A California-based company has developed a solar film panel using “cutting edge photonics techniques,” that can move specific light spectra to the places they are needed most in order to increase solar panel efficiency. Using this film instead of traditional solar panel film, efficiency can reportedly be increased 300%!
Using this efficient, new technology, the cost of solar panel installations could theoretically be cut in half. By using the film panel on top, one can use significantly fewer solar cells in the production of solar panels, thereby dramatically reducing the cost per watt of electricity.
The photonics network separatea the collected sunlight into different spectrum ranges, where they can be routed to different output points at the bottom where different types of solar cells may be placed. The technology also filters out the unused solar spectrum to deliver maximum useful solar energy to the solar cell and avoid overheating.
Looks good.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Removing the black carbon can help
Placing strict limits on a handful of common air pollutants could pay big dividends for efforts to limit climate change, improve public health and increase agricultural productivity, according to a new U.N. report. These are aerosols like black carbon, and methane and ozone. Additionally, limiting emissions of black carbon and chemicals that react with sunlight to form tropospheric ozone could prevent 2.4 million premature deaths and the loss of 1 to 4 percent of the global output of maize, rice, soybean and wheat each year, the analysis found.
Now that's a huge benefit to be ignored!
Cuts in these emissions could be made with existing technology, the report says, and would "have immediate and multiple benefits for human well-being." Possible strategies for reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste.
Black carbon is produced by the burning of fossil fuels as well as biomass like wood and dung.
Researchers expanded the analysis to look at chemicals like methane and precursors to ozone because they are emitted by the same processes -- like biomass burning -- that produce black carbon. Like black carbon, methane and ozone are potent, even if short-lived, greenhouse gases. Black carbon, for example, lingers in the atmosphere for weeks, compared to CO2, which can last for centuries to millennia.
All three can damage human health, while ozone can lower crop yields. Meanwhile, black carbon acts in several ways to accelerate climate change. It absorbs heat from sunlight, warming the surrounding air. When particles of black carbon fall from the atmosphere on ice or snow, they hasten melting. Earlier work suggests that black carbon emissions caused half the total warming in the Arctic between 1890 and 2007.
Perhaps governments of developing nations will pay attention and do something fast about the burning of biomass in unhealthy, unhygienic cookstoves, etc.
Now that's a huge benefit to be ignored!
Cuts in these emissions could be made with existing technology, the report says, and would "have immediate and multiple benefits for human well-being." Possible strategies for reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste.
Black carbon is produced by the burning of fossil fuels as well as biomass like wood and dung.
Researchers expanded the analysis to look at chemicals like methane and precursors to ozone because they are emitted by the same processes -- like biomass burning -- that produce black carbon. Like black carbon, methane and ozone are potent, even if short-lived, greenhouse gases. Black carbon, for example, lingers in the atmosphere for weeks, compared to CO2, which can last for centuries to millennia.
All three can damage human health, while ozone can lower crop yields. Meanwhile, black carbon acts in several ways to accelerate climate change. It absorbs heat from sunlight, warming the surrounding air. When particles of black carbon fall from the atmosphere on ice or snow, they hasten melting. Earlier work suggests that black carbon emissions caused half the total warming in the Arctic between 1890 and 2007.
Perhaps governments of developing nations will pay attention and do something fast about the burning of biomass in unhealthy, unhygienic cookstoves, etc.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Some ground realities, some predictions
There are predictions and predictions. So also optimism in bundles. But does that alone work?
Like all energy needs to be met by solar in two decades! That is what Ray Kurzweil says and he has been good with his predictions so far - he laid out the law of accelerating returns, which states that technology improves at exponential rates, and made a string of dead-on predictions about computing in the 80s.
'If you buy an iPhone today, it's twice as good as two years ago for half the cost. That is happening with solar energy -- it is doubling every two years. And it didn't start two years ago, it started 20 years ago. Every two years, we have twice as much solar energy in the world. Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly ... we are only a few years away from parity.'
'So right now it's at half a percent of the world's energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we'll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been underway for 20 years.'
He is right but there are many ifs involved in this task. For one, imagine the massive task of deploying enough solar farms fast enough to render coal and natural gas plants obsolete? Next, where is the political will to take on the powerful fossil fuel lobbies? Finally, we must remember that clean energy tech breakthroughs have not been as forthcoming as those in IT sector.
