Category: Uncategorized

Peak oil isn’t dead: An interview with Chris Nelder

Posted by Brad Plumer on April 13, 2013 at 12:18 pm

41

Comments

More

submit to reddit

Warnings about “peak oil” have been with us since the OPEC crisis in the 1970s. At some point, the experts said, the world would hit a limit on how much oil could be extracted from the ground. Production would then drop, prices would soar, chaos would ensue.

But after a worrisome series of price spikes starting in 2007, oil triumphalism is once again ascendant. Companies are now using new technologies to extract crude from hard-to-reach sources, from the tar sands of Alberta to shale formations in North Dakota. After decades of decline, U.S. oil production has risen to its highest levels since the 1990s. And that’s led many analysts and journalists to confidently declare that “peak oil is dead.”

Not everyone’s convinced, however, that oil is really on the verge of a new boom. Energy analyst Chris Nelder, for one, has spent a lot of time scrutinizing the claims of the oil triumphalists. Our newfound oil resources, he argues, aren’t nearly as promising as they first appear. And peak oil is still as relevant as ever.

I talked to Nelder by phone this week. A lightly edited transcript follows.

Brad Plumer: Let’s start with the basics. How would you define “peak oil”?

Chris Nelder: There has always been a lot of confusion about this point. Peak oil was never about “running out of oil.” The only people who characterized it that way either didn’t know what they were talking about or were trying to confuse the issue. Peak oil has always referred to the production rate of oil — it’s about finding the point where that production rate peaks.

BP: So back in 2005, plenty of analysts were suggesting that the world would soon hit a ceiling in annual oil production. How has that panned out?

CN: The predictions weren’t monolithic. But what everyone agreed on was that at some point in the near future, maybe five or 10 or 15 years away, the rate of oil production would stop growing. Some said we’d hit an absolute peak in a specific year. Others said we’d reach a “bumpy plateau” that might be five or 10 years long. But everyone agreed that sometime after 2005, within 10 or 15 years, global oil production would stop growing.

And that’s exactly what happened. The growth in conventional oil production ended in 2004, and we’ve been on a bumpy plateau ever since.

Global Average Annual Crude Oil Production mbpd 2002 – 2012
Note: Chart only shows crude oil, not “total liquids.” (Credit: Gregor Macdonald)

BP: It looks to me like there was an uptick in 2012. Doesn’t that mean we’ve finally broken the plateau?

CN: Not necessarily. In 2005, we reached 73 million barrels per day. Then, to increase production beyond that, the world had to double spending on oil production. In 2012, we’re now spending $600 billion. The price of oil has tripled. And yet, for all that additional expenditure, we’ve only raised production 3 percent to 75 million barrels per day [since 2005].

BP: So what we’re seeing is that the world can no longer increase its production of “easy” oil — many of those older fields are stagnant or declining. Instead, we’re spending a lot of money to eke out additional production from hard, expensive sources like Alberta’s tar sands or tight oil in North Dakota.

CN: Right, and that’s entirely consistent with peak oil predictions, which said that extraction would plateau, that the decline in conventional oil fields would have to be made up by expensive unconventional oil. Right now, we’re struggling to keep up with declines in mature oil fields — and that pace of decline is accelerating.

Mature OPEC fields are now declining at 5 to 6 percent per year, and non-OPEC fields are declining at 8 to 9 percent per year. Unconventional oil can’t compensate for that decline rate for very long.

Even all the growth in U.S. tight oil from fracking, which has produced about 1 million barrels per day, hasn’t been enough to overcome declines elsewhere outside of OPEC. Non-OPEC oil has been on a bumpy plateau since 2004:

Global Crude Oil Production – Non-OPEC vs OPEC in mbpd 2002-12
(Credit: Gregor Macdonald)

BP: Now when you say “mature” oil fields are declining — these are older fields in places like Saudi Arabia or California that used to produce cheap, easy-to-extract oil. And we’re replacing them with fields that decline more quickly and are difficult to produce?

CN: Look at Ghawar in Saudi Arabia [the largest conventional oil field in the world]. We know that its water cut has been increasing — they’re getting more water with the oil that comes out, which is an indication that the field is in decline. That’s a field with a high flow rate and cheap production costs.

