theglobaljournal.net: Latest activities of group Battle for Energy

UNOS CUANTOS EUROS PARA EL PRESUPUESTO DIARIO

2015-09-04T21:13:58Z

La solucion SIGNIFICA dinero, Financiera lebertad, descanzo, salud, ayuda solidaria; Otros párr Poder SIGNIFICA, grandeza, medio de conquista, etc., sin Sé lo que SIGNIFICA para ti, Lo Que Si Estoy Seguro De que Para Toda persona de la USO sano de la razon, el dinero es Necesario Para El Desempeño diario, es por Eso que invito a todos Los Que inclinarse this text Que evaluen Una muy buena oportunidad Que le presento de CONSEGUIR Un poco de euros diario, OPORTUNIDAD this Ya Viene aportandole Un poco de euros Cientos de Personas Que creyeron en this project, es Realmente Lo Que mejor me this resultando y para mi alegria, es algo Que Viene respondiendo Positivamente from Hacen dos años y Lo Que va of this 2.015.

TE INVITO A QUE PARTICIPE TU TAMBIEN , para ello solo tienes que inscribirte en el enlace que te dejo al final de este articulo. CONSIGUE AQUI UN POCO DE EUROS DIARIO

Importance Of Bioenergy Should Not Be Underestimated

2013-06-27T11:32:17Z

Over the next decade millions of tonnes of biomass will burn in power stations across Europe. But if we are not careful many of the benefits of using biomass could also go up in smoke. This has polarised opinion and caused criticism from NGO’s. Dr. Matthew Aylott from Bioeconomy Consultants NNFCC argues that, while concerns shouldn’t be ignored, they do not reflect the reality.

The abundance of biomass makes it one of the world's most important sources of renewable energy. But this resource is not evenly spread. The UK for example produces relatively small volumes of biomass but growing demand is resulting in a sharp increase in wood imports from countries like the US and Canada. In fact the UK is now one of the world’s largest importers of biomass. The meteroic growth of the UK biomass industry has been made possible by the public subsidies available to bioenergy generators. This has understandably led to intense scrutiny of biomass to ensure it not only delivers greenhouse gas savings but does so in a way that offers taxpayers value for money.

And this scrutiny is unlikely to diminish if predictions on the future use of biomass are correct. According to research funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) we are only at the tip of the iceberg. DECC claim that bioenergy could deliver up to 11 per cent of the UK's primary energy demand by 2020 (1) and will continue to play an important role in energy production until at least 2050 (2).

The use of biomass in energy production is, however, faced with three key criticisms. Firstly, it is expensive compared to other forms of low carbon energy. Secondly, it drives up the cost of wood used in other markets, like manufacturing and construction. And finally, it does not deliver greenhouse gas savings over meaningful timescales relevant to climate change targets.

If we take a worst case scenario then one or more of these statements may be true but when managed sustainably, biomass is an essential part of the portfolio of renewable energy technologies; delivering low cost, low carbon heat and power that can help reverse the decline in the global forestry sector.

The true cost of biomass

A study by ARUP for the UK Government in 2011 (3) – which NNFCC contributed evidence to – found that co-firing biomass in coal-fired power stations is among the cheapest forms of renewable energy. At scales, greater than 20MW biomass co-firing was found to cost around £167,000/MW with an operating cost of £30,000/MW/yr.

This makes co-firing biomass far cheaper than many other forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar. For example, a 5MW wind turbine has a capital cost of around £1,524,000/MW and an operating cost of £57,000/MW/yr.

Incentives for bio-energy production are also likely to have wider economic benefits, such as investment and jobs in the UK. NNFCC estimates suggest that the biomass heat and power sector (excluding the manufacture of new equipment) could employ 50,000 people in the UK by 2020 (4).

The UK has already seen significant new investment in biomass handling facilities at major ports. In March 2013, Associated British Ports announced it was investing £100 million in new wood pellet handling facilities at the Ports of Immingham, Hull and Goole to support the conversion of Drax – the UK's largest power station – to run off 50 per cent biomass. The project will create over 200 new jobs.

However, if subsidies for bio-energy production were to increase the cost of wood and push other industries out of the UK, we could see a net loss in jobs. The panel industry-led 'Stop Burning Our Trees' campaign quotes unpublished research from consultants Pöyry, stating that energy production creates 2 man-hours of work per tonne of timber used, while making panels, joinery products and paper creates 178 man-hours of work per tonne of timber (5).

This, however, assumes that we are limited by the amount of low quality wood available and that the two industries cannot exist simultaneously. In contrast, evidence shows that both markets are still growing and forest production is increasing to meet this demand (6).

Impact on wood prices

If heat and power generators are incentivised to use biomass then this could artificially drive up the price of wood for other industries. This could have a negative impact on manufacturers and consumers.

The UK Wood Panel Industries Federation states that “the high price that energy companies are able to pay for UK trees may eventually mean it's uneconomic to make things with wood in this country. The factories that produce kitchens, windows, wardrobes, chipboards, building panels and many other useful things may have to move abroad, to places where costs are lower.”

