3.I think this is a very interesting article for me because finally we turn environmental issue to financial issue, so more people could pay their attention on this problem. We should convert all environmental problems into monetary issue, because most of people only care about economics nowadays but nothing else. From this article, we can see a shock amount of people is leaving Hong Kong because of environmental problem, it shows that the pollution developed into an unbearable level for people to live. Before, I thought that no matter how bad is the situation of environment in an area, people is not going to willing to leave the area if there is money to earn. However, this news seems to prove me wrong. Unfortunately, most of people who are moving out are elite and skilled worker. I wonder what the places that they choose to move are and will they go back if the air condition becomes better in the future. Hugh amount of people are leaving now, how the government is going to react on this? And how is his issue is going to end or develop? I would like to now, in this case, what is the aspect that Hong Kong may concerns the most? Will it be human resource or air condition? In the news, it says that Singapore is one of the countries that people would like to go if they choose to move out of Hong Kong. Since I came from Singapore, I could like to talk a bit about it. First of all, Singapore is a tropical city, I am guessing if this could help Singapore to have a better environmental state because tree and planets are able to grow throughout the year and their leaves never fall out but keep in green whole year round too. If trees and planets could keep in green for a longer period, I believe that more carbon dioxide could absorb by the tree and planets, so the air becomes fresher. I do not know if it works this way, but this is my logic. Other than that, I do not really think that Singapore government provides a solid environmental education on youth, however, in my experience; I think Singapore government put in equal efforts in environmental issue as any other major issue during the parliament. They never fail to emphasis the important of keeping Singapore as the garden city in Asia as well. Attractive environment becomes the best strategy for the government to attract talents also to compete with other developing city in Asia for international chance of future development. Anyway, compare with other city that I have live before, I shall commit that Singapore has a better living environment than others. Back to the issue, I am also very surprising that for the past 20 years, Hong Kong fail to renew its system on air pollution objectives, this shows how much the government of Hong Kong is reluctant on the issue of air pollution for the past 20 years, however it seems too late for them to catch up their steps to compete with country like Singapore for better chance in attracting talents nowadays. Other than not aware about reform on environmental system, the city also chooses to use wrong scheme and schedule on the environmental issue. It sounds really ridiculous that Hong Kong is choosing plan which is planned for developing country to deal with pollution problem. Does the government of Hong Kong need somebody to remain them that Hong Kong is a developed city! Such a joke! Hong Kong needs to treat environmental issues seriously from today before they may lose its entire well-educated citizens.
4.------------------------------------------ 5.A high cost to Hong Kong April 07, 2009 Air pollution may threaten the future of one of east Asia’s top financial destinations. Eric Cheng reports on a way to count the cost of the problem. “In a recent survey, one in every five people in Hong Kong said they were considering leaving the city because of the air pollution.” “A great city; except for the pollution.” It’s an increasingly common summary of Hong Kong. A financial hub known for its modern infrastructure, towering buildings and fast-paced lifestyle, the city is now attracting a less desirable label. A forecast by the Economist recently highlighted air pollution as a key cause for concern in Hong Kong’s future development. Last year alone, air pollution caused 1,155 premature deaths and an extra 7 million doctor visits, costing the city over HK$2.3 billion (US$297 million).
Cleaning up air pollution is not only an environmental problem, but also an economic and public health issue. Globalisation continues to draw countries closer together and integrates our financial markets. The world’s best minds have greater choice on where to take their talents, and while Hong Kong remains one of the world’s top destinations in this regard, its status is built on increasingly shaky ground.
In a recent survey, one in every five people in Hong Kong said they were considering leaving the city because of the air pollution. One in 10 was either seriously considering leaving or already in the process of leaving. Most worrisome is that the people in this group are the most educated and highest income earners. As Hong Kong’s environmental health affects its economic health, similar financial centres, such as Singapore, are capitalising on the brain drain by emphasising their cleaner environments as a comparative advantage.
Having established that cleaning up the air will benefit the economy, how do we achieve this? In Hong Kong, it is easy to point a finger toward the Pearl River Delta (PRD) on the Chinese mainland. Emissions from manufacturing in the PRD leaves a significant footprint on the city’s air quality, but only focusing on this point misses the full picture. Of the total number of polluted days in Hong Kong, local pollutants were the dominant source over half of the time. Furthermore, the pollutants that do the most damage to people’s health are those from roadside and marine sources, which are both locally generated. This means Hong Kong’s own pollutants are the main culprit and that addressing pollution and reforming local regulations and Air Quality Objectives will make a significant difference.
However, a gap exists between the dangers of Hong Kong’s pollution and public awareness of the problem. The public policy think-tank Civic Exchange has worked with the University of Hong Kong to bridge this divide with the development of the Hedley Environmental Index, the world’s first website to quantify the monetary and public health costs of air pollution in real-time. Named after professor Anthony Hedley of the Hong Kong University School of Public Health, the site uses a peer-reviewed, internationally accepted model to calculate the concrete costs of unsafe air. One goal of the Index is to show the public that air pollution’s effects extend beyond just environmental health and that these costs are tangible.
In just the first two months of 2009, the Hedley Environmental Index shows that air pollution lost Hong Kong HK$350 million and produced an extra one million visits to the doctor. Moreover, these are conservative figures, which count only lost productivity and short-term health costs. The Index does not yet account for the impact of air pollution on factors as lost tourism or long-term health burdens.
Missing in this picture is a hard and enforceable standard to curb pollution. As the unsafe air continues to bear down on Hong Kong, the city needs to search for more challenging markers to lower pollutant levels. Hong Kong’s current Air Quality Objectives are up to four times weaker than the World Health Organisation (WHO) standards; however, even with softer objectives, actual levels of pollution often exceed safe levels.
The 2005 WHO Air Quality Guidelines can provide the starting point for this discussion, but unfortunately, their only mention by Hong Kong’s leaders has been in the context of implementing WHO’s Interim Target 1 (IT1). While IT1 bears the WHO brand, it was designed for developing cities to get them on the path to lowering pollutants. Hong Kong is clearly not a developing city.
The path forward may present different options for solutions, but it is clear that now is the time to act. The Hong Kong AQOs are heavily outdated, but they are currently under review for the first time since their inception over 20 years ago. The development of the Hedley Environmental Index allows government, civic groups and citizens to track improvements in air quality and see the monetary and public health benefits that reform can bring. The government has begun to reduce emissions from the largest source of air pollution by ordering the installation of flue-gas desulphurisation equipment on all coal-fired power stations by 2011. This is a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen how it will address critical issues in the future, such as promoting green transport.
Hong Kong has traditionally been China’s most dynamic city, at the cutting edge of economic development and a leader in introducing international best practice to China. Yet, in air quality management the city lags far behind other world cities. As one of Asia’s premier financial centres, we need to ask what air pollution is really costing us.
Eric Cheng is a recent graduate from the University of California, Berkeley. He now works with Civic Exchange.
Luo Rui, a postgraduate student at Peking University's Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering, who has previously worked at Civic Exchange, contributed to this article.
2.Carbon capture and storage: A victory for green thinking
3. I suppose, nobody will disagree that government plays a vital role in the enviornmental issues. So in this context the U.K government is doing well(well~ we have to see the result actually). The enviornmental issues could be seen as a waste of money in short term. However in long term it is very important and a plus to the nations.
Besides, I am worried about the korean government. Present president became it mainly because of the people's expectation of economical boost. So he tries to make jobs and build new thigs and so on... And most of these are directly or indirectly related to pollution. The best example would be kyungbu canal. Actually I totally can't understand with this project. The circumstances are not suitable for a canal. However the government claimed that the canal could be used as a tourist attraction. I heard that the canal would be build through a mountain. Then who will go for a picnic in this dark place?? Not only the canal but also many of his policies are not enviornmental friendly. For example, reducing national park, encourage to do new things like rebuilding a house or buying a new car etc. Sure it is important to boost the economy especially since Korea's major industry is trade. But I think there are other ways to boost economy by harming much more less than now. In addition, the time is ripe enough to think a little bit further.
-------------------------------------
Carbon capture and storage: A victory for green thinkingComments (8) Editorial The Observer, Sunday 26 April 2009 Article history Last week, the government gave a rare demonstration of environmental leadership. It pledged that no new coal-fired power stations will be built in Britain unless they are fitted with technology to capture and store the carbon emissions. The announcement lacked detail about funding this technology, but the move is welcome none the less. In recent years, ministers have been happy to talk about reducing the nation's carbon emissions, but vague about how to achieve this.
On this occasion - by promoting devices that will take carbon dioxide from power plants and pump it deep into old North Sea oil fields - they have demonstrated a real appreciation of how serious we have to be in our fight against global warming. Carbon capture and storage is a technology with the potential to make a major difference in the fight against climate change.
It shows that power has shifted in government. Only last year, the cabinet was poised to approve new coal-powered generating plants that would have been able to operate without these devices and that would have pumped millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. That power shift favours Ed Miliband, who has convinced cabinet and civil servants that this cause is a vital one. Green groups who risked jail to champion a once unfashionable cause have scored a major victory. We're all a little safer because of it.
1. Hye Sung, Yoon 2. Special feature: Green housing appeals to buyers, builders Michele Lerner 3. I think the ideas in this article may be very attractive to many people. In my case, I often think that I will be happy if I live in an environmentally friendly place. I don't like an apartment house with no trees and plants. When I was young, I often went to my grandmother's house which had no plants. I felt stuffy whenever I visited there. I like the place where is plenty of green trees and plants. And I believe most people love environmentally friendly house.
These days, there are so many variety of environmental problems. At the same time, people try to find out proper solutions. And this trend spreads to the architecture. However, I wonder if these effort can really recover the environment. Perhaps It may be helpful to our environment.
I hope to live in environmentally friendly house like this. ------------------------- Environmentalism, including green building, may be the most influential trend of this decade because it impacts commercial and residential construction, along with nearly every aspect of daily life.
The Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Web site conducted a "Living Green" consumer survey in 2008 that showed half of the consumers surveyed paid more money for an energy-efficient product in the past 12 months.
The survey also revealed that one in three homeowners said they would be willing to spend $5,000 or more on green improvements to increase a home's appeal to potential buyers.
Consumers reported engaging in a variety of environmentally conscious activities, including recycling (73 percent), replacing standard lights with compact fluorescent light bulbs (69 percent), conserving water (57 percent), adjusting the thermostat (51 percent) and purchasing energy-efficient appliances (30 percent).
Homebuilders are already incorporating green features into new homes in response to consumer preferences for the cost-saving benefits of environmentally friendly homes.
K. Hovnanian Homes has partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy's Building America program and Integrated Building and Construction Solutions, a science and research firm in Pittsburgh, to build five prototypes of a high-performance home in Maryland and Virginia.
At Eagles Pointe in Woodbridge, K. Hovnanian has a demonstration home that displays some of the materials, processes and designs used in the development of high-performance homes. The goal for these prototype homes is to achieve 40 percent energy savings and to identify the systems and processes that will produce energy-efficient, environmentally sensitive and affordable housing on a large scale.
All products and construction techniques used at Eagles Pointe will create a more energy-efficient home with improved indoor air quality. Features include advanced framing techniques, high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, Energy Star-rated appliances and closed-cell spray-foam insulation in every wall. The home has a tankless water heater and a new water distribution system so that every faucet is separately attached to the water heater by its own line.
Brookfield Homes Corp. launched Brookfield Blue, an energy-efficient program that introduces high-end energy-creating systems into their homes. Systems (such as those using solar energy, geothermal heating and air conditioning and wind power) are usually available exclusively on custom homes, but Brookfield is offering these features and others as affordable options in many of their communities.
At the model home at Snowden Bridge in Winchester, Brookfield has an "energy lab" that compares traditional home systems with their Brookfield Blue systems. The geothermal heating and cooling system extracts air from below the Earth's surface, where it maintains a steady temperature, reducing the need for energy to heat and cool the air.
Wind power can be generated from a lightweight wind turbine on the roof, which generates electricity for energy-efficient batteries. Buyers can use solar photovoltaic power modules, which convert energy from the sun into electricity. Or buyers may have solar hot water from solar collection tubes, which sit nearly invisibly on the roof and absorb thermal energy for a continuous supply of hot water. Currently, Brookfield is providing a $10,000 energy credit for buyers who want to take advantage of any of these optional systems.
In addition, Brookfield has a Green Plus program that improves indoor air quality, water efficiency and resource management. This program includes using energy-efficient features, compact fluorescent light bulbs, dual-flush toilets, water-saving faucets, Silestone counters, closed-cellulose insulation, low-volatile organic compound (VOC) paint and sustainable materials.
Beazer Homes Corp. has a Smart Design program that includes up to 10 environmentally friendly features in every home. Earlier this year, the company offered an "eco-promotion" for prospective homebuyers who were entered into a sweepstakes to win one of 350 eco-friendly prizes. More than 30,000 people participated in the sweepstakes, including a Maryland woman who won a new Toyota Prius Hybrid.
Among the environmentally friendly features in Beazer homes are compact fluorescent light bulbs and low-maintenance building materials that have a lower impact on the environment and add to overall energy savings.
Other features of the Smart Design program include a programmable thermostat, which is estimated to save up to $150 annually in heating and cooling costs; Energy Star-rated dishwashers, which are at least 41 percent more energy efficient than the minimum federal standards; and water-reduction shower heads and faucets, which reduce water use by 33 percent. Indoor air quality is improved by the use of better quality air filters and low-VOC paint and carpets.
