Technosanity #42: contemplating the cost of making tea

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

Making tea is such a simple thing isn't it? Or, is it? Where do the tea leaves come from and what is the environmental impact of growing the tea? Where does the paper for the tea bag come from, what is the environmental impact of that? What about limited water resources? Is the tea shipped across the planet?

Many tea makers attempt to appeal to green consciousness with fair trade practices, or claiming to grow the tea sustainably, etc. All that is laudible, but then they ship the tea thousands of miles and the environmental impact of the globalized shipping probably destroys several times over the gains from the sustainable farming practice.

Technosanity #42: contemplating the cost of making tea

Making Tea (on youtube)

TechnoSanity #41: Interview with Mark Perry, Nissan LEAF

An interview with Mark Perron, Director of Product Planning for Nissan and in charge of Nissan LEAF development. This was filmed at Santana Row during the LEAF tour currently underway around the U.S. We talk at length about practical use issues and charging infrastructure.
Also see this on youtube: Interview with Mark Perry, Nissan LEAF

TechnoSanity #41: Interview with Mark Perry, Nissan LEAF

Links:

Test ride review of the LEAF

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/

TechnoSanity #40: Nissan LEAF test drive event

Recently Nissan brought the LEAF to the SF Bay Area to show it around. They're conducting a nationwide tour with the LEAF. I was fortunate enough to have press access to test drive the prototype vehicle. It was built from a Nissan Versa and has the LEAF drive train.

I wrote up a review: Nissan LEAF (almost) test ride, impressions, and the LEAF tour

TechnoSanity #40: Nissan LEAF test drive event




Links:  Green Transportation Examiner: Nissan LEAF

Nissan LEAF test drive event (youtube)

TechnoSanity #39: Interview with Peter Oliver, MakeMineElectric.com, part 2

At the just finished San Francisco Auto Show, among the sea of gas burning vehicles from major manufacturers, I found two cars one could rightly call "Electric". One was the Nissan LEAF due to enter mass production in the fall of 2010. The other was a pair of replica sports cars which MakeMineElectric.com constructed as electric cars. They are an EV Conversion shop located in Sebastapol, CA. Their shop is located in what used to be a Ford dealership on the main drag. This may be kind of a sign of the times, that the traditional gas burning car industry has lost its footing resulting in hundreds of car dealerships closing, and it is fitting to repurpose a former car dealership to be an electric vehicle incubator.

This is part 2 of the interview with Peter Oliver.

See also: Interview with Peter Oliver, MakeMineElectric.com, part 1
Interview with Peter Oliver, MakeMineElectric.com, part 2




Links:  See it on Youtube

http://MakeMineElectric.com

TechnoSanity #38: Interview with Peter Oliver, MakeMineElectric.com, part 1

TechnoSanity #38: Interview with Peter Oliver, MakeMineElectric.com, part 1

At the just finished San Francisco Auto Show, among the sea of gas burning vehicles from major manufacturers, I found two cars one could rightly call "Electric". One was the Nissan LEAF due to enter mass production in the fall of 2010. The other was a pair of replica sports cars which MakeMineElectric.com constructed as electric cars. They are an EV Conversion shop located in Sebastapol, CA. Their shop is located in what used to be a Ford dealership on the main drag. This may be kind of a sign of the times, that the traditional gas burning car industry has lost its footing resulting in hundreds of car dealerships closing, and it is fitting to repurpose a former car dealership to be an electric vehicle incubator.

This is part 1 of the interview with Peter Oliver.

Interview with Peter Oliver, MakeMineElectric.com, part 1




Links:  http://MakeMineElectric.com

See it on YouTube

'They’ll have electric cars one day'

TechnoSanity #39: Interview with Peter Oliver, MakeMineElectric.com, part 2

TechnoSanity #37: Electric bicycle test rides part 2

At the most recent chapter meeting of EAA's Silicon Valley chapter, ELV Motors sponsored a test ride event of electric bicycles. They brought several bicycles and allowed the attendees to ride them, providing evaluations.

The evaluation data wasn't very conclusive in pointing to one or another bicycle as being preferable over others. I think this may be because ELV Motors has done a good job of picking out high quality bicycles.

They handed me a video camera and asked me to do some man-in-the-street style interviews. This is part 2. See TechnoSanity #36: Electric bicycle test rides for part 1.

TechnoSanity #37: Electric bicycle test rides part 2

Links:  http://elvmotors.com
Links:  http://eaasv.org
References:  TechnoSanity #36: Electric bicycle test rides

TechnoSanity #36: Electric bicycle test rides

At the most recent chapter meeting of EAA's Silicon Valley chapter, ELV Motors sponsored a test ride event of electric bicycles. They brought several bicycles and allowed the attendees to ride them, providing evaluations.

The evaluation data wasn't very conclusive in pointing to one or another bicycle as being preferable over others. I think this may be because ELV Motors has done a good job of picking out high quality bicycles.

They handed me a video camera and asked me to do some man-in-the-street style interviews. This is part 1, see TechnoSanity #37: Electric bicycle test rides part 2 for part 2.

TechnoSanity #36: Electric bicycle test rides

Links:  http://elvmotors.com

Links:  http://eaasv.org

References:  Electric bicycles

References:  Electric bicycles, scooters and motorcycles at Best Buy.. oh my

TechnoSanity #35: Buy Nothing Day

It's thanksgiving day, 2009. I am thankful for my life, the work I'm doing, the ability to speak the message which I have to share.

Today is supposed to be a moment of being thankful, grateful for the bounty of our lives. Of course gratefulness is a practice for every day, not just one day a year, but it's helpful to have the reminder of gratefulness due to the day for giving thanks. But, wait, is this what most of thanksgiving celebrations are about? Is the orgy of football games a practice of gratefulness? Is the orgy of eating a practice of gratefulness? Well, okay, maybe that one is, or at least can be. Is the orgy of shopping on the day after, commonly called Black Friday, a practice of gratefulness?

Black Friday is supposed to be the official start of the Christmas Season. It's commonly the day a guy dressed as Santa lights the Christmas Tree, and there is the Thanksgiving Day Parades led by guys dressed as Santa. Sure it makes sense to have a ceremony to launch a period of other ceremonies leading up to a major celebration. But, just what part of Christs story does Santa come from? Just what part of Christs story do Christmas trees come from? And most importantly just what part of Christs story implies we should shop til we drop and engage in an orgy of consumption?

Buy Nothing Day is organized by Adbusters. It is observed on the day following Thanksgiving, the day commonly known as Black Friday, and the idea is to engage in activities other than shopping. Part of the message of Buy Nothing Day is the above points and others I'll be making below. I believe the purpose Adbusters has in mind behind Buy Nothing Day is to interrupt the practice of overconsumption tied into Black Friday and the way Christmas is currently practiced in the prevailing paradigm.

There are a lot of videos on youtube about Buy Nothing Day, just search for them. Some are linked below.

Buy Nothing Day is important to me for several reasons. One is the subversion or destruction of the real meaning of Christmas discussed above. Christmas is supposed to be a celebration of the birth of a great spiritual teacher, and it is supposed to be symbolic of the awakening within us of attributes taught by that spiritual teacher (Jesus Christ). But think about how Christmas is celebrated and the common symbols. Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, Santa Claus, the Nutcracker, Good King Wenceslaus, the Christmas tree, candy canes, elves, the orgy of presents bought and gifted, and on and on. None of this has a single thing to do with celebrating the birth of this great spiritual teacher. Not a thing.

Still, those things are the focus of most activities related to Christmas. And it is Black Friday which starts off the orgy of buying.

Another reason BND is important has to do with the ecological impact of the economics of this orgy of buying. Our Capitalistic system is driven by Consumerism. You hear it pretty plainly in the news if you care to listen. They talk about "Consumer Confidence" which is gobbledygook for measuring how much people are spending. The more we spend the more confident we are, supposedly. The news during Christmas season is full of analysis over how much we spend, and it is Christmas spending that keeps the economy going.

