Friday, 25 July 2008

A ray of hope: Harnessing the Sahara

A tiny rectangle superimposed on the vast expanse of the Sahara captures the seductive appeal of the audacious plan to cut Europe's carbon emissions by harnessing the fierce power of the desert sun.

Dwarfed by any of the north African nations, it represents an area slightly smaller than Wales but scientists claimed yesterday it could one day generate enough solar energy to supply all of Europe with clean electricity.

Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, Arnulf Jaeger-Waldau of the European Commission's Institute for Energy, said it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe's energy needs.

The scientists are calling for the creation of a series of huge solar farms - producing electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by concentrating the sun's heat to boil water and drive turbines - as part of a plan to share Europe's renewable energy resources across the continent.

A new supergrid, transmitting electricity along high voltage direct current cables would allow countries such as the UK and Denmark ultimately to export wind energy at times of surplus supply, as well as import from other green sources such as geothermal power in Iceland.

Energy losses on DC lines are far lower than on the traditional AC ones, which make transmission of energy over long distances uneconomic.

The grid proposal, which has won political support from both Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, answers the perennial criticism that renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not sufficiently predictable. Its supporters argue that even if the wind is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm somewhere.

Scientists argue that harnessing the Sahara would be particularly effective because the sunlight in this area is more intense: solar photovoltaic (PV) panels in northern Africa could generate up to three times the electricity compared with similar panels in northern Europe.

Much of the cost would come in developing the public grid networks of connecting countries in the southern Mediterranean, which do not currently have the spare capacity to carry the electricity that the north African solar farms could generate. Even if high voltage cables between North Africa and Italy would be built or the existing cable between Morocco and Spain would be used, the infrastructure of the transfer countries such as Italy and Spain or Greece or Turkey also needs a major re-structuring, according to Jaeger-Waldau.

Southern Mediterranean countries including Portugal and Spain have already invested heavily in solar energy and Algeria has begun work on a vast combined solar and natural gas plant which will begin producing energy in 2010. Algeria aims to export 6,000 megawatts of solar-generated power to Europe by 2020.

Scientists working on the project admit that it would take many years and huge investment to generate enough solar energy from north Africa to power Europe but envisage that by 2050 it could produce 100 GW, more than the combined electricity output from all sources in the UK, with an investment of around €450bn.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's chief scientist, welcomed the proposals: "Assuming it's cost-effective, a largescale renewable energy grid is just the kind of innovation we need if we're going to beat climate change."

Jaeger-Waldau also believes that scaling up solar PV by having large solar farms could help bring its cost down for consumers. "The biggest PV system at the moment is installed in Leipzig and the price of the installation is €3.25 per watt," he said. "If we could realise that in the Mediterranean, for example in southern Italy, this would correspond to electricity prices in the range of 15 cents per kWh, something below what the average consumer is paying."

The vision for the renewable energy grid comes as the commission's joint research centre (JRC) published its strategic energy technology plan, highlighting solar PV as one of eight technologies that need to be championed for the short- to medium-term future.

"It recognises something extraordinary - if we don't put together resources and findings across Europe and we let go the several sectors of energy, we will never reach these targets," said Giovanni de Santi, director of the JRC, also speaking in Barcelona.

The JRC plan includes fuel cells and hydrogen, clean coal, second generation biofuels, nuclear fusion, wind, nuclear fission and smart grids. De Santi said it was designed to help Europe to meet its commitments to reduce overall energy consumption by 20% by 2020, while reducing CO² emissions by 20% in the same time and increasing to 20% the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources.

Backstory

High voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines are seen as the most efficient way to move electricity over long distances without incurring the losses experienced in alternating current (AC) power lines. HVDC cables can carry more power for the same thickness of cable compared with AC lines but are only suited to long distance transmission as they require expensive devices to convert the electricity, usually generated as AC, into DC. Modern HVDC cables can keep energy losses down to around 3% per 1,000km. HVDC can also be used to transfer electricity between different countries that might use AC at differing frequencies. HVDC cables can also be used to synchronise AC produced by renewable energy sources.

Taken from The Guardian, 23 July 2008

Thursday, 24 July 2008

Tricastin spews more poison

About 100 employees were exposed to radiation at Tricastin earlier this week while working on a reactor. Yes, that's the same nuclear power station that leaked liquid uranium into the environment last week. Of course, it was just a "light" exposure. Just as the leak "did not damage the environment".

The contamination of 15 employees at the nuclear power station of Saint-Alban-du-Rhône (Isère) and the two Tricastin incidents this month have stirred debate on the state of these power stations and the stringency of the safety precautions imposed and applied.

