Such a move could save the equivalent of Germany's annual emissions by 2015, says chief economist at the IEA
• Fossil fuel subsidies: a tour of the data
Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 January 2012 11.21 GMT
Eliminating subsidies for coal, gas and oil could save as much as Germany's annual greenhouse gas emissions each year by 2015, according to one of the world's leading energy experts.
Speaking to the Guardian, Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), said such a move could provide half of the carbon savings needed to stop dangerous levels of climate change.
While the G20 pledged in 2009 to phase out such fossil fuel subsidies in the "medium term", the hundreds of billions that governments spend each year rose in 2010. The World Bank, economist Lord Nicholas Stern and green groups have also called for their removal.
"Energy markets can be thought of as suffering from appendicitis due to fossil fuel subsidies. They need to be removed for a healthy energy economy," said Birol. "Energy is significantly underpriced in many parts of the world, leading to wasteful consumption, price volatility and fuel smuggling. It's also undermining the competitiveness of renewables."
According to IEA research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.
Birol and the IEA said that a phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists. "Fossil fuel subsidies are a hand brake as we drive along the road to a sustainable energy future," he said. "Removing them would take us half way to a trajectory that would hold us to 2C."
Most of the world's fuel subsidies are given out in transitional and developing countries – especially those which themselves export fossil fuels. Sometimes the policies are seen as a way to alleviate poverty, but IEA analysis suggests that the poorest members of society do not see their fair share of the benefits.
"Just 8% of the $409bn spent on fossil-fuel subsidies in 2010 went to the poorest 20% of the population," Birol said. "It's clear that other direct forms of welfare support would cost much less." He added that the poorest people were being "punished twice", because the money used to make fossil fuels cheaper could instead be spent on schools, hospitals and other public services.
But phasing out fossil fuel subsidies can be hugely controversial. In Nigeria, the government's decision to scrap petrol subsidies at the start of this year led to more than a week of crippling strikes, as unions protested against a massive increase in prices at the pump. The country's president, Goodluck Jonathan, was only able to end the strikes by promising to partially reinstate the subsidies.
Birol said: "The drastic reactions we are seeing in Nigeria do not justify the indefinite maintenance of subsidies, but they highlight that reforms need to be implemented gradually and include targeted assistance." He added that Nigeria's subsidies hadn't necessarily been helping the poorest members of society, citing IEA research showing that "76 million people, or 49% of [Nigeria's] population, still lack access to electricity", despite the fact that it would cost only 0.6% of fossil fuel export revenues to solve this problem.
Most developed countries have already phased out policies that directly subsidise fossil fuel consumption. But recent analysis by the OECD suggests that these nations continue to prop up the oil, gas and coal industries in less obvious ways, such as providing tax breaks or favourable access to land and infrastructure.
These indirect mechanisms are worth an estimated $45–75bn. Coal, the most polluting of the three main fossil fuels, currently receives 39% of this support – mostly as a result of governments in Europe, and to a lesser extent Australia, Canada, Korea and the US, trying to ensure that changes to their coal-mining industries happen gradually rather than overnight.
Monday, 23 January 2012
GM microbe breakthrough paves way for large-scale seaweed farming for biofuels
Scientists have created a genetically engineered microbe that turns the algae into low-carbon biofuel, but must make the technique commercially viable
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 January 2012 19.00 GMT
The ancient art of seaweed farming could provide a solution to a 21st-century energy dilemma, with the creation of a genetically engineered microbe that turns the algae into low-carbon biofuel, scientists said on Thursday.
Biofuels have been touted as low-carbon replacements for petrol and diesel, but those made from crops like corn and sugar have been blamed for increasing global food prices and delivering only modest benefits.
Earlier studies have indicated that large-scale use of seaweed as an energy source could in theory supply the world's needs several times over and the UK government envisages between 560 and 4700 km sq of seaweed farms in its long-term energy planning.
The new microbe research, published today in the leading journal Science, represents a "critical" technological breakthrough, but the challenge of making the approach commercially viable remains.
"Natural seaweed species grow very fast - 10 times faster than normal plants - and are full of sugars, but it has been very difficult to make ethanol by conventional fermentation," said Yannick Lerat, scientific director at Centre d'Etude et de Valorisation des Algues, the algae study centre in France. "So the new work is a really critical step. But scaling up processes using engineered microbes is not always easy. They also need to prove the economics work."
The fact that a seaweed industry already exists is a major advantage, said Daniel Trunfio, chief executive at Bio Architecture Lab (BAL) in Berkeley, California, where the research was conducted. "People have been farming seaweed for 1,000 years. In China and Japan, you will see farms that are the equivalent of the midwest cornfields in the US," he said. "This can be a substantial addition to the fuel portfolio." He argues that using 3% of the world's coastal waters to grow seaweed would produce 60bn gallons of ethanol – more than 40% of the fuel burned by US cars and trucks. His company is backed by the US Department of Energy, Norwegian oil company Statoil and the government of Chile, where BAL owns seaweed farms and is building a pilot plant.
