As the climate crisis finally has become a household concern, decision makers struggle with policy choices. Counteracting climate change has driven a search for alternative fuels rather than the conventional fossil fuels, oil, coal, and natural gas. These fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide, the major cause of global warming.
As an energy source, biofuels have won support and drawn criticism. The main biofuels in the U.S. today are ethanol made from corn and, to a lesser extent, biodiesel made from oilseeds (like soybeans, palm nuts, and rapeseed). Currently in development is cellulosic ethanol made from woody plants, switchgrass and organic wastes.
Rather than a green elixir, skeptics from both the left and the right argue that biofuel peril trumps biofuel promise. Cultivating, harvesting and refining crops into fuel requires energy, most of which comes from fossil fuels.
Critics argue that global biofuel production can raise food prices, spur fertilizer and pesticide use, shrink scarce water supplies, bring deforestation, reduce biodiversity, eliminate
Advertisement
wildlife habitat, lead to serious food shortages, increase poverty, further consolidation of corporate agribusiness and harm small farmers and rural communities. Besides, the potential total energy produced by America's ethanol plants amounts to only a tiny fraction of the overall energy market.
As a fuel source, moreover, ethanol contains just two-thirds as much energy as gasoline. And it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it actually contains. Whether corn or cellulosic, ethanol production will increase America's total energy consumption, not decrease it. Adding more ethanol and other crop-based fuels also can worsen air quality.
Oil dependence and global warming intersect in America's transportation sector. Cars and trucks account for two-thirds of our total oil use, and oil generates one-third of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming pollution.
Energy efficiency is the cleanest, cheapest and fastest way to cut oil demand. Raising fuel economy standards for our cars and light trucks, for example, saves money at the pump, cuts oil dependence and curbs global warming. A 3 percent increase in fuel economy standards for vehicles would save more gas than the entire 2006 production of corn ethanol.
Battery-electric, plug-in hybrids and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles produce few toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause little disruption to the land, unlike the millions of acres required for the mass production of ethanol. Traveling on electricity generates no tailpipe pollution and costs 1-2 cents per mile compared to 10-15 cents per mile for traveling on gasoline or biofuels. One expert estimates that replacing the entire U.S. vehicle fleet with plug-in hybrids would decrease the nation's oil consumption by 70 percent.
Beyond the transportation sector, industrial, residential and commercial energy efficiency measures can cut energy usage and save money. This can be accomplished by increasing the energy efficiency standards applied to building design and construction, appliances, heating and cooling, lighting, computer applications and electric motors. A comprehensive energy program includes such conservation measures as improvements in recycling and mass transit.
When designing public policy to encourage the highest and best use of our energy resources, wind and sunlight, which can be harnessed for thermal, mechanical and electrical energy, meet the test. Plants, on the other hand, are problematic partly because they can be used for many non-fuel purposes: human nutrition, pharmaceuticals, clothing, chemicals, animal feed and building materials.
Most of the important global warming initiatives have come from the state and local levels. But America needs a national energy policy that moves us beyond our reliance on polluting fossil fuels.
With the technology and knowledge now available, we can begin to make the transformation. Besides, renewable energy creates more jobs per unit of energy produced and per dollar spent than fossil fuel technologies. The wind turbines and solar panels that produce green energy provide good-paying manufacturing jobs.
Lawmakers should back clean alternative fuels and stricter automobile and industrial emissions standards. Such a green energy policy means renewable energy and energy efficiency, both of which stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Government should institute a certification process for ensuring the production of alternative fuels in an ecologically and socially sustainable manner. Actually, any energy policy ought to be carefully managed and performance-based.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized a variety of research, development and utilization incentives for biofuels. We should now seriously invest in more sustainable energy sources like wind and solar. By harnessing the energy derived from natural sources like sunlight and wind, we can generate clean, safe, renewable, affordable and reliable electric power without contributing to global warming pollution.
