tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-282557502024-03-07T05:34:07.360+00:00Climate Change PoliticsAn outlet for personal opinion pieces related to the <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics/"> Climate Change Politics</a> discussion group on Yahoo and my personal <a href="http://www.co2emissions.org.uk/index.php">campaign website</a>.Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-76125424841587955192012-02-15T22:39:00.000+00:002012-02-15T22:39:57.135+00:00Gaia Shivering reduxfive years ago I wrote <a href="http://climatechangepolitics.blogspot.com/2006/06/gaia-shivers-with-fever.html">this</a>
Today I read that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McGuire_(volcanologist)">Bill McGuire</a> has a new book out entitled <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/scienceandnature/9780199592265/waking-the-giant-how-a-changing-climate-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-and-volcanoes">Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and Volcanoes</a>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-57905155622458564672011-08-20T10:19:00.000+00:002011-08-20T10:19:58.885+00:00Rebalancing Taxes - Eliminating The Carbon Externality<p>What I term "The Carbon Externality" is that cost being borne by current and future society as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, being produced over the past century or so at a rate that exceeds the capacity of the planet to absorb them without perceptible harm. Externality is an accounting/economics term for any cost that is borne by an external party, and therefore not part of the internal cost analysis. It is the fundamental flaw in Friedman economics and why those calling for small government are missing the point.</p>
<p>Government exists to account for and address externalities. Effective regulation of the market reduces or eliminates externalities so that the costs of doing business are increasingly borne by those who benefit from the business, in the form of reduced profits and higher end-user costs. Taxes are the principle mechanism for this. The existence of a well-educated and healthy workforce is paid for by both employers and the employed through their taxes, which fund health care and education. The same argument can be made for everything else that governments do - national security, policing and justice, the welfare state, transport infrastructure are all paid for through taxes because they provide benefits to people and businesses that they would not otherwise pay for.</p>
<p>So how do we address the Carbon Externality? I am not a fan of piecemeal tinkering at the edges, and ill-aimed taxes that encourage or discourage the wrong things. The fairest taxes are those that impose a flat rate that increases progressively with the rate of accrued benefit.</p>
<p>A recent report, as noted in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/18/raise-vat-energy-ministers">The Guardian</a> suggested that:</p>
<blockquote>if all taxes on petrol are taken into account, the implicit carbon tax is £220 per tonne of carbon</blockquote>
<p>I don't agree with the report's solution to use the VAT mechanism, but it is worth considering adopting the idea to put a carbon tax on all fossil fuels at source, coupled to an abolition of other taxes on them (including both fuel duty and VAT) and the one remaining direct subsidy (the <a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/otmanual/ot21405.htm">deep field allowance</a>). The tax should be designed to be revenue-neutral, but with a built in escalator to predictably ramp up the floor price of carbon so that businesses can plan for a carbon-free future.</p>
<p>The impact on petrol and diesel will be to lower the price, initially, which should make the move popular and give a boost to industries struggling under these volatile and rising costs. The continuing price disruption caused by peak oil supply will soon eradicate that incentive to keep driving ourselves to death, and other incentives can be introduced or extended to push forward the electrification of the vehicle fleet.</p>
<p>The costs will show up in gas and electricity bills, and we will need to make them more progressive - at the moment the higher rate per unit is paid for the first few units, with additional units charged at a lower rate. I suggest (not my idea) that we require the utilities to reverse this pricing structure for domestic users, providing the first few units at a lower than cost price, subsidised by higher prices for heavy usage. This will protect the energy-poor and incentivise the wasteful and profligate users to find ways to use less, including early adoption of the Green Deal.</p>
<p>For energy intensive industrial users, they have the scale and security of demand needed to be early adopters of renewable technology. A big rise to their utility bills, balanced by a drop in their transport bills, will give them a strong nudge towards seeking their own renewable supply. There are those that argue that any more energy costs on these intensive industries will drive them out of business at precisely the time we want to be supporting manufacturing. I agree that such industries are vulnerable, so I would suggest additional measures to assist with financing the innovation and investment needed to convert them to zero-carbon energy sources.</p>
<p>It should be noted that as a tax on pollution it is intended that the carbon tax eliminate the thing it is taxing, so revenue will fall over time if it successful, even as the rate at which fossil fuels are taxed rises. Therefore the escalator should be structured so that the tax rate rises in line with anticipated or budgeted emissions reduction under the climate change act, keeping the overall level of revenue static, or falling slowly and predictably.</p>
<p>Finally there is the issue of embodied carbon - imported goods manufactured in places with no mechanism to eliminate the carbon externality. It is <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/climate_jun10_e/background_paper2_e.pdf">not yet clear</a> if it is permitted under WTO rules to vary tarrifs on imported goods <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/56-dtenv_e.htm">for reasons of environmental protection</a>. However, both the US and EU are considering such, and if coupled to an effective carbon tax, a clear price mechanism would permeate every buying decision we make, driving down emissions and cleaning up the global energy supply.</p>
Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-20015327138189315912011-08-07T22:21:00.001+00:002011-08-07T22:23:24.791+00:00How the market will decide our energy future<p>Recently articles from both the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3rejyg5">TUC</a> and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3jtvgor">CBI</a> have bemoaned the burden of increasing energy costs on energy intensive businesses. Both organisations make the rather obvious error in thinking that a carbon price will inevitably drive the cost of energy upwards. In fact, the opposite is true. The stronger the price signal, the faster the market works to balance supply with demand.</p>
<p>The supply of fossil fuels is finite. Conventional oil has already peaked its supply (as admitted by the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6k8a3w">chief economist of the IEA</a>) and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/42a4lsg">tar sands</a> and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3txdkaa">fracking</a> are far too damaging to the environment to continue as more and more countries consider bans. Fossil fuel extraction, meanwhile, is being attacked from every side, with the UK <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3pcj4xq">banning new coal power without CCS</a> and a rising tide of civil disobedience in the US following <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3ksh62p">Tim De Christopher's brilliant example</a>.</p>
<p>What's left is Nuclear and renewables. Nuclear has been scheduled for phase out by Japan and Germany, while France, the UK, US, India and China all push towards expansion. Everyone, however, is investing heavily in renewable energy. The US now has <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3dvw36t">more renewable generating capacity than it does nuclear</a>.</p>
<p>"According to Clean Edge research, the global market for solar photovoltaics has expanded from just 1.7 billion euros in 2000 to 49.5 billion euros in 2010. Biofuels and wind power are following a similar trend. They project these three technologies will grow to 243.2 billion euros in the next decade."<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/3bfeucw">source</a></p>
<p>The consequence? The costs of renewable energy are tumbling. Expert analysts are predicting that renewable energy will be <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3vgo6v6">cheaper than coal by 2015</a></p>
<p>"fossil fuels are subsidised to the tune of more than $300bn per annum (according to the International Energy Agency), and that doesn't even include the cost of security - which we pay through our taxes, not at the pump - or the health costs from particulates and other forms of pollution -- which we pay through our health bills."<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/452mohb">source</a></p>
<p>All this price signal is having results - individual investments are getting <a href="http://tinyurl.com/447cmvy">bigger and more ambitous</a>. There is no longer any need to protect businesses from high energy prices, because it is rising fossil fuel prices, happening without any help from governments, combined with falling renewable energy prices, that is prompting people to make sound business decisions.</p>
<p>But the government does have a role to play. The stronger the price signal, the faster the market turns, and the faster it turns, the sooner businesses start to benefit from the long term stability and economic certainty of permanently low energy prices.</p>
<p>Technology is driven faster as well. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3fg92y7">Engines, turbines and batteries that don't need rare earth metals</a>, making them significantly cheaper to mass-produce, are on the horizon. Electric cars can be used to balance out supply and demand over <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3ebqqav">smart grids</a> and even <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3h7u3px">store the power generated by your rooftop power station</a>. Innovation is going so fast in these areas it's hard to keep up, and every advance points to cheaper energy generation, and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3vtbwwv">more convenient forms of storage</a>.</p>
<p>The UN has predicted that it will be technically and economically feasible for <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3ltvgf2">the entire world to be run on renewables by 2030</a> as well as being extremely desirable to avoid the twin threats of climate change and peak oil.</p>
<p>So bring on the carbon pricing - Push the market as hard as you can, Mr Huhne. We need it.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-71379861328563050102010-05-12T15:43:00.002+00:002010-05-12T16:01:13.985+00:00Progress on Climate Manifesto<p>Five years ago I laid out <a href="http://www.co2emissions.org.uk/index.php?pt=1&dn=0">a series of measures</a> that I felt it was necessary to implement to achieve a rapid energy descent. It's time to review current proposals by the UK Government against those measures.</p>
<h3>Target One</h3>
<p>New fossil-fuel power stations to be banned by 2010 unless they have negligible CO2 emissions. Existing stations to be retro-fitted with sequestration systems by 2015, unless they are due to close by 2025 (said closure to be mandatory at that date).</p>