There are also seaweed farming pilot projects in Europe, including Swansea in Wales, Roscoff in France and a project testing the growing of seaweed among offshore windfarms.
A new microbe had to be engineered because the main sugar in seaweed, alginate, cannot be metabolised by microbes such as E Coli, which are widely used in laboratories and industrial processes. BAL chief science officer, Yasuo Yoshikuni, said the team worked out how a marine bacterium called Vibrio splendidus broke down alginate, then they took the genetic machinery responsible and spliced it into E Coli. Yoshikuni said their microbe gives 80% of the theoretical maximum yield, converting 28% of the dry weight of the seaweed into ethanol.
Farmed seaweed requires no fertiliser, said Yoshikuni, because coastal waters are often polluted by nutrients washed into rivers from farmers' fields. Cleaning these up would prevent large algal blooms that pollute some areas.
Significant challenges remain, however, according to Ben Graziano, technology commercialisation manager at the Carbon Trust. "From what I know of the use of seaweed in general, the costs are still five times higher than they need to be to get to a reasonable fuel price," he said. "The use of genetically modified microbes could be a concern in Europe - where the perception of negative impacts can be quite harmful - but less so in the US and elsewhere."
"But the potential is certainly there, not least because most of the Earth is covered in water," Graziano said. "If they can get the scale up and the costs down, it has huge potential."
Yoshikuni said that it would be possible to use the seaweed and microbe system to create other chemicals that may be sell for a better price than fuel, such as plastics, by switching in other metabolic pathways to the E Coli.
The use of microalgae - the green scum seen on lakes - is more common, with the US Navy, global shipping companies and Exxon Mobil all investing in the technology. But while seaweed produces ethanol that can be substituted for petrol, microalgae produces oils that can replace diesel. Microalgae also requires large growth ponds or tanks and fresh water, while seaweed has to be harvested, with most currently being collected by hand.
Another alternative biofuel source, which does not compete directly with food, is wood and straw. But breaking down lignin, the tough chemical – which with cellulose make up much of the material – is hard, according to Trunfio. "You are working against mother nature: lignin is why trees stand up for so long."
• The original version of the article stated that Daniel Trunfio argued that using 3% of the world's coastal waters to grow seaweed would produce 60bn gallons of ethanol instead of the correct figure of 60bn gallons.
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 January 2012 19.00 GMT
The ancient art of seaweed farming could provide a solution to a 21st-century energy dilemma, with the creation of a genetically engineered microbe that turns the algae into low-carbon biofuel, scientists said on Thursday.
Biofuels have been touted as low-carbon replacements for petrol and diesel, but those made from crops like corn and sugar have been blamed for increasing global food prices and delivering only modest benefits.
Earlier studies have indicated that large-scale use of seaweed as an energy source could in theory supply the world's needs several times over and the UK government envisages between 560 and 4700 km sq of seaweed farms in its long-term energy planning.
The new microbe research, published today in the leading journal Science, represents a "critical" technological breakthrough, but the challenge of making the approach commercially viable remains.
"Natural seaweed species grow very fast - 10 times faster than normal plants - and are full of sugars, but it has been very difficult to make ethanol by conventional fermentation," said Yannick Lerat, scientific director at Centre d'Etude et de Valorisation des Algues, the algae study centre in France. "So the new work is a really critical step. But scaling up processes using engineered microbes is not always easy. They also need to prove the economics work."
The fact that a seaweed industry already exists is a major advantage, said Daniel Trunfio, chief executive at Bio Architecture Lab (BAL) in Berkeley, California, where the research was conducted. "People have been farming seaweed for 1,000 years. In China and Japan, you will see farms that are the equivalent of the midwest cornfields in the US," he said. "This can be a substantial addition to the fuel portfolio." He argues that using 3% of the world's coastal waters to grow seaweed would produce 60bn gallons of ethanol – more than 40% of the fuel burned by US cars and trucks. His company is backed by the US Department of Energy, Norwegian oil company Statoil and the government of Chile, where BAL owns seaweed farms and is building a pilot plant.
There are also seaweed farming pilot projects in Europe, including Swansea in Wales, Roscoff in France and a project testing the growing of seaweed among offshore windfarms.
A new microbe had to be engineered because the main sugar in seaweed, alginate, cannot be metabolised by microbes such as E Coli, which are widely used in laboratories and industrial processes. BAL chief science officer, Yasuo Yoshikuni, said the team worked out how a marine bacterium called Vibrio splendidus broke down alginate, then they took the genetic machinery responsible and spliced it into E Coli. Yoshikuni said their microbe gives 80% of the theoretical maximum yield, converting 28% of the dry weight of the seaweed into ethanol.