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a certification program established by the U.S. Green Building Council to encourage the development of high performance buildings. Bethesda-based developer EYA hopes the expansion of LEED certification to their new residential development will function as a model for other builders. Traditionally, LEED certification has been pursued for commercial buildings and custom-designed homes.
In Southeast Washington, EYA recently began construction on Capitol Quarter. The community is on the Southeast waterfront adjacent to the new Yards development and between the Navy Yard and Eastern Market Metro stations. It will include 210 town homes constructed of environmentally friendly building materials. Residents can walk to public transportation, parks, employment centers, shops and restaurants. The homes will have Energy Star-rated appliances, windows and doors; energy-efficient gas heat; an energy seal and house wrap package; low- consumption toilets; double-pane windows; programmable thermostats and low-VOC paints and finishes.
Inspiring builders to develop energy-efficient homes was part of the purpose of the New American Home 2009, a showcase home and construction technology laboratory in Las Vegas, sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) as part of the International Builders' Show held in January. The home was a collaboration between Las Vegas builder Blue Heron and Irvine, Calif.-based architect Danielian Associates Inc.
This highly energy-efficient home includes a natural gas-powered heating and cooling system, photovoltaic cells and solar water heating. The home was sited to optimize solar resources and uses landscape design to limit both water and energy demand.
Stormwater pollution prevention plans were implemented to reduce soil erosion and disturbance of the environment. The materials used in the home were either recycled or new materials made from renewable resources or require fewer resources than traditional building materials. The goal of the energy-efficient features in this home, which include low-E windows, advanced insulation and vertical and horizontal solar overhangs in addition to the solar panel system, is to reach a net-zero level of electrical consumption.
While new homebuilders are pumping up their level of environmentally friendly features, Montgomery County introduced a new disclosure law that requires sellers to provide information on the energy efficiency of their homes to buyers. Before signing a contract for a single-family home or town home, the seller must provide the buyer with general information on energy-efficient improvements and the availability of energy audits approved by the Maryland Department of Environmental Protection. The owners must provide copies of the electric, gas and heating/oil bills or a cost and usage history for the house for the 12 months prior to the date the home was listed for sale. (The law does not apply to condominiums.)
Concern for the environment - and the bottom line - is convincing builders, local governments and consumers that green building is here to stay. ----------
2. At the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, a Pipe Leak Raises Concerns
3. I found this article interesting because of our talk the other day in class on cold fusion. The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York recently had a leak in one of the pipes. 100,000 gallons of water, which the article described as cleaner than tap water, escaped from the pipes and compromised the integrity of the plant. There are backup systems and fail-safes in place, but even so, it is a very scary thought to think there is a possibility of a meltdown.
"At a nuclear plant, a central water system takes heat from the reactor in the form of steam and turns it into electricity." The pipe that had a leak, in fact, has not been inspected since the nuclear power plant began running in 1973 -- worst of all the commission does not require these inspections. So of course there was a leak that went unnoticed. The plant is nearing its 40 year mark, and currently could be operating on a backup system that can fail any minute.
And if we look to cold fusion, unfortunately this is what we would find: "Cold fusion researchers have described possible cold fusion mechanisms, but they have not received mainstream acceptance.[55] Physics Today said, in 2005, that new reports of excess heat and other cold fusion effects were still no more convincing than 15 years ago.[56] 20 years later, in 2009, cold fusion researchers complain that the flaws in the original announcement still cause the field to be marginalized and to suffer a chronic lack of funding."
So where do we look to now? Solar power! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/business/businessspecial2/30solar.html?ref=earth
Solar powered strips are now small enough and flexible enough to be put onto tshirts and pencils. ---------- WASHINGTON — The discovery of water flowing across the floor of a building at the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., traced to a leak in a buried pipe, is stirring concern about the plant’s underground pipes and those of other aging reactors across the country. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Michael Nagle for The New York Times
A small hole caused by corrosion allowed about 100,000 gallons of water to escape from a pipe at the Indian Point 2 plant, north of New York City. Multimedia A Hidden Underground LeakGraphic A Hidden Underground Leak
A one-and-a-half-inch hole caused by corrosion allowed about 100,000 gallons of water to escape from the main system that keeps the reactor cool immediately after any shutdown, according to nuclear experts. The leak was discovered on Feb. 16, according to the plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, a subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation.
Entergy and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup systems, although operators generally avoid using both.
They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap water, posed no environmental threat. Yet the leak’s discovery has prompted Entergy and the regulatory commission to begin studying how the chief system for cooling during shutdowns, so important that the Indian Point 2 has three pumps in place to do the same job, could be endangered by the failure of a single part.
More broadly, it has raised concerns about the monitoring of decades-old buried pipes at the nation’s nuclear plants, many of which are applying for renewal of their operating licenses. Indian Point 2, whose 40-year operating license expires in 2013, already faces harsh criticism from New York State and county officials who want it shut down.
This week Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads a House subcommittee on energy and the environment, said the leak raised serious questions about Entergy’s and the regulatory commission’s oversight.
“This leak may demonstrate a systemic failure of the licensee and the commission to inspect critical buried pipes in a manner sufficient to guarantee the public health and safety,” he wrote to the commission’s chairman, Dale Klein, in a letter on Thursday. The letter was also signed by Representative John J. Hall, whose district includes the plant. The congressmen said they were “shocked” that a leak that big could develop without detection and called the system for detecting such problems “profoundly inadequate.”
One argument raised by New York State in opposing extension of the license of Indian Point 2 or the adjacent Indian Point 3 reactor is that crucial components are aging in ways that the operators may not anticipate or understand.
The supply pipe at issue, measuring eight inches in diameter, is used to fill a 600,000-gallon tank that is employed whenever the plant “trips,” or shuts down because of an equipment malfunction. Such shutdowns are not unusual; one occurred on April 3, roughly a month after the pipe was fixed.
James F. Steets, a spokesman for Indian Point, said it was unclear when the leak began. The company initially said the pipe was losing 18 gallons a minute but later amended that to 12; either number is small relative to the 600,000-gallon tank, he said.
Mr. Steets said that the water level in the tank offered no clue that the supply pipe was leaking. The tank has an alarm to indicate its water level is falling, he said, but it did not sound because an automatic system was topping off the tank with purified water.
At a nuclear plant, a central water system takes heat from the reactor in the form of steam and turns it into electricity. During a shutdown at Indian Point 2, that system often turns off and a pipe measuring 12 inches in diameter carries water from the tank into the cooling system to carry off excess heat.
The buried portion of neither the eight-inch supply pipe nor the 12-inch pipe connecting the tank to the reactor cooling system has been visually inspected since the reactor began operating in August 1973, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor does the commission require such inspections.
Paul Blanch, an electrical engineer and nuclear safety expert who worked at Indian Point in 2001 and 2002, said that because neither pipe had been inspected, except for a short section that was replaced when the hole was located in February, “they shouldn’t be operating right now.”
He said the plant could be operating with a backup system that is ready to fail.
Mel Gray, a branch chief at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who oversees inspections at Indian Point, confirmed in a telephone interview that inspectors “have not dug up and laid eyes visually” on the pipes. But he said that experts routinely conduct “surveillance tests,” measuring the tank level and the flow through the pumps that direct water from the tank to the reactor.
“If you had a gross leak, you’d detect its going somewhere else,” he said, referring, for example, to a leak large enough to drain the tank quickly.
Mr. Gray acknowledged that the 12-inch line that delivers water from the 600,000 gallon tank during a shutdown might be rusted in places, too, but he said it was unlikely to fail suddenly when called on. But Mr. Blanch warned that if gravel or dirt leaked into the 12-inch supply pipe when the pumps started up, that could make them shut down.
Mr. Steets of Entergy said that if the tank were disabled, a tank filled from Buchanan’s municipal water system could be used to deliver water during a shutdown.
But Mr. Blanch and the letter from the two congressmen faulted the system that relies on city water.
Plant operators dislike using such water because city tap water is not as clean as reactor water. And critics point out that the system is not safety-rated, meaning it is not certified to work in adverse conditions like blackouts and earthquakes and is not maintained as carefully.
Another potential solution proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission involves using the reactor’s emergency core cooling system during a shutdown. But cooling water can be inserted only after the pressure in the reactor is reduced, which causes the water to boil. Letting the water boil can lead to core damage.
Buried pipes are emerging as an endemic problem as reactors age, although so far most of the attention has been to the substance that is leaked — not to a pipe’s role in ensuring the reactor’s safe operation over all.
Reactor water includes tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen that can occur naturally but is also made in reactors. Leaks of water with tritium have been discovered in underground piping at the Byron, Braidwood and Dresden twin-reactor plants in Illinois, and at a three-unit plant in Arizona, Palo Verde. Indian Point also leaked water with tritium from its spent fuel pool in 2005.
While experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in interviews that additional pipe leaks like the one found in February would not pose a big challenge to reactor operators, they acknowledged that it was something new.
“We were not aware of a problem before with underground pipe,” Mr. Gray said. “Now that we have one, it’s got our focused attention.”
2. Introduction to climate economics :Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost — one tenth of a penny on the dollar
3.The title, 'Climate Economics' first got my attention because I think, in the class, I have learnt about socio-political issues related to environmental action and the interaction between macro- and micro- factors in the society.
So, if some economic parts are deeply concerned with environmental sectors, that must be what I should consider upon!
Although this article is written mainly to induce the government or those who apportion the budget to various areas, I could see the clear incentive of action that makes people cope with environmental problems. If it is impossible to make both ends meet, nobody will dare to fix social problem or provoke the public to change their ways of life into eco-friendly ways.
Thus, this article practically analyzes how the dabate about the costs of climate action versus those of inaction can be concluded. (Of course, because this article is from the pro-environment activism blog, it surely urges to solve environmental problems^^)
------------------------------------ Since the nation is about to launch into a long debate about the costs of climate action versus the cost of inaction, here is an overview of the major cost analyses of global climate action.
In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded:
In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.
So global GDP drops by under 0.12% per year — about one tenth of a penny on the dollar — even in the 445 ppm CO2-eq case (through 2050, see Table SPM.7). And this is for stabilization at 445 ppm CO2-eq, which is stabilization at 350 ppm CO2 (see Table SPM.6).
And that has a very good chance of averting the incalculable cost of catastrophic global warming impacts to the next 50 generations, which means the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction.
The IPCC’s conclusion — and every single word in the report — was signed off on by 130 nations including China and the Bush Administration. Nor is this an especially controversial conclusion, at least among the few groups that have done comprehensive global economic and energy modeling:
McKinsey 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero. [See cost curve for global greenhouse gas reduction measures -- click to enlarge.] Must read IEA report, Part 1: Act now with clean energy or face 6°C warming. Cost is NOT high — media blows the story
How can the world’s leading governments and scientific experts and McKinsey and the traditionally conservative International Energy Agency agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?
Because that’s what the scientific and economic literature — and real-world experience — says. The IPCC summary report, which is, after all, primarily a literature review, notes:
Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.
In fact, the bottom up studies — the ones that look technology by technology, which I believe are more credible — have even better news:
Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.
Wow! A 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits!
The technology-by-technology cost-curve from McKinsey demonstrates this finding more concretely. Whereas the IPCC merely says that 450 ppm could be achieved for a total GDP reduction of <3% in 2030 (the cumulative impact of the <0.12% of GDP per year cost), McKinsey believes it could be even less costly:
The macroeconomic costs of this carbon revolution are likely to be manageable, being in the order of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030. To put this figure in perspective, if one were to view this spending as a form of insurance against potential damage due to climate change, it might be relevant to compare it to global spending on insurance, which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005. Borrowing could potentially finance many of the costs, thereby effectively limiting the impact on near-term GDP growth. In fact, depending on how new low-carbon infrastructure is financed, the transition to a low-carbon economy may increase annual GDP growth in many countries.
I want to be clear here that stabilizing at 445 ppm CO2-eq does require a significant annual investment, as the IEA analysis shows. The IEA puts the investment at $45 trillion, which sounds like an unimaginably large amount of money — but spread over more than four decades and compared to the world’s total wealth during that time, it is literally a drop in the bucket — 1.1% or one part in 90 of the world’s total wealth.
Indeed, the IEA notes that one reason the dollar value of the investment is so high is “in part due to the declining value of the dollar.” [Not to self: How diabolical of President Bush -- by weakening our economy he increased the total dollar cost of action on climate, thus encouraging inaction!]
And while the additional investments seem high, “they do not represent net costs.” They are not a pure negative hit to global GDP. That’s because “technology investments in energy efficiency” and many low-carbon power sources “reduce fuel requirements.” In all the scenarios the IEA considers,
… the estimated total undiscounted fuel cost savings for coal, oil and gas over the period to 2050 are greater than the additional investment required (valuing these fuels at Baseline prices). If we discount at 3%, fuel savings exceed additional investment needs in the ACT Map scenario [in which CO2 emissions in 2050 only return to 2005 levels].
But don’t we need new technologies? Of course, but we don’t need — and can’t afford — to sit on our hands when we have so many cost-effective existing technologies. The IPCC finds:
There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.
Yes we need to do two things at once: aggressively deploy existing technology (with carbon prices and government standards) and aggressively finish developing and commercializing key technologies and systems that are in the pipeline. Anyone who argues for just doing the latter is disputing a very broad consensus — and is neither pragmatic nor centrist.
