Thursday, May 31, 2012

Jobs in waiting

Between 15m and 60m additional jobs can be created around the world in the next two decades if green policies are put in place to switch the high-carbon economy to low-carbon, according to a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep). These are net gains in employment for the world economy, taking into account any job losses in high-carbon industries that fail to transform.

The study, Working towards sustainable development: opportunities for decent work and social inclusion in a green economy, noted that in the US, there are now about three million "green jobs", in sectors such as wind power and energy efficiency. In the UK, the number is close to one million and has been one of the few areas of the economy that has been creating jobs. There are about 500,000 people working in green jobs in Spain. In the developing world, too, the number is growing rapidly – about 7% of people employed in Brazil, amounting to three million people, are now in the green economy. However, realising the full potential of green jobs depends on countries taking action to develop the green economy and bringing in policies that will foster investment.


Jobs easily identified as "green" – workers in renewable energy, for instance, maintaining forests or installing insulation – are not the only ones to be touched by the shift to a more environmentally sustainable economy. At least half of the global workforce will be affected in some way by 2030, the study found. This will stretch from people whose industrial processes are overhauled to cut greenhouse gases, to farmers who change their methods to be more environmentally friendly, and workers in the construction industry who begin to install new greener materials.

Some of the sectors identified in the report as being most affected by the changes include: agriculture, forestry, fishing, energy, resource-intensive manufacturing, recycling, building and transport.







Tuesday, May 29, 2012

50 pc of German power comes from renewables!

German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity - through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday. Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts o f solar power per hour fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50 percent of the nation's midday electricity needs. This should silence critics who say renewable energy is not reliable enough nor is there enough capacity to power major industrial nations.

Government-mandated support for renewables has helped Germany became a world leader in renewable energy and the country gets about 20 percent of its overall annual electricity from those sources. Germany has nearly as much installed solar power generation capacity as the rest of the world combined and gets about four percent of its overall annual electricity needs from the sun alone.

Germany added 7.5 GW of installed power generation capacity in 2012 and 1.8 GW more in the first quarter for a total of 26 GW capacity. Much of this was possible due to the feed in tariff system, for solar but the FIT has its critics, thanks to the soaring bill! Utilities and consumer groups have complained the FIT for solar power adds about 2 cents per kilowatt/hour on top of electricity prices in Germany that are already among the highest in the world with consumers paying about 23 cents per kw/h. Critics also complain growing levels of solar power make the national grid more less stable due to fluctuations in output.

Well, it is proof enough that when a highly industrialised and developed nation can make the change, it should be easier for those still in the transition to better lifestyles.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

A bitter pill

The buzz in India (besides the IPL!) is about the petrol price rise. How about putting together some ideas on this - if it was warranted, could have been avoided, and how?

From 1955 when petrol was 0.58 per litre to the present day Rs 73.23, things have definitely changed. We now have over 13 million cars on our roads and this is projected to hit 611 million by 2050 when India will have the biggest number of cars! It clearly shows increasing purchasing power. A larger number of the population can afford the gadgets that make a lifestyle energy-intensive. Salaries too have gone up and according to some experts, the price of petrol or electricity has not increased commensurately. Neither that of vehicles. If 30 years ago, an engineer earned a salary of Rs 1600, the price of petrol was Rs 7-8. But today, a fresher engineer with little experience can earn around Rs 30 k while petrol is Rs 73. While salaries have gone up by 20 times, petrol rise has been less than 10 times.

So are we creating a demand for energy and making it available at unsustainable subsidised rates? It does seem that the price rise will enable some amount of energy conservation. Or won't it?!

Should we adopt a Singapore model where, a six-point formula tries to limit fuel consumption. Make automobiles costly; vehicle loan interest rates high; a fine for low occupancy of cars; expensive parking zones; no company cars for staff; and finally a cheap, fast and comfortable public transport. Clearly the last here should be cited first.

Or should all vehicles run on diesel? Will that help? Or a rationing of petrol (tough in a democracy)? Shift to gas-based vehicles? With many high-end private vehicles running on the highly-subsidised diesel, should we have a dual pricing for diesel - one for the farmers and public transport, and another for private vehicles?


What is your take?

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Up, up and up!

The International Energy Agency has released some preliminary data on global greenhouse gas emissions for 2011 and the news isn't good. IEA says emissions rose 3.2% last year, with a 9.3% increase in China offsetting declines in the US and EU. The latter saw a 1.7 percent decline in emissions largely due to a sluggish economy and a shift from coal to gas, both driven more out of economy considerations than climate!

