Peak Energy
Solar Thermal Coming To The Boil
Articles about solar thermal power are becoming more prevalent in the mainstream media - here is a good example from the North Denver News - Solar Thermal Energy coming to a boil - Peak Oil.
Using CSP plants to power electric vehicles could further reduce CO2 emissions and provide strategic advantages by relaxing dependence on oil. In Israel, a tender issued by the Ministry for National Infrastructures for the construction of CSP plants and a 19.4¢ per kilowatt-hour feed-in tariff for solar power systems are sparking interest in developing up to 250 megawatts of CSP in the Negev Desert. This would produce enough electricity to run the 100,000 electric cars that Project Better Place, a company focused on building an electric personal transportation system, is planning to put on Israeli roads by the end of 2010.
A study by Ausra, a solar energy company based in California, indicates that over 90 percent of fossil fuel–generated electricity in the United States and the majority of U.S. oil usage for transportation could be eliminated using solar thermal power plants--and for less than it would cost to continue importing oil. The land requirement for the CSP plants would be roughly 15,000 square miles (38,850 square kilometers, the equivalent of 15 percent of the land area of Nevada). While this may sound like a large tract, CSP plants use less land per equivalent electrical output than large hydroelectric dams when flooded land is included, or than coal plants when factoring in land used for coal mining. Another study, published in Scientific American in January 2008, proposes using CSP and PV plants to produce 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of total U.S. energy, including transportation, by 2050.
CSP plants on less than 0.3 percent of the desert areas of North Africa and the Middle East could generate enough electricity to meet the needs of these two regions plus the European Union. Realizing this, the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation--an initiative of The Club of Rome, the Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation, and the National Energy Research Center of Jordan--conceived the DESERTEC Concept in 2003. This plan to develop a renewable energy network to transmit power to Europe from the Middle East and North Africa calls for 100,000 megawatts of CSP to be built throughout the Middle East and North Africa by 2050. Electricity delivery to Europe would occur via direct current transmission cables across the Mediterranean. Taking the lead in making the concept a reality, Algeria plans to build a 3,000-kilometer cable between the Algerian town of Adrar and the German city of Aachen to export 6,000 megawatts of solar thermal power by 2020.
If the projected annual growth rate of CSP through 2012 is maintained to 2020, global installed CSP capacity would exceed 200,000 megawatts--equivalent to 135 coal-fired power plants. With billions of dollars beginning to flow into the CSP industry and U.S. restrictions on carbon emissions imminent, CSP is primed to reach such capacity.
Using CSP plants to power electric vehicles could further reduce CO2 emissions and provide strategic advantages by relaxing dependence on oil. In Israel, a tender issued by the Ministry for National Infrastructures for the construction of CSP plants and a 19.4¢ per kilowatt-hour feed-in tariff for solar power systems are sparking interest in developing up to 250 megawatts of CSP in the Negev Desert. This would produce enough electricity to run the 100,000 electric cars that Project Better Place, a company focused on building an electric personal transportation system, is planning to put on Israeli roads by the end of 2010.
A study by Ausra, a solar energy company based in California, indicates that over 90 percent of fossil fuel–generated electricity in the United States and the majority of U.S. oil usage for transportation could be eliminated using solar thermal power plants--and for less than it would cost to continue importing oil. The land requirement for the CSP plants would be roughly 15,000 square miles (38,850 square kilometers, the equivalent of 15 percent of the land area of Nevada). While this may sound like a large tract, CSP plants use less land per equivalent electrical output than large hydroelectric dams when flooded land is included, or than coal plants when factoring in land used for coal mining. Another study, published in Scientific American in January 2008, proposes using CSP and PV plants to produce 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of total U.S. energy, including transportation, by 2050.
CSP plants on less than 0.3 percent of the desert areas of North Africa and the Middle East could generate enough electricity to meet the needs of these two regions plus the European Union. Realizing this, the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation--an initiative of The Club of Rome, the Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation, and the National Energy Research Center of Jordan--conceived the DESERTEC Concept in 2003. This plan to develop a renewable energy network to transmit power to Europe from the Middle East and North Africa calls for 100,000 megawatts of CSP to be built throughout the Middle East and North Africa by 2050. Electricity delivery to Europe would occur via direct current transmission cables across the Mediterranean. Taking the lead in making the concept a reality, Algeria plans to build a 3,000-kilometer cable between the Algerian town of Adrar and the German city of Aachen to export 6,000 megawatts of solar thermal power by 2020.
If the projected annual growth rate of CSP through 2012 is maintained to 2020, global installed CSP capacity would exceed 200,000 megawatts--equivalent to 135 coal-fired power plants. With billions of dollars beginning to flow into the CSP industry and U.S. restrictions on carbon emissions imminent, CSP is primed to reach such capacity.
Categories: Peak Oil
Al Gore Not Ambitious Enough ?
Gar Lipow and John Rynn at grist have been running the numbers on switching the US over to 100% clean energy, and have decided Gore's plan isn't ambitious enough - Gore's plan is more than 100 percent feasible.
Everyone is talking about Gore's proposal to decarbonize electricity over the course of 10 years.
Without considering transmission and storage losses, Gore's estimate of $1.5 to 3 trillion would require capital costs of under 37 to 74 cents per annual kWh. Taking those losses into consideration, cost would have to be more in the 28 to 56 cents per kWh range. (Note again these are not cost per watt of capacity. These are costs per annual kWh. They are levelized costs translated into capital numbers.) Jon Rynn and I have a worksheet in process on costs to 95 percent decarbonize economy, rather than 100 percent decarbonizing the grid. But it does include 99 percent decarbonizing the Grid, including a 30 percent redundancy to handle annual variations. The bottom price with the most aggressive improvements we looked at came to 66 cents per annual kWh. That comes out to $3.54 trillion, about $540 billion more than Gore budgets. But because biomass has proven so devastating ecologically, and so disastrous to the poor we assume very little use of biomass. Also we phase out nuclear as well as fossil fuels, something I'm pretty sure Gore does not. More nuclear and biomass not only reduce the amount electricity that needs to be generated, but it also reduces the need for storage losses. So Gore's plan does pencil out at the high end with 100 percent fossil-fuel free electricity at under $3 trillion.
If you follow our plan you would probably see the grid more like 90 percent decarbonized in first 10 years. But you would also see 85 percent of truck freight shifted to mostly electrified trains, construction of light rail, and massive reductions of emissions in residences, commercial buildings, and industrial use. So we reduce emissions by more than Gore's proposal, and reduce oil use significantly too, something Gore's plan would not do. So not only is Gore's plan feasible over a 10 year period, much greater reductions are feasible than Gore calls for over a 10 year period. Gore remains, as he as always has been, a mainstream centrist. That so much of the environmental community and netroots chooses to back away from it as "almost feasible" or "a moonshot," that is, as too radical, says something about their timidity.
Everyone is talking about Gore's proposal to decarbonize electricity over the course of 10 years.
Without considering transmission and storage losses, Gore's estimate of $1.5 to 3 trillion would require capital costs of under 37 to 74 cents per annual kWh. Taking those losses into consideration, cost would have to be more in the 28 to 56 cents per kWh range. (Note again these are not cost per watt of capacity. These are costs per annual kWh. They are levelized costs translated into capital numbers.) Jon Rynn and I have a worksheet in process on costs to 95 percent decarbonize economy, rather than 100 percent decarbonizing the grid. But it does include 99 percent decarbonizing the Grid, including a 30 percent redundancy to handle annual variations. The bottom price with the most aggressive improvements we looked at came to 66 cents per annual kWh. That comes out to $3.54 trillion, about $540 billion more than Gore budgets. But because biomass has proven so devastating ecologically, and so disastrous to the poor we assume very little use of biomass. Also we phase out nuclear as well as fossil fuels, something I'm pretty sure Gore does not. More nuclear and biomass not only reduce the amount electricity that needs to be generated, but it also reduces the need for storage losses. So Gore's plan does pencil out at the high end with 100 percent fossil-fuel free electricity at under $3 trillion.
If you follow our plan you would probably see the grid more like 90 percent decarbonized in first 10 years. But you would also see 85 percent of truck freight shifted to mostly electrified trains, construction of light rail, and massive reductions of emissions in residences, commercial buildings, and industrial use. So we reduce emissions by more than Gore's proposal, and reduce oil use significantly too, something Gore's plan would not do. So not only is Gore's plan feasible over a 10 year period, much greater reductions are feasible than Gore calls for over a 10 year period. Gore remains, as he as always has been, a mainstream centrist. That so much of the environmental community and netroots chooses to back away from it as "almost feasible" or "a moonshot," that is, as too radical, says something about their timidity.
Categories: Peak Oil
(Another) EEStor Update
Tyler at Clean Break has a post on EEStor and the mysterious blogger who tracks their every move (behind the curtain of secrecy that they have erected) - Mystery blogger offers insight into secretive EEStor. The blog in question is "EEStor Ultracapacitors: Battery Revolution begins with Electric Cars" which is a little too enthusiastic in its promotion of EEStor and Zenn for my taste. When they release an actual product and we get to see if it works, then great - but it could all too easily just be a way of pumping Zenn stock at this point.
There's no shortage of speculation about EEStor Inc., the Texas-based energy storage company that claims it will change the world with its super-dooper, disruptive, "this changes everything" ultracapactor. But one anonymous blogger has been digging around and is managing to piece together a decent -- although not necessarily accurate -- picture of what's going on at the secretive company. Some have accused this blogger of being Dick Weir, EEStor's media-loathing founder and CEO, or Ian Clifford, CEO and founder of ZENN Motor Co., which is a minority owner in EEStor and has exclusive license to use its technology in certain vehicle applications. But the blogger in question attempted to clear the air today, pointing out he's not an employee of EEStor or ZENN, has no friends at the companies or special relationships. He's just an average joe -- in the D.C. area, I have learned -- interested in the technology and who likes to dig around. A ZENN stock pumper? Impossible to know. But if you're to believe the posting, he seems to be having more success than professional journalists like me. One financial analyst, who has access to EEStor, told me Dick Weir talks to this blogger because, "It amuses him. He gets a kick out of it." There you go.
So what's the latest poop on EEStor from blogger central? You can read it here if you're interested. Some of the points raised I've heard as well, but haven't been able to nail down as fact. But if you're to believe what you read, EEStor is almost done its Web sites, has filed 21 new patents, and is putting a plan together to raise capital that would go toward a seven-fold expansion of its current pilot production line. Apparently the long-awaited permeativity tests, not yet released, have been known for some time. Dick Weir is simply choosing to release the results at the same time as putting up the new Web site and announcing the new patent filings. At which time, he'll be prepared -- and more accepting of -- the flood of questions from media and investors. Can't wait. Certainly, the aim here is to raise a whack of capital, perhaps using ZENN's stock, in reaction to this frenzy, as a proxy for the market value of EEStor.
There's no shortage of speculation about EEStor Inc., the Texas-based energy storage company that claims it will change the world with its super-dooper, disruptive, "this changes everything" ultracapactor. But one anonymous blogger has been digging around and is managing to piece together a decent -- although not necessarily accurate -- picture of what's going on at the secretive company. Some have accused this blogger of being Dick Weir, EEStor's media-loathing founder and CEO, or Ian Clifford, CEO and founder of ZENN Motor Co., which is a minority owner in EEStor and has exclusive license to use its technology in certain vehicle applications. But the blogger in question attempted to clear the air today, pointing out he's not an employee of EEStor or ZENN, has no friends at the companies or special relationships. He's just an average joe -- in the D.C. area, I have learned -- interested in the technology and who likes to dig around. A ZENN stock pumper? Impossible to know. But if you're to believe the posting, he seems to be having more success than professional journalists like me. One financial analyst, who has access to EEStor, told me Dick Weir talks to this blogger because, "It amuses him. He gets a kick out of it." There you go.