The irony is that in the wake of all this, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his intention to commission at least 8 new nuclear stations in the UK. And President Sarkozy, of course, is far from admitting that most nuclear plants in France are dysfunctional and derelict. Of course not. For guess who is about to buy British Energy and take control of most of the UK's new stations? French energy giant EDF! And who is going to design the new British reactors? The French nuclear group Areva! Isn't this a Brave New World indeed?! Business is business. So let's just go on sitting on this time bomb while the money pours in. Welcome to Springfield!

As The Guardian's Jeremy Legett says, the unfolding nuclear rennaissance suggests ... that God has a sense of humour. The question is: does anyone feel like laughing at Tricastin?

Monday, 21 July 2008

You can get it if your really want!

This month's New Yorker features a very interesting article on the victory of a Danish community over carbon emissions.

According to a local farmer, once people on the island of Samsø began thinking about energy, it became a kind of sport. The island sits in what is known as the Kattegat, an arm of the North Sea. For the past decade it has been the site of an unlikely social movement. From a conventional attitude towards energy, Samsingers deliberately switched to a green mindset and formed energy cooperatives and organised seminars on wind power. They removed their furnaces and replaced them with heat pumps. By 2001 they had cut fossil-fuel use in half. By 2003 instead of importing electricity the island started exporting it! And by 2005 Samsø was producing more energy from renewable resources than it was using.

Samsø has eleven large land-based turbines and a dozen additional micro-turbines. Of course the island is aided by its geography and the fact that the wind blows practically continuously. Still, Denmark's renewable energy island is not inhabited by a community of do-gooders, intellectuals or hippies for that matter. Its people are mostly conservative farmers. They did not receive a prize or special tax breaks or even government assistance for their voluntary investment in wind energy. They simply opted for the turbines because the project made sense to them and protected their environment and their health. Of course in 1997, when it all started, many people were skeptical about the project's cost-effectiveness, but little by little nearly all the residents got bitten by the energy bug!

Each land-based turbine cost the equivalent of $ 850,000. The offshore turbines cost about $ 3 million each. Some of them were erected by a single investor, others were purchased collectively. At least 450 residents on the island own shares in the onshore turbines and a roughly equal number own shares in those offshore. Shareholders, who also include nonresidents, receive annual dividend cheques based on the prevailing price of electricity and how much their turbine has generated. People care about the production because they own the turbines.

"Being part of it we also feel responsibile."

All told, the Samsø initiative has a minimal effect on global CO2 emissions of course, but it is an example of what a community can do to make use of its natural, eternally renewable resources to ward off climate change.

Even without investing in our own turbines, most of us Europeans can do our bit for the environment by opting for green energy. With the EU-wide liberalisation of the energy market, most of us can tear up our contracts with coal-fired providers and sign up to 100 % green energy providers without incurring any penalties or paying heftier bills.

Belgian residents can check out Greenpeace's recommendations here. By switching from Electrabel (watch this video to see how Electrabel has been ripping us off!) to a green energy provider, you will also stop funding the nuclear sector. All it takes is a phonecall!

For more information on the Samsø initiative, refer to Elizabeth Kolbert's article "The island in the wind", The New Yorker (July 7 and 14 2008).

Saturday, 19 July 2008

You've been swindled by The Great Global Warming Swindle

Channel 4 misrepresented some of the world's leading climate scientists in a controversial documentary that claimed global warming was a conspiracy and a fraud, the UK's media regulator will rule next week.

In a long-awaited judgment following a 15-month inquiry, Ofcom is expected to censure the network over its treatment of some scientists in the programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which sparked outcry from environmentalists.

Complaints about privacy and fairness from the government's former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Nobel peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be upheld on almost all counts, the Guardian has learned.

But it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator's broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers.

The detail of the ruling is expected to criticise Channel 4 over some aspects of the controversial programme, made by the director Martin Durkin, but executives will argue that the key test of whether or not it was right to broadcast the programme has been passed. (...)

The programme was criticised by scientists, who claimed it fundamentally misrepresented the evidence about global warming, that it rehashed discredited old arguments and manipulated data and charts to make its case.

The IPCC, King and other scientists including Dr Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, complained to the regulator over the way they were represented. Ofcom is expected to find in favour of King's complaint and three out of five of the IPCC's. One is expected to be thrown out and the fifth will be partially upheld.

In its judgment on King's complaint, Ofcom will say: "Channel 4 unfairly attributed to the former chief scientist, David King, comments he had not made and criticised him for them and also failed to provide him an opportunity to reply".

