EcoRadio

Category: Energy Matters

  • Society ignores the oil crunch at it’s peril;

     

     

    With modern economies geared to their rivets on just-in-time supply of copious amounts of affordable oil, society surely ignores this risk issue at its massive peril.

     

    But that is what BP, Exxon, Saudi Aramco and many other institutions of the hydrocarbon era would have us do. And theirs is the perceived wisdom. I do not know of a single company, outside the taskforce group, where peak oil is on the agenda as a serious risk issue. As for government, Whitehall’s official line is typical, as things stand: there is 40 years of oil supply, no need to worry, and certainly no crisis. To be fair, that view may be in the process of changing, in the light of recent events in the energy markets.

     

    The taskforce report is the second such. The first, published during the financial crisis in October 2008, charted global production capacity coming onstream, factored in depletion, and found that overall global production would peak in 2013, and then fall rapidly while demand continued to rise. The taskforce worried that things could be worse even than this early peak in oil production, if other risks we are concerned about kick in: more giant-oilfield production collapsing in the manner of Mexico, flaws emerging in reserves estimates in Opec countries, and so on.

     

    In 2009 came the recession, and a steep fall in global demand for oil. This has helped, in the narrow sense of that word. It may have bought us two more years. The new report projects production dropping in 2015, though the risks that it could be earlier remain.

     

    The CEOs and chairmen of the taskforce companies have a simple message for government. This monster threat is very likely to descend on the next government in office, in their first term, and the nation needs to act now.

     

    The stakes are arguably higher than with the financial crisis. The taskforce’s worst-case fear is that premature peak oil will involve not just global energy crisis, but potentially energy famine for some oil importing nations – including the UK.

     

    During the financial crash the world went within weeks from a received wisdom that investment banks had squeezed risk out of complex derivatives, to a spiralling doubt, to a tipping point of disbelief and panic. With peak oil, officials around the world, corporate and governmental, would experience exactly the same collapse of confidence in their cosy cultural assumptions. A second giant industry would have been found to have its asset assessment systemically and ruinously wrong. The net impact would be that oil-producing nations would begin to husband their own resources: keeping exports back for use in their own oil-hungry multi-hundred-billion dollar-and-rouble infrastructure programmes.

     

    This is a scenario that could lead to food delivery lorries failing to reach Tesco in time for Friday-night shopping.

     

    The lessons from the financial crash ought to be stark. The prevailing culture mocked the disbelievers, ahead of the crash. Gillian Tett, capital markets editor at the FT, saw the crisis coming because she was a trained anthropologist and knew how to recognise a cult when she saw one. She was accused of scaremongering from the stage of the World Economic Forum. The pattern is the same this time. BP, in particular, has a tendency to mock the concept of peak oil and its advocates.

     

    Meanwhile, as with the climate crisis, there is a general desperation to believe the comforting narrative ahead of the uncomfortable one. This is why it is so important that companies who understand risk speak out, as the taskforce companies have. It is why governments – who must lead in matters of national security – should listen to the uncomfortable arguments and, given the stakes, buy insurance against them.

     

    History is going to judge us all on how we manage the risk of premature peak oil. And soon.

     

    • Jeremy Leggettis the chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, and the convenor of the UK industry taskforce on peak oil and energy

  • World’s first personal carbon credit earns $17 cashback for one tonne of carbon dioxide

     

     

    Randy and Tami Wilson, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, earned the single credit through a transaction brokered by the My Emissions Exchange website. It aims to certify emissions reductions by home owners or tenants and then sell those credits to companies looking to up their green quotient.

     

    The website’s existence suggests that while Congress may have given up on creating a national scheme for trading carbon emissions, there are ordinary Americans willing to play the voluntary market. The company says it has signed up 1,800 households since going into business last autumn.

     

    A company in Middlefield, Ohio, Molten Metal Equipment, bought the Wilsons’ carbon credit, representing a tonne of carbon dioxide, for $21.50. The website earned $4.30 in commission, and the Wilsons took home $17.20.

