Resistance to Biofuels in the United Kingdom and EU

The prime minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown will soon clash with the European Union (EU) over a 2003 EU directive requiring that 5.75% of petrol and diesel come from renewable resources by 2020. The EU even plans to raise this quota to 10% renewables by 2020. Brown feels a better assessment of the life cycle of these biofuels and their sources is necessary before implementing these quotas.

Concerns over these standards stem from the scientific community, which recently has questioned whether biofuels production is beneficial to preventing climate change. Increased deforestation, to clear land for biofuel production such as sugar cane production in Brazil or palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia, suggests that biofuels production might actually "exacerbate" climate change according to Professor Bob Watson, of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He believes production of biofuels could be simply shifting the problem, where deforestation is potentially increasing greenhouse gases, while the increase in biofuels quotas across the globe is also increasing global food prices. This article addresses biofuels and sustainability as follows:

'John Beddington, the government's current chief scientific adviser, has already expressed scepticism about biofuels. At a speech in Westminster this month he said demand for biofuels from the US had delivered a "major shock" to world agriculture, which was raising food prices globally. "There are real problems with the unsustainability of biofuels," he said, adding that cutting down rainforest to grow the crops was "profoundly stupid".'

European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso denies these allegations that biofuels produced incorrectly could be detrimental to climate change, and fully intends are increasing the biofuels standard to 10% by 2020. The nations of the EU plan to be cautious before impulsively increasing the standard.

Britain's Electricity Woes

A recent Economist article discusses how Britain will be facing electricity concerns in the coming years. Britain will have to make big decisions on what kind of new electricity will be implemented, since nuclear reactors are aging and coal plants will be closing under European policy “requiring more efficient scrubbing of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen in power-station chimneys” the article states. Only one nuclear reactor will still be online after the next fifteen years, and coal plants not in accordance with the Large Combustion-Plant Directive will have to close by 2015 or within 20,000 hours (whichever happens first). The article explains how Britain will begin to see a supply shortage of electricity, as the current electricity production methods are brought off offline. It’s expected that by 2015 the electricity demand will exceed the supply.

Now, Europe is looking for alternatives and solutions to this electricity problem to avoid an unlikely worst case scenario blackout. Britain now has to consider the many tradeoffs for different electricity options:

Natural Gas: it’s cheap, relatively clean, and easy to build, but much of the electricity mix in Britain is already from Natural Gas. This is a concern because the North Sea production is declining so Britain will have to look abroad to import natural gas, which could result in natural security concerns.

Coal: it’s a more secure energy source but not very good for the environment. Carbon capture is an option, with storage options in abandoned oil and gas fields, however carbon capture does not seem ready to on the market.

Renewables: are great for the environment but intermittent which won’t guarantee electricity supply all the time.

As we’ve often discussed in class, there is not silver bullet. The most promising solution for the future will have to incorporate a diverse collection of energy sources.

Carbon Sequestration in Australia

In a recent article from CNN they describe a new project in Australia in which they are starting to do carbon sequestration of industry emissions. This is the first sequestration plant in the southern hemisphere and is being heralded by industry, but the environmentalists are disappointed that instead of reducing emissions they are burying the emissions underground. It seems like sequestration is going to be another way of us trying not to change our lifestyle and habits but rather move our problems further into the future. I don't know any numbers but I wonder how much gas can be sequestered underground. I also wonder if it is really worth the money and the energy to do this on a large scale. It is an interesting problem to research but this technology cannot have a measurable effect on the global amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. I agree with the environmentalists in that we need to focus on other ways of reducing our emissions rather than pumping the carbon dioxide underground. If sequestration becomes a way that companies can look "green" then what incentive do they have to cut emissions? They can just keep emissions high, put it underground, and forget about it. I feel that in the long run carbon sequestration is not a good alternative to working toward cutting emissions and should not be seriously pursued.