<p><a href="http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Conservative_Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreements&pPK=2697bcdc-7483-47a7-a517-7778979458ff">The coalition agreement</a> contains the following:</p>
<p>"The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard."</p>
<p>"Continuation of the present Government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months."</p>
<h3>Target Two</h3>
<p>No new road vehicles to be licensed after 2012 (private) and 2015 (commercial) unless they have negligible CO2 emissions. No old road vehicles to be licensed after 2020 (private) and 2025 (commercial) unless they have negligible CO2 emissions.</p>
<p><a href="http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Conservative_Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreements&pPK=2697bcdc-7483-47a7-a517-7778979458ff">The coalition agreement</a> contains the following:</p>
<p>"Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles."</p>
<p>This comes on top of the existing framework of <a href="http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/diol1/doitonline/dg_10015994">tax incentives</a> for low-emission cars and a general move towards <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/midlands-car-industry-in-line-for-low-carbon-funding-boost-1897115.html">stimulating innovation and manufacturing</a> in the area. It does appear to be all about the carrot and very little stick, at the moment, thanks to a militant motoring lobby.</p>
<h3>Target Three</h3>
<p>A policy to move towards smaller, localised schools, hospitals and industries, exchanging economies of scale for the reduction in energy costs of the journeys that large central organisations require.</p>
<p>While it has stumbled, and is far too heavily concentrated on new development instead of fixing existing developments, the <a href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/corporate/ecozerohomes">Eco-towns</a> initiative adopts these principles, and the rhetoric generally has shifted away from centralised service provision.</p>
<p><a href="http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Conservative_Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreements&pPK=2697bcdc-7483-47a7-a517-7778979458ff">The coalition agreement</a> contains the following:</p>
<p>"The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance."</p>
<h3>Target Four</h3>
<p>Home Improvement grants to be provided (funded by the carbon tax below) for the installation of all forms of renewable energy capture/generation in domestic properties and commercial or civic buildings. Building regulations to be changed so that all new buildings must be significantly more energy efficient and derive at least 50% of their energy needs from on-site energy capture/generation.</p>
<p>Several improvements have been made over the past few years to building regulations to improve new house emissions <a href="http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Resources/Energy-saving-news/Moving-home-and-energy-efficiency/Green-building-standards-unveiled-in-Scotland">in Scotland</a> and <a href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/corporate/ecozerohomes">the UK as a whole</a></p>
<p><a href="http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Conservative_Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreements&pPK=2697bcdc-7483-47a7-a517-7778979458ff">The coalition agreement</a> contains the following:</p>
<p>"The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters."</p>
<p>"The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs."</p>
<p>"The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills."</p>
<p>"Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs."</p>
<h3>Target Five</h3>
<p>Carbon tax to be introduced at a very low level - £1 per tonne carbon in 2010 - with a built in geometric escalation. The level should increase by 25% per year for 20 years so that by 2030 it will be £86.70/tonne. The predictability of this escalation will give planners time and reason to adapt to the economic regime.</p>
<p><a href="http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Conservative_Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreements&pPK=2697bcdc-7483-47a7-a517-7778979458ff">The coalition agreement</a> contains the following:</p>
<p>"The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits."</p>
<h3>Progress</h3>
<p>Overall I would say we are about half-way there in terms of the rhetoric, and 25% of the way in terms of the actual concrete initiatives.</p>
<p>Of course, I am not claiming any credit - as far as I can tell the manifesto has been read by about fifty people and circulated to no-one!</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-62913242445692830312009-06-20T22:44:00.003+00:002009-06-25T06:09:18.537+00:00Cascade Democracy<p>Two years ago I posted <a href="http://climatechangepolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-democracy-fails.html">an idea</a> that had been percolating in my head for a while.</p>
<p>With the recent <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/">expenses debacle</a>, this idea is even more worthy of further examination.</p>
<p>The idea, in summary, is to make each level of government the electorate of the next level, with candidates drawn solely from that electorate. For example, the local council is made up of 100* people from the area, each of whom stood for election to represent the 100 households that included their own. This council elect one of those 100 people to represent them to their regional assembly, which is a collection of 100 local councils. The regional assembly elect one of their number for the national government, and so on.</p>
<p>The point of this system is that every candidate can have a personal interaction and understanding with every member of their electorate. What is more, every representative at the higher levels retains their role(s) as representative at the lower levels, so a member of the national parliament would simultaneously have to perform their duties at regional and local level. What is more, any of those three constituencies would have the right to recall the representative, having the effect of denying them the right to remain in any higher post.</p>
<p>For example, let's say that Joe Bloggs of 47 Acacia Avenue, Newtown, Southshire, England stands for election to represent N<sup>os</sup>1-100 Acacia Avenue. He wins because he is well respected and his neighbours appreciate his honesty and intelligence.</p>
<p>After a few years serving on the Newtown Council there is an election for a representative to serve Newtown at the Southshire Assembly. He is nominated and gets elected because the 78 other Councillors in Newtown have grown to respect his integrity and clear debating style.</p>
<p>Things carry on for a few more years, and Joe serves on both the Assembly and Council. He regularly talks to his neighbours and the other Councillors, and always takes their views into account when he votes. He has even taken advantage of an online straw-poll system to let his constituents know what votes are coming up soon, and how he intends to vote and why. Whenever the poll goes against his advice, he scrupulously follows the mandate, despite his personal feelings. One or two of his fellows failed to do this, and they were rapidly recalled.</p>
<p>Then the long-serving MP for Southshire retires, having been told by the Assembly to support a windfarm subsidy and deciding that he could not. The 35 Assemblymen decide to send Joe to Parliament, considering him their best candidate. Joe now spends three days a week in London, One at the Assembly building in Southshireham, and one back in Newtown covering Council business. His remaining time is spent talking to constituents and spending time with his family.</p>
<p>Joe is a Councillor, Assemblyman and MP all at the same time. He cannot forget any of his constituencies, because they can recall him at any time. If he moves house away from Acacia Avenue, he will immediately lose his eligibility for the seat. If his conscience forces him to vote against the wishes of any one of his electorates, he can be recalled and replaced in under a week.</p>
<p>This is pure personality politics. It is not a person's party affiliation or policies that get them elected, it is their ability to carry out the wishes of the people they represent. There is no need for a party machine, because the electorate is never larger than a few hundred people, and every individual in the electorate can communicate directly with the candidate if they wish, and he has time to reply and the personal relationship with them to make the reply meaningful.</p>
<p>Now some might say that the Assemblyman for Newtown is only answerable to the 78 Councillors and 200-odd residents of Acacia Avenue, which leaves the other 150,000 voters of Newtown out in the cold. This is far from the truth. Each Councillor will advise their constituents how they plan to vote for the next Assemblyman, and offer them reasons. They are at liberty to mandate him to vote differently. In effect, although only 78 votes will be cast, every resident of Newtown will have had their say.</p>
<p>Because constituency sizes are always very similar, each of the 78 votes will, in effect, be a block vote. However there will be some variation when, say, a student area with an average of four adults per household elects one Councillor and a block of Council flats with an average of one adult per household does. This could be overcome by varying the wards by occupancy rates, but I feel this is unnecessary. Council tax is currently levied per household, and many local services are on a per household basis. Moreover, occupancy rates are seldom equally high or equally low across large groups of households, so the problem will be relatively infrequent.</p>
<p>The title of this blog post is <b>Cascade Democracy</b> because I feel this system allows greater democratic accountability by cascading voting onto each level. It will create a greater involvement and a greater sense of responsibility among voters, as well as changing the relationship of politicians to their constituents fundamentally for the good.</p>
<h4>Addendum</h4>
<p>As always, I really should search Google before I imply any idea I have is original. In this case, I even managed to coin the same term used elsewhere!</p>
<ul>Cascade Democracy on the Web
<li><a href="http://www.devolve.org/MixedDem.htm">Exploring Democracy</a> defines my concept as Cascade Democracy with Delegates.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods@lists.electorama.com/msg02086.html">Michael Allan</a> Discussing the mathematics of cascades.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>* As before, 100 is for illustration purposes. It might be seen as the upper limit, with smaller numbers used according to geographic convenience. I think the 100 household number should be fairly fixed, however, with deviations of no more than 10 houses allowed.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-69397461007454251222009-04-18T07:44:00.003+00:002009-04-18T19:11:17.007+00:00Electric Dreams<p><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics/message/9366">Recent activity</a> in the electric car market has given rise to hopes that the eventual dream of a fossil-fuel-free transport system might one day be realised.</p>
<ol>There are still, however, two major hurdles to overcome:
<li>Range - 50 miles per charge is poor, and as batteries age this will only shrink</li>
<li>Refuelling - Even if refuelling stations can fully charge a battery safely in <a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5685">about 10 minutes</a>, the technology required for fast-charging is more complex than slow charging, and is, in any event, dependant on the battery technology in use. Also, for most people it is not practical to charge their vehicles at home or work, leaving cables lying around.</li></ol>
