A call for a ban on outdoor heaters has been backed by the European Parliament.
MEPs voted to endorse a report that says a timetable should be set to phase out patio heaters, as well as standby modes on televisions.
Report author Fiona Hall - a British MEP - says significant steps have to be taken to cut CO2 emissions, and a ban should at least be considered.
But experts disagree about the impact outdoor heaters have on the environment compared with other appliances.
'Very minimal' emissions
A climate change expert commissioned by the UK's biggest supplier of one of the fuels used by patio heaters, liquefied petroleum gas, Calor, said the overall impact of the heaters on emissions was "very minimal".
Dr Eric Johnson, National Expert Reviewer for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that plasma TVs produced more carbon than patio heaters under normal usage patterns.
But Fiona Hall told the BBC that figures she had seen showed that if a car was run for a year it would emit three tonnes of carbon dioxide, while the figure for an outdoor heater would be four tonnes.
"Many people are already aware that patio heaters produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide," she said.
"It's important that we at least look into taking them off the market."
Standby mode
The report also calls on the European Commission to restrict electrical appliances to a maximum one watt standby, or phase out the standby mode altogether.
The commission already has a timetable for increasing energy efficiency for a wide range of appliances from light bulbs to TV set-top boxes.
Ms Hall said her recommendations would now go to the European Commission, although she realised its priority was to deliver on the energy commitments which it had already agreed.
full article
Thursday, 31 January 2008
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Alternative energy sources
The need to find a new generation of fuels has never been greater. Earlier this month, the cost of oil hit $100 a barrel for the first time, leading to sky-high prices at petrol pumps all over the world. And consumption shows no signs of slowing as the new economic powerhouses of China and India continue to develop a seemingly insatiable thirst for the black gold. In smog-choked Beijing alone, more than 1,000 new private cars hit the roads every day – that's about one every 90 seconds.
No surprise, then, that in recent months the race to develop alternatives to four-star and diesel has really started to hot up. Some of the solutions proposed by white-suited engineers in the world's fuel labs sound closer to science fiction. Take the Counter Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator (CR5), for example. The prototype, unveiled in the desert of New Mexico, has an eight-metre-wide dish of mirrors that focus sunlight on a "solar furnace". There, the heat from all that energy breaks down carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon monoxide.
The CR5 was developed by scientists at Sandia, a US government-funded laboratory. If the dish goes into production, the C02 fed into the furnace would come from power stations run on fossil fuels. And perhaps, Sandia hopes, it may also come straight from the air around us.
In the race to find a practical and renewable fuel, producing carbon monoxide from air – without having to plug any equipment into the grid – is a significant achievement. Carbon monoxide is a building block for hydrocarbons, the key compounds in crude oil. Petrol from thin air? No wonder the US government is backing that idea, although it could be 20 years before the CR5 hits the market.
Meanwhile, in Hawaii, the petroleum giant Shell has more immediate plans. Its ingenious system aims to produce biodiesel from pond scum. It might sound outlandish, but algae has become something of a buzzword in future-fuel circles. If Shell, the first oil major to invest in algal oils, can show the technique to be a viable alternative to standard diesel and existing biofuels, algal fuels could soon appear on a forecourt near you.
Of course, biofuels – fuels produced from crops – aren't new. Henry Ford designed a car to run on ethanol 100 years ago, but gasoline made from oil became the fuel of choice thanks to its low price. But today, sky-high prices caused by the combined threats of emptying oil wells, climate change and Middle East instability mean that production of biofuels has soared in recent years.
Even President George Bush, a notorious heel-dragger on environmental issues, said in 2006 that the US should replace 75 per cent of imported oil with biofuel by 2025. The UK Government wants 5 per cent of transport fuel sold at the pumps to be biofuel by 2010. Biofuels now comprise 1 per cent of global transport fuel and its share is growing fast.
But in recent months, a growing band of experts has raised doubts about the biofuels bandwagon, and about the environmental credentials of these supposedly "green" new fuels. Problems include the demands they make on arable land, the need for water for irrigation, and the amount of energy they actually produce.
Across the US and Brazil, among other countries, crops such as sugar cane, maize, rapeseed and palm are being grown to produce millions of gallons of biodiesel and bioethanol (an alternative to petrol). Globally, about 12 million hectares – or about 1 per cent of the world's fields – are devoted to biofuel crops. In many cases forested areas, as well as land that could be devoted to producing food, are being stripped to make way for biofuels.
That cannot continue, researchers say. The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria has estimated that there are no more than 300 million hectares of land in the world that could be used for biofuels, but that it will require 290 million hectares to meet one-tenth of global energy demands in 2030. But by then, a further 200 million hectares will be needed just to feed the three billion more people in the world. The figures don't add up.
And then there is the water needed to cultivate these thirsty crops. Scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden predict that switching just half of the fossil fuels that will be needed for transport and electricity by 2050 to biofuels would use up to 12,000 extra cubic kilometres of water per year. That almost matches the annual flow of water down all the world's rivers.
Also, producing biofuels soaks up generous quantities of nitrogen-based fertilisers. Some of the nitrogen is converted into nitrogen oxide, which, in the long term, has 300 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Factoring in these emissions, scientists have shown that some biofuels produce more – not less – greenhouse gases than their oil-derived predecessors. The warming caused by nitrous oxide emissions in rapeseed biodiesel, for example, is up to 1.7 times as much as the cooling effect of replacing fossil fuels.
A slew of such studies has led to a demand for genuinely sustainable, or "second generation", biofuels. Shell thinks the answer could lie with algae. "I think we should be very excited about this kind of technology," says Darran Messem, Shell's vice-president of fuel development. "It's very important that we diversify oil supply away from food sources."
Unless you are a goldfish, algae are not a food source, which is one of their biggest advantages as a biofuel source. Another is low demand on land. "We estimate we can achieve 15 times the biofuel yield per hectare using algae rather than conventional crops," Messem says. Algae achieve this thanks in part to their remarkable growth rate; they can double their mass several times a day and can be grown in high density in man-made coastal ponds that don't compete with agricultural land.
An acre of maize can produce just over 1,000 litres of ethanol a year, and an acre of soybeans just 227 litres. In theory, an acre of algae could produce 19,000 litres of biofuel a year – and the organism can be harvested daily rather than annually. What's more, algae have an extraordinary capacity for absorbing CO2, owing to the organism's ultra-efficient photosynthesis. This efficiency is also the reason for the rapid growth.
Like the CR5 dish, it is hoped that algae farms could use the CO2 waste from power stations, creating the possibility of power plants that produce fuel simply as a by-product of electricity, rather than pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Shell says a 1,000-hectare algae facility would absorb 300,000 tons of CO2, which, even factoring in the fossil fuels that would be consumed in processing algal oils, would be the equivalent of taking 70,000 medium-sized cars off the road.
To test these impressive statistics, Shell's pilot facility in Hawaii will measure just 2.5 hectares in area – about the size of three football pitches – and will produce biodiesel for two years. If the trial is successful, a 1,000-hectare facility will follow. "A full-scale commercial facility would need to be much larger, at around 20,000 hectares," Messem says. "Those are big numbers, but not in the context of overall agricultural production, particularly in the US."
Shell isn't yet explaining exactly how its Hawaii plant will turn algae into fuel, but it goes something like this: natural algae, which flourish in the warm sea off Hawaii, are fed sea water in concrete pools. Carbon dioxide is bubbled through the ponds, and a small amount of proprietary fertiliser is added. The fully grown algae are then skimmed off the surface and processed into biodiesel. "I can't go into details, but we want to work on low-energy methods that extract oils from the lipids in algae and convert them into biodiesel," Messem says.
Shell is by no means alone in these plans. There are small-scale pilot plants in the deserts of Arizona and Utah, where algae are grown in sealed bags or on hi-tech solar racks and flushed with water. This means that algae fuel plants might not need to be beside the sea.
At the Science Museum in London, a small algal system is the centrepiece of an exhibition titled Can Algae Save the World?. "The area's really blown up again just in the past six months," says Dr Geraint Evans, head of biofuels at the National Non-Food Crops Centre in York.
While the techniques sound hi-tech, the fuels derived from algae are not new. The US Department of Energy began researching them in the 1970s as the oil price rose, but abandoned them in the 1990s as the cost of a barrel fell again.
Dr Evans is upbeat about algae's potential as it comes back into vogue. "If algal oils can show they are genuinely sustainable, I think they could be a very attractive alternative."
But Evans predicts that it will be at least 50 years before petrol and diesel are replaced, whether by fuels from solar furnaces or algae beds. "I think of these things as wedges," he says. "Conventional biodiesel is a wedge that I don't see providing more than 10 per cent of transport fuel needs. Oils from maize, say, might be another 10 per cent, with algae providing a further wedge. Oil will be replaced eventually, but not by one thing."
by Simon Usborne
full article
No surprise, then, that in recent months the race to develop alternatives to four-star and diesel has really started to hot up. Some of the solutions proposed by white-suited engineers in the world's fuel labs sound closer to science fiction. Take the Counter Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator (CR5), for example. The prototype, unveiled in the desert of New Mexico, has an eight-metre-wide dish of mirrors that focus sunlight on a "solar furnace". There, the heat from all that energy breaks down carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon monoxide.
The CR5 was developed by scientists at Sandia, a US government-funded laboratory. If the dish goes into production, the C02 fed into the furnace would come from power stations run on fossil fuels. And perhaps, Sandia hopes, it may also come straight from the air around us.
In the race to find a practical and renewable fuel, producing carbon monoxide from air – without having to plug any equipment into the grid – is a significant achievement. Carbon monoxide is a building block for hydrocarbons, the key compounds in crude oil. Petrol from thin air? No wonder the US government is backing that idea, although it could be 20 years before the CR5 hits the market.
Meanwhile, in Hawaii, the petroleum giant Shell has more immediate plans. Its ingenious system aims to produce biodiesel from pond scum. It might sound outlandish, but algae has become something of a buzzword in future-fuel circles. If Shell, the first oil major to invest in algal oils, can show the technique to be a viable alternative to standard diesel and existing biofuels, algal fuels could soon appear on a forecourt near you.
Of course, biofuels – fuels produced from crops – aren't new. Henry Ford designed a car to run on ethanol 100 years ago, but gasoline made from oil became the fuel of choice thanks to its low price. But today, sky-high prices caused by the combined threats of emptying oil wells, climate change and Middle East instability mean that production of biofuels has soared in recent years.
Even President George Bush, a notorious heel-dragger on environmental issues, said in 2006 that the US should replace 75 per cent of imported oil with biofuel by 2025. The UK Government wants 5 per cent of transport fuel sold at the pumps to be biofuel by 2010. Biofuels now comprise 1 per cent of global transport fuel and its share is growing fast.
But in recent months, a growing band of experts has raised doubts about the biofuels bandwagon, and about the environmental credentials of these supposedly "green" new fuels. Problems include the demands they make on arable land, the need for water for irrigation, and the amount of energy they actually produce.
Across the US and Brazil, among other countries, crops such as sugar cane, maize, rapeseed and palm are being grown to produce millions of gallons of biodiesel and bioethanol (an alternative to petrol). Globally, about 12 million hectares – or about 1 per cent of the world's fields – are devoted to biofuel crops. In many cases forested areas, as well as land that could be devoted to producing food, are being stripped to make way for biofuels.
That cannot continue, researchers say. The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria has estimated that there are no more than 300 million hectares of land in the world that could be used for biofuels, but that it will require 290 million hectares to meet one-tenth of global energy demands in 2030. But by then, a further 200 million hectares will be needed just to feed the three billion more people in the world. The figures don't add up.
And then there is the water needed to cultivate these thirsty crops. Scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden predict that switching just half of the fossil fuels that will be needed for transport and electricity by 2050 to biofuels would use up to 12,000 extra cubic kilometres of water per year. That almost matches the annual flow of water down all the world's rivers.
Also, producing biofuels soaks up generous quantities of nitrogen-based fertilisers. Some of the nitrogen is converted into nitrogen oxide, which, in the long term, has 300 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Factoring in these emissions, scientists have shown that some biofuels produce more – not less – greenhouse gases than their oil-derived predecessors. The warming caused by nitrous oxide emissions in rapeseed biodiesel, for example, is up to 1.7 times as much as the cooling effect of replacing fossil fuels.
A slew of such studies has led to a demand for genuinely sustainable, or "second generation", biofuels. Shell thinks the answer could lie with algae. "I think we should be very excited about this kind of technology," says Darran Messem, Shell's vice-president of fuel development. "It's very important that we diversify oil supply away from food sources."
Unless you are a goldfish, algae are not a food source, which is one of their biggest advantages as a biofuel source. Another is low demand on land. "We estimate we can achieve 15 times the biofuel yield per hectare using algae rather than conventional crops," Messem says. Algae achieve this thanks in part to their remarkable growth rate; they can double their mass several times a day and can be grown in high density in man-made coastal ponds that don't compete with agricultural land.
An acre of maize can produce just over 1,000 litres of ethanol a year, and an acre of soybeans just 227 litres. In theory, an acre of algae could produce 19,000 litres of biofuel a year – and the organism can be harvested daily rather than annually. What's more, algae have an extraordinary capacity for absorbing CO2, owing to the organism's ultra-efficient photosynthesis. This efficiency is also the reason for the rapid growth.
Like the CR5 dish, it is hoped that algae farms could use the CO2 waste from power stations, creating the possibility of power plants that produce fuel simply as a by-product of electricity, rather than pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Shell says a 1,000-hectare algae facility would absorb 300,000 tons of CO2, which, even factoring in the fossil fuels that would be consumed in processing algal oils, would be the equivalent of taking 70,000 medium-sized cars off the road.
To test these impressive statistics, Shell's pilot facility in Hawaii will measure just 2.5 hectares in area – about the size of three football pitches – and will produce biodiesel for two years. If the trial is successful, a 1,000-hectare facility will follow. "A full-scale commercial facility would need to be much larger, at around 20,000 hectares," Messem says. "Those are big numbers, but not in the context of overall agricultural production, particularly in the US."
Shell isn't yet explaining exactly how its Hawaii plant will turn algae into fuel, but it goes something like this: natural algae, which flourish in the warm sea off Hawaii, are fed sea water in concrete pools. Carbon dioxide is bubbled through the ponds, and a small amount of proprietary fertiliser is added. The fully grown algae are then skimmed off the surface and processed into biodiesel. "I can't go into details, but we want to work on low-energy methods that extract oils from the lipids in algae and convert them into biodiesel," Messem says.
Shell is by no means alone in these plans. There are small-scale pilot plants in the deserts of Arizona and Utah, where algae are grown in sealed bags or on hi-tech solar racks and flushed with water. This means that algae fuel plants might not need to be beside the sea.
At the Science Museum in London, a small algal system is the centrepiece of an exhibition titled Can Algae Save the World?. "The area's really blown up again just in the past six months," says Dr Geraint Evans, head of biofuels at the National Non-Food Crops Centre in York.
While the techniques sound hi-tech, the fuels derived from algae are not new. The US Department of Energy began researching them in the 1970s as the oil price rose, but abandoned them in the 1990s as the cost of a barrel fell again.
Dr Evans is upbeat about algae's potential as it comes back into vogue. "If algal oils can show they are genuinely sustainable, I think they could be a very attractive alternative."
But Evans predicts that it will be at least 50 years before petrol and diesel are replaced, whether by fuels from solar furnaces or algae beds. "I think of these things as wedges," he says. "Conventional biodiesel is a wedge that I don't see providing more than 10 per cent of transport fuel needs. Oils from maize, say, might be another 10 per cent, with algae providing a further wedge. Oil will be replaced eventually, but not by one thing."
by Simon Usborne
full article
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
'Action needed' on home emissions
European governments and the European Commission are being urged to hasten the development of housing that produces no greenhouse gases.
The European Energy Network (ENR), which includes energy advisory bodies across the EU, says better enforcement of green building codes is also needed.
Less than a quarter of EU states have introduced certification schemes for houses, as required under EU law.
European governments have agreed to boost energy efficiency by 20% by 2020.
The ENR report, a snapshot of legislation and other action across member states, will be formally released on Tuesday.
"One implication of our findings is that the European Commission needs to take some leadership and set a timetable for all new buildings around Europe to be zero-carbon," said Philip Sellwood, chief executive of Britain's Energy Saving Trust (EST), an ENR member.
For national governments, ENR says, a priority should be to introduce energy performance certificates that give houses an "energy rating", a key requirement of the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive.
The report describes lack of progress on this issue as "disappointing".
Simple savings
Some countries, the report says, are making considerable progress on improving energy efficiency, which many experts agree is the simplest way to slash fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
Britain has introduced energy performance certificates and set a target of building only zero-carbon homes from 2016.
Even so, Mr Sellwood says the government has not set up the support mechanisms needed to encourage householders to invest in energy saving measures.
"In the UK, the average home has the potential to save £300 per year by just installing the most effective measures such as loft insulation and modern heating controls," said Mr Sellwood.
"Energy supply companies are under an obligation to help their customers become more energy efficient; but lots of householders don't trust their energy companies.
"So we have these schemes within national government, local authorities and supply companies; what we don't have is a long term strategy for sustainable housing."
Where the UK has fallen down in the past, EST notes, is on the enforcement of building codes.
In Germany, economic factors meant that until recently, energy efficiency was not generally a priority, according to Markus Kratz of Project Management Juelich, a research consultancy engaged by the national government.
"Industry did not want to lose any of its market, and there was some public resistance against energy efficiency when energy prices were low," he said.
"Now prices are rising, and that is changing."
Regional differences
Few European countries have seen such rapid economic growth in recent times as Ireland, where the "Celtic tiger" phenomenon stimulated the house-building industry, with demand and prices quickly rising.
Joe Durkan from the House of Tomorrow Programme, a project of the government agency Sustainable Energy Ireland, believes the introduction of energy performance certificates in this thriving house-building sector has raised the profile of energy efficiency.
"There's lots of information about it, and lots of excitement," he told BBC News.
"Builders are now using it as a marketing tool; the certificates have a sliding scale from A to G, and developers are now competing to offer A1 certificates on the properties they have for sale."
The ENR report comes at the beginning of European Sustainable Energy week, which will see a series of events and seminars on various aspects of the issue convened by the European Commission.
By Richard Black
full article
The European Energy Network (ENR), which includes energy advisory bodies across the EU, says better enforcement of green building codes is also needed.
Less than a quarter of EU states have introduced certification schemes for houses, as required under EU law.
European governments have agreed to boost energy efficiency by 20% by 2020.
The ENR report, a snapshot of legislation and other action across member states, will be formally released on Tuesday.
"One implication of our findings is that the European Commission needs to take some leadership and set a timetable for all new buildings around Europe to be zero-carbon," said Philip Sellwood, chief executive of Britain's Energy Saving Trust (EST), an ENR member.
For national governments, ENR says, a priority should be to introduce energy performance certificates that give houses an "energy rating", a key requirement of the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive.
The report describes lack of progress on this issue as "disappointing".
Simple savings
Some countries, the report says, are making considerable progress on improving energy efficiency, which many experts agree is the simplest way to slash fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
Britain has introduced energy performance certificates and set a target of building only zero-carbon homes from 2016.
Even so, Mr Sellwood says the government has not set up the support mechanisms needed to encourage householders to invest in energy saving measures.
"In the UK, the average home has the potential to save £300 per year by just installing the most effective measures such as loft insulation and modern heating controls," said Mr Sellwood.
"Energy supply companies are under an obligation to help their customers become more energy efficient; but lots of householders don't trust their energy companies.
"So we have these schemes within national government, local authorities and supply companies; what we don't have is a long term strategy for sustainable housing."
Where the UK has fallen down in the past, EST notes, is on the enforcement of building codes.
In Germany, economic factors meant that until recently, energy efficiency was not generally a priority, according to Markus Kratz of Project Management Juelich, a research consultancy engaged by the national government.
"Industry did not want to lose any of its market, and there was some public resistance against energy efficiency when energy prices were low," he said.
"Now prices are rising, and that is changing."
Regional differences
Few European countries have seen such rapid economic growth in recent times as Ireland, where the "Celtic tiger" phenomenon stimulated the house-building industry, with demand and prices quickly rising.
Joe Durkan from the House of Tomorrow Programme, a project of the government agency Sustainable Energy Ireland, believes the introduction of energy performance certificates in this thriving house-building sector has raised the profile of energy efficiency.
"There's lots of information about it, and lots of excitement," he told BBC News.
"Builders are now using it as a marketing tool; the certificates have a sliding scale from A to G, and developers are now competing to offer A1 certificates on the properties they have for sale."
The ENR report comes at the beginning of European Sustainable Energy week, which will see a series of events and seminars on various aspects of the issue convened by the European Commission.
By Richard Black
full article
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Households' £730 bill for green energy
Households will have to pay up to £730 a year to fund plans to tackle climate change, it was claimed yesterday.
Under laws proposed by Brussels, Britain will be forced to generate 40% of its electricity from green sources within 12 years. Currently, the figure for wind, wave and hydroelectric power is just 2%.
To meet the target - and avoid hefty fines - energy experts say thousands more wind turbines will be needed. The move would anger anti-turbine campaigners and represent an enormous engineering challenge.
Brussels says the proposals are essential to curb global warming even though environmentalists say they do not go far enough. The European Commission claimed the package would cost the average European citizen £115 a year. Britons will pay far more because the country lags in the green energy stakes.
Open Europe, a Eurosceptic think-tank supported by Marks & Spencer boss Sir Stuart Rose, said a typical family would be paying a £730 levy by 2020.
In order to produce enough green energy by that date, Britain would need to build two giant wind turbines every day. 'Britain has such a low level of renewable energy right now, the cost of meeting this target will be higher than for most other EU countries,' said Open Europe spokesman Hugo Robinson.
The climate change plans were unveiled by Jose Manuel Barroso, the Portuguese European Commission president. The commission pledged last year to generate 20% of Europe's energy from renewable sources - such as wave, tidal, hydroelectric and wood burning - within 12 years.
Europe is demanding that 15% of all the energy used in Britain for electricity, transport and heating comes from renewables - a rise of 13% on the current level. No other country faces such a large increase. Britain is already committed to ensuring that 10% of the energy used for transport is biofuel - produced from crops rather than oil - so further opportunities for green transport fuel are limited.
David Derbyshire, Daily Mail
full article
Under laws proposed by Brussels, Britain will be forced to generate 40% of its electricity from green sources within 12 years. Currently, the figure for wind, wave and hydroelectric power is just 2%.
To meet the target - and avoid hefty fines - energy experts say thousands more wind turbines will be needed. The move would anger anti-turbine campaigners and represent an enormous engineering challenge.
Brussels says the proposals are essential to curb global warming even though environmentalists say they do not go far enough. The European Commission claimed the package would cost the average European citizen £115 a year. Britons will pay far more because the country lags in the green energy stakes.
Open Europe, a Eurosceptic think-tank supported by Marks & Spencer boss Sir Stuart Rose, said a typical family would be paying a £730 levy by 2020.
In order to produce enough green energy by that date, Britain would need to build two giant wind turbines every day. 'Britain has such a low level of renewable energy right now, the cost of meeting this target will be higher than for most other EU countries,' said Open Europe spokesman Hugo Robinson.
The climate change plans were unveiled by Jose Manuel Barroso, the Portuguese European Commission president. The commission pledged last year to generate 20% of Europe's energy from renewable sources - such as wave, tidal, hydroelectric and wood burning - within 12 years.
Europe is demanding that 15% of all the energy used in Britain for electricity, transport and heating comes from renewables - a rise of 13% on the current level. No other country faces such a large increase. Britain is already committed to ensuring that 10% of the energy used for transport is biofuel - produced from crops rather than oil - so further opportunities for green transport fuel are limited.
David Derbyshire, Daily Mail
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