In the programme, the concluding voiceover from the climate change sceptic Fred Singer claimed "the chief scientist of the UK" was "telling people that by the end of the century, the only habitable place on Earth will be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic ... it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad".

King has never made such a statement and it is believed Singer confused his views with those of the contrarian scientist James Lovelock. King did once say that "the last time the Earth had this much C02, the only place habitable was the Antarctic".

Addressing the IPCC's complaint over 21 pages, Ofcom will rule that the programme "made significant allegations ... questioning its credibility and failed to offer it timely and appropriate opportunity to respond". (...)

After the broadcast, Wunsch said the programme was "masquerading as a science documentary when it should be regarded as a political polemic" and was "as close to pure propaganda as anything since world war two".

He claimed he had been duped into appearing and his comments had been misleadingly edited.

The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, but that his views were accurately represented within it. Durkin, who had previously made other controversial documentaries, including Against Nature and the Rise and Fall of GM, vigorously defended the broadcast.

"The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong," he wrote.

Channel 4 justified the broadcast by saying it was a useful contribution to a timely debate, arguing that it had a tradition for iconoclastic programming and had also aired programmes supporting the case for man-made climate change.

The producers claimed that after it was broadcast, Channel 4 received a record number of phone calls that were six to one in favour of the arguments made. The film was subsequently sold to 21 other countries. A global DVD release went ahead despite protests from scientists. (...)

The Guardian, 19 July 2008

Thursday, 17 July 2008

No more nuclear, no more lies!

French Minister of the Environment Borlo today told preoccupied residents in the Vaucluse, a popular southern French tourist destination, that groundwater would be analysed to see whether it had been contaminated by the untreated liquid uranium that spilled from the Tricastin nuclear power station in Bollene ten days ago. There's no reason to panic, he told us all, beaming, on TV. Well, what would you feel like doing if you had been drinking radioactive water for decades, poisoned by your own government? Panic I would, hell yes! Indeed, Vaucluse residents hardly feel like smiling, nor do people feel reassured in other areas of France whose nuclear power plants date back to the 1970s and are feared to have been leaking into the water table for years now.

After the Tricastin leak, that last week was graded one on the one-to-seven scale of nuclear accidents, an embarrassed government banned drinking well-water and swimming or fishing in two of the region's rivers.

The leak occurred when a tank was being cleaned between Monday night and Tuesday morning but was not detected until yesterday. Around 30 cubic metres of liquid containing uranium, which was not enriched, leaked out of a tank. Of this, 18 cubic metres poured on to the ground and into the nearby Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers, which flow into the Rhone. The plant has been operational since 1975.

Officials from the Socatri safety agency, a subsidiary of nuclear giant Areva, said groundwater, wells and rivers had shown no effects yesterday. The nuclear safety authority said radioactive levels detected in rivers and lakes in the region were decreasing.
-The Guardian, 10 July 2008.

No effects on groundwater, says nuclear giant Areva. Are people, particularly leukaemia patients, supposed to believe that? As Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner, Aslihan Tumer, said: "Given the restrictions on the consumption and use of water in the area, it is clear that the leak poses a risk to the local population and to the environment."

The French environmental group, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity, said that the radioactivity released into the environment was at least 100 times higher than the fixed limit for that site for the entire year. This Committee has been ringing alarm bells with regard to certain derelict power stations in Fessenheim (Strasbourg) and the Cote d'Or, among others, for 20 years. Up until the Tricastin accident, its pleas went unheeded. Will the government finally bother to pull the Committee's reports out of that dusty drawer and take action?

With 87 % of France's electricity coming from the nuclear sector, the chances of this happening or of people being told the truth about the potential decade-long contamination of drinking water seem very meagre indeed.

More information for French speakers here and here

More information on similar recent leaks in Spain here and No es el arranque de los Simpson ...

Sunday, 13 July 2008

A musical break

Soul Sundays ...

Monday, 7 July 2008

Who Murdered the Virunga Gorillas?

Here's another excellent National Geographic article on Congo's gorillas. You'll be warned: it is yet another terribly sad insight into human greed, corruption and cruelty. With a few dim rays of hope here and there ...

Heavily armed militias shatter the stillness in this central African park. Desperate refugees crowd park boundaries. Charcoal producers strip forests. Then, last summer, someone killed seven of these magnificent creatures in cold blood.
By Mark Jenkins
National Geographic, July 2008

The killers waited until dark.