<p>Here is a concept that will not only resolve these two issues, but make the transition to electric cars entirely viable.</p>
<h3>User-portable Battery Packs</h3>
<p>The car industry needs to adopt a standard for electric cars so that they all contain sets of identically sized battery packs, light enough, or well enough designed, to be removable from the vehicle and taken indoors for charging.</p>
<p>Imagine, as an initial design concept, a car with say 50KWh of battery capacity, which is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery">enough for around 200 miles</a>. 10KWh of this in in a single reserve pack, slung under the car roughly where current designs put the fuel tank, protected by a steel plate or similar from road debris, and replaceable quickly and easily at a garage. The remaining 40KWh is in 8 5KWh battery packs mounted under the bonnet in an array capable of controlled installation and release.</p>
<p>A new li-ion car battery can achieve around 125Wh/Kg, so a 5KWh battery would weigh in at around 40Kg, giving a total battery weight in the car of 400Kg. For comparison, a 4-cylinder engine, plus gearbox, plus 50litre fuel tank can easily exceed 400Kg, and in the US the total weight of an average vehicle is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/business/05weight.html">in excess of 2000KG</a>.</p>
<p>Now, it isn't practical to ask all car drivers to lift a 40Kg weight out of a car and onto some trolley or platform, although most fairly fit men could manage it. Instead, there needs to be a system where the battery can be slid out of the space on rollers, onto some sort of variable-height trolley platform, something like an ambulance gurney. With enough design thought, the battery could be shifted without any lifting onto a small two-wheeled hand-trolley.</p>
<p>Once you have the battery on a trolley, it can be delivered to a private recharging point in the home or office, taking multiple trips if required. Owners can lease extra batteries so thay can have some on charge and some in the vehicle at all times. But the massive advantage of this system is not at home, but at service stations.</p>
<p>Being able to swap out a flat battery for a fully charged one makes 'refuelling' possible anywhere. Service stations can install charging units that take the flat batteries into a locked-off sorting and storage area and deliver replacements in seconds. The flat ones get recharged until needed by another customer, and the range of the vehicle becomes, effectively, unlimited</p>
<p>The benefits continue: Leasing batteries and replacing them at self-serve service stations means that their age is no longer an issue. When they get old they can be taken out of circulation and recycled. Furthermore it offers future-proofing. As new battery technology becomes available, it can simply be rolled out to the service stations, slowly increasing the power storage capacity of the vehicle and its range. What other car technology could offer the possibility of improving performance over time? The service stations can also serve (more practically than private homes) as buffer systems for the electricity network, absorbing changes to a supply increasingly dominated by renewables.<p>
<p>The concept requires certain standards. Every battery pack needs to be the same size and shape, with the same connectors, handles etc. These cannot be changed after the system gains momentum, so they have to be very well designed. If different versions restrict configurations, such that every pack in a car (including the reserve, perhaps) has to be of the same version, then this will lead to unnecessary complications, so the in-car technology must be able to cope with batteries of different types, performances and capacities.</p>
<p>Overall I think the concept needs to be studied very carefully by the car companies, and adopted across the industry to help accelerate the switch from liquid fuels to electric. The continued importance of service stations for refuelling and the relatively cheap technology required for storing and slow-charging leased batteries will remove the opposition of the station owners (the oil companies) to the loss of revenue that the switch represents, and the removal of the twin challenges of range and refuelling will accelerate the take-up of electric cars</p>
<h3>Postscript</h3>
<p>A company called <a href="http://www.betterplace.com/our-bold-plan/how-it-works/battery-exchange-stations">Better Place</a> are proposing something similar, although in their case they appear to want to automate everything and work with multiple sizes and makes of battery, replacing the whole thing rather than standard units. They have a MOU with Renault Nissan, so already have the first element of support they will need. I think they need to consider making the standard criteria 'man-portable' to allow people to charge the batteries away from the street.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-31197809187922433802009-04-08T20:33:00.003+00:002009-04-08T20:43:49.249+00:00Ecotec Methods for Methane Transmission<p>In a previous entry on the <a href="http://climatechangepolitics.blogspot.com/2009/02/future-of-energy-transmission.html">future of energy transmission</a>, I claimed that the best way to maximise the efficiency of renewable energy was to convert it to methane, allowing it to be stored and moved around far more easily, and providing a direct source of non-fossil hydrocarbons for all our needs.</p>
<p>Well, today I learned it has come a step closer, with the news of a discovery of a bacterium that can turn electricity into methane.</p>
<blockquote>The new method relies on a microorganism studied by Bruce Logan's team at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. When living on the cathode of an electrolytic cell, the organism can take in electrons and use their energy to convert carbon dioxide into methane.</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16902-bacterium-eats-electricity-farts-biogas.html">New Scientist, 6/4/09</a></p>
<p>As for the efficiency:</p>
<blockquote>Of the energy put into the system as electricity, 80% was eventually recovered when the methane was burned – a fairly high efficiency.</blockquote>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-79964797677804132222009-02-22T20:03:00.004+00:002009-02-22T20:16:23.752+00:00Those floating Oases Again<p>Back in <a href="http://climatechangepolitics.blogspot.com/2006/08/floating-oases-of-sinking-carbon.html">August 2006</a> I floated an idea which (so far as I knew) was original, although as it seemed obvious to me, I assumed it had been thought of already. Certainly between March and August of that year, I discussed it freely on the Climate Chage newsgroup (via Google's reader) and had some positive responses.</p>
<p>Tonight I watched an experiment to verify the potential of this idea - on the <a href="http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/web/ways-to-save-the-planet/episode-guide/?page=2">Discovery channel</a>. I'm glad to see others have come up with the idea independantly (or read it on the group and took it further as I encouraged them to do).</p>
<blockquote>Hungry Oceans<br />
Oceans cover 70 percent of our planet and are one of the most important carbon sinks we have, but the phytoplankton that convert carbon dioxide into living matter are declining – and many scientists believe that Climate Change is the culprit. Dr. Brian von Herzen of The Climate Foundation join forces with Marine Biologists at the University of Hawaii and Oregon State University to deploy three wave powered pumps. They head into the huge swells of the North Pacific in an attempt to restore this critical natural mixing effect.</blockquote>
<ul>Further Reading:
<li><a href="http://www.climatefoundation.org/globepage">The Climate Foundation</a></li>
</ul>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-53739318651137714952009-02-14T09:59:00.006+00:002009-02-14T10:20:42.810+00:00The Future of Energy Transmission<h2>Using Methane to transmit energy</h2>
<p>I doubt that we will, in the long term, transmit electricity from wind turbines. It makes far more sense to use the electricity onsite to generate methane (or methanol for remote areas that need a tanker collection) and plug it in to the existing gas network. The technology for this is not yet cheaply available, but people are working on it.</p>
<ul>Methane generation blows all the objections of the doubters out of the water:
<li>It can be stored easily, so you never need to leave a turbine idle when it's not needed.</li>
<li>It can be shipped to every home and business in the UK with ease, and exported to generate revenue.</li>
<li>It can be used as a feedstock for heavier liquid fuels and plastics, eliminating the need for fossil fuels completely.</li>
<li>It can be burned, if necessary, in gas-fired power stations for baseload and high-demand electricity use.</li>
<li>Since it is made, in this instance, from water and CO2, there is no net cost to the environment*.</li>
<li>You can use all types of renewable energy, including microgeneration, to power the same distribution network with zero load balancing issues.</li>
<li>You can provide every home and business with its own methane-powered generator, making electricity transmission a thing of the past.</li>
</ul>
<p>*beyond the hardware and inevitable but hopefully minimised leaks</p>
<h4>Imagine replacing every eyesore pylon with a turbine?</h4>
<hr>
<h2>Methods of Generating Methane or Methanol</h2>
<p>Bearing in mind that <span style="font-weight:bold;">free methane</span> is an <span style="font-style:italic;">extremely bad idea</span> I thought I would raise a few ideas about how to go about generating methane on demand using just (sea) water, air and ambient energy (which may or may not be turned into electricity) such as wind, waves, tides and sunlight.</p>
<p>The first method is an engineered organism, derived from methanogens.</p>
<p><i>There is a kind of autotrophy which is far less familiar. This kind is labelled chemoautotrophy because it relies on chemical processes rather than light for the energy needed for food production. Instead of dumping oxygen, these organisms dump other metabolic waste products. Methanogens, the ones with which we are most concerned, dump methane. Although numerous organic molecules, including acetate, formate, and methyl alcohol, can be used as the source of carbon, the simplest methanogenesis reaction employs carbon dioxide and hydrogen:</i></p>
<table align="center"><tr>
<td align="center">CO¸2</td><td align="center">+</td><td align="center">4H¸2</td><td align="center">Æ</td><td align="center">CH¸4</td><td align="center">+</td><td align="center">2H¸2O</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(carbon dioxide)</td><td align="center">+</td><td align="center">(hydrogen)</td><td align="center">(yields)</td><td align="center">(methane)</td><td align="center">+</td><td align="center">(water)</td>
</tr></table>
<p><a href="http://www.killerinourmidst.com/methane%20and%20MHs1.html">Source</a></p>
<p>So, generate a hydrogen-rich atmosphere in a reaction chamber filled with these organisms using hydrolosis, syphon off the methane waste product, recycle the water into the hydrolysis section, and you have a methane-generator that also oxygenates the surrounding seawater. As they grow, they will need a nutrient stream, but if they are able to feed off their own dead, that could be self-contained. Otherwise, they may need an effluent stream, such as sewage, to live off, the remnants of which might prove effective fertiliser for the oxygen-rich waters.</p>