     

    But this modest cash reward was not the only reason for the Wilsons’s solar conversion. Outraged by a threatened 30% price hike by their local electricity provider, they hired a contractor to install 36 solar panels on their roof.

    “When my husband and I heard six or eight months ago from PPL Electric Utilities that our energy costs were going up 30 to 40%, we said to ourselves, what can we do?” said Tami Wilson.

     

    In addition to the solar panels, the Wilsons also switched to energy-savings light bulbs, replaced their windows, and made a habit of turning off computers, DVDs and other appliances not in use. They adopted a “hybrid” system for doing laundry, putting wet clothes in a dryer for 10 minutes before hanging them on a line. They got rid of their son’s heated waterbed.

     

     

    The couple told reporters they were counting on federal and state tax credits to recoup $36,000 of their investment, but it will still take six years to get back the rest of their investment through energy savings and the sale of carbon credits. At that point, though, the solar panels will be turning a profit. “Then we basically have no electric [bill] for life,” Tami said.

     

     

    Prospective domestic carbon traders begin by handing over a year’s worth of electricity and heating bills. American households – with the stereotypical television in every teenagers’ bedroom – are notorious energy hogs. The average family produces about 30 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

     

    If the family then goes on to reduce emissions, the website will calculate how much carbon they have saved. The savings then translate into credits for every tonne of carbon avoided. The company certifies the credits, and then arranges the sale.

     

    The company says customers gain twice, in carbon credits and in lower electricity bills – although it will obviously take time before major investments, like the Wilsons’ solar panels, pay for themselves.

     

    But it says even replacing a few old lightbulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs or putting in a programmable thermostat would be enough for most homes to offset about a tonne of carbon a year – or about $17.20 after commission.

     

     

  • Rudd could save Musselroe wind farm jobs by fixing renewables target

    Rudd could save Musselroe wind farm jobs by fixing renewables target

     

    Hobart, Sunday 7 February 2010

     

    The Rudd government’s bungling of the renewable energy target legislation is jeopardising hundreds of jobs around Australia, including those about to be lost at the stalled Musselroe Bay wind farm.

     

    The Greens have proposed a Private Member’s Bill to fix the legislation, based on amendments rejected by both Labor and Liberals when the bill was being debated. The government could save the Musselroe jobs by working with the Greens to fix the target scheme.

     

    “Mr Rudd and Minister Wong could save these people’s jobs at Musselroe Bay if they fixed the bungled renewable energy target,” Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne said.

     

    “We can fix this problem so easily and I challenge Mr Rudd and Senator Wong to look at our proposal and work with us to make sure the renewables sector survives and flourishes.

     

    “$20 billion of investment in wind power alone that is waiting to be unleashed by solid policy is being undermined by Rudd government mismanagement.

     

    “It’s not just jobs at Musselroe Bay and other industrial scale renewable energy developments across the country, but the Rudd government’s climate credibility is on the line here if the renewable energy target is not urgently fixed.

     

    “The gross mismanagement of the Green Loans Scheme is also jeopardising jobs and small businesses across the country as we speak.”

     

    The Greens repeatedly warned that including solar hot water, heat pumps and multiplied rooftop solar credits in the renewable energy target would crash the price of renewable energy certificates (RECs), stopping commercial-scale renewable energy developments from getting off the ground. This would not have come to pass if Greens amendments moved at the time had been accepted.

     

    “It was obvious that this would happen, but both the government and opposition refused to heed the warnings and rejected my amendments that would have prevented it,” Senator Milne said.

     

    “This is typical of Mr Rudd and Senator Wong’s spin-over-substance approach to climate and clean energy.”

     

    Senator Milne’s Private Member’s Bill would add RECs from solar hot water, heat pumps and the solar multiplier to the top of the target. This would ensure that the technologies are supported but do not crowd out large-scale renewable energy.

     

    “This is not the perfect policy, but it is an achievable way to fix this problem quickly.