Yes, we could, if only some powerful lobbies would!!
Like all energy needs to be met by solar in two decades! That is what Ray Kurzweil says and he has been good with his predictions so far - he laid out the law of accelerating returns, which states that technology improves at exponential rates, and made a string of dead-on predictions about computing in the 80s.
'If you buy an iPhone today, it's twice as good as two years ago for half the cost. That is happening with solar energy -- it is doubling every two years. And it didn't start two years ago, it started 20 years ago. Every two years, we have twice as much solar energy in the world. Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly ... we are only a few years away from parity.'
'So right now it's at half a percent of the world's energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we'll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been underway for 20 years.'
He is right but there are many ifs involved in this task. For one, imagine the massive task of deploying enough solar farms fast enough to render coal and natural gas plants obsolete? Next, where is the political will to take on the powerful fossil fuel lobbies? Finally, we must remember that clean energy tech breakthroughs have not been as forthcoming as those in IT sector.
Yes, we could, if only some powerful lobbies would!!
Just 2 percent can do a miracle...
Investing just 2% of global GDP could both alleviate global poverty, set us solidly on the path away from fossil fuels, and cut our collective ecological footprint nearly in half, according to a new UNEP report.
Says Achim Steiner, 'With 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day and with more than two billion people being added to the global population by 2050, it is clear that we must continue to develop and grow our economies. But this development cannot come at the expense of the very life support systems on land, in the oceans or in out atmosphere that sustain our economies, and thus, the lives of each and everyone one of us.'
The report sees a Green Economy as not only relevant to more developed economies but as a key catalyst for growth and poverty eradication in developing ones too, where in some cases close to 90 per cent of the GDP of the poor is linked to nature or natural capital such as forests and freshwaters.
It cites India, where over 80 per cent of the $8 billion National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which underwrites at least 100 days of paid work for rural households, invests in water conservation, irrigation and land development. This has generated three billion working days-worth of employment benefiting close to 60 million households. (But ask some of the grassroots activists for another story!)
Some of the suggestions it gives are to invest in support small-scale agriculture, energy efficient buildings, fisheries protection, forestry, energy efficient transportation, better waste management and recycling, low carbon energy, better water use practices. Discontinue spending 1-2% of global GDP on subsidies that lead to unsustainable environmental practices, prop up fossil fuels, pesticide use, unsustainable fishing practices.
In theory, this could well be right. But in practice, how much political will is forthcoming? That is the biggest hurdle.
Says Achim Steiner, 'With 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day and with more than two billion people being added to the global population by 2050, it is clear that we must continue to develop and grow our economies. But this development cannot come at the expense of the very life support systems on land, in the oceans or in out atmosphere that sustain our economies, and thus, the lives of each and everyone one of us.'
The report sees a Green Economy as not only relevant to more developed economies but as a key catalyst for growth and poverty eradication in developing ones too, where in some cases close to 90 per cent of the GDP of the poor is linked to nature or natural capital such as forests and freshwaters.
It cites India, where over 80 per cent of the $8 billion National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which underwrites at least 100 days of paid work for rural households, invests in water conservation, irrigation and land development. This has generated three billion working days-worth of employment benefiting close to 60 million households. (But ask some of the grassroots activists for another story!)
Some of the suggestions it gives are to invest in support small-scale agriculture, energy efficient buildings, fisheries protection, forestry, energy efficient transportation, better waste management and recycling, low carbon energy, better water use practices. Discontinue spending 1-2% of global GDP on subsidies that lead to unsustainable environmental practices, prop up fossil fuels, pesticide use, unsustainable fishing practices.
In theory, this could well be right. But in practice, how much political will is forthcoming? That is the biggest hurdle.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Parched planet
Summer is not yet in but water woes have started. Not only in the poor developing world, but also in the developed world, focus is shifting to water.
In the UK, a think tank, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has brought a report saying that low-income households are at particular risk because of new methods being introduced to increase the efficient use and distribution of water. It defines "water poverty" as when households spend 3% or more of their income on water bills.
It warns that water is becoming scarce as a result of climate change and increased consumer demand. An estimated four million households in the UK are already "water poor", according to the report, and the situation is likely to worsen, with bills predicted to rise by 5% a year for some customers. Water companies are moving away from flat-rate fees to new charging models that bill customers with steadily higher prices according to how much water they use.