<p>Alternatively, the technologies developed for coal gasification may offer a more mechanical way to achieve the goal, given a way to concentrate the CO2 and reduce it to CO (perhaps using focused beam solar)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7467660.html">Source</a></p>
<p>The most active organisation in this area is, however, <a href="http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/96/sbir/phase1/SBIR-96-1-16.11-0890.html">Nasa</a> who are looking at ways to generate methanol from CO2 in the Martian atmosphere. They do say in the linked article, talking about potential commercial applications:</p>
<p><i>Current methods of methanol production yield about 27 million metric tons worldwide per year, with the principal feedstocks being natural gas, coal, and wood. All of these have other applications. In contrast, a MMISPP based methanol factory could use renewable energy sources to combine the CO2emissions from existing industrial plants (such as steel mills) with water to produce methanol, thereby supplying the economy with large quantities of storable fuel, while reducing or eliminating steel mill CO2emissions.</i></p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-56531134325285040382009-02-08T23:41:00.001+00:002009-02-08T23:46:08.635+00:00Fight the enemy, not his weapons.<p>Our number one goal is to bring about change. Any campaign that scares off potential supporters and marginalises the remainder is counter-productive. We have to start thinking in the short terms and practical realities that politicians are forced to consider.</p>
<h4>1. Meat is Murder.</h4>
<p>We certainly have to look at reducing meat content in our diets, but calling for global veganism is too extreme and attacks the generality when it is the specifics that matter. We have to move away from intensive farming to a more labour-intensive organic system, and that means rearing animals in a natural way with a varied diet so they can fertilise the land they live on and bind up large volumes of carbon in the soils.</p>
<p>Often the best way of looking at the problem is to figure out why a particular activity leads to large emissions. With meat-eating, it's because the volumes we demand lead to factory farming. Do away with factory farming, then adjust your meat intake to match production in less intensive ways. Reducing population will allow significant meat content without harming the atmosphere.</p>
<p>One must also consider that, within the carbon cycle, biomass is just biomass, no matter what form it takes. Any animals that exist will produce methane and CO<sub>2</sub>, and even if they are part of a manmade/managed ecosystem, they are still a part of the natural cycle of carbon and do not add anything man-made. Those animals that are extracted from anything that might be called an ecosystem and reared artificially, however, are extraneous to the natural cycle, and their emissions should be eliminated.</p>
<h4>2. All Cars are Bad</h4>
<p>Again the target is wrong. We have to stop burning fossil fuels to make and power cars, and reuse/recycle every part they contain. A car is not inherently wrong. We just have to make their manufacture and use low- to zero-impact.</p>
<h4>3. Evil King Coal.</h4>
<p>Burning coal should be phased out as rapidly as possible - except in those rare instances where using coal has no significant impact on the environment. Coal can be used for a large number of things, just so long as none of its by-products from use are released into the atmosphere.</p>
<p>Take, for example, plastics and carbon nanotubes (and this holds true for all fossil fuels). They require long-chain hydrocarbons for efficient manufacture. They often incorporate molecular structures that would be poisonous if set free in the world. But plastics are frequently the most stable forms of carbon sequestration there is. When Oil peaks, it's not just the price of fuel that will sky-rocket (as it did last summer). The price of everything that uses oil as a feedstock will go through the roof too.</p>
<p>We might also consider a campaign against biodegradable plastics. Burying megatonnes of plastic deep in the ground where it will remain indefinitely is one way to sequester fossil carbon more or less permanently and avoid it turning to methane.</p>
<h4>4. Too Many Children.</h4>
<p>Population control happens anyway - there's no need to campaign for it. In any country where women are educated and have ready access to contraception, fertility rates fall - ultimately to below 2.1 per couple, which is the level for sustained population. Most of Europe, Japan and North America are already below this rate and worrying increasingly about demographics - with a falling number of workers supporting a rising number of pension-welfare dependants.</p>
<p>So climate campaigners can join the existing, highly positive campaign, and keep quiet about their reasons. Campaign vigorously for universal primary education for girls (as well as boys), and for family planning clinics throughout the third world. Oppose those who object to any form of effective contraception. Encourage healthcare for children so that their parents do not think they need any 'spare capacity'.</p>
<p>Above all, remember that the enemy is not lifestyles, over consumption and wealth. The enemy is the wanton burning of fossil fuels and the lack of support for sustainable alternatives, coupled with unsustainable population growth caused by ignorance and lack of access to condoms or the pill.</p>
<p>The goal is to live in harmony with the world, taking what it can give, and give again the following year without any danger of running out.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-92061761824777804112009-01-30T22:17:00.006+00:002009-02-06T19:17:28.706+00:00No Excuse<h2>Further to my <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics/">previous post</a>, a reply to the latest <a href="http://80.194.82.59//obsstandard2/2009/week5/redditch/rstr016c300109v1-web.pdf">Denialist Letter (pdf)</a></h2>
<p>I would ask Mr Hemmingway who, he supposes, decides what is and is not 'proper evidence', if not the scientific community by general consensus?</p>
<p>It is the process of assessing all the evidence for and against man-made climate change, undertaken by the IPCC at the behest of the international community, that has given rise to the consensus Mr Waugh refers to.</p>
<p>As for quoting this 'proper evidence', I would gladly do so, so long as the Standard is willing to publish thousands of scientific quotes and references. I will settle for just one - <a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html">IPCC Fourth WG1 (Scientific Basis) Report</a> These are not climate alarmists. They are as conservative and precise a group of career scientists as you will ever come across. 640 of them!</p>
<p>Mr Hemmingway misleads in his 'truth' about whan most scientists are saying. What they ARE saying is "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."</p>
<p>In the terms of this publication, which is the most difinitive and authoritative statement of its kind on the state of the planet, that means there is no contradictory evidence suggesting that warming is not occurring, and that more than 90% of all the evidence collected and analysed points at man-made greenhouse gases being the main cause.</p>
<p>Suggestions that there is no hard evidence for this are ridiculous. Reams of hard data are being collected every day, some of it covering timescales of thousands, even millions of years, and none of it reliant on the models he wrongly considers a key element of the argument. All of this real evidence shows that the Earth's temperature, and therefore its climate, changes in lockstep with CO2 concentrations.</p>
<p>And while Mr Hemmingway's description of how energy is trapped by CO2 is accurate, he draws the false conclusion that CO2 will not cause warming based on the false (and concealed) premis that absorption bands are anywhere near full, for the principle greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>And finally, despite exhorting us to produce evidence for the seriousness of the climate change challenge ahead of us, Mr Hemmingway supplied not one single verifiable reference or fact. Even his quote from Dr Richard North turns out to be nothing more than a throwaway line in a blog, written by a lobbyist for Big Agriculture. <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/01/look-behind-you.html">The Lies that money can buy</a></p>
<p>Don't take my word for it - look for yourselves and make your own minds up.</p>
<h4>The letter was <a href="http://www.redditchstandard.co.uk/comment67999.html">published here</a> on Friday 6th. <a href="http://80.194.82.59//obsstandard2/2009/week%206/redditch/rstr014c060209v1-web.pdf">(archive pdf file here)</a></h4>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-73636151543986409402009-01-19T21:38:00.005+00:002009-01-30T22:07:48.152+00:00Mr Ward's Many Mythtakes<p>This was in response to a denialist letter in the local rag.</p>
<p>Mr Stephen Ward makes all the usual debunked arguments, in all the usual ways.</p>
<p>He starts off characterising the science of global warming as a series of assumptions, when in fact they are a rock-solid scientific theory supported by thousands of peer-reviewed papers and literally billions of measurements. The evidence supporting what he calls "assumptions" is a mountain of data assembled by every climatologist, biologist, glaciologist, geologist and meteorologist around the world, working at times with intense rivalry as well as frequent co-operation. The "assumptions" he quotes are exactly the conclusions reached by the IPCC, representing the most conservative views and least controversial avenues of study. Proven? Get a few PhDs, then say otherwise.</p>
<p>He follows with the old saw about a scientific consensus on cooling in the 1970s. There was no such thing. There was a global journalistic scare story derived from a single paper suggesting we were due for a return of the ice age because the warm period was longer than any of the previous ones. If anything, the fact that we were not sliding into an ice age is evidence for human impact on the climate stretching back even before we started burning fossil fuels. There is a suggestion that farming and forest clearance kept the world at a warmer than natural level for the last 5000 years.</p>
<p>The article he quotes talks about a trend of 20-30 years. The period in question (1945 to 1975) was dominated by massive industrial growth on the back of coal-burning and car fumes, which release soot and sulphates into the atmosphere. These make clouds with smaller droplets, reflecting sunlight and cooling the surface of the earth in a phenomenum called Global Dimming - a very real and accepted aspect of climate calcualtions. Since the various attempts to eliminate dirty coal fumes across the US and Europe, this form of human pollution has diminished (although it is coming back around India and China) and the underlying warming trend from CO2 has therefore returned with a vengeance.</p>
<p>We then get a few cherry-picked snippets of data. 1998 was, indeed, one of the warmest years on record following a ferocious El Nino event. What he ignores is that climate is about long trends of 10, 50, 100 years and more. Any single year is just noise in these trends. The global temperature rise over the 100 year period from 1906-2005 was 0.74°C. The warmest year between 1880 and 1980 was 1944, 0.2°C above the overall mean. In the past ten years every single year has been more than 0.3°C above the mean, with one, 2005, more than 0.6°C above the mean, beating 1998 into a cocked hat.</p>