And we’re replacing it with tight oil wells in the U.S. that decline 40 percent in the first year, where the production cost is over $70 per barrel. Or deepwater wells, which deplete at 20 percent per year. Or tar sands, which is expensive. Anticipated production growth for tar sands has consistently failed to meet expectations, year after year after year. Ten years ago, tar sands production today was expected to be twice what it actually is.

These are just low-quality oil resources, and we’re relying on them to compensate for the decline in cheap, high-quality stuff.

BP: One of the things peak-oil analysts often talk about is the “energy return on investment,” or EROI. The idea seems to be that we’re now spending more and more energy just to extract oil from difficult places like Alberta’s tar sands. Why is this important?

CN: At some point, you wind up investing so much energy to produce more energy that you start losing the race. It becomes non-useful or ineffective to keep trying to produce more energy.

And there’s a turning point on this — it’s called the “net energy cliff.” When the ratio of energy output to energy input gets down to about 6, then you fall off this cliff, and it’s just not worth doing. In the early days of oil production, that ratio was about 100 to 1. Globally, right now, it’s approaching 11 to 1. And it’s even lower for some newer sources. The return on investment for heavy oil from the Kern River field in California is about 4 to 1.

The point is that the net energy available to society has been declining radically. Researchers have done a number of papers on this. If you want to run a society, your net energy for oil production has to be at least 5. And if you want to run a modern complex society, with televisions, iPads, highly advanced medicine, etc., then you probably need an EROI closer to 10. So it’s reaching the point where we’re in the danger zone.

BP: Now what about prices? We’ve seen oil prices soar from around $40 per barrel in 2004 to $140 per barrel in 2008. And nowadays, prices in the $100 range are pretty much normal.

CN: One of the implications of peak oil is that as production starts to falter, we need much higher prices in order to sustain production. And that’s exactly what’s happened since 2005.

Another implication is that the economy would be unable to tolerate those high prices and would contract. That also seems to have happened. U.S. employment is still below 2008 levels. Europe is struggling. Now, it’s difficult to sort out the effects of high oil prices on the global economy because we also had the financial crisis and everything else. But guys like James Hamilton have done some interesting research showing that when oil expenditures reach a certain percentage of GDP, that induces a recession. So there is some evidence.

BP: It seems like one of the implications of peak oil is that prices will bounce around a narrow window. They can’t go too low, because then all those tight oil wells in North Dakota will be unprofitable. But they can’t go too high, because that will crush the global economy.

CN: A number of analysts have argued that the floor on oil prices is now around $85 per barrel. It might vary from place to place. An existing well in the Bakken might be profitable when oil’s at $70 or $75. For Arctic drilling, prices might have to rise to $110 per barrel. But the floor is around $85.

But there’s also a price ceiling for what consumers are able to pay. I think that’s probably around $105 for West Texas Intermediate and $125 for Brent. This is why world prices have been bouncing around this narrow ledge between floor and ceiling since 2007. We have to keep prices in that range, not too high to kill demand, but not too low to kill supply. Again, that’s very consistent with the concept of what peak oil has always been.

BP: The other interesting dynamic you’ve noted is that once oil production stagnates, we’re essentially in competition for oil with China and India.

CN: Right now, all of the new oil consumption in the world is coming from outside the OECD and the developed world. It’s largely coming from in China and India. And that new oil demand is now being met, almost exactly, by declining demand in North American and Europe:

Source: Samuel Foucher/Logi Energy LLC
Source: Samuel Foucher/Logi Energy LLC

Another consequence of hitting that plateau is that net global oil exports will continue to fall. Oil-exporting nations will make a lot of money thanks to higher prices, and they’ll grow as a result. But that means they’ll also start consuming more of their own oil. And this is exactly what’s happening worldwide — net global oil exports have declined since 2005. Countries like Saudi Arabia have seen enormous growth in oil consumption.

And what that means is that the United States will have to cut consumption in response. We are the most vulnerable oil importer: We consume about 18 million barrels per day and produce about 7 million. So as net global exports decline, our consumption will have to fall. And that’s already happened.

