Category Archives: Greening the World

Generate Electricity for creating Well Being

Posted on
Reply

Yes, CO2 may be bad but that is if you have first reached the level of usage in Australia, Kuwait or Norway. However, if you are a poor person in developing countries like India, China and Brazil, you still need a electricity to create well being even if it emits CO2 and consumption of 2,500 kw seems to be the magic number.

I think the focus to reduce CO2 to control the climate (and this is being questioned now by the solar cycle theory) we should not forget the current human beings who need electricity to survive and live a good life.

From HBR:

The greater a country’s electricity consumption, the greater the well-being of its people. Electricity doesn’t cause well- being, of course. But it is a powerful enabler. When people have lights that allow them to study and work after dark, refrigeration to keep foods and medicine fresh, pumps and purifiers to irrigate farmland and produce safe drinking water, and cell phones and computers to connect them with commercial, educational, and health care resources, they can more fully participate in the social and economic activities that drive human development.
A little electricity goes a long way. Note that when annual consumption rises from 0 to just a few thousand kilowatt hours per capita, countries move near the top of the HDI scale. Argentina, with per capita consumption of about 2,500 kWh, has an HDI score approaching that of Canada, whose consumption is seven times higher.

Water in Australia

Posted on
Reply

From the blog of the Australian Tea Party:

This is the most rational argument I have ever heard about Water in Australia. I always believed that it was silly to talk about water restrictions in a country like Australia which has only 21 million people. I think the Australian Tea Party needs to improve its website but I think the ideals they talk about are something which I connect to.

So yes Australia does have meager water supplies compared to the other continents, but these figures lack relevance unless we consider two other vital factors. Australia is the smallest continent on earth and much more importantly we have a miniscule population in comparison to other continents and countries.

If we look at a comparison of precipitation per head of population, which is much more relevant, we get a dramatically different picture.

Water per person from annual precipitation from various countries:
Australia: 122 megalitres
Brazil: 121 megalitres
United States 29 megalitres
China: 11 megalitres
Japan: 5.9 megalitres.
United Kingdom: 2.6 megalitres.

Leaving aside ground water for now, Australia has another source of water.
Because most of our cities and towns were originally built on river estuaries, for obvious reasons and because no thought was given to the collection of runoff from roofing and pavement, most of our storm water runs into the sea unrecorded in run-off figures. While the quantum of this is not known, estimates of around 40 million megalitres annually are considered reasonable. Most of this run-off occurs on the eastern seaboard.

So, how much water do we need?
For each Australia household to have all the water we need to live what we consider to be the Australian lifestyle. That is, have a garden with lawn on which we wash the car when we feel like it, have a pool for the kids and generally not have to be concerned about water use or shortage.

We need 110,000, litres per person per year.
This figure includes all domestic use, Council and industrial use, but does not include Agriculture and Mining. Therefore for every 9 people in Australia we need 1 megalitre of water per year.

Let us assume that with some rational planning we did the following:
1. Collected and recycled just 5% of urban runoff = 2M megalitres
2. New dams to collect just 5% of river runoff = 14 M megalitres.
Total 16 million megalitres; that is sufficient for 144 million extra people.

Geoengineering solutions to climate change

Posted on
Reply

SuperFreakonomics was a good read and was my first ebook. I read it on the PC and iPhone using Amazon Kindle.

Their chapter on Global Warming had some interesting solutions from Intellectual Ventures on climate change. Here is the idea.

1. What is geoengineering?

“Geoengineering” describes how the earth’s systems can be influenced by engineering solutions. There are many historic examples of how humans have used technology to change geological systems. From using fire to drive game to building irrigation for agriculture, seeding clouds during droughts, reversing the Chicago River to building the Hoover dam, the term can encompass all sorts of ideas. Today, options discussed often include large-scale engineering of the environment in order to combat or counteract the adverse effects of human-induced changes in the atmosphere and climate.