So what's the latest poop on EEStor from blogger central? You can read it here if you're interested. Some of the points raised I've heard as well, but haven't been able to nail down as fact. But if you're to believe what you read, EEStor is almost done its Web sites, has filed 21 new patents, and is putting a plan together to raise capital that would go toward a seven-fold expansion of its current pilot production line. Apparently the long-awaited permeativity tests, not yet released, have been known for some time. Dick Weir is simply choosing to release the results at the same time as putting up the new Web site and announcing the new patent filings. At which time, he'll be prepared -- and more accepting of -- the flood of questions from media and investors. Can't wait. Certainly, the aim here is to raise a whack of capital, perhaps using ZENN's stock, in reaction to this frenzy, as a proxy for the market value of EEStor.
Categories: Peak Oil
Making OLED Lighting Even More Efficient
Technology Review reports that researchers have found a way to boost the light emitted from OLEDs (the future of energy efficient lighting) - More-Efficient OLED Lighting.
Energy efficiency and flexible lighting applications have long been the promise of organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs). The technology hasn't lived up to its promise, however, because in typical OLEDs, only 20 percent of the light generated is released from the device. That means that most light is trapped inside the bulb, making it highly inefficient.
Researchers at the University of Michigan and Princeton University believe that they're on to a way to break the OLED-efficiency logjam. The scientists have designed an OLED that boosts illumination by 60 percent using a combination of an organic grid working in tandem with small micro lenses that guide the trapped light out of the device.
Stephen Forrest, a professor of electrical engineering and physics at Michigan, and Yuri Sun, from Princeton University, described the work in the August issue of Nature Photonics.
In OLEDs, white light is generated by using electricity to send an electron into nanometer-thick layers of organic materials that behave like semiconductor materials. Typically, the light in the substrate is internally reflected and runs parallel and not perpendicular. That's the crux of the problem because the light can't escape in the vertical direction without some coaxing. In Forrest's devices, the grids refract the trapped light, sending it to the five micrometers dome-shaped micro lenses. The light is sent off in a vertical orientation that helps release the trapped rays.
Forrest and his coworkers report that the technology emits about 70 lumens from a watt of power. In comparison, incandescent lightbulbs emit 15 lumens per watt. Fluorescent lights put out roughly 90 lumens of light per watt but have liabilities: they produce harsh light, lack longevity, and use environment-damaging substances like mercury.
Forrest says that the next step in the research is to use OLEDs that are more efficient than those the team used in the current project. Looking beyond the research lab work on these OLEDs, he is cautiously optimistic that it should be possible to scale up the manufacturing of the devices, and that production costs for manufacturing the new OLEDs will be competitive.
Today, an estimated 22 percent of the electricity produced goes to lighting buildings. A highly efficient form of OLED lighting could significantly reduce the electricity demand and boost savings. Another factor influencing broad adoption of LEDs is the fact that they outlast incandescent bulbs. Over the next 20 years, the rapid adoption of LED lighting in the United States could reduce electricity demands by 62 percent and thus eliminate 258 million metric tons of carbon emissions, according to the Department of Energy.
Energy efficiency and flexible lighting applications have long been the promise of organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs). The technology hasn't lived up to its promise, however, because in typical OLEDs, only 20 percent of the light generated is released from the device. That means that most light is trapped inside the bulb, making it highly inefficient.
Researchers at the University of Michigan and Princeton University believe that they're on to a way to break the OLED-efficiency logjam. The scientists have designed an OLED that boosts illumination by 60 percent using a combination of an organic grid working in tandem with small micro lenses that guide the trapped light out of the device.
Stephen Forrest, a professor of electrical engineering and physics at Michigan, and Yuri Sun, from Princeton University, described the work in the August issue of Nature Photonics.
In OLEDs, white light is generated by using electricity to send an electron into nanometer-thick layers of organic materials that behave like semiconductor materials. Typically, the light in the substrate is internally reflected and runs parallel and not perpendicular. That's the crux of the problem because the light can't escape in the vertical direction without some coaxing. In Forrest's devices, the grids refract the trapped light, sending it to the five micrometers dome-shaped micro lenses. The light is sent off in a vertical orientation that helps release the trapped rays.
Forrest and his coworkers report that the technology emits about 70 lumens from a watt of power. In comparison, incandescent lightbulbs emit 15 lumens per watt. Fluorescent lights put out roughly 90 lumens of light per watt but have liabilities: they produce harsh light, lack longevity, and use environment-damaging substances like mercury.
Forrest says that the next step in the research is to use OLEDs that are more efficient than those the team used in the current project. Looking beyond the research lab work on these OLEDs, he is cautiously optimistic that it should be possible to scale up the manufacturing of the devices, and that production costs for manufacturing the new OLEDs will be competitive.
Today, an estimated 22 percent of the electricity produced goes to lighting buildings. A highly efficient form of OLED lighting could significantly reduce the electricity demand and boost savings. Another factor influencing broad adoption of LEDs is the fact that they outlast incandescent bulbs. Over the next 20 years, the rapid adoption of LED lighting in the United States could reduce electricity demands by 62 percent and thus eliminate 258 million metric tons of carbon emissions, according to the Department of Energy.
Categories: Peak Oil
Cogeneration In Woking
The SMH has an article on use of cogeneration/trigeneration in Woking (on the outskirts of London), which has helped the town become almost self-sufficient for electricity generation and has dramatically reduced CO2 emissions - Flicking the switch from hot air to usable heat. The author is now attempting to implement a similar plan for the whole of London, and recommends Sydney try a similar approach.
The 21st century has been billed as the century of the city. For the first time in history, more than half the world's population is living in cities. It is also the century of climate change and reliable science says we are already on the brink of irreversible damage to our planet.
Cities are our most profligate consumers of scarce resources and our worst polluters. Cities are the primary cause of climate change and are most at risk from climate change, but they also provide the solution to tackling it.
It makes sense, therefore, to begin finding city-wide solutions to the problems of climate change. Solutions do exist. They have been implemented and shown to work. What is needed is the political will and the co-operation of all levels of government and the private sector to implement solutions on a broader scale.
In the 1980s, I was already convinced that global warming was a reality, so when I joined the Borough of Woking in Surrey, I was determined to do something about it.
As chief engineer of this borough of 100,000 people, I introduced the energy efficiency revolving fund that led to replacing the town's electricity and heating systems with cogeneration, also known as combined heat and power generation.
In centralised power stations, two-thirds of the energy generated is dispersed into the atmosphere as heat, and further losses occur in transmission and distribution across the grid. Fifty per cent of Britain's water resources are used to evaporate this waste heat.
In Woking, we installed a gas-fired system (far less polluting than coal), which generates electricity locally. Heat from the generation process is captured and piped underground to supply heating and hot water. This is cogeneration, and in some countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, more than 50 per cent of their energy comes from cogeneration.
In a further step - trigeneration - waste heat is converted to chilled water for air-conditioning and refrigeration. Trigeneration has a huge impact in reducing carbon dioxide emissions since it displaces electricity that would otherwise be consumed by conventional air-conditioning, generates more low-carbon electricity and does not use greenhouse gas or ozone-depleting refrigerants.
In Woking, trigeneration - supplemented by fuel cells and renewable energy such as solar panels - enabled the town to produce 80 per cent of its own power by 2004 and to drop its CO2 emissions by 77 per cent in 14 years. The power and heat was also cheaper for customers.
I spent almost a year living not that far from Woking and even played for the town basketball team for a couple of months. I couldn't remember any distinctive features about the place whatsoever though (except for a few Formula 1 car operations on the outskirts) - however a quick Flickr search reveals that something strange has occupied the town centre since I was last there...
The 21st century has been billed as the century of the city. For the first time in history, more than half the world's population is living in cities. It is also the century of climate change and reliable science says we are already on the brink of irreversible damage to our planet.
Cities are our most profligate consumers of scarce resources and our worst polluters. Cities are the primary cause of climate change and are most at risk from climate change, but they also provide the solution to tackling it.
It makes sense, therefore, to begin finding city-wide solutions to the problems of climate change. Solutions do exist. They have been implemented and shown to work. What is needed is the political will and the co-operation of all levels of government and the private sector to implement solutions on a broader scale.
In the 1980s, I was already convinced that global warming was a reality, so when I joined the Borough of Woking in Surrey, I was determined to do something about it.
As chief engineer of this borough of 100,000 people, I introduced the energy efficiency revolving fund that led to replacing the town's electricity and heating systems with cogeneration, also known as combined heat and power generation.
In centralised power stations, two-thirds of the energy generated is dispersed into the atmosphere as heat, and further losses occur in transmission and distribution across the grid. Fifty per cent of Britain's water resources are used to evaporate this waste heat.
In Woking, we installed a gas-fired system (far less polluting than coal), which generates electricity locally. Heat from the generation process is captured and piped underground to supply heating and hot water. This is cogeneration, and in some countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, more than 50 per cent of their energy comes from cogeneration.
In a further step - trigeneration - waste heat is converted to chilled water for air-conditioning and refrigeration. Trigeneration has a huge impact in reducing carbon dioxide emissions since it displaces electricity that would otherwise be consumed by conventional air-conditioning, generates more low-carbon electricity and does not use greenhouse gas or ozone-depleting refrigerants.
In Woking, trigeneration - supplemented by fuel cells and renewable energy such as solar panels - enabled the town to produce 80 per cent of its own power by 2004 and to drop its CO2 emissions by 77 per cent in 14 years. The power and heat was also cheaper for customers.
I spent almost a year living not that far from Woking and even played for the town basketball team for a couple of months. I couldn't remember any distinctive features about the place whatsoever though (except for a few Formula 1 car operations on the outskirts) - however a quick Flickr search reveals that something strange has occupied the town centre since I was last there...
Categories: Peak Oil
The London Array Is Back On
TreeHugger reports that the huge London Array wind project is back on again, with buyers found for Shell's unwanted share.
A few months ago, when Shell pulled out of the London Array, leaving its partners E.ON and Dong Energy in the lurch, the future of Britain’s and the world’s largest offshore windfarm was up in the air. Now it seems that the Array’s future is a bit more certain.
German-based E.ON and Danish Dong Energy have agreed to buy Shell’s 33% stake in the 1 gigawatt project for an undisclosed sum, The Guardian reports. The two remaining backers will form a new 50-50 partnership to continue development of the wind farm located off the shore of Kent.
There is little word on exactly how this new arrangement will change the production schedule for the Array, other than Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK saying that project should remain on track to complete the first phase of development by the end of 2012.
Further north, the Scotsman reports that a 584 MW wind farm is to be built in South Lanarkshire.
ALEX Salmond declared Scotland on the brink of a renewables revolution yesterday as he gave the go-ahead for the largest wind farm in Europe.
The First Minister told the World Renewable Energy Congress in Glasgow the green light had been given to a 152-turbine project in South Lanarkshire. The chairman of the congress then hailed Mr Salmond as the "saint of renewable energy".
Mr Salmond now expects Scotland to become the green-energy capital of Europe and a major exporter of renewable energy – a move that could bring billions of pounds into the economy.
With plans lodged for hundreds more wind turbines, as well as Scotland's huge potential in wave, tidal, hydro and solar power, and biomass, he said approval for the Clyde wind farm "demonstrates that we are only at the start of the renewables revolution in Scotland". ...
Mr Salmond's announcement was met with a round of applause by delegates from more than 80 countries. It means more than 4.5 gigawatts of renewable energy has been approved in Scotland, putting it just 400MW away from meeting its targets of generating 31 per cent of its electricity demand from renewable sources by 2011.
Mr Salmond told the congress: "The initial target of 31 per cent will be exceeded long before 2011, and by 2011 we will be through that target by a very, very substantial margin." He was confident of meeting the target of producing 50 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020. He told The Scotsman: "I am even more confident about that than about the 2011 target. By 2020, we will be able to mobilise some of our gigantic stuff offshore."
He predicted that, in the future, it will be offshore energy, such as wind, wave and tidal power, that will hold the most potential for Scotland. By about 2050, he forecast that offshore renewables would be able to generate 60GW of power – ten times the amount consumed in Scotland each year.
