Green targets to run our cars on plants are in danger of driving slavery, world hunger and climate change, according to a damning new report into the ethics of biofuels.
The UK is currently signed up to European targets that dictate that by 2020, 10 per cent of transport fuels must come from biofuels like sugar cane, corn or palm oil.
But an independent study by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the target is already back-firing because the crops are taking land away from food production and therefore driving up food prices.
Production of cheap biofuels in developing countries is also driving slave labour and human rights abuses.
Worst of all biofuels are failing to bring down greenhouse gases, even though the policy was designed to fight climate change, because production is so energy intensive.
At the moment the UK gets 3 per cent of transport fuels from biofuels, but only a third is from certified ‘ethical sources’.
The Nuffield study said there must be a compulsory certification scheme for all biofuels imported into and sold in Europe in order to ensure that the 2020 target actually helps the planet rather than causing worse problems.
Professor Ottoline Leyser, of the University of Cambridge, said the targets would be ‘unethical’ if they are met without ensuring biofuels are produced in a sustainable way.
She suggested more biofuels should be produced in Britain from waste products, straw, ‘energy grass’ or willow. There should also be more research into ‘second generation’ biofuels, for example algae grown in tanks in the desert, that are better for the environment and do not take land away from food.
“Doing nothing is actually an immoral position. We need to address these issues urgently," she said.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Google invests $168 million in solar power plant
AFP
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Google said Monday it has invested $168 million to help complete the construction of one of the world's biggest solar energy power plants in California's Mojave Desert.
The plant, which is being developed by BrightSource Energy, will generate 392 gross megawatts (MW) of clean solar energy when it is completed in 2013, enough to supply power to 85,000 homes a year.
"That's the equivalent of taking more than 90,000 cars off the road over the lifetime of the plant, projected to be more than 25 years," Google's director of green business operations Rick Needham said in a blog post.
"The investment makes business sense and will help ensure that one of the world's largest solar energy projects is completed," Needham said.
The US Department of Energy said meanwhile that it has finalized $1.6 billion in loan guarantees to support the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System.
"Today's announcement is creating over 1,000 jobs in California while laying the foundation for thousands more clean energy jobs across the country in the future," US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
"Through the loan program we are supporting some of the largest, most innovative clean energy projects in the world, and those investments are helping us to out-compete and out-innovate our global competitors to win the future," Chu said.
President Barack Obama's administration has been encouraging companies to invest in green growth, calling it a new source of jobs and fearing that other nations - led by China - are stealing the march.
The Ivanpah project uses mirrors called heliostats to focus the rays of the sun onto a solar receiver on top of a tower. Steam generated by the solar receiver spins a turbine and generator to make electricity.
The Ivanpah Power Tower will be 450 feet (137 meters) tall when it is completed and will use more than 173,000 dual-mirror heliostats.
The project is being built by US engineering giant Bechtel and construction began in October 2010.
The Mountain View, California-based Google said the BrightSource investment brings the company's total investment in clean energy projects to $250 million.
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Google said Monday it has invested $168 million to help complete the construction of one of the world's biggest solar energy power plants in California's Mojave Desert.
The plant, which is being developed by BrightSource Energy, will generate 392 gross megawatts (MW) of clean solar energy when it is completed in 2013, enough to supply power to 85,000 homes a year.
"That's the equivalent of taking more than 90,000 cars off the road over the lifetime of the plant, projected to be more than 25 years," Google's director of green business operations Rick Needham said in a blog post.
"The investment makes business sense and will help ensure that one of the world's largest solar energy projects is completed," Needham said.
The US Department of Energy said meanwhile that it has finalized $1.6 billion in loan guarantees to support the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System.
"Today's announcement is creating over 1,000 jobs in California while laying the foundation for thousands more clean energy jobs across the country in the future," US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
"Through the loan program we are supporting some of the largest, most innovative clean energy projects in the world, and those investments are helping us to out-compete and out-innovate our global competitors to win the future," Chu said.
