THIS year nature is trying to tell us we are only here on sufferance.
We have had floods, cyclones, more floods, a massive earthquake and now an even bigger earthquake.
And we are not even halfway through March.
The death tolls from this year of natural disaster will probably never be known - at least 550 people died in mudslides in Rio de Janeiro in January, more than two dozen are dead and missing in Queensland, two more died in our floods in Victoria.
Next there were more than 160 killed in Christchurch. And now Japan, where authorities estimate at least 1000 people died.
If there is a god up there, he doesn't seem very pleased with us this year.
The footage from Toowoomba's inland tsunami might have seemed graphic when we saw it in January but after Friday's display of natural power, it would be hard not to argue that we got off lightly.
The same goes for the destruction wreaked on Christchurch last month.
It's as though nature was saying to us, "you think a 6.3-magnitude earthquake is bad? Have a look at what 8.9 on the Richter scale looks like!"
While we stare appalled at the damage nature has done in Japan, it is sobering to reflect that as high as the death toll is likely to be, it would have been much, much higher anywhere else.
Japan is a rich country with a long history of earthquake preparation.
Most of its major population centres were rebuilt after 1945 to withstand earthquakes. It also has the world's most sophisticated tsunami warning system.
To get an idea what might have happened in a poorer country without Japan's strict earthquake building codes, one only has to look at what happened last time a major earthquake struck Tokyo in 1923. The 7.9 quake was almost 10 times less powerful than the one that struck on Friday but it was estimated to have killed between 100,000 and 150,000 people - mostly from the fires that engulfed the densely crowded slums.
Any way you look at it, 2011 has been an extraordinary year for natural disasters and it's only 72 days old.
The records are mind boggling - the worst cyclone to hit Australia in a century, the worst earthquake to hit Japan, and the deadliest natural disaster to hit Brazil in four decades.
When you add the floods in Sri Lanka, which killed 27 and left 900,000 people homeless, the 40 dead and 1.3 million displaced in the Philippines as well as the two dead and 3000 displaced in Thailand, you could be mistaken for thinking we are living in biblical times.
All we need now is a plague of locusts. Come to think of it, we've got that too in Victoria.
Given such a large number of extreme events, it would be natural to ask if they are connected.
In the case of earthquakes, if there is a connection between them, science has yet to discover it. About 100 earthquakes the size of the one that hit Christchurch occur each year around the world.
Most happen in places where they do no damage.
Quakes the size of the one that struck on Friday are much rarer - one happens about once a year.
Incidentally, if you think a major earthquake can't happen here, think again.
While the Newcastle earthquake that killed 13 people in 1988 is the best remembered and deadliest recorded in Australia - at 5.6 on the Richter scale - it was not even close to the biggest.
In 1988, Tennant Creek was hit by three earthquakes in a day - the biggest of which was measured at 6.7.
But the biggest earthquake recorded on land in Australia was the 7.3 whopper that struck Meeberrie in Western Australia in 1941.
While there may be no link between earthquakes, experts say the floods that have plagued the world this year are all connected to the La Nina weather system.
La Nina is the periodic weather event in which strong South American trade winds drive warm waters, moisture and rain across the Pacific towards Australia for at least 12 months. It is associated with above average rainfall here and elsewhere and increased cyclone activity.
Experts say the current La Nina is the second-strongest in the 130 years of meteorological records.
Whether it is the result of man-made global warming is a matter of dispute.
The idea that we are responsible for causing natural disasters is in some ways comforting because we tend to think that if we created something, then we should by rights be able to fix it.
In the past, when people thought about their responsibility for natural disasters, it was in moral terms.
Thus, when a massive earthquake struck Lisbon on All Saints Day in 1755, destroying almost the whole city and most of its churches, it was taken by many as proof the people needed chastening.
Perhaps that is not so different to those who were quick to attribute this year's floods to global warming.
The alternative view of natural disasters - that they are random acts of violence committed by a pitiless natural world - is a much more unsettling idea.
But even if we accept that, from time to time, nature will show its teeth, we still like to believe that we live in a benign physical world.
A string of natural disasters challenges that comforting belief.