This means Scotland has the potential to become a huge exporter of renewable energy. Mr Salmond wants to see a sub-sea "supergrid" connecting Scotland with the rest of Europe.
A few months ago, when Shell pulled out of the London Array, leaving its partners E.ON and Dong Energy in the lurch, the future of Britain’s and the world’s largest offshore windfarm was up in the air. Now it seems that the Array’s future is a bit more certain.
German-based E.ON and Danish Dong Energy have agreed to buy Shell’s 33% stake in the 1 gigawatt project for an undisclosed sum, The Guardian reports. The two remaining backers will form a new 50-50 partnership to continue development of the wind farm located off the shore of Kent.
There is little word on exactly how this new arrangement will change the production schedule for the Array, other than Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK saying that project should remain on track to complete the first phase of development by the end of 2012.
Further north, the Scotsman reports that a 584 MW wind farm is to be built in South Lanarkshire.
ALEX Salmond declared Scotland on the brink of a renewables revolution yesterday as he gave the go-ahead for the largest wind farm in Europe.
The First Minister told the World Renewable Energy Congress in Glasgow the green light had been given to a 152-turbine project in South Lanarkshire. The chairman of the congress then hailed Mr Salmond as the "saint of renewable energy".
Mr Salmond now expects Scotland to become the green-energy capital of Europe and a major exporter of renewable energy – a move that could bring billions of pounds into the economy.
With plans lodged for hundreds more wind turbines, as well as Scotland's huge potential in wave, tidal, hydro and solar power, and biomass, he said approval for the Clyde wind farm "demonstrates that we are only at the start of the renewables revolution in Scotland". ...
Mr Salmond's announcement was met with a round of applause by delegates from more than 80 countries. It means more than 4.5 gigawatts of renewable energy has been approved in Scotland, putting it just 400MW away from meeting its targets of generating 31 per cent of its electricity demand from renewable sources by 2011.
Mr Salmond told the congress: "The initial target of 31 per cent will be exceeded long before 2011, and by 2011 we will be through that target by a very, very substantial margin." He was confident of meeting the target of producing 50 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020. He told The Scotsman: "I am even more confident about that than about the 2011 target. By 2020, we will be able to mobilise some of our gigantic stuff offshore."
He predicted that, in the future, it will be offshore energy, such as wind, wave and tidal power, that will hold the most potential for Scotland. By about 2050, he forecast that offshore renewables would be able to generate 60GW of power – ten times the amount consumed in Scotland each year.
This means Scotland has the potential to become a huge exporter of renewable energy. Mr Salmond wants to see a sub-sea "supergrid" connecting Scotland with the rest of Europe.
Categories: Peak Oil
Do You Know the Way to San José
Next100 has a post on an upcoming plug-in hybrid cars conference in San Jose - Plug-In Hybrid Cars Head For San Jose.
Expect a jolt of news about new plug-in hybrid cars this week from the Plug-In 2008 conference in San Jose. Some news broke early on Friday when Reuters, citing unnamed sources, reported that General Motors and the utilities group Electric Power Research Institute will announce at the conference a partnership to promote the sale of electric vehicles. Ford Motor announced a partnership with Palo Alto-based EPRI in March.
GM's batter-powered concept car, the Volt.GM is developing the rechargeable Chevrolet Volt expected to enter production in 2010 with a range of 40 miles from a lithium-ion battery pack that could be charged from a standard power outlet. The Volt also will have a gasoline engine to recharge the batteries for longer distances, according to the report. Toyota and other automakers are expected to introduce plug-in hybrids in the next few years.
The automakers, electric utilities (including PG&E), battery-makers, business and environmental groups, engineers, scientists,market analysts, and more will be at Plug-In this week for a series of market and technical panels, including vehicle-to-grid technology.
Expect a jolt of news about new plug-in hybrid cars this week from the Plug-In 2008 conference in San Jose. Some news broke early on Friday when Reuters, citing unnamed sources, reported that General Motors and the utilities group Electric Power Research Institute will announce at the conference a partnership to promote the sale of electric vehicles. Ford Motor announced a partnership with Palo Alto-based EPRI in March.
GM's batter-powered concept car, the Volt.GM is developing the rechargeable Chevrolet Volt expected to enter production in 2010 with a range of 40 miles from a lithium-ion battery pack that could be charged from a standard power outlet. The Volt also will have a gasoline engine to recharge the batteries for longer distances, according to the report. Toyota and other automakers are expected to introduce plug-in hybrids in the next few years.
The automakers, electric utilities (including PG&E), battery-makers, business and environmental groups, engineers, scientists,market analysts, and more will be at Plug-In this week for a series of market and technical panels, including vehicle-to-grid technology.
Categories: Peak Oil
Damming The Amazon
Plenty Magazine has a look at efforts to expand hydro-electric capacity in Brazil and the opposition this is meeting from the native inhabitants of the Amazon rainforest.
Tensions are so high over a proposed dam in the Brazilian Amazon that violence broke out at a May meeting in the city of Altamira to discuss the project. A thousand indigenous people from 26 ethnic tribes crowded into a high school gymnasium. Members of the the Kayapó, Juruna, Arara, Xipaia, Kuruaia, and other tribes that live along the mighty river’s second longest tributary, the Xingu, don’t get together in Altamira very often. But the $6.6 billion dam, called the Belo Monte, that Brazil’s electric utility, Electronorte, plans to build along the 1,200-mile Xingu River will affect them all. It would be the world’s third largest dam, with a potential installed capacity of 11,181 MW—and its reservoir would flood 100,000 acres, putting many tribal lands underwater.
Given this projection, what happened during the gathering may not have been all that surprising. Paulo Fernando Rezende, an Electronorte representative, gave a PowerPoint presentation touting the benefits of the dam, and telling the tribes that "the National Indian Foundation will fully participate in the studies affecting the indigenous lands,” according to a report by National Public Radio. But coming from a notoriously corrupt agency, the offer was interpreted as little more than a paper dove. A leader of the Movement of Dam Affected People of Brazil, Roquivan Alves Silva, took Rezende’s microphone, saying he would go to war if necessary. The tribes proceeded to rush the stage and physically attack Rezende.
“The indigenous people decided to send a clear message to the government. They were incensed, especially at Rezende´s smugness and arrogance in portraying the dams as not being a problem to the indigenous peoples,” says Glenn Switkes, of International Rivers Network, a California-based water policy nonprofit. “Brazilian tribes are guaranteed, under the Brazilian constitution, exclusive rights to the natural resources on their lands. When hydroelectric dams are proposed that affect indigenous lands, the constitution guarantees them the right ‘to be heard’ which courts have interpreted in many cases as ‘prior consent’.”
The Belo Monte Dam is just one of hundreds of dams planned on multiple tributaries of the Amazon like the Madeira, Tapajós, and the Tocantins. While building these structures will help Brazil meet its rapidly expanding energy needs, critics say the country should instead invest in alternative energy sources like biomass and wind that won’t endanger the riparian ecosystems and fisheries that native peoples rely on. ...
Brazil’s focus on developing new sources of power began with the Blackout Crisis, which stretched from June 2001 to February 2002, when Brazil experienced its worst drought in 70 years. Reservoir levels dropped so low electricity could not be consistently produced by hydropower, forcing the so-called “Blackout Ministry” to ration power use, slashing it to one-fifth. Politicians concluded they should increase the hydropower infrastructure, and by 2006 it was the source of more than 75 percent of the nation’s power.
Tensions are so high over a proposed dam in the Brazilian Amazon that violence broke out at a May meeting in the city of Altamira to discuss the project. A thousand indigenous people from 26 ethnic tribes crowded into a high school gymnasium. Members of the the Kayapó, Juruna, Arara, Xipaia, Kuruaia, and other tribes that live along the mighty river’s second longest tributary, the Xingu, don’t get together in Altamira very often. But the $6.6 billion dam, called the Belo Monte, that Brazil’s electric utility, Electronorte, plans to build along the 1,200-mile Xingu River will affect them all. It would be the world’s third largest dam, with a potential installed capacity of 11,181 MW—and its reservoir would flood 100,000 acres, putting many tribal lands underwater.
Given this projection, what happened during the gathering may not have been all that surprising. Paulo Fernando Rezende, an Electronorte representative, gave a PowerPoint presentation touting the benefits of the dam, and telling the tribes that "the National Indian Foundation will fully participate in the studies affecting the indigenous lands,” according to a report by National Public Radio. But coming from a notoriously corrupt agency, the offer was interpreted as little more than a paper dove. A leader of the Movement of Dam Affected People of Brazil, Roquivan Alves Silva, took Rezende’s microphone, saying he would go to war if necessary. The tribes proceeded to rush the stage and physically attack Rezende.
“The indigenous people decided to send a clear message to the government. They were incensed, especially at Rezende´s smugness and arrogance in portraying the dams as not being a problem to the indigenous peoples,” says Glenn Switkes, of International Rivers Network, a California-based water policy nonprofit. “Brazilian tribes are guaranteed, under the Brazilian constitution, exclusive rights to the natural resources on their lands. When hydroelectric dams are proposed that affect indigenous lands, the constitution guarantees them the right ‘to be heard’ which courts have interpreted in many cases as ‘prior consent’.”
The Belo Monte Dam is just one of hundreds of dams planned on multiple tributaries of the Amazon like the Madeira, Tapajós, and the Tocantins. While building these structures will help Brazil meet its rapidly expanding energy needs, critics say the country should instead invest in alternative energy sources like biomass and wind that won’t endanger the riparian ecosystems and fisheries that native peoples rely on. ...
Brazil’s focus on developing new sources of power began with the Blackout Crisis, which stretched from June 2001 to February 2002, when Brazil experienced its worst drought in 70 years. Reservoir levels dropped so low electricity could not be consistently produced by hydropower, forcing the so-called “Blackout Ministry” to ration power use, slashing it to one-fifth. Politicians concluded they should increase the hydropower infrastructure, and by 2006 it was the source of more than 75 percent of the nation’s power.
Categories: Peak Oil
Hybrid Buses In Maryland
The Washington Post reports that the US state of Maryland is to convert its bus fleet to hybrids.
Gov. Martin O'Malley wants Maryland's entire fleet of transit buses to be diesel-electric hybrids. O'Malley announced Tuesday that he has directed the Maryland Transit Administration to purchase only hybrid buses in the future as older buses powered only by diesel fuel are taken out of service.
The state says hybrid buses use up to 20 percent less fuel and are up to 40 percent quieter. They're also more reliable, going 6,200 miles between service calls, compared with 3,000 miles for diesel models.
There are currently 653 buses in the MTA fleet, and 10 are hybrids. MTA spokeswoman Jauwana Greene says the agency has been given approval to buy up to 100 hybrids a year starting next year. She says if buses are replaced at the usual rate, there should be about 500 hybrids in the fleet by 2014.
Gov. Martin O'Malley wants Maryland's entire fleet of transit buses to be diesel-electric hybrids. O'Malley announced Tuesday that he has directed the Maryland Transit Administration to purchase only hybrid buses in the future as older buses powered only by diesel fuel are taken out of service.
The state says hybrid buses use up to 20 percent less fuel and are up to 40 percent quieter. They're also more reliable, going 6,200 miles between service calls, compared with 3,000 miles for diesel models.
There are currently 653 buses in the MTA fleet, and 10 are hybrids. MTA spokeswoman Jauwana Greene says the agency has been given approval to buy up to 100 hybrids a year starting next year. She says if buses are replaced at the usual rate, there should be about 500 hybrids in the fleet by 2014.
Categories: Peak Oil
Iraqi Prime Minister Backs Obama Troop Exit Plan
The Huffington Post reports that Iraqi PM Maliki is backing Barack Obama's proposal to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months (assuming they are allowed to stay past the expiry of the UN mandate at the end of the year of course) - Iraqi Prime Minister Backs Obama Troop Exit Plan.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama.