Scharnau teaches U.S. history at Northeast Iowa Community College, Peosta. His publications include journal articles on labor history in Dubuque and Iowa. Readers may comment on this feature via e-mail at doubletake@wcinet.com or by posting a comment below the article on THonline.com.
By Ralph Scharnau
full article
Sunday 4 November 2007
Climate change: we have the power
The technology to reduce emissions in small ways at home is advancing rapidly. Compact fluorescent lamps use up to 80% less power than ordinary bulbs. And LEDs, the tiny lights that flash on electronic equipment and use hardly any energy, can be scaled up for domestic lighting. Widespread adoption of such technologies will bring down prices and, over time, make it more profitable to do the right, green thing.
In addition, Ausubel points out, all the technology is in place for producing effectively zero-emission buildings. These would be covered in solar panels and use natural air flows for heating and cooling. It isn’t difficult and, indeed, it’s financially sensible. All that is needed is the will.
Painting everything white might also be a good idea. White increases the Earth’s albedo – reflectivity – and cools the planet. The polar snow fields have a huge cooling effect. Some big cities like Los Angeles are seriously considering painting their roads and many of their buildings white. This is not just because of global warming but because of urban warming. Cities absorb heat. The differential between city centres and the countryside – the so-called urban heat island – has been growing: summer temperatures in Tokyo have hit 40C, compared with 28.5C in the country. Painting things white and planting many more inner-city trees would help correct this, making city-dwellers happier, while also cooling the planet and capturing carbon.
Transport, of course, is a harder problem. Outside the US, cars have become much more efficient. The next step, however, is far more difficult. The EU has been pressing to get CO2 emissions down to an average 140g per kilometre – for perspective the Toyota Prius hybrid emits 104g and the Land Rover Discovery around 250g – but it’s an enormous task: most middle-range cars are still well into the 150-250g range. Hybrid technology is expensive, adding thousands to the price of a car, and though fully electric cars are on the way, it is not yet clear whether they will be good enough and cheap enough to lure consumers away from petrol.
Commitment is the big problem. People accept the green message – hence all the green rhetoric in politics – but don’t yet seem to let it affect their lives on a large scale. As Lomborg points out, there are hundreds of schemes for offsetting your carbon when you fly, but less than 1% of passengers use them. And they certainly don’t want to swap their high-status wheels for an understated plodder like the Prius. Nevertheless, it is clear we want politicians to do something. But what, after the failures of emission controls and in the face of rapid industrialisation involving a third of the global population, can they do?
Most effectively, they can rethink their energy strategies. Nuclear power is respectable again after its long disgrace following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters. It’s still expensive – but then we are just waking up to the true cost of coal and oil. Furthermore, nuclear plants are being designed that promise up to 20% gains in efficiency. So-called “pebble bed” reactors also promise much greater safety. And nuclear plants, once built, are more or less emission-free. There are also ZEPPs – zero-emission power plants that use new ways of handling coal and oil. Again, we know how to do this. We just have to find the will.
All these divisions point to a fundamental problem for the green movement that has dogged all its campaigning and drained its political credibility. They squabble among themselves, and, beneath the surface, it’s always about the same thing: what are we trying to achieve?
On the one hand are the greens who advocate “sustainable retreat”. Thinkers like Lovelock and Ausubel believe humanity must step back from nature and allow the wilderness to return, for it is wilderness that preserves the systems of the living planet. This means we must free the land of our presence, and it involves a very high-tech commitment to nuclear power and new ways of producing food – perhaps synthesising our own meat or building the urban “vertical farms” proposed by yet another Columbia professor, Dickson Despommier. These would be 30-storey towers growing fruit, vegetables and cereals. Clean water and energy would be by-products.
The point about such schemes is they reduce the need for vast areas of agricultural land. Agriculture, to sustainable retreaters, is a disaster. It expends vast amounts of energy and resources to produce protein in the most inefficient way – through sheep, cows and pigs. And it reduces large parts of the Earth to barren monocultures, absorbing too little CO2 and destroying many of the natural processes that keep systems in equilibrium. For retreaters, biofuels – petrol and diesel made from plants – are the worst “green” idea yet. They are supposed to be carbon-neutral in that the plants absorb as much carbon as the fuel releases. But, in fact, they commit more land to agriculture and are likely to kill more Africans by raising the price of agricultural land and thus the cost of food.