President Barack Obama's administration has been encouraging companies to invest in green growth, calling it a new source of jobs and fearing that other nations - led by China - are stealing the march.
The Ivanpah project uses mirrors called heliostats to focus the rays of the sun onto a solar receiver on top of a tower. Steam generated by the solar receiver spins a turbine and generator to make electricity.
The Ivanpah Power Tower will be 450 feet (137 meters) tall when it is completed and will use more than 173,000 dual-mirror heliostats.
The project is being built by US engineering giant Bechtel and construction began in October 2010.
The Mountain View, California-based Google said the BrightSource investment brings the company's total investment in clean energy projects to $250 million.
Study: Some Natural Gas Threatens Climate More Than Coal
By TENNILLE TRACY
WASHINGTON—Extracting natural gas from shale formations using hydraulic fracturing generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than burning coal, according to a new study that drew immediate attacks from oil and gas interests already facing pressure from lawmakers and regulators worried about the environmental effects of shale-gas development.
The study, conducted by professors at Cornell University, found that natural gas obtained from shale formations using a process known as "hydraulic fracturing" releases large amounts of methane. When methane emissions are taken into account, natural gas from these shale formations produces more greenhouse gases than coal and coal-fired electricity generation over a 20-year time horizon, the study said.
Until now, Democrats on Capitol Hill and some environmental groups have looked to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" that could help the country make the transition from carbon-heavy fossil fuels such as coal to cleaner sources of energy.
"That is what people have tended to focus on in the past," said Robert Howarth, one of the authors of the report and a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell. "I did not expect the methane number to be as big as it is."
The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, said the study relied on "weak" data regarding methane leaks and didn't take into account the efficiency of natural gas when used for power generation.
"The data is pretty weak for the shale gas emissions," said Russell Jones, senior economic adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. "The basis for those precise numbers is not very precise."
The study complicates the politics of natural gas at a time when the Obama administration and members of Congress say they want to encourage natural gas production as a way to replace coal and oil in electricity generation and transportation.
Last month, President Barack Obama directed Energy Secretary Steven Chu to find ways to improve the safety of natural-gas production, and praised natural gas as a domestically produced fuel source that could reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon pollution.
U.S. Senate lawmakers, meanwhile, are in the process of developing a nationwide clean-energy standard after Mr. Obama said he wanted the country to generate 80% of electricity from clean-energy sources by 2035.
The Cornell study "certainly suggests that, if you're going to include natural gas in such a system, you have to get better data and account for these emissions," said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center.
The new study attempts to measure the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions released during the production and use of the fuels. It found that, when natural gas is being produced, up to 8% of the methane in it escapes into the atmosphere over the lifetime of a well. Much of the methane leaks during the fracturing process, when companies fracture open the rock formations to increase the flow of natural gas.
The study also raised additional questions about the process of hydraulic fracturing, which has been criticized for its potential effects on drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a study to determine whether the process contaminates water supplies.
The Cornell study is expected to be published this week. Dow Jones Newswires obtained an advanced copy. The report's contents were first reported by The Hill.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON—Extracting natural gas from shale formations using hydraulic fracturing generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than burning coal, according to a new study that drew immediate attacks from oil and gas interests already facing pressure from lawmakers and regulators worried about the environmental effects of shale-gas development.
The study, conducted by professors at Cornell University, found that natural gas obtained from shale formations using a process known as "hydraulic fracturing" releases large amounts of methane. When methane emissions are taken into account, natural gas from these shale formations produces more greenhouse gases than coal and coal-fired electricity generation over a 20-year time horizon, the study said.
Until now, Democrats on Capitol Hill and some environmental groups have looked to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" that could help the country make the transition from carbon-heavy fossil fuels such as coal to cleaner sources of energy.
"That is what people have tended to focus on in the past," said Robert Howarth, one of the authors of the report and a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell. "I did not expect the methane number to be as big as it is."