What if there is no end to the destruction?
Tsunamis, just like the bushfires here two years ago, show us that we can be blown away like dust from the pages of a book.
And it's still only March.
full article
Saturday 12 March 2011
Global Warming Natural Disasters
Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem.
“Some islands affected by climate change have been hit,” said Nilsson. “Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?”
“Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do,” he added.
Global warming enthusiasts have also taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the need to respond to the earthquake by finally acting on climate change. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren compiled some of the best ones.
Some examples:
AliceTMBFan said “2 hours of geography earlier talking about Japan has left me thinking…maybe global warming is way more serious then we thought…”
Arbiterofwords tweeted “I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change.”
MrVikas said “Events like the #Japan #earthquake and #tsunami MUST keep #climate change at forefront of policy thought:
Tayyclayy noted her frustration by tweeting “An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”
DanFranklin postulated “Never really believed all this global warming talk, but after the earthquake in NZ and today in Japan. Maybe we’ve ruined the world.”
And TeamIanHarding tweeted “While Japan witnessed an earthquake we were talking about the problems that global warming leads to in school. Think. Pray. And change.”
Do they have a point?
“Global warming alarmists will exploit any natural disaster to promote their anti-fossil fuel agenda,” Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise Project told The Daily Caller, adding that the climate change reaction is a result of the “global warming spin machine.”
“First it’s global warming, then it’s climate change, now it’s probably tectonic instability — no doubt all caused by man,” he said.
When contacted by TheDC, Dan Weiss, Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, also expressed skepticism at the link between global warming and the earthquake in Japan.
“I am not a scientist,” said Weiss, “but I have never heard of a link between global warming and earthquakes.”
full article
“Some islands affected by climate change have been hit,” said Nilsson. “Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?”
“Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do,” he added.
Global warming enthusiasts have also taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the need to respond to the earthquake by finally acting on climate change. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren compiled some of the best ones.
Some examples:
AliceTMBFan said “2 hours of geography earlier talking about Japan has left me thinking…maybe global warming is way more serious then we thought…”
Arbiterofwords tweeted “I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change.”
MrVikas said “Events like the #Japan #earthquake and #tsunami MUST keep #climate change at forefront of policy thought:
Tayyclayy noted her frustration by tweeting “An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”
DanFranklin postulated “Never really believed all this global warming talk, but after the earthquake in NZ and today in Japan. Maybe we’ve ruined the world.”
And TeamIanHarding tweeted “While Japan witnessed an earthquake we were talking about the problems that global warming leads to in school. Think. Pray. And change.”
Do they have a point?
“Global warming alarmists will exploit any natural disaster to promote their anti-fossil fuel agenda,” Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise Project told The Daily Caller, adding that the climate change reaction is a result of the “global warming spin machine.”
“First it’s global warming, then it’s climate change, now it’s probably tectonic instability — no doubt all caused by man,” he said.
When contacted by TheDC, Dan Weiss, Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, also expressed skepticism at the link between global warming and the earthquake in Japan.
“I am not a scientist,” said Weiss, “but I have never heard of a link between global warming and earthquakes.”
full article
Sunday 13 February 2011
FIT for purpose?
This week, the UK’s Energy Secretary Chris Huhne announced a comprehensive review of the Feed in Tariffs (FITs) scheme “following growing evidence that large-scale solar farms could soak up money intended to help homes, communities and small businesses generate their own electricity.”
Feed-in-tariff system (inherited from the previous Labour government), is a curious affair, particularly if one considers that the primary goal of such instruments is arguably incentivising the installation of renewable technology that will produce the greatest amount of clean, low-carbon power at the lowest possible price. Under the current arrangements the greater the capacity installed for any one project, the lower the feed-in-tariff. Furthermore, photovoltaic systems get preferential subsidies to wind turbines, particularly at the higher end of the scale in terms of generating capacity. A 5MW solar farm would, in the first year of the scheme, receive 29.3p/kWh over a 25 year period, while a 5MW wind farm would be receiving just 4.5p/kWh over a 20 year period. The scheme has GBP360m allocated to it, making it something of a zero-sum game for the various technologies positioned to take advantage of it.
