Poison plant could help to cure the planet

The jatropha bush seems an unlikely prize in the hunt for alternative energy, being an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed. Hitherto, its use to humanity has principally been as a remedy for constipation. Very soon, however, it may be powering your car.

Almost overnight, the unloved Jatropha curcushas become an agricultural and economic celebrity, with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies and deeply alarmed by the effects of global warming.

The hardy jatropha, resilient to pests and resistant to drought, produces seeds with up to 40 per cent oil content. When the seeds are crushed, the resulting jatropha oil can be burnt in a standard diesel car, while the residue can also be processed into biomass to power electricity plants.

As the search for alternative energy sources gathers pace and urgency, the jatropha has provoked something like a gold rush. Last week BP announced that it was investing almost £32 million in a jatropha joint venture with the British biofuels company D1 Oils.

Even Bob Geldof has stamped his cachet on jatropha, by becoming a special adviser to Helius Energy, a British company developing the use of jatropha as an alternative to fossil fuels. Lex Worrall, its chief executive, says: “Every hectare can produce 2.7 tonnes of oil and about 4 tonnes of biomass. Every 8,000 hectares of the plant can run a 1.5 megawatt station, enough to power 2,500 homes.”

Jatropha grows in tropical and subtropical climates. Whereas other feed-stocks for biofuel, such as palm oil, rape seed oil or corn for ethanol, require reasonable soils on which other crops might be grown, jatropha is a tough survivor prepared to put down roots almost anywhere.

Scientists say that it can grow in the poorest wasteland, generating topsoil and helping to stall erosion, but also absorbing carbon dioxide as it grows, thus making it carbon-neutral even when burnt. A jatropha bush can live for up to 50 years, producing oil in its second year of growth, and survive up to three years of consecutive drought.

In India about 11 million hectares have been identified as potential land on which to grow jatropha. The first jatropha-fuelled power station is expected to begin supplying electricity in Swaziland in three years. Meanwhile, companies from Europe and India have begun buying up land in Africa as potential jatropha plantations.

Jatropha plantations have been laid out on either side of the railway between Bombay and Delhi, and the train is said to run on more than 15 per cent biofuel. Backers say that the plant can produce four times more fuel per hectare than soya, and ten times more than corn. “Those who are working with jatropha,” Sanju Khan, a site manager for D1 Oils, told the BBC, “are working with the new generation crop, developing a crop from a wild plant — which is hugely exciting.”

Jatropha, a native of Central America, was brought to Europe by Portuguese explorers in the 16th century and has since spread worldwide, even though, until recently, it had few uses: malaria treatment, a windbreak for animals, live fencing and candle-mak-ing. An ingredient in folk remedies around the world, it earned the nickname “physic nut”, but its sap is a skin irritant, and ingesting three untreated seeds can kill a person.

Jatropha has also found a strong supporter in Sir Nicholas Stern, the government economist who emphasised the dangers of global warming in a report this year. He recently advised South Africa to “look for biofuel technologies that can be grown on marginal land, perhaps jatropha”.

However, some fear that in areas dependent on subsistence farming it could force out food crops, increasing the risk of famine.

Some countries are also cautious for other reasons: last year Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals.

Yet a combination of economic, climatic and political factors have made the search for a more effective biofuel a priority among energy companies. New regulations in Britain require that biofuels comprise 5 per cent of the transport fuel mix by 2010, and the EU has mandated that by 2020 all cars must run on 20 per cent biodiesel. Biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 80 per cent compared with petroleum diesel, according to the US Energy Department.

Under the deal between BP and D1, £80 million will be invested in jatropha over the next five years, with plantations in India, southern Africa and SouthEast Asia. There are no exact figures for the amount of land already under jatropha cultivation, but the area is expanding fast. China is planning an 80,000-acre plantation in Sichuan, and the BPD1 team hopes to have a million hectares under cultivation over the next four years.

Jatropha has long been prized for its medicinal qualities. Now it might just help to cure the planet.

- D1 Oils, the UK company leading the jatropha revolution, is growing 430,000 acres of the plant to feed its biodiesel operation on Teesside — 44,000 acres more than three months ago, after a huge planting programme in India. It has also planted two 1,235-acre trial sites this year in West Java, Indonesia. If successful, these will become a 25,000-acre plantation. Elloitt Mannis, the chief executive, says that the aim is to develop energy “from the earth to the engine”.

Jatropha: costs and benefits

- Jatropha needs at least 600mm (23in) of rain a year to thrive. However, it can survive three consecutive years of drought by dropping its leaves

- It is excellent at preventing soil erosion, and the leaves that it drops act as soil-enriching mulch

- The plant prefers alkaline soils

- The cost of 1,000 jatropha saplings (enough for one acre) in Pakistan is about £50, or 5p each

- The cost of 1kg of jatropha seeds in India is the equivalent of about 7p. Each jatropha seedling should be given an area two metres square.