A less recognised reason for the turmoil in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and now Iran has been rising food prices, directly linked to a growing regional water crisis. The Blue Peace report from Strategic Foresight examined long-term prospects for seven countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. Five already suffer major structural shortages, it said, and the amount of water being taken from dwindling sources across the region cannot continue much longer. Oil is a poor substitute for water!
In this context, once again the issue is of water management and perhaps, privatisation. Will it solve the issue ro take water out of the hands of the poor?
In the UK, a think tank, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has brought a report saying that low-income households are at particular risk because of new methods being introduced to increase the efficient use and distribution of water. It defines "water poverty" as when households spend 3% or more of their income on water bills.
It warns that water is becoming scarce as a result of climate change and increased consumer demand. An estimated four million households in the UK are already "water poor", according to the report, and the situation is likely to worsen, with bills predicted to rise by 5% a year for some customers. Water companies are moving away from flat-rate fees to new charging models that bill customers with steadily higher prices according to how much water they use.
A less recognised reason for the turmoil in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and now Iran has been rising food prices, directly linked to a growing regional water crisis. The Blue Peace report from Strategic Foresight examined long-term prospects for seven countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. Five already suffer major structural shortages, it said, and the amount of water being taken from dwindling sources across the region cannot continue much longer. Oil is a poor substitute for water!
In this context, once again the issue is of water management and perhaps, privatisation. Will it solve the issue ro take water out of the hands of the poor?
Extreme weather, excess rain
A study shows clearly for the first time the human influence on the climate affects the water cycle, going beyond the bounds of typical physical responses such as warming deep ocean and sea surface temperatures or diminishing sea ice and snow cover extent. It also warns of extreme rainfall and floods as the global temperature continues to climb.
It examined daily records from more than 6,000 weather stations around the globe of rainfall, snowfall and other precipitation stretching from 1951 to 1999. In each year of that period, the team determined how extreme precipitation had been. By compiling the information from all these years and comparing it with the precipitation patterns predicted by computer models of the climate, the scientists noted a similar pattern emerging in the real-world data.
The bad news is that such record-breaking downpours, blizzards and sleet storms are likely to continue to get worse as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, causing global temperatures to continue to warm and making the atmosphere more and more humid.
Warmer atmospheric air means more water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas, exacerbating the problem. What goes up, must come down and, more and more, that water vapor is coming down in extreme precipitation events. Water vapor increases by roughly 7 percent for every degree Celsius of warming in the lowest level of the atmosphere—or, more simply put, warmer air means warmer water, which means more of it in the form of vapor and hence, more rain and floods. More of what happened in Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka!
It examined daily records from more than 6,000 weather stations around the globe of rainfall, snowfall and other precipitation stretching from 1951 to 1999. In each year of that period, the team determined how extreme precipitation had been. By compiling the information from all these years and comparing it with the precipitation patterns predicted by computer models of the climate, the scientists noted a similar pattern emerging in the real-world data.
The bad news is that such record-breaking downpours, blizzards and sleet storms are likely to continue to get worse as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, causing global temperatures to continue to warm and making the atmosphere more and more humid.
Warmer atmospheric air means more water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas, exacerbating the problem. What goes up, must come down and, more and more, that water vapor is coming down in extreme precipitation events. Water vapor increases by roughly 7 percent for every degree Celsius of warming in the lowest level of the atmosphere—or, more simply put, warmer air means warmer water, which means more of it in the form of vapor and hence, more rain and floods. More of what happened in Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
LEDs in the dock
Well, they are being touted as safe, green and efficient lighting and the alternative to incandescents and fluorescents. But now, the LEDs also stand exposed, according to latest research.
The light-emitting diodes marketed as safe, environmentally preferable alternatives to traditional lightbulbs actually contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances.
Scientists at UCI and UC Davis crunched, leached and measured the tiny, multicolored lightbulbs sold in Christmas strands; red, yellow and green traffic lights; and automobile headlights and brake lights. Low-intensity red lights contained up to eight times the amount of lead allowed under California law, but in general, high-intensity, brighter bulbs had more contaminants than lower ones. White bulbs contained the least lead, but had high levels of nickel.
Lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses.
The question that rises is if the LEDs were properly tested for potential environmental health impacts before being marketed as the preferred alternative to inefficient incandescent bulbs. Often a new product is marketed for its advantages vis a vis other products in the market, but perhaps it is time to start independent testings, as this case shows.
