Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Super rich go for geothermal energy
Lois Rogers, The Sunday Times (UK)
THE Queen is planning to create an underground network to extract heat from the earth’s natural warmth and cut energy bills at Buckingham Palace. She has inspired a fashion among the super-rich for drilling boreholes at their properties as the latest “green” status symbol.
Sir Elton John, the pop star, Sir Richard Branson, the entrepreneur, and Paul Allen, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft, have followed suit. Other high-profile advocates include George Davies, the high street fashion guru, and Paul Lister, son of the founder of the MFI furniture empire and owner of a vast Highlands nature reserve. …
The Queen’s state cars, for example, have been switched to liquefied petroleum gas, which emit low levels of toxic exhaust fumes. So too has the taxi used by the Duke of Edinburgh to drive anonymously around London.
Last winter two hydroelectric schemes were announced for Balmoral and Windsor Castle. Power for Windsor will come from Romney Weir on the Thames, while Balmoral will probably become the first royal residence to be self-sufficient in energy. …
(21 August, 2005)
Coal’s price is rising, but can it clean up?
A rival to costly oil waits in the wings if environmental issues can be overcome
Samira Sohail, The Guardian
With the oil price above $60 a barrel, dragging the cost of natural gas higher, and nuclear power – with one or two exceptions – still politically sensitive as well as economically controversial, the coal industry should be on a roll.
Although demand has surged, almost doubling the price on the global market in two years, coal is in a bind, particularly in developed economies. Regulators are slapping tougher emission limits on power plants burning coal and, while the technology exists to cope with the new regimes, its cost presents investors with a tough choice.
Coal provides about 30% of the world’s electricity. In China, which burns half the world’s consumption of 4.1bn tonnes a year, the figure is 80%. With the growth of demand from other Asian economies the world could be burning 7bn tonnes by 2030. As with most markets facing a surge in demand, bottlenecks prevent supply keeping up. Shortage of shipping has meant freight rates have become a significant factor driving the price higher. Nevertheless, coal still has a big edge over oil and gas: 6,000kcal-worth of coal costs $60 – less than a third of heavy fuel oil at $195.
Such differentials, and the relative longevity of the world’s coal reserves, have led to a resurgence of interest in alternative technologies such as converting coal into oil.
…The big downside for coal is that it threatens to increase the environmental damage that scientists say is causing global warming. Burning coal is a contributor to the greenhouse effect with its carbon dioxide emissions, and its sulphur emissions create acid rain.
(22 August 2005)
DOE Touts Solar Energy Potential
RenewableEnergyAccess.com
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science has released a report describing the basic research needed to produce “revolutionary
progress in bringing solar energy to its full potential in the energy marketplace.” The report resulted from a workshop of 200 scientists held
earlier this year.
“This report demonstrates the important contribution the entire scientific community can make to the development of new sustainable
energy resources,” said Raymond L. Orbach, Director of DOE’s Office of Science. “Science and basic research can and must play a key role in addressing the energy security needs of our nation.”
(19 August 2005)
Ecological landslide fuels nuclear debate
Paul Gilding, The Australian
IF we’re going to have a nuclear debate in Australia, then let’s have an honest one that puts all the options and arguments on the table, not just the convenient ones. …
Forget the ideologues who argue that we have no choice but to keep burning more coal or the economy will suffer. When the choice comes between a runaway greenhouse effect and changing our energy use, infrastructure and technology, the latter will win an election every time. As a species we may be slow, but we’re not stupid.
So in this context, to nukes. One of the key principles of sustainability, and one accepted by environmentalists and governments around the world including our own, is product stewardship. The logic is simple. If you put something out there, you need to accept some responsibility for the consequences, even if the product’s use is not directly under your control. This is why we see McDonald’s acting on obesity, Ford and Toyota on climate change and BP on air pollution. …
The answer is simple. Put a cap on carbon emissions, at a level that will stabilise the climate, put in place a trading system to set the right price for carbon (and therefore the value of avoided emissions) and let the market fight it out.
That will give an equal and fair benefit to all technologies that can help us address climate change. If the glow in the dark brigade, with this commercial boost, can then win the public debate and convince us that going nuclear is the answer and can be delivered economically and safely then so be it.
So let’s have the debate but let’s make it an honest one, morally and intellectually, and strip out the ideology on both sides. Will nukes win? A few months ago I would have said no. Now I’m not so sure. With Siberia melting, my world has changed, and all bets are off.
Paul Gilding, former executive director of Greenpeace International, is founding partner of Ecos Corporation.
(23 August 2005)
Sophisticated but ultimately surreal article asserting that Ford & Toyota are ‘acting on climate change’, that climate change will decide an Australian election (its rarely been even mentioned in any election to date), and that morality will play some role in energy infrastructure decisions. No surprise however for an article in a Murdoch/News Corp paper, Mr Gilding insists that determining the best technologies for the future should be left to the market. -LJ
Hydrogen fuel cells hint at hope, hurdles
Roger Mezger, Cleveland Plain Dealer
Crude oil prices spurted to an all-time high near $67 a barrel this month. Regular gasoline kissed $2.90 a gallon locally. All motorists could do about it was pucker up to Big Oil, dig a little deeper in their pockets and wonder: When will cars run on something besides gasoline or diesel?
Something like hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe.
“There is a potential for replacing essentially all gasoline with hydrogen over the next half century using only domestic resources,” the National Academy of Sciences reported last year.
Some think hydrogen will soon emerge as a force in the economy, just as oil did 100 years ago. They believe that the nonpolluting hydrogen-powered fuel cell, which makes electricity for running cars and just about anything else, will be fairly common in a decade or two.
Others are more skeptical. Fuel-cell technology has many hurdles to clear before it is commercially viable, they say. It won’t seriously challenge the gasoline engine for many decades.
One thing they all agree on: Hydrogen carries a price tag that makes $2.90-a-gallon gas look cheap.
(21 August 2005)
Another article in the Plain Dealer’s admirable “Crude Awakening” series.