BP: I’m not sure I quite follow. If there’s only a limited amount of oil to go around in a growing world, why does that oil go to Saudi Arabia or China instead of the United States?

CN: The growing economies of Asia get so much more marginal economic utility out of a gallon of fuel than we do. In a poorer country, you might have a couple guys on a moped, burning one gallon of fuel to get to the market and back. They get so much more economic value out of doing that than a construction worker in the U.S. gets in his pickup truck burning 5 gallons per day.

In China you’ve now got cars that get 50 miles per gallon. And I’ve done the math on how many of these new vehicles they’re building in China and how many new vehicles we’re buying per year. And it turns out we will never catch up with China on fuel economy, because we still have 240 million vehicles out there with low fuel economy.

BP: I see. As long as production plateaus, they’ll always be able to outbid us for oil — it’s worth more to them. So what’s the upshot of all this?

CN: The upshot is that we need to prepare for the day when oil is going to leave us. The sooner we commit to an energy transition, to renewable energy, the better off we’ll be in every respect. You can make that argument just on the basis of production rates and price. And that’s not even considering carbon emissions and climate change, which is another great reason. Let alone what oil is doing to the global economy.

And there are always going to be unforeseen developments. If you were a hard-core doomer 10 years ago, you might have said that when oil gets to $100 per barrel, our economy will simply shut down. But you would’ve missed the fact that a lot of Americans have quit driving and switched to public transportation. You would’ve missed a significant transition from 18-wheel trucking to rail over the past decade — a huge transformation of freight.

So you can’t always predict things perfectly. But likewise, it’s just not correct to say that because we’ve unlocked tight oil and we’re drilling in shale that everything is great, that we’re off to the races, that we can keep growing the global economy on this stuff.

Further reading:

–Colin Sullivan has an overview of the recent debate over “peak oil.”

–One of the most optimistic predictions about oil production has been a study (pdf) by Leonardo Maugeri of the Harvard Kennedy School. Here’s Nelder’s essay disputing Maugeri’s optimism.

Guardian Global Development

Climate change: how a warming world is a threat to our food supplies

Global warming is exacerbating political instability as tensions brought on by food insecurity rise. With research suggesting the issue can only get worse we examine the risks around the world

Infographic: the impact of climate on food
Share 202

inShare.12
Email

John Vidal

John Vidal

The Observer, Saturday 13 April 2013 21.00 BST

Jump to comments (50)

Souaibou Toure, head of a cereal cooperative in Mali
Souaibou Toure, head of a cereal cooperative in Mali. Photograph: Tadej Znidarcic

When the Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire on 17 December 2010, it was in protest at heavy-handed treatment and harassment in the province where he lived. But a host of new studies suggest that a major factor in the subsequent uprisings, which became known as the Arab spring, was food insecurity.

Drought, rocketing bread prices, food and water shortages have all blighted parts of the Middle East. Analysts at the Centre for American Progress in Washington say a combination of food shortages and other environmental factors exacerbated the already tense politics of the region. As the Observer reports today, an as-yet unpublished US government study indicates that the world needs to prepare for much more of the same, as food prices spiral and longstanding agricultural practices are disrupted by climate change.

“We should expect much more political destabilisation of countries as it bites,” says Richard Choularton, a policy officer in the UN’s World Food Programme climate change office. “What is different now from 20 years ago is that far more people are living in places with a higher climatic risk; 650 million people now live in arid or semi-arid areas where floods and droughts and price shocks are expected to have the most impact.

“The recent crises in the Horn of Africa and Sahel may be becoming the new normal. Droughts are expected to become more frequent. Studies suggest anything up to 200 million more food-insecure people by 2050 or an additional 24 million malnourished children. In parts of Africa we already have a protracted and growing humanitarian disaster. Climate change is a creeping disaster,” he said.

The Mary Robinson climate justice foundation is hosting a major conference in Dublin this week. Research to be presented there will say that rising incomes and growth in the global population, expected to create 2 billion more mouths to feed by 2050, will drive food prices higher by 40-50%. Climate change may add a further 50% to maize prices and slightly less to wheat, rice and oil seeds.

“We know population will grow and incomes increase, but also that temperatures will rise and rainfall patterns will change. We must prepare today for higher temperatures in all sectors,” said Gerald Nelson, a senior economist with the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.