What this means is that rates of consumption drive rates of economic activity which drive rates of production which drives rates of mining resources to build this stuff. Often it's stuff that isn't truly needed, and in any case is produced for a celebration that's a subversion of a very real tradition our society has had with over 1000 years of history behind it. That very real tradition of Christmas has been destroyed and replaced by a fake mockery pretending to be the real tradition, but instead is a total and complete sham.

This sham is harming our traditions and harming our environment.

TechnoSanity #35: Buy Nothing Day

References:  What did you do for Buy Nothing Day?

References:  The battle for christmas

TechnoSanity #34: Our collective responsibility as consumers for the things we consume

What is the extent of responsibility we have when we buy a thing? In this podcast I suggest we have a lot of responsibility over the cradle-to-grave effects over the thing we buy, as well as the packaging that comes with the thing. Our purchases set in motion a bewildering array of activities aimed at fulfilling the desire we expressed through that purchase. Bags are made so we can carry home the purchase, the gizmo is made, the packaging to hold the gizmo is made, trucks and airplanes and cargo ships are made, forests are cut down, minerals mined, and on and on, all so we can have a plethora of stuff in the stores to buy.

This evening I went to the store to buy a few kitchen gizmos. Each were packaged primarily in cardboard boxes but then came the question at the counter, "Do you want this in a bag?" At least he asked, often the clerks don't ask and just start getting a bag ready causing me to say "I don't need a bag" but this time the number of items was enough to actually need a bag. But the whole situation brought my mind back to a common line of thinking. I'm responsible, now, for the existence of that bag, and what the heck do I do with that bag once I've used it to carry things home?

Maybe this seems overly anal to think that, hey, I'm responsible for the manufacture of this bag. But if I hadn't allowed the clerk to put those gizmos into the bag, then the store would have used one fewer bag that day, and their weekly purchase of bags would have been smaller. In other words because the gizmos were put in a plastic bag the store had to buy another bag to replace the one I used, something for which I am clearly directly responsible.

And, it doesn't stop there. It's of course not just the bag but also the gizmos I bought as well as the packaging the gizmos were contained in.

The responsibility includes the full lifetime of the gizmo, the packaging, the bags, and all the materials that went into making all those things. The gizmo you buy in the store would not exist unless all those materials were mined and manufactured into gizmos, packaging and bags.

The gizmo, the packaging and the bag, they all will eventually be disposed somewhere. They'll wear out or something and you'll want to throw the thing away. For example the plastic bag isn't terribly useful so most people wad up their bags and throw them in the trash. I tend to use whatever plastic bags I receive as trash can liners instead of buying normal trash bags.

The plastic bag is an interesting artifact. The plastic doesn't break down readily so assuming it ends up in a landfill it'll stay in that form for who knows how many thousands of years. Ponder that for a moment .. the bag I received tonight, I used it once to carry those gizmos home, I'll use it again as a trash can liner, and then it'll be taking up space in a landfull for a thousand years or more. How completely NUTS is that???

TechnoSanity #34: Our collective responsibility as consumers for the things we consume

TechnoSanity #33: A look at the World Energy Outlook, 2009

As noted in TechnoSanity #32: Fudged numbers in the IEA's World Energy Outlook, 2009?? the International Energy Agency (IEA) has released the 2009 edition of the World Energy Outlook. This yearly report focuses on worldwide statistics about "energy" use where "energy" is primarily defined as coal and oil and natural gas. The report is used by governments and businesses around the world for planning their energy (coal, oil and natural gas) policies and purchases. This year is a little different due to the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change set to occur next month. The 2009 World Energy Outlook has a lot of information about the climate change impacts of energy policy choices. In particular the IEA is offering data for a target of 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent, and the required policy changes to meet that target.
This year the documents include a freely available "Climate Change Excerpt" which was presented at the Bangkok UNFCCC meeting. That excerpt begins with this statement:

The World Energy Outlook 2009 (WEO-2009) delivers a simple, stark message: if the world continues on the basis of today's energy policies, the climate change impacts will be severe. Energy, which accounts for two-thirds of today's greenhouse-gas emissions, is at the heart of the problem - and so must form the core of the solution. We need urgently to set in motion an energy and environmental revolution, to transform the way we use energy and to deliver a sustainable future. WEO-2009 maps out this transformation, detailing the role of the energy sector in a scenario that leads to the long-term stabilisation of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent - our 450 Scenario - and setting out the investments and financing needed to make it happen

It seems there is some controversy over what CO2 concentration to target to successfully repair the climate. A couple weeks ago was the "350" event which was meant to raise awareness to a different target, 350 parts per million. The IEA says their recommendations are for an "overshoot trajectory" which peaks at 510 parts per million in 2035 and settling down eventually at 450 parts per million CO2 equivalent. But of course there is this controversy over what's the best CO2 concentration.
Worldwide to achieve the 450 ppm target means that in 2030 CO2 emissions are 26.4 gigatons rather than the expected 40.2 gigatons if no regulatory changes are made. They expect population to grow to 8.2 billion regardless of whether regulatory changes are made. To reach the 450 ppm targets they say CO2 emissions per capita must decrease, energy use per capita must decrease, the CO2 intensity index must decrease, and the CO2 intensity of the power and car industry must decrease. In other words they indicate that the worlds societies must learn to be more efficient, so we can do more with less energy, and to decrease the CO2 intensity of the energy we use.


For example one chart shows that to decrease the the energy intensity of transportation, that there must be a widespread adoption of hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric cars.

In power generation they specify the following changes to meet the 450 ppm scenario: Drastically decrease the use of coal without carbon capture and sequestration. To increase the use of natural gas. To increase use of carbon capture in coal plants. To increase the use of nuclear power. To Increase use of hydroelectric power. To increase the use of wind power. To increase the use of "Other renewables".

It is interesting to note they did not have a line in the graph to cover solar electricity, only wind energy. Are they assuming that solar electricity will remain a niche product due to remaining too expensive? If so have they heard the people at 1366 Technologies talk about the trending of solar electricity to become cheaper than coal plants and to be the biggest energy industry in the world? (see Solar power at the cost of coal?)

Turning to the graphs in the WEO itself ..


They expect that China and India to continue undergoing rapid expansion of energy use while OECD countries have a rather modest increase in energy use.



Projected oil production is presented differently this year than last but still has the same interesting attributes. (See TechnoSanity #30: Peak Oil and the UKERC Peak Oil report) For both oil and natural gas a large percentage of 2030 supply is expected to come from fields that are yet to be developed or yet to be found. They expect fully 40% of oil production to come from fields yet to be developed or yet to be found. They expect 60% of natural gas production to come from fields that are yet to be producing. In the U.S. they expect that 60% of U.S. natural gas use to be from "unconventional" natural gas sources.




To reach the 450 ppm target the numbers are a little different. Over 30% of fuels must be "zero carbon fuels". There must be a 16 million barrels per day reduction in oil use. That decrease in oil use will cause OPEC revenues to decrease.

The following is from the World Energy Outlook 2009 fact sheet.

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2009 FACT SHEET: Why is our current energy pathway unsustainable?