Farmed seaweed requires no fertiliser, said Yoshikuni, because coastal waters are often polluted by nutrients washed into rivers from farmers' fields. Cleaning these up would prevent large algal blooms that pollute some areas.
Significant challenges remain, however, according to Ben Graziano, technology commercialisation manager at the Carbon Trust. "From what I know of the use of seaweed in general, the costs are still five times higher than they need to be to get to a reasonable fuel price," he said. "The use of genetically modified microbes could be a concern in Europe - where the perception of negative impacts can be quite harmful - but less so in the US and elsewhere."
"But the potential is certainly there, not least because most of the Earth is covered in water," Graziano said. "If they can get the scale up and the costs down, it has huge potential."
Yoshikuni said that it would be possible to use the seaweed and microbe system to create other chemicals that may be sell for a better price than fuel, such as plastics, by switching in other metabolic pathways to the E Coli.
The use of microalgae - the green scum seen on lakes - is more common, with the US Navy, global shipping companies and Exxon Mobil all investing in the technology. But while seaweed produces ethanol that can be substituted for petrol, microalgae produces oils that can replace diesel. Microalgae also requires large growth ponds or tanks and fresh water, while seaweed has to be harvested, with most currently being collected by hand.
Another alternative biofuel source, which does not compete directly with food, is wood and straw. But breaking down lignin, the tough chemical – which with cellulose make up much of the material – is hard, according to Trunfio. "You are working against mother nature: lignin is why trees stand up for so long."
• The original version of the article stated that Daniel Trunfio argued that using 3% of the world's coastal waters to grow seaweed would produce 60bn gallons of ethanol instead of the correct figure of 60bn gallons.
'Bicycle pump' to turn wave power into clean energy
Searaser device that pumps saltwater to an onshore generator has been tested in prototype and praised by ministers
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Monday 23 January 2012
Ecotricity has acquired the Searaser device, which harnesses the power of ocean swells to create electricity. Photograph: Ecotricity
An aquatic "bicycle pump" is set to take to the seas and turn wave power into clean electricity after being acquired by green energy company Ecotricity. The Searaser device, which pumps saltwater to an onshore generator, has been tested in prototype and praised by ministers.
Searaser uses the rise and fall of a large float to pressurise water, but unlike other wave power technologies does not generate the electricity in the hostile environment of the ocean. "If you put any device in the sea, it will get engulfed in storms, so it all has to be totally sealed," said inventor Alvin Smith. "Water and electricity don't mix – and sea water is particularly corrosive – so most other devices are very expensive to manufacture and maintain." The technology means the salt water and electricity-generating equipment never meet, and is done routinely in Japan.
The potential wave and tidal power available to the UK is considered enormous by government and could make a significant contribution to replacing coal and gas plants that emit the carbon dioxide that drives global warming. But the challenge of engineering devices that can survive in the hostile marine environment has left the technology lagging behind other renewable energy sources. Only one device, the Marine Current Turbines operation in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, is so far producing a meaningful amount of electricity for the National Grid.
Announcing the purchase of a controlling stake in Searaser, Ecotricity founder, Dale Vince, claimed: "We believe Searaser has the potential to produce electricity at a lower cost than any other type energy, not just other forms of renewable energy but all "conventional" forms of energy too."
Existing marine technologies, such the Pelamis "wave-snake" have encountered unforseen financial and technical difficulties. But Ecotricity claims "it is not over-ambitious" to expect 200 of the 18 metre-deep Searaser devices to be installed around the UK within five years, generating enough renewable electricity to power 236,000 homes.
The idea of Searaser came to Smith when he was playing with a ball in his swimming pool and felt the energy released when the ball bobbed to the surface. He said the device has the advantages of being extremely simple - like a bicycle pump - contains no lubricating or hydraulic oil, and is not a rigid structure and so can go with the flow in heavy seas.
But Smith said the most important aspect of his device is that it enables low-carbon energy to be stored in reservoirs on land and then released when needed, addressing the intermittent nature of much renewable energy. An existing quarry on Portland would be an ideal site, he said, or disused freshwater reservoirs. A project in Alderney is also planning to store saltwater in reservoirs, but in this case the water would be pumped using electricity generated by underwater tidal generators.
In Japan, grid electricity is used to pump the saltwater in order to store the energy for later use.
"Hydro has always been the cleanest and best energy," Smith said. "The problem in the UK is we don't have a Colorado river [that powers the Hoover dam] running off our hills."
The government plans to more than double the subsidy available to marine energy and the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed surrounding the UK, this month reduced the financial guarantees it requires from wave and tidal developers in case of accidents. "The UK leads the world in developing marine energy technology and it's vital that the sector continues to bring forward innovative new technologies," said Greg Barker, energy and climate change minister. However, ministers cut a marine energy deployment fund by 60% to £20m in June 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