All of the studies suggest the worst impacts will be felt by the poorest people. Robinson, the former Irish president, said: “Climate change is already having a domino effect on food and nutritional security for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Child malnutrition is predicted to increase by 20% by 2050. Climate change impacts will disproportionately fall on people living in tropical regions, and particularly on the most vulnerable and marginalised population groups. This is the injustice of climate change – the worst of the impacts are felt by those who contributed least to causing the problem.”

But from Europe to the US to Asia, no population will remain insulated from the huge changes in food production that the rest of the century will bring.

Frank Rijsberman, head of the world’s leading Cgiar crop research stations, said: “There’s a lot of complacency in rich countries about climate change. We must understand that instability is inevitable. We already see a lot of refugees. Perhaps if a lot of people come over on boats to Europe or the US that would wake them up.”

Asia and Oceania

China is relatively resilient to climate change. Its population is expected to decline by up 400 million people this century, easing demand on resources, and it has the capacity to buy in vast quantities of food.

But because more and more Chinese are changing to a more meat-based diet, its challenges will be land and cattle feed. Climate change will affect regions in different ways, but many crops are expected to migrate northwards.

Crop losses are increasingly being caused by extreme weather events, insect attacks and diseases. The 2011 drought lifted food prices worldwide. Wheat is becoming harder to grow in some northern areas of China as the land gets drier and warmer.
Impact of climate on food in Asia and Oceania Impact of climate on food in Asia and Oceania. Sources: Met office, FAO. Graphic: Giulio Frigieri.
In southern China, droughts in recent years have replaced rainy seasons. The national academy of agricultural sciences expects basic food supplies to become insufficient around the year 2030.

A new study for US Aid expects most of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand to see 4-6C temperature rises by 2050. The Lower Mekong region of 100 million people, which is prone to weather extremes, could also see rainfall increase 20% or more in some areas, reducing the growth of rice and other staple crops. Many provinces will see food production decline significantly. The number of malnourished children in the region may increase by 9 to 11 million by 2050.

Extreme events will increasingly affect agriculture in Australia. Key food-growing regions in the south are likely to experience more droughts in the future, with part of western Australia having already experienced a 15% drop in rainfall since the mid-1970s.

The number of record-breaking hot days in Australia has doubled since the 1960s, also affecting food output.

Europe

Climate change affects agricultural production through its effects on the timing, intensity and variability of rainfall and shifts in temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations.

Crops normally seen growing in the south of Europe will be able to be grown further north. This would allow more sweetcorn, grapes, sunflowers, soya and maize to be grown in Britain. In Scotland, livestock farming could become more suitable. At the higher latitudes warmer temperatures are predicted to lengthen and increase the intensity of the growing season. But more CO2 and a major temperature rise could cut yields by around 10% later in the century.

Latest EU projections suggest the most severe consequences of climate change will not be felt until 2050. But significant adverse impacts are expected earlier from more frequent and prolonged heatwaves, droughts and floods. Many crops now grown in southern Europe, such as olives, may not survive high temperature increases. Southern Europe will have to change the way it irrigates crops.
Impact of climate on food in Europe and the Middle East Impact of climate on food in Europe and the Middle East. Sources: Met office, FAO. Graphic: Giulio Frigieri. Photograph: Giulio Frigieri
In Europe’s high and middle latitudes, global warming is expected to greatly expand the growing season. Crops in Russia may be able to expand northwards but yields will be much lower because the soils are less fertile. In the south, the climate is likely to become much drier which will reduce yields. In addition, climate change is expected to make water resources scarcer and encourage weeds and pests.

In 2011, Russia banned wheat and grain exports after a heatwave. Warming will increase forest fires by 30-40%. This will affect soil erosion and increase the probability of floods.

In the Middle East and north Africa, declining yields of up to 30% are expected for rice, about 47% for maize and 20% for wheat.

Americas

The US is expected to grow by 120 million people by 2050. Government scientists expect more incidents of extreme heat, severe drought, and heavy rains to affect food production. The warming is expected to continue without undue problems for 30 years but beyond 2050 the effects could be dramatic with staple crops hit.

