Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Real Solutions to the Climate Crisis

By Guy Dauncey, YES! Magazine. Posted April 28, 2008.


A look at climate-friendly options for buildings, electricity production, transportation, and food and forestry.
Advertisement

The crisis of global warming is deeply serious, yet many are finding that it is also powerfully energizing. Instead of trying to squeeze our existing way of life into a post-carbon life-jacket out of fear of a climate catastrophe, these people see the transformation as a great adventure. They are drawing on their imagination and courage to create the building blocks of a sustainable, post-carbon world -- one in which all beings -- not just humans -- will flourish and find fulfillment, within the harmony and limits that Nature provides.

Here are just a few examples of what is already being achieved. The only question is how quickly we can spread these innovations, knowing that the dark shadows of climate change are fast approaching.

Buildings

Buildings use a lot of energy, so it's no surprise they're responsible for 30-40 percent of CO2 emissions. The challenge involves two tasks -- creating new buildings that are carbon neutral, and retrofitting all existing buildings to eliminate their carbon footprint.The first task is easier. In Germany, Passivhaus homes consume 95 percent less energy for heating and cooling by using super insulation, solar gain, and efficient heat recovery.

There are 6,000 homes in Europe built to Passivhaus specifications. Building codes should require that all new houses are built to this standard.There is no shortage of innovation. In Guangzhou, China, the 69-story high Pearl River Tower will generate more energy than it consumes, using wind turbines inside two floors of the building, solar photovoltaics (PV), and solar heated water.

In Målmo, Sweden, the Turning Torso tower, in addition to being powered by local wind and solar energy, recycles organic wastes into biogas that can be used for cooking and to power the city's buses. In the Chinese city of Rizhao, 99 percent of buildings in the city center use solar hot water. In Spain, all new buildings and renovations are required to get 30-70 percent of their hot water from solar panels.

The Architecture 2030 initiative is pressing to have all new buildings and major renovations in the United States be 100 percent carbon neutral by 2030 -- a goal that has been unanimously approved by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Britain is moving faster -- it is requiring that new buildings all be carbon neutral by 2016. The U.S.-based LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standard for green buildings needs to move in the same direction. The challenge is much tougher for existing buildings.

Most building owners could achieve a 20 to 50 percent reduction in energy use by investing in new windows, super-insulation, heat-recovery systems, and efficient appliances and boilers. Solar PV and solar hot water can be added, and carbon-neutral heat can be obtained from heat exchange with the air, earth, water, and sewage. There are furnaces that burn biofuels, and Sweden's district heating systems circulate hot water for 50 miles without significant heat loss. Super-insulation, combined with shade trees and white-painted roofs, can also reduce air conditioning load.

To encourage rapid renovation, we need tax credits, self-financing mechanisms, and rules like the Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance, which requires owners in San Francisco and Berkeley to upgrade a building before it's sold. Germany is paying for a complete retrofit of all older apartment buildings. London has launched a Green Homes Concierge Service to help home-owners upgrade. Since 1993, the small Austrian town of Güssing (population 4,000) has reduced its CO2 emissions by an incredible 93 percent, by switching, among other things, to biofuel district heat for its buildings. It's just a matter of vision and determination.

Electricity

Our story of energy begins when humans discovered the secret of fire. We burned wood and brush to protect ourselves from predators, cook food, and, later, to survive the ice age. In 12th-century Europe, with the forests fast disappearing, we started burning the strange black stones we called coal. Later, we used coal to produce steam, launching the Industrial Revolution. It is astonishing how far we have come. To anyone from the 18th century, our world today would be unbelievable.

We burned the black stones, and their fossilized relations, oil and gas, and for those who have had abundant access to these resources, it has been good. But today the over-use of these fossil fuels is threatening life on Earth.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: climate change, global warming, renewable energy, clean energy

Guy Dauncey wrote this article as part of Stop Global Warming Cold, the Spring 2008 issue of YES! Magazine, on Solutions to Climate Change. Guy is a speaker, organizer, consultant, and author with Patrick Mazza of Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, New Society Publishers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What A Goofball!
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Apr 28, 2008 7:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Author Guy Dauncey begins the essay with a call for a world "in which all beings -- not just humans -- will flourish and find fulfillment, within the harmony and limits that Nature provides." He then immediately goes on to lavish praise on the human race, excusing it from the massive ecological destruction it has caused over the past ten millennia or so, at the expense of all of the beings for whom he'd just wished a flourishing, fulfilling life.