The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, said the study relied on "weak" data regarding methane leaks and didn't take into account the efficiency of natural gas when used for power generation.
"The data is pretty weak for the shale gas emissions," said Russell Jones, senior economic adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. "The basis for those precise numbers is not very precise."
The study complicates the politics of natural gas at a time when the Obama administration and members of Congress say they want to encourage natural gas production as a way to replace coal and oil in electricity generation and transportation.
Last month, President Barack Obama directed Energy Secretary Steven Chu to find ways to improve the safety of natural-gas production, and praised natural gas as a domestically produced fuel source that could reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon pollution.
U.S. Senate lawmakers, meanwhile, are in the process of developing a nationwide clean-energy standard after Mr. Obama said he wanted the country to generate 80% of electricity from clean-energy sources by 2035.
The Cornell study "certainly suggests that, if you're going to include natural gas in such a system, you have to get better data and account for these emissions," said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center.
The new study attempts to measure the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions released during the production and use of the fuels. It found that, when natural gas is being produced, up to 8% of the methane in it escapes into the atmosphere over the lifetime of a well. Much of the methane leaks during the fracturing process, when companies fracture open the rock formations to increase the flow of natural gas.
The study also raised additional questions about the process of hydraulic fracturing, which has been criticized for its potential effects on drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a study to determine whether the process contaminates water supplies.
The Cornell study is expected to be published this week. Dow Jones Newswires obtained an advanced copy. The report's contents were first reported by The Hill.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
It is short-sighted to focus only on the negatives of smart metering
To ignore the wider potential of smart meters is to deny a technology that could be genuinely transformational
Steve Cunningham
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 15.11
Broadly speaking, Vidal highlights three areas of concern: that the smart meter roll-out will ultimately be ineffective in changing behaviour, will disproportionately penalise those at the margins of society, and will open the way for unscrupulous practices.
The argument that smart metering won't actually have any effect is perhaps the most important. As the article notes, there is uncertainty surrounding the reductions smart meters will deliver, particularly when deployed en masse. While the government's assumption is of savings between 2-3%, Landis+Gyr's experience is that deployments that have focused on encouraging energy budgeting have delivered usage reductions of 10-15%, even with relatively unsophisticated capabilities. At that rate, the savings across the UK – both in pure cash and energy generation terms – are well worth fighting for.
Vidal's concern that smart metering will disproportionately penalise the vulnerable is absolutely understandable, but also fails to recognise the progress that has already been made. The government has paid great attention to ensuring that the cost of serving these sections of society will be no different to those of the wider population. This is in stark contrast to the current situation and will be a very significant improvement for those individuals who need help the most.
He writes: "In the name of saving energy and emissions they [energy companies installing smart meters] have indicated that they plan to charge more at peak times and less at night or times of low use." But this is not bad – it is common sense and represents the only viable means of managing the integration of intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. The current system, where people have no ability to accurately track (and thus control) their energy spend cannot be a better solution.
The feedback that we are receiving from consumers both in the UK and globally is that they value the detail that smart meters give them and want to use that information in order to reduce their bills and get more for their money – just as we do today with supermarket loyalty cards. But this does not mean that utilities will be able to make use of detailed consumption data without the consumer's involvement or agreement, as Vidal fears. The latest government response suggests that the standard meter reading frequency will be monthly and that additional data will be generated only with the customer's agreement. Compare that to the real-time information available to every bank through debit and credit card transactions and it's clear that smart meters create no additional risk.
Of course, all of this is simply to focus on the negatives. There are plenty of important benefits. For the consumer, smart metering will spell the end of estimated billing and will underpin the mass deployment of both electric vehicles and microgeneration technologies. For the industry, it will allow the integration of renewable energies such as offshore wind, solar and marine. Perhaps more significantly, smart metering represents one of the best devices we have for driving consumer engagement. Much of the current carbon reduction agenda is at a corporate or governmental level, smart metering is one of the few programmes that allows individuals to really play their part.
