EcoRadio

Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • US Ethanol laws create energy vortex

    On 15 April the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) Programme is supposed to come into effect. What this silly government programme will do is introduce a 2.5% requirement of biofuels at the pumps, a figure that will rise to 5.75% by 2010 and 10% by 2020.

    The government has set up a commission to review the effectiveness of biofuels. The review was commissioned in February by transport Secretary Ruth Kelly. It still hasn’t reported. Will our government wait until it has the full facts before it acts? Probably not.

    Water crises

    According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, agricultural demand for water will double by 2050, largely due to the anticipated needs of the biofuels sector. This is an utterly crazy plan when water crises are going to be a major theme of the next 20 years. There are meetings being held this week in Cyprus, Israel and India as water supplies have become critical.

    It takes around 3-4 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol and using ethanol to power the average US car for one year would require a staggering 11 acres of farmland. This works out to be the same area needed to grow a year’s supply of food for seven people, according to David Pimentel a leading agricultural expert from Cornell University.

    It just doesn’t make sense

    Pimentel calculated that an acre of US corn can be processed into about 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre. That is $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before the corn even moves off the farm. Then there’s fermentation: as many as three distillation steps and other treatments are needed to separate the ethanol from the water.  

    So, adding up the total energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 British thermal units (BTUs) are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol, which has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU.

    A net energy loss?

    So, 70% more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy actually in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU. Fans of ethanol as a fuel need to answer just one question – if producing biofuels is so cost effective, why on earth does their production require government subsidies?

    I really do despair over this issue. I strongly believe that biofuels will continue to exacerbate rises in agricultural commodities as long as these targets remain.

    Food shortages

    Will the UK stand up to Europe and force the targets to be abandoned? Probably not; it does not have the guts. Will the US government slash its ethanol targets? I doubt it; there are too many vested interests.

    All of this means that food will be in tight supply for many, many years. Energy policy has always been a politically charged affair – but it is getting more and more political as each week passes. Can we trust here-today-and-gone-tomorrow politicians to get the long-term strategy right?

    Unfortunately, I don’t think so.

    This article is taken from Garry White’s free daily email ‘Gary Writes’.

  • The Limits of Distributed Energy

    by Michael Hoexter, Ph.D.

    On a rainy January day in Sacramento, I attended a plenary meeting of California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative. At one point, a smartly dressed man from one of the largest rooftop solar finance companies got up to tout the benefits of distributed energy, harping on the drawbacks of high-voltage transmission. Given the backlog of renewable energy projects in California requiring transmission, it was kind of amazing that he had bothered to come to a remote corner of the city to speak against the cause of his renewable energy brethren, an initiative that has zero impact on his firm. Needless to say, next time any of the assembled had a customer referral they would not be turning to this company.

    Distributed energy will continue to grow in importance and popularity, but alone it is insufficient to address the climate crisis.

    While not all renewable energy company reps are so tone-deaf, the practice of selling distributed energy projects in opposition to all utility scale or central station power projects is outdated and an aid to the continuing dominance of fossil fuels in our electric system.

    Distributed energy will continue to grow in importance and popularity, but alone it is insufficient to address the climate crisis. Large-scale renewable power in combination with aggressive energy efficiency and distributed generation will be absolutely necessary to meet the very ambitious GHG reduction and energy independence goals that we are setting for ourselves.

    There are many in the RE community, some frequent commenters here, who have embraced the dream of renewable energy in which communities or individual buildings would become energy self-sufficient or even net energy producers. This dream will probably become reality on a broad scale at some point in the future, but unfortunately not fast enough to cut GHG emissions rapidly when we need it most. This is not for a lack of trying by technology firms, as there is big money and much glory involved in more cost-effective and productive distributed technologies.

    Some fans of self-sufficiency are willing to devote time, mental bandwidth, and money to set themselves up to live off the grid (or live in remote areas anyway). But most of the population is either not inclined to live this way nor in the position to act on the inclination. The ideal of autarky is not everybody’s social or energy utopia; however, a substantially more energy-efficient lifestyle and built environment is, in my book, a categorical imperative.

    Currently, grid-tied distributed generation is the far more user-friendly option. A hidden component of the argument for these systems is “grid storage,” the notion that when your system isn’t producing energy, the grid will supply you with the energy that you need.  Unfortunately, that grid is emitting some of the GHGs that you may be trying to avoid with your distributed generation system, especially in areas with coal-fired baseload, a fairly common situation in the sunny Southwest or windy Great Plains.

    Well, now is the time to start thinking about cleaning up that “grid storage.” We can, through a combination of new geothermal, concentrating solar power with storage, small and medium hydro, concentrating photovoltaics (PV), regular PV, wind, marine renewables and pumped hydro, reduce the carbon footprint and therefore the ecological footprint of the grid. To clean up the grid means building some transmission lines (though less will need to be built if we build generation in areas with stronger renewable energy flow).