There is also the concern that in cost-competitive markets, wood may be substituted for cheaper alternatives like plastic (7) and further research is needed on the environmental impact of substituting wood for other materials in manufacturing.

But it remains unclear what impact, if any, bioenergy is having on the price of wood used in other industries. It is certainly true that the price of wood in general has risen above inflation over the last decade and this has coincided with the growth of bioenergy in the developed world. However, it is very difficult and potentially misleading to link the two.

In regions where bioenergy generation is subsidised, like Europe, the price generators can pay for wood remains lower than that the average price payable in other industrial roundwood markets (8). Bioenergy generators cannot afford the high quality wood demanded by other industries, like furniture or construction industries. In many cases without a bioenergy industry there would not be demand for the low quality feedstocks, such as diseased or damaged wood.

However, in supply-limited markets that require lower quality wood there may be greater competition with bioenergy generators, which could influence price. This again works on the assumption that we are limited by the amount of wood available.

Worldwide demand for industrial roundwood – i.e. non-fuel wood – is predicted to increase from 1668 million m3 in 2005 to 2165 million m3 by 2020 (6). The FAO predict that this increased demand will be met by increased production in areas like Europe and East Asia – where production is estimated to grow by 2 to 3 per cent per year up to 2020. And large bioenergy markets, like Europe and North America, are expected to remain net exporters of industrial roundwood up to 2020 and beyond.

In fact, industrial roundwood markets could benefit from the growing bioenergy sector, both economically and from a carbon sequestration viewpoint. Bringing neglected woodland back into management and actively managing forests to produce both useful timber products and biomass for heat and power production can increase carbon stocks and make forests more economically productive (9).

Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass

Biomass is not as carbon dense as fuel made from fossilised plant material (i.e. coal or gas) - so you need more of it to produce the same amount of power. For every megawatt-hour of electricity generated, biomass will initially release up to twice as much carbon dioxide as coal and up to four times as much as gas. But unlike coal or gas, we can re-absorb this carbon dioxide in just a few years by replacing the trees we cut down or thinning forests to make them more productive.

The time it takes for a new plant to absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that was released during the harvest, transport and combustion of the felled plant is called the 'carbon payback' rate. This is important when considering the environmental benefits of using biomass.

Calculating this rate requires a life cycle assessment which takes into account all of the contributing factors to carbon dioxide emissions across the entire biomass supply chain. The rate varies according to the type of biomass being used.

Biomass that has come to the end of its life, such as inedible food residues, will rot if left to decompose naturally and release methane and carbon dioxide – both greenhouse gases. Similarly, forests tend to decline after a number of years and start producing more deadwood. This deadwood will decompose on the forest floor, again releasing methane and carbon dioxide.

If we manage forests by taking out thinnings and deadwood, we can improve productivity, prevent the release of greenhouse gases and create a feedstock for bioenergy generation. But there will also be emissions associated with the harvest and transportation of the wood, which must be paid off. Research tells us that the carbon payback from forest thinnings used in energy production can be as little as four years (10; 11; 12; 13). However, we are limited by the accessibility and availability of forest thinnings.

As we start producing bioenergy on a larger scale some NGO’s believe that the use of whole trees will increase. They argue that this will result in longer and less palatable carbon payback periods from bioenergy. Research (10; 14) suggests that it may take 40 years or more to payback the carbon released when using whole trees in electricity generation.

But what is an acceptable carbon payback period? This is a crucial political question. Europe has 2020 and 2050 emissions targets to meet and if we don’t see an emissions reduction from substituting coal or gas with biomass until after 2050 some will argue we shouldn't be using whole trees to generate electricity and should instead stick to using 'cleaner' alternatives. However, this oversimplifies a more complex picture.

A typical wind turbine can take around three months (15) to payback the carbon used or disturbed in its construction, while a solar photovoltaic panel has a carbon payback period of up to two and a half years (16). On the face of it wind and solar would seem to have an environmental advantage over biomass. However, wind and solar are intermittent and can't be used to meet peak or base-load power demands, unlike biomass.

Hydro-electric can be used in peak and base-load power production, while nuclear can also deliver base-load power, but each of these technologies faces considerable planning and cost barriers that are likely to stunt their future growth.

Without biomass our only alternative would be to use more coal, oil and gas to meet peak and base-load power demands; dwindling sources of energy whose carbon payback rates are not measured in decades but are instead measured in millennia.

The importance of bioenergy simply cannot be underestimated. We need to move away from single issue politics and look at the bigger picture, by considering the broader benefits and implications of utilising a diverse portfolio of renewable energy sources, including biomass.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

Photo © DR

References

(1) DECC. 2012. UK Bioenergy Strategy. Download at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/bio-energy/5142-bioenergy-strategy-.pdf

(2) DECC. 2010. 2050 Pathways Analysis. Download at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/What%20we%20do/A%20low%20carbon%20UK/2050/216-2050-pathways-analysis-report.pdf

(3) ARUP. 2011. Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK. Download at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/147863/3237-cons-ro-banding-arup-report.pdf

(4) NNFCC. 2012. UK jobs in the bioenergy sectors by 2020, NNFCC 11-025. Download at: www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/uk-jobs-in-the-bioenergy-sectors-by-2020-nnfcc-11-025