DOE goes public

New policy of the Department of Energy reaffirms their efforts to transfer scientific research and innovation from their labs to the marketplace. The program began in June of 2007 when US Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, appointed Dr. Raymond Orbach as the Departments Technology Transfer Coordinator and Chair of the Technology Transfer Policy Board. The efforts of the board are to ensure that there is policy in place that provides guiding principles, ensures that new technologies are deployed, and that continuity and uniformity of technology transfer is maintained. The program is supposed to encourage the private sector to continue developing innovative technology. These efforts are partially due to the Energy Policy Act. The program focuses on technology primarily associated with energy security, scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and quality of life. The Department of Energy defines technology transfer as

"...the process by which knowledge, intellectual property or capabilities are transferred to any other entity, including private industry, academia, state and local governments, or other government entities to meet public and private needs."

Converting Trash into Energy

Reading this article I couldn't help but wonder what's next, the flux capacitor?  There's a video as well.

Of note is the point that the trash-energy is going to be used to power DELL's Round Rock facilities.  I don't imagine that it's a coincidence that the same week DELL announces it is firing 800-900 employees, it also announces that it going to power itself with renewable energy; using the feel-good effects of green energy to mitigate the negative effects of the layoffs.  Interestingly the job losses are manufacturing so its likely that they'll be sending these jobs to China or India, increasing the use of energy in transportation.

EU Emissions Rise - Cap&Trade not working??

The above linked article is not good. The BBC reports that the European Union's carbon emissions are up - by 1.1% - since last year. What do they conclude from this? The EU's Emissions Trading System is not working. If you dig a little deeper however, you may agree they are jumping to a premature conclusion.

Could it be that the UK was one of the worst performers involved in the ETS? Why yes, actually - the UK went over their allocated emissions by 85 million tonnes. Nobody was expecting the program to work perfectly right out of the gates, but nobody likes sore losers. And if you look at the trend of annual increases in emissions - 1.1% of an increase is actually not that bad. Obviously we want to decrease emissions each year, but decreasing the increase is the first step.

The Center for American Progress says DON'T COUNT CAP&TRADE OUT!
The initial Phase I period of 2005-2007 was a trial period and problems were supposed to arise TO FIX THEM. It is now time to fix the glitches and have a better system in Phase II. The Center points to the successful SO2 trading system that has helped solve the acid rain problem addressed in the Clean Air Act of 1990.

Cap$Trade programs can and will work, but we cannot give up. Global warming is a complex and constantly changing problem. It will need and complex and constantly changing solution. As the BBC report says, these programs need to be regularly reviewed and improved. Nobody said saving the planet was going to be easy...

Vectrix-- A good alternative to paying gas prices

With the rising gas prices there have been several options to go with rather than heaving over tons of money to keep you moving. One such option that I found was the Vectrix electric scooters, which run solely on electric power. The bike itself produces zero emissions, but as we all know the whole process of running this bike is not zero emissions due to the emissions from producing the electricity.

The company designed a scooter that you simply plug into the socket for about 3-5 hours and the Nickel metal-hydride batteries gives you about a 35-55 mile range depending on how you drive. For most commuters these days that is a reasonable distant that they travel per day and I know that this would work for me. It has a top speed of 62 mph so you can take it on the highway and it can accelerate from 0-50 in 6.8 seconds which is faster than most cars. One very cool thing about this bike, besides its acceleration, is that it has an advanced throttle which if you rotate backwards it will accelerate and if you rotate the opposite way it engages the regenerative braking. What this braking does is it takes the energy wasted during deceleration and transforms it back into electricity which will recharge the battery. There are several other features about this bike that make it a step above the rest.

If you make a commute every day, like I do, this option is very attractive but with a sticker price of around $12,000 for the 2008 model and $10,000 for the 2007 model, it is not looking like one will end up in my garage anytime soon. Also if you don't like the idea of a scooter there are talks of a new concept which has the body of most sports bikes.

http://www.vectrix.com/portal/ --vectrix website

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=224536 -- Interview with Jay Leno's Vectrix

http://londonbikers.com/articles/cedd7748-c8dc-4c74-b56c-d234fb37ad19 -- Good article on Vectrix

Gore still at it

Just learned that Al Gore has launched the Alliance for Climate Protection to continue spreading the word about climate change. Embarking on a $300 million marketing blitz called the "we campaign," Gore & co. intend to continue applying pressure on world leaders to do something about climate change. (Their website can be found here.) Go, Al!