• Global energy use is set to fall in 2009 — for the first time since 1981 on any significant scale — as a result of the financial and economic crisis, but demand is set to resume its long-term upward trend once the economic recovery gathers pace. By 2030, the Reference Scenario, which assumes no change in government policies, sees world primary energy demand a dramatic 40% higher than in 2007.
• Collectively, non-OECD countries account for over 90% of the increase, their share of global primary energy demand rising from 52% to 63%. China and India represent over 53% of incremental demand to 2030. Coupled with strong growth from ASEAN, this is contributing to a refocusing of the global energy landscape towards Asia. Outside of Asia, the Middle East sees the fastest rate of increase, contributing 10% to incremental demand.
• Fossil fuels remain the dominant sources of energy worldwide, accounting for 77% of the demand increase in 2007-2030. Although oil demand is expected to drop by 2.2% in 2009 as a whole, following a drop of 0.2% in 2008, it is projected to recover from 2010 as the world economy pulls out of recession, rising from around 85 million barrels per day in 2008 to 105 mb/d in 2030, an increase of around 24%. In 2007-2030, demand for coal grows by 53% and demand for natural gas by 42%.
• Electricity demand grows by 76% in 2007-2030, requiring 4 800 gigawatts (GW) of capacity additions – almost five times the existing capacity of the US Coal remains the dominant fuel of the power sector, its share of the global power generation mix rising by 2 percentage points to 44% in 2030. But higher fossil-fuel prices, as well as increasing concerns over energy security and climate change, boost the share of renewables-based electricity generation from 18% in 2007 to 22% in 2030.
• The world’s energy resources are adequate to meet the projected demand increase through to 2030 and well beyond. But these Reference Scenario trends have profound implications for environmental protection, energy security and economic development. The continuation of current trends would have dire consequences for climate change. They would also exacerbate ambient air quality concerns, thus causing serious public health and environmental effects, particularly in developing countries.
• While the OECD imports less oil in 2030 than today in the Reference Scenario, some non-OECD countries, notably China and India, see big increases. Most gas-importing regions also see their imports rise. As non-OPEC conventional oil production peaks around 2010, most of the increased output comes from OPEC countries. The increase in natural gas exports comes mainly from Russia, Iran and Qatar.
• The Reference Scenario projections imply a persistently high level of spending on oil and gas imports by almost all importing countries. China overtakes the US soon after 2025, to become the world’s biggest spender on oil and gas imports, while India surpasses Japan soon after 2020 to take third place. Cumulative OPEC revenues from oil and gas exports increase to $30 trillion between 2008 and 2030, almost a five-fold increase on earnings over the past 23 years.
• In the Reference Scenario, 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity in 2030 compared with 1.5 billion people today. Universal electricity access could be achieved with additional power-sector investment of $35 billion per year in 2008-2030 and with only a modest increase in primary energy demand and related CO2 emissions.

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2009 FACT SHEET: ENERGY INVESTMENT: The Impact of the financial crisis

• Energy investment worldwide has plunged recently in the face of a tougher financing environment, weakening final demand for energy and falling cash flows — the result, primarily, of the global financial and economic crisis. Energy companies are drilling fewer oil and gas wells, and cutting back spending on refineries, pipelines and power stations. Many ongoing projects have been slowed and a number of planned projects postponed or cancelled. Businesses and households are spending less on energy-consuming appliances, equipment and vehicles.
• In the oil and gas sector, most companies have announced cutbacks in capital spending, as well as project delays and cancellations. We estimate that global upstream oil and gas investment budgets for 2009 have been cut by around 19% compared with 2008 — a reduction of over $90 billion. Since October 2008, over 20 planned large-scale upstream oil and gas projects, involving around 2 mb/d of oil production capacity, have been deferred indefinitely or cancelled. The bulk of these projects are oil sands in Canada. A further 29 projects, involving 3.8 mb/d of oil capacity, have been delayed by at least 18 months.
• Power-sector investment is expected to be severely affected by financing difficulties, as well as by weak demand. Global electricity consumption is projected to drop by 1.6% in 2009 — the first annual contraction since the end of the Second World War. Weakening demand is reducing the immediate need for new capacity. In late 2008 and early 2009, investment in renewables-based power generation fell proportionately more than that in other types of generating capacity. For 2009 as a whole, it could drop by close to onefifth. Without the stimulus provided by government fiscal packages, it would have fallen by almost 30%.
• Falling energy investment will have far-reaching and, depending on how governments respond, potentially serious effects on energy security, climate change and energy poverty. Any prolonged downturn in investment threatens to constrain capacity growth in the medium term, particularly for long lead-time projects, eventually risking a shortfall in supply. This could lead to a renewed surge in the price of oil and other forms of energy in a few years time, when demand is likely to be recovering, and become a constraint on global economic growth. Weaker fossil-fuel prices are also undermining the attractiveness of investments in clean energy technology. Cutbacks in energy-infrastructure investments also threaten to impede access by poor households to electricity and other forms of modern energy.
• The financial crisis has made it all the more uncertain whether the full energy investment needed in the longer term to meet growing energy needs can be mobilised. The capital required to meet projected energy demand through to 2030 is huge, amounting in cumulative terms to $26 trillion (in year-2008 dollars) — equal to $1.1 trillion (or 1.4% of global GDP) per year on average in the Reference Scenario. Over half of all energy investment worldwide is needed in non-OECD countries, where demand and production are projected to increase fastest. With little prospect of a quick return to the days of cheap and easy credit, financing energy investment will, in most cases, be more difficult and costly than it was before the crisis.

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2009 FACT SHEET: NATURAL GAS: What role for gas in the global energy mix?

• The demand for natural gas worldwide is set to resume its long-term upwards trend, though the pace of demand growth hinges critically on the strength of climate policy action as well as on the rate of economic growth. In the Reference Scenario, global primary gas demand rises by 41% from 3.0 trillion cubic metres in 2007 to 4.3 tcm in 2030 — an average rate of increase of 1.5% per year. Over 80% of this increase occurs in non-OECD countries, with the biggest rise in the Middle East. The power sector remains the single largest driver of gas demand in all regions. In the 450 Scenario, in which governments are assumed to take strong action to cut CO2 emissions, world gas demand grows by 17% between 2007 and 2030 (an average annual rate of growth of 0.7%), but is 17% lower in 2030 compared with the Reference Scenario.
• The world’s remaining resources of natural gas are easily large enough to cover any conceivable rate of demand increase through to 2030 and well beyond, though the cost of developing new resources is set to rise over the long term. The long-term global recoverable gas resource base is estimated at more than 850 tcm, of which 45% is unconventional gas (shale gas, tight gas and coalbed methane). To date, only 66 tcm of gas has been produced (or flared) – equal to less than 8% of total recoverable resources.
• The non-OECD countries as a whole are projected to account for almost all of the projected increase in global natural gas production between 2007 and 2030 in both the Reference and 450 Scenarios. The Middle East, which holds the largest reserves and has the lowest production costs, sees the biggest increase in output (and in exports) in absolute terms in both scenarios. Globally, the share of unconventional gas is projected to rise from 12% in 2007 to 15% in 2030. This projection is subject to considerable uncertainty, especially after 2020; there is potential for output to increase much more.
• The rate of decline in production from existing fields is the prime factor determining the amount of new capacity and investment needed to meet projected demand. A detailed, field-by-field analysis of the historical gas-production trends of nearly 600 fields (accounting for 55% of global production) undertaken for WEO-2009 finds that close to half of the world’s existing production capacity will need to be replaced by 2030 as a result of depletion.
• The recent rapid development of unconventional gas resources in the United States and Canada, particularly in the last three years, has transformed the gas-market outlook, both in North America and in other parts of the world. It remains highly uncertain whether this boom in unconventional gas production can be replicated in other parts of the world that are endowed with such resources, as in most cases those resources have not yet been appraised in detail.
• The unexpected boom in North American unconventional gas production, together with the depressive impact of the recession on demand, is expected to contribute to an acute glut of gas supply in the next few years. The under-utilisation of pipeline capacity between the main regions and global LNG liquefaction capacity combined is expected to rise from around 60 bcm in 2007 to close to 200 bcm in the period 2012-2015, as a number of new projects come on stream. Gas suppliers to Europe and Asia-Pacific will come under increasing pressure to modify their pricing terms and cut prices to stimulate demand.

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2009 FACT SHEET:

What might a low-carbon energy future look like?