(5) Pöyry. Download at: www.stopburningourtrees.org/why_its_wrong.html

(6) FAO. 2009. State of the World's Forests. Download at: http://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0350e/i0350e.pdf

(7) The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. 2012. Dirtier than coal? Why Government plans to subsidise burning trees are bad for the planet. 2012. Download at: www.rspb.org.uk/Images/biomass_report_tcm9-326672.pdf

(8) FAOStat. 2012. Forestry Production and Trade. Download at: http://faostat.fao.org

(9) Sedjo R and Tian X. 2012. Does Wood Bioenergy Increase Carbon Stocks in Forests? Journal of Forestry, Vol. 110, pp. 304-311. Download at: www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2012/00000110/00000006/art00005

(10) McKechnie J, et al. 2011. Forest Bioenergy or Forest Carbon? Assessing Trade-Offs in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Wood-Based Fuels.Environ, Sci. Technol., Vol. 45, pp. 789-795. Download at: www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/McKechnie-et-al-EST-2010.pdf

(11) Manomet. 2010. Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study. Download at: www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRez.pdf

(12) Repo A, Tuomi M and Liski, J. 2010. Indirect Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Producing Bioenergy from Forest Harvest Residues. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, Vol. 3, pp. 107-115.

(13) Bernier P and Paré D. 2012. Using ecosystem CO2 measurements to estimate the timing and magnitude of greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy. Global Change Biology, online only. Download at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01197.x/abstract

(14) Southern Environmental Law Center. 2012. Biomass Supply and Carbon Accounting for Southeastern Forests. Download at: www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/publications/biomass-carbon-study-FINAL.pdf

(15) Martinez E., et al. 2009. Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renewable Energy, Vol. 34, pp. 667-673. Download at: www.cynulliadcymru.org/sc_3_-01-09__p8__further_evidence_from_bwea_cymru_on_carbon_reduction_via_land_use.pdf.pdf

(16) Fthenakis VM, Kim HC and Alsema E. 2008. Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles. Environ, Sci. Technol., Vol. 42, pp. 2168-2174. Download at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es071763q

Carter vs Obama

2012-07-09T15:16:58Z

The Crisis in Energy Policy, by John M. Deutch, Harvard University Press, €22.50, $24.95.

John Deutch has worked for 35 years on energy matters, as a government official, a university scholar and an advisor to industry. He has one embarrassing admission: the failure of US energy policy. The facts do not entirely support his views, in particular with regard to the US dependence on imported liquid fuels. Between 2005-12, the share of imported oil fell from 60 percent to 45, due to the surge of new domestic production and a decline in consumption. Deutch reminds us that President Carter’s aim in establishing the Department of Energy (DOE) was to manage the energy program and formulate a national energy policy, but that: “Few would deny that the DOE has not come close to achieving these objectives.” Carter, pressured by the first oil crisis, proved himself both a visionary and efficient in his judgment and methodology. Using detailed proposals, he would work with Congress to enact comprehensive energy legislation. During the Reagan years, Congress revoked most of the provisions of this legislation. President Obama, Deutch observes, has taken a different approach. Rather than present Congress with a framework for climate change, “he has asked Congress to craft legislation. Delegating an issue that has such complex technical, economic and political aspects, is equivalent to shouting ‘jump ball’,” comments Deutch. Inevitably, it had to result in faulty, inadequate legislation – or none. This proved to be the case, as climate legislation has fallen short during Obama’s first mandate. To learn more and understand the subject more deeply, read Deutch’s short book. It will certainly be worth the energy you put in.

–H.M.

India: The Fiery Coalfields of Jharia

2012-07-09T11:15:19Z

The mineral-rich and once-beautiful area of Jharia is on fire. Literally. Incredible economic growth has increased the demand for energy. But the lethal tactics applied to extract this energy from Jharia’s coalmines are risking the lives of the region’s inhabitants.

In Jharia, in the federal state of Jharkhand, around 600,000 people live in the middle of one of India’s biggest coal mining areas. For most of them, there is no benefit to be gained. Quite the opposite: the soil, the water and the air are now contaminated, of all things, in an area that was previously rich in woodlands. With India’s strong economic growth, the need for energy, and thus the hunger for the dirty and supposedly cheap raw material coal, will only grow larger and larger. The coalfield of Jharia is, on the one hand, India’s biggest coal mining area and, on the other, the area with the most coal seam fires. Coal seam fires are not only one of the biggest causes of environmental pollution locally, but also globally. These blazes spout enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the air, in India alone 1.4 billion tons a year. As a result, India has become the fourth biggest producer of greenhouse gas worldwide.

The story of Jharia is the story of how the greed for profit, vested interests and the thirst for power have prevailed, leaving one of the most mineral-rich areas in India economically backward. The mining marginalizes the poor and deepens social inequality in the name of economic development, profiting mostly large metropolises like Delhi, Bangalore and Mumbai.