Will be interesting to hear the other side of the story, though.
The light-emitting diodes marketed as safe, environmentally preferable alternatives to traditional lightbulbs actually contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances.
Scientists at UCI and UC Davis crunched, leached and measured the tiny, multicolored lightbulbs sold in Christmas strands; red, yellow and green traffic lights; and automobile headlights and brake lights. Low-intensity red lights contained up to eight times the amount of lead allowed under California law, but in general, high-intensity, brighter bulbs had more contaminants than lower ones. White bulbs contained the least lead, but had high levels of nickel.
Lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses.
The question that rises is if the LEDs were properly tested for potential environmental health impacts before being marketed as the preferred alternative to inefficient incandescent bulbs. Often a new product is marketed for its advantages vis a vis other products in the market, but perhaps it is time to start independent testings, as this case shows.
Will be interesting to hear the other side of the story, though.
Fertiliser runoff degrading fresh water
Writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters, Stephen Carpenter of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Elena Bennett of McGill University report that the human use of phosphorous, primarily in the industrialized world, is causing the widespread eutrophication of fresh surface water. Equally important, the minable global stocks of phosphorous are concentrated in just a few countries and are in decline, posing the risk of global shortages within the next 20 years.
Phosphorous is an essential element for life. Living organisms, including humans, have small amounts and the element is crucial for driving the energetic processes of cells. In agriculture, phosphorous mined from ancient marine deposits is widely used to boost crop yields. The element also has other industrial uses.
But, excess phosphorous from fertilizer that washes from farm fields and suburban lawns into lakes and streams is the primary cause of the algae blooms that throw freshwater ecosystems out of kilter and degrade water quality. Carpenter and Bennett write that the "planetary boundary for freshwater eutrophication has been crossed while potential boundaries for ocean anoxic events and depletion of phosphate rock reserves loom in the future."
Excess phosphorous in the environment is a problem primarily in the industrialized world, mainly Europe, North America and parts of Asia. In other parts of the world, notably Africa and Australia, soils are phosphorous poor, creating a stark imbalance.
Yet another planetary boundary crossed!
Phosphorous is an essential element for life. Living organisms, including humans, have small amounts and the element is crucial for driving the energetic processes of cells. In agriculture, phosphorous mined from ancient marine deposits is widely used to boost crop yields. The element also has other industrial uses.
But, excess phosphorous from fertilizer that washes from farm fields and suburban lawns into lakes and streams is the primary cause of the algae blooms that throw freshwater ecosystems out of kilter and degrade water quality. Carpenter and Bennett write that the "planetary boundary for freshwater eutrophication has been crossed while potential boundaries for ocean anoxic events and depletion of phosphate rock reserves loom in the future."
Excess phosphorous in the environment is a problem primarily in the industrialized world, mainly Europe, North America and parts of Asia. In other parts of the world, notably Africa and Australia, soils are phosphorous poor, creating a stark imbalance.
Yet another planetary boundary crossed!
Monday, February 14, 2011
High on carbon?
Are our policies biased in favour of fossil fuels?
That is the opinion of many experts about India's Integrated Energy Policy which visualised only 5-6 percent contribution of renewables in India's energy mix by 2031. The IEP also made an assumption that renewables would be critical for India's energy independence only beyond 2050, and largely ignored technology leapfrogging in renewables. Above all, it carried the conviction of continued availability of fossil fuels up to 2050.
And now, there is the Low-carbon committee which seems to actually chart a high carbon growth actually!
Titled the 'Report of the Expert committee on low-carbon strategies for inclusive growth in India', it asserts that coal-based power is the cheapest option. It is not. Hydro is. Some errors apart, it totally ignores the NAPCC targets - like the renewable target of 15 percent by 2020. There is no mention of how this can be done, using what technology, etc. So also in its passing remarks on solar, about which it remarks that solar installed capacity could add up to 20,000 MW by 2020, but "such a large capacity may not be required because other sources are able to meet demand at lower cost." There is no attempt to explain.
Even its projections for wind are way below what is expected given present trends(13,000 MW today).
There is no attempt to analyse why the Energy Conservation Act 2001 continues to be largely ignored, nor mention of need to curb growth of private vehicles with concerns of peak oil.