2. Why is Intellectual Ventures researching geoengineering technologies?

Intellectual Ventures looks at hard problems facing the world and brainstorms ideas and technologies that can lead to better solutions. Global warming is a very significant problem, but it won’t be solved with old ideas and old technology alone. We believe that the solution to this crisis will involve new ideas and new technologies.

Intellectual Ventures recognizes that the process of bringing new global warming ideas to the surface can be challenging and controversial. But as an invention company, we believe research needs to be done now, rather than after the full complications of global warming are upon us.

3. What makes Intellectual Ventures’ approach to climate change different from the research that is already being done elsewhere?

Some people think that global warming can be solved purely by policy means: taxes, renewable requirements, or cap-and-trade systems. While such moves may be helpful, we are not convinced that they are sufficient for several reasons.

The first is that current climate science cannot say with certainty what level of CO2 can be tolerated by the climate system without severe consequences. Some scientists believe that even the current level of CO2 is dangerously high, while others are relatively comfortable with far higher levels. This matters because the more sensitive the climate is to CO2, the quicker and deeper cuts in emissions must be in order to avoid harmful environmental changes. We may be lucky, and the climate system may be relatively tolerant, or we may be unlucky and find that the necessary cuts must be deeper, or occur quicker, than the world can manage to do.

Second, there has been more talk than action. The world has made little progress in curbing large scale emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. In order to make meaningful cuts in CO2 emissions there would need to be comprehensive and effective international agreements in place. So far, these have proven elusive.

Third, the task of retooling our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels is a massive task, which is going to take a long time to accomplish. Indeed most of the world has not even made a meaningful start. New technology will speed the transition to a carbon-free energy infrastructure, but it is hard to estimate or have confidence in that can be accomplished quickly.

Fourth, and perhaps the most important, by the time if we should discover that the factors above are not favorable – and serious environmental harm starts to occur, it will be too late for conventional approaches to work. Once there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, even if you stop emissions entirely, you will have problems for many decades to come. It is possible that this unhappy situation will not occur, either because the climate can tolerate a lot more CO2, or because the world achieves very significant emission reductions. However, if we do find ourselves in a bad scenario, geoengineering is one of the few alternatives for reducing harm to both human society and the environment.

Lorn Turnbull from the UK Praliament on Climate Change

Posted on
Reply

From Wattsupwiththat:

My Lords, on first reading the Committee on Climate Change’s latest progress report, I found it an impressive document. It was broad in scope and very detailed. But the more I dug into it the more troubled I became. Below the surface there are serious questions about the foundations on which it has been constructed. There are questions in four areas-the framework created by the Climate Change Act 2008, the policy responses at EU and UK level, the estimate of costs and finally the scientific basis on which the whole scheme of things rests. I will consider each in turn.

Unlike many of those involved in the climate change field, I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I am a founder trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which seeks to bring rationality, objectivity and, above all, tolerance to the debate.

I have long been in the camp of what might be called the semi-sceptics. I have taken the science on trust, while becoming increasingly critical of the policy responses being made to achieve a given CO2 or global warming constraint. First, let us look at the Climate Change Act, which has been highly praised, even today, as the most comprehensive and ambitious framework anywhere in the world-a real pioneering first for the UK. However, it has serious flaws. It starts by imposing a completely unworkable duty on the Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, even though many of the actions required lie outside his control. It would have been better, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I argued, for the duty to be connected to what the Secretary of State can control, such as his own actions and policies, and not the outcome, which he cannot.

[...]

Thirdly, there is the issue of cost. All we had to go on at the time when the target was set more ambitiously was the estimate by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, of 1 per cent of GDP. Many people were sceptical at the time and probably even more are now, including, it seems, the noble Lord, Lord Stern, himself. It was reported in the press last week that he now thinks that it might be 2 per cent, but could rise to 5 per cent. I hope he will clarify this when he speaks to us shortly.

In the document that we have before us, the committee says that it previously estimated that costs in 2020 would be about 1 per cent of GDP. That is consistent with its view that it might get to 2 per cent by 2050. In the new report it simply reaffirms the 1 per cent figure in just one paragraph in 250 pages.

