Author: admin

  • Texas wind farm pioneers radar technology to protect migrating birds

    Texas wind farm pioneers radar technology to protect migrating birds

    US wind farms kill about 7,000 birds a year but radar systems developed for Nasa can prevent fatal collisions by detecting approaching birds and analysing weather conditions

    It could be considered an air traffic control system for birds who have flown perilously off course. A wind farm in southern Texas, situated on a flight path used by millions of birds each autumn and spring, is pioneering the use of radar technology to avoid deadly collisions between a 2,500lb rotating blade and bird.

    US wind farms kill about 7,000 birds a year, according to a recent study. Other studies of individual wind farms suggest a higher toll on bats and birds, who crash into towers, blades, power lines and other installations. Estimates from a single wind farm in Altamont, California showed as many as 1,300 birds of prey killed each year – or about three a day.

    Such direct threats to wildlife, and concerns for habitats, have increasingly pitted conservationists against the renewable energy industry. A handful of wind power projects in the US have been shelved because of wildlife concerns.

    But new radar technology now in use at the Peñascal wind farm in Texas claims to have found a balance between competing environmental concerns – taking action against global warming and protecting wildlife – by protecting migrating birds at times of peak danger.

    The 202MW farm, operated by the Spanish firm, Iberdrola Renewables, is the first in the world to use radar systems to enable it to shut down automatically if bad weather hits in peak migration times.

    The installation, which opened late last month, uses radar systems originally developed for Nasa and the US Air Force to detect approaching birds from as far as four miles away, analyse weather conditions, and then determine in real time whether they are in danger of flying into the rotating blades.

    If they are, the turbines are programmed to shut down, restarting once the birds are safely on their way, said Gary Andrews, the chairman of DeTect, Inc, the Florida company that developed the technology.

    The system spots the birds and assesses their altitude, numbers and the visibility. “With all these pieces coming together properly … the turbines will shut down,” said Andrews.

    Conservationists however are sceptical of such an easy fix. They argue that wind farms should still be sited away from migration routes in the first place, and that the technology does nothing to solve the problem of installations that disturb bird and animal habitats and nesting grounds.

    “The bottom line with wind energy is that it has great potential but it must be done correctly,” said Doug Inkley, a senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation. “The windiest site may not be the most suitable and one may have to live with having less windy conditions and less impact on wildlife.”

    Even in Texas – where there are virtually no environmental restrictions on wind farms – there was controversy when the Peñascal project was first proposed and local conservationist organisations tried to block the project in the courts.

    The Peñascal wind farm is located on the Central Flyway, a main route for migratory birds in the Americas.

    Millions of birds funnel through the narrow air corridor during the semiannual migration. A study in the autumn of 2007 found 4,000 birds an hour passing overhead.

    More than 30 species of warbler alone fly the route, along with waterfowl, raptors, and hawks. The area is also known as a nesting ground for reddish egret, which the Audubon Society views as threatened, terns and pelicans.

    In ordinary circumstances, the birds would be thousands of feet above the wind farm, passing the turbines without incident. But that can change dramatically in a sudden storm.

    A sudden cold snap, like the legendary Texan “Blue Northern”, can prove fatal for migrating birds, bringing strong head winds and fog. The birds, which typically fly at night, become disoriented and exhausted, elevating the risk they will lose altitude and crash into 400ft wind towers along their route, wildlife experts say.

    “If inclement weather hits the birds that are aloft at that point may be very vulnerable,” said Christopher Shackleford, an ornithologist with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

    Andrews says his radar systems can avoid such consequences – and at relatively little cost to the wind farm. Forecasts suggest the wind farm would be forced to close only between 40 to 60 hours during peak migration times.

    The US Air Force has been using similar technologies for more than a decade. Nasa also turned to such systems after a turkey buzzard flew into the Discovery shuttle moments after its launch in 2005.

    The radar sets developed by DeTect draw on a network of 148 weather radar to provide real-time information about bird activity. It is updated every six minutes.

    The wind power industry has used such data before when planning wind farms, Andrews said. It is illegal, under US law, to kill migratory birds or damage their nesting areas. But this is the first time that a wind farm will use such data in real time.

    Andrews’s company is also working on a variation that will allow wind farms to detect raptor if they start diving to close to the turbines as they chase down their prey.

    Conservationists are reserving judgment. “The wind energy industry makes bold claims, and they need to prove them,” said Andrew Kasner, director of bird conservation for Audubon Texas.

    He added: “It’s possible for them to do [switch off the turbines], but I don’t know whether they would do it during peak wind time.”

  • UK government missing own carbon cut targets.

    UK government missing own carbon cut targets

    UK government departments will not meet carbon cuts target of 12.5% by 2012 despite a reduction in emissions from road travel and less waste and water consumption, sustainability report finds

    The government is not on track to meet targets to cut carbon emissions from its own departments, its sustainability watchdog warned today.