    As it turns out, even if we follow the very favorable policy conditions for distributed and large-scale renewable energy found in Germany, most energy will be generated in large installations, owned by cooperatives or by corporations, and those installations will cost less per unit of energy. Much to the chagrin of some people, a lot of those larger projects may need to be cited on undeveloped land.

    The people holding onto the ideal that power generation should be exclusively on developed land are avoiding the tough choices and inevitable compromises involved in building renewable generation facilities. They complain about the visual impact of wind turbines, solar farms or transmission lines without offering a realistic present day alternative that they and we will be able to afford.

    Choices within the area of transmission lines provide a graphic example of a tradeoff: Overhead transmission lines are about one tenth the cost of underground transmission infrastructure. Do you want to pay perhaps three or four times as much for electricity for this luxury? Nature does not just put electrical energy on tap, even if you own a renewable energy system; it takes various industrial and construction processes that cost money and involve compromises to bring you that power.

    Knee-jerk criticisms of the transmission system and utilities (sometimes found in the pages of this publication) flirt with a similar form of moral hazard. The utilities and grid operators, historically relying most on large-scale power plants, work to respond to our demand for electric power and the conveniences it offers us. In combination with related government agencies and transmission authorities, they have invested in and manage a huge infrastructure that is sending us the power that makes it possible for us to communicate, eat fresh food, get safe medical care, and move around safely. They have figured out ways to do this with a high level of efficiency and service, though unfortunately with fuels that are now endangering our climate. Some critics speak as if it is a breeze to reproduce this service on a smaller scale. This, I believe is either wishful thinking or ignorance.

    As Pogo said:  "We have met the enemy and he is us."

    So think carefully when you declare distributed energy the only solution: Is this going to be the sole road via which we transition from a fossil fuel to a renewable energy economy?  Have you figured out what the costs and availability of generation and storage are that will allow us to energize the devices that we need or want to use, individually and as a society? If you do the calculations, you will realize that developing judiciously sited central station renewable energy plants, new transmission lines, clean storage and ancillary services, as well as distributed generation is the only way we as a society are going to stop climate change while keeping our impact on the earth to a minimum.

    Michael Hoexter, Ph.D., a renewable energy and energy efficiency advocate, has helped California utilities implement and market energy and resource efficiency programs. His views on the transition to a sustainable energy economy and the valuation of energy and energy services can be found at www.greenthoughts.us.

  • Square watermelons roll off the production line

    * * * * *

     

    Japanese designers and engineers have earned a reputation for improving products invented by others, allowing them to become saleable, desirable and popular. Consider the videotape recorder, for example. Invented by AMPEX in the mid-1950s, the concept was taken to its logical extension by Japanese electronics giant JVC and introduced to the masses in 1976 as the VHS cassette. This time, however, Japan’s creative techies think they can improve on Mother Nature, and by jove I think they’ve done it!

    The Square Watermelon… chew on that for a moment, if you will. The first question that comes to mind is, "Why?" Well, besides its novelty value, there are actually several darned good reasons for making a watermelon in a square shape. Since these things make great gifts, it makes sense to package them in boxes and a square shape fits into a square box with the minimum amount of wasted space. In addition, the shape naturally lends itself to being bedecked in a decorative ribbon, birthday-present style. Think of it, a delicious watermelon packed in a home-grown gift box! And a gift that will be appreciated, knowing the cost: figure about $80 & change for one of these babies compared to about $20 for a boring, unfashionable oval one. Naturally, you’re going to want to chill your prized gift, and the shape fits perfectly inside a Japanese refrigerator. Take it out, and it won’t roll away!

     

    After "Why?", you’re probably wondering "How?"… and no, they aren’t grown from square seeds. Farmers in Zentsuji, located in southern Japan, place the small on-the-vine watermelons in tempered glass forms that force the growing melons to conform to their shape while still receiving necessary sunlight. Only about 400 of the four-sided fruits are grown each season. One would suppose that triangular or pyramid-shaped watermelons could also be created using this technique, but then we’d be back to "Why?" and this is the "How?" section.

    The Square Watermelon can be found in Japanese grocery stores in Tokyo and Osaka and is not currently available in the USA. Square watermelons grown in Brazil have lately become available in Great Britain, though, so we may be enjoying them here yet! Prices in Japan are in the $80 – $85 range (about 10,000 yen) when in season.

  • IMF backs carbon trading

    The International Monetary Fund said in a report released today that sharply reducing the world’s carbon emissions will cost relatively little economically if a carbon-pricing scheme is adopted soon that includes all the major-emitting countries. The report didn’t endorse one specific pricing mechanism, but said that either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system could work if it gradually increased the price of carbon. "There are significant risks from climate change; damages could be severe," said IMF economist Natalia Tamirisa. "The costs of mitigation could be moderate provided that policies are well designed."

