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.
 

  • How much fossil fuel can we burn?

    How much fossil fuel can we burn?

    Governments need to cap the amount of coal, gas and oil we extract if they are serious about fighting global warmiing.

    Two papers on carbon emissions published in the scientific journal Nature last week were ground-breaking: they show us how much carbon dioxide we can produce if we’re to have a reasonable chance of preventing two degrees of global warming. It’s a completely different approach from the UN’s and national governments’. They set targets for reductions by a certain date but have nothing to say about the total amount of carbon we can release.

    One of the papers, by Myles Allen and others, suggests that we can burn, at most, another 400-500 billion tonnes of carbon at any time between now and the extinction of humanity if we want to avoid 2C of warming.

    The other, by Malte Meinshausen and others, suggests that producing 1,000 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2000-2050 would give us a 25% chance of exceeding two degrees. That’s a lot less than Allen’s estimate, as one tonne of carbon produces 3.667 tonnes of CO2 when it’s burnt: 1,000 billion tonnes of CO2 arises from 273 billion tonnes of carbon.

    But let’s err on the side of valour and use Allen’s figures. Moreover, let’s disregard all other greenhouse gases (which, he suggests, should reduce the total CO2 budget to under 400 billion tonnes). How does his maximum allowance of carbon compare with known reserves of fossil fuel?

    Let me make two things clear before I make this calculation. First, reserves are not the same as resources. A resource is the total amount of a mineral found in the earth’s crust. A reserve is the part of the resource that has been identified, quantified and is cost-effective to exploit. In most cases this is likely to be a small percentage of the total resource.

    Secondly, there is some controversy over the official figures for fossil fuel reserves. This is especially the case for oil, as the members of Opec are extremely secretive about how much they possess. But for the sake of argument, let’s take them at face value.

    According to the World Energy Council:

    Global reserves of coal amount to 848 billion tonnes

    Global reserves of natural gas are 177,000 billion cubic metres

    Global reserves of crude oil are 162 billion tonnes

    Because the calculations are much harder and the quantities involved less certain, I am ignoring unconventional sources of fossil fuel, such as tar sands, oil shales, bitumens and methane hydrates, as well as liquid natural gas resources.

    On average, one tonne of coal contains 746kg carbon

    One cubic metre of natural gas contains 0.49kg carbon

    The figure for oil is less certain, because not all of its refinery products are burnt. But the rough calculation here suggests that the use of a barrel of oil releases 317kg of CO2. Depending on the density of the oil, there are roughly seven barrels to the tonne, giving approximately 2,219kg CO2, or 605kg of carbon.

    So the carbon content of official known reserves of coal, gas and oil amounts to:

    848 x 0.746 = 633

    +

    177,000 x 0.00049 = 87

    +

    162 x 0.605 = 98

    = grand total of 818.

    Total conventional fossil fuel reserves therefore contain 818 billion tonnes of carbon.

    Even ignoring all unconventional sources and all other greenhouse gases and taking the most optimistic of the figures in the two Nature papers, we can afford to burn only 61% of known fossil fuel reserves between now and eternity.

    Or, using Meinshausen’s figure, we can burn only 33% between now and 2050. Sorry – 33% minus however much we have burnt between 2000 and today.

    So the question that arises is this: which fossil fuel reserves will we decide not to extract and burn? There is, as I have argued before, no point in seeking to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels unless we also seek to reduce their production. Yet, apart from the members of Opec (who do it only to shore up the price), no government is attempting to limit the amount of fuel extracted. Far from it; they all pursue the same strategy as the United Kingdom: to “maximise economic recovery”.

    The test of all governments’ commitment to stopping climate breakdown is this: whether they are prepared to impose a limit on the use of the reserves already discovered, and a permanent moratorium on prospecting for new reserves. Otherwise their commitment is just hot air.

  • The Climate Debate Heats Up

    The Climate Debate Heats Up

    Published: May 8, 2009

    Earlier this week, and not a moment too soon, President Obama put the weight of his office behind a bill that aims to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, tackle the rise in greenhouse gases and create millions of clean-energy jobs.

    The bill has been stuck in a House committee: uniformly opposed by Republicans; feared by rust-belt Democrats who think it will hurt manufacturers; regarded with suspicion by some environmentalists who think it offers too many escape hatches.

    Mr. Obama told Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to work out a consensus, which they must do. Though flawed, the bill is an honorable start on a problem too long neglected. Fix it, but get on with it, in the certain knowledge that failure to act would almost certainly doom comprehensive climate change legislation for this year and, probably, for this Congress.

    The heart of the bill is a provision to reduce greenhouse gases by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by midcentury — cuts scientists say are necessary to avert the worst consequences of global warming. The mechanism for achieving them is a cap-and-trade system that would place a steadily declining ceiling on emissions while allowing emitters to trade permits, or allowances, to give them more flexibility in meeting their targets. This would put a price on carbon, ideally raising the cost of older, dirtier fuels while steering investment to cleaner ones.

    Since previous bills focusing exclusively on capping emissions have gone nowhere, the two seasoned politicians behind this one — Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts — are offering other provisions aimed at increasing energy efficiency, encouraging cleaner energy sources and providing subsidies for industries that produce them. Their theory is that if they can win over the diverse and cantankerous energy committee they can win the House itself.