Just as with other major consumer engagement projects – decimalisation, the internet, chip and PIN – there have been – and will continue to be – teething problems. But to focus on these and ignore the wider potential is to deny a technology that could be genuinely transformational in its impact on the UK's emerging green economy and, indeed, society as a whole.
• Steve Cunningham is the chief executive of Landis+Gyr UK & Ireland
Steve Cunningham
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 15.11
Broadly speaking, Vidal highlights three areas of concern: that the smart meter roll-out will ultimately be ineffective in changing behaviour, will disproportionately penalise those at the margins of society, and will open the way for unscrupulous practices.
The argument that smart metering won't actually have any effect is perhaps the most important. As the article notes, there is uncertainty surrounding the reductions smart meters will deliver, particularly when deployed en masse. While the government's assumption is of savings between 2-3%, Landis+Gyr's experience is that deployments that have focused on encouraging energy budgeting have delivered usage reductions of 10-15%, even with relatively unsophisticated capabilities. At that rate, the savings across the UK – both in pure cash and energy generation terms – are well worth fighting for.
Vidal's concern that smart metering will disproportionately penalise the vulnerable is absolutely understandable, but also fails to recognise the progress that has already been made. The government has paid great attention to ensuring that the cost of serving these sections of society will be no different to those of the wider population. This is in stark contrast to the current situation and will be a very significant improvement for those individuals who need help the most.
He writes: "In the name of saving energy and emissions they [energy companies installing smart meters] have indicated that they plan to charge more at peak times and less at night or times of low use." But this is not bad – it is common sense and represents the only viable means of managing the integration of intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. The current system, where people have no ability to accurately track (and thus control) their energy spend cannot be a better solution.
The feedback that we are receiving from consumers both in the UK and globally is that they value the detail that smart meters give them and want to use that information in order to reduce their bills and get more for their money – just as we do today with supermarket loyalty cards. But this does not mean that utilities will be able to make use of detailed consumption data without the consumer's involvement or agreement, as Vidal fears. The latest government response suggests that the standard meter reading frequency will be monthly and that additional data will be generated only with the customer's agreement. Compare that to the real-time information available to every bank through debit and credit card transactions and it's clear that smart meters create no additional risk.
Of course, all of this is simply to focus on the negatives. There are plenty of important benefits. For the consumer, smart metering will spell the end of estimated billing and will underpin the mass deployment of both electric vehicles and microgeneration technologies. For the industry, it will allow the integration of renewable energies such as offshore wind, solar and marine. Perhaps more significantly, smart metering represents one of the best devices we have for driving consumer engagement. Much of the current carbon reduction agenda is at a corporate or governmental level, smart metering is one of the few programmes that allows individuals to really play their part.
Just as with other major consumer engagement projects – decimalisation, the internet, chip and PIN – there have been – and will continue to be – teething problems. But to focus on these and ignore the wider potential is to deny a technology that could be genuinely transformational in its impact on the UK's emerging green economy and, indeed, society as a whole.
• Steve Cunningham is the chief executive of Landis+Gyr UK & Ireland
Fuel tax proposal to push up diesel prices across Europe
European Commission plans minimum tax on fuel for member states – but UK prices would not be affected
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 17.22 BST
Under the proposals, a new tax based on the carbon content of fuels would apply across member states, at a minimum of €20 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This is likely to affect diesel more than petrol, because at present most countries tax diesel more lightly, which makes it on average 10% cheaper at the pump even though it is 10% more expensive to produce.
"It is about ensuring that the way we tax things is providing the right incentives, and at least not providing the wrong incentives," said Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate change. "It will encourage energy efficiency."
The minimum price for diesel would increase by €2.3 cents per litre per year from 2013 until 2023 under the plans.
