Thursday, April 26, 2007

Supreme Court Ignites Debate on Global Warming

(orig. posted 5 April 2007)

I was so glad to see the court ruling mentioned below.
The Bush Administration has been so frustrating in their
lack of response to Global Warming. Anyway, the article says it well...

Americans who think that global warming is a serious threat -- and that the Bush administration's deliberate go-slow policy has been indefensible -- were thrilled Monday when the Supreme Court agreed. Whether the divided court's ruling will give them all they hope, though, is open to question.

In its first foray into the global warming debate, the court issued a toughly worded 5-4 ruling that said the administration was simply wrong in arguing that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

But the justices stopped short of requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency actually exercise that authority. The EPA must find justification in the Clean Air Act for taking action, or not -- leaving the administration plenty of room to stall.

Instead, it should seize on the ruling to reverse policies that are outdated at best.

Since Bush was first elected, the case for global warming has become so overwhelming that denials now look foolish, as do the administration's well-documented attempts to muzzle government scientists who tried to call attention to the problem.

Frustrated states have begun to act on their own. A major international panel said in February that the warming trend is "unequivocal," that human activity has "very likely" been a chief cause, and that the effects will endure for centuries. Even business and industry have begun to embrace the idea of limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet the EPA provoked Monday's court ruling by mulishly insisting that it couldn't regulate tailpipe emissions.

Neither the EPA nor the White House reacted Monday as if they planned to change course, but that might not last. The high court's ruling set other forces into motion. California and several other states want to set their own greenhouse gas limits on cars and trucks, and the ruling helps their legal argument -- a prospect that worries automakers.

"There needs to be a national, federal, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Maybe the Bush administration will listen more closely to that advice than it has to the scientists.

In its ruling, the court acknowledged the seriousness of global warming, noting that even if the agency can't stop warming completely, it has a duty to try. "Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop ... but instead whittle away at them over time," the court said.

Well put. The Bush administration has long acted as if global warming were not an urgent problem, and sought excuses to avoid taking serious action. Enough. It's time, as the court put it, to start whittling.
original article in Sci-Tech>>
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=011000M7BSKC

Don't Standby to save electricity

(orig. posted 29 Nov 2006)

I read something recently about how much energy is wasted by
all the devices we have in the home being on "standby" mode.
This is where a trickle of electricity is always running through
the device so that it will start up quickly and save the time etc.

If it wastes so much energy why doesn't the government make
standby mode illegal ? Or - someone should make a more energy-
efficient standby mode.


The world really needs to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
There are suggestions that if big changes aren't made in the next
decade, that we may reach a "tipping point" at which time the
atmosphere will reach a point where it cannot recover from the
damage that we are doing to it. (It's much more technical than that
but I am too lazy to go into detail)
So we need to stop CO2 production, especially from coal-fired
power stations. A lot of people seem to think that the best solution
to this problem is to create a LOT of nuclear power stations.
Nuclear power would be a great solution if not for the fact that it
produces toxic nuclear waste that is radioactive for thousands of years.
Imagine if every country in the world was producing it ?
We would be up to our ears in radioactive waste !
What sort of a legacy is that for future generations ?

I don't think nuclear is the answer. I really don't feel that renewable energy
has been seriously investigated. I feel that it could supply all our energy needs.
All it needs is MASSIVE investment by governments or private industy.
Easy to get private industry involved - just create a global carbon tax.

John Howard is pushing for nuclear. Hopefully the opposition will develop a strong
vision of alternative energy future.
We will see...

NSW 10% renewable energy in 4 years

(Orig. posted 10 Nov. 2006)

NSW announces renewable energy targets

The New South Wales Government has announced that within four years, 10 per cent of the electricity used in the state must come from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

The mandatory figure will rise to 15 per cent by 2020.

The Government says the changes will cost the average household about $1 a week.

It also announced it will spend $220 million on a 63 turbine wind farm to be built at Tarago, near Queanbeyan, in the state's south.