• Without a change in policy, the world is on a path for a rise in global temperature of up to 6°C, with catastrophic consequences for our climate. To avoid the most severe weather and sea-level rise and limit the temperature increase to about 2°C, the greenhouse-gas concentration needs to be stabilised at around 450 ppm CO2-equivalent. WEO-2009 assesses the implications for the energy sector of achieving a 450 Scenario.
• In the 450 Scenario, global energy-related CO2 emissions need to peak just before 2020 at 30.9 gigatonnes (Gt) and decline thereafter to 26.4 Gt in 2030 – which is 34% less than in the Reference Scenario. Of the 3.8 Gt reduction relative to the Reference Scenario in 2020, sectoral agreements in transport and industry and national policies generate 2.1 Gt, with the remainder achieved through cap-and-trade in the power and industry sectors in OECD countries (where the CO2 price reaches $50 per tonne), including the use of carbon-market mechanisms to fund CO2 abatement in non-OECD countries (at a CO2 price of about $30 per tonne). National policies and measures in China – already under consideration by the government - would bring about some 1 Gt of reductions by 2020 – or 25% of the total 3.8 Gt – placing China at the forefront of global efforts to combat climate change.
• The 450 Scenario is achievable – but very challenging. It assumes a hybrid policy approach, comprising a plausible combination of cap-and-trade systems, sectoral agreements and national measures, with countries subject to common but differentiated responsibilities. End-use efficiency is the largest contributor to CO2 emissions abatement in 2030 compared with the Reference Scenario, accounting for more than half of total savings. Early retirement of old, inefficient coal plants and their replacement by more efficient coal or gas fired power plants, mainly in China and in the United States, accounts for an additional 5% of the global emissions reduction. The increased deployment of renewables accounts for 20% of CO2 savings, while increased use of biofuels in the transport sector accounts for 3%. Finally, additional carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear each represents 10% of the savings in 2030, relative to the Reference Scenario.
• To realise the 450 Scenario, additional investment of $10.5 trillion is needed globally in the energy sector in the period 2010-2030, relative to the Reference Scenario. But investments in industry, transport and buildings are more than offset by fuel cost savings, which in the transport sector alone amount to over $6.2 trillion over the period. The 450 Scenario also offers important energy security and environmental co-benefits. Oil and gas import bills in OECD countries in 2030 are much lower than in 2008; and in 2030 they are 30% lower in both China and India than in the Reference Scenario. The 450 Scenario also sees a major reduction in air pollution, particularly in non-OECD countries.
• The geographical and sectoral distribution of the abatement and investment in the 450 Scenario does not determine how those actions are financed - that is entirely a matter for negotiation. In the 450 Scenario, the energy sector in non-OECD countries would need around $200 billion of additional investment in clean energy and efficiency in 2020 – including $70 billion for nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and a similar amount to achieve sectoral standards in transport and industry. A portion of this non-OECD investment will need to be co-financed by OECD countries.

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2009 FACT SHEET: Has the financial crisis changed the outlook for CO2 emissions and the global climate?

• The financial crisis has had a considerable impact on the energy sector worldwide and CO2 emissions could fall in 2009 by as much as 3%. This decline would be steeper than at any time in the last 40 years. The crisis has also led to a deferral of investment in polluting technologies. This would lead to global emissions in 2020 being 1.9 gigatonnes (Gt) or 5% lower - even in the absence of new government policies - than estimated last year in the Reference Scenario of WEO-2008. The impact of the financial crisis and lower growth accounts for three-quarters of this improvement, while government stimulus spending to promote low-carbon investments and other new climate policies account for the remaining quarter.
• Despite the impact of the financial crisis, energy-related CO2 emissions in the Reference Scenario still rise from 28.8 Gt in 2007 to 34.5 Gt in 2020 and 40.2 Gt in 2030. World greenhouse-gas emissions, including non-energy related CO2 and all other gases, are projected to grow from 42.4 Gt CO2-equivalent in 2005 to 56.5 Gt CO2-eq in 2030 – an increase of one-third.
• Non-OECD countries account for all the projected increase in energy-related CO2 emissions. In the Reference Scenario, OECD emissions in 2030 are 3% lower than in 2007. By contrast, all major non-OECD countries see their emissions rise. Of the 11 Gt growth in global emissions between 2007 and 2030, China accounts for 6 Gt, India for 2 Gt and the Middle East for 1 Gt. However, while non-OECD countries today account for 52% of the world’s annual emissions of energy-related CO2, they are responsible for only 42% of the world’s cumulative emissions since 1890.
• The power-generation sector accounts for over half the increase in emissions in the Reference Scenario. This is driven by a 60% rise in emissions from coal-fired generation. The Reference Scenario sees big improvements in CO2 intensity in transport and industry but these are substantially outweighed by increased travel and higher output in the iron and steel and cement industries.
• The rising global consumption of fossil fuels is still set to drive up greenhousegas emissions and world temperatures, resulting in potentially catastrophic and irreversible climate change. Even taking account of the impact of the financial crisis, the projected rise in emissions in the Reference Scenario puts us on a course for doubling the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere to around 1 000 parts per million (ppm) of CO2-equivalent by the end of this century. This would entail an eventual global average temperature increase of up to 6°C.
• The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen provides an opportunity to take prompt action. If the world wishes to limit to 25% the probability that global average temperature will rise more than 2°C, CO2 emissions over the period 2000-2049 must not exceed 1 trillion tonnes. Between 2000 and 2009, the world emitted 313 billion tonnes of CO2.

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2009 FACT SHEET: ENERGY PRICE ASSUMPTIONS: Price volatility will continue, but the days of cheap energy are over

• The WEO projections are based on an assumption – not a forecast – that energy prices follow a rising trend through to 2030. These assumptions are based on a top-down assessment of the price levels that would be needed to encourage sufficient investment in supply to meet projected demand. Prices rise faster in the Reference Scenario, in which no change in government policies is assumed, than in the 450 Scenario, in which climate policies depress fossil-energy use and, therefore, prices. These trajectories should not be seen as forecasts, nor should the smooth price paths assumed be interpreted as a prediction of stable energy markets: prices will, in reality, certainly deviate from these assumed trends in response to short-term fluctuations in demand and supply, to exchange rates and to geopolitical events.
• In the Reference Scenario, oil prices are assumed to rebound with rising demand and supply costs. In real terms, the average IEA crude oil import price, a proxy for international prices which in 2008 averaged around $3 per barrel less than WTI, is assumed to reach $87 per bbl in 2015, $100 per bbl by 2020 and $115 per bbl by 2030 (in year-2008 dollars). In nominal terms, prices approach $102 per bbl by 2015, $131 per bbl by 2020 and almost $190 per bbl by 2030. Gas and coal prices are assumed to increase broadly in line with oil prices, reflecting the dynamics of inter-fuel competition and rising supply costs.
• The assumption of rising oil prices is based on our expectation of gradually tightening international oil markets – assuming the world economy recovers steadily. Global oil demand is expected to recover as the economy pulls out of recession, outpacing the growth in capacity, while recent large cutbacks in upstream and downstream investment will have a big impact on supply in the next three to five years as a result of the long lead times in bringing new projects on stream. Although the underlying trend may be upwards, prices are likely to remain highly volatile. In the longer term, the rising marginal costs of supply, together with demand growth in non-OECD countries, will continue to exert upward pressure on prices.
• In the 450 Scenario, oil prices are assumed to follow the same upward trajectory as in the Reference Scenario to 2015 and then remain flat to 2030, due to weaker demand. This means there is less need to produce oil from costly fields higher up the supply curve in non-OPEC countries. The oil price is assumed to plateau at $90 per bbl in real terms in 2020. Gas prices are correspondingly lower. Coal prices are reduced even more, as demand falls much more than for oil or gas. Final prices also take into account carbon prices under the cap-and-trade systems that are assumed to be introduced in many parts of the world in this scenario. The CO2 price in the OECD reaches $50 per tonne in 2020 (which increases the cost of a barrel of oil by $21) and $110 per tonne in 2030 (which increases the cost of a barrel of oil by $46).
• In some countries, end-user prices rise faster than international prices, because subsidies are assumed to be reduced. In most non-OECD countries, at least one fuel or form of energy continues to be subsidised, usually through price controls that hold the retail or wholesale price below the level that would prevail in a truly competitive market. In 2007, energy-related consumption subsidies in 20 non-OECD countries (accounting for over 80% of total non-OECD primary energy demand) amounted to about $310 billion. Most of these countries have policies to reform subsidies, though often the intended timing is vague and the commitment is half-hearted. We assume that these subsidies are gradually reduced, but at varying rates across regions.