Fox News reports that the no bid contracts that were awarded to western oil companies may not be as easy a way to grab Iraqi oil reserves as first thought, with the Iraqi government limiting the terms to one year.
The Iraqi government is planning to limit no-bid contracts being negotiated with several major oil companies to one year to avoid overlap with longer-term deals expected to be signed next June, a senior Oil Ministry official said Thursday.
The no-bid contracts have sparked controversy because several major Western firms have been involved in the discussions. There are concerns that granting such contracts to Western oil companies could feed perceptions that U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein to grab the country's natural resources.
The Guardian notes that the Iraq oil law remains stalled, and that the no-bid contracts have been watered down in another way, with the government proposing to pay fees for services rendered rather than handing over any share of ownership - Oil industry eyes Iraq investment with caution. They've obviously learnt a lot over the past 7 decades.
The oil industry is cautious about Iraq's decision to offer foreign companies long-term contracts to develop its largest producing fields, with any windfalls seen as distant and likely to go to a select few firms.
Earlier this month, Iraq said it would offer development contracts aimed at boosting output at six fields by a combined 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd). The plan is aimed at helping the country lift output to 4.5 million bpd by 2013 from about 2.3 million bpd now.
But Iraq's decision to pay companies a fee for extracting the oil, rather than sell them an interest in fields, dashed hopes of near-term windfalls and may delay big rises in crude production.
"The oil companies don't like service contracts. They prefer production sharing agreements because they are more lucrative, and also they can book the reserves," Muhammad-Ali Zainy, senior energy economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies said.
Like neighbours Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Iraq threw out the IOCs in 1970s and a deep hostility to foreign investment in oil endures in the region. Also, some Iraqis believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was launched to secure oil.
More than 86%, last time I checked.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama.
Fox News reports that the no bid contracts that were awarded to western oil companies may not be as easy a way to grab Iraqi oil reserves as first thought, with the Iraqi government limiting the terms to one year.
The Iraqi government is planning to limit no-bid contracts being negotiated with several major oil companies to one year to avoid overlap with longer-term deals expected to be signed next June, a senior Oil Ministry official said Thursday.
The no-bid contracts have sparked controversy because several major Western firms have been involved in the discussions. There are concerns that granting such contracts to Western oil companies could feed perceptions that U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein to grab the country's natural resources.
The Guardian notes that the Iraq oil law remains stalled, and that the no-bid contracts have been watered down in another way, with the government proposing to pay fees for services rendered rather than handing over any share of ownership - Oil industry eyes Iraq investment with caution. They've obviously learnt a lot over the past 7 decades.
The oil industry is cautious about Iraq's decision to offer foreign companies long-term contracts to develop its largest producing fields, with any windfalls seen as distant and likely to go to a select few firms.
Earlier this month, Iraq said it would offer development contracts aimed at boosting output at six fields by a combined 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd). The plan is aimed at helping the country lift output to 4.5 million bpd by 2013 from about 2.3 million bpd now.
But Iraq's decision to pay companies a fee for extracting the oil, rather than sell them an interest in fields, dashed hopes of near-term windfalls and may delay big rises in crude production.
"The oil companies don't like service contracts. They prefer production sharing agreements because they are more lucrative, and also they can book the reserves," Muhammad-Ali Zainy, senior energy economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies said.
Like neighbours Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Iraq threw out the IOCs in 1970s and a deep hostility to foreign investment in oil endures in the region. Also, some Iraqis believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was launched to secure oil.
More than 86%, last time I checked.
Categories: Peak Oil
Amory Lovins On Nuclear Power
Democracy Now has an interview with Amory Lovins, looking at way nuclear power is a poor option to choose. Reason number 1 - cost. From Expanding Nuclear Power Makes Climate Change Worse:
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, talk about nuclear power. Why do you feel it’s not an option, given the oil crisis?
AMORY LOVINS: Well, first of all, electricity and oil have essentially nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity. Those numbers are falling. And essentially, all the oil involved is actually the heavy, gooey bottom of the barrel you can’t even make mobility fuels out of anyway.
What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do.
So, nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits claimed for it. It’s unrelated to oil. And it’s grossly uneconomic, which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It’s a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn’t happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies.
AMY GOODMAN: Why?
AMORY LOVINS: It’s uneconomic. It costs, for example, about three times as much as wind power, which is booming.
Let me give you some numbers about what’s happening in the marketplace, because that’s reality, as far as I’m concerned. I really take markets seriously. 2006, the last full year of data we have, nuclear worldwide added a little bit of capacity, more than all of it from upgrading old plants, because the new ones they built were smaller than the retirements of old plants. So they added 1.4 billion watts. Sounds like a lot. Well, it’s about one big plant’s worth worldwide. That was less than photovoltaics, solar cells added in capacity. It was a tenth what wind power added. It was a thirtieth to a fortieth of what micropower added.
AMY GOODMAN: What’s micropower?
AMORY LOVINS: Again, it’s renewables, other than big hydro, plus co-generating electricity and heat together, usually in industry.
In 2006, micropower, for the first time, produced more electricity worldwide than nuclear did. A sixth of the world’s electricity is now micropower, a third of the new electricity. In a dozen industrial countries, micropower makes anywhere from a sixth to over half of all the electricity elsewhere. This is not a fringe activity anymore.
China, which has the world’s most ambitious nuclear program, by the end of 2006 had seven times that much capacity in distributed renewables, and they were growing it seven times faster. Take a look at 2007, in which the US or Spain or China added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. The US added more wind capacity last year than we’ve added coal capacity in the past five years put together.
And renewables, other than big hydro, got last year $71 billion of private capital; nuclear, as usual, got zero. It is only bought by central planners with a draw on the public purse. What does this tell you? I mean, what part of the story does anybody who take markets seriously not get?
AMY GOODMAN: And yet, well, the media clearly in this country doesn’t get it, because it is raised over and over again by the candidates. I mean, it seems that Senator McCain has a favorite number: a hundred years in Iraq, also hoping for a hundred more new nuclear power plants. He had said something about, he doesn’t want to lose the knowledge of building, since the last one was built more than thirty years ago; the people are dying who had built it, so we’ve got to rush and build them now.
AMORY LOVINS: Well, you could say that’s already been lost, in the sense that most of a nuclear plant built now in the US, if there were any, would have to be imported, which, by the way, means we buy it in weak US dollars, which is part of the incredible cost escalation we’ve seen. Moody’s latest number is $7,500 a kilowatt. That’s, again, as the Journal said, about two to four times the numbers that were being bandied about just last year by promoters.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, talk about nuclear power. Why do you feel it’s not an option, given the oil crisis?
AMORY LOVINS: Well, first of all, electricity and oil have essentially nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity. Those numbers are falling. And essentially, all the oil involved is actually the heavy, gooey bottom of the barrel you can’t even make mobility fuels out of anyway.
What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do.
So, nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits claimed for it. It’s unrelated to oil. And it’s grossly uneconomic, which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It’s a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn’t happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies.
AMY GOODMAN: Why?
AMORY LOVINS: It’s uneconomic. It costs, for example, about three times as much as wind power, which is booming.
Let me give you some numbers about what’s happening in the marketplace, because that’s reality, as far as I’m concerned. I really take markets seriously. 2006, the last full year of data we have, nuclear worldwide added a little bit of capacity, more than all of it from upgrading old plants, because the new ones they built were smaller than the retirements of old plants. So they added 1.4 billion watts. Sounds like a lot. Well, it’s about one big plant’s worth worldwide. That was less than photovoltaics, solar cells added in capacity. It was a tenth what wind power added. It was a thirtieth to a fortieth of what micropower added.
AMY GOODMAN: What’s micropower?
AMORY LOVINS: Again, it’s renewables, other than big hydro, plus co-generating electricity and heat together, usually in industry.
In 2006, micropower, for the first time, produced more electricity worldwide than nuclear did. A sixth of the world’s electricity is now micropower, a third of the new electricity. In a dozen industrial countries, micropower makes anywhere from a sixth to over half of all the electricity elsewhere. This is not a fringe activity anymore.
China, which has the world’s most ambitious nuclear program, by the end of 2006 had seven times that much capacity in distributed renewables, and they were growing it seven times faster. Take a look at 2007, in which the US or Spain or China added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. The US added more wind capacity last year than we’ve added coal capacity in the past five years put together.
And renewables, other than big hydro, got last year $71 billion of private capital; nuclear, as usual, got zero. It is only bought by central planners with a draw on the public purse. What does this tell you? I mean, what part of the story does anybody who take markets seriously not get?
AMY GOODMAN: And yet, well, the media clearly in this country doesn’t get it, because it is raised over and over again by the candidates. I mean, it seems that Senator McCain has a favorite number: a hundred years in Iraq, also hoping for a hundred more new nuclear power plants. He had said something about, he doesn’t want to lose the knowledge of building, since the last one was built more than thirty years ago; the people are dying who had built it, so we’ve got to rush and build them now.
AMORY LOVINS: Well, you could say that’s already been lost, in the sense that most of a nuclear plant built now in the US, if there were any, would have to be imported, which, by the way, means we buy it in weak US dollars, which is part of the incredible cost escalation we’ve seen. Moody’s latest number is $7,500 a kilowatt. That’s, again, as the Journal said, about two to four times the numbers that were being bandied about just last year by promoters.
Categories: Peak Oil
GM's Solar Rooftop
Inhabitat reports that GM is building the World’s Largest Rooftop Solar Power Station in Spain.
A few years ago, if you were to say that the largest rooftop solar panel was going to be installed in a car manufacturing plant we’d probably say that you were, well, bonkers. If you had mentioned that not only would this be true, but that it would be installed in the roof of a General Motors plant, we’d have gladly tried to sell you a bridge. Surprisingly though you’d have been correct. Last week General Motors announced that its Zaragoza plant in Spain will be fitted with the world’s largest rooftop solar power station.
Granted, we didn’t quite know that GM already owns two of the largest solar power stations in the United States, but those are small change compared to the installation that will be undertaken in its European factory. Under Spanish skies, GM plans to install 85,000 solar panels on top of its factory covering over 2 million square feet. These will provide over 10 megawatts of power to both the station (responsible for over 480,000 vehicles) and the local power grid.
A few years ago, if you were to say that the largest rooftop solar panel was going to be installed in a car manufacturing plant we’d probably say that you were, well, bonkers. If you had mentioned that not only would this be true, but that it would be installed in the roof of a General Motors plant, we’d have gladly tried to sell you a bridge. Surprisingly though you’d have been correct. Last week General Motors announced that its Zaragoza plant in Spain will be fitted with the world’s largest rooftop solar power station.
Granted, we didn’t quite know that GM already owns two of the largest solar power stations in the United States, but those are small change compared to the installation that will be undertaken in its European factory. Under Spanish skies, GM plans to install 85,000 solar panels on top of its factory covering over 2 million square feet. These will provide over 10 megawatts of power to both the station (responsible for over 480,000 vehicles) and the local power grid.
Categories: Peak Oil
Nature's Internet: The Vast, Intelligent Network Beneath Our Feet
Derrick Jensen (who I've always categorised as interesting, but fundamentally unhelpful) has an interview with Paul Stamets, author of Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World, in "The Sun Magazine" about the "Vast, Intelligent Network Beneath Our Feet" that few think about, but which has a huge influence on life on earth as we know it - Going Underground.
Fun fact: mycellium break down hydrocarbons.
When we think of fungi, most of us picture mushrooms, those slightly mysterious, potentially poisonous denizens of dark, damp places. But a mushroom is just the fruit of the mycelium, which is an underground network of rootlike fibers that can stretch for miles. Stamets calls mycelia the “grand disassemblers of nature” because they break down complex substances into simpler components. For example, some fungi can take apart the hydrogen-carbon bonds that hold petroleum products together. Others have shown the potential to clean up nerve-gas agents, dioxins, and plastics. They may even be skilled enough to undo the ecological damage pollution has wrought.