<p>Included in all Mr Ward's misinformation is a claim that the main sources of data are satellites and remote sensing equipment, and that these are both showing cooling trends. This is simply false. The main sources of data are the thousands of weather stations around the world, and the temperature measurements logged by hundreds of ships' captains aboard sea-going vessels. There were no satellites nor remote sensing stations between 1880 and 1970, and the ones deployed since 1970 all, with no substantial exceptions, support the measurements taken on the ground.</p>
<p>Mr Ward winds up this abundance of ignorance and falsehood with an appeal to reason. We should balance job creation against the dangers of climate change. It makes me wonder what, amidst all his denials that climate change is happening, he thinks those dangers are? Does he think it will get a little stormier, maybe have a few more floods and heatwaves and lose some seafront properties to gently lapping waves?</p>
<p>No, Mr Ward. That level of ignorance must be addressed.</p>
<p>There has only ever been one period in Earth's history when it has experienced the runaway global warming we are now faced with. When the Canadian and Russian permafrost releases gigatonnes of methane, and seas warm to release teratonnes more from frozen methane clathrate on the seabed, then we will have a global extinction event on a par with the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Try arguing for a third runway when 96% of all marine species and 70% of all land vertebrates (including everything bigger than a mouse that can't survive on dead and decaying things) are dead and gone.</p>
<p>To put it in insurance terms for you. The level of risk is the termination of everything that makes human civilisation possible, from mass food production to the ready availability of fresh water. That's 99.9999% of current global GDP gone. The chance of this cost being incurred over the next 100 years or so, given the prevalence of (frequently wilful) ignorance on the subject, is currently around 10-15%. This can be reduced to maybe 1% if everyone starts doing something significant right away.</p>
<p>As your insurer, I know that you probably won't be able to pay your premiums after about 2050, as you will be too worried about the 2 billion refugees from Asia and Africa trying to take your Big Mac and Fries. So, I offer you a choice of two 40-year annuities. Either pay 1% of Global GDP for 40 years to reduce the risks, and another 1% per year insurance premium to meet the costs of failure, or spend nothing on risk reduction, and 5% of global GDP (starting in ten years time after it is too late) to make sure I will rebuild civilisation after your grandchildren have died of starvation.</p>
<p>Your choice - don't let me pressure you. We need to be rational about this. Only, could you pay me in rocket fuel so I can build my luxury retreat in space.</p>
<hr>
<p>The Standard seems to remove articles after a week, so the original link is now dud. Alistair Waugh (the originator of the discussion) got right of reply last week, and now another denialist has chimed in with more garbage.</p>
<p>The permanent locations are PDF files
<br /><a href="http://80.194.82.59//obsstandard2/2009/week%202/redditch/rstr014c090109v1-web.pdf">Mr Waugh's opener</a>
<br /><a href="http://80.194.82.59//obsstandard2/2009/week%203/redditch/rstr014c160109v1-web.pdf">Mr Ward's myths</a>
<br /><a href="http://80.194.82.59//obsstandard2/2009/week%204/redditch/rstr014c230109v1-web.pdf">Mr Waugh's reply</a>
<br /><a href="http://80.194.82.59//obsstandard2/2009/week5/redditch/rstr016c300109v1-web.pdf">Mr Hemmingway's excuse</a></p>
<p>My reply in a new post, shortly</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-57783525444233294632008-12-13T09:11:00.003+00:002008-12-13T09:58:21.946+00:00CRAG Tax and Fund Scheme<p>The <a href="http://www.carbonrationing.org.uk/">CRAG</a> group I'm a member of is largely dead at the moment. To be fair, it never really took off, and I had misgivings about the system from the start.</p>
<p>I think it's because the method of reduction in our footprints lacks carrot and has too much stick. It basicly asks people to declare their carbon use and then trade down to a per-member cap. In other words, it's a straight cap and trade system. It doesn't work because the only incentive for people with high footprints is to leave before they have to pay up.</p>
<p>I have a different proposal based loosely around <a href="http://www.kyoto2.org/">Oliver Tickell's Kyoto 2</a> proposals.</p>
<p>First of all, with a fluid membership, cap and trade in any form does not work - it's either all-in or none, with that kind of system. So what I'd suggest is a (voluntary) carbon tax and green investment/loans fund.</p>
<p>Each member that wishes may donate an amount (to be determined) for their fossil fuel usage and general conspicuous consumption activities. Basic living costs (rent/mortgage, a clothes allowance, food, water and sewage) would be fee-free and guilt-free, but any other expenditure would be included in a personal tally and regular donations into the collective kitty (I suggest a club account or similar) by monthly direct debit. The amount to be paid would be assessed by the accepted GRAG accounting rules.</p>
<p>Any member in good standing (say a year of monthly donations) may submit a funding request for an eco-project they wish to put into place to reduce their footprint. This might be some roof lagging, or cavity wall insulation, or a set of remote-controlled sockets, or even a new high-efficiency fridge or an electric car. The request can be for either a zero-interest loan for up to 100% of the project's cost, or a grant of up to 50% of the project's cost.</p>
<p>With their funding request they must supply evidence of past carbon use and financial costs related to the area the project is intended to address (e.g. house heating) and an estimate of future carbon use and spending based on the results of the project. Requests will be assessed on a bang-per-buck system, where the cheapest, biggest wins will be considered first. It is likely that the most profligate users will have the greatest opportunities for making savings, so this incentivises them to remain within the system.</p>
<p>The length of time a member stays within the system will only be a factor for when they may submit a request, and will not influence the spending decisions, which will be made in public with all factors published. There may be a case for limiting each member to one project per year.</p>
<p>Every project funded through the scheme via a grant will be subject to a profit-sharing system. Depending on the share of the cost funded, a proportion of all resulting savings for the first 5 years will be returned to the scheme.</p>
<p>That is, if a £1000 project received a 50% grant of £500, and resulted in savings to the owner of £10 per month in bills and a reduction in their carbon tax payments by a further £2 per month, then half these savings would accrue to the fund - i.e. his monthly contribution would go up by £4 per month - a net saving of £6 per month. The fund would recoup (in this case) £360 of the outlay.</p>
<p>All projects will need to supply evidence of their savings to monitor this, but this will be gathered as part of the normal CRAG accounting process. Other changes in circumstances or behaviour made by members, without the benefit of CRAG funding, should also be declared to avoid counting savings from other sources.</p>
<p>For loans, there is only the loan repayment (over a term of 5 years) to be added. If the £500 above had been a loan, monthly repayments would be £8.33, but the £12 savings would be entirely his - a net saving of £3.67 per month. The fund would eventually recoup all of the outlay.</p>
<p>Note that defaulters can be taken to small claims courts, and projects would be funded under signed contracts. Any member can opt out of their voluntary tax payments at any time, so long as they keep up any project repayments.</p>
<p>The whole would need to be managed by a small committee. I suggest 3 people, with one seat up for election each year. All members with an existing direct debit instruction are eligible to vote, and all members in good standing (12 months or more of payments) eligible to stand (except in the first year, obviously). The treasury would require 2 signatures from these three to draw any money, and all
accounts (including a summary of each member's cash and carbon standings) would be published monthly.</p>
<ul>Advantages:
<li>Everyone has an investment in the success of the community.</li>
<li>A fluid membership can be managed.</li>
<li>High-polluters often have the easiest savings to make, and this system assists them to do so.</li>
<li>Sharing project experiences can generate ideas and accumulate knowledge.</li>
<li>Favourable deals can be negotiated with traders to delivery multiple projects.</li>
<li>As the fund accumulates wealth, and drives down emissions within the group, more ambitous projects become achievable.</li>
<li>Individual members can obtain capital for improvements in their carbon lifestyle without paying interest to disinterested institutions.</li>
</ul>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-75114019931544208872008-01-05T09:30:00.000+00:002008-01-05T09:42:20.522+00:00UK Virtual Carbon Pricing<p>As reported by The Guardian:<br>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/22/climatechange.carbonemissions">Government says new 'carbon price' will favour eco-friendly policy choices</a><br>
Saturday December 22 2007</p>
<p>'Ministers have been instructed to factor into their calculations a notional "carbon price" when making all policy and investment decisions covering transport, construction, housing, planning and energy.'</p>
<p>I think this was a piece of good news for a change. The act of applying a carbon cost to all decisions makes low-carbon cost-competitive, even if the carbon cost is never really paid. If all decisions by government are done in this way, it makes it easier, from the politicians' point of view to create a real carbon price applicable to people and industries.</p>
<p>Governments (or, more precisely, the civil service) can get away with a virtual price, because their decision-making procedures are closely monitored and hard to circumvent. If policy dictates that the price will be included in all cost calculations, then any decision made on purely cost grounds will probably be low-carbon.</p>
<p>Individuals and corporations, on the other hand, make un-monitored decisions, and can ignore a virtual price, knowing full well that it is imaginary with only their conscience (or that of their customers) to hold them to their low carbon ideals.</p>
<p>So if the government were to declare, in a year or two, that they were creating a carbon tax to be applied to all electricity, cement and fuel, priced at the same value they are already applying to their decisions (and probably reducing fuel duty by a similar amount to appease the motoring lobby), they would get a kinder reaction than if they had not demonstrated their own willingness to bear the costs involved.</p>
<p>Take this together with a recent accusation by Jeremy Leggett:<br>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2234322,00.html">Civil servants have played a damaging role in skewing UK policy away from renewables</a><br>
Thursday January 3, 2008</p>
<p>'Department of Trade and Industry officials fought a rearguard action. Nuclear was granted a place on the back burner, to be reviewed after five years.'</p>
<p>and you can see why the politicians are driven to forcing civil servants to act in the Earth's favour rather than the economy's.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-62521047058970577102007-05-13T20:58:00.000+00:002007-05-13T20:59:47.382+00:001000 Green LogosThis site is trying to assemble advertising logos for 1000 companies who are promoting green initiatives for the coming year. He is trying to get the word out and I've said I'll help. Please pass this along on any forums you are using.
