests is that consumers can trim their electricity consumption significantly, but smart meters alone can’t do that. A good amount of consumer eduation is required.

To realize the potential savings in household electricity use, consumers must be provided a range of "positive reinforcement" through up-to-the-minute feedback showing them that their conservation efforts matter, the center said.

Many utilities are deploying smart meters for their own business purposes, ACEEE concludes while programs to enlist consumer support are lagging. The devices eliminate the need for meter readers, permit remote customer connections and disconnects, and speed restoration of service after storms.

The ACEE report does not give similar weight to proposals for real-time or time-of-use pricing -- controversial policies that would permit utilities to vary their electricity rates during the day based on the costs they pay for wholesale power. Some leading analysts argue that unless consumers see, and pay for, the true cost of power when demand peaks, they won't have the financial motivation to turn off appliances or shift thermostat settings to when prices fall.

But the center believes financial benefits may not be the right focus as much as appealing to people's sense of responsibility as energy consumers. Well, it depends on which part of the world you are living in! And yes, finally how aware the people are of the energy crisis.

Cut meat, milk intake, anyone?

Reducing the consumption of meat and dairy products and improving agricultural practices could decrease global greenhouse gas emissions substantially. By 2055 the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture could be cut by more than eighty percent, researchers of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research find.

The calculations show that global agricultural non-carbon dioxide (non-CO2) emissions increase significantly until 2055 if food energy consumption and diet preferences remain constant at the level of 1995. Taking into account changing dietary preferences towards higher value foods, like meat and milk, associated with higher income, emissions will rise even more. In contrast, reducing the demand for livestock products by 25 percent each decade from 2015 to 2055, leads to lower non-CO2 emissions even compared to 1995.

In the past, agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly methane and nitrous oxide, have increased steadily. In 2005 they accounted for 14 percent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Agricultural emissions originate from the use of synthetic fertilizers on croplands and from flooded rice fields. Because animal products require large amounts of fodder crops, livestock production is connected to higher emissions from fertilizer application.

However, a valid point is that livestock products are very valuable for nutrition as they contributed globally an average of one third of protein to dietary intakes in 2003. For many poor and undernourished people in the developing world who frequently suffer from protein deficiencies livestock products are important parts of food consumption. Asking them to give up is not fair, or even right. What do you think?