Since reading Mycelium Running, I’ve begun to consider the possibility that mycelia know something we don’t. Stamets believes they have not just the ability to protect the environment but the intelligence to do so on purpose. His theory stems in part from the fact that mycelia transmit information across their huge networks using the same neurotransmitters that our brains do: the chemicals that allow us to think. In fact, recent discoveries suggest that humans are more closely related to fungi than we are to plants.
Almost since life began on earth, mycelia have performed important ecological roles: nourishing ecosystems, repairing them, and sometimes even helping create them. The fungi’s exquisitely fine filaments absorb nutrients from the soil and then trade them with the roots of plants for some of the energy that the plants produce through photosynthesis. No plant community could exist without mycelia. I’ve long been a resident and defender of forests, but Stamets helped me understand that I’ve been misperceiving my home. I thought a forest was made up entirely of trees, but now I know that the foundation lies below ground, in the fungi.
Stamets became interested in biology in kindergarten, when he planted a sunflower seed in a paper cup and watched it sprout and lift itself toward the light. Somewhere along the way, he developed a fascination with life forms that grow not toward the sun but away from it. In the late seventies he got a Drug Enforcement Administration permit to research hallucinogenic psilocybin mushrooms at Evergreen State College in Washington. Stamets is now fifty-two and has studied mycelia for more than thirty years, naming five new species and authoring or coauthoring six books, including Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms (Ten Speed Press) and The Mushroom Cultivator (Agarikon Press). He’s the founder and director of Fungi Perfecti (www.fungi.com), a company based outside Olympia, Washington, that provides mushroom research, information, classes, and spawn — the mushroom farmer’s equivalent of seed. Much of the company’s profits go to help protect endangered strains of fungi in the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. I interviewed Stamets in June 2007.
Jensen: How many different types of mushrooms are there?
Stamets: There are an estimated one to two million species of fungi, of which about 150,000 form mushrooms. A mushroom is the fruit body — the reproductive structure — of the mycelium, which is the network of thin, cobweblike cells that infuses all soil. The spores in the mushroom are somewhat analogous to seeds. Because mushrooms are fleshy, succulent, fragrant, and rich in nutrients, they attract animals — including humans — who eat them and thereby participate in spreading the spores through their feces.
Our knowledge of fungi is far exceeded by our ignorance. To date, we’ve identified approximately 14,000 of the 150,000 species of mushroom-forming fungi estimated to exist, which means that more than 90 percent have not yet been identified. Fungi are essential for ecological health, and losing any of these species would be like losing rivets in an airplane. Flying squirrels and voles, for example, are dependent upon truffles, and in old-growth forests, the main predator of flying squirrels and voles is the spotted owl. This means that killing off truffles would kill off flying squirrels and voles, which would kill off spotted owls.
That’s just one food chain that we can identify; there are many thousands more we cannot. Biological systems are so complex that they far exceed our cognitive abilities and our linear logic. We are essentially children when it comes to our understanding of the natural world. ...
Jensen: Of course this raises the question of boundaries: Is that tomato-fungus-virus one entity or three? Where does one organism stop and the other begin?
Stamets: Well, humans aren’t just one organism. We are composites. Scientists label species as separate so we can communicate easily about the variety we see in nature. We need to be able to look at a tree and say it’s a Douglas fir and look at a mammal and say it’s a harbor seal. But, indeed, I speak to you as a unified composite of microbes. I guess you could say I am the “elected voice” of a microbial community. This is the way of life on our planet. It is all based on complex symbiotic relationships.
A mycelial “mat,” which scientists think of as one entity, can be thousands of acres in size. The largest organism in the world is a mycelial mat in eastern Oregon that covers 2,200 acres and is more than two thousand years old. Its survival strategy is somewhat mysterious. We have five or six layers of skin to protect us from infection; the mycelium has one cell wall. How is it that this vast mycelial network, which is surrounded by hundreds of millions of microbes all trying to eat it, is protected by one cell wall? I believe it’s because the mycelium is in constant biochemical communication with its ecosystem.
I think these mycelial mats are neurological networks. They’re sentient, they’re aware, and they’re highly evolved. They have external stomachs, which produce enzymes and acids to digest nutrients outside the mycelium, and then bring in those compounds that it needs for nutrition. As you walk through a forest, you break twigs underneath your feet, and the mycelium surges upward to capture those newly available nutrients as quickly as possible. I say they have “lungs,” because they are inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, just like we are. I say they are sentient, because they produce pharmacological compounds — which can activate receptor sites in our neurons — and also serotonin-like compounds, including psilocybin, the hallucinogen found in some mushrooms. This speaks to the fact that there is an evolutionary common denominator between fungi and humans. We evolved from fungi. We took an overground route. The fungi took the route of producing these underground networks that are highly resilient and extremely adaptive: if you disturb a mycelial network, it just regrows. It might even benefit from the disturbance.
I have long proposed that mycelia are the earth’s “natural Internet.” I’ve gotten some flak for this, but recently scientists in Great Britain have published papers about the “architecture” of a mycelium — how it’s organized. They focused on the nodes of crossing, which are the branchings that allow the mycelium, when there is a breakage or an infection, to choose an alternate route and regrow. There’s no one specific point on the network that can shut the whole operation down. These nodes of crossing, those scientists found, conform to the same mathematical optimization curves that computer scientists have developed to optimize the Internet. Or, rather, I should say that the Internet conforms to the same optimization curves as the mycelium, since the mycelium came first.
The subject of the great network of mycellium came up in Bruce Sterling's last "State of the world" gabfest, however Bruce gave it short shrift. Bruce's acolytes at WorldChanging are more enthusiastic about mushrooms though, so there is still a chance their filaments may spread throughout the Viridian world.
Well, if a hallucinatory network of intelligent fungal filaments is in charge of the planet's ecosystem, it needs to do a better damn job.
Y'know, as a science fiction writer, I dote on that kind of daft deep-green whimsy, I'm kind of a connoisseur of it. It's not much use in case of trouble, though. It's like going to a broken levee in New Orleans and signalling the sky with bottle rockets because, you know, the Space Brothers might help out.
Fun fact: mycellium break down hydrocarbons.
When we think of fungi, most of us picture mushrooms, those slightly mysterious, potentially poisonous denizens of dark, damp places. But a mushroom is just the fruit of the mycelium, which is an underground network of rootlike fibers that can stretch for miles. Stamets calls mycelia the “grand disassemblers of nature” because they break down complex substances into simpler components. For example, some fungi can take apart the hydrogen-carbon bonds that hold petroleum products together. Others have shown the potential to clean up nerve-gas agents, dioxins, and plastics. They may even be skilled enough to undo the ecological damage pollution has wrought.
Since reading Mycelium Running, I’ve begun to consider the possibility that mycelia know something we don’t. Stamets believes they have not just the ability to protect the environment but the intelligence to do so on purpose. His theory stems in part from the fact that mycelia transmit information across their huge networks using the same neurotransmitters that our brains do: the chemicals that allow us to think. In fact, recent discoveries suggest that humans are more closely related to fungi than we are to plants.
Almost since life began on earth, mycelia have performed important ecological roles: nourishing ecosystems, repairing them, and sometimes even helping create them. The fungi’s exquisitely fine filaments absorb nutrients from the soil and then trade them with the roots of plants for some of the energy that the plants produce through photosynthesis. No plant community could exist without mycelia. I’ve long been a resident and defender of forests, but Stamets helped me understand that I’ve been misperceiving my home. I thought a forest was made up entirely of trees, but now I know that the foundation lies below ground, in the fungi.
Stamets became interested in biology in kindergarten, when he planted a sunflower seed in a paper cup and watched it sprout and lift itself toward the light. Somewhere along the way, he developed a fascination with life forms that grow not toward the sun but away from it. In the late seventies he got a Drug Enforcement Administration permit to research hallucinogenic psilocybin mushrooms at Evergreen State College in Washington. Stamets is now fifty-two and has studied mycelia for more than thirty years, naming five new species and authoring or coauthoring six books, including Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms (Ten Speed Press) and The Mushroom Cultivator (Agarikon Press). He’s the founder and director of Fungi Perfecti (www.fungi.com), a company based outside Olympia, Washington, that provides mushroom research, information, classes, and spawn — the mushroom farmer’s equivalent of seed. Much of the company’s profits go to help protect endangered strains of fungi in the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. I interviewed Stamets in June 2007.
Jensen: How many different types of mushrooms are there?
Stamets: There are an estimated one to two million species of fungi, of which about 150,000 form mushrooms. A mushroom is the fruit body — the reproductive structure — of the mycelium, which is the network of thin, cobweblike cells that infuses all soil. The spores in the mushroom are somewhat analogous to seeds. Because mushrooms are fleshy, succulent, fragrant, and rich in nutrients, they attract animals — including humans — who eat them and thereby participate in spreading the spores through their feces.
Our knowledge of fungi is far exceeded by our ignorance. To date, we’ve identified approximately 14,000 of the 150,000 species of mushroom-forming fungi estimated to exist, which means that more than 90 percent have not yet been identified. Fungi are essential for ecological health, and losing any of these species would be like losing rivets in an airplane. Flying squirrels and voles, for example, are dependent upon truffles, and in old-growth forests, the main predator of flying squirrels and voles is the spotted owl. This means that killing off truffles would kill off flying squirrels and voles, which would kill off spotted owls.
That’s just one food chain that we can identify; there are many thousands more we cannot. Biological systems are so complex that they far exceed our cognitive abilities and our linear logic. We are essentially children when it comes to our understanding of the natural world. ...
Jensen: Of course this raises the question of boundaries: Is that tomato-fungus-virus one entity or three? Where does one organism stop and the other begin?
Stamets: Well, humans aren’t just one organism. We are composites. Scientists label species as separate so we can communicate easily about the variety we see in nature. We need to be able to look at a tree and say it’s a Douglas fir and look at a mammal and say it’s a harbor seal. But, indeed, I speak to you as a unified composite of microbes. I guess you could say I am the “elected voice” of a microbial community. This is the way of life on our planet. It is all based on complex symbiotic relationships.
A mycelial “mat,” which scientists think of as one entity, can be thousands of acres in size. The largest organism in the world is a mycelial mat in eastern Oregon that covers 2,200 acres and is more than two thousand years old. Its survival strategy is somewhat mysterious. We have five or six layers of skin to protect us from infection; the mycelium has one cell wall. How is it that this vast mycelial network, which is surrounded by hundreds of millions of microbes all trying to eat it, is protected by one cell wall? I believe it’s because the mycelium is in constant biochemical communication with its ecosystem.
I think these mycelial mats are neurological networks. They’re sentient, they’re aware, and they’re highly evolved. They have external stomachs, which produce enzymes and acids to digest nutrients outside the mycelium, and then bring in those compounds that it needs for nutrition. As you walk through a forest, you break twigs underneath your feet, and the mycelium surges upward to capture those newly available nutrients as quickly as possible. I say they have “lungs,” because they are inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, just like we are. I say they are sentient, because they produce pharmacological compounds — which can activate receptor sites in our neurons — and also serotonin-like compounds, including psilocybin, the hallucinogen found in some mushrooms. This speaks to the fact that there is an evolutionary common denominator between fungi and humans. We evolved from fungi. We took an overground route. The fungi took the route of producing these underground networks that are highly resilient and extremely adaptive: if you disturb a mycelial network, it just regrows. It might even benefit from the disturbance.
I have long proposed that mycelia are the earth’s “natural Internet.” I’ve gotten some flak for this, but recently scientists in Great Britain have published papers about the “architecture” of a mycelium — how it’s organized. They focused on the nodes of crossing, which are the branchings that allow the mycelium, when there is a breakage or an infection, to choose an alternate route and regrow. There’s no one specific point on the network that can shut the whole operation down. These nodes of crossing, those scientists found, conform to the same mathematical optimization curves that computer scientists have developed to optimize the Internet. Or, rather, I should say that the Internet conforms to the same optimization curves as the mycelium, since the mycelium came first.