NB I have a reservation about what the money will be used for, but as everyone has to make a living, I'm not overly fussed.Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-48359034415981061992007-04-15T00:49:00.002+00:002010-05-02T09:40:28.983+00:00Why Democracy Fails<p>I think democracy fails because those who represent the electorate are not directly accountable to them, and the electorate has no chance to discuss matters with them. It fails because the person elected is seeking approval and endorsement from thousands, if not millions of people they have never - can never - meet.</p>
<p>I have been considering an alternative for many years. It flies in the face of what people consider to be true democracy, but I believe it offers a more responsive and responsible form of governance.</p>
<p>First of all, every locality of 100* households elects a representative for themselves - who must be a resident in one of those households. 100 of these representatives form the local or borough council, representing 10,000 households.</p>
<p>The local council then elects from its membership a chairperson or speaker and a regional representative. 100 councils elect 100 regional representatives sit on the regional council, which is responsible for around 1 million households.</p>
<p>Then the region elects their own speaker and a national representative, who sits on the national parliament (100 million households) with the other regional electives.</p>
<p>Finally, all the national parliaments elect one of their own to sit on a world parliament, to replace the UN and adopt some state sovereignty in a manner similar to the EU (not the US, as the federal government has too much sovereignty over the states, and abuses it constantly). This world government would elect, from its membership, a world president.</p>
<p>Most importantly, any constituency may, at any time, convene a recall election that can replace their representative with another member of their group.</p>
<p>This means that the 100 households where the world president lives can, at any time, depose him. So might the 100 local representatives he is supposed to represent. So might the regional council, and so might his or her own national government.</p>
<p>At each level the representatives will be able to know all the names and concerns of his whole constituency. Every vote would count because you would not be voting for a name with a party affiliation, but for your neighbour, or the colleague you have been debating budgets with for three years.</p>
<p>While it is true that with this system, not everyone gets to vote for the people at the top, it is also true that the people at the top can never forget their original constituency, and they can never forget that the people at each level of the heirarchy have a similar vulnerability to a recall by ordinary people. It would lead to a fairly fluid make-up of each council, since representatives would stay in place until they are recalled, but they can be recalled at, perhaps, less than a week's notice.</p>
<p>This system also allows the party systems of most democracies to be abolished. They are inherently corrupt as representatives put loyalty to their party above that to their constituency. And as has been all too obvious lately, getting millions of people to vote for you is expensive and that means you can easily be bought off by corporate interests.</p>
<p>Getting elected by 100 people, on the other hand, is relatively cheap and can be a matter of simply talking to them over a meal a few at a time. Getting elected by other politicians, moreover, means that your currency is no longer currency, but the political motivations and bugbears of your electorate.</p>
<h4>That is democracy.</h4>
<p><i>* all values are approximate and can be adjusted to reflect local geography and existing political divisions.</i></p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1168698636848038382007-01-13T14:29:00.000+00:002007-01-13T14:41:02.253+00:00Road Pricing - Tax or service charge?<p>There are currently two petitions on the UK government's No10 website, competing for signatures on opposite sides of this debate:<br>
<a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/">Traveltax</a> which is painfully misinformed and yet has about 300,000 signatories, and<br>
<a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/yes2roadpricing/">Yes2roadpricing</a> which is a simple plea for action on the environment and has under 100.</p>
<p>You can probably guess which one I signed.</p>
<p>In debates with friends I hear the same arguments presented again and again.
<ul>
<li>It's an added tax and road users are already too heavily taxed.</li>
<li>The money won't be used to improve public transport.</li>
<li>It will allow the government to track everyone and is an invasion of our privacy.</li>
<li>It's not technically affordable. People won't want to pay £200 to have a GPS device installed in their cars</li>
</ul>I'll try to tackle each of these individually (although there is some overlap) to demonstrate why they are inadequate objections, or in at least one case, deluded.</p>
<h4>It's an added tax</h4>
<p>Every proposal for a national road pricing scheme so far has included some formula to indicate that it will replace road tax and/or fuel duty. However, there is no legislation currently in place to permit a national scheme. If it is an added tax, it is an added local tax.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/008/1000008.htm">enabling bill</a> for road pricing at present specifically states that such charging schemes are to be local, under the direct control of individual highway authorities, and that trunk road schemes (the only national level schemes) are reserved for bridges and tunnels more than 600m in length, or for trunk roads as requested to integrate with a local scheme. In other words, the government <b>cannot</b> introduce a national scheme under this bill.</p>
<p>Local pricing schemes are inevitably an added tax. There is no viable mechanism for reducing either road tax or fuel duty to compensate for the income gained from local road pricing. The only likely reductions will be to council taxes in the area covered, and even that will happen only if the local people force their councils to make it happen.</p>
<p>Take, for example, my local council. Their gross expenditure on roads and transport services for 2005/06 was £1.4 million. Only £112,000 of this was provided by related income (such as taxi licences, bus route concessions and the like). The rest had to come from the council's other income, which is 45% derived from the Council Tax. With a local congestion charge in place the council tax could, in theory, be reduced by 25%.</p>
<h4>It won't be used for public transport.</h4>
<p>The money raised by such a scheme is cordoned off and exclusively reserved for the authority's local transport plan. (see <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/008/00008-ad.htm#sch11">Schedule 11</a>) This means that it can only be used to maintain roads for which it is responsible, invest in new roads, and to support local public transport initiatives.</p>
<h4>It will allow the government to track everyone.</h4>
<p>This is patently absurd. First of all, the government can already track everyone if it should want to - via mobile phones, CCTV and number-plate recognition and high resolution sattelites. Secondly, having a GPS locator in your vehicle is seen by many people as a benefit - it allows your car to be located and recovered if it is stolen. And lastly, why on earth would the government want to spend billions of pounds on the personnel required to keep track of everyone (and how could it survive the next general election?).</p>
<p>It may be the case that the technology could be used to catch and prosecute criminals more easily. It may even be the case that it could be used to enforce speed limits through average speed calculations and fines. But anyone objecting on those grounds is simply declaring their opinion that they have the right to break the law.</p>
<p>This is a fact of life, in any case, because the UK police are already implementing a national database of vehicle movements using number plate recognition. This publication by the <a href="http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/anpr_strat_2005-08_march05_12x04x05.doc">ACPO ANPR STEERING GROUP</a> (Word Doc) makes the intentions and scope perfectly clear. There remains some debate about the legality of the system under privacy and human rights laws, but as an extension of existing monitoring rights afforded to the UK police, it is minimal. Implementing this system without harnessing the information to provide a more equitable (based on actual road use, rather than a flat fee, as road tax is at present) taxation system would be negligence on the part of the government.</p>
<h4>It's not affordable</h4>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_029787.hcsp">feasibility study</a> declared that the issue of adding technology to vehicles made a national scheme unaffordable until around 2014. Using number-plate recognition systems on a national scale is seen as far more practical. The cameras are widely in place and putting additional ones at, say, every motorway slip road to initiate charging for the motorway network, would be affordable (if the legislation allowed it). The fact that the Police are considering it purely on an law-enforcement basis shows that it is relatively cheap.</p>
<p>As for the cost of the device and people not wanting to pay - people are already paying £200 for a GPS device to go in their cars. What they are really objecting to is connecting that device to a transponder so that it can be polled by groundstations and the information used to charge them. In fact, the most cost-effective method does not involve any additional equipment being placed within the car. Only the number plate is needed, and that is a legal requirement already.</p>
<h3>Verdict</h3>
<p>On the whole, I regard the objections to road-pricing ill-informed and facile. The current situation is that it is very early days and, as reported in the (anti-government and vehemently anti road-pricing) <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/11/nroads11.xml">Telegraph</a> recently, the official Dept of Transport position is:<br>
"No decision has been taken on whether to implement a national road pricing scheme. We are working with local authorities to investigate the potential of local schemes in tackling congestion. Until we see how pricing works in practice it would be premature to decide whether we should take forward a national scheme and what that scheme might look like."</p>