Many nations are aiming at 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, with some aiming at the halfway mark.
Is business-as-usual all that India can offer? Should reneable energy have not figured more prominently on a low-carbon chart?
That is the opinion of many experts about India's Integrated Energy Policy which visualised only 5-6 percent contribution of renewables in India's energy mix by 2031. The IEP also made an assumption that renewables would be critical for India's energy independence only beyond 2050, and largely ignored technology leapfrogging in renewables. Above all, it carried the conviction of continued availability of fossil fuels up to 2050.
And now, there is the Low-carbon committee which seems to actually chart a high carbon growth actually!
Titled the 'Report of the Expert committee on low-carbon strategies for inclusive growth in India', it asserts that coal-based power is the cheapest option. It is not. Hydro is. Some errors apart, it totally ignores the NAPCC targets - like the renewable target of 15 percent by 2020. There is no mention of how this can be done, using what technology, etc. So also in its passing remarks on solar, about which it remarks that solar installed capacity could add up to 20,000 MW by 2020, but "such a large capacity may not be required because other sources are able to meet demand at lower cost." There is no attempt to explain.
Even its projections for wind are way below what is expected given present trends(13,000 MW today).
There is no attempt to analyse why the Energy Conservation Act 2001 continues to be largely ignored, nor mention of need to curb growth of private vehicles with concerns of peak oil.
Many nations are aiming at 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, with some aiming at the halfway mark.
Is business-as-usual all that India can offer? Should reneable energy have not figured more prominently on a low-carbon chart?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Oil Leaks
The most recent Wikileaks cable released by the Guardian has revealed that US diplomats are convinced that Saudi Arabia has overestimated its vaunted oil reserves by a stunning 40%. The warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive said that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels.
Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then -possibly as early as 2012 - global oil production would have hit its highest point.
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil supplier, and is widely believed to be sitting atop the largest supply of the stuff in the world. But this latest revelation shows that the country may not have enough oil to keep prices from rising drastically over the next couple years.
Hitting peak oil as soon as next year would have a momentous impact on the global economy, which is still extremely dependent on oil. Oil prices are already creeping above the $100 a barrel mark. Analysts have counted on the Middle Eastern nation to pump additional oil if the prices rise high enough, and threaten to choke off demand.
But perhaps the time when Saudi Arabia can stabilize oil demand is well past. As to how equipped the world is, we know. Very poorly. There are no alternatives to take on the role of oil. Will it mean a grinding to halt of the world economy? Do we still have time to start saving up by reducing consumption? But, who will start?
Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then -possibly as early as 2012 - global oil production would have hit its highest point.
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil supplier, and is widely believed to be sitting atop the largest supply of the stuff in the world. But this latest revelation shows that the country may not have enough oil to keep prices from rising drastically over the next couple years.
Hitting peak oil as soon as next year would have a momentous impact on the global economy, which is still extremely dependent on oil. Oil prices are already creeping above the $100 a barrel mark. Analysts have counted on the Middle Eastern nation to pump additional oil if the prices rise high enough, and threaten to choke off demand.
But perhaps the time when Saudi Arabia can stabilize oil demand is well past. As to how equipped the world is, we know. Very poorly. There are no alternatives to take on the role of oil. Will it mean a grinding to halt of the world economy? Do we still have time to start saving up by reducing consumption? But, who will start?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Wind edging close to coal
The cost of onshore wind power has dropped to record lows, and in some regions is competitive with electricity generated by coal-fired plants, according to a survey by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In some regions of Brazil, Mexico, Sweden, and the United States, the cost of electricity generated by wind farms is on par with coal-fired power, the report said.
Bloomberg said it based its analysis on a review of wind turbine contracts provided by 28 turbine buyers in 28 markets across the world. Those contacts represent nearly 7,000 megawatts' worth of turbines.
For the past few years, wind turbine costs went up due to rising demand around the world and the increasing price of steel. Wind manufacturers were reducing their costs, and now we have cheap wind energy thanks to overcapacity in the supply chain.
Bloomberg said it based its analysis on a review of wind turbine contracts provided by 28 turbine buyers in 28 markets across the world. Those contacts represent nearly 7,000 megawatts' worth of turbines.
For the past few years, wind turbine costs went up due to rising demand around the world and the increasing price of steel. Wind manufacturers were reducing their costs, and now we have cheap wind energy thanks to overcapacity in the supply chain.
Monday, February 7, 2011
From good to bad
A severe drought in the Amazon last year, coupled with a “once-in-a-century” drought in 2005, has led to the deaths of countless trees and temporarily turned the vast rainforest into a source of CO2 emissions, rather than a sink.
Reporting in the journal Science, scientists from the University of Leeds said that the 2010 drought killed so many trees in Amazonia that emissions last year are likely to exceed the 5.4 billion tons of CO2 annually released by fossil fuel burning in the United States.
The 2005 drought, which caused rainfall shortages over a 734,000-square-mile area, released an estimated 5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Last year’s drought, which led to rainfall shortages over a 1.16 million square-mile area, is expected to release even more CO2.
The Amazon usually absorbs 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually, but the Leeds researchers warned that global warming could reverse that role. “If events like this happen more often, the Amazon rain forest could reach a point where it shifts from being a valuable carbon sink slowing climate change to a major source of greenhouse gases that could speed it up,” said Simon Lewis, an ecologist at Leeds.
Reporting in the journal Science, scientists from the University of Leeds said that the 2010 drought killed so many trees in Amazonia that emissions last year are likely to exceed the 5.4 billion tons of CO2 annually released by fossil fuel burning in the United States.
The 2005 drought, which caused rainfall shortages over a 734,000-square-mile area, released an estimated 5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Last year’s drought, which led to rainfall shortages over a 1.16 million square-mile area, is expected to release even more CO2.
The Amazon usually absorbs 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually, but the Leeds researchers warned that global warming could reverse that role. “If events like this happen more often, the Amazon rain forest could reach a point where it shifts from being a valuable carbon sink slowing climate change to a major source of greenhouse gases that could speed it up,” said Simon Lewis, an ecologist at Leeds.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Yes, we can, says WWF
We can have a world of vibrant economies and societies powered entirely by clean, cheap and renewable energy!
WWF’s just launched Energy Report confirms that all the world’s energy needs could be provided cleanly, sustainably and economically by the year 2050. Renewable energy is the way ahead. Fossil fuels like oil and coal could become relics of the past. And the sooner we start planning for that cleaner, greener world, the sooner it can be a reality.
The report makes it clear that by 2050 the world’s power, transport, industrial and domestic energy needs could potentially be met entirely from renewable sources.
And that won’t just be good for energy security, it will also cut environmental pollution and, crucially, reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change. A 100% renewable energy future would mean carbon emissions from energy dropping by over 80% worldwide by 2050.
Energy Report also calls for a big global effort to seriously improve the energy efficiency of our economies. To achieve a 100% renewable energy future, we must do more with less energy – under the report’s scenario total global energy demand will actually be at least 15% lower in 2050 than in 2005, thanks to new technologies. And that’s despite the predicted increases in population, industrial output and travel, including electric vehicles.
WWF’s just launched Energy Report confirms that all the world’s energy needs could be provided cleanly, sustainably and economically by the year 2050. Renewable energy is the way ahead. Fossil fuels like oil and coal could become relics of the past. And the sooner we start planning for that cleaner, greener world, the sooner it can be a reality.
The report makes it clear that by 2050 the world’s power, transport, industrial and domestic energy needs could potentially be met entirely from renewable sources.
And that won’t just be good for energy security, it will also cut environmental pollution and, crucially, reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change. A 100% renewable energy future would mean carbon emissions from energy dropping by over 80% worldwide by 2050.
Energy Report also calls for a big global effort to seriously improve the energy efficiency of our economies. To achieve a 100% renewable energy future, we must do more with less energy – under the report’s scenario total global energy demand will actually be at least 15% lower in 2050 than in 2005, thanks to new technologies. And that’s despite the predicted increases in population, industrial output and travel, including electric vehicles.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Down goes a forest
Here's what chasing short-term wealth can do to long-term wellbeing! Malaysia is cutting down forests at more than triple the average rate of the rest of Asia, with the destruction concentrated in the highly biodiverse peatland forests on the island of Borneo, a new analysis of satellite data reveals.
Roughly 10 percent of forests in the Malaysian state of Sarawak on Borneo were cleared in just the past five years, according to the analysis, which was commissioned by Wetlands International, a Netherlands-based environmental group. By comparison, the deforestation rate for the rest of Asia over the past five years was roughly 3.5 percent.
Several threatened and endangered species, including the Sumatran rhino, the Bornean clouded leopard and the Borneo pygmy elephant, are found in Sarawak’s peatland forests.
Same story in many places, like Indonesia and Brazil. Can we come up with a good incentive scheme that will make sure nations keep forests intact? Is REDD a really good scheme? Write in your views.
Roughly 10 percent of forests in the Malaysian state of Sarawak on Borneo were cleared in just the past five years, according to the analysis, which was commissioned by Wetlands International, a Netherlands-based environmental group. By comparison, the deforestation rate for the rest of Asia over the past five years was roughly 3.5 percent.
Several threatened and endangered species, including the Sumatran rhino, the Bornean clouded leopard and the Borneo pygmy elephant, are found in Sarawak’s peatland forests.
Same story in many places, like Indonesia and Brazil. Can we come up with a good incentive scheme that will make sure nations keep forests intact? Is REDD a really good scheme? Write in your views.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Hubris of technology
The first comprehensive survey of plans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere by seeding the oceans with iron or other nutrients shows that even widespread fertilization would remove only modest amounts of CO2 from the air over the next century.
The summary of existing studies said ocean fertilization also carries a risk of causing unintended long-term harm to marine ecosystems. For instance, not all algae blooms are good, some are toxic and studies have shown some of these to contain dangerous neurotoxins.
Ocean fertilization involves dumping iron and other nutrients into the ocean to trigger the growth of phytoplankton, which consumes CO2 as it grows. But the summary, released at a conference on climate geoengineering schemes in California, said the risks of ocean fertilization probably far outweigh the rewards, as it is extremely difficult to assess the impact of the technique over wide swaths of ocean.
Any new technology must be weighed thoroughly before being adapted. Instead of blindly unleashing new technologies, it may be a good idea to check the damage we do instead of falling back on the promise of new saviour technologies!
The summary of existing studies said ocean fertilization also carries a risk of causing unintended long-term harm to marine ecosystems. For instance, not all algae blooms are good, some are toxic and studies have shown some of these to contain dangerous neurotoxins.
Ocean fertilization involves dumping iron and other nutrients into the ocean to trigger the growth of phytoplankton, which consumes CO2 as it grows. But the summary, released at a conference on climate geoengineering schemes in California, said the risks of ocean fertilization probably far outweigh the rewards, as it is extremely difficult to assess the impact of the technique over wide swaths of ocean.
Any new technology must be weighed thoroughly before being adapted. Instead of blindly unleashing new technologies, it may be a good idea to check the damage we do instead of falling back on the promise of new saviour technologies!
Puffing along
Latest figures published by the US Energy Information Administration show CO2 emissions from energy consumption which constitutes the vast majority of Carbon Dioxide produced. The key points are:
• China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171% since the year 2000
• The US has had declining CO2 for two years running (but do not read much into that, beyond recession!)
• The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind Iran, South Korea, Japan and Germany
• India is now the world's third biggest emitter of CO2 - pushing Russia into fourth place
• The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine - down 28%. The biggest increase is Chile - up 74%.
The US is still number one in terms of per capita emissions among the big economies - with 18 tonnes emitted per person, while China, by contrast, emits under six tonnes per person, India only 1.38. For comparison, the whole world emits 4.49 tonnes per person.
A reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions is not only the goal of environmentalists but also of pretty much every government in the world. Currently 192 countries have adopted the Kyoto protocol with the aim of collectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5% of the 1990 levels by 2012. But looks like goals are something, and actual implementation something else!
• China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171% since the year 2000
• The US has had declining CO2 for two years running (but do not read much into that, beyond recession!)
• The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind Iran, South Korea, Japan and Germany
• India is now the world's third biggest emitter of CO2 - pushing Russia into fourth place
• The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine - down 28%. The biggest increase is Chile - up 74%.
The US is still number one in terms of per capita emissions among the big economies - with 18 tonnes emitted per person, while China, by contrast, emits under six tonnes per person, India only 1.38. For comparison, the whole world emits 4.49 tonnes per person.
A reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions is not only the goal of environmentalists but also of pretty much every government in the world. Currently 192 countries have adopted the Kyoto protocol with the aim of collectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5% of the 1990 levels by 2012. But looks like goals are something, and actual implementation something else!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