- 20 per cent of seedlings planted will not survive

- Jatropha seedlings yield seeds in the first year after plantation

full article

Building for a cooler planet

In a new, subscriber-only article,New Scientist introduces us to "a climate change expert at the University of Toronto who has developed plans to radically reduce energy use in buildings."
The good news:
- 33% of energy-related CO2 emissions are generated by energy use in buildings
- 29% of that could be cut by 2020 using existing technologies

The bad news:
- By 2020 energy use in US buildings is predicted to rise by 25%
- In China it is predicted to rise by as much as 50%

Danny Harvey likes his Toronto office, especially the 8-square-metre window that lets the sunlight flood in. But one day last week he did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation. Winter temperatures in the Canadian city can drop to -20 °C, and Harvey estimated that keeping his office at 20 °C in such weather pours 2000 watts of heat through the window. That wastes more energy than boiling a kettle all day.

For Harvey, a climate change expert at the University of Toronto who has developed plans to radically reduce energy use in buildings, that is hard to bear. What he sees outside his window makes it even worse. All across town, the energy sins committed by the architects of his office are being repeated. Apartment blocks are springing up and big windows are in fashion. High-performance windows that could drastically reduce heat loss are available, yet builders are not using the best products. "Every single apartment is a future liability," says Harvey.

It need not be that way. According to a newly published collection of studies by Harvey and others, the carbon dioxide generated by energy use in buildings - a third of the global total of man-made CO2 emissions - could be cut by almost 30 per cent in little more than a decade. The technology to achieve this already exists, in contrast with aviation or power generation, say, where reducing emissions may require significant innovation. What's more, future energy savings mean most of such spending would pay for itself in three to seven years.

So are the studies likely to boost the fight against climate change? Unfortunately not. The papers, which appear in a special issue of Building Research & Information, may map the route towards a much more sustainable future, but construction experts say that much of the world is taking a different path. In China, rapid urbanisation is fuelling a construction boom, and the country's developers are ignoring environmental building codes. Meanwhile, the world's other big greenhouse gas emitter, the US, is building larger houses that are helping wipe out gains from improved efficiency standards. "The trends are in the opposite direction to what we need," says Danny Parker, a buildings researcher at the University of Central Florida in Cocoa.

To see what a different direction might look like, consider the homes built in recent years to Europe's "passive house" standard. By carefully sealing all joints, using high-quality insulation and positioning windows to make the most of sunlight, passive houses can be heated using around a tenth as much energy as the average dwelling. "I can usually heat the house using 10 candles," says Katrin Klingenberg, an architect who built and lives in a passive house in Urbana, Illinois, where winter temperatures regularly drop below -10 °C.

That translates into up to 65 per cent less emissions per house, depending on the energy source. And with 5000 passive houses built every year in Europe, and almost 4000 existing homes being renovated to the same standard each year, emissions savings from those new houses alone will knock 14 per cent off emissions due to the residential sector in 2020, according to a report published last year by a consortium of European building researchers.

The savings get even bigger when you include other measures such as replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs and old electric water heaters with more efficient alternatives. Solar water heaters can cut the energy needed to heat showers and wash clothes, and in sunny climates, solar electricity may also be cost-effective. Simply supplying a slow flow of air at floor level in commercial buildings, rather than the existing practice of pumping in large volumes of air, can cut the energy used for ventilation by up to 60 per cent. "We could have an enormous impact immediately," says Parker.

When Harvey and colleagues combined 80 national and regional surveys on the potential impact of such measures, they concluded that they could cut global CO2 emissions due to energy use in buildings by 29 per cent by 2020 (Building Research & Information, vol 35, p 379). That would increase by a further 4 to 7 per cent if agreements such as the Kyoto protocol pushed up the price of fossil fuels, forcing people to burn less to heat residential and commercial buildings. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published the same figures in a report in May, it noted that the potential savings in this area were the biggest of all those it looked at, from agriculture to transport.

While Europe is steadily embracing energy-efficient housing, progress in the US has been much more patchy. Houses may have become better insulated and appliances such as washing machines more efficient, but appliances have also proliferated. The average house size has doubled since 1940, says Parker, and towns are springing up in the south of the country, where air conditioning comes as standard in many new homes. Klingenberg's house is a rarity; only one more has been built in the US since hers in 2003. So despite the potential for savings, the US Department of Energy predicts that energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings will grow at over 1 per cent annually from now until 2030.