     

    “Ideally, the Greens would like to see an energy efficiency target and a gross feed-in tariff running alongside the renewable energy target, supporting solar water heating, rooftop solar and much more. That would be the best way to drive a boom in zero emissions energy.”

     
    Tim Hollo
    Media Adviser
    Senator Christine Milne
    0437 587 562
    _______________________________________________

  • New wind power tops all other sources in 2009

    New wind power tops all other sources in 2009

    Ecologist

    4th February, 2010

    Wind and solar technology made up over half of Europe’s new electricity generating capacity in 2009, as the number of new coal and nuclear facilities fell

     

    More wind capacity was installed in Europe during 2009 than any other electricity-generating technology, according to statistics released today by the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).

    Wind accounted for 39 per cent of increased European energy capacity, ahead of gas (26 per cent) and solar (16 per cent). In contrast, the nuclear and coal power sectors decommissioned more megawatts of capacity than they installed in 2009, with a total of 1,393 MW of nuclear and 3,200 MW of coal decommissioned.

    Wind investment

    According to the EWEA report, €13 billion has been invested in wind farms across the EU in the last year, which are now capable of meeting 4.8 per cent of EU energy demands.  
     
    Spain is the country with the biggest share of new wind capacity (24 per cent), followed by Germany (19 per cent), Italy (19 per cent), France (11 per cent) and the UK (10 per cent). 
     
    The wind energy sector has grown by an average of 23 per cent over the last 15 years, with annual installations up from 472 MW in 1994 to 10,163 MW in 2009. 
     
    ‘The figures, once again, confirm that wind power, together with other renewable energy technologies and a shift from coal to gas, are delivering massive European carbon reductions, while creating much needed economic activity and new jobs for Europe’s citizens,’ said EWEA CEO Christian Kjaer.

    More growth needed
     
    The British Wind Energy Agency (BWEA) welcomed the UK’s increase in wind energy capacity but said more needed to be done to ensure the sector continued to develop.
     
    ‘The UK has delivered more than 1GW of capacity for the first time in one calendar year, which is enough to power 600,000 homes. It shows that we can deliver as a sector, provided the right policy framework is in place,’ said Nick Medic of the BWEA. 
     
    ‘We need a policy that provides answers to the four big questions – planning, grid, supply chain and finance,’ he added.  

    Useful links
    European Wind Energy Association (EWEA)

  • Nasa mission to unravel sun’s threat to earth

    Related Links

    Orbiting the Earth at a distance of 22,300 miles, the observatory will measure fluctuations in the sun’s ultraviolet output, map magnetic fields and photograph its surface and atmosphere.

    Experts have likened the mission to a “giant microscope” that will capture for the first time every nuance of the sun’s exterior. The images relayed to Earth will be 10 times clearer than high-definition television.

    Barbara Thompson, project scientist, said: “It is Nasa’s first weather mission and it aims to characterise everything on the sun that can impact on the Earth and near Earth.

    “We know things happen on the sun which affect spacecraft, communications and radio signals. If we can understand the underlying causes of what is happening then we can turn this information into forecasts.

    “The key thing about the mission is that it is not just pure science for its own sake. There is likely to be a direct and immediate benefit for people.”

    Solar magnetic storms and space weather disturbances have had a number of dramatic consequences over the years.

    On March 13, 1989, millions of people in Canada and the United States were left without electricity for more than nine hours after a magnetic storm sent shockwaves through the Hydro-Québec power grid.

    Five years later, a geomagnetic storm temporarily knocked out two Canadian satellites and Intelsat-K, an international communications satellite.

    The most powerful solar storm in history, known as a “superstorm”, occurred on September 1, 1859. It caused the failure of telegraph systems in Europe and North America.

    The storm produced auroras — phenomena normally only seen near the poles — which were visible in Cuba, Mexico and Italy. The lights were so bright in California’s Rocky Mountains that gold prospectors mistook them for dawn and began preparing breakfast.