TechnoSanity #33: A look at the World Energy Outlook, 2009

Links:  http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

Links:  http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/fact_sheets_WEO_2009.pdf

Links:  http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/climate_change_excerpt.pdf

Links:  http://www.iea.org/speech/2009/Tanaka/WEO2009_Press_Conference.pdf

References:  Technosanity #20: World Energy Outlook 2008

References:  TechnoSanity #32: Fudged numbers in the IEA's World Energy Outlook, 2009??

TechnoSanity #32: Fudged numbers in the IEA's World Energy Outlook, 2009??

The World Energy Outlook is a yearly report from the International Energy Agency. It provides data and projections about energy supplies world wide, and is used by nearly 30 countries in planning policies. It is an important report that carries a lot of weight around the world. This year the report is being released on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change summit, and this years report has a lot of strong statements about climate change effects of energy use. There is also a controversy over the accuracy of the report.

Why the End May Be Coming for Coal - This isn't about the IEA report but is interesting in the context of this discussion. The article points to growing clamor for ending coal use and most especially mountain top removal. Mountain-top removal is a form of strip mining where they, uh, remove mountains in order to get at the coal. Um, remove a mountain? Is this the world we want to live in? This is utter unmitigated ecological disaster.

Energy costs to soar if no carbon deal, agency says - Unless the leaders at the Copenhagen summit can agree on a deal, the world faces higher energy costs as well as increased negative environmental impact. If no deal is reached that means "business" will "remain as usual". Under business as usual assumptions the IEA report indicates drastic increases in electricity use, in oil use, and in coal use (to generate the electricity). Due to supply problems the oil will be high price, and due to the higher coal use the environmental problems facing us now will be drastically worse.

Current Energy Plans ‘Unsustainable,’ IEA Says in New Outlook - The global recession has caused a decrease in energy use, a significant decrease, and the first since 1981 (another recession year). The IEA assumes that in short order the economic problems will be set right, and that the world economic game will resume its upward climb. The typical economic game results in ever-increasing use of energy and the associated ills mentioned previously.

I rather doubt that the game can continue in the prior pattern. The supply problems look to be more serious than the IEA is willing to admit. (See TechnoSanity #30: Peak Oil and the UKERC Peak Oil report

Electricity demand will grow even faster—by 76% by 2030. That will require the addition of nearly 5,000 gigawatts of new power plants. That’s five times the generation capacity of the U.S. today....And that means coal will become more important—not less important—in the global energy mix. The IEA expects global coal consumption to grow 53% by 2030 in its reference scenario. Natural gas will also become more important, with demand growing 41% over the period—but gas supplies are “are easily large enough to cover any conceivable rate of demand increase through to 2030 and well beyond,” the IEA says.

World needs Canada’s 'dirty oil', says IEA - The IEA report looks to "unconventional oil" like Canada's tarsands as the savior to the oil supply crunch.

This is the 2008 chart, the 2009 chart is very similar. Notice the figures for "Oil fields yet to be developed" and "Oil fields yet to be found". That oil which is yet to be developed or found is a significant chunk of expected future oil supply. Even if they're correct in the estimates of this yet to be developed or found oil supply, it's not enough to satisfy the growing demand. It's expected growth in tarsands oil output which makes up the gap.

World oil demand growth to be led by Asia - IEA - Growth in India and China due to globalization is expected to be a major part of increased world oil use. They expect U.S. oil use to decrease. Globalization means shipping economic activity from factories that had been functioning in the U.S. to factories operating in China or India. That means the energy use which used to occur in U.S. factories is now happening in Chinese factories. It also means larger energy use to ship the stuff across the world.



After the Recession, Will the World Face an Energy Crisis? - Again going over the expected economic recovery means resumption in growth of energy and increasing environmental damage.

Highlights from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower - MAJOR CONTROVERSY. A few whistleblowers who refuse to be named are claiming that U.S. Government pressure was placed on the IEA to fudge the numbers in the report. To overstate reserves, to understate demand, and make it look like the situation is better than it really is. To avoid panicking the masses.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

Too fearful to publicise peak oil reality - Did nobody see the peak oil crisis coming? "Apply that question to peak oil and the answer is that many people did see it coming but they were marginalised, bullied into silence and the evidence was buried in the small print."

Take the 2008 edition of World Energy Outlook, the annual report on which the entire energy industry and governments depend. It included the table also published by the Guardian today, and the version I saw had shorter intervals on the horizontal axis. What it made blindingly clear was that peak oil was somewhere in 2008/9 and that production from currently producing fields was about to drop off a cliff. Fields yet to be developed and yet to be found enabled a plateau of production and it was only "non-conventional oil" which enabled a small rise. Think tar sands of Canada, think some of the most climate polluting oil extraction methods available. Think catastrophe.

What made this little graph so devastating was that it estimated energy resources by 2030 that were woefully inadequate for the energy-hungry economies of India and China. Business as usual in oil production threatens massive conflict over sharing it.

Energy body rejects whistleblower allegations of oil cover up - The IEA issues an official denial of there being fudged numbers.

A false picture of world's oil reserves? - An interview on Marketplace about the claims of fudged numbers.

IEA sees gas glut until 2015, rising coal role

Cost of extra year's climate inaction $500 billion: IEA

Energy Watchdog Urges Deal on Climate

IEA "whistleblower" says peak oil nearing: report

TechnoSanity #32: Fudged numbers in the IEA's World Energy Outlook, 2009??

References:  Technosanity #20: World Energy Outlook 2008

TechnoSanity #31: A look at Waste Management and landfill gas energy resources

The other day talking with a friend I noticed a Waste Management trash truck roll by and had this sudden reflection "I own a piece of that truck". I own a few shares of WM's stock, hence I "own" a tiny fraction of the truck that rolled by. She was surprised and asked "you don't do socially responsible investing, then?" While I try to select companies with socially responsible thinking my investments are not SRI pure. Take that for whatever it is worth, the stereotype attached to Waste Management is they're an evil corporation just doing the worst thing possible with the trash we throw away while painting their trucks green to pretend they are environmental stewards. Greenwashing, in other words. Turns out that stereotype isn't entirely accurate.

Turns out that Waste Management has a bunch of environmental information on their web site. While putting brochures on a web site doesn't fix the environment it shows they are at least thinking about it and recognizant of their role in environmental stewardship. I don't know how well they do as environmental stewards. However it's clear they have the potential to play a large role due to their position of receiving all the trash people throw out. That trash is potentially a resource stream which can be turned into products.

It's not just Waste Management but every "trash" company in the world, if there were technology whereby they could perform recycling on a huge scale of every item that comes into their hands it would perhaps erase the word "landfill" from our vocabulary. Unfortunately that potential isn't anywhere near being implementable. One small piece to the puzzle is the "landfill gas" that lots of waste companies, Waste Management included, is looking at tapping. This gas is a form of natural gas and can be burned just as natural gas, and being a biogas has some positive environmental benefit over fossil natural gas. It can also be liquified into a fuel to use in trucks.

On November 2, 2009, Waste Management and the Linde Group announced a project at the Altamont Landfill (near Livermore CA) which makes liquified natural gas from landfill gas, the LNG will be used to power Waste Management's trucks. They believe the plant has the capacity to produce 13,000 gallons of fuel per day, from that one plant. Given that it's from just one of Waste Management's landfills, it's mind boggling to think of the quantity of landfill gas emitted from all landfills around the country (or around the world), and how much fuel that represents.

Energy production from landfill gas turns out to be a big deal. Yahoogling for "landfill gas renewable energy" turns up lots of interesting articles and resources. The following is just a smattering of what I found.