However the price rise would not occur in those member states whose fuel taxes are higher than the proposed minimum. In the UK, for instance, the Treasury said that fuel prices would not rise if the plans took effect, because the UK's fuel tax rates exceed the minimum rates. Despite this, the government is fighting the commission on the issue, on the principle that member states should be free to set their own carbon taxes.
A HM Treasury spokesman said: "Member states should have the flexibility to decide on the measures that will best help them meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets."
Hedegaard acknowledged that the proposals – which must be approved by member states and the EU's parliament – would face stiff opposition. "No one believes this is going to be a walk-over to get through," she said. "But there are very strong arguments for doing this."
The proposals would also require a minimum tax rate for heating fuels based on their energy content. This is controversial because poorer households spend a large proportion of their income on heating. But the commission said it would allow member states to set their own exemptions on home heating, to avoid damaging social effects.
The Treasury was unable to tell the Guardian on Wednesday whether the proposals would have an effect on UK gas prices.
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 17.22 BST
Under the proposals, a new tax based on the carbon content of fuels would apply across member states, at a minimum of €20 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This is likely to affect diesel more than petrol, because at present most countries tax diesel more lightly, which makes it on average 10% cheaper at the pump even though it is 10% more expensive to produce.
"It is about ensuring that the way we tax things is providing the right incentives, and at least not providing the wrong incentives," said Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate change. "It will encourage energy efficiency."
The minimum price for diesel would increase by €2.3 cents per litre per year from 2013 until 2023 under the plans.
However the price rise would not occur in those member states whose fuel taxes are higher than the proposed minimum. In the UK, for instance, the Treasury said that fuel prices would not rise if the plans took effect, because the UK's fuel tax rates exceed the minimum rates. Despite this, the government is fighting the commission on the issue, on the principle that member states should be free to set their own carbon taxes.
A HM Treasury spokesman said: "Member states should have the flexibility to decide on the measures that will best help them meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets."
Hedegaard acknowledged that the proposals – which must be approved by member states and the EU's parliament – would face stiff opposition. "No one believes this is going to be a walk-over to get through," she said. "But there are very strong arguments for doing this."
The proposals would also require a minimum tax rate for heating fuels based on their energy content. This is controversial because poorer households spend a large proportion of their income on heating. But the commission said it would allow member states to set their own exemptions on home heating, to avoid damaging social effects.
The Treasury was unable to tell the Guardian on Wednesday whether the proposals would have an effect on UK gas prices.
Shale gas is not a credible 'new green message'
The oil industry is failing to paint the whole picture when praising the green credentials of this controversial technology
Chris Shearlock
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 12.09 BST
It's confusing as to how shale gas extraction offers the oil industry "a new green message", as it was suggested last week in an interview with Shell's outgoing chairman. Look a little closer at shale gas and it comes with all the type of problems we're coming to expect from extracting unconventional hydrocarbons. Now that we've got much of the easy stuff out of the ground, it's all getting a bit more complicated, leading to the use of new technologies to get to previously inaccessible reserves, and in so doing, creating new environmental problems we hadn't previously envisaged. Tar sands developments in Alberta, Canada, are the obvious case in point.
With shale gas, the technology involved is called hydraulic fracturing – "fracking" for short. This involves blasting a solution of water, sand and various chemicals into the shale bed, two to three kilometres below ground, to fracture the rock and mobilise the gas. In order to get to the shale formation, operations have to drill through the aquifer, creating the potential for contamination; either from chemicals used in the process or those that are activated during fracking.
In the US, where the industry is more developed, accusations of groundwater contamination abound. If you want to see some examples, take a look at the Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland which the Co-operative helped distribute earlier this year if you want to see some examples. In response, the US Environmental Protection Agency is undertaking a review of fracking operations. We've suggested to government that the UK takes heed of this and imposes a moratorium on development, at least until this research is completed.