Opened in 1896, the Jharia mines in Dhanbad district, around 270 km from Ranchi, have huge deposits of coal. Shortly after 1971, the coal mines were nationalized. Since then, their operator has been Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) which now controls one of the biggest coal deposits in India and the whole of Asia.1 Before 1973, coal mining was done underground, but after 1973, BCCL decided to shift to opencast. Right now BCCL mainly conducts opencast mining and– usually illegally, since in 97 percent of cases, no license has been granted. Opencast mining is more profitable than deep mining because productivity is significantly higher. In Jharia, coal is mined in the villages, next to the houses. In short, on people’s doorsteps. Even on the streets, on railway lines, in the station itself, which is no longer a station, coal is mined. The chairman of the railway board voiced a major complain against the illegal mining under the railway tracks. Ashok Agarwal from ‘Jharia Coalfield Bachao Samiti’ (Save Jharia Coalfield Committee), an organization formed by the inhabitants of Jharia to fight against the eviction orders of BCCL, says: “But the railways belong to the government of India, practically everything belongs to the government of India, so the matter has been hushed up.”

Theoretically, the mined area should be filled with sand and water afterwards, so it can be cultivated again. For cost reasons, however, this never happens, which leads to the coal seams coming into contact with oxygen and catching fire. India has the most coal blazes worldwide. BCCL representatives estimate that there are 67 fires in Jharia alone. Ashok Agarwal: “The fires which take place in the mines and all over the Jharia region are deliberately not being dowsed by BCCL. The mines are full of water, and if this water was properly channeled onto these fires they would be immediately quenched. Whenever the fires are against the interest of BCCL they are quickly dowsed. But most of the fires are in the interest of BCCL. The reason behind this: BCCL opted for opencast mining so they need more and more land for the expansion of these opencast mines. And land is not easily available. So they allow these fires to expand. As the fires progress, more and more land is declared hazardous, and the people are forced to evacuate. So BCCL gets land for the expansion of the mines and for the extraction of coal. This perhaps is the biggest tragedy Jharia is facing: the fires in Jharia are not being dowsed deliberately.”

“Our house is always very hot and smoke continuously billowsfrom out under the floor,” says one female inhabitantof Bokalpari, a small town on the edge of fire. In addition, thesmoke and vapors contain poisons, including carbon monoxide,sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, but also soot, methaneand arsenic. The damage to health is enormous. Lung andskin diseases, cancer and stomach disorders are only someof the illnesses that the people in Jharia have to fight. AshokAgarwal: “Because of this massive pollution here practicallyeverybody who is staying within the vicinity of Jhariatown, in fact most of the inhabitants of Jharia town as well,all of them have lung problems. For example bronchitis, canceror asthma. Or even more serious diseases. All because ofthe huge amount of coal dust inside their lungs. The averagelife expectancy of the inhabitants of this region nowadays isvery, very low.” What to do if somebody gets ill? The governmenthas its own hospitals but these hospitals are only for theemployees of BCCL.2 Ashok Agarwal says: “But the huge pollutiondoes not affect only BCCL employees. It affects everybodyliving here. And the poor people have to pay the bill forthe medical care from their own pocket when they get ill. Butmost of them don’t have the money to pay for medical services.

So they don’t go to the hospital at all.”Instead of doing something against the fires, one of the biggestresettlement plans worldwide is to be carried out: JhariaAction Plan (JAP). The inhabitants of the areas on fire are supposed to be resettled in Belgaria, a new town in the middleof the jungle. There is no school there, no medical care, noshops, and, worst of all, no jobs. Mostly, there are one-bedroomhouses where families, often numbering up to ten, are expectedto live. Ashok Agarwal says: “These people have been practicallyforced to go there. They have never been consulted aboutwhether this place suits them or not. They have not been askedwhich type of rehousing they want. BCCL decided on its ownto give them just one room of nine feet by eleven feet with onebathroom and a kitchen. And this in a far away place. In Belgaria,which is 8 km away from Jharia town.” Most of the peoplewho have already been resettled in Belgaria have been promisedRs 10,000 in compensation and 250 days of work. But mostof them have not received anything. In addition, the governmentwas supposed to provide for all of the infrastructural facilitiessuch as post offices, hospitals, schools, shopping malls, aswell as essentials such as electricity and water. But the governmenthas not delivered on its promises. Ashok Agarwal: “Allthese people have been shifted to Belgaria, but all the promisedinfrastructural facilities are not there. Most of the people didn’teven get the money they have been promised. One man has justdied because he couldn’t get any medical help and because hedidn’t even have the money to buy something to eat.”

So many decide to stay in Jharia. In the fire. In spite of theblazes. In spite of the perpetual grey veil that lies over the town.In spite of the air pollution, which makes breathing almostimpossible on a bad day. And in spite of the coal dust, whichsettles like a second skin on the body.

To order a copy of The Global Journal click here.

Text and Photography by Isabell Zipfel

The Next Generation of Nuclear Energy

2012-07-06T19:59:57Z

Since 2001, a project has been underway to determine ‘alternative’ nuclear technologies, conducted by a large group of scientists from over 15 nations. The list of specifications is very demanding, but with a simple objective: can science provide radical new solutions to allow us to dispense with ageing second and third generation nuclear technologies? The group came up with a set of discoveries promising remarkable advances. So, why does no one talk about them? Nuclear energy, it seems, remains a sensitive subject at the global level. Our reporter, Leah McGrath Goodman, has decided to throw some light on the matter.