<p>The opposition petition, calling the concept a travel tax, is full of misleading statements and outright lies about what the state of play is with respect to road pricing. It plays up to the most irrational fears of the UK neocon tendency, and ignores the reality. When looked at rationally, the only way that road pricing could be introduced <u>without</u> being an added tax is by making it a national scheme.</p>
<p>The purpose of road pricing schemes is primarily to relate the cost of driving to the impact it has on the infrastructure. Congestion costs everyone money and time. It consumes massive quantities of fuel for no benefit. It pollutes cities and wears out roads. The very people who object to this measure are the same people who complain about the traffic queues and roadworks that double the duration of their daily commute. </p>
<h3>How a national scheme could work</h3>
<p><b>Technology</b>: Harnessing the data from the poilice vehicle movements system means not having to add anything to any car. Vehicle number plate recognition, as implemented without any major hitches in London, permits the tracking of vehicles past as many points as you have suitable cameras, and installing the cameras and data networks can be a gradual thing, concentrating on the worst congestion areas first.</p>
<p><b>Implementation</b>: A VNPR system could go universal from day one (unlike a GPS system). As soon as enough cameras are in place, charges can be levied against the car owner via the police and DVLA computer systems. Charges can be adjusted for vehicle types, to match the current road tax regime, and can be collected as an annual bill with the registration renewal, or whenever the vehicle changes hands.</p>
<p><b>Tax implications</b>: The two main taxes for road users are Road Tax and Fuel Duty. The former (termed Vehicle Excise Duty) is worth around £5 Billion to the government each year, while the latter (Fuel Excise Duty) is worth around £25 Billion. (<a href="http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~jb/pub/ifs_tax_survey_2004_05.pdf">source</a>). Thus the current tax on road users amounts to £30 Billion annually, or £1,000 per vehicle per year. By comparison, the annual expenditure on roads in England is £6 Billion. Replacing Vehicle Excise Duty with road pricing can be justified on road system maintenance grounds alone, provided that it is a direct replacement with comparable levels of revenue.</p>
<p>Fuel duty has never been used as a direct road funding tool and has always been justified as a 'dangerous luxury' tax, similarly to cigarettes and alcohol. In time it would be preferable for fuel duty to be replaced by a general carbon tax on all fossil fuels, and I have no doubt that this will, eventually, happen. But arguing that fuel duty should be reduced to compensate for national road pricing fees is only tenable if the charges for roads exceeded £6 Billion a year in total.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1164556189838659982006-11-26T15:45:00.000+00:002006-11-26T15:59:25.940+00:00A Damning Indictment - book review<h3>Crimes Against Nature</h3>
<h4>by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</h4>
<p>I bought this book on a whim to accompany Heat by George Monbiot. It has the tag line 'Standing up to Bush and the Kyoto Killers who are cashing in on our world.' so I knew it would be covering an area I am passionately concerned about. I read it in 4 days, in the evenings and at rest breaks at work. The writing is clear although the plots that it uncovers are convoluted and nightmarishly labyrinthine. The paperback edition has an added chapter that dissects the 2004 election result.</p>
<p>The author is an environmental lawyer and Washington political insider, able to use his famous name to speak to almost anyone in the heirarchy and obtain frank opinions and information. He is also intensely aware of the changes that have devastated the US environment and environmental movement over the past 6 years (and more). Until Dick Cheney or George W Bush has a road to damascus revelation and confesses all, I can think of few people better qualified to reveal the evil that he and his cronies have done. Moreover, as a lawyer, he knows exactly how to marshall facts and arguments to back up his claims. And many of them need to be backed up, because they are, in effect, an accusation of conspiracy to commit genocide and treason.</p>
<p>The introduction details how the author is busy on a lecture circuit, telling staunch Republicans how their party and country has been usurped by anti-environmentalists bent on exploiting the common resources of all Americans (the book is heavily ameri-centric, which might be a fault, but for the subject matter) for their own enrichment at enormous cost. At every lecture he gives, he claims, an initially deeply sceptical audience becomes by turns amazed, horrified, and enraged by what has been done under their very noses. And each and every one applauds the messenger, determined to put things right. This, in its way, is the message of hope that runs through the book.</p>
<p>The book starts with GWB's environmental record in Texas (appaling) and his tendency to pander to corporate interests (uninterrupted). It covers the history of environmental legislation - how the clean air and clean water acts restored the commons to the people and how governments have always, back to Roman times, been responsible for ensuring that individual property rights are not honoured ahead of the right of neighbouring property to be unaffected. This is the core principle of sustainable development - do what you like with your own property, but if it has any adverse impact at all on your neighbours, expect to be stopped.</p>
<p>The formation of the Wise Use coalition - a corporate axis designed to oppose and destroy environmentalism - in the 70's is covered, and how it developed into a deep rooted and widespread conspiracy to buy up the federal government with the object of hobbling its 'interference' in business. The movement evolved into a variety of right-wing think tanks, and the harnessing of a (rather gullible) Christian evangelical movement to give the corporate rape of the land, sea and air moral respectability. Their final victory was in 2004, when Clinton was paralysed and embarrassed by trivial transgressions and Kerry's campaign undermined by unchallenged lies in the largely right-wing media.</p>
<p>Then the fun really begins. With no regard for his mandate, democratic accountability, or reason, Bush proceeded to appoint an endless line of corporate shills to key positions in the administration and, orchestrated by Dick Cheney as Bush has never been much more than a puppet, every environmental protection, law rule and regulation was subverted, undermined and destroyed. The catalogue of blatant or covert corruption just seems to go on and on - and the reader's mood swings from amazement at their audacity and stupidity (which regularly made me laught out loud) and horror at the consequences for all of us.</p>
<p>How was all this possible? Kennedy gets to the root of the matter near the end of the book. The media in America used to be operated under FCC rules to preserve balance in the news and diversity of ownership. Both of these principles have been eroded and abandoned, with the vast majority of radio, tv and newspaper outlets in the hands of just 5 immense corporations. These corporations kill stories that might harm their advertisers, promulgate the 'official' stories of the right-wing think tanks without any kind of critical analysis, and select news stories for their entertainment value rather than their inherent importance.</p>
<p>During the 2004 election a poll was taken asking what the voters believed to be the case about a variety of issues, from the Iraq war to the environment. In every case those who got their information from the right wing media (rather than the few remaining liberal or independant sources) believed the official stories and lies. For example, 75% of Bush supporters believed that there was evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 and supporting Al Qaeda. This was a lie supported by the media and never denied or corrected by the government. Anyone attempting to repudiate the lies simply did not get a platform to speak. The poll went further. They asked these Bush supporters if, on the assumption that Iraq did not have WMDs and was not supporting Al Qaeda, the war was acceptable. A majority said that it was not. The conclusion - Bush won in 2004 simply because his voters had been told a pack of lies and never had the chance to hear opposing facts.</p>
<p>The phrase 'damning indictment' is often over-used. But I believe this book should be read by every politician, journalist, pundit and activist in the world. We have seen, in 2006, the start of the backlash against Bush. We must hope that, in 2008, the US will reform itself and become once more, a democracy. As Kennedy points out, it currently resembles most closely the fascist regimes of 30's Europe.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1163508703779010832006-11-14T12:48:00.000+00:002006-11-14T12:51:43.796+00:00Poetry in a comment<h3>Comment by Rashers101 on a Monbiot article, November 14, 2006 01:20 AM</h3>
<p>I evade my personal responsibility for the things I choose to do. I blame the government, the oil companies, George Bush, the economy, the wealthy and anybody else I can think of for the destruction that my lifestyle causes.</p>
<p>I put my comfort, my convienence and my conformity ahead of the lives and livlihoods of thousands of future generations, and I try not to think too much about my daily contribution to the destruction of the world that was left to me by thousands of past generations. I put myself far, far ahead of my ancestors and decendents and take from them for the most trivial of reasons.</p>
<p>I ignore the real human pain, suffering and death that my behaviour causes. I turn the page, switch the channel, and change the topic of conversation. I pretend that the science isn't definitive yet, or that there's no point in changing before others do, and I convince myself that 'scientists' will come up with a technological solution that will make my lifestyle and me OK.</p>
<p>I avoid, I deny, I justify and rationalise, I pretend, I project, I squirm and sqeeze and do whatever I can to maintain my concept of myself as a good person while still doing what I do. I evade my moral responsibility a day at a time in the hope that reality will somehow be different tomorrow morning.</p>
<p>I steal from those who live far away from me, and who I do not know because I see their pain as cartoon pain, and not fully real. I casally destroy what future generations will depend upon to live because they have yet to be born and it is only me, and my time and my normalcy that is important.</p>