According to the latest government report: “The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity, because critical thresholds are already being exceeded.” Many agricultural regions of the US will experience declines.

California’s central valley will be hard hit with sunflowers, wheat, tomato, rice, cotton and maize expected to lose 10-30% of their yields, especially beyond 2050. Fruit and nut crops which depend on “winter chilling” days may have to relocate. Animals exposed to many hot nights are increasingly stressed. Many vegetable crops will be hit when temperatures rise only a few degrees above normal.
Impact of climate on food in the Americas Impact of climate on food in the Americas. Sources: Met office, FAO. Graphic: Giulio Frigieri. Photograph: Giulio Frigieri
Nearly 20% of all US food is imported, so climate extremes elsewhere will also have an effect. In 2011, 14.9% of US households did not have secure food supplies and 5.7% had very low food security.

Because few crops can withstand average temperature rises of more than 2C, Latin America expects to be seriously affected by a warming climate and more extreme weather. Even moderate 1-2C rises would cause significant damage to Brazil, one of the world’s biggest suppliers of food crops. Brazilian production of rice, beans, manioc, maize and soya are all expected to decline, with coffee especially vulnerable.

Other studies suggest Brazil’s massive soya crop, which provides animal feed for much of the world, could slump by more than 25% over the next 20 years.

Two major crops should do well: quinoa and potatoes.

Africa

Many African countries are already experiencing longer and deeper droughts, floods and cyclones. The continent is expected to suffer disproportionately from food insecurity, due to fast-growing vulnerable populations.

Egypt expects to lose 15% of its wheat crops if temperatures rise 2C, and 36% if the increase is 4C. Morocco expects crops to remain stable up to about 2030, but then to drop quickly later. Most north African countries traditionally import wheat and are therefore highly vulnerable to price shocks and droughts elsewhere.

A new study of 11 west African countries expects most to be able to grow more food as temperatures rise and rainfall increases. But demand from growing populations may double food prices. Climate change may mean Nigeria, Ghana and Togo can grow and export more sorghum, raised for grain.
Impact of climate on food in Africa Impact of climate on food in Africa. Sources: Met office, FAO. Graphic: Giulio Frigieri.
Temperatures are expected to rise several degrees in regions close to the Sahel. In Burkina Faso, the sorghum crop is expected to decline by 25% or more, but maize yields may improve.

Other studies by IFPRI suggest crop yields across sub-Saharan Africa may decline 5-22% by 2050, pushing large numbers of people deeper into destitution.

A new UN study suggests climatic conditions in southern Africa will worsen. Climate models mostly predict an increase in annual maximum temperatures in the region of 1 to 2C by 2050. This will favour some crops but shift others to higher ground or further north.

Both of Africa’s staple crops, maize and sorghum, are expected to be badly hit by increasing severity of weather.

Oxfam warns that small-scale farmers in the Horn of Africa will bear the brunt of the negative impacts of climate change. Unpredictable weather here has already left millions semi-destitute and dependent on food aid.

Spring limps in at long last, but will the season bring birds, bees and blossom?

After weeks of bitter cold, experts fear that tens of thousands of migrant species may have already perished on Britain’s shores
Share 49

inShare.1
Email

John Vidal

The Observer, Sunday 14 April 2013

Jump to comments (6)

Spring weather April 13th
Four-year-old Kadie Lane scents spring in Shiremoor, North Tyneside, on Saturday. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA

The warmer weather which is expected this week could herald one of the most spectacular springs in decades, with the arrival of migrant birds and the mass emergence of insects, blossom and spring flowers, say naturalists.

But the prolonged winter may also have exacted a terrible toll on wildlife, with many birds, animals and plants perishing after months of bitter winds, limited food and repeated heavy snowfalls.

“The main pulse of southern migrant birds, such as swallows and housemartins, should arrive this weekend,” said Matthew Oates, a naturalist with the National Trust. “The winds are at last in the right direction. There are reports of a lot of chiffchaffs in the Channel Islands. They may be stuck there.”

Late springs are not unusual, but 2013 has been exceptional because of the unremitting cold.