    A report from the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) said departments had taken significant steps towards cutting emissions from road travel and reducing waste and water consumption.

    But the SDC said the government had reported a 6.3% decrease in carbon emissions from its offices since the year 1999-2000, an insufficient reduction for it to hit a target of 12.5% reductions by 2011-12.

    And it was not nearly enough to contribute to the legally binding national goal to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, the commission said.

    The annual Sustainable Development in Government report also said future targets for environmental performance by departments, to replace those that will shortly expire, must be “set high” to reflect the scale of the challenge ahead.

    A failure to cut carbon will force departments to buy carbon credits to cover their emissions, under new rules coming in next year to promote energy and carbon savings, the SDC said.

    But a £4bn investment in wind and solar energy generation on the government estate could slash emissions from offices by 68%, save on energy bills and boost the green technology and construction sectors. Last year, a new law requiring public buildings to display their energy use revealed that the head office of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) recorded an E-rating on a scale where A is best and G is worst. The newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was also shamed this year when it was revealed to be one of the least energy-efficient buildings in London.

    While the government remains on track to meet targets for levels of recycling and electricity from renewables, both fell last year, the report showed. And the amount of electricity used was on the rise, largely due to increased use of IT and the need for more air conditioning of server rooms.

    The SDC welcomed commitments in the budget to support the shift to low-carbon vehicles, but said the government’s current travel arrangements allowed staff to claim mileage at rates above fuel costs, providing “perverse” incentives for car use. Instead they should be given incentives to use more sustainable forms of travel or travel less, it urged.

    The commission also said controls should be put on officials flying domestically and to European destinations where rail travel was an option. And there needed to be greater understanding of the full environmental impacts of government operations, for example developing “water footprints” and investigating the carbon footprint of supply chains of goods bought by departments.

    Rebecca Willis, the vice-chairwoman of the SDC, said: “The government has taken some really significant steps making its own operations more sustainable. But it is still not on track to meet crucial targets, including reducing carbon emissions from offices.”

    William Jordan, central government’s chief sustainability officer, said: “Significant progress has been made by the government in delivering on its commitment to deliver sustainable operations on the government’s own estate.”

    He said he looked forward to working with the SDC to address the issues raised in the report and said the government would be revising targets and commitments on sustainability this year to ensure they reflected “leading practice”.

  • BHP’s Olympic Dam dilemma: fuel nuclear risks as a uranium quarry or trade as a copper mine?

    BHP’s Olympic Dam dilemma: fuel nuclear risks as a uranium quarry or trade as a copper mine?

    Date: 1-May-2009

    BHP Billiton should use the Olympic Dam mine expansion Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process to set out a path that avoids the risks and responsibilities associated with uranium exports and positions the mine to trade as a copper venture, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.

    “Under the existing proposal BHP plans to expand Olympic Dam to make it the uranium quarry to the global nuclear industry, but this is not the only option open to the company,” said ACF Nuclear Free Campaigner David Noonan.

    “BHP could spare South Australia the massive risks and responsibilities associated with uranium exports by retaining all radioactive materials on the mine site and developing Olympic Dam’s significant copper deposits.

    “The uranium quarry plan would make BHP and South Australia complicit in selling uranium to nuclear weapons states and in unresolved radioactive waste management problems overseas and at the mine site.

    “US President Obama has recently withdrawn support and budget for the proposed nuclear waste disposal site at Mt Yucca in Nevada after 20 years and more than A$13 billion have been spent on this single project.

    “The EIS to be released today must explain how BHP proposes to manage the expanded mine’s bulk radioactive tailings waste for the 10,000 years the tailings remain a radiological hazard and need to be isolated from the environment.

    “BHP’s plan to simply leave these hazardous tailings on the surface forever fails to satisfy the existing Commonwealth requirement, set out in environmental conditions for the Ranger uranium mine, to return radioactive tailing to the pit.

    “Setting out a path for Olympic Dam to process all its copper products in South Australia, instead of processing a bulk radioactive copper concentrate in China, would boost local jobs and be much better for the global environment.”

  • ‘Flawed’ emissions trading scheme needs big changes: Andrew Robb.

    ‘Flawed’ emissions trading scheme needs big changes: Andrew Robb

     

    Christian Kerr | April 30, 2009

    Article from:  The Australian

    THE Coalition today ruled out supporting the emissions trading scheme in its current form, calling for the Government to analyse the “flawed” plan’s effect on jobs and to consider alternatives.

    But the Opposition’s emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb left the door open to allowing the ETS to pass through the Senate.

    “No one is saying it’s all or nothing,” Mr Robb said, releasing a Coalition-commissioned analysis of the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

    “What we are saying go right back and do the work, fix up the flaws, do not put in jeopardy tens of thousands of Australian jobs, especially at a time when we’ve got the biggest financial crisis in 80 years,” he said.

