MONTREAL--Canada could gain credibility at home and abroad if it unilaterally applied a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions instead of waiting for Washington to do it first, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said Monday.
The cap-and-trade system is a market driven approach that sets a ceiling on harmful emissions that contribute to global warming and allows polluters to trade permits with greener companies in order to meet the ceiling.
“The federal government's intention to link its climate policy with the possible cap-and-trade system in the United States is understandable and sensible,” said the Paris-based OECD.
“However, acting unilaterally would result in domestic and international credibility gains,” the OECD told Canada in its latest Economic Survey for the country.
“In fact, uncertainty as to future regulation is becoming a major barrier to investment in nonconventional oil and natural gas industries,” the 2010 study noted.
The cap-and-trade system, lauded by U.S. President Barack Obama and largely embraced by environmental groups, has met furious opposition from the U.S. oil industry.
“Canada should thus remain vigilant and not import avoidable climate-policy uncertainty from its neighbor. Over the medium term, it should strive to meet efficiency levels comparable to international best practices,” the OECD recommended.
The OECD said high oil prices have made the development of oil sands in Alberta extremely profitable, but at a high environmental cost.
By 2008, greenhouse gas emissions were 24 percent above 1990 levels, compared with Canada's Kyoto commitment to cut them by 6 percent, although less than 10 percent of the increase is attributable to oil-sands development, the think tank said.
The report also pointed out that while Canada aligned its commitment with the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, it has yet to lay out a plan on how this would be achieved.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Carbon Nanotubes Concentrate Solar Energy Better Than Photovoltaic Cells
Tiffany Kaiser - September 14, 2010 6:35 AM
MIT chemical engineers have developed a way to concentrate solar energy 100 times more than a traditional photovoltaic cell through the use of carbon nanotubes.
Jae-Hee Han, postdoctoral associate and lead author; Geraldine Paulus, graduate student and lead author; and Michael Strano, leader of the research team have devised a way to use carbon nanotubes (hollow tubes of carbon atoms) to form antennas that capture and focus light energy, resulting in more powerful and smaller solar arrays.
"Instead of having your whole roof be a photovoltaic cell, you could have little spots that were tiny photovoltaic cells, with antenna's that would drive photons into them," said Strano.
Traditional solar panels convert photons into an electric current to generate electricity, but with the use of the nanotube antenna, the number of photons being captured increases and light is transformed into energy that can be funneled into the solar cell.
These new antenna's are called "solar funnels," and can be used in various other applications such as telescopes or night-vision goggles, where light needs to be concentrated. They contain a fibrous rope that is 10 micrometers long and four micrometers thick, and consist of 30 million carbon nanotubes. The fiber is made up of two layers of nanotubes with different bandgaps, which is the difference in energy levels between an electron and the hole it leaves behind. When photons strike a surface, this excites the electron to a higher degree depending on the material, and interactions between the electron and the hole it leaves behind is an exciton.
The outer layer of the nanotubes have a higher bandgap while the inner layer has a lower bandgap, and the excitons flow from the higher to lower energy. When light strikes the material, the excitons become more concentrated, flowing to the center of the fiber.
What makes this study such a significant advancement is that it's the first to construct nanotube fibers where the properties of different layers can be controlled. Costs of carbon nanotubes originally prohibited this kind of experimentation, but prices have fallen and made the nanotubes more accessible.
The next step is to build a photovoltaic device using the antenna, where the antenna would concentrate photons before they are converted into an electrical current by the photovoltaic cell. The antenna would be constructed around a core of semiconducting material and the system would generate electricity by separating the electron from the hole and collecting electrons at one electrode on the inner semiconductor and collecting holes at the other electrode touching the nanotubes.
The research team is also looking to increase the number of excitons per photon, and to decrease the energy lost as excitons "flow through the fiber."
This study was published in Nature Materials on September 12.
MIT chemical engineers have developed a way to concentrate solar energy 100 times more than a traditional photovoltaic cell through the use of carbon nanotubes.
Jae-Hee Han, postdoctoral associate and lead author; Geraldine Paulus, graduate student and lead author; and Michael Strano, leader of the research team have devised a way to use carbon nanotubes (hollow tubes of carbon atoms) to form antennas that capture and focus light energy, resulting in more powerful and smaller solar arrays.
"Instead of having your whole roof be a photovoltaic cell, you could have little spots that were tiny photovoltaic cells, with antenna's that would drive photons into them," said Strano.
Traditional solar panels convert photons into an electric current to generate electricity, but with the use of the nanotube antenna, the number of photons being captured increases and light is transformed into energy that can be funneled into the solar cell.
These new antenna's are called "solar funnels," and can be used in various other applications such as telescopes or night-vision goggles, where light needs to be concentrated. They contain a fibrous rope that is 10 micrometers long and four micrometers thick, and consist of 30 million carbon nanotubes. The fiber is made up of two layers of nanotubes with different bandgaps, which is the difference in energy levels between an electron and the hole it leaves behind. When photons strike a surface, this excites the electron to a higher degree depending on the material, and interactions between the electron and the hole it leaves behind is an exciton.