It is a little-known fact that the heavily guarded, Cold War era fortress that houses the US Department of Energy (DOE) in Washington is named after – as one official jokes without a trace of irony - “a deeply depressed man.”

That man, James Forrestal, first US Secretary of Defense, died in 1949 under strange circumstances. Depending on whom you believe, he was either assassinated or committed suicide by tying the end of a bathrobe sash around his neck, the other to a radiator, and throwing himself out of a hospital window. His body was found, shirtless, on a ledge, in an alley. The investigation into his death was marred by rumors of foul play, but it appeared he left a suicide note.

Quoting a passage from Ajax, the Sophocles’ tragedy about a warrior who takes his own life after deciding he has lost his nobility and dreads the prospect of living in a world in constant flux, Forrestal wrote: “Worn by the waste of time … Comfortless, nameless, hopeless save … In the dark prospect of the yawning grave.”

Not cheerful stuff, but perhaps a fitting warning for the agency that makes its home at the former compound of the Atomic Energy Commission and continues to devote the majority of its resources to maintaining US nuclear stockpiles and cleaning up the toxic mess left behind by years of manufacturing nuclear weapons. Indeed, the DOE itself could be called a warrior grappling with a world in flux, its throwback existence a metaphor for the bind the world now finds itself in when faced with the future of nuclear. While Washington desperately wants to move forward, it is hamstrung by the failures of the past and the administrative wastes of the present.

Dr. Strangelove (who would feel right at home at the DOE’s concrete-bunker headquarters) would not approve. Still, in the wake of the Fukushima meltdown just over a year ago, it is clear that the rumors of the death of nuclear, like those surrounding the demise of General Forrestal, have been greatly exaggerated. Much stands in the way of the nuclear renaissance the world likely needs to avoid a fatal uptick in greenhouse gases, but emerging nuclear technologies with advanced safety features offer a zero-carbon alternative at a time when mankind may need it most.

Interestingly, it is not the specter of Fukushima that has slowed some of the progress on the nuclear front, but a boom in natural gas, which has flooded the marketplace on the back of advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (more popularly known as ‘fracking’). Traditionally, nuclear has beat gas by a long shot as the cheaper and greener energy option, but in recent years that has been less and less the case. Both are relied upon across the continents for their steady generation of electricity, but the ocean of natural gas stemming from perfected drilling techniques has led to rock-bottom prices in some parts of the world. “We are living at a historic moment in the evolution of energy markets,” Rex W. Tillerson, Chief Executive of ExxonMobil, pronounced in June at a conference in Kuala Lumpur. “How we respond will shape the quality of life for generations to come.”

Tillerson was not mincing words. Gas is poised to outstrip coal as the second most widely used source of energy worldwide by 2025. That takes into account soaring demand in Asia, which is projected to grow by more than 50 percent in the next three decades. Coupled with the chilling effect of Fukushima, that does not bode well for the future of nuclear, even with its carbon-neutral appeal. While natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it is still a fossil fuel that produces its share of dirty greenhouse gases. And that does not bode well for the future of the planet.

“It’s really a pick-your-poison sort of issue: nuclear comes with radiation and fear, while greenhouse gases and climate change come with uncertainty and the potential for serious impacts far in the future,” says Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming. “As things stand, there’s no way we can produce enough solar and wind and hydro to replace the existing base load and power needs we’re dealing with, let alone the growth in energy demand we’re going to see. And everyone is beginning to realize that.”

‘Base load’ is the term used by experts to refer to the minimum sustained level of electricity needed to deliver power to the world’s energy consumers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If the world’s electricity portfolio was a layer cake, nuclear, coal and natural gas would make up the bulk of the cake, with renewable fuels serving as the frosting. Renewables remain promising and critically important – comprising one fifth of global electricity generation – but they still aren’t reliable enough or robust enough to stand in for the much brawnier fossil fuels or nuclear in the face of current energy demand and global projections for growth. By 2035, says the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), world demand for energy will increase by one-third, with energy-related carbon emissions skyrocketing by 20 percent. A lower rate of global economic growth in the short term would only make a marginal difference to longer-term energy and climate trends.

To read the full report, subscribe or order a copy of The Global Journal.

By Leah McGrath Goodman

“Hello Darkness, My Old Friend”

2012-05-23T14:12:56Z

“Artificial light in the environment must be considered a chronic impairment of habitat...While lamp efficiency and consideration of SPD (spectral power distribution) are significant accomplishments, true night sky friendly lighting can still only be achieved by vigilant examination of how much light actually needs to be used and routine implementation of minimum levels required for security and recreation" (“Seeing Blue”).

According to the Clinton Foundation, there are some 35 million municipal streetlights in the U.S. Most of these are of the older "cobra head" variety with "drop lenses" that extend down below the fixture and project much of the light output horizontally - into the eyes of drivers and pedestrians - and even upward into the sky, where it does no good at all. The International Dark-Sky Association estimates that 30 percent of the light from such fixtures, and the energy generated to produce it, is wasted in this way. When one considers that there are at least several times as many private outdoor lighting sources - "security" lights, advertising billboards, and purely ornamental floodlights directed at signs, trees, and the sides of buildings - the true scope of this waste becomes clear. In the battle against global warming, reduction of unnecessary outdoor lighting should be low-hanging fruit. In addition to consuming electricity without providing any benefit, excessive and ill-designed outdoor lighting also negatively affects human health and the natural environment in a myriad of ways.