[...]

The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord May, and their eminent colleagues on the CCC have a choice. They can take the policy framework as given, the policy responses as given, the costs as given, and the science as given, and then proceed to churn out more and more sophisticated projections, or-as I hope-they can apply the formidable intellectual firepower they command and start to find answers to many of the unsolved questions.

Copenhagen climate conference: Who will dare mention population growth?

Posted on
Reply

The problem is that Copenhagen is so highly orchestrated that any such inconvenient information will be buried: such as a recent report, Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energies: the German Experience.

This thorough study of German electricity production found that its promotion of renewable energy is “a tale of a massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits”.

The total cost of German subsidies for wind power, which produces 6.8 per cent of the nation’s electricity, is estimated at 20.5 billion euros between 2000 and 2010. But that is peanuts compared to solar power, which will have swallowed 53.3 billion euros while producing only 0.6 per cent of Germany’s power. Colossal amounts have been wasted, without much benefit to the environment or the country’s energy security.

The real “elephant at the summit”, however, is population growth. In spite of it being the core cause of climate change, everyone is running a mile from having a serious, frank discussion on how it can be halted. True,  it’s a sensitive subject, but it will be impossible to feed an expanding population while reducing the impact on the environment. And if this problem is not confronted, all those hours spent agonising over reducing greenhouse gases and setting carbon emission levels will have been superfluous.

via Copenhagen climate conference: Who will dare mention population growth? – Telegraph.

The Aussie climate change Beaurocracy

Posted on
Reply

THE Australian delegation to the Copenhagen climate change conference could number 114, official documents reveal.That number dwarfs the 71-strong British delegation. Such is the size of the delegation, it includes a dedicated “baggage liaison officer”.The carbon footprint for 114 people travelling to Copenhagen and back business class amounts to 1817 tonnes of emissions — the equivalent to the annual output of 2500 people in Malawi. The list appears to contradict assurances from Kevin Rudds office last weekend that fewer than 50 federal officials would attend.

via Aussie footprint 1817 tonnes, and counting | The Australian.

Carbon emissions and basic algebra

Posted on
Reply

When the countries around the world announced emission reductions, cuts, plans the media cheered. However, if we all did some basic algebra it would be different.

For example, the US announced its plans based on 2005 rather than the 1990 conventional numbers used in Kyoto. Why? Because US emissions grew a lot from 1990 to 2005 and reductions from a large base is easier. Australia is using 2000.  China uses 2005 and India another number. So every country is talking a different benchmark. So, we cannot actually compare.

May be we should GDP per capita as a benchmark.

On the second set of numbers.  US announced reduction in carbon emissions and China, India announced carbon intensity reductions. Both are as different as apples to oranges. But the press misses this. For an example check out the Ny Times. Just to clarify, I support the carbon intensity focus of the developing countries. My gripe is with media reporting.

Some good analysis from Matthew Khan,

I am happy to hear that China has pledged to reduce its carbon intensity by 40% by 2020 but does this guarantee a smaller global carbon footprint? Recall that carbon intensity = tons of CO2/GNP. China’s economy has been growing by 8% per year. Make the big assumption that this average growth rate will continue until 2020 and ignore compounding. So, in ten years their economy will be 80% bigger and their carbon intensity will be 40% lower than it is now. So, according to my logic relative to today, China’s total carbon emissions will be .6*80% or 48% higher. From Al Gore’s standpoint, is that progress? At the same time that President Obama is pledging a 20% reducing in CO2 emissions (under these growth assumptions), China’s government is pledging that their emissions will be 48% higher.

After the Nano, TATA releases the cheapest water purifier in the world at Rs.1000.

Posted on
Reply

Pure water is one of the world’s most precious natural resources. With much of India’s population denied access to safe drinking water, the delivery of safe, convenient and affordable water purification is one of the biggest social and technological challenges in the country today.