Well, Mr. Dauncey, the problem is that in this universe, one cannot have one's cake and eat it, too. While certain sources of artificial energy, such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas, are more destructive than others like solar or wind power, they all cause significant environmental harm. I agree that we should switch from more harmful sources to less harmful ones ASAP, but humans also need to greatly lower both their consumption of electricity and their population. All else is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What A Goofball! Posted by: Squarehead
Guy Dauncey and Jeff Hoffman are wrong about nuclear
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 10:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear is now the safest power available. COAL
is the killer.
A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D
for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American
reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way
overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to
Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing
like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet
built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't
believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies.
Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book.
Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because
of coal industry pressure.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear
power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meltdowns no longer possible
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 10:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two types of 21st century reactors that cannot melt down no matter how
badly they are treated. Safety is guaranteed by laws of physics.
In the pebble bed reactors, stopping coolant flow removes the space between
fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be filled with moving water.
The water is the moderator to slow down the neutrons so that the reaction can take
place. No coolant flow, no reaction. These pebble bed reactors will never
experience a meltdown. It just can't happen because of laws of nature. The US
has 2 pebble bed reactors.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature [refractory] materials that simply will not melt if coolant
flow ceases. The core is cooled from a higher temperature by heating the
containment building, which also does not melt. The containment building heats
its surroundings in the case of coolant flow loss. The helium cooled reactor uses
helium as the working fluid to turn a turbine. Helium gas is the ideal fluid to turn
a turbine because it can be made very pure so that the turbine blades will last a
very long time.
Safety is assured in all US built reactors by the containment building, which is a
pressure vessel and which, as in the case of the now obsolete 3 mile island reactor,
can and did contain the overheated core. There were ZERO casualties.

American reactors are now too safe. Nuclear power is overpriced because of the
excessive safety. 20,000 to 30,000 Americans die each year because of those
poisons I listed below that come out of coal fired power plants. It is C O A L fired
power plants that kill 20,000 to 30,000 Americans each year. Nuclear power
plants kill ZERO Americans each year. It is COAL burning that will make us go
extinct in about 100 years if we keep doing it.

The problem is that we OVERSHOT on safety design because of people who
protest nuclear power. American reactors are TOO safe. It is C O A L fired
power plants that give you 100 times as much radiation. Coal is almost pure
carbon, except for the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony,
Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities.
We could fuel our nuclear plants from the uranium and thorium in the smoke and
cinders from coal fired power plants. Coal cinders are an economically viable ore
for several of the listed impurities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do you do when the extraction of geothermal energy causes the volcano to erupt?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 10:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To get geothermal power, you drill into rock that presently plugs a
volcano or very deeply into some other place, crack the rock so
that water can flow between wells, and then you cool the cracked
rock with a fluid, probably water. Cooling the rock causes
contraction of the cooled rock since most things expand when
heated. The contraction causes further cracks. Water lubricates
rock and magma, allowing earthquakes to happen more easily and
making magma flow faster and "better."
The cracks and the wells are perfect places for magma to flow,
and you have drilled into a place that is close to molten rock.
You have just made the volcano erupt, even if there wasn't a
volcano there in the first place. The only question is: "How long
before these geothermal energy schemes start killing people and
other living things by creating volcanoes?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fear heart disease, cancer, stroke, cars & suicide; not nuclear power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 11:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Odds of Dying from X according to the 2003 National Safety council

1 heart disease 1 in 5
2 cancer 1 in 7
3 stroke 1 in 24
4 motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
5 suicide 1 in 119
6 falling 1 in 218
7 firearm assault 1 in 314
8 pedestrian accident 1 in 626
9 drowning 1 in 1008
10 motorcycle accident 1 in 1020
11 fire or smoke 1 in 1113
12 bicycle accident 1 in 4919
13 air/space accident 1 in 5051
14 accidental firearm 1 in 5134
15 accidental electrocution 1 in 9969
16 alcohol poisoning 1 in 10048
17 hot weather 1 in 13729
18 hornet, wasp or bee sting 1 in 56789
19 legal execution 1 in 62468
20 lightning 1 in 79746
21 earthquake 1 in 117127
22 flood 1 in 144156
23 fireworks 1 in 340733

Causes that are missing from the above:
nuclear power plant accident
medical mistake
meteor impact
cold weather
starvation
dehydration
smallpox
war
terrorist strike
boredom