    The bill deliberately left big questions open for discussion, and as negotiations proceed, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey must resist crippling concessions. One debate is whether companies should get the allowances the government will assign to polluters for free or whether they should pay for them at an auction.

    Legislators from coal-dependent states want free allowances to mitigate costs of compliance and give emitters time to switch to cleaner fuels. Others fear that free allowances would delay hard choices while reducing revenues the government could use to make clean-energy investments and help the poor with higher energy costs.

    Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey should make only modest adjustments, if any, in their original targets; better no bill than one that would cut the 2020 reduction goal from 20 percent to 6 percent, as some Democrats have suggested. That’s a joke, not a compromise.

    The Republicans are no help at all, insisting without exception that the bill would bankrupt the economy. The truth is that no one knows how much this bill will cost. A lot depends on how it is structured, how the auction revenues are applied, how quickly new, job-producing technologies come online and how much the country can save through efficiencies.

    We do know that the emissions cap will not begin to bite until 2012 and that past programs to clean the air have always cost less than predicted. And, if the scientists are right, we know that the costs of doing nothing will dwarf the costs of acting now

  • Smart Charger Controller Simplifes Electric Vehicle Recharging.

    May 7, 2009

    Smart Charger Controller Simplifies Electric Vehicle Recharging

    by Anne M. Haas, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

    Washington, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

    Electric vehicle owners can plug in their cars and forget about them, knowing they’ll get the cheapest electricity available and won’t crash the grid – using a new technology called the Smart Charger Controller. Developed at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the controller automatically recharges electric vehicles during times of least cost to the consumer and lower demand for power. Widespread use of these devices could help advance a smart power grid.

    Electric vehicles will ultimately reduce the nation’s dependency on oil. While the new vehicles will serve as an additional source of power demand, they also could contribute to an even “smarter” grid if equipped with controller technology.

    “If a million owners plug in their vehicles to recharge after work, it could cause a major strain on the grid,” said PNNL engineer Michael Kintner-Meyer. “The Smart Charger Controller could prevent those peaks in demand from plug-in vehicles and enable our existing grid to be used more evenly.”

    That efficiency translates to a more stable grid and cheaper power.

    “Using the device could save up to $150 a year for electric vehicle owners who pay based on when they charge their vehicle,” Kintner-Meyer said.

    How it Works

    Electric vehicles will become widely available starting in 2011. The current Administration supports a goal of one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. A previous PNNL study showed that America’s existing power grid could meet the needs of about 70 percent of all U.S. light-duty vehicles if battery charging was managed to avoid new peaks in electricity demand.

    The Smart Charger Controller does just that. Owners program the controller to charge at a specific time of day or night or at a set price point. The controller uses a low-range wireless technology to communicate with the power grid and determine the best and cheapest time to recharge vehicles. By charging vehicles during off-peak times, the controller saves consumers money.

    Previous PNNL studies with household appliances show that “smart” technologies also save the grid from brown-outs with little impact to the consumer. Grid Friendly™ technology inside the Smart Charger Controller senses stress conditions on the grid. When the grid says more power is needed, the controller can temporarily stop charging the vehicle until the stress subsides.

    This instant reduction in charging load, multiplied on a large scale with many vehicles, could serve as a shock absorber for the grid. The technology would relieve load instantly and give grid operators time to bring new power generation sources on line to stabilize the grid – a process that usually takes several minutes.

    The Road Ahead is Now

    With more electric vehicles on the horizon, road-ready, smart charging technology can be used now, according to Kintner-Meyer. Advancing technologies like the Smart Charger Controller today will enable the new generation of electric vehicles to be “smarter” once they’re available commercially, he noted.

    Video: Managing Demand for ElectricityVideo: Smart Charger Controller: What a user will see during a charging cycle

    Anne M. “Annie” Haas works in the media relations department at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Image Gallery (1)

  • Sichuan’s pandas find new home afer the earthquake

    Sichuan’s pandas find new home after the earthquake

    Link to this video

    Glorious scenery and attentive staff. Freshly prepared meals, delivered twice daily. Even the odd DVD. Nothing to do but eat, snooze – and, just occasionally, have sex.

    It is not the latest boutique hotel, but a new home for Sichuan’s pandas. Construction began this month on new facilities, which will cost 1bn yuan (£100m), to replace the world’s largest giant panda breeding centre, the Wolong nature reserve, destroyed in last May’s earthquake in China.

    Four of the victims were keepers at the famed Wolong reserve, close to the epicentre of the shock; several more staff members risked their lives saving the creatures they had reared. The breeding centre and surrounding sanctuary are home to about 150 pandas.

    “It was very scary; the hills collapsed and cracks opened in the land,” said Huang Yan, deputy director of research.

    Pandas stopped eating and ran away when they heard the slightest sounds. To add to the keepers’ concerns, many were pregnant. “One of them was Guo Guo, who was saved by us from under the rubble. We had to give her sedatives. We were extremely worried she would suffer a miscarriage,” said Huang.