I hope Gore's partisan opponents lay down their arms. Its refreshing that, as the Worldwatch piece points out, there exists a commercial in which Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson unite to rally citizens and policymakers to take action against climate change. An interesting pair, to say the least -- representing different religious groups (if the same religion) and political parties. Goes to show that indeed a growing number of religious leaders previously unconvinced about climate change are now coming around.

On a related note, I recently came across an old Wall Street Journal article (11/2007) about how under the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, manufacturing countries like China might be untrammeled of some of its huge emissions reduction responsibilities by shifting the burden to importing/outsourcing countries like the US. Granted, this is old news, but I don't believe it was resolved in Bali and will presumably be raised again in Copenhagen. It represents a mixed bag for China. On one hand, who wouldn't want other countries to shoulder the Herculean task of cleaning up its air? On the other hand, as the article points out, manufacturers might decide to instead set up shop in other developing countries not beholden to such clean-air restrictions. (I can't access the WSJ article online, but if you'd like to see it, I can e-mail you the PDF.)

AlGore & Obama ???

Today I was listening to CNN news. They were talking about the relationship between Barack Obama and Al Gore and his possible position in Obama's cabinet if he gets elected. Then they expressed on the fact that Al Gore has been distancing himself from politic and has been focusing on the issue of global warming. At this point one of the reporters joked on how he can become the secretary of Green House Gases !!! I thought that sounds silly at first but thinking about it I realize it is not that silly. It is actually quite a step to have some sort of action by executive branch to have an actual entity to work to reduce green house gases. May be not exactly a secretary of " Green House Gases" but somebody like Al Gore who would push for more actions. I guess it was not exactly a joke then.


And here with an article corresponding to the discussion I heard

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Obama wants Gore on his team

Obama said Wednesday he wants Gore for his administration.

(CNN) — Al Gore has a spot in a potential Barack Obama administration, the Illinois senator said Wednesday.

Asked at a campaign event if he'd consider Gore for his cabinet, Obama immediately said he would.

" I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [climate change] problem," Obama said.

Obama also said he talks with the former vice president on a "regular basis," and often consults with him on climate change issues.

Could Gore serve alongside Bill Clinton in an Obama administration? Last November, the Illinois senator said he'd offer the former president a job "in a second."

"There are few more talented people [than Clinton]," Obama said then.

– CNN's Alex Mooney and Chris Welch

The Clean Energy Scam

I just read this very interesting article on the TIME website. The article focusses on the major effect that our sudden addiction to biofeuls is promoting global warming. The Amazon rain forest in South America is a large source of stored CO2 and a has been a hub for biodiversity for many generations. The increase in deforestation to promote planting of corn and soybean in Brazil has wiped out a major part of the forest which is estimated to be almost as big as Rhode Island. This has released soo much CO2 that it has had a worse effect that using present fuel sources. Deforestation reportedly accounts for 20% of the worlds CO2 emissions. Indonesia has followed Brazil's heed with respect to growing soybeans on land that was previously occupied by Palm trees. As the worlds population increases, we are definitely going to need more food-stock and the fuel consumption is drastically going to increase. The article emphasizes the point we made in class that compromising food for fuel is not the way to go. We are actually adding to the globlal warming problem by persisting with increased production of biofuels. The solution would be to spread our energy requirements between the different sources rather than focus on a specific one.

World-Wide Food Price Issue

According to an article on bbc.com (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7325733.stm) a 200% increase in food prices over the past nine months has lead to rioting in the Ivory Coast. The rioters, mostly women (which I think is interesting), have burned tires and even caused the closing of roads in the economic capital of the Ivory Coast, Abidjan.

BBC's John James and Ivory Coast President Gbagbo have said that this is a world-wide problem. President Gbagbo has reason to enforce this, so as to possibly calm the citizens of his country who are suffering. He taken measures to help offset the rising costs of food, such as cutting "taxes on basic household products." The article states that "the protests are linked to the high price of oil [and] the growing demand for bio-fuels," enforcing what we heard in a lecture not too long ago which included a wise quote from Dr. Webber's daughter on bio fuels. We are facing a quickly growing problem on whether we should help the (relatively) wealthy of the world fuel their lifestyles and promote "progress" or take care of a growing hungry population. I feel this is not an ethically easy problem as a significant portion of fuel use goes towards the study of disease and for jobs for people, which are needed to help them afford food. I just don't know when we'll be able to find a balance between necessary and beneficial consumption and excess.