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 11:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is
nothing similar about them except that they both need fissile
materials. But they need DIFFERENT fissile materials and they
use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile
material into a small space. There is no other material in the
volume containing the nuclear explosive. The fissile material is
either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If it is uranium, it is
at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238. There is
no isotope separation problem if the fissile material is plutonium.
These fissile materials are metals and very difficult to compress.
Because they are difficult to compress, a high explosive [high
speed explosive] is required to compress them. Pieces of the
fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the nuclear
reactions to take place.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power
generation, does not have any pure fissile material. The fuel may
be 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238. A mixture of 2%
uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be made to explode
no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed
in with the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot
be made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you
try. There has never been a nuclear explosion in a reactor and
there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium are flammable, but
a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is further diluted by being
divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The fuel is
further diluted by the need for coolant to flow around the capsules
and through the core so that heat can be transported to a place
where heat energy can be converted to electrical energy. A
reactor does not contain any high speed [or any other speed]
chemical explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not
have any explosive materials at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no
possible way that a reactor could ever explode like a nuclear
bomb. Reactors and bombs are very different. Reactors and
bombs are really not even related to each other.
Reccomendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it just got
safer. Convert all coal-fired power plants to nuclear ASAP. See
the December 2005 issue of Scientific American article on a new
type of nuclear reactor that consumes the nuclear "waste" as fuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The dangers of wind turbines
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power installations
How Close is Too Close?
downloaded from
http://www.alternet.org/
environment/54682/?page=5
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons atop a
265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a significant
hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic within a radius
equal to the height of the structure (400 ft) and beyond. In
Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the brakes on a wind
turbine failed and the blades spun out of control. A blade struck
the tower and the entire nacelle flew off the tower. The blades and
other parts landed as far as 1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of
the tower (Note that all turbines discussed in this article are
"upwind," three-bladed, industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind"
turbines have not been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this
turbine was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This distance
is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from turbines with
100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute (1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If interested,
just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's plenty of sites to
choose from to learn about the dangers. The noise alone is
inescapable - like water torture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Renewable energy could 'rape' nature
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 11:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
11:10 25 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
http://environment.newscientist.com/
article/dn12346-renewable-
energy-could-rape-nature.html

http://www.newscientist.com/
blog/environment/2007/07/
renewable-energy-bad-
nuclear-power-good.html

Phil McKenna
Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape
of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead.
http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?
action=record&rec_id=14671&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or
So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change
researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and
others' research.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/
mg18925361.500-interview-be-green-think-big.html
Ausubel (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) says the key
renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass,
would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large
scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far
better left alone, he says.
Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller
University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are
quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large
scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If
we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is
increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear
power."
'Massive infrastructure'
Ausubel draws his conclusions by analysing the amount of energy
renewables, natural gas, and nuclear can produce in terms of
power per square metre of land used. Moreover, he claims that as
renewable energy use increases, this measure of efficiency will
decrease as the best land for wind, biomass, and solar power gets
used up.
Using biofuels to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000
megawatt nuclear power plant would require 2500 square
kilometres of prime Midwestern farm land, Ausubel says. "We
should be sparing land for nature, not using it as pasture for cars
and trucks," he adds.
Solar power is much more efficient than biofuel in terms of the
area of land used, but it would still require 150 square kilometres
of photovoltaic cells to match the energy production of the 1000
MW nuclear plant. In another example, he says meeting the 2005
US electricity demand via wind power alone would need 780,000
square kilometres, an area the size of Texas.
Part of the land used in Ausubel's calculations is for storage and
transportation: "Any renewable energy supply needs a massive
infrastructure, including steel, metal, pipes, cables, concrete, and
access roads."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear fuel should be recycled
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 11:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

Nobody is paying me to post this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind energy has lots of brownouts
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 11:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy requires that Direct Current [DC] be transmitted
over enormous areas [more than one continent] to provide
continuous power because wind varies from minute to minute.
Direct current is required because the voltage and frequency of
AC would change minute by minute with wind speed. Long
distance DC transmission requires superconducting cable. DC
just doesn't go far otherwise.
Reference:
http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/69888

Following the http://www.terrawatts.com lead, you arrive at the
statement that the "high temperature" superconductor will be
cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen or liquid helium is the Achilles heal
of this scheme. It isn't really a "room" temperature
superconductor. Any accidental warming brings the grid to a
halt. Energy is required to make liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen
must be cooled to 77 degrees Kelvin to make it a liquid. [Zero
degrees Kelvin is absolute zero, -273.15 degrees Centigrade.]
Liquid helium is at 4 degrees Kelvin or colder. Superconduction
usually means a requirement for liquid helium. Liquid Helium is
very expensive. The cable has to be thermally insulated and
cooled its entire length. The cable also must be physically
separated into "out" and "return" wires, and the force between the
2 wires will be large. As stated in the article I gave you the URL
of, it won't be cheap.