For similar reasons, sustainers are keen on encouraging people to live in cities. Again this frees land, but it also makes energy generation and supply much more efficient. New power plants can be built on the sites of the old and delivered short distances to more users.
On the other side are the more pastoral greens who focus primarily on renewables. They want to see a landscape dotted with windmills, the sea full of wave farms and the streets full of electric cars. They don’t see people retreating; they see us living in more perfect harmony with nature.
For me the retreaters are more likely to be right for two reasons. First, they are more realistic about human nature. We are rapacious creatures not given to living in harmony with anything. If we can be rapacious in the cities and leave the wilderness alone, so much the better. Secondly, it is clear that we can do nothing to stop the world population rising to almost 10 billion by 2050. A disaster might intervene, but, assuming it doesn’t, we need to generate vast amounts of energy to prevent starvation on an unprecedented scale. Renewables are not up to the task.
Yet renewables and small-scale technologies must be developed. Using wind power, solar panels, LED lights or hybrid cars are baby steps, but they are steps nonetheless, and, cumulatively, they will one day make a difference.
Bryan Appleyard
full article
In addition, Ausubel points out, all the technology is in place for producing effectively zero-emission buildings. These would be covered in solar panels and use natural air flows for heating and cooling. It isn’t difficult and, indeed, it’s financially sensible. All that is needed is the will.
Painting everything white might also be a good idea. White increases the Earth’s albedo – reflectivity – and cools the planet. The polar snow fields have a huge cooling effect. Some big cities like Los Angeles are seriously considering painting their roads and many of their buildings white. This is not just because of global warming but because of urban warming. Cities absorb heat. The differential between city centres and the countryside – the so-called urban heat island – has been growing: summer temperatures in Tokyo have hit 40C, compared with 28.5C in the country. Painting things white and planting many more inner-city trees would help correct this, making city-dwellers happier, while also cooling the planet and capturing carbon.
Transport, of course, is a harder problem. Outside the US, cars have become much more efficient. The next step, however, is far more difficult. The EU has been pressing to get CO2 emissions down to an average 140g per kilometre – for perspective the Toyota Prius hybrid emits 104g and the Land Rover Discovery around 250g – but it’s an enormous task: most middle-range cars are still well into the 150-250g range. Hybrid technology is expensive, adding thousands to the price of a car, and though fully electric cars are on the way, it is not yet clear whether they will be good enough and cheap enough to lure consumers away from petrol.
Commitment is the big problem. People accept the green message – hence all the green rhetoric in politics – but don’t yet seem to let it affect their lives on a large scale. As Lomborg points out, there are hundreds of schemes for offsetting your carbon when you fly, but less than 1% of passengers use them. And they certainly don’t want to swap their high-status wheels for an understated plodder like the Prius. Nevertheless, it is clear we want politicians to do something. But what, after the failures of emission controls and in the face of rapid industrialisation involving a third of the global population, can they do?
Most effectively, they can rethink their energy strategies. Nuclear power is respectable again after its long disgrace following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters. It’s still expensive – but then we are just waking up to the true cost of coal and oil. Furthermore, nuclear plants are being designed that promise up to 20% gains in efficiency. So-called “pebble bed” reactors also promise much greater safety. And nuclear plants, once built, are more or less emission-free. There are also ZEPPs – zero-emission power plants that use new ways of handling coal and oil. Again, we know how to do this. We just have to find the will.
All these divisions point to a fundamental problem for the green movement that has dogged all its campaigning and drained its political credibility. They squabble among themselves, and, beneath the surface, it’s always about the same thing: what are we trying to achieve?