full article
Feed-in-tariff system (inherited from the previous Labour government), is a curious affair, particularly if one considers that the primary goal of such instruments is arguably incentivising the installation of renewable technology that will produce the greatest amount of clean, low-carbon power at the lowest possible price. Under the current arrangements the greater the capacity installed for any one project, the lower the feed-in-tariff. Furthermore, photovoltaic systems get preferential subsidies to wind turbines, particularly at the higher end of the scale in terms of generating capacity. A 5MW solar farm would, in the first year of the scheme, receive 29.3p/kWh over a 25 year period, while a 5MW wind farm would be receiving just 4.5p/kWh over a 20 year period. The scheme has GBP360m allocated to it, making it something of a zero-sum game for the various technologies positioned to take advantage of it.
full article
Is investing in on-farm solar power worthwhile?
Glastonbury festival’s Michael Eavis has become the UK’s first farmer to install a large solar array on the roof of a cow shed. Many others are queuing up to follow his lead, but how beneficial is this technology, and is the large capital outlay it requires really worthwhile?
With a £500,000 loan over 10 years from Triodos Bank, and £70,000 of his own capital, Mr Eavis visited a solar panel factory in Durham to learn about the technology and negotiate on price.
The 1,116 panels, weighing about 25 tonnes, were fitted to the roof of the 1,500sq.m barn, and are capable of producing 200kW per hour - enough to power 40 homes annually.
“We should be generating £50,000 of electricity a year - it will pay back within 10 or 12 years.”
About 40 per cent of the electricity would be used on the farm, with the remainder exported to the National Grid.
“There is a lot of form-filling to export to the grid - they treat it like a nuclear power station,” says Mr Eavis. He also had to upgrade the farm’s transformer to cope with the extra load, at a cost of £50,000.
Anyone considering installing solar PV should get an independent performance appraisal for the site to get an accurate forecast of productivity.
A grid survey by the electricity supplier, at a cost of about £1,000, would reveal whether upgrades to the network - costing £100,000s - may be required.
In-field solar arrays may also need extra security, and could change the land use away from agriculture, says Dan Davies from SolarCentury. Large installations up to 5mW would probably require backing from an investor. A variety of agreements are available.
Most small installations will not require planning permission, but in-field arrays may do.
Take advice from your local planning authority, and consult with neighbours and local stakeholders to ensure you have their support before you start.
Feed-in Tariff Income could be tax-free for individuals, but business rates are likely to be payable on any installation, while in-field arrays could reduce the Single Farm Payment and eligibility for agricultural tax reliefs.
full article
With a £500,000 loan over 10 years from Triodos Bank, and £70,000 of his own capital, Mr Eavis visited a solar panel factory in Durham to learn about the technology and negotiate on price.
The 1,116 panels, weighing about 25 tonnes, were fitted to the roof of the 1,500sq.m barn, and are capable of producing 200kW per hour - enough to power 40 homes annually.
“We should be generating £50,000 of electricity a year - it will pay back within 10 or 12 years.”
About 40 per cent of the electricity would be used on the farm, with the remainder exported to the National Grid.
“There is a lot of form-filling to export to the grid - they treat it like a nuclear power station,” says Mr Eavis. He also had to upgrade the farm’s transformer to cope with the extra load, at a cost of £50,000.
Anyone considering installing solar PV should get an independent performance appraisal for the site to get an accurate forecast of productivity.
A grid survey by the electricity supplier, at a cost of about £1,000, would reveal whether upgrades to the network - costing £100,000s - may be required.
In-field solar arrays may also need extra security, and could change the land use away from agriculture, says Dan Davies from SolarCentury. Large installations up to 5mW would probably require backing from an investor. A variety of agreements are available.
Most small installations will not require planning permission, but in-field arrays may do.
Take advice from your local planning authority, and consult with neighbours and local stakeholders to ensure you have their support before you start.
Feed-in Tariff Income could be tax-free for individuals, but business rates are likely to be payable on any installation, while in-field arrays could reduce the Single Farm Payment and eligibility for agricultural tax reliefs.
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