According to preliminary estimates, worldwide carbon emissions climbed to 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011, a 3.2-percent increase from 2010. India’s emissions rose by 8.7 percent, passing Russia to become the world’s fourth-biggest emitter (behind China, the U.S., and the European Union).

“The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two degrees Celsius trajectory is about to close,” said Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist, citing concerns among scientists that emissions must begin being significantly reduced by 2020 to prevent potentially destabilizing temperature increases of more than 2 degrees C. According to the report, the burning of coal accounted for 45 percent of total energy-related carbon emissions, followed by oil (35 percent) and natural gas (20 percent).

Curent commitments will see emissions rise from 31.6 gigatons today to 53 gigatons by 2020, 9 gigatons higher than is needed to control temperature rise. Our current level of greenhouse gas emissions increase means that temperature rise of at least 3.5°C are likely.

More extreme weather, droughts and floods, and hence, a slump in food production and global unrest. Not good for the economy, right?

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Plumbing the depths

The Golden Scramble for the World's Last Resources! The title of a book by a professor on peace and world security, this one paints a scary picture of our race digging the depths of the planet for resources, and profits. From deep oceans to the Arctic to jungles of Africa, the search is on for minerals and metals and energy.the extraction process just got tougher, as with fracking which involves high-pressure fracturing of the rocks, water laced with toxic chemicals, etc.


Nations which once were self-sufficient in coal or oil are now importing as there is a surge in demand given the higher standards of living. Not only coal, oil or minerals, the scramble is also for fertile land to grow food, even in foreign lands and get home the grains. There is no water often at home to grow the same. Even the moon has been short-listed for extraction.


Are we a doomed race? Is it the last Act in the survival drama? Or is this not so much about survival as it is about conspicuous consumption? Are short-term gains blinding us to imminent collapse? Is it possible to live without the comforts we have got used to? Is it possible to lock our cars and take to the bicycle? Most probably no, then how can we expect any halt to this frenetic scramble? Write in.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Gurgling methane

U.S. scientists report that they have discovered new sources of methane percolating up from underground reservoirs as glaciers, ice caps, and permafrost melt in the Arctic. University of Alaska researchers, conducting aerial and ground surveys, said they have discovered 150,000 methane seeps in Alaska alone near the margins of retreating glaciers or thawing permafrost.


In Greenland, the seeps tended to be concentrated around the margins of ice caps that have been retreating for the past 150 years, the scientists said. Katey M. Walter Anthony, lead author of the study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, said that these seeps in the earth’s frozen zones, or cryosphere, are not currently a major source of methane emissions. But, she added, “As the cryosphere degrades further, it could be a really big source.”


Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and researchers are concerned that rapid warming of the Arctic could trigger a methane “time bomb” as thawing permafrost, vegetation, and land ice result in the release of huge quantities of methane.




Are we blowing away all our shields too soon? And for what cause? Can technology come to the rescue now? Capping all those seeps sounds near impossible...

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Water gone to waste

Water pumped out from deep acquifers may add to sea level rise even more than global warming, according to new research. Even if the climate is stabilised, our water use unless checked will contribute to many coastal towns being flooded by end of the century.


The drawing of water from deep wells has caused the sea to rise by an average of a millimetre every year since 1961, the researchers concluded. The storing of freshwater in reservoirs has offset about 40% of that, but the scientists warn that this effect is diminishing. The study from Tokyo university suggests that the pumping out of groundwater is five times bigger in scale than the melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice caps!

In some parts of the world, the stores of water have now been exhausted. Saudi Arabia, for example, was self-sufficient in wheat, grown in the desert using water from deep, fossil aquifers. Now, many of the aquifers have run dry and most wheat is imported, with all growing expected to end in 2016. In northern India, the level of the water table is dropping by 4cm every year.

There are critics not quite satisfied by the study. However, it sounds another warning to the way we use our groundwater. In a city like Bangalore, the withdrawal of water is 5-6 times that of its recharging with rainwater, and if the trend continues the city's groundwater will be out and over in five years, say geologists! Unsustained water use will not only upset the hydrologial cycle but will leave millions thirsty in years to come. It has to stop.

Oil or gas?

Should India shift from oil to gas? Why? Let us look at some facts to begin with. At 160 million tonnes a year, the crude oil import bill stands at Rs 6,00,000 crores. Taking into consideration the cost of imported gas and one available in-house, we could have a saving of Rs 2250 crores on import bill of each million ton of crude oil substituted, say experts.


Further a switch of 50 million tonnes of crude to LNG would help in many ways besides the cost. But some policy initiatives need to be taken. Like, building infrastructure for storage and transportation of gas; remunerative prices for gas; long-term contracts for import of gas from US, Middle East, Australia, etc. Finally the automobile industry would have to come out with vehicles running on gas, instead of the popular diesel.