On the one hand are the greens who advocate “sustainable retreat”. Thinkers like Lovelock and Ausubel believe humanity must step back from nature and allow the wilderness to return, for it is wilderness that preserves the systems of the living planet. This means we must free the land of our presence, and it involves a very high-tech commitment to nuclear power and new ways of producing food – perhaps synthesising our own meat or building the urban “vertical farms” proposed by yet another Columbia professor, Dickson Despommier. These would be 30-storey towers growing fruit, vegetables and cereals. Clean water and energy would be by-products.
The point about such schemes is they reduce the need for vast areas of agricultural land. Agriculture, to sustainable retreaters, is a disaster. It expends vast amounts of energy and resources to produce protein in the most inefficient way – through sheep, cows and pigs. And it reduces large parts of the Earth to barren monocultures, absorbing too little CO2 and destroying many of the natural processes that keep systems in equilibrium. For retreaters, biofuels – petrol and diesel made from plants – are the worst “green” idea yet. They are supposed to be carbon-neutral in that the plants absorb as much carbon as the fuel releases. But, in fact, they commit more land to agriculture and are likely to kill more Africans by raising the price of agricultural land and thus the cost of food.
For similar reasons, sustainers are keen on encouraging people to live in cities. Again this frees land, but it also makes energy generation and supply much more efficient. New power plants can be built on the sites of the old and delivered short distances to more users.
On the other side are the more pastoral greens who focus primarily on renewables. They want to see a landscape dotted with windmills, the sea full of wave farms and the streets full of electric cars. They don’t see people retreating; they see us living in more perfect harmony with nature.
For me the retreaters are more likely to be right for two reasons. First, they are more realistic about human nature. We are rapacious creatures not given to living in harmony with anything. If we can be rapacious in the cities and leave the wilderness alone, so much the better. Secondly, it is clear that we can do nothing to stop the world population rising to almost 10 billion by 2050. A disaster might intervene, but, assuming it doesn’t, we need to generate vast amounts of energy to prevent starvation on an unprecedented scale. Renewables are not up to the task.
Yet renewables and small-scale technologies must be developed. Using wind power, solar panels, LED lights or hybrid cars are baby steps, but they are steps nonetheless, and, cumulatively, they will one day make a difference.
Bryan Appleyard
full article
Saturday 3 November 2007
Energy industry says meter plan is too low-tech
A plan to roll out smart meters that could provide almost £4.5bn of benefits to Britain by cutting domestic energy bills and lowering CO2 emissions, is in danger of being undermined by government policies, British Gas and consumer groups warned last night.
Ministers have proposed rushing in far more limited electricity display devices in May next year. But the energy industry says this would be a waste of money and would hamper the introduction of hi-tech devices that would save far more cash and carbon.
The industry also claims that using interim meters would delay the full introduction of smart devices by up to 20 years and deliver benefits of not much more than £2.5bn.
Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, the parent group of British Gas, said: "Speed is vital and if the government gives us the green light now, the UK's 45m dumb meters can be replaced [by smart meters] within seven years, starting from 2010. Key to this would be a restructuring of the metering industry, with regional franchises delivering roll out street by street.
"The rapid roll out of smart meters to all households is a real opportunity to revolutionise the industry, giving the UK billions of pounds of benefits through reduced energy usage, lower CO2 emissions and better customer service."
British Gas says that, based on the experience of rolling out 63,000 smart meters in Holland to some of its 800,000 customers, it should be able to reduce energy consumption in homes by 2%.
Smart meters, capable of displaying consumption costs and of being read remotely, would be placed on kitchen tables or on shelves to allow consumers to closely monitor their gas and electricity usage and encouraging them to switch on power less often or outside peak hours. The smart meters could provide instant readings on carbon and be connected to energy company offices, ending the need for meter readers and estimated bills.
Energywatch, the consumer group, said it supported the drive for smart meters and shared the industry's concerns about the government's "unnecessary" proposed use of low-tech display units. A government spokesman said it was committed to the roll-out of smart meters. But this would take up to 10 years. "That is why we have consulted on proposals to introduce real time display units, which offer a cost-effective way of delivering energy savings now."