The Government says the changes will slash greenhouse gas emissions and boost the renewable energy sector.

Environmental groups have welcomed the announcement but say more still needs to be done.

Jane Castle from the Total Environment Centre says is a good start, but she had hoped for more.

"Twenty-five per cent by 2020 would bring $9 billion of new investment and 4,000 new permanent jobs to New South Wales, obviously this target falls short of that," she said.

The head of the Renewable Energy Generators Association (REGA), Susan Jeans, says the 10 per cent target is realistic.

"We're more than capable of meeting the target that New South Wales has set," she said.

Businesses slow

REGA says businesses are slow on the take-up of renewable energy initiatives.

Speaking at a Renewable Energy conference in Hobart today the parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, said 8 per cent of Australia's power is generated using renewable sources.

He says this will rise to 10 per cent by 2010.

The chief executive of Renewable Energy Generators of Australia, Susan Jeanes, says some states are rising to the challenge.

"I guess the biggest impediment at the moment is the lack of market support for more expensive technologies to go into the market around the country," she said.

"We are seeing Victoria and New South Wales, well we have seen Victoria now New South Wales responding to that impediment and if you want to go to the higher end of the chain there are indeed a level again - you can always do more with more funds."

Nuclear vs Carbon Sequestration (clean coal)

(orig. posted 10 Nov. 2006)

If "clean coal" means carbon sequestration, I almost think I'd rather the
nuclear waste thanks.

They are talking about making coal fired power stations clean & green by
capturing the MASSIVE CO2 emissions and then - get this -
PUMPING IT UNDERGROUND !!

They think it will stay there, but thing is, nobody really knows.
Scientists in favour of it actually admit this !
So, we could store all this CO2 underground and then one day
- BURP - a big bubble of if pops out and annihalates the atmosphere.

Frankly I think I'd rather the nuclear waste. At least you know they are going
to be careful with it because it's NASTY sh*t.

BioFuels seems like a dud

(orig. posted 10 Nov. 2006)

I read an article that convinced me that BioFuels are NOT
the way to go in reducing greenhouse gases .

Sure they are renewable, but they chew up huge land & water.
They would push up the price of food crops.
They only save about 18 % emissions.

Not worth it!

Global warming - things may be about to cool down.

(orig. posted 10 Nov. 2006)

I read a really interesting article in New Scientist the other day.
It was about how sunspot activity seems to be closely related to
global climate & ice ages etc.
The interesting thing is that they are able to trace this relationship
holds for about the last 14000 years, but suddenly diverges
just in the last 30 years or so.
Seems to be proof that we really are warming the planet.

Another interesting thing is that they are able to predict sunspot activity
(it is cyclic) and they're predicting we are about to go into a 50 year
cycle of reduced solar activity. So, just as we are starting to warm
the planet up, the sun is about to cool it down a bit.

Good news - we may have a little more time to fix global warming.
Bad news - it may look like global warming has gone away / wasn't real
and then in 50 years it hits with a vengeance!

The Stern Review - summary

(orig. posted 10 Nov 2006)

The Stern review is the report that seems to have gotten the ball
rolling on fixing global warming.


Here are the key points of the review written by the former chief economist of the World Bank.

TEMPERATURE

  • Carbon emissions have already pushed up global temperatures by half a degree Celsius

  • If no action is taken on emissions, there is more than a 75% chance of global temperatures rising between two and three degrees Celsius over the next 50 years
  • There is a 50% chance that average global temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
  • Melting glaciers will increase flood risk


  • Crop yields will decline, particularly in Africa

  • Rising sea levels could leave 200 million people permanently displaced

  • Up to 40% of species could face extinction
  • There will be more examples of extreme weather patterns
  • ECONOMIC IMPACT
  • Extreme weather could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 1%
  • A two to three degrees Celsius rise in temperatures could reduce global economic output by 3%
  • If temperatures rise by five degrees Celsius, up to 10% of global output could be lost. The poorest countries would lose more than 10% of their output
  • In the worst case scenario global consumption per head would fall 20%