McKinsey finds 70% of the total 2030 emissions reduction potential (below $60 a ton of CO2 equivalent) is “not dependent on new technology.”
The report notes that “we have been fairly conservative in our assumptions about technological progress in these projections.” For instance, the analysis largely ignores the potential of concentrated solar thermal electricity, which is a bit player for their analysis but which will probably be the single biggest supply side low carbon source in reality (see “Concentrated solar thermal power Solar Baseload — a core climate solution“).
[Yes, the IEA report does suggest we need major technology advances -- but that is mostly for cost reduction if the price of oil stays low, which even the IEA doesn't believe any more (see "IEA says oil will peak in 2020").]
So the bottom line is that the economic cost of action is low, whereas the cost of inaction is incalculably greater — what exactly is the “price” of 5 feet of sea level rise in 2100 rising 6-12 inches a decade for centuries thereafter or the price of desertifying one third of the planet and losing all of the inland glaciers that provide a significant fraction of water to a billion people. Or the price of losing half the world’s species. For details, see “An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water.”
And this is without even adding in the various ancillary benefits such as reduced air pollution and averting the huge economic dislocations that are inevitable from peak
2. Cow Genome Decoded -- Cheaper Beef for Everybody?
3. I found an article about the new study of cow genome decoded. The article says that this will bring positive effects on our environment and our lives. It was interesting to find out how controlling cow feeding traits will help reduce greenhouse gases. Also, in the article it talked about how the genomic selection could breed out bad diseases such as mad cow disease. However, the bad side is that it may limit genetic diversity. Though I thought it would be exciting to try and see this new science applied to help our environment.
-----------------------------
The humble cow has now had its entire genome sequenced, a new study says. Six years in the making, the feat could lead to healthier, cheaper beef and milk, according to scientists. A genome is the full set of genes that gives rise to a particular species. Genes are combinations of chemical "letters" that determine animals' and plants' physical traits, from hair color to body shape. Using the newly decoded cow genome, "you are going to be able to predict an animal's performance on the basis of its [genetic makeup]," biologist Harris Lewin said. Cow breeders should be able to identify genes responsible for desirable traits and match cows to produce calves with those traits. This "genomic selection" should enable breeders to raise cows that require less feed and produce lean meat, for example. Less feed means lower costs for farmers—savings that presumably would be passed on to the consumer. These improvements, Lewin added, will be important, in part because people in the developing world are likely to eat more meat as their standards of living rise, driving up demand for beef. "There're some societies that exist primarily on meat and dairy products. It's just part of the culture," said Lewin, who led two research teams on the sequencing project and wrote a commentary on the results, to be published in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science. Green Meat Never Sounded So Good Genome-informed breeding could also be good for the environment, Lewin said. "Just dealing with feed efficiency will help reduce greenhouse gases"—for example, by lessening cow burps, which encourage global warming—"and provide more food for human populations," he said. Genomic selection could also make cattle healthier by helping to fight ailments such as mad cow disease. Breeders should be able to more effectively "breed out" such diseases over generations—and breed in genes identified as disease resistant, Lewin said. Cow Evolution The cow genome is also a window into what makes a cow a cow, including which genes give rise to a four-chambered stomach or protein-heavy milk. Using the deciphered cow genome, scientists compared the genes of several breeds to paint a picture of cattle evolution. Cattle were domesticated from aurochs—large, extinct European wild oxen—about 10,000 years ago and maintained a diverse ancestral population, the study shows. Recent selective breeding for agriculture has rapidly reduced that diversity by propagating more of certain breeds and less of others. The trend could be amplified as the deciphered genome allows for even more precise breeding. This could be of concern to animal breeders because species with low genetic diversity tend to be more vulnerable to disease and inbreeding, the study noted. But the study also found but that the level of diversity is still on par with the human population, said Curt Van Tassell, a research geneticist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Baltimore, Maryland, and study co-author. "So I think we are still in very good shape," he said. "And beyond that, the tools that this technology gives us allow us to manage diversity at a whole new level. ... I think the outlook is quite bright." --- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090423-cow-genome-cheap-beef.html
1. Kyuhee Shim 2. California’s low carbon standard 3. We have been watching the documentary titled, Who Killed the Electric Car, in class. In the film I saw how the local government of California created laws restricting the polluting impact of gasoline cars, thereby prompting car manufacturers to create and commercialize the very first electric car. Sadly, resistance from the car companies, oil conglomerates, and the federal government won over and the law was revoked. It made me feel frustrated to think that if the California law had still been put to effect to this day, it might have triggered a nationwide trend of American drivers switching to electric cars, and avoiding a bulk of the pollution that has happened in the past decade. But this article is about yet another effort being made by the Air Resources Board of California, to reduce the uses of dirty oil and its harmful effects on the atmosphere. The new “low carbon fuel standard” is a new law that will pressure the market to gradually switch to alternative fuel that are less pollutive than gasoline, such as hydrogen, electricity, and biofuels. Ethanol, remains a controversial subject in the context of this law, but the board says that it does not entirely rule out the choice of ethanol if it is produced in a particular way that reduces the amount of carbon resulting in the process of making it. Personally I do not think ethanol is not much better compared to oil but I agree that banning ethanol as well would create more opposition to the law. I was relieved to see that California was renewing its efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. However it struck me strange that the article was explicitly one-sided in its criticisms of the law. Starting from the second sentence to the end, the article lays down a list of reasons why the law should be opposed. Only one paragraph, a quote from the board, even talks of the benefits of the law, and there is no comment at all on the environmental issues caused by gasoline fuel and the reason why restrictions such as this one are so urgent. In the article the main criticism seems to be the increased costs that will be burdened by the public, in the form of higher gasoline prices. I found this argument meaningless because in the long run the public is going to benefit from cleaner air. Also the United States is always worrying about its dependence on foreign oil. The development of alternative fuels is reasonable solution to that problem, not to mention environmentally sustainable as well. The article says that stakes are high if this standard is pursued but stakes are already high for us relying on unsustainable fuel and emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases every day. The environmental costs resulting from America’s addiction to oil will create more problems, in public health and the environment, problems which are mounting fast and will be more costly to fix in the future. In fact the sole party that threatened by the introduction of this law is, once again, the oil companies. I fear that once again the oil companies will band together to fight this. I hope that this time around the public of California have learned from their past mistakes and defend this standard, and their right to live in a clean environment free from greenhouse gases. 4. --------------------------------------------------- 5. California's low-carbon fuel standard has oil companies anxious dkasler@sacbee.com Published Saturday, Apr. 25, 2009
In car-crazy California, a new fuel standard ordered by state officials to curb greenhouse gases could dramatically change how vehicles run. It also could have a huge effect on cost. The petroleum industry and some economists say the new standard adopted by the state Air Resources Board on Thursday will cost motorists billions, because blending gasoline will become considerably more complicated. But state officials and environmentalists say the "low-carbon fuel standard" will actually save Californians money by reducing oil consumption and ushering in a competitive new era of biofuels and electric vehicles. The stakes are enormous. The price of fuel can have a significant impact on the state's economic health. When gas hit $4.50 last summer, it severely hurt tourism and caused delivery companies to impose fuel surcharges. Gasoline now sells for a relatively affordable $2.35 a gallon on average, but the state's already strict fuel formulas create a delicate balance between supply and demand. Even minor supply glitches have caused big price spikes because only a small number of refiners make gas to California's specifications. Business advocates say significant price increases during a recession could be disastrous. They are casting a wary eye at the fuel standard. "Reformulating the fuel supply – we shouldn't undergo that without a certain amount of trepidation," said Dorothy Rothrock, senior vice president with the California Manufacturers & Technology Association. Every time California has instituted stricter clean-air standards for motor fuel, "they all have had a cost associated with it," said Cathy Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer at the Western States Petroleum Association. "I know there's going to be a cost associated with this." A big problem, she said, is that the air board's standards will limit the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline – leaving refiners with a major hurdle. Yet the Air Resources Board, in approving the low carbon standard Thursday, dismissed forecasts of higher costs. The board's staff contends that when the standard is fully operational, in 2020, Californians will save about $11 billion a year. "It's the reduction in the use of petroleum," said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich. The first-in-the-nation carbon standard is a key element in California's goal of reducing overall volume of greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020, as required by a 2006 state law. The air board's standard dictates that the "carbon intensity" of fuels be reduced starting in 2011, ramping up to a 10 percent cut by 2020. The board believes the standard will encourage the development of hydrogen, electricity and biofuels to power vehicles. But there's a ton of controversy about how the standard treats what is currently the leading biofuel, ethanol made from corn. Corn ethanol is now a staple of the transportation scene. It makes up 6 percent of the gas sold in California, and that's going to grow to 10 percent next year. But the air board decided that corn ethanol is not so great for limiting greenhouse gases. The argument goes like this: Eager to cash in on ethanol demand, farmers around the world plow up grasslands and chop down trees to make way for corn, a process that releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The air board's ruling infuriated the corn ethanol industry, which is in severe financial distress already. Companies like Sacramento's Pacific Ethanol Inc. are on the verge of bankruptcy. It also angered the petroleum refiners, who argued that they have few viable options for meeting the 10 percent carbon reduction if they don't get much credit for using corn ethanol. The alternatives, for the most part, consist of fuel technologies that are still expensive or are in the early stages of commercialization. "We have no way to know how we're supposed to comply with this," Reheis-Boyd said. She said the only real solution is to blend in ethanol made from sugar cane – which gets a better "carbon score" from the air board. But that means importing it from Brazil and paying costly U.S. import tariffs, she said. All told, her association believes fuel costs in California could rise $3 billion a year. Air board officials and environmentalists said the refiners are crying wolf. The standard will phase in slowly in the early years. Refiners and entrepreneurs will have plenty of time – and economic incentive – to make inexpensive biofuels, hydrogen-based fuels, even ethanol from such "cellulosic" materials as switchgrass. "The program starts off on a rather gentle slope," said Roland Hwang, vehicle policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. There are even ways of making ethanol out of corn that can reduce its "total carbon score," he said. But Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said there's no certainty that these emerging technologies will be ready to meet the demand. The air board "is betting that with the phase-in, those (alternative) fuels are going to get a lot cheaper," Borenstein said. "They might, but there certainly is not any guarantee at all." The impact on the economy wouldn't be "devastating," but the new standard is an inefficient way of attacking greenhouse gases, he said. 6. ------------------------------ 7. http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1808713.html
3. I think this article portrays McDonough's ideal "cradle to cradle" industry fairly well- at least in theory. Lithium-ion batteries for cars are supposed to be completely recyclable, but according to this article there is only one company that actually does this (Toxco Incorporated), and the recycling process itself is quite tedious.
I hear that lithium is used in the batteries of electric cars (the companies mentioned in the first paragraph of the article are only focusing on hybrids rather than fully electric cars, I think), and I wonder what the batteries that Stan Ovshinsky (mentioned in the film we watched in class) invented are made of. If the batteries of electric cars are fully recyclable, I would say that that just adds another green factor to the whole concept of non-gasoline-powered cars. I guess the fact that lithium recycling is bothersome is just another excuse for automakers to avoid this industry. ------------------------------------------------
April 28, 2009 – Vol.14 No.6
RECYCLE LITHIUM TODAY FOR TOMORROW’S CARS. by Bruce Mulliken, Green Energy News
Blue Energy, a joint venture of Honda and GS Yuasa, a Japan-based maker of batteries and electronics, has broken ground for a new lithium-ion battery facility. The new plant, being built in Fukuchiyama, Kyoto, Japan, will include manufacturing, sales, and research and development of lithium-ion batteries for hybrid vehicles. Like many other manufacturers Honda is hinging at least part of its future on lithium-ion batteries to power clean electrically driven cars.
The companies which are embracing lithium with such passion are focusing their hopes and dreams for clean vehicles on a relatively scarce metal. While at least one study claims there is plenty of lithium available from a variety of sources for anything we want to do with it, lithium battery developers are most likely hoping that those current evaluations of global resources are wrong and there is much more lithium available than now thought. That kind of logic says that as the demand for a resource goes up so does the exploration of it. Oil companies have found more crude than ever thought possible 100 years ago. So, lithium might be in greater quantities too if lithium miners look a little harder. Abundant supplies of lithium would make it cheaper and cut costs for battery makers.
Part of the appeal, one of the green credentials of lithium, is its recyclability. Religiously recycled, much of the lithium stashed away in batteries should be able to be recovered, reprocessed and reused.
Given that lithium is so rare, and the market for it is increasing almost daily, you’d think that there would be plans to increase recycling capabilities. The growth of lithium batteries should be equal to the ability to recycle them at their end of life a few years hence. That is, for every new lithium battery that comes off the assembly line, there should also be some planned capability to recycle every one of those. That doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead, battery makers seem to be following the usual market economics practice that waits for another party to fill in a need.
As it is, there is only one company, that I know of, that actually recycles lithium-ion batteries, Toxco Incorporated. (“Tox” must have something to do with “toxic.” ) According to the company website, recycling those batteries is not an easy process.
When spent lithium batteries are received at Toxco’s recycling facility in Trail, British Columbia, Canada they are inventoried and stored in earth-covered concrete bunkers. The first step in the recycling process is to remove residual electricity from larger, more reactive batteries. Then the batteries continue recycling following Toxco’s patented cryogenic process and are cooled to minus 325 degrees F (-198 C). ( Lithium, although normally explosively reactive at room temperature, is rendered relatively inert at this low temperature.) Once frozen, the batteries are then safely sheared/shredded and the materials are separated. Metals from the batteries are collected and sold. The lithium components are separated and converted to lithium carbonate for resale. Hazardous electrolytes are neutralized to form stable compounds and residual plastic casings and miscellaneous components are recovered for appropriate recycling or scrapping. If the batteries contain cobalt this is also recovered for reuse.