On July 22 of last year unknown assailants crouched in the forest, preparing to execute a family of gorillas. Hidden on a side slope of the Mikeno volcano in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, armed with automatic weapons, the killers had hunted down the twelve-member Rugendo family, well-known among tourists and well loved by the rangers of Virunga National Park. The patriarch of the gorilla family, a 500-pound silverback named Senkwekwe, would have sensed that the assailants were near, perhaps wrinkling his wide, black nose at their unfortunate smell, but he would not have been alarmed. Senkwekwe had seen thousands of people and had come to accept their proximity as irritating but unavoidable. So habituated to humans was the Rugendo family that the gorillas would occasionally wander out of the forest into cornfields for an impromptu picnic, angering local farmers.

Park rangers at the nearby Bukima barracks said they heard shots at eight that night. On foot patrol the next morning they found three female gorillas—Mburanumwe, Neza, and Safari—shot to death, with Safari's infant cowering nearby. The following day Senkwekwe was found dead: blasted through the chest that same night. Three weeks later the body of another Rugendo female, Macibiri, would be discovered, her infant presumed dead.

Just a month earlier, two females and an infant from another gorilla group had been attacked. The rangers had found one of the females, shot execution style in the back of the head; her infant, still alive, was clinging to her dead mother's breast. The other female was never found.

All told, seven Virunga mountain gorillas had been killed in less than two months. Brent Stirton's photographs of the dead creatures being carried like royalty by weeping villagers ran in newspapers and magazines around the world. The murders of these intelligent, unassuming animals the park rangers refer to as "our brothers" ignited international outrage.

Continue reading here

If you can't fix it don't break it!



Yes, it all sounds very cliche and it probably is, but then it's a child speaking. And in reality things could be as simple as Stop making war and fix the planet instead ...

Alas ... faites de beaux rêves ...

Saturday, 5 July 2008

Malta bottom of class on environment

Malta has broken more environment rules than any other new EU member state, according to a report card issued yesterday by the European Commission.

Brussels is not at all pleased with the way the environment is being handled by Malta and is expecting various initiatives to be taken in order to come closer to EU standards.

The report analyses the country's progress on environment policy in 2007. It shows Malta is a laggard on a number of counts including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, measures on climate change, halting biodiversity and recycling of waste.

Until the end of last year, Malta was facing the highest number of infringement procedures for breaking EU environmental rules among the 12 new EU member states. Half of the infringements (12 out of 26) related to air legislation.

The report acknowledges the fact that Malta needed to start almost from scratch in the environment sector when it joined the EU and has already started putting in place important policies and infrastructure, such as sewage treatment plants, energy efficient incentives and new waste policies. However, much more needs to be done, the report insists.

One of the areas in which Malta has to work much harder is greenhouse gas emissions. As the EU works towards a reduction, Malta is moving in the opposite direction by registering rapid increases in emissions, caused by a higher energy demand.

"Greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise in recent years and reached 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005, an increase of 6.1 per cent compared to 2004. Under its existing policies, emissions are projected to more than double between the base year (1990) and 2010," the report says.

According to the Commission, most climate-related action last year addressed energy consumption with subsidies for more efficient household appliances and renewable energy while the possibility of an offshore wind farm and a connection to the European energy networks to buy renewable-sourced electricity are being investigated. The Commission commented positively on these initiatives stating that, if implemented, they would "serve to diversify the energy mix".

Protecting nature and biodiversity is also seen as another hurdle for Malta.

Apart from stressing the fact the Malta is the only EU member state still permitting spring hunting, which this year forced the Commission to take Malta to the European Court, the Commission states that it seems unlikely that Malta will meet its target of halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010.

"As part of Natura 2000 network, by the end of 2007 Malta had proposed 12 Special Protection Areas (SPA) and 27 Sites of Community Importance (SCI) covering respectively 4.5 per cent and 12.6 per cent of its area. The present coverage of SPAs in particular is insufficient and the European Commission has launched legal proceedings to require further sites to be designated."

The same criticism applies to waste issues, particularly the need of recycling and reducing waste production.

The report states that in 2006, Malta produced an average of 652 kilos of municipal waste per capita, way above the EU average. "Malta performs badly in terms of municipal waste recycling: 86 per cent was landfilled (more than double of EU average) with only 13 per cent recycled or composted. Significant efforts need to be undertaken in order to change the situation and allow the country to comply with the targets of the Packaging Directive, the Landfill Directive and the requirements of the revised Waste Framework Directive."

Malta has never reported data on the recycling rate of packaging waste and the European Commission has launched an infringement procedure for not respecting this mandatory reporting.

The EU executive said that all of these problems are accentuated by the fact that Malta is the highest breaker of EU environmental rules when compared to its new counterparts.

Source: Times of Malta, 4 July 2008