    The analysis, prepared by David Pearce from the Centre for International Economics, warns that the Government has failed to adequately assess the level of environmental benefits the CPRS will achieve for its cost, its ability to deal with uncertainty and whether it explicitly accounts for international developments.

    Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Greg Combet effectively conceded yesterday that the Government will have to deal with the Coalition to pass the CPRS.

    He said the Greens had “made themselves irrelevant” with demands that amounted to “lunacy”.

    Mr Robb said the CIE report “clearly establishes that the design of the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme needs to be reconsidered and compared empirically with alternatives.

    “For the Government to have ignored the impact of the global financial crisis beggars belief,” he said.

    “The costs over the next 20 years of lost competitiveness and lost jobs must be established, along with the likely impact, or not, on CO2 emissions.”

    Mr Robb accused the Government of “flying blind” on both the risk to jobs and emissions reductions.

    “The Rudd Government has no idea of how many jobs its scheme will destroy, how it affects different industries or regions, or even whether it is the most cost-effective option for Australia to reduce CO2 emissions.

    “Constructive alternatives to the Government’s flawed scheme are necessary. As well as reviewing the carbon pricing mechanism, energy efficiencies in the commercial building sector, carbon capture in soil and other means, and the efforts of individuals, must be part of an effective scheme.”

    Mr Robb said the Government’s CPRS will destroy jobs.

    “What the Pearce report confirms is that the Government has done no analysis, no analysis of what will be the transitional affects on businesses of their scheme,” he said.

    “The only work out there at the moment about what will happen to jobs is the work that has been commissioned by all of these companies who are very fearful about the circumstance and their future and about future investment and the viability of their businesses.”

    The report recommends that the Government ask the Productivity Commission to carry out this research.

    The Opposition seems no closer to a policy position on emissions trading despite the release of the report.

    “The Coalition will finalise its policy response once we’ve seen the results of the current Senate inquiries and following analysis of this report,” Mr Robb said.

    Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s office was unable to say if he would be commenting publicly on the Pearce report today.

    Coalition sources have suggested that Mr Turnbull will face major challenges in finding a policy path Liberals and Nationals will follow.

    Divisions over emissions trading and climate change policy dealt the final blow to the leadership of his predecessor, Brendan Nelson.

  • Local groups take Gunns fight to Europe

    Local groups take Gunns fight to Europe

    Posted 3 hours 15 minutes ago

    Gunns has described as

    Gunns has described as “sad and pathetic” the latest attempt to derail its pulp mill project. (ABC News)

    Gunns has described as “sad and pathetic” the latest attempt to derail its pulp mill project in northern Tasmania.

    The Wilderness Society and lobby group GetUp! have taken their fight against the mill to Europe, using a leading financial publication to warn overseas banks against financing the project.

    The group’s advertisement in Britain’s Financial Times warns European banks they will be “pulping their profits” if they finance the $2.2 billion mill.

    Gunns is looking for overseas finance after ANZ withdrew its financial backing for the project.

    “It’s littered with lies,” a Gunns spokesman said of the advertisement, adding it was a “pretty sad and pathetic” attempt by the Wilderness Society.

    “We’ve already indicated the mill will use plantation timber only, and not from old-growth forests.”

    The project also will need to meet the most stringent environmental standards.

    Gunns denies claims by the society that a number of banks have shunned the company’s overtures for finance.

    “We have told the ASX, we will be making an announcement about financing mid-year and the project’s start date is still the end of the year,” the spokesman said.

    The society says a number of banks, including Deutsche Bank, UBS, the Bank of Scotland and the Bank of China, have indicated they will not finance the mill.

    The Tasmanian Forest Industries Association has described the society’s action as “tantamount to economic sabotage”.

    “The advertisement … is filled with misinformation and untruths,” spokesman Julian Amos said.

    AAP

  • Total Midyear Population fot theworld:1950-2050

    Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050
    Year Population Annual
    growth rate (%)
    Annual
    population change
    1950 2,555,955,393 1.47 37,807,330
    1951 2,593,762,723 1.61 42,101,075
    1952 2,635,863,798 1.71 45,354,486
    1953 2,681,218,284 1.78 48,096,925
    1954 2,729,315,209 1.87 51,594,958
    1955 2,780,910,167 1.89 53,156,544
    1956 2,834,066,711 1.96 56,034,059
    1957 2,890,100,770 1.94 56,726,494
    1958 2,946,827,264 1.77 52,551,450
    1959 2,999,378,714 1.40 42,307,137
     