For safety, most of the recycling process is done by machine. The company says approximately 90 percent of its lithium recycling process is remotely controlled, recycled by industrial robots.
For now, it seems unlikely that there are many lithium-ion batteries used in transportation ready for recycling: There are very few vehicles now on the road that use those batteries. When automotive lithium-ion batteries become more common, and more developed in the next few years the batteries could last 10 years or more, longer than the life of many vehicles. But, eventually the batteries will fail and need recycling.
Today we’re a long way from major automotive lithium recycling. Still, as lithium batteries in vehicles get closer to full commercialization, then Toxco, and perhaps newcomers into the business will probably be gearing up to meet the demand. It seems likely that now many lithium batteries, particularly the smallest ones, are not recycled but dumped in the trash. Given that so much is banking on lithium at the moment, it seems a shame to throw away any of this valuable resource.
Toxco has a variety of facilities in Ohio, California, Tennessee and Florida. The company recycles all types of batteries, lithium chemicals, electronics, metals, precious metals, and other materials. The company also manufactures many lithium and fluorinated specialty compounds.
3. This article showed the Obama administration's efforts to have government involvement in addressing the environmental issues caused by the greenhouse gases. EPA scientists reported that there are serious health impacts from warming, which include severe heat waves, dangerous floods caused by stronger storms, diseases related to warmer weather such as malaria, and increased smogs.
While the Bush administration rejected the idea of regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant, it seems pretty clear that the Obama administration has a different outlook in terms of taking cautions for the environment. In approaching this issue, Obama introduced the idea of "a low carbon economy" which will make millions of green jobs available and aim towards eliminating the nation's dependence on foreign oil. I think as long as he really dedicates himself, with a group of people who are motivated to improve the environment as well as the economy by enforcing these policies and making them apply to the real world, the health and environmental problems can be avoided or reduced considerably. I think it will be interesting to follow up on the progress the Obama administration makes regarding this issue and also how much influence they will have in the upcoming global warming international treaty. It's my personal hope that issues like this becomes more public so that more people become aware and support the Obama administration along the way.
--------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Having received White House backing, the Environmental Protection Agency declared Friday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and thus will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act — a policy the Bush administration rejected.
"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.
The move could allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but it's more likely that the Obama administration will use the action to prod Congress to pass regulations around a system to cap and then trade emissions so that they are gradually lowered.
Indeed, the EPA emphasized that the congressional route was preferred to EPA regulation. "Both President (Barack) Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy," the EPA said in its statement.
The EPA last month sent its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviewed and approved it. By law, the decision includes a 60-day public comment period before being finalized.
The EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which is already used to curb emissions that cause acid rain, smog and soot.
Discussion to begin on regulation But its declaration does not spell out how or what to regulate. Instead, the EPA and lawmakers are expected to begin that discussion. Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.
The chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., urged the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to start "cutting greenhouse gas emissions right now."
"However," she added, "the best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market based cap and trade system, which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth."
Boxer added that she wouldn't hesitate to use the EPA as leverage. "If Congress does not act to pass legislation, then I will call on EPA to take all steps authorized by law to protect our families," she added.
In their recommendations, EPA scientists said that potential health impacts from warming include:
* longer and more severe heat waves; * increased smog in some areas; * dangerous flooding caused by stronger storms; * and diseases, including malaria and dengue fever, related to flooding and warmer weather.
Jackson on Friday said curbing greenhouse gases fits in with Obama's call for "a low carbon economy" as well as lawmakers' actions toward clean energy and climate legislation. "This pollution problem has a solution," she said, "one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil."
Shift started with Supreme Court The Bush administration refused to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, even though the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 prodded the federal government to do so.
In his first week in office, Obama directed the EPA to review a decision by the Bush administration denying California and other states the right to control auto emissions, which, along with pollution from coal-fired power plants, are a major source of greenhouse gases.
Environmentalists praised the EPA move, but urged the administration to use the Clean Air Act until Congress comes up with a plan.
The EPA should be required "to follow up with standards under the Clean Air Act, the nation's most effective environmental law, to curb carbon pollution from our cars, power plants and other industrial sources," said David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Air Watch, said he expected federal limits on "emissions from the biggest sources, including power plants and motor vehicles."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry lobbying groups oppose using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.
"It will require a huge cascade of (new clean air) permits" and halt a wide array of projects, from building coal plants to highway construction, including many at the heart of economic recovery plan, Bill Kovacs, a vice president for environmental issues at the chamber, said when the EPA's recommendations were made last month.
Other critics have noted that the Clean Air Act regulates any stationary source — from a gas station to a power plant — that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant a year. That would place thousands of smaller sources under onerous federal rules, those critics say.
Supporters of stricter regulations say the Clean Air Act could be revised to exempt smaller sources and focus on large ones like power plants.
Some industry groups support a legislative approach focusing on cap and trade, but even there they are cautious.
"While regulation can be challenged in court if it oversteps precedent, legislation is for keeps," said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a power industry trade group. "Therefore, any legislative proposal on climate change must have reasonable timetables and targets, adequate cost containment, and must be sensitive to technological constraints and international competition."
Nations working on new treaty The United States is under pressure to take some action on global warming in advance of negotiations on a new international treaty in December.
The Obama administration has vowed to step up participation, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton even has a climate envoy.
The Bush administration refused to participate in the current treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, citing a lack of participation by developing countries and harm to the U.S. economy. In the late 1990s, during the Clinton administration, the Senate balked at ratifying the agreement. ------- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214/#storyContinued
2.Split Incentive Stalls Energy Efficiency in Rental Housing
3. This article talks about a way to encourage owners and renters of a rental house to invest in energy efficient equipment. As said in the article, a lot of people leave in rented lodgings, and these people don't want to make that kind of investment as they will not be able to fully benefit from it. This is a negative incentive against the spreading of energy efficient products. I think we don't have so many ways of protecting the environment at our personnal scale, but talling this kind of equipment in our house is one important thing we can do. But people often just don't do it, notably because of the cost. So I think this kind of incentive could be effective to convince people of changing their ways. Moreover, it interested me because it is an example of how government can act for environment protection, by making it easier for people to take environment-friendly steps.
------------------------------------ 4. Split Incentive Stalls Energy Efficiency in Rental Housing Posted by Roger Valdez 04/27/2009 12:20 PM Does the 'Green Lease' provide an answer? Investing in energy efficiency can reduce greenhouse gas emissions even while saving money on energy bills. It seems like a no-brainer. Yet the one-third of northwesterners who live in rental housing actively avoid investing in energy efficiency. And their landlords also resist efficiency investments. What’s going on? When it comes to rental housing, there’s a big market failure in energy efficiency. It’s a problem of “split incentives,” which we’ve written about here and here. Owners don’t make efficiency investments because it’s the renters who pay the energy bills. And renters don’t make investments in property they don’t own. The result is housing that wastes energy and costs more than it should. One solution takes advantage of the lease or rental agreement: “green leases” enable owners to spend money on efficiency improvements and recoup their costs by raising rent by the same amount as the realized energy savings, minus a smaller agreed on amount which gets passed on to the renter. In other words, if an efficiency investment to the renter’s unit generates $100 of monthly energy savings, the rent might go up $80 per month. Although the rent increases, the tenant’s total housing bill goes down by $20. It’s a win for both parties. The tenant would start saving money right away, and over time the landlord would recoup his initial investment (and even make money), through the higher rents. Plus, the tenant would be using less energy. A typical example might be a refrigerator replacement. A tenant has little economic incentive to buy a new efficient (and more expensive) refrigerator because he’s unlikely to be around long enough to recoup the extra upfront expense through reduced energy bills. And a landlord might think she’s better off buying the cheapest model she can find because she’s not paying the bills for the fridge’s operations. A green lease might fix this problem by allowing the landlord to increase rent enough to pay for a more expensive and efficient model, but because of the lower energy bills, the tenant would actually save money even after the rent increase. The challenge with green leases is creating a practical financing arrangement that doesn’t saddle landlords with too many headaches. And to make economic sense, efficiency investments would need to generate sufficient savings in a short enough time that the owner could pay back the bank, or herself, for the upfront cost of making the investment in the first place. So in order to know if an investment makes sense, both landlords and tenants will need a trustworthy assessment of the potential savings. Plus, they’ll need to resolve some other questions. What happens if the improvement fails to save the energy and money that it promises? What if it generates more savings? If green lease arrangements sound complicated, that’s because they are. Green leases are already used in the US and Canadian commercial real estate rental sectors, but they are not sweeping apartment rentals. The legal complexities can make green leases challenging and uncertain. And both landlords and tenants dislike uncertainty. Like other kinds of financing ideas green leases are innovative and potentially promising, but they have yet to break through the barrier of the split incentive for multifamily rental buildings. Governments tend to shy away from energy efficiency mandates, but legal energy performance standards might be just the thing to push both landlords and tenants toward saving energy and money. For instance, a city could require landlords to replace old appliances, but also offer a program, like the ones in Maine and New York State, to provide financing for landlords. Mandatory efficiency programs might ensure fairness so that the efficiencies and savings are realized by lower-income tenants, who frequently live in the most energy-wasteful housing and can least afford higher bills. Without a mandatory program, there’s a risk that green leases will remain concentrated in the commercial sector and higher end housing where paid professional managers are increasingly aware of the economic benefits of energy efficiency. But the dispersed and small-scale nature of residential rental housing means that some owners, especially in areas that serve lower income people, might never make the energy efficiency leap with out a nudge.
3. At the dawn of EV being broadly introduced to the USA, a competition between different areas to be the first with a full supply grid came into being. Look like there won't be a round 3 for the EVs. -------------- The Race to an EV Future: Being First to an Electric Vehicle Grid
Editor’s Note: This is San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s second post on electric vehicles for Gas 2.0. It’s a direct response to Portland Mayor Sam Adams, who announced that his city would be the first to develop the charging infrastructure to support full-scale electric vehicle deployment. We expect to hear back from Mayor Adam’s later today - don’t miss it). UPDATE: Mayor Adam’s has posted his response. See video of his declaration to make Portland EV capitol of the US.
As car companies lined up in Washington, DC last November for the first round of federal bailout money – in San Francisco we announced another way – our comprehensive plan to make the San Francisco Bay Area the “Electric Vehicle (EV) Capital of the US.”
Our efforts to advance electric vehicles are not limited to San Francisco. We’ve engaged the entire Bay Area – a region of 7.3 million people – to make our region the cornerstone of the coming market for EVs. Not just governments, but key companies, business associations, policy advocates, and international car and EV infrastructure companies are all working together to make the San Francisco Bay Area the EV Capital of the U.S.
Now our neighbors to the north, Portland are challenging us for EV supremacy. This type of competition symbolizes what is best about our region and our country. If we were able to put a man on the moon, we most certainly can create a new generation of cars that do not run on fossil fuels. We’ve done it before. I owned one of the EV1’s from Saturn in the 1990s. Now EV companies are sprouting up all over the country from Fisker Automotive to Better Place to Bright Automotive.
Portland and San Francisco have been battling for the title of the most sustainable city for years. We welcome Portland’s latest challenge and hope that this EV competition will spread across the country, creating thousands of new jobs and helping establish the United States as an EV leader. In turn this will transform our automotive industry and combat climate change by reducing green house gas emissions.
Since our EV announcement in November we have been working tirelessly on our regional collaborative. Our approach has three different aspects:
1. Government: This effort is comprised of city and county staff from throughout the region (fleet managers, transportation policy directors, etc). This group is sharing information on the current permitting requirements in each jurisdiction, as well as current EV incentives, with an eye toward standardized permitting and incentives for EVs by early 2010. This group, under San Francisco’s leadership, is submitting a regional proposal to the federal government for stimulus funding to implement EV infrastructure throughout the region. We are hopeful that this funding will allows us to break ground on thousands of new EV charging stations throughout the Bay Area.
2. Businesses: Led by the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, this group is focused on sharing best practices from companies like Google and making the case to large regional employers to embrace EVs in company fleets and EV chargers for employees.
3. Advocacy: Led by Richard Schorske of the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership this working group will lead an effort this spring to invest over $100M in available state funds annually for alternative vehicles in electric vehicles and not only biofuels.
Through our shared EV goals with Portland and other cities, we’ll bring electric vehicles into the mainstream of American life. In the process, we’ll greatly advance efforts to fight climate change and reinvent our ailing car industry.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.Selina Li Qiaowei
ReplyDelete2.A high cost to Hong Kong
3.I think this is a very interesting article for me because finally we turn environmental issue to financial issue, so more people could pay their attention on this problem. We should convert all environmental problems into monetary issue, because most of people only care about economics nowadays but nothing else. From this article, we can see a shock amount of people is leaving Hong Kong because of environmental problem, it shows that the pollution developed into an unbearable level for people to live. Before, I thought that no matter how bad is the situation of environment in an area, people is not going to willing to leave the area if there is money to earn. However, this news seems to prove me wrong. Unfortunately, most of people who are moving out are elite and skilled worker. I wonder what the places that they choose to move are and will they go back if the air condition becomes better in the future. Hugh amount of people are leaving now, how the government is going to react on this? And how is his issue is going to end or develop? I would like to now, in this case, what is the aspect that Hong Kong may concerns the most? Will it be human resource or air condition?