The outer layer of the nanotubes have a higher bandgap while the inner layer has a lower bandgap, and the excitons flow from the higher to lower energy. When light strikes the material, the excitons become more concentrated, flowing to the center of the fiber.
What makes this study such a significant advancement is that it's the first to construct nanotube fibers where the properties of different layers can be controlled. Costs of carbon nanotubes originally prohibited this kind of experimentation, but prices have fallen and made the nanotubes more accessible.
The next step is to build a photovoltaic device using the antenna, where the antenna would concentrate photons before they are converted into an electrical current by the photovoltaic cell. The antenna would be constructed around a core of semiconducting material and the system would generate electricity by separating the electron from the hole and collecting electrons at one electrode on the inner semiconductor and collecting holes at the other electrode touching the nanotubes.
The research team is also looking to increase the number of excitons per photon, and to decrease the energy lost as excitons "flow through the fiber."
This study was published in Nature Materials on September 12.
Republican 'climate zombies' could claim the US Senate
A survey of comments made by Republican candidates for the US Senate show vast majority are climate sceptics
You might want to find yourself an indelible marker pen and draw a large black circle around 3 November – it could be the morning the world wakes up to discover that the US Senate is now controlled by climate sceptics.
With the mid-term elections now only a few weeks away, the Wonk Room, a blog run by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has compiled the most definitive list yet of on-the-record comments made by Republican candidates for the US Senate in which they express varying degrees of doubt about the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
The startling conclusion is that "nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution". In fact, the Wonk Room could find only one – Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware – who supports any action at all on climate change.
One can only dread what a similar survey of Republican congressional candidates might throw up. If the views of Art Robinson – the man behind the infamous Oregon Petition who is now running for Oregon's 4th congressional district – are anything to go by then we may as well wave goodbye to any hope that the United States will lead the world in addressing the varied challenges presented by climate change. In fact, we might as well re-hang the "Do Not Disturb" sign back on the United States' front door, as was the case during the majority of George W Bush's presidency whenever any international climate talks were scheduled.
Each of the comments made by the Republican candidates are worth perusing, but some stand out. Take, for example, Oklahoma's Senator Tom Coburn, who is up for re-election:
I am not the smartest man in the world … But I have been trained to read scientific documents, and it [anthropogenic climate change] is malarkey.
And up in Alaska, there's Republican nominee Joe Miller, who made this now-notorious comment during his campaigning for the Republican primary:
We haven't heard there's man-made global warming.
Over at the Daily Kos, a contributor called "RLMiller" has now begun a project called "Climate Zombies" in which he is asking readers to help him monitor the comments of "every Republican candidate for House, Senate, and Governor who claims that global warming is a hoax, doubts the science of climate change, and wants a new Dark Ages for America". Needless to say, the comments have been swamped with hundreds of suggestions. The project has only just begun, but a trend is already emerging:
We sampled four states with a total of 22 Representatives, 3 gubernatorial candidates (excluding WI), and 3 Senators up for reelection. Four Representatives (OK-02, OK-03, OK-04,and WI-06) seem to accept the reality of climate science, if not the solution; two (AZ-01, AZ-05) have been silent to date; three (WI-03, WI-07, and WI-08) haven't been selected yet; and thirteen express skepticism/hostility. Of the three candidates for governor, one is openly hostile and two are silent. Of the three candidates for Senate, two are openly hostile and the third is John McCain…Climate zombies are now the Republican party norm.
It's a little beyond my own web know-how, but one thing I'd like to see done when all these candidate comments are finally collated is a Google Map of the results. I've got a wonderful book called Understanding USA by Richard Saul Wurman, which displays otherwise dense, dull data about the US – population densities, literacy levels, state budgets etc – as vibrant information graphics. To see a thick Republican carpet of climate scepticism spread across a map of the United States would be, in its own way, highly illustrative.
You might want to find yourself an indelible marker pen and draw a large black circle around 3 November – it could be the morning the world wakes up to discover that the US Senate is now controlled by climate sceptics.
With the mid-term elections now only a few weeks away, the Wonk Room, a blog run by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has compiled the most definitive list yet of on-the-record comments made by Republican candidates for the US Senate in which they express varying degrees of doubt about the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
The startling conclusion is that "nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution". In fact, the Wonk Room could find only one – Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware – who supports any action at all on climate change.
One can only dread what a similar survey of Republican congressional candidates might throw up. If the views of Art Robinson – the man behind the infamous Oregon Petition who is now running for Oregon's 4th congressional district – are anything to go by then we may as well wave goodbye to any hope that the United States will lead the world in addressing the varied challenges presented by climate change. In fact, we might as well re-hang the "Do Not Disturb" sign back on the United States' front door, as was the case during the majority of George W Bush's presidency whenever any international climate talks were scheduled.
Each of the comments made by the Republican candidates are worth perusing, but some stand out. Take, for example, Oklahoma's Senator Tom Coburn, who is up for re-election:
I am not the smartest man in the world … But I have been trained to read scientific documents, and it [anthropogenic climate change] is malarkey.