But surely shale gas is good news at the global level, if it will displace much more polluting coal? Indeed, this might happen if we had a legally binding global cap on emissions (the sort of thing we were meant to have agreed on at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, but didn't). Unfortunately, in the energy-hungry world that we live in, there's just as much chance that the likes of India and China will simply burn shale gas in addition to their coal reserves as they quite fairly pursue economic development. If you don't believe me, have a look at the situation in the US where the massive expansion in shale gas is simply helping to meet the energy demands of a growing economy that doesn't have a carbon cap and is failing to displace coal.
Research undertaken by the Tyndall Centre (and funded by the Co-operative) suggests that burning the world's shale gas reserves would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations by up to 11 parts per million (ppm).That's hardly conducive to stablising greenhouse gases - current levels of CO2 are around 392ppm and 350 is the level considered to be "safe" by many experts.
Even if this could be mitigated by capturing the emissions from shale gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) – a very big if – there's another problem with the green credentials of shale gas. Other emissions from the extraction process, such as methane, could actually mean its carbon footprint is more like that of coal, and these wider emissions can't be dealt with through CCS. According to research to be published this week by Cornell University in the US: "Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas [in terms of climate impact] is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon, and is comparable over 100 years."
Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't diversification into renewable energy be a more credible "new green message" for the oil industry?
• Chris Shearlock is the sustainable development manager at the Co-operative Group
Chris Shearlock
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 12.09 BST
It's confusing as to how shale gas extraction offers the oil industry "a new green message", as it was suggested last week in an interview with Shell's outgoing chairman. Look a little closer at shale gas and it comes with all the type of problems we're coming to expect from extracting unconventional hydrocarbons. Now that we've got much of the easy stuff out of the ground, it's all getting a bit more complicated, leading to the use of new technologies to get to previously inaccessible reserves, and in so doing, creating new environmental problems we hadn't previously envisaged. Tar sands developments in Alberta, Canada, are the obvious case in point.
With shale gas, the technology involved is called hydraulic fracturing – "fracking" for short. This involves blasting a solution of water, sand and various chemicals into the shale bed, two to three kilometres below ground, to fracture the rock and mobilise the gas. In order to get to the shale formation, operations have to drill through the aquifer, creating the potential for contamination; either from chemicals used in the process or those that are activated during fracking.
In the US, where the industry is more developed, accusations of groundwater contamination abound. If you want to see some examples, take a look at the Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland which the Co-operative helped distribute earlier this year if you want to see some examples. In response, the US Environmental Protection Agency is undertaking a review of fracking operations. We've suggested to government that the UK takes heed of this and imposes a moratorium on development, at least until this research is completed.
But surely shale gas is good news at the global level, if it will displace much more polluting coal? Indeed, this might happen if we had a legally binding global cap on emissions (the sort of thing we were meant to have agreed on at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, but didn't). Unfortunately, in the energy-hungry world that we live in, there's just as much chance that the likes of India and China will simply burn shale gas in addition to their coal reserves as they quite fairly pursue economic development. If you don't believe me, have a look at the situation in the US where the massive expansion in shale gas is simply helping to meet the energy demands of a growing economy that doesn't have a carbon cap and is failing to displace coal.
Research undertaken by the Tyndall Centre (and funded by the Co-operative) suggests that burning the world's shale gas reserves would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations by up to 11 parts per million (ppm).That's hardly conducive to stablising greenhouse gases - current levels of CO2 are around 392ppm and 350 is the level considered to be "safe" by many experts.
Even if this could be mitigated by capturing the emissions from shale gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) – a very big if – there's another problem with the green credentials of shale gas. Other emissions from the extraction process, such as methane, could actually mean its carbon footprint is more like that of coal, and these wider emissions can't be dealt with through CCS. According to research to be published this week by Cornell University in the US: "Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas [in terms of climate impact] is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon, and is comparable over 100 years."
Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't diversification into renewable energy be a more credible "new green message" for the oil industry?
• Chris Shearlock is the sustainable development manager at the Co-operative Group
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