  • To stabilise at manageable levels, emissions would need to stabilise in the next 20 years and fall between 1% and 3% after that. This would cost 1% of GDP

    OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
  • Reduce consumer demand for heavily polluting goods and services
  • Make global energy supply more efficient
  • Act on non-energy emissions - preventing further deforestation would go a long way towards alleviating this source of carbon emissions
  • Promote cleaner energy and transport technology, with non-fossil fuels accounting for 60% of energy output by 2050
  • GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

  • Create a global market for carbon pricing

  • Extend the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EETS) globally, bringing in countries such as the US, India and China

  • Set new target for EETS to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2020 and 60% by 2050

  • Pass a bill to enshrine carbon reduction targets and create a new independent body to monitor progress

  • Create a new commission to spearhead British company investment in green technology, with the aim of creating 100,000 new jobs

  • Former US vice-president Al Gore will advise the government on the issue

  • Work with the World Bank and other financial institutions to create a $20bn fund to help poor countries adjust to climate change challenges

  • Work with Brazil, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica to promote sustainable forestry and prevent deforestation
  • The End of the World as We Know It !

    (orig. posted 9 Nov 2006)
    Wow - a dramatic heading, but it's not an exaggeration.
    It's been so exciting just in the last few months.
    Things are really starting to happen in the fight against global warming.
    It seems like we have reached some sort of tipping point.
    Finally all but the real nutters (Andrew Bolt) agree that all of the pollution that
    the human race is pumping into the air is changing the climate of the planet.
    It is not so many years ago that the people who were warning about
    global warming were considered the nutters.

    But just lately things are happening.
    Former vice-president of the U.S. Al Gore created a film about the problem
    and has been travelling the world speaking about the problem.
    The scientific community has reached a consensus that humans are
    warming the planet (except the flat-earthers).
    Despite this, politicians like George Bush (junior) & John Howard
    refuse to do anything about greenhouse emissions.
    Well, that all changed with a report released by the British Government
    called the Stern Review. This report was commissioned by the British Government
    and was done by a highly credentialed guy Sir Nicholas Stern former chief economist of the World Bank.

    This report - thank goodness - finally put a figure on the financial cost of doing nothing.
    Up to this point in history, people have been able to pollute the air at no cost.
    They say - coal power stations are much cheaper than solar or wind energy, but they don't count
    the cost of cleaning up all that carbon dioxide. (incidentally, the amount of CO2 that a coal-fired
    power station puts out is incredible!) This report points out how much cheaper it will be
    to act now, rather than facing the consequences of global warming later on (it was in the trillions of dollars).

    Finally, people like John Howard who look no further than the bottom line are able to see why we should do something about global warming. Mind you, he's only just coming around to the idea that it actually exists.

    What we really really need is a carbon tax. That is, tax industry for the amount of CO2 that they pump into the atmosphere. This would give businesses the financial incentive to take up renewable energy and encourage research & development in the area.

    Moving entries - will be moving some old posts here from another blog

    Tuesday, April 24, 2007

    Earth, Wind & Fire - 4 Corners

    There was a great story on the ABC program "Four Corners" on Monday night
    about power generation in Australia and around the world.
    I reckon that it was something that everyone in the country should watch,
    especially as it contradicts some of the stuff that has been quoted by our
    politicians
    regarding alternative energy sources.