“This is stretching my experience,” said Oates. “Frogs have only just started turning up. Even in 1996 they had done their thing by the end of March. This is quite remarkable. The insects still haven’t got going, but as soon as it warms up the midges and flies should be out. The bigger insects still haven’t started.”

Some ornithologists fear that tens of thousands of migrant birds which feed on the wing off insects and usually reach Britain by the start of April may have arrived and died.

“We’re actually not sure where they all are,” said Grahame Madge of the RSPB. “Possibly many have already arrived and perished. Or they may be hanging around waiting for the right conditions.

“Migrant birds like swallows, housemartins and willow warblers travel thousands of miles from sub-Saharan Africa to get here and use up all their fuel. When they arrive they are exhausted: they have probably lost half their body weight and are right on the edge of survival. If they arrive and there are no insects to feed on, they are in big trouble.

“We could be looking at a bleak picture. Swallows should be here by now to the point where the casual observer sees them in parks. But we’re a long way from that. The evidence is that some of these birds have arrived but perished.”

Reports of 11 stone curlews found dead in Norfolk last week, and others seen feeding on beaches, suggest that many birds are now desperate for food. The rare birds, who number only around 400 pairs in Britain, overwinter in Spain or North Africa and feed off spiders and other insects.

“If the birds have any sense they will have waited for the weather patterns to shift. They may take a cue from a few warm days. We could get a mass arrival. If this weekend coincides with a mass emergence of insects, those that have arrived could be the lucky ones,” said Madge, who advised people to continue putting out bird food in their gardens.

Other wildlife is said to be on a knife-edge and desperate for warmth and food. Butterflies, struggling after one of the wettest years ever in 2012, have barely been seen. Humans have also been affected by the long winter and are close to their natural limits after many months of dull, cold, wet weather, according to Berkshire eco-psychologist Vivienne Bonnett. “This long winter has made us all feel lethargic. We find it hard to move on in our lives. People haven’t even started spring-cleaning. All living creatures, including humans, need a sense of renewal, of getting rid of the old and finding the new. We have all had a terrible year, which has been bad for health. We all need to move on.”

Oates of the National Trust is optimistic that this week will see the real start of spring: “Early spring often ends in tears. There is a long record of good summers following late springs. I love a late spring. It’s all the sweeter after a long wait.”

Strong magnitude-6.6 quake shakes PNG

Updated 4 hours 2 minutes ago

Map Data – Terms of Use

Map

Map: Papua New Guinea
A strong magnitude-6.6 earthquake struck off Papua New Guinea this morning, but a tsunami warning was not issued and no major damage was reported.

The United States Geological Survey [USGS] reported the quake hit 105 kilometres west of Panguna, a town on Bougainville Island, at a depth of 64 kilometres at 11:32am (AEST).

“A destructive tsunami was not generated based on earthquake and historical tsunami data,” the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre said.

Quakes of such magnitude are common in PNG, which sits on the Pacific “Ring of Fire”, a hotspot for seismic activity due to friction between tectonic plates.

Geoscience Australia measured the quake at a depth of 35 kilometres and said people on Bougainville would have felt it.

“It was a fair way out to sea but people would have got a pretty decent shake on the island,” Geoscience seismologist Dave Jepsen said.

“We are not expecting much damage. These sorts of quakes are frequent occurrences in the region so people tend to be used to them and houses built to withstand them.”

In 1998, a giant tsunami triggered by a magnitude-7.1 earthquake killed more than 2,000 people near Aitape, on PNG’s northwest coast.

AFP

Perth’s urban sprawl ‘at breaking point’

Claire Bickers
The Sunday Times
April 14, 201312:00AM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email

Jemma Green

Curtin University researcher Jemma Green with former Prime Minister John Howard. Source: PerthNow

PERTH is at “breaking point” and the city’s current format of urban sprawl will not be able to deal with future global pressures, experts say. But what do they recommend to make Perth a greener, leaner city?

Experts will get the chance to tell land developers and Government representatives the best ways to build a sustainable city which can cope with climate change, Perth’s population explosion and other global trends at a sustainability conference in Perth next week.

The conference, run by Curtin University and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, will focus on how global mega-trends will affect where and how people live in Perth – the least sustainable city in Australia according to the Australian Conservation Foundation.