    1960 3,041,685,851 1.34 41,006,148
    1961 3,082,691,999 1.81 56,224,066
    1962 3,138,916,065 2.20 69,758,337
    1963 3,208,674,402 2.20 71,377,045
    1964 3,280,051,447 2.09 69,241,262
    1965 3,349,292,709 2.08 70,445,430
    1966 3,419,738,139 2.03 69,956,266
    1967 3,489,694,405 2.04 72,055,706
    1968 3,561,750,111 2.08 74,844,338
    1969 3,636,594,449 2.05 75,402,508
     
    1970 3,711,996,957 2.07 77,667,761
    1971 3,789,664,718 1.99 76,357,913
    1972 3,866,022,631 1.94 75,842,383
    1973 3,941,865,014 1.88 74,627,480
    1974 4,016,492,494 1.79 72,607,390
    1975 4,089,099,884 1.72 71,114,503
    1976 4,160,214,387 1.71 71,656,909
    1977 4,231,871,296 1.68 71,489,322
    1978 4,303,360,618 1.71 74,213,981
    1979 4,377,574,599 1.70 74,982,536
     
    1980 4,452,557,135 1.70 76,294,721
    1981 4,528,851,856 1.75 79,872,396
    1982 4,608,724,252 1.76 81,744,318
    1983 4,690,468,570 1.70 80,223,994
    1984 4,770,692,564 1.69 81,529,983
    1985 4,852,222,547 1.71 83,687,162
    1986 4,935,909,709 1.74 86,386,124
    1987 5,022,295,833 1.72 87,036,938
    1988 5,109,332,771 1.69 87,012,546
    1989 5,196,345,317 1.68 88,141,297
     
    1990 5,284,486,614 1.57 83,633,233
    1991 5,368,119,847 1.55 83,657,777
    1992 5,451,777,624 1.50 82,144,345
    1993 5,533,921,969 1.45 80,900,295
    1994 5,614,822,264 1.44 81,660,292
    1995 5,696,482,556 1.41 81,154,757
    1996 5,777,637,313 1.38 80,123,371
    1997 5,857,760,684 1.34 79,217,938
    1998 5,936,978,622 1.31 78,089,406
    1999 6,015,068,028 1.28 77,341,044
     
    2000 6,092,409,072 1.26 77,429,215
    2001 6,169,838,287 1.23 76,355,619
    2002 6,246,193,906 1.21 76,018,626
    2003 6,322,212,532 1.21 76,913,590
    2004 6,399,126,122 1.20 77,395,298
    2005 6,476,521,420 1.19 77,646,189
    2006 6,554,167,609 1.18 78,003,314
    2007 6,632,170,923 1.18 78,755,194
    2008 6,710,926,117 1.17 79,136,099
    2009 6,790,062,216 1.17 79,580,822
     
    2010 6,869,643,038 1.16 80,139,198
    2011 6,949,782,236 1.15 80,499,224
    2012 7,030,281,460 1.14 80,560,010
    2013 7,110,841,470 1.12 80,351,923
    2014 7,191,193,393 1.11 79,929,736
    2015 7,271,123,129 1.09 79,455,115
    2016 7,350,578,244 1.07 78,965,031
    2017 7,429,543,275 1.05 78,351,232
    2018 7,507,894,507 1.03 77,616,295
    2019 7,585,510,802 1.01 76,774,088
     
    2020 7,662,284,890 0.99 75,946,263
    2021 7,738,231,153 0.97 75,095,456
    2022 7,813,326,609 0.94 74,114,356
    2023 7,887,440,965 0.92 73,080,464
    2024 7,960,521,429 0.90 72,023,397
    2025 8,032,544,826 0.88 71,045,623
    2026 8,103,590,449 0.86 70,146,499
    2027 8,173,736,948 0.84 69,228,348
    2028 8,242,965,296 0.83 68,301,329
    2029 8,311,266,625 0.81 67,362,805
     
    2030 8,378,629,430 0.79 66,482,789
    2031 8,445,112,219 0.77 65,674,999
    2032 8,510,787,218 0.76 64,854,812
    2033 8,575,642,030 0.74 64,006,185
    2034 8,639,648,215 0.73 63,115,929
    2035 8,702,764,144 0.71 62,235,131
    2036 8,764,999,275 0.70 61,382,465
    2037 8,826,381,740 0.68 60,504,670
    2038 8,886,886,410 0.67 59,592,670
    2039 8,946,479,080 0.65 58,632,197
     
    2040 9,005,111,277 0.64 57,682,175
    2041 9,062,793,452 0.62 56,755,838
    2042 9,119,549,290 0.61 55,785,991
    2043 9,175,335,281 0.60 54,769,039
    2044 9,230,104,320 0.58 53,708,633
    2045 9,283,812,953 0.57 52,639,344
    2046 9,336,452,297 0.55 51,569,107
    2047 9,388,021,404 0.54 50,475,749
    2048 9,438,497,153 0.52 49,366,268
    2049 9,487,863,421 0.51 48,247,836
     
    2050 9,536,111,257