    Transpolar aircraft are particularly sensitive to space weather because they rely on navigation systems for the entire duration of a flight.

    Nasa estimates that the SDO will transmit as much as 50 times more scientific data than any other mission in the space agency’s history.

    Each image will consist of more than 16m pixels and the amount of data sent back to Earth daily will be equivalent to downloading 500,000 songs a day from the internet.

    In order to process the data, the organisation has set up a pair of dedicated radio antennae near Las Cruces, New Mexico.

    The SDO’s orbit will match the speed of the rotation of the Earth, meaning that it will be in constant view of the two 59ft dishes throughout the mission.

    The UK-based Science and Technology Facilities Council is supplying some of the equipment for the observatory.

    Professor Richard Harrison, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, said understanding the impact of the sun’s magnetic fields was key to the mission.

    “The idea is to image different layers of the sun’s atmosphere all the way down to the surface and measure magnetic fields,” he said.

    “The bottom line is that you are trying to understand how this atmosphere works. We can already see phenomena like the flares. The question is how does the magnetic field form to allow this sort of thing to happen

  • Greenpeace calls for a ban on Arctic oil drilling

    Greenpeace calls for a ban on Arctic oil drilling

    Ecologist

    25th January, 2010

    Immediate moratorium on all activity by oil and gas industries would help safeguard the local community and ecosystem as well as reduce potential carbon emissions

    Plans by the EU, US and China to exploit oil and gas reserves in the Arctic have been criticised by Greenpeace as ‘unsustainable’ and a threat to the region’s ecosystem.

    Countries have rushed to lay claim to areas of the Arctic Ocean during the past few years, following predictions such as those made by the US Geological Survey that as much as 22 per cent of the world’s undiscovered fossil fuel resources could lie there.

    Boom and bust

    Speaking at the annual Arctic Frontiers conference, Greenpeace’s Nordic Executive Director, Mads Flarup Christensen, said oil and gas drilling would bring ecological boom-and-bust to the Arctic.

    ‘In the shorter term there is economic development and jobs, but they do not come with a guarantee that the ecosystem won’t be affected and in turn, negatively affect communities.’

    He called for an immediate ban on industrial oil and gas exploration to protect ecosystems and the communities that depend on them for their survival.

    ‘We see the moratorium as an immediate measure to address the current governance gap in the Arctic Ocean, and something that will remain in place until a more permanent, overarching treaty or agreement is established to protect this part of the Arctic Ocean from additional damage,’ said Christensen.

    No whaling or sealing ban

    Christensen added that Greenpeace was not seeking a ban on traditional or subsistence activities like whaling, sealing or fishing but only industrial activities.

    ‘It’s the oil and gas activities, industrial fishing, shipping, mining and other industrial activities that pose threats to the ecosystem. If such industrial activities are allowed without a proper governance system for the Arctic Ocean as a whole, and even before the environmental values hidden under the sea ice have been mapped or understood, it will be another tragic example of our human inability to respect the precautionary principle.’

    Christensen also criticised claims that the oil and gas extraction could be sustainable and said it was not possible because of the, ‘routine spills, leaks, emissions to air and waster, vessel and air traffic, industrial noise and all manner of disturbance that takes place during the exploration, extraction and transportation of oil and gas’.

    Shell opposition

    Meanwhile, an alliance of conservation and Alaskan indigenous groups have issued a legal challenge in the US in an attempt to block drilling plans by the oil giant Shell.

    The alliance accuses the minerals management service (MMS), part of the federal Department of the Interior, of waving through permission to allow Shell to invest £1.3 billion in Alaskan exploration, disregarding the environmental dangers.

    The executive director of Pacific Environment, one of the plaintiff organisations, David Gordon, said:
    ‘Shell’s plan for the Arctic is too much, too soon, too fast, especially in light of community concerns and the effects of climate change that we are already seeing in the Arctic.’

    Useful links
    Arctic Frontiers conference