Solar to provide quarter of electricity by 2050 Ecologist 14th May, 2010 North Africa expected to become major producer of concentrated solar power (CSP), more than half of which would be exported to meet European electricity demands Solar electricity should be able to meet 20 to 25 per cent of global electricity production by 2050, Continue Reading →
Mike Hulme says we need to stop looking for climate change scapegoats and start engaging in honest discussion.
Climate change has come to signify far more than the physical ramifications of human disturbance to the earth’s atmosphere, says Mike Hulme – it’s a social phenomenon too. Photograph: MODIS/Terra/NASA
One of the enduring characteristics of public debates and political negotiations about climate change is that the protagonists end up arguing about different things. Political arguments masquerade as arguments about science; ethical arguments become economic ones. Legitimate differences about ideologies and values are reduced to trading blows about the ‘right’ numbers – the decimal points on rates of warming; the number of noughts in the cost of climate change. We are not being honest with one another. The consequence is that the quality of both science and public debate suffers.
Since it first emerged as a prominent public-policy issue in the late 1980s, anthropogenic climate change has evolved into an idea that now carries an astonishing amount of ideological freight. Yet, too often, arguments about climate change continue to treat it as an environmental problem to be solved. But climate change is not a phenomenon of this kind. It is not like mercury pollution in rivers, asbestos in buildings or even ozone-depleting gases entering the stratosphere. These relatively ‘tame’ problems lend themselves to relatively straightforward solutions: the Montreal Protocol, for example, which opened for signature in 1987, successfully restricted and then prohibited the use of ozone-depleting substances.
Over time the electrical grid will transform into a more distributed configuration, incorporating many new energy resources, including solar. Already, the solar energy industry has matured to the point where utilities are integrating multi-megawatt photovoltaic projects on a regular basis. If the growth in PV installations continues at its current rate, 5 percent to 10 percent penetration nationwide could be achieved in less than a decade with higher levels in some localities. The challenge of controlling and delivering solar energy to a commercial power grid in a coordinated way over a broad spectrum of grid conditions is critical to this endeavor’s success. System reliability, integration with existing systems and control infrastructure and installation economics pose key technical issues to be overcome.
April 30, 2010
IMMIGRATION levels would be adjusted every year under a Coalition government to ensure population growth remained economically and environmentally sustainable.
In a policy unveiled yesterday by the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and his immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, most categories of migrants, including foreign students, would have their numbers trimmed annually if necessary to keep population growth on a sustainable footing.
”At the moment, it’s growing in an out-of-control and unsustainable way,” Mr Abbott said.
John James
Why would the big oil giants ignore the depletion of their ultimate resource and power? Why would they not encourage government to plan for a limited supply in the future? They are intelligent, have more access than we do to information, and call the political shots in most countries.
I can only assume that the silence is deliberate. I will give my reasons in a moment, but let us first consider the immediate consequences:
• By keeping oil relatively cheap we will all continue to use it, become more addicted to it (if more were possible) and will build more of our infrastructure on the assumption that we will always have it. This sets the ground for hasty decision-making when the crunch does come some time in the next couple of years.
• The less prepared we are – lacking alternatives for transport, fertiliser and plastics – the more susceptible we will be.
• Short supply will affect transport, food supply, plastics for consumers and industry, and travel. It is too easy to forget that basic commodities like fertiliser, toys, packaging and … all come from oil.
• The entire global distribution system depends on packaged consumer goods being transported great distances. Whether by air or sea, transport relies on oil.
• Most importantly it will affect the military that will insist on first option on what’s available. What may be a small reduction in overall supply will be made worse as they insist on their normal share, if not more. A small reduction would therefore have a large initial impact.
• The rise in the price of oil adds to costs, which will lessen consumption, which will affect an already weakened financial structure. There will be less tax revenue, and less to spend on infrastructure just when it will be most needed.
• Social welfare, health and other social benefits will then be curtailed, and that will further weaken the economy.
• Within a short time there would be rationing. There will be no choice. Public transport will come into high demand, and few countries have the infrastructure to cope with this. As well, rail traffic would have to be diverted to the transport of food, and this will put additional strain on the system.
• With less food, less work and more stress, the pressures from population growth and religio-political tensions will be exacerbated. There will be more refugees and problems at state borders – requiring more spending on the military who will need more oil.
• And we have not factored in the consequences of global heating in drowned dockyards, flooded rail lines and bridges, increased bushfires and damaged agriculture. At least with less oil being used our climate forcing will be lessened, but for a world in which 2+ degrees and 8+ meter sea level rise are now inevitable, and with less money or oil to employ any of the much-publicised ‘solutions’, that inevitability cannot be changed.
The peak oil debate has always been about reserves and costs. But it’s clean, green technologies that now spell oil’s demise
Eleven US workers who were missing after a fire on their oil rig off Louisiana are now feared dead. Photograph: Reuters
It’s now a truism – among oil companies, and governments alike – that even in an age when we risk catastrophic climate change, and its attendant catastrophes such as we’ve seen in the Gulf of Mexico this week, oil exploration is an inevitable part of our future. It may be a truism, but is it true?
As former Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer has said several times, the era of “easy oil” is over. This means that the bulk of the oil that is left to exploit is to be found in the tar sands and in ultra-deep water and other marginal resources, such as the Arctic. All of these resources are very expensive to produce, require long lead-in times to bring on-stream and, in many cases, have controversial environmental and social impacts that will cost more to ameliorate.
Even without addressing the social and environmental costs, the break-even point for these kinds of oil projects is close to the ceiling at which oil prices could be sustained by the global economy. At between $65 and $90 a barrel, the room for long-term profitability appears slender. With the global economy remaining in a fragile state and oil prices rallying, it’s important to ask whether the economy can withstand further price increases, not to mention whether the climate can sustain further growth in carbon emissions.
Will the expense of bringing this oil to market mean that the sustained oil prices needed to produce the oil will also consistently drive the global economy back into recession?
At the launch of BP’s most recent Statistical Review of World Energy in early June 2009, BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, said that as the oil price went over $90, consumers “began to change their behaviour” and that there was significant “elasticity of demand above $100 a barrel”. In other words, if it costs too much, we can’t – and won’t – buy it.