In the news, it says that Singapore is one of the countries that people would like to go if they choose to move out of Hong Kong. Since I came from Singapore, I could like to talk a bit about it. First of all, Singapore is a tropical city, I am guessing if this could help Singapore to have a better environmental state because tree and planets are able to grow throughout the year and their leaves never fall out but keep in green whole year round too. If trees and planets could keep in green for a longer period, I believe that more carbon dioxide could absorb by the tree and planets, so the air becomes fresher. I do not know if it works this way, but this is my logic. Other than that, I do not really think that Singapore government provides a solid environmental education on youth, however, in my experience; I think Singapore government put in equal efforts in environmental issue as any other major issue during the parliament. They never fail to emphasis the important of keeping Singapore as the garden city in Asia as well. Attractive environment becomes the best strategy for the government to attract talents also to compete with other developing city in Asia for international chance of future development. Anyway, compare with other city that I have live before, I shall commit that Singapore has a better living environment than others.
Back to the issue, I am also very surprising that for the past 20 years, Hong Kong fail to renew its system on air pollution objectives, this shows how much the government of Hong Kong is reluctant on the issue of air pollution for the past 20 years, however it seems too late for them to catch up their steps to compete with country like Singapore for better chance in attracting talents nowadays. Other than not aware about reform on environmental system, the city also chooses to use wrong scheme and schedule on the environmental issue. It sounds really ridiculous that Hong Kong is choosing plan which is planned for developing country to deal with pollution problem. Does the government of Hong Kong need somebody to remain them that Hong Kong is a developed city! Such a joke! Hong Kong needs to treat environmental issues seriously from today before they may lose its entire well-educated citizens.
4.------------------------------------------
5.A high cost to Hong Kong
April 07, 2009
Air pollution may threaten the future of one of east Asia’s top financial destinations. Eric Cheng reports on a way to count the cost of the problem.
“In a recent survey, one in every five people in Hong Kong said they were considering leaving the city because of the air pollution.”
“A great city; except for the pollution.” It’s an increasingly common summary of Hong Kong. A financial hub known for its modern infrastructure, towering buildings and fast-paced lifestyle, the city is now attracting a less desirable label. A forecast by the Economist recently highlighted air pollution as a key cause for concern in Hong Kong’s future development. Last year alone, air pollution caused 1,155 premature deaths and an extra 7 million doctor visits, costing the city over HK$2.3 billion (US$297 million).
Cleaning up air pollution is not only an environmental problem, but also an economic and public health issue. Globalisation continues to draw countries closer together and integrates our financial markets. The world’s best minds have greater choice on where to take their talents, and while Hong Kong remains one of the world’s top destinations in this regard, its status is built on increasingly shaky ground.
In a recent survey, one in every five people in Hong Kong said they were considering leaving the city because of the air pollution. One in 10 was either seriously considering leaving or already in the process of leaving. Most worrisome is that the people in this group are the most educated and highest income earners. As Hong Kong’s environmental health affects its economic health, similar financial centres, such as Singapore, are capitalising on the brain drain by emphasising their cleaner environments as a comparative advantage.
Having established that cleaning up the air will benefit the economy, how do we achieve this? In Hong Kong, it is easy to point a finger toward the Pearl River Delta (PRD) on the Chinese mainland. Emissions from manufacturing in the PRD leaves a significant footprint on the city’s air quality, but only focusing on this point misses the full picture. Of the total number of polluted days in Hong Kong, local pollutants were the dominant source over half of the time. Furthermore, the pollutants that do the most damage to people’s health are those from roadside and marine sources, which are both locally generated. This means Hong Kong’s own pollutants are the main culprit and that addressing pollution and reforming local regulations and Air Quality Objectives will make a significant difference.
However, a gap exists between the dangers of Hong Kong’s pollution and public awareness of the problem. The public policy think-tank Civic Exchange has worked with the University of Hong Kong to bridge this divide with the development of the Hedley Environmental Index, the world’s first website to quantify the monetary and public health costs of air pollution in real-time. Named after professor Anthony Hedley of the Hong Kong University School of Public Health, the site uses a peer-reviewed, internationally accepted model to calculate the concrete costs of unsafe air. One goal of the Index is to show the public that air pollution’s effects extend beyond just environmental health and that these costs are tangible.
In just the first two months of 2009, the Hedley Environmental Index shows that air pollution lost Hong Kong HK$350 million and produced an extra one million visits to the doctor. Moreover, these are conservative figures, which count only lost productivity and short-term health costs. The Index does not yet account for the impact of air pollution on factors as lost tourism or long-term health burdens.
Missing in this picture is a hard and enforceable standard to curb pollution. As the unsafe air continues to bear down on Hong Kong, the city needs to search for more challenging markers to lower pollutant levels. Hong Kong’s current Air Quality Objectives are up to four times weaker than the World Health Organisation (WHO) standards; however, even with softer objectives, actual levels of pollution often exceed safe levels.
The 2005 WHO Air Quality Guidelines can provide the starting point for this discussion, but unfortunately, their only mention by Hong Kong’s leaders has been in the context of implementing WHO’s Interim Target 1 (IT1). While IT1 bears the WHO brand, it was designed for developing cities to get them on the path to lowering pollutants. Hong Kong is clearly not a developing city.
The path forward may present different options for solutions, but it is clear that now is the time to act. The Hong Kong AQOs are heavily outdated, but they are currently under review for the first time since their inception over 20 years ago. The development of the Hedley Environmental Index allows government, civic groups and citizens to track improvements in air quality and see the monetary and public health benefits that reform can bring. The government has begun to reduce emissions from the largest source of air pollution by ordering the installation of flue-gas desulphurisation equipment on all coal-fired power stations by 2011. This is a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen how it will address critical issues in the future, such as promoting green transport.
Hong Kong has traditionally been China’s most dynamic city, at the cutting edge of economic development and a leader in introducing international best practice to China. Yet, in air quality management the city lags far behind other world cities. As one of Asia’s premier financial centres, we need to ask what air pollution is really costing us.
Eric Cheng is a recent graduate from the University of California, Berkeley. He now works with Civic Exchange.
Luo Rui, a postgraduate student at Peking University's Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering, who has previously worked at Civic Exchange, contributed to this article.
6.------7.http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2902-A-high-cost-to-Hong-Kong
1. Soo-Bin
ReplyDelete2.Carbon capture and storage: A victory for green thinking
3. I suppose, nobody will disagree that government plays a vital role in the enviornmental issues. So in this context the U.K government is doing well(well~ we have to see the result actually). The enviornmental issues could be seen as a waste of money in short term. However in long term it is very important and a plus to the nations.
Besides, I am worried about the korean government. Present president became it mainly because of the people's expectation of economical boost. So he tries to make jobs and build new thigs and so on... And most of these are directly or indirectly related to pollution. The best example would be kyungbu canal. Actually I totally can't understand with this project. The circumstances are not suitable for a canal. However the government claimed that the canal could be used as a tourist attraction. I heard that the canal would be build through a mountain. Then who will go for a picnic in this dark place??
Not only the canal but also many of his policies are not enviornmental friendly. For example, reducing national park, encourage to do new things like rebuilding a house or buying a new car etc.
Sure it is important to boost the economy especially since Korea's major industry is trade. But I think there are other ways to boost economy by harming much more less than now. In addition, the time is ripe enough to think a little bit further.
-------------------------------------
Carbon capture and storage: A victory for green thinkingComments (8)
Editorial
The Observer, Sunday 26 April 2009
Article history
Last week, the government gave a rare demonstration of environmental leadership. It pledged that no new coal-fired power stations will be built in Britain unless they are fitted with technology to capture and store the carbon emissions. The announcement lacked detail about funding this technology, but the move is welcome none the less. In recent years, ministers have been happy to talk about reducing the nation's carbon emissions, but vague about how to achieve this.
On this occasion - by promoting devices that will take carbon dioxide from power plants and pump it deep into old North Sea oil fields - they have demonstrated a real appreciation of how serious we have to be in our fight against global warming. Carbon capture and storage is a technology with the potential to make a major difference in the fight against climate change.
It shows that power has shifted in government. Only last year, the cabinet was poised to approve new coal-powered generating plants that would have been able to operate without these devices and that would have pumped millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. That power shift favours Ed Miliband, who has convinced cabinet and civil servants that this cause is a vital one. Green groups who risked jail to champion a once unfashionable cause have scored a major victory. We're all a little safer because of it.
-----------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/26/carbon-capture-and-storage-coal
1. Hye Sung, Yoon
ReplyDelete2. Special feature: Green housing appeals to buyers, builders
Michele Lerner
3. I think the ideas in this article may be very attractive to many people. In my case, I often think that I will be happy if I live in an environmentally friendly place. I don't like an apartment house with no trees and plants. When I was young, I often went to my grandmother's house which had no plants. I felt stuffy whenever I visited there. I like the place where is plenty of green trees and plants. And I believe most people love environmentally friendly house.
These days, there are so many variety of environmental problems. At the same time, people try to find out proper solutions. And this trend spreads to the architecture. However, I wonder if these effort can really recover the environment. Perhaps It may be helpful to our environment.
I hope to live in environmentally friendly house like this.
-------------------------
Environmentalism, including green building, may be the most influential trend of this decade because it impacts commercial and residential construction, along with nearly every aspect of daily life.
The Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Web site conducted a "Living Green" consumer survey in 2008 that showed half of the consumers surveyed paid more money for an energy-efficient product in the past 12 months.
The survey also revealed that one in three homeowners said they would be willing to spend $5,000 or more on green improvements to increase a home's appeal to potential buyers.
Consumers reported engaging in a variety of environmentally conscious activities, including recycling (73 percent), replacing standard lights with compact fluorescent light bulbs (69 percent), conserving water (57 percent), adjusting the thermostat (51 percent) and purchasing energy-efficient appliances (30 percent).
Homebuilders are already incorporating green features into new homes in response to consumer preferences for the cost-saving benefits of environmentally friendly homes.
K. Hovnanian Homes has partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy's Building America program and Integrated Building and Construction Solutions, a science and research firm in Pittsburgh, to build five prototypes of a high-performance home in Maryland and Virginia.
At Eagles Pointe in Woodbridge, K. Hovnanian has a demonstration home that displays some of the materials, processes and designs used in the development of high-performance homes. The goal for these prototype homes is to achieve 40 percent energy savings and to identify the systems and processes that will produce energy-efficient, environmentally sensitive and affordable housing on a large scale.
All products and construction techniques used at Eagles Pointe will create a more energy-efficient home with improved indoor air quality. Features include advanced framing techniques, high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, Energy Star-rated appliances and closed-cell spray-foam insulation in every wall. The home has a tankless water heater and a new water distribution system so that every faucet is separately attached to the water heater by its own line.
Brookfield Homes Corp. launched Brookfield Blue, an energy-efficient program that introduces high-end energy-creating systems into their homes. Systems (such as those using solar energy, geothermal heating and air conditioning and wind power) are usually available exclusively on custom homes, but Brookfield is offering these features and others as affordable options in many of their communities.
At the model home at Snowden Bridge in Winchester, Brookfield has an "energy lab" that compares traditional home systems with their Brookfield Blue systems. The geothermal heating and cooling system extracts air from below the Earth's surface, where it maintains a steady temperature, reducing the need for energy to heat and cool the air.
Wind power can be generated from a lightweight wind turbine on the roof, which generates electricity for energy-efficient batteries. Buyers can use solar photovoltaic power modules, which convert energy from the sun into electricity. Or buyers may have solar hot water from solar collection tubes, which sit nearly invisibly on the roof and absorb thermal energy for a continuous supply of hot water. Currently, Brookfield is providing a $10,000 energy credit for buyers who want to take advantage of any of these optional systems.
In addition, Brookfield has a Green Plus program that improves indoor air quality, water efficiency and resource management. This program includes using energy-efficient features, compact fluorescent light bulbs, dual-flush toilets, water-saving faucets, Silestone counters, closed-cellulose insulation, low-volatile organic compound (VOC) paint and sustainable materials.
Beazer Homes Corp. has a Smart Design program that includes up to 10 environmentally friendly features in every home. Earlier this year, the company offered an "eco-promotion" for prospective homebuyers who were entered into a sweepstakes to win one of 350 eco-friendly prizes. More than 30,000 people participated in the sweepstakes, including a Maryland woman who won a new Toyota Prius Hybrid.
Among the environmentally friendly features in Beazer homes are compact fluorescent light bulbs and low-maintenance building materials that have a lower impact on the environment and add to overall energy savings.
Other features of the Smart Design program include a programmable thermostat, which is estimated to save up to $150 annually in heating and cooling costs; Energy Star-rated dishwashers, which are at least 41 percent more energy efficient than the minimum federal standards; and water-reduction shower heads and faucets, which reduce water use by 33 percent. Indoor air quality is improved by the use of better quality air filters and low-VOC paint and carpets.
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a certification program established by the U.S. Green Building Council to encourage the development of high performance buildings. Bethesda-based developer EYA hopes the expansion of LEED certification to their new residential development will function as a model for other builders. Traditionally, LEED certification has been pursued for commercial buildings and custom-designed homes.