Any warming above the superconducting temperature or too much
magnetic field will cause the cable to quit superconducting at that
point. The cable will instantly melt, creating an electric arc. All
of the energy that was flowing through that spot will instead be
dumped there, creating an explosion. The power grid will be
disabled for some time since repairing a superconducting cable is
not as easy as splicing a wire. Is this the kind of electric service
you really want? We really don't have the technology yet.

What about storing wind energy as compressed air? Check the
efficiency, the availability of leak proof caverns, etc. Storing
wind energy as compressed air is a pie in the sky. What about
storing wind energy in batteries? We can't make that many
batteries. Another pie in the sky.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors. There are special locations and circumstances
where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot replace coal and
nuclear any time soon. Nuclear power is the only kind that can
actually take coal fired power plants off line. If allowed to
compete, nuclear power would already have replaced coal fired
power because nuclear is 30% cheaper and 24000 American lives
per year safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biofuels Could Kill More People Than the Iraq War
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 11:54 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted November 10, 2007.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/67478/

If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their
policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the
Iraq war.

It doesn't get madder than this. Swaziland is in the grip of a
famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its
people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the
government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its
staple crops, cassava. The government has allocated several
thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the county
of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought.
It would surely be quicker and more humane to refine the Swazi
people and put them in our tanks. Doubtless a team of
development consultants is already doing the sums.

This is one of many examples of a trade described last month by
Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur, as "a crime against
humanity." Ziegler took up the call first made by this column for a
five-year moratorium on all government targets and incentives for
biofuel: the trade should be frozen until second-generation fuels --
made from wood or straw or waste -- become commercially
available. Otherwise the superior purchasing power of drivers in
the rich world means that they will snatch food from people's
mouths. Run your car on virgin biofuel and other people will
starve.

Even the International Monetary Fund, always ready to immolate
the poor on the altar of business, now warns that using food to
produce biofuels "might further strain already tight supplies of
arable land and water all over the world, thereby pushing food
prices up even further." This week the UN Food and Agriculture
Organisation will announce the lowest global food reserves in 25
years, threatening what it calls "a very serious crisis." Even when
the price of food was low, 850 million people went hungry
because they could not afford to buy it. With every increment in
the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below
the breadline.

The cost of rice has risen by 20% over the past year, maize by
50%, wheat by 100%. Biofuels aren't entirely to blame -- by
taking land out of food production they exacerbate the effects of
bad harvests and rising demand -- but almost all the major
agencies are now warning against expansion. And almost all the
major governments are ignoring them.

They turn away because biofuels offer a means of avoiding hard
political choices. They create the impression that governments can
cut carbon emissions and -- as Ruth Kelly, the British transport
secretary, announced last week -- keep expanding the transport
networks. New figures show that British drivers puttered past the
500 billion kilometer mark for the first time last year. But it
doesn't matter: we just have to change the fuel we use. No one has
to be confronted. The demands of the motoring lobby and the
business groups clamouring for new infrastructure can be met.
The people being pushed off their land remain unheard.

The article continues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cost of solar power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 29, 2008 12:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://science-community.sciam.com/
blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/
Cost-Solar-Power/300005422

The Cost of Solar Power   From Dan M.'s Blog  
by Dan M.
"One source that seems good is solarbuzz.com(1)(2). From the
name, it sounds like a pro solar energy source, but the data seem
to be realistic.
From the first referenced page at this site, we see that residential
costs have dropped 6% to 37.59 cents/kwH, while
commercial/wholesale costs have dropped 0.6% between July
2000 and November 2007 to 21.37 cents/kwH. "
"For comparison purposes, the wholesale price of electricity was
0.06 cents/kwH. "

Dividing the solar cost by the wholesale grid price, we see that
solar power costs 356.2 to 626.5 times as much as electricity from
the wholesale grid. That is during the daytime. At night, the
cost of solar power is much higher because you have to add the
cost of energy storage, the cost of converting the energy to store
it, the cost of converting the energy back, and all of the
inefficiencies. You would be lucky to get 5% efficiency overall
for stored energy, so multiply by at least 20 purely because of
inefficiency. Double or multiply by some larger number the
capital cost to cover the cost of storage. Solar power is
unaffordable at night.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» STOP SPAMMING! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The cost of solar power Posted by: Squarehead
well
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 29, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only real solution to ecological collapse is the dismantling of industrialized society.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to radically lower the human population...
Posted by: jimidee on Apr 30, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or like yeast in sugar water, we will die in our own excrement. Unless we attack the real cause for the basis of nearly every problem we have-OVERPOPULATION-we are doomed. All of these 'end of pipe" solutions will at best offer a short stay of this sentence we have imposed on ourselves. Doom and gloom? You bet, but it is reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]