Some lights are far worse than others. Now that mercury vapor lights are being phased out because of their poor energy efficiency and high mercury content, the blue-white metal halide lamps are the most environmentally damaging type in common use. Metal halide lamps emit a substantial portion of their light as shorter wavelengths, including in the ultraviolet range, where it cannot be seen by people (and therefore provides no benefit) but can - as with light from any UV source -damage retinas and contribute to macular degeneration. According to a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Management, blue light is also especially effective at altering circadian rhythms and suppressing melatonin production, leading to difficulty sleeping (among those exposed at night, for example, people living in houses illuminated by metal halide streetlights). According to Professor Abraham Haim, head of the Center for Interdisciplinary Chronobiological Research at the University of Haifa and co-author of that study, "Short wavelengths should be eliminated from the nocturnal spectrum." A low melatonin level, caused in part by exposure to metal halide or other blue-white light sources, has also been linked to a higher risk of breast and prostate cancer.

Streetlights with full cut-off fixtures (flat lenses) project light downward at the street below, and not upward or to the sides, making them preferable to the more commonly used protruding “drop lenses” that spread the light out in a wide cone of illumination, much of it directed laterally and into the sky. Most streetlights could also be far less bright (lower lumens) and still be adequate for safety, while consuming less electricity and reducing the associated carbon emissions. The goal should be better light, and less light. While the energy efficiency of new LED lights is promising, more work needs to be done to develop LED lighting with greatly reduced blue-spectrum emissions in order to decrease its most negative impacts on the night environment. We must wean ourselves off the idea that night must be as bright as day: humans, animals, and astronomers all benefit from naturally dark nights.

More light does not mean more safety: intersections DO usually need to be lit (preferably with high or low-pressure sodium lamps in full cut-off fixtures), but on a straightaway, bright lights mostly serve to embolden drivers to increase speeds. Bright white bulbs, especially those such as metal-halide that emit a large quantity of UV light, cause much greater glare for the same light output compared to sodium-vapor bulbs. The eye instinctively reacts to the sudden onslaught of bright white and UV light by contracting the pupil to protect the retina. Then, when the driver or biker passes back out from under the streetlight, they are temporarily blinded as their eyes struggle to readjust to more normal night-time conditions. This effect leads to an increased risk of accidents in the areas that drivers pass through immediately after leaving the cone of illumination of a blue-white streetlight.

Dark streets and houses are often more safe than lit-up areas. This counter-intuitive effect results from the fact that thieves and other criminals need light in order to "work" (consider also that a potential intruder using a flashlight to see in a dark area is quite conspicuous), and pedestrians blinded by the glare from overly bright or poorly shielded fixtures have difficulty spotting threats (you can see this in the photos at the two Illinois Coalition sites). Many cities around the world have dramatically reduced outdoor lighting and experienced a decline in crime and accidents.

In short, outdoor lighting is often poorly designed or overused, and consequently does not provide the benefits to safety that one might expect, while negatively impacting human health.

Then there's the devastating cost to nature of lighting up the habitats of wild animals throughout the night. When one considers that most streetlights operate on photo sensors and so are on from dusk until dawn - perhaps an average of 12 hours each day in the northeast - it seems obvious that there must be some impact on wild animal species that evolved over millions of years in conditions of night-time darkness. And this is indeed the case. Like people, animals benefit from regular periods of darkness, and suffer in their absence. This is especially true for nocturnal animals, for which feeding, mating, and other critical behaviors are strongly (and negatively) influenced by artificial night-time illumination. Most of us are familiar with the attraction of nocturnal insects, particularly moths, to outdoor lights, but it is not widely understood just now negatively insect populations are impacted by artificial lighting. All the time and energy that insects expend circling endlessly about a lit bulb, which they may mistake for the moon, necessarily detracts from their ability to successfully find food or mates, while making them easy prey for predators such as spiders. A 2003 German study suggested that each streetlight in that nation was responsible for the deaths of, on average, 150 insects each night. Assuming a similar figure applies for each of the 35 million streetlights in the US, we might conclude that a staggering 5.25 billion insects die at streetlights on a typical American night!

Their detrimental effect on insect populations is one reason to eliminate unnecessary or ornamental outdoor lights, and use less bright (and better shielded) bulbs where possible, but it is also a reason to switch from blue-white lamps such as the mercury vapor and metal halide type, to yellower high or low-pressure sodium lamps. This is because insects (and most other wild animals) are most sensitive to light at the bluer end of the spectrum, including UV light. As a result, insects are more attracted to - and fatally ensnared by - blue-white lamps, relative to the yellower sodium-vapor type. In a 2000 German study published in Natur und Landschaft (see Eisenbeis and Hassel, below) the number of nocturnal insects captured was 50 percent lower overall, and 75 percent lower for Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) at sodium-vapor lamps, compared to the mercury-vapor type (which produces a white-blue light similar in spectrum to metal-halide lamps). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that replacing a single mercury-vapor or metal-halide streetlight bulb with a high or low-pressure sodium bulb could easily save the lives of 10,000 or more insects each year.