In Southeast Washington, EYA recently began construction on Capitol Quarter. The community is on the Southeast waterfront adjacent to the new Yards development and between the Navy Yard and Eastern Market Metro stations. It will include 210 town homes constructed of environmentally friendly building materials. Residents can walk to public transportation, parks, employment centers, shops and restaurants. The homes will have Energy Star-rated appliances, windows and doors; energy-efficient gas heat; an energy seal and house wrap package; low- consumption toilets; double-pane windows; programmable thermostats and low-VOC paints and finishes.
Inspiring builders to develop energy-efficient homes was part of the purpose of the New American Home 2009, a showcase home and construction technology laboratory in Las Vegas, sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) as part of the International Builders' Show held in January. The home was a collaboration between Las Vegas builder Blue Heron and Irvine, Calif.-based architect Danielian Associates Inc.
This highly energy-efficient home includes a natural gas-powered heating and cooling system, photovoltaic cells and solar water heating. The home was sited to optimize solar resources and uses landscape design to limit both water and energy demand.
Stormwater pollution prevention plans were implemented to reduce soil erosion and disturbance of the environment. The materials used in the home were either recycled or new materials made from renewable resources or require fewer resources than traditional building materials. The goal of the energy-efficient features in this home, which include low-E windows, advanced insulation and vertical and horizontal solar overhangs in addition to the solar panel system, is to reach a net-zero level of electrical consumption.
While new homebuilders are pumping up their level of environmentally friendly features, Montgomery County introduced a new disclosure law that requires sellers to provide information on the energy efficiency of their homes to buyers. Before signing a contract for a single-family home or town home, the seller must provide the buyer with general information on energy-efficient improvements and the availability of energy audits approved by the Maryland Department of Environmental Protection. The owners must provide copies of the electric, gas and heating/oil bills or a cost and usage history for the house for the 12 months prior to the date the home was listed for sale. (The law does not apply to condominiums.)
Concern for the environment - and the bottom line - is convincing builders, local governments and consumers that green building is here to stay.
----------
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17/special-feature-green-housing-appeals-to-buyers-bu/
1. Daniel Cheng
ReplyDelete2. At the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, a Pipe Leak Raises Concerns
3. I found this article interesting because of our talk the other day in class on cold fusion. The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York recently had a leak in one of the pipes. 100,000 gallons of water, which the article described as cleaner than tap water, escaped from the pipes and compromised the integrity of the plant. There are backup systems and fail-safes in place, but even so, it is a very scary thought to think there is a possibility of a meltdown.
"At a nuclear plant, a central water system takes heat from the reactor in the form of steam and turns it into electricity." The pipe that had a leak, in fact, has not been inspected since the nuclear power plant began running in 1973 -- worst of all the commission does not require these inspections. So of course there was a leak that went unnoticed. The plant is nearing its 40 year mark, and currently could be operating on a backup system that can fail any minute.
And if we look to cold fusion, unfortunately this is what we would find: "Cold fusion researchers have described possible cold fusion mechanisms, but they have not received mainstream acceptance.[55] Physics Today said, in 2005, that new reports of excess heat and other cold fusion effects were still no more convincing than 15 years ago.[56] 20 years later, in 2009, cold fusion researchers complain that the flaws in the original announcement still cause the field to be marginalized and to suffer a chronic lack of funding."
So where do we look to now? Solar power!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/business/businessspecial2/30solar.html?ref=earth
Solar powered strips are now small enough and flexible enough to be put onto tshirts and pencils.
----------
WASHINGTON — The discovery of water flowing across the floor of a building at the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., traced to a leak in a buried pipe, is stirring concern about the plant’s underground pipes and those of other aging reactors across the country.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Michael Nagle for The New York Times
A small hole caused by corrosion allowed about 100,000 gallons of water to escape from a pipe at the Indian Point 2 plant, north of New York City.
Multimedia
A Hidden Underground LeakGraphic
A Hidden Underground Leak
A one-and-a-half-inch hole caused by corrosion allowed about 100,000 gallons of water to escape from the main system that keeps the reactor cool immediately after any shutdown, according to nuclear experts. The leak was discovered on Feb. 16, according to the plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, a subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation.
Entergy and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup systems, although operators generally avoid using both.
They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap water, posed no environmental threat. Yet the leak’s discovery has prompted Entergy and the regulatory commission to begin studying how the chief system for cooling during shutdowns, so important that the Indian Point 2 has three pumps in place to do the same job, could be endangered by the failure of a single part.
More broadly, it has raised concerns about the monitoring of decades-old buried pipes at the nation’s nuclear plants, many of which are applying for renewal of their operating licenses. Indian Point 2, whose 40-year operating license expires in 2013, already faces harsh criticism from New York State and county officials who want it shut down.
This week Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads a House subcommittee on energy and the environment, said the leak raised serious questions about Entergy’s and the regulatory commission’s oversight.
“This leak may demonstrate a systemic failure of the licensee and the commission to inspect critical buried pipes in a manner sufficient to guarantee the public health and safety,” he wrote to the commission’s chairman, Dale Klein, in a letter on Thursday. The letter was also signed by Representative John J. Hall, whose district includes the plant. The congressmen said they were “shocked” that a leak that big could develop without detection and called the system for detecting such problems “profoundly inadequate.”
One argument raised by New York State in opposing extension of the license of Indian Point 2 or the adjacent Indian Point 3 reactor is that crucial components are aging in ways that the operators may not anticipate or understand.
The supply pipe at issue, measuring eight inches in diameter, is used to fill a 600,000-gallon tank that is employed whenever the plant “trips,” or shuts down because of an equipment malfunction. Such shutdowns are not unusual; one occurred on April 3, roughly a month after the pipe was fixed.
James F. Steets, a spokesman for Indian Point, said it was unclear when the leak began. The company initially said the pipe was losing 18 gallons a minute but later amended that to 12; either number is small relative to the 600,000-gallon tank, he said.
Mr. Steets said that the water level in the tank offered no clue that the supply pipe was leaking. The tank has an alarm to indicate its water level is falling, he said, but it did not sound because an automatic system was topping off the tank with purified water.
At a nuclear plant, a central water system takes heat from the reactor in the form of steam and turns it into electricity. During a shutdown at Indian Point 2, that system often turns off and a pipe measuring 12 inches in diameter carries water from the tank into the cooling system to carry off excess heat.
The buried portion of neither the eight-inch supply pipe nor the 12-inch pipe connecting the tank to the reactor cooling system has been visually inspected since the reactor began operating in August 1973, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor does the commission require such inspections.
Paul Blanch, an electrical engineer and nuclear safety expert who worked at Indian Point in 2001 and 2002, said that because neither pipe had been inspected, except for a short section that was replaced when the hole was located in February, “they shouldn’t be operating right now.”
He said the plant could be operating with a backup system that is ready to fail.
Mel Gray, a branch chief at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who oversees inspections at Indian Point, confirmed in a telephone interview that inspectors “have not dug up and laid eyes visually” on the pipes. But he said that experts routinely conduct “surveillance tests,” measuring the tank level and the flow through the pumps that direct water from the tank to the reactor.
“If you had a gross leak, you’d detect its going somewhere else,” he said, referring, for example, to a leak large enough to drain the tank quickly.
Mr. Gray acknowledged that the 12-inch line that delivers water from the 600,000 gallon tank during a shutdown might be rusted in places, too, but he said it was unlikely to fail suddenly when called on. But Mr. Blanch warned that if gravel or dirt leaked into the 12-inch supply pipe when the pumps started up, that could make them shut down.
Mr. Steets of Entergy said that if the tank were disabled, a tank filled from Buchanan’s municipal water system could be used to deliver water during a shutdown.
But Mr. Blanch and the letter from the two congressmen faulted the system that relies on city water.
Plant operators dislike using such water because city tap water is not as clean as reactor water. And critics point out that the system is not safety-rated, meaning it is not certified to work in adverse conditions like blackouts and earthquakes and is not maintained as carefully.
Another potential solution proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission involves using the reactor’s emergency core cooling system during a shutdown. But cooling water can be inserted only after the pressure in the reactor is reduced, which causes the water to boil. Letting the water boil can lead to core damage.
Buried pipes are emerging as an endemic problem as reactors age, although so far most of the attention has been to the substance that is leaked — not to a pipe’s role in ensuring the reactor’s safe operation over all.
Reactor water includes tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen that can occur naturally but is also made in reactors. Leaks of water with tritium have been discovered in underground piping at the Byron, Braidwood and Dresden twin-reactor plants in Illinois, and at a three-unit plant in Arizona, Palo Verde. Indian Point also leaked water with tritium from its spent fuel pool in 2005.
While experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in interviews that additional pipe leaks like the one found in February would not pose a big challenge to reactor operators, they acknowledged that it was something new.
“We were not aware of a problem before with underground pipe,” Mr. Gray said. “Now that we have one, it’s got our focused attention.”
“We’re not done,” he said.
-------
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?pagewanted=2&ref=earth
1. Yoo GaEun
ReplyDelete2. Introduction to climate economics
:Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost — one tenth of a penny on the dollar
3.The title, 'Climate Economics' first got my
attention because I think, in the class, I have learnt about socio-political issues related to
environmental action and the interaction between macro- and micro- factors in the society.
So, if some economic parts are deeply concerned
with environmental sectors, that must be what I
should consider upon!
Although this article is written mainly to induce the government or those who apportion the budget to various areas, I could see the clear
incentive of action that makes people cope with environmental problems. If it is impossible to make both ends meet, nobody will dare to fix social problem or provoke the public to change their ways of life into eco-friendly ways.
Thus, this article practically analyzes how
the dabate about the costs of climate action versus those of inaction can be concluded.
(Of course, because this article is from the pro-environment activism blog, it surely urges to
solve environmental problems^^)
------------------------------------
Since the nation is about to launch into a long debate about the costs of climate action versus the cost of inaction, here is an overview of the major cost analyses of global climate action.
In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded:
In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.
So global GDP drops by under 0.12% per year — about one tenth of a penny on the dollar — even in the 445 ppm CO2-eq case (through 2050, see Table SPM.7). And this is for stabilization at 445 ppm CO2-eq, which is stabilization at 350 ppm CO2 (see Table SPM.6).
And that has a very good chance of averting the incalculable cost of catastrophic global warming impacts to the next 50 generations, which means the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction.
The IPCC’s conclusion — and every single word in the report — was signed off on by 130 nations including China and the Bush Administration. Nor is this an especially controversial conclusion, at least among the few groups that have done comprehensive global economic and energy modeling:
McKinsey 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero. [See cost curve for global greenhouse gas reduction measures -- click to enlarge.]
Must read IEA report, Part 1: Act now with clean energy or face 6°C warming. Cost is NOT high — media blows the story
How can the world’s leading governments and scientific experts and McKinsey and the traditionally conservative International Energy Agency agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?
Because that’s what the scientific and economic literature — and real-world experience — says. The IPCC summary report, which is, after all, primarily a literature review, notes:
Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.
In fact, the bottom up studies — the ones that look technology by technology, which I believe are more credible — have even better news:
Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.
Wow! A 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits!
The technology-by-technology cost-curve from McKinsey demonstrates this finding more concretely. Whereas the IPCC merely says that 450 ppm could be achieved for a total GDP reduction of <3% in 2030 (the cumulative impact of the <0.12% of GDP per year cost), McKinsey believes it could be even less costly:
The macroeconomic costs of this carbon revolution are likely to be manageable, being in the order of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030. To put this figure in perspective, if one were to view this spending as a form of insurance against potential damage due to climate change, it might be relevant to compare it to global spending on insurance, which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005. Borrowing could potentially finance many of the costs, thereby effectively limiting the impact on near-term GDP growth. In fact, depending on how new low-carbon infrastructure is financed, the transition to a low-carbon economy may increase annual GDP growth in many countries.
I want to be clear here that stabilizing at 445 ppm CO2-eq does require a significant annual investment, as the IEA analysis shows. The IEA puts the investment at $45 trillion, which sounds like an unimaginably large amount of money — but spread over more than four decades and compared to the world’s total wealth during that time, it is literally a drop in the bucket — 1.1% or one part in 90 of the world’s total wealth.
Indeed, the IEA notes that one reason the dollar value of the investment is so high is “in part due to the declining value of the dollar.” [Not to self: How diabolical of President Bush -- by weakening our economy he increased the total dollar cost of action on climate, thus encouraging inaction!]
And while the additional investments seem high, “they do not represent net costs.” They are not a pure negative hit to global GDP. That’s because “technology investments in energy efficiency” and many low-carbon power sources “reduce fuel requirements.” In all the scenarios the IEA considers,
… the estimated total undiscounted fuel cost savings for coal, oil and gas over the period to 2050 are greater than the additional investment required (valuing these fuels at Baseline prices). If we discount at 3%, fuel savings exceed additional investment needs in the ACT Map scenario [in which CO2 emissions in 2050 only return to 2005 levels].
But don’t we need new technologies? Of course, but we don’t need — and can’t afford — to sit on our hands when we have so many cost-effective existing technologies. The IPCC finds:
There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.
Yes we need to do two things at once: aggressively deploy existing technology (with carbon prices and government standards) and aggressively finish developing and commercializing key technologies and systems that are in the pipeline. Anyone who argues for just doing the latter is disputing a very broad consensus — and is neither pragmatic nor centrist.
McKinsey finds 70% of the total 2030 emissions reduction potential (below $60 a ton of CO2 equivalent) is “not dependent on new technology.”