<p>I am like those who, sixty years ago, did their jobs and lived their normal lives and didn't ask questions about where their jewish neighbours had gone. I am like those who participated in slavery and other atrocities, except that the effects of my crimes will outlast all those others.</p>
<p>And it is OK, because today I am normal, and busy, and have other things on my mind and, if what I do is really so bad so many people wouldn't be doing the same, would they?</p>
<p>But when, in the hours before I die, I think back upon my life and what it has meant, I must do one thing. I must hope and hope and pray and pray that there is nothing beyond life and beyong time and beyond myself, that there is no blance, no karma, no morality and no justice.</p>
<p>Because if there is, and I do what I do, knowing what I know....</p>
<p>Well, lets not think about that.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1163265186826163862006-11-11T16:56:00.000+00:002006-11-11T17:13:06.836+00:00Update on Floating Oases<p>After a little research I have found that the idea outlined <a href="http://climatechangepolitics.blogspot.com/2006/08/floating-oases-of-sinking-carbon.html">here</a> is actually far from novel. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has an ongoing research project into the concept as part of the development of <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/otec/mariculture.html">Mariculture and OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion).</a></p>
<p>Other resources:
<br><a href="http://www.seasolarpower.com/studies.html">Sea Solar Power</a>
<br><a href="http://www.nelha.org/education/publications.html">Natural Energy Laboratory - Hawaii</a>
<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion">Wikipedia article on OTEC</a>
<br><a href="http://www.esemag.com/0902/aquaculture.html">Environmental Science and Engineering article on the Nelha pipeline</a>
</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1160127713758286252006-10-06T09:32:00.000+00:002006-10-10T09:43:52.193+00:00A new form of offsetting<p>I am investigating a new form of carbon offsetting I have come up with. If individuals wish to do so, they can buy carbon emissions trading certificates (current price under 12 Euros) on the open market and keep them for ever.</p>
<p>What effect will this have? Well if a million people buy a certificate each, that will be a million tonnes less that the covered industries will be allowed to emit, or face fines of 40 Euros (100 Euros after April 2008) per tonne.</p>
<p>If 1% of people in the world buy a certificate each, that's 65 million tonnes less - equivalent to the total capped emissions of Ireland.</p>
<p>It would take every person in the world buying one certificate to reduce Europe's allowable emissions to zero.</p>
<p>So let's start buying.</p>
<p>PS - I've since discovered that others have had the same idea and are putting it into action. Take a look at <a href="http://www.puretrust.org.uk/">Pure – the Clean Planet Trust</a> for example.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1158141997956783862006-09-13T09:59:00.000+00:002006-09-13T10:06:37.983+00:00Special Relationship?<p>The special relationship between the UK and US has been much in the (UK) news recently.</p>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1870909,00.html">Bush and Blair believe al-Qaida threatens our way of life. They are wrong, and the Tory leader seems to get it</a>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1870992,00.html">Falconer accuses US of affront to democracy</a>
<a href="http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1870911,00.html">Sir Digby attacks special relationship with US</a>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1870232,00.html">Cameron criticises 'simplistic' White House</a>
<p>This has a significant relevance to climate change politics.</p>
<p>The UK political arena is firmly on board with making climate change a top priority - no serious contender for government says otherwise. In the run-up to 2012 and post-kyoto agreements, it is essential that the next US president (I've completely given up on Bush) be campaigning with the awareness that the US's closest ally is getting antsy about what the last 6 years have brought to the relationship.</p>
<p>My hope is that this November's elections will see a Democratic revival and the ousting of much of the oil-fired Republican old guard. It may force Bush to make concessions on climate change, but more importantly, presidential candidates on both sides will know that they will have to deal with a more moderate, environmentally aware senate and electorate.</p>
<p>And with the UK and US both willing to set ambitous targets for reducing oil dependancy, cutting emissions and encouraging the developing world to adopt clean technology, with the EU already on board, I see no reason why the 2012 agreement shouldn't be something we can all welcome.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1156296815049461272006-08-23T01:33:00.000+00:002006-08-23T01:35:19.800+00:00Flying on a Wing and a Prayer<p>Currently there is a great deal of research and development work going on into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing">flying wing</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_Wing_Body">blended wing body</a> concepts in aviation (for example, the <a href="http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/pdf/FS-1997-07-24-LaRC.pdf">Boeing X-48</a>). These ideas are centered around the goal of getting more passengers into each individual plane, and therefore increasing efficiencies and reducing costs - not to mention lessening runway congestion.</p>
<p>At the same time, emissions from air travel are a big bone of contention and there is no simple way to make air travel carbon-free. There is simply no viable alternative to aviation fuel.</p>
<p>However, there may be a way to increase aircraft efficiency still further, utilising the flying wing concept.</p>
<p>Imagine a flying wing with a capacity for 480 passengers on two floors, 20 rows deep, 12 seats across. This doesn't use most of the large capacity of the wing. Instead, the wings are filled with helium bags. The helium makes the plane lighter so that it can take off on a shorter runway and gain cruising altitude using less fuel. However, it doesn't have the air resistance of a blimp, and can reach the high speeds of conventional airliners.</p>
<p>Obviously, I'm no aircraft designer. But if planes augmented by helium lift to make them lighter are more efficient, then perhaps the idea deserves looking into. Certainly, a comparison between the relative merits of extra seats and filling the space with helium instead should be made. The balance point in benefits may be zero helium, or it may be 25% or more helium, but I'd like to see a study.</p>
<p>There are some hybrid blimp-plane concepts:<br>
<img src="http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_WALRUS_Skyfrieghter_lg.jpg" height="160" width="300"><br>
But they are more agile blimps than light airplanes.</p>
<p>I am, of course, not the first <a href="http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/131/1/">blogger</a> to look into these matters.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1155847585087157722006-08-17T20:22:00.000+00:002006-08-17T23:05:14.503+00:00Floating Oases of Sinking Carbon<p>While reading Lovelock back in March - The Revenge of Gaia - one area he talks about got me thinking.</p>
<p>He states that the ocean surface layers, when they are hotter than 10 degrees C, are largely unmixed with the nutirent-rich lower layers, and so microscopic life is virtually absent - vast areas of ocean are barren unless storms or coastal run-off changes the situation.</p>
<p>Thus when the ice ages retreat, and the planet warms during an interglacial, the area of ocean that contributes to carbon sequestration is reduced.</p>
<p>Now that we are heating the planet beyond the interglacial maximum, the cool areas of ocean are shrinking further, and limited to regions with restricted sunlight. As a result, the loss of algae is exacerbating global warming.</p>
<p>Two things occured to me.
<ol><li>We should be grateful for more hurricanes as it promotes microbial lifespans in the tropical oceans.</li>
<li>There must be a way to pump nutirent-rich water to the surface and create oases of life that sequester carbon and (in theory at least) generate cloud-cover that cools the planet.</li></ol></p>
<p>So another thought-invention:<br>
A weighted tube, manufactured as cheaply as possible.<br>
The heat difference between the bottom and top is used to drive a motor.<br>
The motor drives a pump, which pumps cold water up from 200 meters below the sea surface to the top.<br>
The cold nutrient-rich water feeds algae all year round as it floats around the oceans.</p>
<p>Drop a few billion of them into the oceans and we can cool the planet down again.</p>
<p>Variants - as pumping water takes a lot of energy, the heat difference might not be enough.
<ul><li>Instead, the wave energy at the top might be harnessed to drive a pump, as the bulk of the machine will be below the waves and can be made to stay static relative to them.</li>
<li>Alternatively, tether them to the sea bed (where it is shallow enough) and mount a wind turbine on top to drive the pumps.</li>
<li>Pump air downwards to bubble up and create an upwelling current. Has the added benefit that some of the air will dissolve in the water.</li></ul></p>
<p>I found out a couple of days later that a scientist has already studied a similar concept and published his paper <a href="http://www.cyberiad.net/library/pdf/bk_ocm_articleaspublished.pdf">here</a>. This uses a fixed coastal installation, but if a small, self-propelled unit can be manufactured cheaply enough, then they can be used to 'buy' carbon credits and will pay for themselves.</p>
<p>As always, comments and criticisms welcomed.</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28255750.post-1155157583044885332006-08-09T21:02:00.000+00:002006-08-09T21:06:23.056+00:00Boron Boron Boron<p>This is a rough copy of the boron cycle published in New Scientist 29/7/2006. It outlines an efficient process by which solar power can be turned into motive power for vehicles via boron and hydrogen. Effectively the car runs on water and sunlight!</p>
<p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6778/2990/1600/boron.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6778/2990/400/boron.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a></p>
<p>Bring on the Boron machines!</p>Co2emissionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04652356095384563840noreply@blogger.com0