Even if one does not particularly care for insects per se, these creatures are vital links in the food chain, providing sustenance for thousands of species of birds, bats, reptiles and amphibians (aquatic insect larvae are also an important component of fish diets), and pollinating countless millions of flowering trees and plants each year. So avoiding light-induced deaths of insects would benefit - directly or indirectly - nearly every species of wild animal, and many wild (and domesticated) plant species as well.

In addition to their harmful effects on insects, bright and abundant outdoor lights intimidate salamanders and frogs, discouraging them from emerging from their daytime hiding places (in leaf litter, etc.) to feed or mate, and consequently reducing their populations as well. But the most detrimental effect of all is on bird migrations. Birds, accustomed to navigating by the moon, become disoriented by lights that are directed upward (either intentionally, as with ornamental floodlights and sports stadiums, or unintentionally, in the form of poorly shielded outdoor fixtures and illuminated buildings with large windows). Estimates for the number of birds killed each year in collisions with lighted structures range as high as 100 million in North America alone. Certainly this is a powerful reason to properly shield outdoor lights so they do not illuminate the sky, and the same argument can be made for turning off indoor lights when nobody is around, as well as taking the simple step of drawing the blinds or curtains at night.

Night light blocks our view of the starry sky and makes astronomicalobservations difficult or impossible, which is why astronomers have spearheaded the fight against light pollution. (See http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-environ.html).

Cornell’s campus observatory was rendered nearly unusable by the addition of dozens of nearby blue-white parking lot lights, as well as innumerable fixtures that might charitably be called "ornamental". The use of low-pressure sodium lamps (favored by astronomers because they emit light on a very narrow range of wavelengths, and so can be easily filtered out by spectrometers), combined with flat lenses and sensible shielding directing light downward (see Fig. 1), and simply not installing superfluous floodlights and ornamental fixtures on and around buildings and parking lots, could greatly reduce sky glow. It would also save money and CO2 emissions (since low-pressure sodium lamps are literally twice as energy efficient, measured in lumens of light produced per watt of energy, as metal-halide bulbs).

People who think they prefer bright blue-white light often come to like less bright, yellower, and smaller lights. (We personally think that the yellowish sodium-vapor lights, which are also the most environmentally friendly, are softer and more attractive than the blue-white metal halide "glare bombs".)

Sodium bulbs are also more energy efficient, and contain less mercury than metal halide bulbs. While it may not be financially feasible for local governments to install entirely new fixtures at the present time, the replacement of blue-white mercury vapor and metal halide streetlights and outdoor building lights with high-pressure sodium bulbs would be an inexpensive way to make our towns and cities friendlier to wildlife, while saving money in the long run (due to the increased efficiency of sodium-vapor bulbs, relative to the other types). Going forward, we should make sure that the environmental and human health effects of new outdoor lighting are adequately considered before new fixtures are installed!

The article was co-authored with Seth Bensel.

SOURCES:

William J. Clinton Foundation

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Science Daily

American Medical Assn. House of Delegates Resolution March 30, 2009

American Cancer Society

Audobon Magazine

General Electric Corporation

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Straight Talk

2012-03-06T18:20:31Z

What Will Work: Fighting Climate Change with Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Oxford University Press, £27 .50

It is one of the most common stories of mankind, to be repeated time and again: a few greedy individuals make profit at the expense of the populace. Take the financial scandal on Wall Street, speculators and the price of oil at the exchange market, or, in this case, climate change antagonists. Who exactly benefits from polluting the atmosphere? The environment? People? No. It’s the utility companies, their stakeholders and their paid spokespersons. Unfortunately, the general public cannot discern between what are scientific facts and what are downright lies. But thanks to Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Professor at the Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame we now learn why some deny that global warming is happening. We learn what is really at stake when we build new nuclear power plants. We learn that nuclear fission is not the answer to climate change, contrary to what many leaders, including the Obama administration, tell the public. With three post-docs in her pockets, biology, economics and hydrogeology, Shrader- Frechette takes the reader through the common pro-nuclear arguments and refutes them by relying on scientific evidence, logic and behind-the-scene investigations. Her powerful arguments are well thought through and quite easy to understand. One danger of reading the book is that it can infuriate the reader. As she demystifies the entire nuclear energy agenda, taking the reader through its scientific, medical, economic and ethical applications, the author reveals what must be today’s biggest scandal. Just consider some of her arguments. Reducing the carbon footprint by way of nuclear fission makes no sense because when one counts all 14 cycles of a nuclear power plant, it is evident that its creation, maintenance and dismantling require more energy than the nuclear reactor will generate in its lifetime. Furthermore, civil nuclear proliferation increases the chances of terrorist attack: it requires very little plutonium to make weapons, and already nuclear storage sites worldwide cannot explain how some plutonium has gone missing from their stocks. Or, those who live close to a “normally” functioning nuclear reactor are more at risk of cancer, especially children, who are 38 times as vulnerable to radioactivity as adults. Clearly, nuclear power plants are neither efficient nor safe. Yet last month the Obama administration authorized the creation of two nuclear power plants, costing the taxpayers $14 billion. But why do leaders pursue nuclear power as an answer to the energy crisis and energy security despite all the factors against it? Desperate as the situation might seem, the book offers compelling answers and solutions to one of our generation’s most pressing issues. Shrader- Frechette’s fiery tone is invigorating, and one can only wish for today’s leaders to be as conscientious, courageous and honest as she is.