The subject of the great network of mycellium came up in Bruce Sterling's last "State of the world" gabfest, however Bruce gave it short shrift. Bruce's acolytes at WorldChanging are more enthusiastic about mushrooms though, so there is still a chance their filaments may spread throughout the Viridian world.
Well, if a hallucinatory network of intelligent fungal filaments is in charge of the planet's ecosystem, it needs to do a better damn job.
Y'know, as a science fiction writer, I dote on that kind of daft deep-green whimsy, I'm kind of a connoisseur of it. It's not much use in case of trouble, though. It's like going to a broken levee in New Orleans and signalling the sky with bottle rockets because, you know, the Space Brothers might help out.
Categories: Peak Oil
Much Ado, But Nothing Being Done
Alan Ramsay at the SMH is less than impressed about the slow pace of actions to reduce carbon emissions - Buckle up for trouble on the green route.
In the BBC series The Blue Planet, David Attenborough's epic documentary on the Earth's oceans first televised seven years ago, he nails us all. That is when Attenborough tells us there is now more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than at any time "in the last 650,000 years". He rivets our attention even more by saying that we're adding "125 billion tonnes of it every year".
This is the global warming George Bush and John Howard kept telling us wasn't happening. This is the multiplying pollution warming our oceans and killing our future. This is the accelerating climate change "we" have to do "something" about.
To fix it we have to understand it. Almost none of us do. ...
Ross Garnaut's opus is 536 pages. Penny Wong's runs to 518 pages. The Wong green paper also offers a 68-page summary. I don't believe anyone in the Government or the Opposition - the politicians, that is - has read both. Every page. There are staff advisers, an army of bureaucrats and paid "consultants" to do that. And I'll bet pounds to peanuts there isn't a soul in the Canberra press gallery who's read both reports, either. How the rest of you cope, I can only imagine. The political war of words (about carbon emissions, carbon sinks, carbon trading, carbon caps, carbon reduction, compensation, etc) to get your attention is fierce. And it will get ever fiercer.
Yet what you most need to understand is that nothing happens for two years.
That is, the detailed scheme the Rudd Government adopts to reduce carbon pollution won't happen until 2010, just before the next election. That's the scariest bit. Between now and then we get the battle over the Wong green paper, before we get the battle that follows the Rudd white paper.
Green stands for discussion. White stands for decision. Kevin Rudd kept saying all week we'll get the white paper "at the end of the year". Thus, between the white paper and the election, due in November 2010, we are likely get two years of the ugliest of political behaviour from either side.
Senator Milne also has a column in the SMH, saying "if ever our planet needed inspiring leadership, it is now" - Climate won't wait, Mr Rudd.
THE first of Nelson Mandela's eight lessons of leadership is that "Courage is not the absence of fear - it's inspiring others to move beyond it". If ever our planet needed inspiring leadership it is now, as we face the twin threats of climate change and peak oil.
Our leaders need the courage to take the bold, far-sighted action we need if we are to survive this challenge and emerge better off. In perhaps as little as two decades we have to radically transform our society and economy.
We have to rebuild our energy infrastructure with zero emissions renewable energy; upgrade homes, offices and factories to get the same or more output using half as much energy; redesign cities around fast, convenient mass transit and cycleways; and retrain all those workers and communities who currently rely on coal, oil and native forest logging.
Real leaders would acknowledge the challenge but articulate an inspiring vision of reinvigorated industry, of healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and a stable climate. They would seek innovative, thoughtful policy responses that tackle the underlying issues and provide Australians with the hopeful knowledge that they are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Instead we have a Government and Opposition who are both paralysed with fear - fear of what they think will be the short-term political consequences of taking bold action. Nothing expresses this fearful, defeatist attitude better than the fact that the Government's green paper was entirely focused on compensating anyone who demanded it (and many who didn't).
Let's take petrol. The price is increased with one hand but decreased "cent for cent" with the other. Instead of finding solutions that work through and overcome the obstacles, the Government has deliberately put its foot on the accelerator and the brake at the same time. The wheels are spinning madly, we're burning up fuel, and we're going precisely nowhere.
The same goes for handing out free permits and cash compensation to Australia's biggest and most profitable polluters - the aluminium and coal sectors.
I have long argued that we must make every effort to help people deal with the extra costs pricing pollution will put on them. But unless we offer help that actually reduces people's carbon liability, any compensation payments are a cruel hoax. They might temporarily mask the impact of price rises but they set people up for a big fall when the crunch comes and they are left unprepared. ...
Instead of propping up a coal sector our planet cannot sustain, why not retrain the workforce for the new green-collar jobs we desperately need, helping the roll-out of insulation, solar, wind and geothermal energy, buses and trains? We need to support workers but the corporations who have profited from polluting deserve no more compensation than the asbestos and tobacco industries.
Ross Gittins is the most sanguine of the three, viewing the proposed ETS as not too bad, all things considered - Rudd sails through greenhouse test despite lack of green flagellation.
The Rudd Government is never going to win a medal for political bravery. It's not in the same league as Hawke-Keating Labor. Even so, it's done a better job with its first step towards a carbon pollution reduction scheme than many people accept.
Last week's green paper has been criticised on three fronts. First are industry vested interests intent on scaring the public and the Government into giving them an easier ride than they've been promised. There's no law against rent-seeking, but everything they say should be viewed with scepticism.
The second source of criticism is those media commentators and ordinary citizens who find it hard to believe a scheme that's had so many of its political rough edges smoothed away could actually do much good. How could you spray around so much compensation and still get a worthwhile reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?
The third source of attack comes from the Greens and greenies in general. The Greens may be motivated by a desire to differentiate their product: the more the mainstream parties accept the need for action to halt global warming, the more radical the Greens' policies need to become.
But it's hard to resist the conclusion that, for many greenies, environmentalism has taken the place once occupied by religion. Emitting greenhouse gases is intrinsically sinful and mining coal is a work of the devil. What we need is purification by self-flagellation.
To those who see the Rudd plan as too politically compromised to be a fair dinkum attack on emissions: it's not nearly that bad.
The first point is that, because the Government will be selling emission permits to the highest bidders, it will have plenty of revenue to recycle as compensation and other measures to minimise the cost to the economy of achieving the desired reduction in emissions.
Those households with combined incomes exceeding $150,000 a year will get no compensation; middle-income households will get tax cuts (which they probably would have got in any event) and only low-income households will get genuine compensation in the form of tax cuts at the bottom end and increases in pensions, benefits and allowances.
But if you compensate people for the higher price of fossil fuels, what incentive do you give them to reduce their consumption of those fuels? The incentive that comes from the higher price of fossil fuels relative to all other prices.
The object of the exercise is not to make people poorer, nor is it necessary to make them poorer to induce them to be more economical in their use of the now more expensive fuels.
In the BBC series The Blue Planet, David Attenborough's epic documentary on the Earth's oceans first televised seven years ago, he nails us all. That is when Attenborough tells us there is now more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than at any time "in the last 650,000 years". He rivets our attention even more by saying that we're adding "125 billion tonnes of it every year".
This is the global warming George Bush and John Howard kept telling us wasn't happening. This is the multiplying pollution warming our oceans and killing our future. This is the accelerating climate change "we" have to do "something" about.
To fix it we have to understand it. Almost none of us do. ...
Ross Garnaut's opus is 536 pages. Penny Wong's runs to 518 pages. The Wong green paper also offers a 68-page summary. I don't believe anyone in the Government or the Opposition - the politicians, that is - has read both. Every page. There are staff advisers, an army of bureaucrats and paid "consultants" to do that. And I'll bet pounds to peanuts there isn't a soul in the Canberra press gallery who's read both reports, either. How the rest of you cope, I can only imagine. The political war of words (about carbon emissions, carbon sinks, carbon trading, carbon caps, carbon reduction, compensation, etc) to get your attention is fierce. And it will get ever fiercer.
Yet what you most need to understand is that nothing happens for two years.
That is, the detailed scheme the Rudd Government adopts to reduce carbon pollution won't happen until 2010, just before the next election. That's the scariest bit. Between now and then we get the battle over the Wong green paper, before we get the battle that follows the Rudd white paper.
Green stands for discussion. White stands for decision. Kevin Rudd kept saying all week we'll get the white paper "at the end of the year". Thus, between the white paper and the election, due in November 2010, we are likely get two years of the ugliest of political behaviour from either side.
Senator Milne also has a column in the SMH, saying "if ever our planet needed inspiring leadership, it is now" - Climate won't wait, Mr Rudd.
THE first of Nelson Mandela's eight lessons of leadership is that "Courage is not the absence of fear - it's inspiring others to move beyond it". If ever our planet needed inspiring leadership it is now, as we face the twin threats of climate change and peak oil.
Our leaders need the courage to take the bold, far-sighted action we need if we are to survive this challenge and emerge better off. In perhaps as little as two decades we have to radically transform our society and economy.
We have to rebuild our energy infrastructure with zero emissions renewable energy; upgrade homes, offices and factories to get the same or more output using half as much energy; redesign cities around fast, convenient mass transit and cycleways; and retrain all those workers and communities who currently rely on coal, oil and native forest logging.
Real leaders would acknowledge the challenge but articulate an inspiring vision of reinvigorated industry, of healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and a stable climate. They would seek innovative, thoughtful policy responses that tackle the underlying issues and provide Australians with the hopeful knowledge that they are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Instead we have a Government and Opposition who are both paralysed with fear - fear of what they think will be the short-term political consequences of taking bold action. Nothing expresses this fearful, defeatist attitude better than the fact that the Government's green paper was entirely focused on compensating anyone who demanded it (and many who didn't).
Let's take petrol. The price is increased with one hand but decreased "cent for cent" with the other. Instead of finding solutions that work through and overcome the obstacles, the Government has deliberately put its foot on the accelerator and the brake at the same time. The wheels are spinning madly, we're burning up fuel, and we're going precisely nowhere.
The same goes for handing out free permits and cash compensation to Australia's biggest and most profitable polluters - the aluminium and coal sectors.
I have long argued that we must make every effort to help people deal with the extra costs pricing pollution will put on them. But unless we offer help that actually reduces people's carbon liability, any compensation payments are a cruel hoax. They might temporarily mask the impact of price rises but they set people up for a big fall when the crunch comes and they are left unprepared. ...
Instead of propping up a coal sector our planet cannot sustain, why not retrain the workforce for the new green-collar jobs we desperately need, helping the roll-out of insulation, solar, wind and geothermal energy, buses and trains? We need to support workers but the corporations who have profited from polluting deserve no more compensation than the asbestos and tobacco industries.
Ross Gittins is the most sanguine of the three, viewing the proposed ETS as not too bad, all things considered - Rudd sails through greenhouse test despite lack of green flagellation.
The Rudd Government is never going to win a medal for political bravery. It's not in the same league as Hawke-Keating Labor. Even so, it's done a better job with its first step towards a carbon pollution reduction scheme than many people accept.
Last week's green paper has been criticised on three fronts. First are industry vested interests intent on scaring the public and the Government into giving them an easier ride than they've been promised. There's no law against rent-seeking, but everything they say should be viewed with scepticism.
The second source of criticism is those media commentators and ordinary citizens who find it hard to believe a scheme that's had so many of its political rough edges smoothed away could actually do much good. How could you spray around so much compensation and still get a worthwhile reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?
The third source of attack comes from the Greens and greenies in general. The Greens may be motivated by a desire to differentiate their product: the more the mainstream parties accept the need for action to halt global warming, the more radical the Greens' policies need to become.
But it's hard to resist the conclusion that, for many greenies, environmentalism has taken the place once occupied by religion. Emitting greenhouse gases is intrinsically sinful and mining coal is a work of the devil. What we need is purification by self-flagellation.
To those who see the Rudd plan as too politically compromised to be a fair dinkum attack on emissions: it's not nearly that bad.
The first point is that, because the Government will be selling emission permits to the highest bidders, it will have plenty of revenue to recycle as compensation and other measures to minimise the cost to the economy of achieving the desired reduction in emissions.