Terry Macalister
full article
Ministers have proposed rushing in far more limited electricity display devices in May next year. But the energy industry says this would be a waste of money and would hamper the introduction of hi-tech devices that would save far more cash and carbon.
The industry also claims that using interim meters would delay the full introduction of smart devices by up to 20 years and deliver benefits of not much more than £2.5bn.
Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, the parent group of British Gas, said: "Speed is vital and if the government gives us the green light now, the UK's 45m dumb meters can be replaced [by smart meters] within seven years, starting from 2010. Key to this would be a restructuring of the metering industry, with regional franchises delivering roll out street by street.
"The rapid roll out of smart meters to all households is a real opportunity to revolutionise the industry, giving the UK billions of pounds of benefits through reduced energy usage, lower CO2 emissions and better customer service."
British Gas says that, based on the experience of rolling out 63,000 smart meters in Holland to some of its 800,000 customers, it should be able to reduce energy consumption in homes by 2%.
Smart meters, capable of displaying consumption costs and of being read remotely, would be placed on kitchen tables or on shelves to allow consumers to closely monitor their gas and electricity usage and encouraging them to switch on power less often or outside peak hours. The smart meters could provide instant readings on carbon and be connected to energy company offices, ending the need for meter readers and estimated bills.
Energywatch, the consumer group, said it supported the drive for smart meters and shared the industry's concerns about the government's "unnecessary" proposed use of low-tech display units. A government spokesman said it was committed to the roll-out of smart meters. But this would take up to 10 years. "That is why we have consulted on proposals to introduce real time display units, which offer a cost-effective way of delivering energy savings now."
Terry Macalister
full article
Thursday 1 November 2007
Have You Checked Out the UK Energy Saving Calculator?
Earlier this year, UK Energy Saving launched an Energy Saving Calculator on their website, http://www.uk-energy-saving.com, which is proving to be an excellent resource for consumers interested in saving energy. The unique calculator has been designed to offer simple, at-a-glance information regarding energy saving in the home, with details on the costs and savings which can be expected for the various measures.
Hayley Jones, UK Energy Saving’s Web Marketing Director, explains how the UK Energy Saving Calculator works. “There is nothing tricky about our website calculator, which simply pulls together a wide range of energy saving suggestions and gives visitors useful information on the outlay required and savings to be made. By providing this information in a simple and concise way we hope to save our visitors the time required to weigh up which energy saving ideas might be best for them.”
The UK Energy Saving Calculator is split into four sections with energy saving suggestions and ideas sorted according to the costs involved. Bronze tips won’t cost you a penny, silver tips all cost less than £100, gold suggestions are energy saving investments with long term savings and platinum savings utilise renewable energy. So whatever visitors to http://www.uk-energy-saving.com are looking for there will be energy saving tips to suit their pocket. As Hayley Jones points out, “some people are just starting out with energy saving and are looking for a few quick and easy ideas to help the environment and save money. But for hardened ‘energy savers’ our calculator also looks at some investment ideas which will really reduce carbon footprints and offer long term savings”.
full article
Hayley Jones, UK Energy Saving’s Web Marketing Director, explains how the UK Energy Saving Calculator works. “There is nothing tricky about our website calculator, which simply pulls together a wide range of energy saving suggestions and gives visitors useful information on the outlay required and savings to be made. By providing this information in a simple and concise way we hope to save our visitors the time required to weigh up which energy saving ideas might be best for them.”
The UK Energy Saving Calculator is split into four sections with energy saving suggestions and ideas sorted according to the costs involved. Bronze tips won’t cost you a penny, silver tips all cost less than £100, gold suggestions are energy saving investments with long term savings and platinum savings utilise renewable energy. So whatever visitors to http://www.uk-energy-saving.com are looking for there will be energy saving tips to suit their pocket. As Hayley Jones points out, “some people are just starting out with energy saving and are looking for a few quick and easy ideas to help the environment and save money. But for hardened ‘energy savers’ our calculator also looks at some investment ideas which will really reduce carbon footprints and offer long term savings”.
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