Responding to this challenge, Tata Chemicals today unveils ‘Tata Swach’ – a unique and innovative water purifier. Requiring no energy or running water to operate, an early version of the product first saw the light of day as part of the Tsunami relief efforts. Today, the replaceable filter-based product, which is entirely portable and based on low-cost natural ingredients, delivers safe drinking water at a new market benchmark of Rs30 per month for a family of five.

Speaking at the launch, Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Sons, said: “Safe drinking water is the most basic of human needs. The social cost of water contamination is already enormous and increases every year. Although today’s announcement is about giving millions more people affordable access to safe water, it is an important step in the long-term strategy to find a solution to provide affordable access to safe water for all.”

Tata Swach is the result of years of collaboration between several Tata companies, including TCS, Tata Chemicals and Titan Industries. Based on an innovative concept developed by the TCS Innovation Labs – TRDDC, the Swach technology combines low-cost ingredients such as rice husk ash with superior nanotechnology. The efficiency of the product has been rigorously tested to meet internationally accepted water purification standards.

Water-borne disease is the single greatest threat to global health, with diarrhoea, jaundice, typhoid, cholera, polio, and gastroenteritis spread by contaminated water. According to a 2007 United Nations report, half of the world’s hospital beds are occupied by patients suffering from water-borne diseases. In India, such diseases cause more than 1.5 times the deaths caused by Aids and double the deaths caused by road accidents.

via Tata group | Tata Chemicals | Media releases | Tata Chemicals launches ‘Tata Swach’.

Do we need to change behaviour at all?

Posted on
Reply

I have been writing about how Kevin Rudd’s plan to introduce carbon trading included payments to millions of households on the increase in expenses. I suggested that was the wrong thing to do and that we need to change behaviour of consumers to solve this.

What about the other side? What if the emissions reductions are possible through large systemic changes in electricity production, energy efficiency at the business level etc and leave the consumers out of it directly. Consumers will still pay for the increased business costs through increases in product costs however, that is dependent on the market (which is somewhat free in Australia).

In a way the business guys are better at doing this than each individual consumer. Let them sit back and have fun and pay a bit more in product expenses.

What say?

Let Australia’s carbon reform begin

Posted on
Reply

Given that if the Americans go for an emissions trading scheme then Abbott is on board, these are sums that are going to dominate any serious carbon debate in Australia.

To illustrate what we are talking about I want to take you through the existing ’5 per cent from 2000′ cut that the government is talking about and show that if we become serious instead of political and get down to the task there are some big decisions ahead on our use of fuels.

Australia’s 2000 emissions were 553 million tonnes – note the difference to the US level.

Now to cut that by 5 per cent does not look that hard. We merely go down to around 525 million tonnes. The trouble is that we are growing and by 2020 the ball park estimates are that our emissions will rise to around 664 million tonnes even after counting the renewable energy program.

So we have to cut emissions by 139 million tonnes to 525 million tonnes by 2020 on our criteria and much more than that if the American criteria are used.

The most straight forward way of quickly cutting emissions is to shut down Victorian brown coal generation and close the high-emitting South Australian station Playford B. The ill-conceived Rudd/Turnbull scheme has Australia possibly guaranteeing the brown coal power stations’ $7 billion debt. If we replace that with a sensible policy it would cost about $5 billion to eliminate and replace two Latrobe Valley generators with gas. Yallourn and Hazelwood are the two obvious ones. If we replace them with gas fired turbines we save about 26 million tonnes of carbon or about 19 per cent of the 2020 target. Remember that Rudd and Turnbull were going to raise $114 billion by selling permits so that looks good value and it could be funded by a 1.6 per cent lift in power prices over 10 years.

So why not do it again and spend another $5 billion shutting the other two brown coal generators? We would reach 40 per cent of our target by spending less than 10 per cent of the Rudd/Turnbull money.

via Let Australia’s carbon reform begin – Robert Gottliebsen – News – Business Spectator.