 

Source: http://www.wm.com/wm/press/mediakit/LFGTE_Flyer.pdf

The landfill-to-energy process begins with garbage collected and brought to landfill operations. Much of it is organic and is broken down by bacteria in a natural process. Methane and other gasses known as landfill gas is produced. With special wells the gas is captured and piped to a processing facility.
After processing it is the same as natural gas and can be used the same way.

Each landfill gas "well" is just a couple pipes drilled into the ground.

Waste Management Partnering to Find Gas in the Trash: This project at the Altamont Landfill is only one of many which Waste Management plans to launch. They own 477 landfills and have announced intent to open 60 landfill gas projects by the end of 2012. Further there are 1,700 operating landfills in the U.S., and according to the the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program, they contain enough natural gas to produce 2,643 megawatts of electricity.

CARB tables of landfill gas composition shows the percentages of different constituents to landfill gas. On average it's 44% methane and 35% CO2, both are recognized as the leading components to greenhouse gas.

Clearly averting the emission of those gasses into the atmosphere would abate some greenhouse gas issues. However burning the landfill gas doesn't destroy the carbon. Therefore burning landfill gas cannot avert emission of the landfill gas. What it can do is replace the use of some fossil natural gas or fossil liquid fuels.

Production of 25 MW of Electricity Using Landfill Gas: Describes a project in Montreal (Canada) to build an electricity plant that uses landfill gas as its fuel. The plant cost CAD $37 million to build and produces 25 megawatts of power.

Video: Powering Up with Landfill Gas: Discusses a similar project at the University of New Hampshire. In the video it's mentioned they've been "flaring" their landfill gas, and are now instead using it to generate power. Flaring gas just means they're burning it with no attempt to capture any energy. Turning it from a flaring to power production situation is an improvement by any measure.

Waste-based Renewable Energy: Landfill operators place collection wells that act like straws throughout a landfill to draw out the methane gas. The gas is then piped to a compression and filtering unit beside the landfill. Technicians make sure that the gas is filtered properly before it is piped to its end user. The entire process is carefully managed to prevent odors and leakage of waste material.

California Energy Commission, Renewable Energy Research, Biomass and Landfill is a resource center about landfill gas research in California. When a landfill is capped, landfill gas (LFG) is generated as organic portions of the municipal solid wastes (MSW) are decomposed. Traditionally, landfill is not controlled and the expected period over which landfill gas will be produced may range from 50 to 100 years. But a usable landfill gas production rate that can be utilized lasts for only 10 to 15 years. A bioreactor is a controlled landfill in which water and other nutrient sources are added into the MSW to increase the landfill gas production rate.

The four basic uses of landfill gas is:

1. medium-BTU gas production, 
2. electricity generation, 
3. injection into existing natural gas pipelines, 
4. conversion to other chemical forms. California leads the nation in both the solid waste generation and number of landfill gas to electricity (LFGTE) facilities. The Puente Hills landfill, operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, produces approximately 46.5 MW of power and is the largest LFGTE facility in the U.S.

US EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP): is a voluntary assistance and partnership program that promotes the use of landfill gas as a renewable, green energy source. Landfill gas is the natural by-product of the decomposition of solid waste in landfills and is comprised primarily of carbon dioxide and methane. By preventing emissions of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) through the development of landfill gas energy projects, LMOP helps businesses, states, energy providers, and communities protect the environment and build a sustainable future.

Instead of allowing LFG to escape into the air, it can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source. Using LFG helps to reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and it helps prevent methane from migrating into the atmosphere and contributing to local smog and global climate change.

Is Landfill Gas Green Energy? Is a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council looking at just how "green" an energy can one get from landfill gas.

• Combustion of raw LFG in a flare, an engine, or a turbine dramatically reduces the overall toxicity.
• Collection and combustion dramatically reduces global warming impacts and toxicity.
• Using LFG to generate electricity further reduces the greenhouse gas impacts and also reduces emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. Burying garbage in landfills results in the release of more heat-trapping gases than any other waste-management option.
• Because LFG is a by-product of landfills, and landfills are such a poor way to manage our waste, LFG can not be considered renewable.

An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the United States: Methane as GHG is over 20x more potent by weight than CO2.

Linde and Waste Management commission world’s largest landfill to liquefied natural gas facility

Altamont Landfill's gas fuels garbage trucks

World’s Largest Landfill Gas to LNG Plant Opens in California:

Landfill waste to power Waste Management hauling fleet

Landfill Gas to Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas


Renewables and Alternate Fuels > Landfill Gas

Baltimore Landfill Gas Powers Up Coast Guard Yard

Production of Renewable Energy

Landfill Gas Resources and Technologies

Energy Companies To Harvest Durham Landfill Gas

Mexico’s President Applauds Monterrey’s Landfill Gas Plant as Model Renewable Energy Project for Latin America

Duke Energy Carolinas Signs Deal to Turn Landfill Gas into Energy

Waste Management to build 60 new landfill gas plants

LANDFILL GAS-TO-ENERGY PROJECT CASE STUDIES

Landfill gas–to–energy facility at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill

Landfill Gas Videos

TechnoSanity #30: Peak Oil and the UKERC Peak Oil report

In October 2009 the UK Energy Research Centre released an in-depth report on Peak Oil. In this episode of the Technosanity Podcast we go over several articles discussing the report.

Articles discussed in the podcast:-

"Global Oil Depletion" a report on Peak Oil by the UK Energy Research Centre is my summary of the report. Of especial interest is the following two charts.


This shows the rate of oil discovery over the years, and shows that the peak of oil discovery occurred in the early 1960's. The lack of discovering oil is not due to a lack of searching, it is due to a lack of finding. The lack of finding new significant oil discoveries implies strongly that the fossil oil resources on this planet have all been tapped out.



The important wedges in this chart are "Crude oil - fields yet to be developed" and "Crude oil - fields yet to be found". Looking at the chart it appears the IEA expects on the order of 40 million barrels/day will come from those two sources. The first, fields yet to be developed, is oil that's known to exist but hasn't had infrastructure installed to extract the oil. The fields yet to be developed require extensive investment to install that infrastructure.

The fields yet to be found simply aren't known yet. Where are they? We don't know. The IEA is putting a lot of credence in the wish or hope or expectation that those fields will be found. Maybe they'll be found, maybe not.

There needs to be a long lead time to install the infrastructure - something like 10 years to build out an oil field full of oil derricks etc.

• Peak Oil - It's Still Coming, It May Be Delayed Though,
• Whither Resilience and Transition? Why ‘Peak Oil’ Has Yet to Outlive its Usefulness,
• Oil production could peak in 10 years' time,
• Have We Reached Peak Oil? 
• and A post-oil world gets less sci-fi by the day all go over the same UKERC study.

The UKERC study warns that the world society will have to find 64 million barrels/day in production by 2030 to replace the decrease in production they expect by then. This is shown on the above chart. But it's not clear where that oil will come from.

Canadian tar sands? The Canadians doubt they'll ever get more than 3 million barrels/day in production.

There are four key issues about oil production and which together point to a supply crunch sooner rather than later.

• declining output: That's peak oil, once we're past the global oil peak it means oil production is declining
• declining discoveries: Discoveries have been in a decline since the early 60's, it means discoveries do not match the rate of use, and that we're due to run out no matter what
• increasing demand: Population increases and other factors mean continuing demand increases
• insufficient projects in the pipeline: Without oil infrastructure projects to exploit the known fields, the oil production capacity cannot increase even with fields we know about

Reflections from ASPO: Contradiction, EROI, and Future Energy Supplies is a look back at the recent conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. He talks at length about Energy Return on Investment (EROI) in regard to some claims about "Shale Gas" resources. Someone claims there's 200+ years of natural gas available from Shale Gas. However what's missing from that claim is the EROI of extracting that gas, and if it requires a lot of energy to extract natural gas from shale then is it worthwhile to do so?