    Meanwhile, at the ongoing United Nations climate conference in Bangkok, the IMF’s partner institution (and fellow predatory lender) the World Bank floated proposals to combat climate change that proved unpopular with developing nations. Instead of funneling cash through the U.N. climate program to aid developing countries, the World Bank suggested it should administer a $10 billion clean-technology fund, and possibly other such funds. Critics of the proposal said the World Bank is too closely controlled by G8 countries and has a shady history of shafting poorer nations.

  • IMF wants global carbon trading

    From The Age 

    A GLOBAL agreement binding all significant countries, rich and poor, offers the best hope for tackling climate change, and could halve the cost of countries trying to tackle it alone, the International Monetary Fund advises.

    In its latest World Economic Outlook, to be released today, the IMF calls on national leaders to draft a global agreement quickly that establishes either a common tax rate on carbon, or an emissions trading scheme in which permits can be traded internationally, so emissions can be reduced where it is cheapest to do so.

    The global financial watchdog endorses concerns over global warming from an economic standpoint, warning that the risk of potential damage, especially in poor countries, "could be large and even catastrophic if global warming is unchecked".

    The IMF presents modelling suggesting that a global carbon tax or emissions trading scheme could stabilise greenhouse gas levels at 550 parts per million (roughly equivalent to a warming of three degrees) while still more than doubling the world’s output by 2040.

    With the cost of emission permits starting low and rising gradually to $US86 a tonne by 2040, this can be done while reducing consumption by just 0.6%, the IMF study finds.

    But it will be crucial to make the scheme inclusive, because the cheapest place to reduce emissions is in China, where the use of clean technology will see huge emission cuts, allowing it to sell surplus permits to the West.

    The IMF also suggests higher petrol taxes and tougher vehicle emission standards in some countries, noting that China now has higher emission standards than Australia or the US.

    "Climate change can be addressed without imposing heavy damages either on the global economy or on individual countries," the IMF concludes.

    But it emphasises two points: First, it is crucial to include the main developing countries, because they will produce 70% of emissions in the next 50 years. Second, the cost of reducing emissions will be halved if permits can be traded internationally.

    The study finds that the global costs of action will be least if emissions levels are set on the basis of population, rather than current entitlements. Rich countries, it says, are far better able to adjust to higher energy prices, and should provide cheap clean technology to poor countries.

    "Poor countries will be hit earlier and harder, owing to their geography, heavier reliance on agriculture, and more limited capacity to adapt," it says.

    "Their health and water systems may come under stress from more frequent natural disasters, coasts may be flooded, and populations may migrate."

    The study points out three potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change:

    ■The melting of the west Antarctic ice shelf could cause sea levels to rise over coastal cities such as New York, Shanghai and Melbourne.

    ■The reversal of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic could make northern Europe far colder.

    ■More extreme monsoons in South Asia could cause serious destruction and loss of life.

  • EU industry carbon emissions flat in 2007

    The Commission cut the allocation of carbon emissions permits, called EU allowances (EUAs), by about 9 percent for 2008-12, and the fact emissions were roughly unchanged last year has not undermined expectations of an EUA shortage in 2008.

    "I expect a shortage this year simply because allocations have drastically gone down," said Fortis analyst Kris Voorspools, adding an estimate that EU industry emissions in the six largest countries rose some 1.2 percent last year.

    New Carbon Finance estimated that emissions fell 0.25 percent.

    While carbon prices dropped below 1 euro in 2007, EUAs for 2008 delivery were trading up 88 cents on Wednesday at 23.4 euros and analysts expect them to rise further.

    That will raise electricity prices for all EU citizens because power generators pass these costs on to consumers.

    It will also raise costs for participating businesses which have to buy permits to cover their own emissions above a certain quota, including electricity generators, the oil and gas industry, pulp, paper, steel and cement.

    CRITICISM

    Reuters analysis of Wednesday’s incomplete data suggested that the supply of EUAs exceeded by 1.5 percent actual emissions in 2007, so far reported, of 1.884 billion metric tons.

    The preliminary data accounted for more than 94 percent of emissions the previous year, the European Commission said earlier Wednesday.

    One continuing criticism of the emissions trading scheme is that affected businesses get almost all their permits for free, in an initial quota handed out by EU member states.

    That has allowed electricity generators across Europe to makes tens of billions of euros of windfall profits by passing on the costs of free permits until 2013, when the Commission proposes utilities will get no free allocation.

    The 28 billion euro ($43.76 billion) EU carbon market is the hub of a 40 billion euro global carbon market which is expected to be swelled by a U.S. federal scheme which all remaining U.S. presidential candidates support.

    For additional analysis on the carbon markets, go to here.

    (Reporting by Michael Szabo; Writing by Gerard Wynn; editing by James Jukwey)

    © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved