The airline industry has come under fire from MPs for not doing enough about carbon offsetting.
British Airways was singled out for stinging criticism with its efforts on offsetting described as "risible".
A report from the Environmental Audit Committee said airlines should make it easier for passengers to buy offsets because it had a part to play in reducing greenhouse gases.
Offsetting works by allowing customers or companies to pay towards CO2 emission reduction projects - such as planting trees - to make amends for the greenhouse gases they produce themselves.
The report said it was important that individuals, organisations and companies should be encouraged to offset because in the short-term it had a part to play in cutting CO2 emissions - one of the biggest causes of climate change.
The report said:
# Carbon offsets have a role to play in cutting carbon emissions and raising awareness of climate change;
# Encouraging offsets must not inhibit increased efforts to cut emissions;
# Research is needed to find out if buying offsets makes people more or less determined to cut their own carbon footprint;
# Airlines must make it easier for passengers to buy offsets;
# The Government should compel the most carbon-intensive businesses to offer offset services;
# Individuals should be given a compulsory-choice option for offsetting when procuring carbon intensive goods and services;
# Government and business must agree the definition of "carbon neutral" when applied to business and develop appropriate audit standards.
full article
Monday 23 July 2007
Sunday 22 July 2007
Solar Power Wins Enthusiasts but Not Money
The trade association for the nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled.Scientists long ago calculated that an hour’s worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in a year, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago.
Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy has long received less spending, both in the United States and in other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support.
Indeed, there are few major programs looking for ways to drastically reduce the cost of converting sunlight to energy and — of equal if not more importance — of efficiently storing it for when the sun is not shining.
Scientists are hoping to expand the range of sunlight’s wavelengths that can be absorbed, and to cut the amount of energy the cells lose to heat. One goal is to make materials to force photons to ricochet around inside the silicon to give up more of their energy.
For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. While venture capitalists often support the commercialization of new technologies, basic research money comes almost entirely from the federal government.
These days, a growing amount of government money is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research on burning coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping smokestack gas.
In the current fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development.
Raymond L. Orbach, the under secretary of energy for science, said the administration’s challenge was to spread a finite pot of money to all the technologies that will help supply energy without adding to global warming. “No one source of energy that we know of is going to solve it,” Dr. Orbach said. “This is about a portfolio.”
In the battle for money from Washington, solar lobbyists say they are outgunned by their counterparts representing coal, corn and the atom.
“Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in the tens of millions,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “We count ours in the tens of thousands.”
Government spending on energy research has long been shaped by political constituencies. Nuclear power, for example, has enjoyed consistent support from the Senate Energy Committee no matter which party is in power — in large part because Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican, are both from New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a branch of the Sandia National Laboratories.
Biofuels, mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have attracted lawmakers who support farm subsidies. Last year an impromptu coalition established a goal of producing 25 percent of the country’s energy, including vehicle fuel, from renewable sources by 2025. Legislation to that effect attracted 34 senators and 69 representatives as co-sponsors; the resolutions are pending in both houses. Most of the measure’s supporters are from agricultural areas.
For the moment, the strongest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not Washington. But there, too, the focus remains on stimulating markets, not laboratory research.
The federal government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large, sustained energy quest, many experts say.
“This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,” said Nathan S. Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology.
Many environmental organizations are pushing for tax credits for people who buy solar equipment, which helps manufacturing but not research.
Still, some experts say government-financed research efforts often go awry. And several government officials defended the current effort, saying an outsize investment in solar research is not needed because the industry is already in high gear.
Bush administration officials say they are committed to making power from photovoltaic technology as well as “solar thermal” systems competitive with other sources by 2015.
Alexander Karsner, the lead Energy Department official for renewable energy technology and efficiency, said the expanded use of photovoltaic cells could have its greatest impact by substantially reducing the energy thirst of new buildings.
To be sure, there are some promising signs in solar energy.
Big arrays of mirrors that concentrate sunlight to run turbines, which first emerged in the early 1980s, are resurgent in sun-baked places like the American Southwest, Spain and Australia. Some developers say this solar thermal technology is competitive now with power generated by natural gas when demand, and prices, hit periodic peaks.
With more research, the solar thermal method might allow for storing energy. Currently, all solar power is hampered by a lack of storage capability.
“The scale on which things actually have to happen on energy is not fully either appreciated or transmitted to the public,” said Dr. Lewis of Caltech. “You have to find a really cheap way to capture that light, for the price of carpet or paint, and also convert it efficiently into something humans can use for energy.”
After more than two decades in which research on converting solar power to electricity largely lapsed, the Bush administration and lawmakers in Congress are now discussing more money for the field. Dr. Orbach said the Energy Department’s proposed research plan for 2008 to 2012 includes $1.1 billion for solar advances, more than the $896 million going toward fusion.
But many scientists, perhaps seasoned by past energy cycles, doubt that the new burst of interest is sufficient to lure the best young minds in chemistry and physics. After encouraging 346 research groups last year to seek grants for surmounting hurdles to harnessing solar power, the Energy Department this year ended up awarding $22.7 million over three years to 27 projects — hardly the stuff of an energy revolution, several scientists said.
“There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S.,” said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. “But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge.”
full article
Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy has long received less spending, both in the United States and in other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support.
Indeed, there are few major programs looking for ways to drastically reduce the cost of converting sunlight to energy and — of equal if not more importance — of efficiently storing it for when the sun is not shining.
Scientists are hoping to expand the range of sunlight’s wavelengths that can be absorbed, and to cut the amount of energy the cells lose to heat. One goal is to make materials to force photons to ricochet around inside the silicon to give up more of their energy.
For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. While venture capitalists often support the commercialization of new technologies, basic research money comes almost entirely from the federal government.
These days, a growing amount of government money is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research on burning coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping smokestack gas.
In the current fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development.
Raymond L. Orbach, the under secretary of energy for science, said the administration’s challenge was to spread a finite pot of money to all the technologies that will help supply energy without adding to global warming. “No one source of energy that we know of is going to solve it,” Dr. Orbach said. “This is about a portfolio.”
In the battle for money from Washington, solar lobbyists say they are outgunned by their counterparts representing coal, corn and the atom.
“Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in the tens of millions,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “We count ours in the tens of thousands.”
Government spending on energy research has long been shaped by political constituencies. Nuclear power, for example, has enjoyed consistent support from the Senate Energy Committee no matter which party is in power — in large part because Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican, are both from New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a branch of the Sandia National Laboratories.
Biofuels, mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have attracted lawmakers who support farm subsidies. Last year an impromptu coalition established a goal of producing 25 percent of the country’s energy, including vehicle fuel, from renewable sources by 2025. Legislation to that effect attracted 34 senators and 69 representatives as co-sponsors; the resolutions are pending in both houses. Most of the measure’s supporters are from agricultural areas.
For the moment, the strongest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not Washington. But there, too, the focus remains on stimulating markets, not laboratory research.
The federal government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large, sustained energy quest, many experts say.
“This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,” said Nathan S. Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology.
Many environmental organizations are pushing for tax credits for people who buy solar equipment, which helps manufacturing but not research.
Still, some experts say government-financed research efforts often go awry. And several government officials defended the current effort, saying an outsize investment in solar research is not needed because the industry is already in high gear.
Bush administration officials say they are committed to making power from photovoltaic technology as well as “solar thermal” systems competitive with other sources by 2015.
Alexander Karsner, the lead Energy Department official for renewable energy technology and efficiency, said the expanded use of photovoltaic cells could have its greatest impact by substantially reducing the energy thirst of new buildings.
To be sure, there are some promising signs in solar energy.
Big arrays of mirrors that concentrate sunlight to run turbines, which first emerged in the early 1980s, are resurgent in sun-baked places like the American Southwest, Spain and Australia. Some developers say this solar thermal technology is competitive now with power generated by natural gas when demand, and prices, hit periodic peaks.
With more research, the solar thermal method might allow for storing energy. Currently, all solar power is hampered by a lack of storage capability.
“The scale on which things actually have to happen on energy is not fully either appreciated or transmitted to the public,” said Dr. Lewis of Caltech. “You have to find a really cheap way to capture that light, for the price of carpet or paint, and also convert it efficiently into something humans can use for energy.”
After more than two decades in which research on converting solar power to electricity largely lapsed, the Bush administration and lawmakers in Congress are now discussing more money for the field. Dr. Orbach said the Energy Department’s proposed research plan for 2008 to 2012 includes $1.1 billion for solar advances, more than the $896 million going toward fusion.
But many scientists, perhaps seasoned by past energy cycles, doubt that the new burst of interest is sufficient to lure the best young minds in chemistry and physics. After encouraging 346 research groups last year to seek grants for surmounting hurdles to harnessing solar power, the Energy Department this year ended up awarding $22.7 million over three years to 27 projects — hardly the stuff of an energy revolution, several scientists said.
“There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S.,” said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. “But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge.”
full article
Oil and gas may run short by 2015, say industry experts
Humanity is approaching an unprecedented crisis when not enough oil and gas will be produced to keep industrial civilisation running, the world's top oilmen warned last week.
The warning – which is being hailed as a "tipping point" on both sides of the Atlantic – marks the first time that the industry has accepted that it may soon no longer be able to meet demand for its products. In Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, it gives authoritative support to concern about impending shortages, following a similar alert by the International Energy Agency less than two weeks ago.
he report concludes that "the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources ... is unlikely to meet ... growth in demand over the next 25 years". It says that "many observers think that 80 per cent of existing oil production will need to be replaced by 2030" to keep up present supplies "in addition to volumes required to meet existing demand." But, it adds, there are "accumulating risks to replacing current production and increasing supplies".
Though vast amounts of oil and gas remain underground, "complex challenges" and "global uncertainties" are likely to put an end to "the sufficient, reliable and economic energy supplies upon which people depend". And the crunch could come sooner, with oil production becoming "a significant challenge as early as 2015". This chimes with the International Energy Agency's prediction that oil supplies could become "extremely tight" in five years.
The report says the fuel efficiency of cars should be increased "at the maximum rate possible" and there should be a crackdown on 4x4s. It calls for "aggressive energy efficiency standards for buildings, and measures to "set an effective cost for emitting carbon dioxide" to combat global warming.
full article
The warning – which is being hailed as a "tipping point" on both sides of the Atlantic – marks the first time that the industry has accepted that it may soon no longer be able to meet demand for its products. In Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, it gives authoritative support to concern about impending shortages, following a similar alert by the International Energy Agency less than two weeks ago.
he report concludes that "the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources ... is unlikely to meet ... growth in demand over the next 25 years". It says that "many observers think that 80 per cent of existing oil production will need to be replaced by 2030" to keep up present supplies "in addition to volumes required to meet existing demand." But, it adds, there are "accumulating risks to replacing current production and increasing supplies".
Though vast amounts of oil and gas remain underground, "complex challenges" and "global uncertainties" are likely to put an end to "the sufficient, reliable and economic energy supplies upon which people depend". And the crunch could come sooner, with oil production becoming "a significant challenge as early as 2015". This chimes with the International Energy Agency's prediction that oil supplies could become "extremely tight" in five years.
The report says the fuel efficiency of cars should be increased "at the maximum rate possible" and there should be a crackdown on 4x4s. It calls for "aggressive energy efficiency standards for buildings, and measures to "set an effective cost for emitting carbon dioxide" to combat global warming.
full article
Saturday 21 July 2007
Making your house an eco house
The trouble is not many people have the know how or the inclination to take such projects on.
But turning a 19th Century end of terrace £200,000 house into an ecohome of the future was a labour of love for Russell Smith.
Much of Britain's new housing stock is being made more environmentally friendly but what about older properties?
"Russell Smith has shown that converting old houses into low energy, environmentally friendly homes can be done. It is not so much household appliances that matter but the structure and fabric of the building itself.
"Energy prices are going up so his experiment will be a real eye opener to see how much it costs to heat his home in the coming months. I was particularly interested in the recycled newspaper, wool and other materials he used for insulation and draught proofing.
"The fact is old and existing housing stock needs to be upgraded to safeguard the heritage for future generations. What may seem expensive now will in fact prove money well spent for the future.
"This property is a single-skinned (non cavity-walled) house built in 1870 and was in need of renovation throughout. Due to its ubiquitous design and decorative standard it was a prime candidate for applying and testing eco-principles for future reproduction.
"Clearly, if we can achieve significant reductions in energy consumption with this house, we can do it anywhere. I am expecting the insulations for example to pay for themselves between 5 and 8 years.
There is underfloor heating in every room. This requires hot water at a lower temperature than a radiator system and therefore can reduce heating energy by up to 60 per cent. Supplied by Invisible Heating Systems, this will pay for itself in around 8 years from energy savings.
"Insulation is such that we believe that in mid-winter when it is -4 degrees outside, we will only need around 1.5kW to heat the house. i.e. by going downstairs in the morning I can heat the whole of the downstairs by turning the kettle on!"
So what is the detailed breakdown of this Surrey ecohouse?
Energy efficiency - Insulation
Walls - can lose 35 per cent of all heat without treatment
All insulations are internally applied. All have varied speed of install and varied cost of materials, but total costs are expected to be relatively similar.
Living room - 175mm modern blown plastic materials (Celotex and Kingspan) on a metal stud framework - installed by a dry-lining contractor - very quick.
Dining room - 200mm sheep wool insulation (Thermafleece) on timber stud framework - carpenter installed.
Kitchen and extension - to be insulated externally with wood-fibre board then rendered with timber - DIY.
Bedroom 2 - 150mm Blown plastic materials (Celotex) fixed hard up against the wall - 2 hours for installation of the whole wall.
Office - 175mm Recycled news paper insulation (Warmcel) sprayed wet into a timber framework by specialist contractor.
Bathroom - recycled cotton and hemp insulation on timber stud framework - DIY installed.
Loft - Mineral Wool insulation (Rockwool) within a timber framework - DIY.
Multi-foil insulation (Tri-Iso Super 10) on a loft party wall.
Ground Floors - can lose 15 per cent of all heat without treatment.
Dining Room - 150mm recycled newspaper insulation (Warmcel) on suspended under timber flooring.
Living Room - 200mm Expanded Polystyrene insulation (Vencil Resil) under and to the side of a 125mm concrete slab. Underfloor heating is inside the slab. The slab will act as a large night storage heater. Concrete has recycled glass instead of sand and this will be polished to save on any further flooring materials.
Kitchen -Screed floor over the underfloor heating.
Roofs - can lose 15 per cent of all heat without treatment
Office - 300mm recycled news paper insulation (Warmcel) pumped into a timber framework by specialist contractor
Loft -400mm recycled news paper insulation (Warmcel) pumped into a flat roof by specialist contractor. This was done with a 'complete' roof, holes drilled, and repaired afterwards to prove that this is possible for all roofs.
Hot Water System
Solar Thermal systems manufactured by Solaron and supplied by Capital Solar warm to heat approximately 70 per cent of water through the year. These panels lie totally flat on new flat roof.
Lighting
Low energy bulbs throughout, in particular, direct replacements for conventional halogen bulbs with mini fluorescents. All energy saving bulbs pay for themselves in approximately one year.
Water Efficiency
Low flow toilet - 4 and 2 litre flush as opposed to the 6 and 3 in regular toilets.
Taps - Retrofit spray nozzles on taps to reduce water use.
Shower - High spray shower head.
Water Recycling
This system has the capability to store 1200 litres of rainwater collected from the various roofs of the house.
The system has been built from fittings bought from local hardware stores and some more inventive thinking to provide a system that will provide approximately 50 per cent of the home's water needs for a total cost of £250. This pays for itself in 5 years. Rainwater is used to flush the toilets and for washing machine.
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