Those households with combined incomes exceeding $150,000 a year will get no compensation; middle-income households will get tax cuts (which they probably would have got in any event) and only low-income households will get genuine compensation in the form of tax cuts at the bottom end and increases in pensions, benefits and allowances.
But if you compensate people for the higher price of fossil fuels, what incentive do you give them to reduce their consumption of those fuels? The incentive that comes from the higher price of fossil fuels relative to all other prices.
The object of the exercise is not to make people poorer, nor is it necessary to make them poorer to induce them to be more economical in their use of the now more expensive fuels.
Categories: Peak Oil
Mind The Energy Gap
One piece of video I like to refer people to from time to time is Hans Rosling's TED talk from a few years ago, which looks at population dynamics and shows the downward trend in growth rates dramatically using some great visualisation techniques.
Since then, Hans has done a series of online talks that he calls "Gapcasts", the latest of which is on energy.
All humans emit carbon dioxide (Co2) and contribute to the climate crises. But some humans emits much more than others. Although the total Co2-emission from China are almost as big as those from United States, the emission from a single American is more than 6 times those from a person in China.
In China today, almost 80% of the electricity are produced from coal, and that proportion is increasing. What China needs is an environmental friendly way of producing electricity that is cheaper than coal.
var jsval = '';
writethis(jsval);//-->
The software Hans used to produce the graphics in the video is called "Trendalyzer", produced by an organisation named "GapMinder", hence the site name for the Gapcasts.
GapMinder is looking to enable the production of more time series based data visualisations, and is looking to expand the available data sets via an initiative called "Gapminder Graphs".
As a first step towards a solution that will allow anyone create own “Gapminder-graphs” with their own data, Gapminder are now starting a cooperation with a number of organizations and institutions that have data sets for relevant indicators that they want to share with the world and show in a Gapminder Graph of their own.
When your organization/institution becomes a member you will get an account were you can upload your own indicators and also you get an on-line graph with the indicators you choose.
The requirements for becoming a member is that your organization:
* have data that covers a certain time (the longer time series the better);
* the data concerns “Countries and territories” of the world and;
* that the indicators can be shared to other Gapminder Graphs and be downloaded by anyone.
If you belong to an organization or institution that are interested in becoming a member of Gapminder Graphs Communtiy and fullfill the three requirements above please [contact us].
Google acquired the Trendalyzer software from GapMinder last year and have since released a Google Gadget called "Google Motion Chart" which enables relatively simple time / motion charts (compared to the full GapMinder World visualisation) to be produced, as part of the Google Visualisation API.
Microsoft have also announced a "Gapminder Tool" though there are no indications as to when it will become available to end users.
The Google Motion Chart tool is integrated with Google Docs, so you can very quickly create a spreadsheet and a visualisation of the data in it without any real technical skills.
The visualisation / video can then be easily embedded in a web page as well (you can also do this directly using some Javascript if you don't want to use Google Docs).
Since then, Hans has done a series of online talks that he calls "Gapcasts", the latest of which is on energy.
All humans emit carbon dioxide (Co2) and contribute to the climate crises. But some humans emits much more than others. Although the total Co2-emission from China are almost as big as those from United States, the emission from a single American is more than 6 times those from a person in China.
In China today, almost 80% of the electricity are produced from coal, and that proportion is increasing. What China needs is an environmental friendly way of producing electricity that is cheaper than coal.
var jsval = '';
writethis(jsval);//-->
The software Hans used to produce the graphics in the video is called "Trendalyzer", produced by an organisation named "GapMinder", hence the site name for the Gapcasts.
GapMinder is looking to enable the production of more time series based data visualisations, and is looking to expand the available data sets via an initiative called "Gapminder Graphs".
As a first step towards a solution that will allow anyone create own “Gapminder-graphs” with their own data, Gapminder are now starting a cooperation with a number of organizations and institutions that have data sets for relevant indicators that they want to share with the world and show in a Gapminder Graph of their own.
When your organization/institution becomes a member you will get an account were you can upload your own indicators and also you get an on-line graph with the indicators you choose.
The requirements for becoming a member is that your organization:
* have data that covers a certain time (the longer time series the better);
* the data concerns “Countries and territories” of the world and;
* that the indicators can be shared to other Gapminder Graphs and be downloaded by anyone.
If you belong to an organization or institution that are interested in becoming a member of Gapminder Graphs Communtiy and fullfill the three requirements above please [contact us].
Google acquired the Trendalyzer software from GapMinder last year and have since released a Google Gadget called "Google Motion Chart" which enables relatively simple time / motion charts (compared to the full GapMinder World visualisation) to be produced, as part of the Google Visualisation API.
Microsoft have also announced a "Gapminder Tool" though there are no indications as to when it will become available to end users.
The Google Motion Chart tool is integrated with Google Docs, so you can very quickly create a spreadsheet and a visualisation of the data in it without any real technical skills.
The visualisation / video can then be easily embedded in a web page as well (you can also do this directly using some Javascript if you don't want to use Google Docs).
Categories: Peak Oil
Mind The Energy Gap
One piece of video I like to refer people to from time to time is Hans Rosling's TED talk from a few years ago, which looks at population dynamics and shows the downward trend in growth rates dramatically using some great visualisation techniques.
Since then, Hans has done a series of online talks that he calls "Gapcasts", the latest of which is on energy.
All humans emit carbon dioxide (Co2) and contribute to the climate crises. But some humans emits much more than others. Although the total Co2-emission from China are almost as big as those from United States, the emission from a single American is more than 6 times those from a person in China.
In China today, almost 80% of the electricity are produced from coal, and that proportion is increasing. What China needs is an environmental friendly way of producing electricity that is cheaper than coal.
var jsval = '';
writethis(jsval);//-->
The software Hans used to produce the graphics in the video is called "Trendalyzer", produced by an organisation named "GapMinder", hence the site name for the Gapcasts.
GapMinder is looking to enable the production of more time series based data visualisations, and is looking to expand the available data sets via an initiative called "Gapminder Graphs".
As a first step towards a solution that will allow anyone create own “Gapminder-graphs” with their own data, Gapminder are now starting a cooperation with a number of organizations and institutions that have data sets for relevant indicators that they want to share with the world and show in a Gapminder Graph of their own.
When your organization/institution becomes a member you will get an account were you can upload your own indicators and also you get an on-line graph with the indicators you choose.
The requirements for becoming a member is that your organization:
* have data that covers a certain time (the longer time series the better);
* the data concerns “Countries and territories” of the world and;
* that the indicators can be shared to other Gapminder Graphs and be downloaded by anyone.
If you belong to an organization or institution that are interested in becoming a member of Gapminder Graphs Communtiy and fullfill the three requirements above please [contact us].
Google acquired the Trendalyzer software from GapMinder last year and have since released a Google Gadget called "Google Motion Chart" which enables relatively simple time / motion charts (compared to the full GapMinder World visualisation) to be produced, as part of the Google Visualisation API.
Microsoft have also announced a "Gapminder Tool" though there are no indications as to when it will become available to end users.
The Google Motion Chart tool is integrated with Google Docs, so you can very quickly create a spreadsheet and a visualisation of the data in it without any real technical skills.
The visualisation / video can then be easily embedded in a web page as well (you can also do this directly using some Javascript if you don't want to use Google Docs).
Since then, Hans has done a series of online talks that he calls "Gapcasts", the latest of which is on energy.
All humans emit carbon dioxide (Co2) and contribute to the climate crises. But some humans emits much more than others. Although the total Co2-emission from China are almost as big as those from United States, the emission from a single American is more than 6 times those from a person in China.
In China today, almost 80% of the electricity are produced from coal, and that proportion is increasing. What China needs is an environmental friendly way of producing electricity that is cheaper than coal.
var jsval = '';
writethis(jsval);//-->
The software Hans used to produce the graphics in the video is called "Trendalyzer", produced by an organisation named "GapMinder", hence the site name for the Gapcasts.
GapMinder is looking to enable the production of more time series based data visualisations, and is looking to expand the available data sets via an initiative called "Gapminder Graphs".
As a first step towards a solution that will allow anyone create own “Gapminder-graphs” with their own data, Gapminder are now starting a cooperation with a number of organizations and institutions that have data sets for relevant indicators that they want to share with the world and show in a Gapminder Graph of their own.
When your organization/institution becomes a member you will get an account were you can upload your own indicators and also you get an on-line graph with the indicators you choose.
The requirements for becoming a member is that your organization:
* have data that covers a certain time (the longer time series the better);
* the data concerns “Countries and territories” of the world and;
* that the indicators can be shared to other Gapminder Graphs and be downloaded by anyone.
If you belong to an organization or institution that are interested in becoming a member of Gapminder Graphs Communtiy and fullfill the three requirements above please [contact us].
Google acquired the Trendalyzer software from GapMinder last year and have since released a Google Gadget called "Google Motion Chart" which enables relatively simple time / motion charts (compared to the full GapMinder World visualisation) to be produced, as part of the Google Visualisation API.
Microsoft have also announced a "Gapminder Tool" though there are no indications as to when it will become available to end users.
The Google Motion Chart tool is integrated with Google Docs, so you can very quickly create a spreadsheet and a visualisation of the data in it without any real technical skills.
The visualisation / video can then be easily embedded in a web page as well (you can also do this directly using some Javascript if you don't want to use Google Docs).
Categories: Peak Oil
Peak Oil Goes "The Full Monty"
The Daily Mail has a strange article by "Full Monty" scriptwriter Simon Beaufoy on his new miniseries Burn Up - Even oilmen believe our planet is burning up. If you've got an eye for tinfoil hooks you'll find some of the lines in this one intriguing.
As I dug around the oil industry, I came across another extraordinary elephant in the room that nobody dared mention, but which will become crucial in the fight to prevent irreversible warming: Peak Oil.
This is what they call the moment when we start running out of the stuff.
When I started on this journey, three years ago, oil was 50 dollars a barrel and the Peak Oil theorists were dismissed as alarmist fringe elements. We were apparently at least 50 years away from Peak Oil. Anyone who dared to say different was simply laughed at.
But then I met a man employed by the oil industry to collate data on oil reserves, and he told me that already we are not producing enough oil to meet demand, and even if output were increased, it would be used up by growing demand from China and India.
So, I asked, what did this mean?
'A global crash,' he said, 'at a guess somewhere between 2008 and 2010.'
I left his office on a beautiful, globally-warmed day with house prices soaring and the financial markets blossoming. Clearly, the man was nuts.
But who is nuts, now? Oil has hit 147 dollars a barrel, house prices are plummeting and the stock markets are going through the floor. And yet, still, is anyone listening?
Somehow, I had to turn a mass of complex science and politics into something people would want to watch, but how could I dramatise carbon dioxide, an enemy you can't see, smell or touch?
It would be like Spooks without the terrorists, The Wire without the drug dealers.
I found the answer in men like John Ashton, Tony Blair's 'climate tsar'. A former diplomat, he now shuttles between China and Europe, patiently negotiating, encouraging, persuading the Chinese, soon to become the world's biggest emitters of CO2, to sign up to emission reduction targets.
You are unlikely to see his name anywhere, for that is certainly not his style, but if we ever get ourselves out of this mess, it is people such as John who will have saved us.
And that's what gave me the key to Burn Up: the lies and duplicity of the denial industry pitched against people desperate to prevent runaway climate change.
I concealed a mass of factual science and politics inside the Trojan Horse of a racy thriller.
And where does this leave me? What does Cassandra have to say about the chances of humanity solving this most dangerous of puzzles?
You might be surprised to know that I believe there is still hope.
As Rupert Penry-Jones's character says in the film: 'Oil. Oil is everything.' Its all-consuming use has caused the problem and now its scarcity might just save us.
A spiralling price that triggers a global power-down could buy us the time to stop the warming. In fact, it's happening right now.
Will it work? We're about to find out.