    You can also download it from the ABC website
    (see the link below)

    Video on Demand
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20070416_energy/video.htm


    Earth, Wind & Fire
    Reporter: Jonathan Holmes
    Broadcast: 16/04/2007
    Picture a windswept hillside lined with slender white skyscrapers, each
    crowned by a giant whirring rotor longer than a jumbo jet. Or a swathe of
    desert covered by a sea of mirrors drawing power from the sun.
    Wind and solar projects are already in place, or planned, on a much
    grander scale overseas than here. For decades coal-rich Australia has
    regarded renewable energy as virtuous, but incapable of meeting the needs
    of a modern economy. It?s been too costly, not yet proven, intermittent,
    at best a help at the margins.
    But as urgency creeps into the hunt for climate-friendly alternatives can
    Australia afford to go on downplaying the potential of renewable energy?
    How much power could we extract from sun, wind and geothermal sources, and
    at what cost compared with the government?s preferred solutions ? nuclear
    power and "clean" coal?
    Jonathan Holmes looks to the future ? California ? to gauge the challenge
    that faces Australia. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has joined
    hands with Democrat legislators to set some of the world?s most ambitious
    targets for cutting greenhouse emissions and boosting renewable energy. In
    just three years 20 per cent of California?s power will have to come from
    renewable energy. There?s serious consideration to making that target 33
    per cent by 2020.
    Australian entrepreneurs are flocking to the Californian action. A Sydney
    based company is financing a wind farm there that will produce twice as
    much power as all Australia?s wind farms put together. An Australian solar
    thermal technologist has scored the backing of futurist Vinod Khosla,
    founder of Sun Microsystems. ?It?s cheap,? explains Khosla to Four
    Corners, when asked what he likes about the technology. Khosla expects to
    make money and help the climate too.
    Can Australia, whose coal-fired power stations currently produce power at
    half the price of Californian electricity, provide enough incentive to
    attract investment to ambitious solar and geothermal schemes that are
    still in their infancy? Is Australia in danger of getting left behind?
    Khosla says "most industrial advantage in the world comes through
    innovation. And if you stick with coal, you won?t have that."
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1895335.htm

    Tuesday, April 17, 2007

    Space Tourism by 2009 - Virgin Galactic

    Odd Couple Pushes for Space Tourism (sci-tech story)
    http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=1000027GV1US
    By Alicia Chang
    April 16, 2007 7:58AM