    Keepers soothed the creatures by stroking their fur and increasing eye contact. They also moved them to a temporary home in Bifengxia – a smaller breeding centre across the province – where the results can be seen hard at play: 13 cubs awaiting a new home.

    Deep within a bamboo forest in the mountains, the eight-month-olds wrestle happily in their enclosure as they await their keepers’ arrival with a dinner of carrots, bamboo shoots and milk. One squeaks with indignation as a playmate pushes it off a tyre; another has turned brown and black after rolling through the reddish mud. A fourth swings from a branch like a gymnast on bars – before tumbling off, sliding down the bank and landing in an ungainly heap at the bottom.

    Their future base, just 10km from Wolong’s former centre, will include 25 projects funded by Hong Kong at a total cost of 1.3bn yuan, plus 19 projects funded by the Chinese government, at 270m yuan. A special disease control centre will be built in a nearby city.

    The breeding programme already uses wide-ranging – and often unorthodox – methods which include screening wildlife DVDs to show pandas how to have sex and rear their young. The new centre will allow experts to develop their research, enhance the programme and step up efforts to release captive pandas into the wild.

    But while environmentalists praise the efforts made to protect the captive breeding programme, they fear that the wild pandas may be at risk from the wider rush to rebuild in the quake zone.

    “Development isn’t causing the best habitat to disappear but it is fragmenting habitat. You lose connectivity and have risks from issues like traffic and human actions or different types of invasive species,” said Marc Brody, who has worked with environmentalists in the region since 1993 and founded the US-China Environment Fund’s Panda Mountain project. “Some things could be more sustainable and provide opportunities for people to care for and help restore the panda habitat.”

    With so many humans still in need after last year’s disaster, which left as many as 5 million homeless, one might expect resentment at the attention and cash lavished on the pandas. But, at least in Bifengxia, Sichuan residents voice their pride.

    “We were very worried about them after the earthquake. Pandas are considered a treasure of the nation and the species is so rare,” said Zhang Yi, who lives in nearby Ya’an City and had brought guests to admire the cubs.

    “Besides,” he added, “they’re very cute. Everybody loves pandas.

  • U.S. Drops research into Fuel Cells for Cars

    U.S. Drops Research Into Fuel Cells for Cars

    By MATTHEW L. WALD
    Published: May 7, 2009

    WASHINGTON — Cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells, once hailed by President George W. Bush as a pollution-free solution for reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years, the energy secretary said Thursday, and the government will cut off funds for the vehicles’ development.

    Developing those cells and coming up with a way to transport the hydrogen is a big challenge, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in releasing energy-related details of the administration’s budget for the year beginning Oct. 1. Dr. Chu said the government preferred to focus on projects that would bear fruit more quickly.

    The retreat from cars powered by fuel cells counters Mr. Bush’s prediction in 2003 that “the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” The Energy Department will continue to pay for research into stationary fuel cells, which Dr. Chu said could be used like batteries on the power grid and do not require compact storage of hydrogen.

    The Obama administration will also establish eight “energy innovation hubs,” small centers for basic research that Dr. Chu referred to as “Bell Lablettes.” These will be financed for five years at a time to lure more scientists into the energy area.

    “We’re very devoted to delivering solutions — not just science papers, but solutions — but it will require some basic science,” Dr. Chu, who won a Nobel Prize for his work in physics, said at a news conference.

    He said he would probably reverse another Bush administration decision and restore funds for FutureGen, a program to build a power plant prototype. The plant would turn coal into gas, separate out the carbon dioxide — a major contributor to the greenhouse gases that cause global warming — and pump it underground. Then it would burn the hydrogen, which is nearly pollution-free.

    An international partnership had selected a site in Mattoon, Ill., for construction of the plant, but the Bush administration decided that the costs were too high and that the money should be spread among more projects.

    The Obama administration will also drop spending for research on the exploration of oil and gas deposits because the industry itself has ample resources for that, Dr. Chu said.

    While the budget request for the Energy Department is $26.4 billion, an increase of less than 1 percent, actual spending will actually be far higher because some projects will be financed by the economic stimulus package, said Steve Isakowitz, the department’s chief financial officer.

    While Dr. Chu emphasized the allocations for research, a former Energy Department official, Robert Alvarez, pointed out that the budget still includes $6.4 billion for nuclear weapons and $4.4 billion for naval reactors, nuclear nonproliferation activity and safe storage of surplus plutonium. “Weapons still make up the largest single expenditure,” he said.

  • Students to study global warming solution

    Students to study global warming solution

    May 08, 2009

    Article from:  Australian Associated Press

    STUDENTS will be encouraged to find solutions to global warming with the launch of a new environmental school curriculum in Melbourne.

    The Living in 2030: An Experiment in Survival curriculum is a set of educational resources that invites students to imagine a world 20 years from now where environmental solutions have not yet been found to pressing issues including global warming.

    Students must then find solutions to the problems.

    Steve Cook, campus principal at Williamstown High School which has trialled the education resource, said students had responded with optimism and creativity to the program.

    Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, the patron of curriculum developer the Global Green Plan Foundation, and Federal Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong will launch the initiative