However, while talking big figures, sometimes the smaller, easier options tend to be neglected. Would improving the Railways help shift the core of transportation from oil to coal (electrification of all lines)? Biogas in place of kerosene and LPG for cooking? How about shifting industries from liquid fuel to coal gassifiers? But while these may take the burden away from oil bill, it would increase dependence on coal? Do we want that? Should the economy issues overrule ecology ones - it boils down to same questions!

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Japan moral

Change is difficult to take on. More so, in the energy field. Energy choices quickly become major infrastructure decisions. Power plants take years to build, and stay in service for decades. Electricity grids are massive networks, too large to change quickly and too big to allow to fail, and too costly to replace totally!




But still, when we have a choice to make it is better than when the choice if forced upon us. Like Japan which has shut down all its reactors thanks to the Fukushima disaster. It has virtually shut down 30 percent of its electricity.


Japan has stumbled into an energy crisis, and what happens there has real implications for the rest of the world. It has been struggling with power shortages since the 2011 tsunami, rushing to bring old oil and gas plants back online and promoting energy conservation. With the reactors off-line, Japan has fallen back on fossil fuels like oil and natural gas – and since Japan doesn’t have much in the way of energy resources, that means imports and it also means good bye to emission reductions!


In 2011 Japan ran a trade deficit for the first time in years largely because of all the fossil fuels it had to import. In the first three months of 2012 alone, Japan’s natural gas imports rose 18 percent over the previous year, totaling $67 billion. Renewable only account for about 1 percent of Japan’s power, and the Japanese government says it will take until 2020 to get them up to 20 percent.


If Japan’s not going to use its reactors, there is the problem with waste. Decommissioning 52 reactors would be a massive task, including disposing of the leftover nuclear material. Storing nuclear waste on-site was a major reason why the Fukushima disaster was so dangerous. This will take years, maybe decades to clean up.


Japan’s example is going to provide useful perspective for the rest of the world. How to shift to clean energy without going caput in the process!

Monday, May 7, 2012

Today or tomorrow?

Is today important or tomorrow? Is today's generation or tomorrow's generation more important? Foolish questions? Maybe but they contain the essence of the dilemma of our times. Someone tells you to save and conserve for tomorrow, while you believe in living this moment and making merry. No total justifications on either side. But, what is required is the middle path - live today and keep aside for tomorrow. Resources are finite.Tomorrow may be for some one else but being humane calls for it.




It is also in this context that more and more thinkers are asking for a paradigm shift in how we view growth. Is our world a capital-constrained one or resource-constrained one? Is money alone the defining factor of growth? Herman Daly, thinker of our times points out: What limits the annual fish catch — fishing boats (capital) or remaining fish in the sea (natural resources)? What limits barrels of crude oil extracted — drilling rigs and pumps (capital), or remaining accessible deposits of petroleum — or capacity of the atmosphere to absorb the CO2 from burning petroleum (both natural resources)? What limits production of cut timber — number of chain saws and lumber mills, or standing forests and their rate of growth? What limits irrigated agriculture — pumps and sprinklers, or aquifer recharge rates and river flow volumes?


Yes, we need to invest in and economise on the limiting factor, but that factor is no more capital, but natural resource. Instead of conserving and preserving the scarce resource, we are not only over-using them but also degrading them. Look at the way we treat soil or water. And when the crops fail, we start tinkering with the genetic basis of plants, to maximize short-run growth.


Do we wish to remain as fly by night operators or long-term ones who adopt sustainable methods to live today and leave sufficient for tomorrow?

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Changing relationships

An interesting debate in energy circles in the west: should we waste time educating customers on smart grid? Does the customer (the bill payer) define the profile of the consumers (rest in the household included)? How equipped are we to deal with change of technology?




For instance, with smart grid, generation is changing from steady state fossil fuels to intermittent clean renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Transmission of high voltage electricity is getting a communications makeover to provide realtime situational awareness. Distribution of low voltage electricity to residential and commercial customers is experiencing the most change and the old electricity supply chain is evolving into a new value chain that puts an emphasis on consumers who begin to become producers as well.


For utilities this new value chain means a shift in perspective from meters and ratepayers to customers and consumers. If a utility is targeting all its communications and outreach to the customers who pay the bills, they are missing other consumers in those buildings.


These are decidedly times when utilities need to get a step ahead in smartness if the purpose of going smart is to work. Not only will technology change, but alongwith it will change the various relationships between providers and users. The latter may be the deciding factor in the success of a new order.