—J.H.

Urban Planning is Key

2012-03-06T18:16:12Z

The Very Hungry City: Urban Energy Efficiency and the Economic Fate of Cities, Austin Troy, Yale University Press, £25.00/$28.00/20,00 €

In his new book Austin Troy shows how urban environment management is an important component of any solution addressing the energy crisis and climate change. As an associate professor at the University of Vermont and former city Planning Commissioner, the author’s obvious passion for urban energy efficiency and his straightforward and conversational writing style makes a somewhat dry topic truly fascinating. The book is sprinkled with the author’s pictures and personal anecdotes from field trips that took him across the United States and Europe. The reader thus gains insight into a Scandinavian urban redevelopment project that serves as a role model to the rest of the world or into the house of a Hollywood actor, who decided to turn his house “green.” A unique and rather clever feature of the book is its mini chapters on the different forms of existing energy and their sustainability, such as tar sands, nuclear fission, biofuels and wind; all to demonstrate to the reader that there is no “silver bullet” solution and that energy efficiency and energy conservation must absolutely be part of any serious action plan. The first part of the book outlines the energy crisis that cities worldwide are facing while the second part is all about solutions. Yet to the author’s credit he does not present the reader with a tedious list that has been regurgitated time and again. Instead, Troy delivers his message by going back to the historical roots of the problem and by using real-life examples, proving that it is possible for very hungry cities to go on a healthy diet.

—J.H.

#84 - Portable Light Project

2012-01-23T12:33:37Z

Check out if Portable Light Project is in The Top 100 NGOs 2013 Edition!

Designing revolutionary solar textiles.

Kit costs under $16.

With 25 percent of the global population lacking electricity, the Portable Light Project has responded by rethinking traditional methods of delivering clean energy and light. The non-profit initiative led by MIT professor Sheila Kennedy provides adaptable solar textile kits that enable the word’s poorest people to sew and weave bags, clothing and blankets that harvest energy.

Since developing its first prototype for Mexico’s Huichol Center in 2005, the organization has initiated projects in Brazil, South Africa and Nicaragua – in each case adapting the Portable Light to meet the needs of the local population in line with a ‘culturally-integrated’ approach. This ‘shape-shifting’ device has ranged from blankets for MDR-TB patients needing exposure to sunlight in South Africa, to FLAP bags for journalists in Kenya requiring light for travel and energy to charge cameras and cell phones allowing for instant reporting.

Regardless of its final form, the fast-charging and affordable flexible film is equipped with a reflector, USB port, LED light and rechargeable battery capable of charging a cell phone, medical devices, or radios. Working with an international team of community leaders, anthropologists, doctors, architects and engineers, the Portable Light Project is in the process of scaling-up production and distribution of its solar textile kits in order to catalyse new energy-generating communities across the globe.

Winning Big At The Energy Casino

2012-01-20T11:52:34Z

The Asylum, Renegades Who Hijacked the World’s Oil Market

Leah McGrath Goodman, Harper Collins, $27.99

From its home in lower Manhattan, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) –the world’s largest physical commodity futures exchange– trades billions of dollars worth of energy products on a daily basis. Yet, despite heavily influencing soaring oil spot prices through a virtual monopoly on open market futures that lasted until the advent of screen trading in 2006, this club of ‘thugs’ and ‘dropouts’ emerged from humble beginnings. As financial journalist Leah Mcgrath Goodman recounts in her new oral history, the asylum, NYMEX’s evolution from a ragtag bunch of potato traders to oil market king-makers was driven in part by astute leadership, greed and sheer blind luck. Goodman’s story begins in the 1970s, when NYMEX trading activity revolved around the perennial efforts of Maine potato farmers to hedge on future price movements, and the corresponding attempt by speculators to game the system through last-minute manipulation. When the market was shut down by regulators in 1976, however, after defaults on deliveries of more than 50 million pounds of potatoes, this dwindling ‘band of outsiders’ despised by the Wall street elite were left rudderless. Taking a punt on a dormant contract for heating oil futures, then-chairman Michel Marks unwittingly set NYMEX members on a path to untold riches, in the process creating the world’s first free oil market and a natural gas futures market –the ‘$1000 table at the energy casino’.

With a gossipy fixation on the individuals –and their myriad vices– that propelled the rise of NYMEX, Goodman clearly writes with the lay reader in mind. At the same time, the breathless descriptions of vicious boardroom politics and a pit-culture ruled by drugs, sex and violence serves to distract from the real story. Which is one of lax regulatory oversight and a physical ‘market’ increasingly hostage to the price volatility prized by non-industry speculators.

By A. K.