The issue of excess is one I have found to come up frequently (directly or indirectly) through out the semester in lecture and in articles I have read. As riots/protests have taken place in Mexico, Cameroon, Ethiopia, etc because people can't afford the basic necessity of food, I think it's a topic we'll be hearing much more of. More on this can be found at the World Food Programme website www.wfp.org.

More on the Oil Congressional Hearings

You know, this whole Congress hearing business doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Here are a few things that were said:

1. Rep. Markey says: “On April Fool’s Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil”
2. Rep. Cleaver says: “The anger level [with oil company profits] is rising significantly”
3. Rep. Markey (again): “Why is Exxon resisting the renewable revolution”

There were other things said during the hearing but these really caught my attention.

First of all:

Congress holds hearings as the price of oil goes up. They did that in November 2005 when oil was at $60/barrel, then six months later when oil was around $75 and now today when oil is around $100.

The problem with all of this: oil companies, Big Oil, the largest 5 US oil companies do not control the price of oil and thus cannot lower the price. By the way, neither does Saudi Arabia nor any other oil producer for that matter. Oil, as we all know, is not priced merely on supply and demand. Geopolitics and market perceptions play a huge role and no one (big or small) can control that.

Secondly:

They keep repeating that for example, Exxon made over $40 billion in profit last year. Yes that’s a huge number but in fact Exxon’s profit margin is around 9% which is a lot less than other industries (Pharmaceuticals for example). Looking at numbers in absolute is plain silly in my mind

Finally:

Exxon is being asked to increase their spending on renewables. I wonder whose budget is larger Exxon’s or the government? Exxon is a publicly traded oil company and thus they have to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. Maybe in the long-term they need to increase their spending on renewables but that’s a choice they need to make. The government, rather than telling Exxon what to do with its profit maybe should spearhead the effort to find economically attractive renewable energy resources. I am sure if such alternatives exist, are scaleable and make money Exxon would be the first to jump on the bandwagon.

I don’t like the notion that oil companies need to find the alternative. Why not the local utility why not the car manufacturers? I don’t see anyone telling GM that they need to invest more in clean technology.

Yes climate change is an issue but a shame and blame game is not the way to solve it. Then again what do I know, I’m just a taxpayer…

Nuclear Energy - British Energy

From the Economist 'Hot Property' (22-Mar.)

British Energy, who provides roughly 1/6 of Britian's energy, (8 nuclear and 1 coal) announced that it is looking for a partnership or even take-over.
British Energy has been plagued by financial troubles in the past and has a desperate need (and desire) to build new plants.
Convienently, John Hutton, Britain's business secretary, recently called for an increase in energy supply from nuclear sources and the easiest place to build a new nuclear power plant . . . . is next to an old one where the land already exists and local support is high (because employment from nuclear already exists).

However, unlike the United States where nuclear plants are heavily subsidized (contrary to todays class lecture) the UK has long insisted that the private sector pay for their plants. Major suitors include France's EDF, and Germany's E.ON and RWE, all of whom are already operating in Britain.

Congress presses oil execs on high prices

Executives from BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobile, and Shell were questioned today by congress to explain how their profits have grown while gasoline prices have gone up, and why they have not put forth more of their profits towards renewable energy.

The executives noted that their returns were in line with other industries, and that their figures just seemed large due to billion dollar industry in which they are involved. They also defended their profits noting that they are in a high risk industry, which requires enormous capital for investment, and as such this industry also yields high returns when oil prices are high.

Responding to the question about why they have not invested their profits into renewable energy alternatives, J.S. Simons, Senior Vice President of Exxon Mobile noted "that current alternative energy technologies "just do not have an appreciable impact" in addressing "the challenge we're trying to meet.""

The executive urged Congress not to pass any tax legislation against oil companies, as it would hurt the companies effort to meet the countries future oil demand.

Special Edition National Geographic

For those who may be interested, there is a new Special Edition National Geographic about the "Changing Climate."  It can be ordered here.