China is starting from relatively low rates of energy use, but catching up quickly. In 2004, Chinese homes consumed around a sixth of the American average. Since then, however, the country has added enough new buildings to house the occupants of New York City three times over. Nor is that a sudden surge: over the last 30 years, government policies aimed at shifting surplus rural labour into cities have more than doubled China's urban population to more than half a billion.

As the country becomes more wealthy, these new urban dwellers will be able to afford heating and air conditioning, so energy use will soar. Unpublished projections developed by Mark Levine, an energy-efficiency expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, suggest that China's buildings will consume 50 per cent more energy overall by 2020, as more are built and incomes rise. Building researchers do not dispute China's right to develop in this way, but point out that China could be building energy-efficient houses as it expands, and yet is not.

Looked at purely in terms of costs and benefits, American and Chinese consumers ought to be adopting energy-efficiency measures, since many produce net savings in just a few years. Klingenberg says that her house cost just 10 per cent more than average and will pay for itself in seven years. However, building researchers point out that such market forces often fail because so many different parties are involved in constructing and running properties. It is not in a landlord's interest to invest in better insulation, for example, since tenants pay heating bills. Many consumers also doubt whether energy efficiency will translate into real savings.

What can be done to reverse these trends? Since the market is failing to generate emissions cuts, experts in energy efficiency say governments should step in. When Diana Ürge-Vorsatz of the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, and her colleagues rated 20 policies for reducing emissions, top marks for impact and cost-effectiveness went to targeted regulations, such as building codes (Building Research & Information, vol 35, p 458).

In the UK, for example, the government has committed to making all new houses carbon-neutral by 2016. The growth of passive houses in Germany, which is building more than 2000 every year, is in part due to tax breaks and low-interest loans offered by the government.

Such codes could be implemented in the US, but efforts have so far been confined to isolated state-level or voluntary schemes. "There has been no real push nationally to do something," says Parker. "We're still coming out of the fog of having a leadership that says climate change doesn't exist."

In China there are positive signs, but perhaps only superficially so. In March the government announced a single set of building codes that are similar to US standards, and says it wants developers in the largest cities to adhere to them by 2010. If implemented they would cut energy use in new buildings by up to 65 per cent.

However, there is no guarantee that developers will take notice, notes Timothy Hui of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a US environmental group that has an office in Beijing. Only 15 per cent of new homes conform to existing standards, he says, although that number is up from 5 per cent just a few years ago. Hui adds that compliance depends on training many new inspectors.

The problem of educating people is common to the different housing challenges facing countries around the world. The technology for low-energy houses has existed since the 1970s, but architects and developers are not familiar with it. Even though Europe is taking a lead, governments there still struggle to persuade the many groups involved in house building, from town planners to local contractors, to factor emissions reductions into their plans.

"Everyone has to be heading in the right direction," says Robert Lowe, a buildings researcher at University College London. And right now, he adds, "nobody is doing that quick enough".
full article

New York buildings use ice blocks to chill air

NEW YORK -- Some who operate skyscrapers and apartment buildings around New York City have found a cool alternative to traditional air conditioners.

They're using an energy-saving system that relies on blocks of ice to pump chilly air.

Not only are they taking some of the strain off the city's power grid, they're saving money and reducing pollution.

According to the state's Energy Research and Development Authority, an ice cooling system in Credit Suisse's offices in the Metropolitan Life tower in Manhattan is equal to taking 223 cars off the streets or planting 1.9 million acres of trees to absorb carbon dioxide from electrical use for a year.

Because electricity is needed to make the ice, water is frozen in large silver tanks at night when power demands are low.

The cool air from the ice blocks is then piped through the building.

At night the water is frozen again and the cycle repeated.

Officials say there are at least three-thousand ice-cooling systems worldwide.

full article

Ozone has 'strong climate effect'

Ozone could be a much more important driver of climate change than scientists had previously predicted, according to a study in Nature journal.

The authors say the effects of this greenhouse gas - known by the formula O3 - have been largely overlooked.

Ozone near the ground damages plants, reducing their ability to mop up carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.

As a consequence, more CO2 will build up in the atmosphere instead of being taken up by plants.

This in turn will speed up climate change, say the Nature authors.

"Ozone could be twice as important as we previously thought as a driver of climate change," co-author Peter Cox, from the University of Exeter, UK, told the BBC News website.

Scientists already knew that ozone higher up in the atmosphere acted as a "direct" greenhouse gas, trapping infrared heat energy that would otherwise escape into space.

Ozone closer to the ground is formed in a reaction between sunlight and other greenhouse gases such as nitrogen oxides, methane and carbon monoxide.

Greenhouse emissions stemming from human activities have led to elevated ozone levels across large tracts of the Earth's surface.

full article