The report notes that “we have been fairly conservative in our assumptions about technological progress in these projections.” For instance, the analysis largely ignores the potential of concentrated solar thermal electricity, which is a bit player for their analysis but which will probably be the single biggest supply side low carbon source in reality (see “Concentrated solar thermal power Solar Baseload — a core climate solution“).
[Yes, the IEA report does suggest we need major technology advances -- but that is mostly for cost reduction if the price of oil stays low, which even the IEA doesn't believe any more (see "IEA says oil will peak in 2020").]
So the bottom line is that the economic cost of action is low, whereas the cost of inaction is incalculably greater — what exactly is the “price” of 5 feet of sea level rise in 2100 rising 6-12 inches a decade for centuries thereafter or the price of desertifying one third of the planet and losing all of the inland glaciers that provide a significant fraction of water to a billion people. Or the price of losing half the world’s species. For details, see “An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water.”
And this is without even adding in the various ancillary benefits such as reduced air pollution and averting the huge economic dislocations that are inevitable from peak
----------------
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/30/global-warming-economics-low-cost-high-benefit/
1. Sohyun Park
ReplyDelete2. Cow Genome Decoded -- Cheaper Beef for Everybody?
3. I found an article about the new study of cow genome decoded. The article says that this will bring positive effects on our environment and our lives. It was interesting to find out how controlling cow feeding traits will help reduce greenhouse gases. Also, in the article it talked about how the genomic selection could breed out bad diseases such as mad cow disease. However, the bad side is that it may limit genetic diversity. Though I thought it would be exciting to try and see this new science applied to help our environment.
-----------------------------
The humble cow has now had its entire genome sequenced, a new study says.
Six years in the making, the feat could lead to healthier, cheaper beef and milk, according to scientists.
A genome is the full set of genes that gives rise to a particular species. Genes are combinations of chemical "letters" that determine animals' and plants' physical traits, from hair color to body shape.
Using the newly decoded cow genome, "you are going to be able to predict an animal's performance on the basis of its [genetic makeup]," biologist Harris Lewin said.
Cow breeders should be able to identify genes responsible for desirable traits and match cows to produce calves with those traits.
This "genomic selection" should enable breeders to raise cows that require less feed and produce lean meat, for example.
Less feed means lower costs for farmers—savings that presumably would be passed on to the consumer.
These improvements, Lewin added, will be important, in part because people in the developing world are likely to eat more meat as their standards of living rise, driving up demand for beef.
"There're some societies that exist primarily on meat and dairy products. It's just part of the culture," said Lewin, who led two research teams on the sequencing project and wrote a commentary on the results, to be published in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.
Green Meat Never Sounded So Good
Genome-informed breeding could also be good for the environment, Lewin said.
"Just dealing with feed efficiency will help reduce greenhouse gases"—for example, by lessening cow burps, which encourage global warming—"and provide more food for human populations," he said.
Genomic selection could also make cattle healthier by helping to fight ailments such as mad cow disease.
Breeders should be able to more effectively "breed out" such diseases over generations—and breed in genes identified as disease resistant, Lewin said.
Cow Evolution
The cow genome is also a window into what makes a cow a cow, including which genes give rise to a four-chambered stomach or protein-heavy milk.
Using the deciphered cow genome, scientists compared the genes of several breeds to paint a picture of cattle evolution.
Cattle were domesticated from aurochs—large, extinct European wild oxen—about 10,000 years ago and maintained a diverse ancestral population, the study shows.
Recent selective breeding for agriculture has rapidly reduced that diversity by propagating more of certain breeds and less of others. The trend could be amplified as the deciphered genome allows for even more precise breeding.
This could be of concern to animal breeders because species with low genetic diversity tend to be more vulnerable to disease and inbreeding, the study noted.
But the study also found but that the level of diversity is still on par with the human population, said Curt Van Tassell, a research geneticist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Baltimore, Maryland, and study co-author.
"So I think we are still in very good shape," he said. "And beyond that, the tools that this technology gives us allow us to manage diversity at a whole new level. ... I think the outlook is quite bright."
---
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090423-cow-genome-cheap-beef.html
1. Kyuhee Shim
ReplyDelete2. California’s low carbon standard
3. We have been watching the documentary titled, Who Killed the Electric Car, in class. In the film I saw how the local government of California created laws restricting the polluting impact of gasoline cars, thereby prompting car manufacturers to create and commercialize the very first electric car. Sadly, resistance from the car companies, oil conglomerates, and the federal government won over and the law was revoked. It made me feel frustrated to think that if the California law had still been put to effect to this day, it might have triggered a nationwide trend of American drivers switching to electric cars, and avoiding a bulk of the pollution that has happened in the past decade.
But this article is about yet another effort being made by the Air Resources Board of California, to reduce the uses of dirty oil and its harmful effects on the atmosphere. The new “low carbon fuel standard” is a new law that will pressure the market to gradually switch to alternative fuel that are less pollutive than gasoline, such as hydrogen, electricity, and biofuels. Ethanol, remains a controversial subject in the context of this law, but the board says that it does not entirely rule out the choice of ethanol if it is produced in a particular way that reduces the amount of carbon resulting in the process of making it. Personally I do not think ethanol is not much better compared to oil but I agree that banning ethanol as well would create more opposition to the law.
I was relieved to see that California was renewing its efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. However it struck me strange that the article was explicitly one-sided in its criticisms of the law. Starting from the second sentence to the end, the article lays down a list of reasons why the law should be opposed. Only one paragraph, a quote from the board, even talks of the benefits of the law, and there is no comment at all on the environmental issues caused by gasoline fuel and the reason why restrictions such as this one are so urgent.
In the article the main criticism seems to be the increased costs that will be burdened by the public, in the form of higher gasoline prices. I found this argument meaningless because in the long run the public is going to benefit from cleaner air. Also the United States is always worrying about its dependence on foreign oil. The development of alternative fuels is reasonable solution to that problem, not to mention environmentally sustainable as well. The article says that stakes are high if this standard is pursued but stakes are already high for us relying on unsustainable fuel and emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases every day. The environmental costs resulting from America’s addiction to oil will create more problems, in public health and the environment, problems which are mounting fast and will be more costly to fix in the future.
In fact the sole party that threatened by the introduction of this law is, once again, the oil companies. I fear that once again the oil companies will band together to fight this. I hope that this time around the public of California have learned from their past mistakes and defend this standard, and their right to live in a clean environment free from greenhouse gases.
4. ---------------------------------------------------
5.
California's low-carbon fuel standard has oil companies anxious
dkasler@sacbee.com
Published Saturday, Apr. 25, 2009
In car-crazy California, a new fuel standard ordered by state officials to curb greenhouse gases could dramatically change how vehicles run.
It also could have a huge effect on cost.
The petroleum industry and some economists say the new standard adopted by the state Air Resources Board on Thursday will cost motorists billions, because blending gasoline will become considerably more complicated.
But state officials and environmentalists say the "low-carbon fuel standard" will actually save Californians money by reducing oil consumption and ushering in a competitive new era of biofuels and electric vehicles.
The stakes are enormous. The price of fuel can have a significant impact on the state's economic health. When gas hit $4.50 last summer, it severely hurt tourism and caused delivery companies to impose fuel surcharges.
Gasoline now sells for a relatively affordable $2.35 a gallon on average, but the state's already strict fuel formulas create a delicate balance between supply and demand. Even minor supply glitches have caused big price spikes because only a small number of refiners make gas to California's specifications.
Business advocates say significant price increases during a recession could be disastrous. They are casting a wary eye at the fuel standard.
"Reformulating the fuel supply – we shouldn't undergo that without a certain amount of trepidation," said Dorothy Rothrock, senior vice president with the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
Every time California has instituted stricter clean-air standards for motor fuel, "they all have had a cost associated with it," said Cathy Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer at the Western States Petroleum Association. "I know there's going to be a cost associated with this."
A big problem, she said, is that the air board's standards will limit the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline – leaving refiners with a major hurdle.
Yet the Air Resources Board, in approving the low carbon standard Thursday, dismissed forecasts of higher costs. The board's staff contends that when the standard is fully operational, in 2020, Californians will save about $11 billion a year.
"It's the reduction in the use of petroleum," said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.
The first-in-the-nation carbon standard is a key element in California's goal of reducing overall volume of greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020, as required by a 2006 state law. The air board's standard dictates that the "carbon intensity" of fuels be reduced starting in 2011, ramping up to a 10 percent cut by 2020.
The board believes the standard will encourage the development of hydrogen, electricity and biofuels to power vehicles. But there's a ton of controversy about how the standard treats what is currently the leading biofuel, ethanol made from corn.
Corn ethanol is now a staple of the transportation scene. It makes up 6 percent of the gas sold in California, and that's going to grow to 10 percent next year.
But the air board decided that corn ethanol is not so great for limiting greenhouse gases. The argument goes like this: Eager to cash in on ethanol demand, farmers around the world plow up grasslands and chop down trees to make way for corn, a process that releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The air board's ruling infuriated the corn ethanol industry, which is in severe financial distress already. Companies like Sacramento's Pacific Ethanol Inc. are on the verge of bankruptcy.
It also angered the petroleum refiners, who argued that they have few viable options for meeting the 10 percent carbon reduction if they don't get much credit for using corn ethanol. The alternatives, for the most part, consist of fuel technologies that are still expensive or are in the early stages of commercialization.
"We have no way to know how we're supposed to comply with this," Reheis-Boyd said.
She said the only real solution is to blend in ethanol made from sugar cane – which gets a better "carbon score" from the air board. But that means importing it from Brazil and paying costly U.S. import tariffs, she said.
All told, her association believes fuel costs in California could rise $3 billion a year.
Air board officials and environmentalists said the refiners are crying wolf. The standard will phase in slowly in the early years. Refiners and entrepreneurs will have plenty of time – and economic incentive – to make inexpensive biofuels, hydrogen-based fuels, even ethanol from such "cellulosic" materials as switchgrass.
"The program starts off on a rather gentle slope," said Roland Hwang, vehicle policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. There are even ways of making ethanol out of corn that can reduce its "total carbon score," he said.
But Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said there's no certainty that these emerging technologies will be ready to meet the demand.
The air board "is betting that with the phase-in, those (alternative) fuels are going to get a lot cheaper," Borenstein said. "They might, but there certainly is not any guarantee at all."
The impact on the economy wouldn't be "devastating," but the new standard is an inefficient way of attacking greenhouse gases, he said.
6. ------------------------------
7. http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1808713.html
1. Mikah Lee
ReplyDelete2. Recyclable batteries
3. I think this article portrays McDonough's ideal "cradle to cradle" industry fairly well- at least in theory. Lithium-ion batteries for cars are supposed to be completely recyclable, but according to this article there is only one company that actually does this (Toxco Incorporated), and the recycling process itself is quite tedious.
I hear that lithium is used in the batteries of electric cars (the companies mentioned in the first paragraph of the article are only focusing on hybrids rather than fully electric cars, I think), and I wonder what the batteries that Stan Ovshinsky (mentioned in the film we watched in class) invented are made of. If the batteries of electric cars are fully recyclable, I would say that that just adds another green factor to the whole concept of non-gasoline-powered cars. I guess the fact that lithium recycling is bothersome is just another excuse for automakers to avoid this industry.
------------------------------------------------
April 28, 2009 – Vol.14 No.6
RECYCLE LITHIUM TODAY FOR TOMORROW’S CARS.
by Bruce Mulliken, Green Energy News
Blue Energy, a joint venture of Honda and GS Yuasa, a Japan-based maker of batteries and electronics, has broken ground for a new lithium-ion battery facility. The new plant, being built in Fukuchiyama, Kyoto, Japan, will include manufacturing, sales, and research and development of lithium-ion batteries for hybrid vehicles. Like many other manufacturers Honda is hinging at least part of its future on lithium-ion batteries to power clean electrically driven cars.
The companies which are embracing lithium with such passion are focusing their hopes and dreams for clean vehicles on a relatively scarce metal. While at least one study claims there is plenty of lithium available from a variety of sources for anything we want to do with it, lithium battery developers are most likely hoping that those current evaluations of global resources are wrong and there is much more lithium available than now thought. That kind of logic says that as the demand for a resource goes up so does the exploration of it. Oil companies have found more crude than ever thought possible 100 years ago. So, lithium might be in greater quantities too if lithium miners look a little harder. Abundant supplies of lithium would make it cheaper and cut costs for battery makers.
Part of the appeal, one of the green credentials of lithium, is its recyclability. Religiously recycled, much of the lithium stashed away in batteries should be able to be recovered, reprocessed and reused.
Given that lithium is so rare, and the market for it is increasing almost daily, you’d think that there would be plans to increase recycling capabilities. The growth of lithium batteries should be equal to the ability to recycle them at their end of life a few years hence. That is, for every new lithium battery that comes off the assembly line, there should also be some planned capability to recycle every one of those. That doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead, battery makers seem to be following the usual market economics practice that waits for another party to fill in a need.
As it is, there is only one company, that I know of, that actually recycles lithium-ion batteries, Toxco Incorporated. (“Tox” must have something to do with “toxic.” ) According to the company website, recycling those batteries is not an easy process.