TechnoSanity #30: Peak Oil and the UKERC Peak Oil report

References:  Beyond Oil: The view from Hubberts Peak

References:  "Global Oil Depletion" a report on Peak Oil by the UK Energy Research Centre

Technosanity #29: Book Review: Green Jobs, A Guide to Eco-Friendly Employment

Green Jobs: A Guide to Eco-Friendly Employment is a job hunting guide that's especially relevant to Americans right now. Why? With the Obama Administration the path promised to steer the U.S.A. out of our economic is green jobs, green technology, green businesses, etc. This podcast is an indepth look between the covers of an excellent guide to finding these sorts of jobs.

This book is very in-depth containing a very comprehensive list of resources for every item they discuss. The first couple chapters set the stage with the history of the environmental movement, and the environmental challenges facing our society. The latter part of the book is an extensive survey of the job market for green sustainable careers.

The book is set up with these sections:-

• Introduction
  • It's a Greening World: How we got where we are and where we're headed is a history of the environmental movement
  • Green goes mainstream is about the need for sustainability to become mainstream
  • Who wants a green job is about the values which might drive one to change career into work meant to implement sustainability
  • What green means for education and training is about training resources to help one prepare for a career in sustainability
• Industries
  • Green Energy
  • Green Transportation
  • Green Building
  • Green Organizations and NGO's
  • Natural Resources Management
  • Green Goods and Services

Technosanity Book Review: Green Jobs, A Guide to Eco-Friendly Employment

TechnoSanity #28: Offshore drilling on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, an Interior Department hearing, held in San Francisco, April 16, 2009

In the waning days of the Bush Administration they released a draft Continental Shelf 5-year program meant to cover 2010-2015. The current program runs from 2007-2012 and it's curious that there's an overlap. The overlap means that the Bush Administration sped up the 5-year planning process by a couple years. Under the normal schedule the next 5-year plan would have covered the years 2012-2017. To support putting the new plan together the Department of the Interior is holding a series of public hearings, and the following is based on the San Francisco hearing on April 16, 2009.

At stake is oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. You may recall a slogan in the 2008 Presidential Election was "Drill Baby Drill, Drill Here, Drill Now" as if drilling for more oil is what will solve the energy woes faced by the U.S. The U.S. is importing nearly 70% of the oil we use and of course the money spent on that oil undermines the U.S. economy (balance of trade), and is a national security matter (the oil rich countries have power over the U.S.). The Conservative Republican answer is to drill for oil. However anybody who's looked at the data realizes there is very little oil involved, and that it will take decades before the oil can come to market.

It's clear the attendees were overwhelmingly taking a different attitude about the problem. Over and over the presenters and question askers gave a different strategy than "Drill Now, Drill Here". Instead they overwhelmingly opposed drilling for new oil, and advocated instead use of renewable energy. Rather than spend the money on oil drilling rigs etc, spend the money on new technologies.

It's clear that a big event in their mind is the Santa Barbara oil spill in the 1960's. That oil spill put an image in everybody's mind of spoiled beaches, dead birds, etc. FWIW The attendees were overwhelmingly Californians.

The NIMBY aspect of this strikes me. California cities are overwhelmingly designed around the use of CARS and TRUCKS to move around the cities. Overwhelmingly those vehicles require fossil fuels to move around. Hence that oil has to come from somewhere and to deny the possibility of drilling for oil off the California coast means pushing the oil infrastructure fueling California's cars is conducted in someone else's back yard.

At least most of them advocated tying a shift to renewable energy resources combined with a ban on further oil drilling. Tying the two together is more honest than simply denying further oil drilling. However for the most part renewable energy resources are not in the forum of liquid fuels, but in the form of electricity. To continue supporting transportation systems through a renewable fuel is going to mean electrically driven transportation.

Some data presented.. while big oil spills are thankfully rare, there are small spills all the time. It's estimated there are 2 million gallons per year of small oil spills.

Offshore drilling comes with higher risk of disasters. The further offshore the bigger the risk. Off the Pacific coast the oil fields thought to exist are in deep water, and there are doubts over the possibility to safely drill in those deep waters. Further oil drilling causes the release of mercury and other contaminants, simply from the drilling platform.

One of the proposed locations is in an ocean upwelling zone off the Northern California Coast. Upwelling zones are vital places of abundant sea life where upward ocean currents carry nutrients to the surface feeding an abundant array of life. Allowing oil drilling to occur in that upwelling zone would convert it into a dead zone.

A draft proposal has been produced by the government outlining the plan: Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2010–2015

Offshore drilling on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, an Interior Department hearing, held in San Francisco, April 16, 2009

Technosanity #27: Zero X Motorcycle demo ride

While at the 24 Hours of Electricross race, I took a demo ride on the motorcycle. This is the video.
Technosanity #27: Zero X Motorcycle demo ride

Technosanity #26: Interview w/ Don Amador at 24 Hours of Electricross

Continued coverage of the 24 Hours of Electricross race, continuing from Technosanity #25: 24 Hours of Electricross - Interview with Neal Saiki. Don Amador is with the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an organization specializing with taking off-highway vehicles (OHV) into the wilderness (mission: "The BlueRibbon Coalition champions responsible use of public lands and waters for the benefit of all recreationists by educating and empowering its members").

He attended the race to measure noise levels to understand the potential for electric off-highway vehicles to address noise issues related to OHV use. With a noise meter he recorded the race as producing 60-67 dB whereas normal motorcycle races produce noise in the 100+ dB range. At 65dB it is the same as regular conversation between people.

Electric vehicles offer more than mitigating environmental damage from burning fossil fuels, and they offer more than a way out of the peak oil mess. They offer a solution to noise pollution in our cities.

After 100+ years of gasoline vehicle use our society has become immunized to the noise coming from them. But they are noisy even if we're not aware of that noise. Think of the potential change to the quality of our cities if there were a preponderance of electric vehicles.

Technosanity #26: Interview w/ Don Amador at 24 Hours of Electricross

Technosanity #25: 24 Hours of Electricross - Interview with Neal Saiki

On April 4-5, 2009, Zero Motorcycles held the 24 Hours of Electricross race. This was an endurance race for their brand of electric motorcycle, 24 hours in length, 10 teams, three battery packs per team, the winner being the team achieving the most number of laps during that period. I've never been to a dirt bike race, never ridden a "dirt bike" style motorcycle "on dirt", but am an electric vehicle enthusiast and was excited to see this race occur.

I've been to the NEDRA race, the National Electric Drag Racing Association has a goal, shared by Zero Motorcycles, of proving that electric cars aren't boring golf carts. Electric vehicle races are a great way to show electric vehicles can be fast. However the NEDRA race is in the form of a drag race, 1/4 mile, 10-15 seconds, and that's it. The Electricross race just kept going and going and going. What made this possible is a motorcycle frame design which allows for quickly changing the battery pack. I observed several times a racer would come in off the track, the pit crew quickly change out the pack, and within a minute or so the bike is back on the track (with a new rider).

Quick change battery packs are not a new idea. Famously this is a key of the Project Better Place plan, however the idea is very old and goes back to the earliest days of electric vehicles. Zero Motorcycles have simply done a great job of implementing this old idea.

Other coverage
Zero Motorcycles hosts first-ever 24 Hours of Electricross
Electric Motorcycle Impresses Motocross Crowd
First International Electric Motocross Sets Guinness World Records And Only Cost $100 To Power All 10 Dirt Bikes For 24 Hours.
Zero Motorcycles sets electric motorcycle endurance record
Technosanity #25: 24 Hours of Electricross - Interview with Neal Saiki

Technosanity #24: Is it required for society to collapse to build the society we desire?

In the C-Realm Podcast episode #124 is an interview with Toby Hemenway which has several interesting thoughts in it. The interview was drawn heavily from his article Apocalypse, NOT. They were discussing "the end of the world as we know it" (TEOTWAWKI) and the likelihood of the collapse of our society due to the various crises facing us.

While listening a question came clearly to mind ... If we are to have the world we want, is it necessary to have our society collapse? Do we need to erase our existing society and start over with a new one? Alternatively is it possible to build the society we want to have, while in the context of the society we're living in?

