Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Prof. Peter F. Smith on renewables and climate change
Richard Scrase, Global Public Media
Professor Peter F. Smith is Special Professor in Sustainable Energy, Nottingham University, UK. He sits on the housing committee of the Energy Savings Trust and wrote Architecture in a Climate of Change (Architecture Press). In this interview with GPM correspondent Richard Scrase, Smith discusses the pros and cons of several renewable energies including wind, wave/tidal, solar, and Stirling engines and the pressing need for them.
If we reach a figure of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of 440 parts per million (ppm), we reach what’s called “the tipping point” then. After that we’re into totally unknown territory. There is a step-change in the way climate change will work… now at the moment we’re up to 382 ppm pushing on 383. The concentration is increasing by about 2 to 3 ppm a year, so we’re going get to that 440 relatively soon. We’ve got perhaps 20 years before we really do start to face potentially catastrophic consequences.”
The latest edition of Architecture in a Climate of Change includes new material on wind generation, domestic water conservation, solar thermal electricity as well as international case studies, encouraging readers to consider new approaches to building making minimum demand on fossil based energy.
Peter recently spoke at a session organised by the British Antarctic Survey at the 2006 British Association Festival of Science. Called Buildings for the Future, he argued the fastest reductions in CO2 could come from reducing demand and the prime candidate is the built environment, responsible for almost 50% of UK emissions. Peter states it is a realistic aim is to make buildings net producers of clean energy.
(1 Sep 2006)
How much would it cost to make the whole world carbon neutral?
Travis Daub, Foreign Policy Magazine
Are you carbon neutral yet? It sure seems like everyone else is. Al Gore has wiped away his carbon footprint. The World Bank aims to be carbon neutral by buying only green energy. Sky Broadcasting is touting itself as the first major media company to go carbon free.
How well carbon offsets really counter carbon production is up for debate. But the economics behind carbon offsets beg the question: What would it cost to make the entire U.S. carbon neutral through offsets? How about the entire planet?
To answer that question, I gathered some data from the DOE and the EPA, and ran it through the Green Tag carbon offset calculator. Here are the results: See link for table.
(14 Sept 2006)
A meaningless figure is arrived at, as the article skips over the externalities and consequent underpricing of carbon offsets; the delusion that we can buy our way out of the climate problem is reinforced.-LJ
Alabama Project Plans To Store Carbon Dioxide, Boost Oil Production
New Technology Magazine
The U.S. Department of Energy has announces the selection of a cost-shared project that will inject carbon dioxide (CO2) into an oil reservoir to maximize domestic oil production. At the same time, the project will assess the potential for later storing CO2 in the reservoir once the oil is depleted rather than emitting it into the atmosphere.
Such storage of CO2 is called sequestration, and the idea is gaining more attention as concerns mount over possible global climate change caused by rising emissions of greenhouse gases.
Growing interest in CO2 sequestration dovetails with strong growth in the use of CO2 as a means to enhance oil and natural gas recovery. Injecting CO2 — the same gas that gives soda pop its fizz — into an oil reservoir thins crude oil left behind, pressurizes it and helps move it to producing wells. So-called CO2 flooding is the fastest-growing technique for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and now accounts for almost five per cent of the U.S.’s oil production at 237,000 barrels per day.
(6 Sep 2006)
An Inconvenient Truth About Climate Change
Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail
Last week a clear-headed woman got up and said in public what no politician, not even Stephen Harper, is brave enough to say. Her message: We should stop pretending that we can prevent climate change. No matter what we do, global warming is inevitable. Slowing the process is important — but we should also start figuring out how we’re going to adapt.
In global-warming circles, “adaptation” is a dirty word. It sounds defeatist. It sounds like an excuse for doing nothing. And so Ms. Cairncross was resoundingly denounced by the usual suspects, who claim we really can stop the world from warming up if we really, really want to.
But can we? All the evidence says no. In fact, the notion that we can meaningfully alter the course of climate change any time soon is a piece of stupefying hubris. You might as well expect King Canute to turn back the tides. ..
(12 Sept 2006)
Contributor Hudson Shotwell writes: Margaret Wente is dragged kicking and screaming into admitting climate change is happening, but hers is a strange form of surrender.
–
Strange but familiar Hudson, with Wente attacking strawmen (‘stop the world from warming up’), making nonsensical claims (a sunny Siberia unlocking oil resources) and generally sowing confusion and defeatism. About standard for commercial media these days, isn’t it? –LJ
White House to unveil new global warming policy: sources
Brian Hansen, Platts
The Bush administration plans to announce as early as next week a goal of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the global atmosphere at 450 parts per million by the year 2106, congressional and non-government sources told Platts Wednesday. ..
Rumors that the White House plans to unveil a new global warming policy have been circulating since August 27, when Time magazine reporter Mike Allen, citing unnamed administration sources, wrote that President Bush’s views on the phenomenon “have evolved.”
(13 Sep 2006)
DON’T watch that space.-LJ