When spent lithium batteries are received at Toxco’s recycling facility in Trail, British Columbia, Canada they are inventoried and stored in earth-covered concrete bunkers. The first step in the recycling process is to remove residual electricity from larger, more reactive batteries. Then the batteries continue recycling following Toxco’s patented cryogenic process and are cooled to minus 325 degrees F (-198 C). ( Lithium, although normally explosively reactive at room temperature, is rendered relatively inert at this low temperature.) Once frozen, the batteries are then safely sheared/shredded and the materials are separated. Metals from the batteries are collected and sold. The lithium components are separated and converted to lithium carbonate for resale. Hazardous electrolytes are neutralized to form stable compounds and residual plastic casings and miscellaneous components are recovered for appropriate recycling or scrapping. If the batteries contain cobalt this is also recovered for reuse.
For safety, most of the recycling process is done by machine. The company says approximately 90 percent of its lithium recycling process is remotely controlled, recycled by industrial robots.
For now, it seems unlikely that there are many lithium-ion batteries used in transportation ready for recycling: There are very few vehicles now on the road that use those batteries. When automotive lithium-ion batteries become more common, and more developed in the next few years the batteries could last 10 years or more, longer than the life of many vehicles. But, eventually the batteries will fail and need recycling.
Today we’re a long way from major automotive lithium recycling. Still, as lithium batteries in vehicles get closer to full commercialization, then Toxco, and perhaps newcomers into the business will probably be gearing up to meet the demand. It seems likely that now many lithium batteries, particularly the smallest ones, are not recycled but dumped in the trash. Given that so much is banking on lithium at the moment, it seems a shame to throw away any of this valuable resource.
Toxco has a variety of facilities in Ohio, California, Tennessee and Florida. The company recycles all types of batteries, lithium chemicals, electronics, metals, precious metals, and other materials. The company also manufactures many lithium and fluorinated specialty compounds.
------
http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2009/20090035.html
1. Dakyung Lee
ReplyDelete2. Obama administration and Greenhouse gases
3. This article showed the Obama administration's efforts to have government involvement in addressing the environmental issues caused by the greenhouse gases. EPA scientists reported that there are serious health impacts from warming, which include severe heat waves, dangerous floods caused by stronger storms, diseases related to warmer weather such as malaria, and increased smogs.
While the Bush administration rejected the idea of regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant, it seems pretty clear that the Obama administration has a different outlook in terms of taking cautions for the environment. In approaching this issue, Obama introduced the idea of "a low carbon economy" which will make millions of green jobs available and aim towards eliminating the nation's dependence on foreign oil. I think as long as he really dedicates himself, with a group of people who are motivated to improve the environment as well as the economy by enforcing these policies and making them apply to the real world, the health and environmental problems can be avoided or reduced considerably. I think it will be interesting to follow up on the progress the Obama administration makes regarding this issue and also how much influence they will have in the upcoming global warming international treaty. It's my personal hope that issues like this becomes more public so that more people become aware and support the Obama administration along the way.
--------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Having received White House backing, the Environmental Protection Agency declared Friday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and thus will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act — a policy the Bush administration rejected.
"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.
The move could allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but it's more likely that the Obama administration will use the action to prod Congress to pass regulations around a system to cap and then trade emissions so that they are gradually lowered.
Indeed, the EPA emphasized that the congressional route was preferred to EPA regulation. "Both President (Barack) Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy," the EPA said in its statement.
The EPA last month sent its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviewed and approved it. By law, the decision includes a 60-day public comment period before being finalized.
The EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which is already used to curb emissions that cause acid rain, smog and soot.
Discussion to begin on regulation
But its declaration does not spell out how or what to regulate. Instead, the EPA and lawmakers are expected to begin that discussion.
Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.
The chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., urged the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to start "cutting greenhouse gas emissions right now."
"However," she added, "the best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market based cap and trade system, which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth."
Boxer added that she wouldn't hesitate to use the EPA as leverage. "If Congress does not act to pass legislation, then I will call on EPA to take all steps authorized by law to protect our families," she added.
In their recommendations, EPA scientists said that potential health impacts from warming include:
* longer and more severe heat waves;
* increased smog in some areas;
* dangerous flooding caused by stronger storms;
* and diseases, including malaria and dengue fever, related to flooding and warmer weather.
Jackson on Friday said curbing greenhouse gases fits in with Obama's call for "a low carbon economy" as well as lawmakers' actions toward clean energy and climate legislation. "This pollution problem has a solution," she said, "one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil."
Shift started with Supreme Court
The Bush administration refused to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, even though the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 prodded the federal government to do so.
In his first week in office, Obama directed the EPA to review a decision by the Bush administration denying California and other states the right to control auto emissions, which, along with pollution from coal-fired power plants, are a major source of greenhouse gases.
Environmentalists praised the EPA move, but urged the administration to use the Clean Air Act until Congress comes up with a plan.
The EPA should be required "to follow up with standards under the Clean Air Act, the nation's most effective environmental law, to curb carbon pollution from our cars, power plants and other industrial sources," said David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Air Watch, said he expected federal limits on "emissions from the biggest sources, including power plants and motor vehicles."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry lobbying groups oppose using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.
"It will require a huge cascade of (new clean air) permits" and halt a wide array of projects, from building coal plants to highway construction, including many at the heart of economic recovery plan, Bill Kovacs, a vice president for environmental issues at the chamber, said when the EPA's recommendations were made last month.
Other critics have noted that the Clean Air Act regulates any stationary source — from a gas station to a power plant — that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant a year. That would place thousands of smaller sources under onerous federal rules, those critics say.
Supporters of stricter regulations say the Clean Air Act could be revised to exempt smaller sources and focus on large ones like power plants.
Some industry groups support a legislative approach focusing on cap and trade, but even there they are cautious.
"While regulation can be challenged in court if it oversteps precedent, legislation is for keeps," said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a power industry trade group. "Therefore, any legislative proposal on climate change must have reasonable timetables and targets, adequate cost containment, and must be sensitive to technological constraints and international competition."
Nations working on new treaty
The United States is under pressure to take some action on global warming in advance of negotiations on a new international treaty in December.
The Obama administration has vowed to step up participation, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton even has a climate envoy.
The Bush administration refused to participate in the current treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, citing a lack of participation by developing countries and harm to the U.S. economy. In the late 1990s, during the Clinton administration, the Senate balked at ratifying the agreement.
-------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214/#storyContinued
1. Claire Cambier
ReplyDelete2.Split Incentive Stalls Energy Efficiency in Rental Housing
3. This article talks about a way to encourage owners and renters of a rental house to invest in energy efficient equipment. As said in the article, a lot of people leave in rented lodgings, and these people don't want to make that kind of investment as they will not be able to fully benefit from it. This is a negative incentive against the spreading of energy efficient products. I think we don't have so many ways of protecting the environment at our personnal scale, but talling this kind of equipment in our house is one important thing we can do. But people often just don't do it, notably because of the cost. So I think this kind of incentive could be effective to convince people of changing their ways. Moreover, it interested me because it is an example of how government can act for environment protection, by making it easier for people to take environment-friendly steps.
------------------------------------
4. Split Incentive Stalls Energy Efficiency in Rental Housing
Posted by Roger Valdez
04/27/2009 12:20 PM
Does the 'Green Lease' provide an answer?
Investing in energy efficiency can reduce greenhouse gas emissions even while saving money on energy bills. It seems like a no-brainer. Yet the one-third of northwesterners who live in rental housing actively avoid investing in energy efficiency. And their landlords also resist efficiency investments. What’s going on?
When it comes to rental housing, there’s a big market failure in energy efficiency. It’s a problem of “split incentives,” which we’ve written about here and here. Owners don’t make efficiency investments because it’s the renters who pay the energy bills. And renters don’t make investments in property they don’t own. The result is housing that wastes energy and costs more than it should.
One solution takes advantage of the lease or rental agreement: “green leases” enable owners to spend money on efficiency improvements and recoup their costs by raising rent by the same amount as the realized energy savings, minus a smaller agreed on amount which gets passed on to the renter. In other words, if an efficiency investment to the renter’s unit generates $100 of monthly energy savings, the rent might go up $80 per month. Although the rent increases, the tenant’s total housing bill goes down by $20. It’s a win for both parties. The tenant would start saving money right away, and over time the landlord would recoup his initial investment (and even make money), through the higher rents. Plus, the tenant would be using less energy.
A typical example might be a refrigerator replacement. A tenant has little economic incentive to buy a new efficient (and more expensive) refrigerator because he’s unlikely to be around long enough to recoup the extra upfront expense through reduced energy bills. And a landlord might think she’s better off buying the cheapest model she can find because she’s not paying the bills for the fridge’s operations. A green lease might fix this problem by allowing the landlord to increase rent enough to pay for a more expensive and efficient model, but because of the lower energy bills, the tenant would actually save money even after the rent increase.
The challenge with green leases is creating a practical financing arrangement that doesn’t saddle landlords with too many headaches. And to make economic sense, efficiency investments would need to generate sufficient savings in a short enough time that the owner could pay back the bank, or herself, for the upfront cost of making the investment in the first place. So in order to know if an investment makes sense, both landlords and tenants will need a trustworthy assessment of the potential savings. Plus, they’ll need to resolve some other questions. What happens if the improvement fails to save the energy and money that it promises? What if it generates more savings?
If green lease arrangements sound complicated, that’s because they are. Green leases are already used in the US and Canadian commercial real estate rental sectors, but they are not sweeping apartment rentals. The legal complexities can make green leases challenging and uncertain. And both landlords and tenants dislike uncertainty. Like other kinds of financing ideas green leases are innovative and potentially promising, but they have yet to break through the barrier of the split incentive for multifamily rental buildings.
Governments tend to shy away from energy efficiency mandates, but legal energy performance standards might be just the thing to push both landlords and tenants toward saving energy and money. For instance, a city could require landlords to replace old appliances, but also offer a program, like the ones in Maine and New York State, to provide financing for landlords. Mandatory efficiency programs might ensure fairness so that the efficiencies and savings are realized by lower-income tenants, who frequently live in the most energy-wasteful housing and can least afford higher bills. Without a mandatory program, there’s a risk that green leases will remain concentrated in the commercial sector and higher end housing where paid professional managers are increasingly aware of the economic benefits of energy efficiency. But the dispersed and small-scale nature of residential rental housing means that some owners, especially in areas that serve lower income people, might never make the energy efficiency leap with out a nudge.
-------------
5. http://rss.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/04/27/split-incentive-stalls-energy-efficiency-in-rental-housing#more
1. Martin Weiser
ReplyDelete2. EV Grid in the US
3. At the dawn of EV being broadly introduced to the USA, a competition between different areas to be the first with a full supply grid came into being. Look like there won't be a round 3 for the EVs.
--------------
The Race to an EV Future: Being First to an Electric Vehicle Grid
Editor’s Note: This is San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s second post on electric vehicles for Gas 2.0. It’s a direct response to Portland Mayor Sam Adams, who announced that his city would be the first to develop the charging infrastructure to support full-scale electric vehicle deployment. We expect to hear back from Mayor Adam’s later today - don’t miss it). UPDATE: Mayor Adam’s has posted his response. See video of his declaration to make Portland EV capitol of the US.
As car companies lined up in Washington, DC last November for the first round of federal bailout money – in San Francisco we announced another way – our comprehensive plan to make the San Francisco Bay Area the “Electric Vehicle (EV) Capital of the US.”
Our efforts to advance electric vehicles are not limited to San Francisco. We’ve engaged the entire Bay Area – a region of 7.3 million people – to make our region the cornerstone of the coming market for EVs. Not just governments, but key companies, business associations, policy advocates, and international car and EV infrastructure companies are all working together to make the San Francisco Bay Area the EV Capital of the U.S.
Now our neighbors to the north, Portland are challenging us for EV supremacy. This type of competition symbolizes what is best about our region and our country. If we were able to put a man on the moon, we most certainly can create a new generation of cars that do not run on fossil fuels. We’ve done it before. I owned one of the EV1’s from Saturn in the 1990s. Now EV companies are sprouting up all over the country from Fisker Automotive to Better Place to Bright Automotive.
Portland and San Francisco have been battling for the title of the most sustainable city for years. We welcome Portland’s latest challenge and hope that this EV competition will spread across the country, creating thousands of new jobs and helping establish the United States as an EV leader. In turn this will transform our automotive industry and combat climate change by reducing green house gas emissions.
Since our EV announcement in November we have been working tirelessly on our regional collaborative. Our approach has three different aspects:
1. Government: This effort is comprised of city and county staff from throughout the region (fleet managers, transportation policy directors, etc). This group is sharing information on the current permitting requirements in each jurisdiction, as well as current EV incentives, with an eye toward standardized permitting and incentives for EVs by early 2010. This group, under San Francisco’s leadership, is submitting a regional proposal to the federal government for stimulus funding to implement EV infrastructure throughout the region. We are hopeful that this funding will allows us to break ground on thousands of new EV charging stations throughout the Bay Area.
2. Businesses: Led by the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, this group is focused on sharing best practices from companies like Google and making the case to large regional employers to embrace EVs in company fleets and EV chargers for employees.
3. Advocacy: Led by Richard Schorske of the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership this working group will lead an effort this spring to invest over $100M in available state funds annually for alternative vehicles in electric vehicles and not only biofuels.
Through our shared EV goals with Portland and other cities, we’ll bring electric vehicles into the mainstream of American life. In the process, we’ll greatly advance efforts to fight climate change and reinvent our ailing car industry.
We welcome the race to an EV future.
---
http://gas2.org/2009/04/29/the-race-to-an-ev-future-being-first-to-an-electric-vehicle-grid/