According to local expert Curtin University researcher Jemma Green, who is speaking at the conference about the benefits and pitfalls of developing medium density housing, one of the best housing options for Perth would be pre-fabricated multi-story apartment blocks of about five levels.

Ms Green said putting new sustainable technology in this type of housing would be more affordable than in single houses.

She acknowledges locals might be reluctant to embrace new forms of housing but said the best way to encourage local support would be for high quality examples to be built as soon as possible.

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki will discuss how sustainable living won’t be affordable for most Australians unless the Government mandates change.

ENV Greencap manager of environment, sustainability and biological sciences Jim Singleton will discuss how the WA urban development industry will need to consider food scarcity, population growth and climate change among other global megatrends trends when developing housing over the next 10 to 15 years.

Mr Singleton said Perth’s current product – single residential houses – would become less viable as the city grew.
Representatives from the CSIRO and global design company ARUP will discuss new ways of generating energy and how Perth’s current headache – transport – will affect how and where residents live.

Curtin University associate professor Reena Tiwari said with rapid population growth in the next few decades, more and more Australians were likely to find themselves living in medium or high-density precincts.

Dr Tiwari said the introduction of this kind of housing could be seen as a threat to a lifestyle and cultural identity held dear by many Perth residents; something development stakeholders would need to consider.

“The fear particularly lies in the risk of an impingement on the suburban dream of home ownership and the freedom, flexibility and lifestyle that it affords.”

Dr Tiwari said a ‘business as usual” approach of building inner-city apartments and detached housing on big blocks at the city fringe raised questions about environmental sustainability and desirability but a “one size fits all” approach of higher density living would raise questions of affordability, social equity, issues of ageing-in place and fears of creating “Vertical ghettos”.

The conference aims to bring different stakeholders together to debate and attempt to find a consensus on tough questions like, ‘How high we can go?’ and ‘How dense can it be?’.”

Biggest Solar Flare Of 2013 Just Released, Bigger Solar Flares Likely Coming Soon

Posted: 13 Apr 2013 01:29 AM PDT

The biggest solar flare of the year just erupted from the Sun on Thursday, April 11, right at 3:16 AM EDT (0716 GMT). The powerful solar eruption was also accompanied by a large coronal mass ejection (CME), and caused a temporary radio blackout on the Earth, according to NASA officials.

Image Credit: NASA/SDO
Image Credit: NASA/SDO

The solar flare registered as a M6.5-class flare, which means a somewhat mid-level flare, less powerful than the occasionally seen X-class flares.

“This is the strongest flare seen so far in 2013,” NASA spokeswoman Karen Fox stated. “Increased numbers of flares are quite common at the moment, since the sun’s normal 11-year cycle is ramping up toward solar maximum, which is expected in late 2013.”

Video and images of the solar flare were captured by NASA’s sun-watching Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). The SDO spacecraft is one of the few direct and detailed ways that we currently have to observe the Sun and monitor space weather.

“Today’s M-class solar flare was about 10 times weaker than X-class flares, which are the strongest flares the sun can unleash. M-class solar flares are the weakest solar events that can still trigger space weather effects near Earth, such as communications interruptions or spectacular northern lights displays. The solar flare triggered a short-lived radio communications blackout on Earth that registered as an R2 event (on a scale of R1 to R5),” Space.com stated in its coverage.

“When aimed directly at Earth, major solar flares and coronal mass ejections can pose a threat to astronauts and satellites in orbit. They can interfere with GPS navigation and communications satellite signals in space, as well as impair power systems infrastructure on Earth.”

NASA is continuing to track the CME in order to see if it is likely to cause any further radio blackouts in the coming days.

“Humans have tracked this solar cycle continuously since it was discovered, and it is normal for there to be many flares a day during the sun’s peak activity,” Fox said.

Solar activity is expected to significantly pick up by the end of the year, likely leading to the regular release of solar flares far stronger than this recent one.

Biggest Solar Flare Of 2013 Just Released, Bigger Solar Flares Likely Coming Soon was originally posted on: PlanetSave. To read more from Planetsave, join thousands of others and subscribe to our free RSS feed, follow us on Facebook (also free), follow us on Twitter, or just visit our homepage.