As I dug around the oil industry, I came across another extraordinary elephant in the room that nobody dared mention, but which will become crucial in the fight to prevent irreversible warming: Peak Oil.
This is what they call the moment when we start running out of the stuff.
When I started on this journey, three years ago, oil was 50 dollars a barrel and the Peak Oil theorists were dismissed as alarmist fringe elements. We were apparently at least 50 years away from Peak Oil. Anyone who dared to say different was simply laughed at.
But then I met a man employed by the oil industry to collate data on oil reserves, and he told me that already we are not producing enough oil to meet demand, and even if output were increased, it would be used up by growing demand from China and India.
So, I asked, what did this mean?
'A global crash,' he said, 'at a guess somewhere between 2008 and 2010.'
I left his office on a beautiful, globally-warmed day with house prices soaring and the financial markets blossoming. Clearly, the man was nuts.
But who is nuts, now? Oil has hit 147 dollars a barrel, house prices are plummeting and the stock markets are going through the floor. And yet, still, is anyone listening?
Somehow, I had to turn a mass of complex science and politics into something people would want to watch, but how could I dramatise carbon dioxide, an enemy you can't see, smell or touch?
It would be like Spooks without the terrorists, The Wire without the drug dealers.
I found the answer in men like John Ashton, Tony Blair's 'climate tsar'. A former diplomat, he now shuttles between China and Europe, patiently negotiating, encouraging, persuading the Chinese, soon to become the world's biggest emitters of CO2, to sign up to emission reduction targets.
You are unlikely to see his name anywhere, for that is certainly not his style, but if we ever get ourselves out of this mess, it is people such as John who will have saved us.
And that's what gave me the key to Burn Up: the lies and duplicity of the denial industry pitched against people desperate to prevent runaway climate change.
I concealed a mass of factual science and politics inside the Trojan Horse of a racy thriller.
And where does this leave me? What does Cassandra have to say about the chances of humanity solving this most dangerous of puzzles?
You might be surprised to know that I believe there is still hope.
As Rupert Penry-Jones's character says in the film: 'Oil. Oil is everything.' Its all-consuming use has caused the problem and now its scarcity might just save us.
A spiralling price that triggers a global power-down could buy us the time to stop the warming. In fact, it's happening right now.
Will it work? We're about to find out.
Categories: Peak Oil
We Don't Have an Energy Crisis, We Have a Transportation Crisis
Its always worth re-iterating this one, especially to Olduvai Gorge doomers, first that we mostly use oil for transport, second that there are alternative fuels. From TreeHugger - We Don't Have an Energy Crisis, We Have a Transportation Crisis.
Benjamin J. Turon writes an op-ed in the Schenectady Daily Gazette and makes a very good point about how the Kunstlers and Peak Oil Survivalists "forget history and underestimate the technology available to sustain our technological civilization."
Turon points out that oil is used primarily for transport, whereas electricity powers everything else. While his argument is not without problems, (like the need for a lot more electricity generation from all kinds of sources) his main point is crucial- there are lots of alternatives to gasoline if you realize that the problem lies almost entirely with transport.
"First, much of technology is based on electricity, not oil! Computers, telecommunications, lights, industrial machinery, household appliances are electric; electricity can also cook our food and heat our homes. While the power grid needs to be expanded and modernized, North America has abundant energy resources — including coal, nuclear, hydro, tidal, wind, solar and geothermal — to keep us in electricity without depending on oil-run power plants."
“There is no substitute for oil [or liquid fuels] in transport” is a canard that is frequently uttered in the media by so-called experts. While true for airplanes, it is demonstratively false for transport on land and sea. Maritime transport is very fuel-efficient and could once again run on coal via steam engines or gas turbines. Ships could also utilize sails or kites to save fuel. Europe, with its excellent system of inland waterways, moves more than 40 percent of its freight by water. Perhaps there is a future for the New York State Barge Canal beyond recreational boating."
"Electric trolley buses and trucks can receive electricity directly from the grid by overhead wires. There are globally 353 cities with electric trolley bus systems, including Boston, Dayton, Seattle and San Francisco. Large cities could electrify major thoroughfares for use by streetcars, transit buses and delivery trucks. Eventually even the interstate highway system could be electrified, saving long-distant trucking.
Benjamin J. Turon writes an op-ed in the Schenectady Daily Gazette and makes a very good point about how the Kunstlers and Peak Oil Survivalists "forget history and underestimate the technology available to sustain our technological civilization."
Turon points out that oil is used primarily for transport, whereas electricity powers everything else. While his argument is not without problems, (like the need for a lot more electricity generation from all kinds of sources) his main point is crucial- there are lots of alternatives to gasoline if you realize that the problem lies almost entirely with transport.
"First, much of technology is based on electricity, not oil! Computers, telecommunications, lights, industrial machinery, household appliances are electric; electricity can also cook our food and heat our homes. While the power grid needs to be expanded and modernized, North America has abundant energy resources — including coal, nuclear, hydro, tidal, wind, solar and geothermal — to keep us in electricity without depending on oil-run power plants."
“There is no substitute for oil [or liquid fuels] in transport” is a canard that is frequently uttered in the media by so-called experts. While true for airplanes, it is demonstratively false for transport on land and sea. Maritime transport is very fuel-efficient and could once again run on coal via steam engines or gas turbines. Ships could also utilize sails or kites to save fuel. Europe, with its excellent system of inland waterways, moves more than 40 percent of its freight by water. Perhaps there is a future for the New York State Barge Canal beyond recreational boating."
"Electric trolley buses and trucks can receive electricity directly from the grid by overhead wires. There are globally 353 cities with electric trolley bus systems, including Boston, Dayton, Seattle and San Francisco. Large cities could electrify major thoroughfares for use by streetcars, transit buses and delivery trucks. Eventually even the interstate highway system could be electrified, saving long-distant trucking.
Categories: Peak Oil
Australia Has Decade of Oil Left at Current Production Rates
Bloomberg reports that Martin "Marn" Ferguson has noted once again that we don't have much oil left (unless we manage to find more somewhere). This isn't news of course, but the proposal that oil and gas companies who don't develop known reserves within 12 months or lose their leases is.
From Bloomberg - Australia Has Decade of Oil Left at Current Rates.
Australia's oil resources may last a decade at current production rates, making supply security a ``major concern,'' said energy minister Martin Ferguson. Australia will review all oil and gas leases granted to explorers for their ``commerciality,'' Ferguson said today at a conference in Darwin. Oil and gas field permit holders must work the fields if they can be profitably developed, he said.
The nation's spending on exploration jumped 57 percent last year to a record A$2.66 billion ($2.6 billion) even as the number of wells drilled fell because equipment and labor shortages drove up costs. ...
The government will review oil and gas exploration permits by the end of the year, Ferguson said. Companies that hold leases and haven't developed them will be given 12 months to prove the areas aren't viable.
Eni SpA, Italy's largest oil company, plans to start production from its Blacktip gas field in early 2009, Paul Henderson, chief minister of Australia's Northern Territory, said at the conference. The project will cost almost A$1 billion ($975 million). Australian energy production growth will be led by liquefied natural gas, with exports of the fuel set to jump by more than 7 percent a year through 2030, the government's commodities forecaster said in December.
From Bloomberg - Australia Has Decade of Oil Left at Current Rates.
Australia's oil resources may last a decade at current production rates, making supply security a ``major concern,'' said energy minister Martin Ferguson. Australia will review all oil and gas leases granted to explorers for their ``commerciality,'' Ferguson said today at a conference in Darwin. Oil and gas field permit holders must work the fields if they can be profitably developed, he said.
The nation's spending on exploration jumped 57 percent last year to a record A$2.66 billion ($2.6 billion) even as the number of wells drilled fell because equipment and labor shortages drove up costs. ...
The government will review oil and gas exploration permits by the end of the year, Ferguson said. Companies that hold leases and haven't developed them will be given 12 months to prove the areas aren't viable.
Eni SpA, Italy's largest oil company, plans to start production from its Blacktip gas field in early 2009, Paul Henderson, chief minister of Australia's Northern Territory, said at the conference. The project will cost almost A$1 billion ($975 million). Australian energy production growth will be led by liquefied natural gas, with exports of the fuel set to jump by more than 7 percent a year through 2030, the government's commodities forecaster said in December.
Categories: Peak Oil
Queensland's Phosphate and Coal Billions
The Australian has an article on plans to expand Australian production of phosphate rock for the Indian market, noting recent price rises have finally made exploiting reserves in northern Queensland economical - Gutnick phosphate operation to fertilise Indian economy. Interesting to note that George Soros is getting in on the act.
FORMER diamond tsar Joe Gutnick has teamed up with India's largest fertiliser supplier and investment icon George Soros in a proposed phosphate operation in northwest Queensland. Under a deal announced yesterday in Brisbane, the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative, or IFFCO, will inject slightly over $100 million into Mr Gutnick's plan to ship phosphate from the company's four holdings around Mt Isa. Reserves total a billion tonnes. ...
Dr Awasthi said India had a growing need for fertiliser, and the project should be able to supply 5 million tonnes of rock phosphate annually. ...
He said that at this stage the plan was to export the phosphate from the port of Karumba at the bottom of the Gulf of Carpentaria, but the company was still looking at "other transports which involve other ports".
The phosphate deposits in the northwest of Queensland have been known since the 1970s, and a pilot plant was built in 1974. But the project has only recently become viable because of a lift in phosphate prices. Last year world prices hovered around $US50 a tonne, the level it had been at for most of the past 30 years. Since then, decisions by the US and China not to export phosphate rock have pushed prices up to $US300 a tonne, with spot prices up to $US400.
The Australian also has an article on the ever-expanding Queensland coal industry and the intense interest in remaining high quality deposits - Deal signals BHP confidence in energy.
BHP Billiton's decision to outlay a premium price for an undeveloped coal asset in Queensland's prolific Bowen Basin has been interpreted as a sign of the mining giant's mounting confidence in the outlook for the sector. It is believed that as many as 60 parties initially showed interest in either buying or financing New Hope Corporation's New Saraji project, which BHP and alliance partner Mitsubishi plan to acquire for $US2.40 billion ($2.46 billion). While some analysts described the price tag as expensive, industry observers agreed that it further demonstrated the feverish demand for a diminishing supply of high-quality coal assets in the region.
FORMER diamond tsar Joe Gutnick has teamed up with India's largest fertiliser supplier and investment icon George Soros in a proposed phosphate operation in northwest Queensland. Under a deal announced yesterday in Brisbane, the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative, or IFFCO, will inject slightly over $100 million into Mr Gutnick's plan to ship phosphate from the company's four holdings around Mt Isa. Reserves total a billion tonnes. ...
Dr Awasthi said India had a growing need for fertiliser, and the project should be able to supply 5 million tonnes of rock phosphate annually. ...
He said that at this stage the plan was to export the phosphate from the port of Karumba at the bottom of the Gulf of Carpentaria, but the company was still looking at "other transports which involve other ports".
The phosphate deposits in the northwest of Queensland have been known since the 1970s, and a pilot plant was built in 1974. But the project has only recently become viable because of a lift in phosphate prices. Last year world prices hovered around $US50 a tonne, the level it had been at for most of the past 30 years. Since then, decisions by the US and China not to export phosphate rock have pushed prices up to $US300 a tonne, with spot prices up to $US400.
The Australian also has an article on the ever-expanding Queensland coal industry and the intense interest in remaining high quality deposits - Deal signals BHP confidence in energy.
BHP Billiton's decision to outlay a premium price for an undeveloped coal asset in Queensland's prolific Bowen Basin has been interpreted as a sign of the mining giant's mounting confidence in the outlook for the sector. It is believed that as many as 60 parties initially showed interest in either buying or financing New Hope Corporation's New Saraji project, which BHP and alliance partner Mitsubishi plan to acquire for $US2.40 billion ($2.46 billion). While some analysts described the price tag as expensive, industry observers agreed that it further demonstrated the feverish demand for a diminishing supply of high-quality coal assets in the region.
Categories: Peak Oil