And up in Alaska, there's Republican nominee Joe Miller, who made this now-notorious comment during his campaigning for the Republican primary:
We haven't heard there's man-made global warming.
Over at the Daily Kos, a contributor called "RLMiller" has now begun a project called "Climate Zombies" in which he is asking readers to help him monitor the comments of "every Republican candidate for House, Senate, and Governor who claims that global warming is a hoax, doubts the science of climate change, and wants a new Dark Ages for America". Needless to say, the comments have been swamped with hundreds of suggestions. The project has only just begun, but a trend is already emerging:
We sampled four states with a total of 22 Representatives, 3 gubernatorial candidates (excluding WI), and 3 Senators up for reelection. Four Representatives (OK-02, OK-03, OK-04,and WI-06) seem to accept the reality of climate science, if not the solution; two (AZ-01, AZ-05) have been silent to date; three (WI-03, WI-07, and WI-08) haven't been selected yet; and thirteen express skepticism/hostility. Of the three candidates for governor, one is openly hostile and two are silent. Of the three candidates for Senate, two are openly hostile and the third is John McCain…Climate zombies are now the Republican party norm.
It's a little beyond my own web know-how, but one thing I'd like to see done when all these candidate comments are finally collated is a Google Map of the results. I've got a wonderful book called Understanding USA by Richard Saul Wurman, which displays otherwise dense, dull data about the US – population densities, literacy levels, state budgets etc – as vibrant information graphics. To see a thick Republican carpet of climate scepticism spread across a map of the United States would be, in its own way, highly illustrative.
Fears £9bn clean coal programme could be drastically scaled back
Energy department believes plan for four new clean coal pilot plants is vulnerable to cuts, sources say
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 September 2010 19.23 BST
The Treasury is reviewing the government's £9bn clean coal programme amid growing fears in the energy department that it will be drastically scaled back.
Senior sources within the energy department believe the plan for four new clean coal pilot plants – funded by a £9bn levy on consumer electricity bills – are the most vulnerable to cuts.
The number of plants could be halved or staggered so that the third and fourth projects are not up and running for more than a decade.
Tomorrow Chris Huhne, the energy and climate change secretary, will be questioned by a committee of MPs on how his department's overall programme to cut carbon emissions will be hit by the Treasury's imminent spending review.
Even though clean coal plants or wind farms are subsidised by consumers, Treasury officials classify the support as government expenditure. Allowing bills to rise to fund the subsidies will also leave less in consumers' pockets to pay for other taxes.
Tim Yeo MP, the former Conservative environment minister and chairman of the select committee for energy and climate change, told the Guardian that Osborne should not scale back subsidies for green energy. "It's my view that subsidies which are paid for from consumer prices should not be the concern of the Treasury. There is a judgment to make about how much you want prices to rise but the Treasury can't claim to have a lock over it."
The £9bn clean coal programme is aimed at introducing carbon capture technology, which will allow dirty coal plants to store their emissions underground. The feed-in tariff, introduced in April to subsidise small-scale wind and solar devices, is also under threat. But the government has made a legally binding commitment to "radically" increase the use of renewable energy by 2020, making the clean coal programme more vulnerable to cuts, according to sources.
Keith Allott from conservation charity WWF called on the government to keep funding in place to test carbon capture technology which can be fitted to existing, rather than new, plants.
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 September 2010 19.23 BST
The Treasury is reviewing the government's £9bn clean coal programme amid growing fears in the energy department that it will be drastically scaled back.
Senior sources within the energy department believe the plan for four new clean coal pilot plants – funded by a £9bn levy on consumer electricity bills – are the most vulnerable to cuts.
The number of plants could be halved or staggered so that the third and fourth projects are not up and running for more than a decade.
Tomorrow Chris Huhne, the energy and climate change secretary, will be questioned by a committee of MPs on how his department's overall programme to cut carbon emissions will be hit by the Treasury's imminent spending review.
Even though clean coal plants or wind farms are subsidised by consumers, Treasury officials classify the support as government expenditure. Allowing bills to rise to fund the subsidies will also leave less in consumers' pockets to pay for other taxes.
Tim Yeo MP, the former Conservative environment minister and chairman of the select committee for energy and climate change, told the Guardian that Osborne should not scale back subsidies for green energy. "It's my view that subsidies which are paid for from consumer prices should not be the concern of the Treasury. There is a judgment to make about how much you want prices to rise but the Treasury can't claim to have a lock over it."
The £9bn clean coal programme is aimed at introducing carbon capture technology, which will allow dirty coal plants to store their emissions underground. The feed-in tariff, introduced in April to subsidise small-scale wind and solar devices, is also under threat. But the government has made a legally binding commitment to "radically" increase the use of renewable energy by 2020, making the clean coal programme more vulnerable to cuts, according to sources.
Keith Allott from conservation charity WWF called on the government to keep funding in place to test carbon capture technology which can be fitted to existing, rather than new, plants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