I think most of us want to live in a better place. There are many versions of what would be a "better" society, right? Different people have their own ideas of "better" society, "better" living conditions, "better" political structures, etc.

Toby Hemenway is a Biologist turned Permaculturist. He discussed the danger of the "growth economy" and how the "growth economy" needs to die, in his view. The "growth economy" is the requirement that companies and population is always growing, enforced by the stock market which gives high value to growing companies and death sentences to those who aren't. He also discussed the "solar budget" and the need for our society to live within the solar budget, meaning that the resources our society consumes ought to be constrained by the energy which can be converted from sunlight.

In any case he has a clear preference for "better" which he described as a horticultural based society rather than agricultural.

There are many people who are predicting doom and gloom and a collapse of our society. I am a student of peak oil and am familiar with the peak oil thinking, that pretty darn soon the oil supply is due to enter into a decline which will cause a crisis to our society over how to make up the difference between demand and supply for the fuel to drive our machines.

Maybe the collapse will be as bloody as depicted in some of the movies such as the Mad Max trilogy. Or maybe it will be smoother.

The desire for "better" stems from unhappiness with the status quo, fear of where the status quo is leading our society, and a vision we have for the better society of our dreams.

It seems to me we can choose for ourselves to live in alignment with our vision of a better society. Depending on our individual vision it may be simple to accomplish or hard.

History is full of clusters of people who set up communal living situations in which they could experiment with developing a vision of a "better" way to live. Today these are called "Intentional Communities" and they vary in size from the big ones like Damanhur or Findhorn down to small groups. These communities have existed all through human history with varying success.

These people have been able to experiment but it still leaves people like me concerned about the direction the status quo is leading our society. These experiments have perhaps been good for the people involved, but they've had little effect on the status quo, and the status quo appears to be leading us all to disaster.

At some points our experiments in better lifestyles ought to become mainstream to make the lessons learned from these experiments to have a broad effect.

Technosanity #24: Is it required for society to collapse to build the society we desire?

Technosanity #23: Defining green technology and sustainable technology

There's a lot of talk about how Green Jobs are going to save the U.S. economy. I have high hopes for this, but at the same time I have worries. The word "Green" is being bandied with imprecise meanings. What does "Green" mean? Who defined this term and what is their goal? And is it what we think it is. It seems to have an underlying meaning about technology or practices that have beneficial environmental effect. But what is that beneficial effect, what is really meant, and do they mean to make a significant environmental improvement or do they mean to spin it so that greenwashing is enough?

If we don't know where we're going then how do we know when we get there?

If the leadership of the country says we're going in a given direction, how can we judge if the results match the goal we're being given?

I'm happier with the word 'Sustainable' than 'Green'. Sustainable has some clear meaning even though it also seems to suffer from imprecision. Still I want to know more about the meaning of Sustainability, Sustainable Technology, Green Technology, and where we are headed.

For this episode I browsed through a chapter in Peak Everything by Richard Heinberg. The book takes the peak oil model and extrapolates it out to other resources. One chapter is an exploration of Sustainability and what it means for our society.

He first gives a series of definitions...

The word itself means "that which can be maintained over time". Very nice.

Gayanashagowa or the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee) Six Nations is the oral constitution that created the Iroquois Confederacy. The law was developed by a man known as The Great Peacemaker and his spokesman Hiawatha. Member Nations ratified this constitution near present day Victor, New York. There is an essential concept of sustainability said to be within this law, a concept familiar to someone who has seen the front page of this site or to someone who has bought household products from a particular company. Richard gives this concept as: that chiefs consider the impact of their decisions on the seventh generation to come. I've always loved that principle which is why this site bears the name it has. It is key to sustainability in terms of a society which can be maintained over time.

Sustainable Development: is development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (wikipedia) In other words the official definition of Sustainable Development is a restatement of the Seven Generations principle.

The Natural Step is a foundation developed in the 1990's which formulated four conditions for sustainability. These are:-

The Four System Conditions...	. . . Reworded as The Four Principles of Sustainability
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:	To become a sustainable society we must...
1. concentrations of substances extracted from the earth's crust	1. eliminate our contribution to the progressive buildup of substances extracted from the Earth's crust (for example, heavy metals and fossil fuels)
2. concentrations of substances produced by society	2. eliminate our contribution to the progressive buildup of chemicals and compounds produced by society (for example, dioxins, PCBs, and DDT )
3. degradation by physical means	3. eliminate our contribution to the progressive physical degradation and destruction of nature and natural processes (for example, over harvesting forests and paving over critical wildlife habitat); and
4. and, in that society, people are not subject to conditions that systemically undermine their capacity to meet their needs	4. eliminate our contribution to conditions that undermine people’s capacity to meet their basic human needs (for example, unsafe working conditions and not enough pay to live on).

Richard next gives five Axioms of Sustainability:-

1. Any society that continues to use its resources unsustainably will collapse
2. Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption cannot be sustained
3. To be sustainable the use of renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is less than or equal to the rate of natural replenishment
4. To be sustainable the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion
5. Sustainability requires that substances introduced into the environment from human activities must be minimized and rendered harmless to biosphere functions.

A point which surfaces over and over through this chapter in Peak Everything is to equate Sustainability with a requirement for the Natural World to stay as it is. Sustainability is being defined in terms of reducing or eliminating harmful impacts on the natural world. While it is my belief our society dreams of living in a garden paradise, I wonder if preserving the natural world as it is today is the only way to attain sustainability in terms of maintaining human society over the long term.

His Axioms require use of renewable resources and a cessation of use of non-renewable resources.

A key axiom is the first, unsustainable use of critical resources means the collapse of society. Consider water such as the several aquifers being mined by societies faster than the rate of replenishment. Aquifers receive water when it rains and the rain is absorbed underground and flows through rock formations. The average rainfall contributes a certain quantity of water every year, and if the humans living above the aquifer never use more than the amount added every year the aquifer will provide water forever. But current practice is to pump water out of the aquifers as fast as it will flow, in many cases leading to sucking them dry within a generation or so. This is not a sustainable practice because for example the city of Phoenix Arizona is in a desert, and there are over a million people living there, and how will they get water when their aquifer runs out and there's never more than an inch or two of rain a year?

It seems he is only looking to the natural world to provide the resources we require to live. The natural world does provide the basics of life, the water, the air, food, materials with which to build shelter and clothing, etc. It makes sense then to make use of the natural world at a rate the natural world is able to sustain. Extracting resources from the natural world at a rate faster than it can sustain, leads to collapse of the natural world's ability to provide the resources which give us our lives.

Another example is fishery collapses around the world. These happen when fishing happens at too great a rate and the fish populations are unable to provide enough fish. Over-fishing leads to fishery collapse.

The garden paradise of our dreams has a carrying capacity. The garden paradise can provide only so much stuff and remain a paradise. Extract too much stuff from the paradise and it collapses perhaps becoming a desert.

The rate of natural replenishment gives an upper bound on the rate of sustainable resource use.

There is a strong correlation between growth of population and growth of resource use. Hence his axiom to limit population growth and/or resource growth. However I believe it is technically possible to limit the growth of resource use while allowing population to grow. It means ensuring all technologies are made more and more efficient over time, and that we always strive to do more with less, to use the minimum of resources in our activities.

This idea runs counter to some cultural normalthink of the kind that drives people to owning hummers.

We all want this society to last forever. Technically it cannot last forever if only because in a couple billion years our Sun will burn out. In any case this expectation is real and is an unquestioned assumption that's all around us. I suppose the Romans during the era of the Roman Empire also thought their society would last forever. But given the above discussion it seems plainly obvious that this goal we have for our society to last forever, that it requires our society to adopt sustainability as a core principle. This is an absolute hard requirement, for our society to last forever we must adopt sustainability.

Technosanity #23: Defining green technology and sustainable technology

Links:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

Links:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sustainable_development

Links:  http://www.thenaturalstep.org/the-system-conditions

Links:  five Axioms of Sustainability