    Since American engineer Burt Rutan and British tycoon Sir Richard Branson
    teamed up, a rush of do-it-yourself players have angled to break into the
    fledgling space tourism market. But the polar opposite personalities have
    grabbed the spotlight, partly because of Rutan's track record and
    Branson's aggressive marketing.
    One is a secretive aviation legend who made history by designing the first
    private manned rocket to reach space. The other is a publicity-savvy
    entrepreneur shooting to take his famous brand literally out of this
    world.
    American engineer Burt Rutan and British tycoon Sir Richard Branson may
    seem like they come from different planets. Yet the improbable duo are in
    the same orbit -- forming the Spaceship Co. in 2005 to launch ordinary
    people into space without government help.
    "You have a billionaire funding a rebel inventor. Putting those two
    together makes perfect sense," said space enthusiast Peter Diamandis,
    founder of the nonprofit X Prize Foundation, who has known both men for
    nearly a decade.
    Aviation history has other odd couples: The wealthy Harry Guggenheim
    financed the early rocket work of the loner Robert Goddard; international
    arms dealer Charles Flint helped the Wright brothers sell their airplanes
    outside the United States; telephone inventor Alexander Graham Bell
    enlisted Glenn Curtiss, a brash motorcycle manufacturer, to help build a
    practical plane.
    Now it's Branson, the adventuring chairman of the multibillion-dollar
    Virgin Group of companies, who is investing at least $200 million for a
    fleet of suborbital passenger spaceships being designed by Rutan. Rutan
    heads the obliquely named Scaled Composites LLC, the kind of techie
    operation where a new milling machine is announced on its Web site with an
    exclamation point.
    Rutan's latest effort is based on his SpaceShipOne prototype, a
    shuttlecock-shaped, hybrid rocket motor-powered craft that became the
    first private, piloted vehicle to reach space. For the achievement, the
    project collected $10 million from the X Prize Foundation in 2004.
    Since the two teamed up, a rush of do-it-yourself players have angled to
    break into the fledgling space tourism market. But the polar opposite
    personalities have grabbed the spotlight, partly because of Rutan's track
    record and Branson's aggressive marketing.
    How the new space race plays out is being closely watched by space and
    business experts. There are many unknowns, including long-term business
    prospects and safety. A single fatal crash, after all, could hobble the
    infant industry.
    Rutan and Branson have repeatedly said safety is their main focus.
    Spaceship Co. is their first venture into space, though they have known
    each other since 1990 and collaborated on the record-breaking Virgin
    Atlantic GlobalFlyer aircraft.
    For most of his life, Rutan, 63, had a single-minded focus on pushing the
    envelope of experimental aircraft design. Described by some as a genius,
    he has designed some 40 unique aircraft and now has his sights set on
    space. He has said he really wants to go to the moon before he dies.
    Branson, 56, is a swashbuckling daredevil flitting between projects. A
    high school dropout, he built the Virgin empire into a world brand. The
    Virgin logo is slapped in some of the most terrestrial places -- music
    stores, cell phones, airlines, graphic novels, to name a few. A decade
    ago, Branson trademarked Virgin Galactic with the hopes of ultimately
    flying the brand in space.
    The men differ in their appearance as well as their social circles. With
    his 1970s-style muttonchops and leather jacket, Rutan works among
    engineers, technicians and pilots on a wind-swept Mojave Desert airfield.
    Branson -- with his golden, tousled hair and goatee -- hobnobs with
    celebrities, relaxes on his private Necker Island and makes cameo
    appearances in Hollywood movies.
    Their differences don't end there. They have a different philosophy on
    publicity.
    So far, any announcements on when the first customers might experience
    zero gravity has been one-sided, with details only trickling from
    Branson's Virgin Galactic camp.
    Branson recently told a trade show in California that construction of the
    Rutan-designed SpaceShipTwo will be ready within a year, followed by
    another year of flight tests. If all goes well, Virgin officials say the
    spaceship will be unveiled by early next year with the maiden commercial
    launch in 2009.
    Rutan, on the other hand, has been relatively silent. He would only
    confirm that he is designing SpaceShipTwo and the mothership aircraft that
    will launch it. Despite the buzz by Virgin Galactic, Rutan has not
    publicly released a schedule for completing work.
    Rutan told The Associated Press: "It is quite some time off."
    Before Rutan teamed with Branson, he was partners with another billionaire
    -- Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul G. Allen -- who, like Rutan, tends to
    shy away from publicity. Allen invested more than $20 million of his
    fortune to fund SpaceShipOne and was tightlipped about his involvement
    until a public unveiling in 2003.
    Rutan's Mojave Desert shop is closed to the public. He doesn't give tours
    because he says it's time-consuming and fears proprietary information will
    be leaked. An exception came last year when a group of Virgin Galactic
    founders -- people who paid $200,000 to experience five minutes of
    weightlessness -- visited. Even that came with strings attached: Each had
    to sign an agreement promising not spill what they had seen or heard.
    Tim Pickens, who was the chief propulsion engineer for SpaceShipOne, said
    employees couldn't even acknowledge the existence of the top-secret
    program under Rutan's orders.
    "He said, 'Man, we can't have NASA get a hold of it. There's no way I can
    let this program get out,'" recalled Pickens, who now runs his own
    propulsion company.
    Even Branson, who was funding GlobalFlyer at the time, didn't find out
    about SpaceShipOne until 2002 when his deputies visited Rutan on unrelated
    business and noticed an odd-looking spaceship in the hangar.
    In speeches since SpaceShipOne's history-making flights, Rutan has
    admitted that the Allen-backed project was a year behind schedule. No one
    noticed, he said, because no timetable was ever released.
    Rutan faces a different challenge this time around pairing up with the
    publicity-seeking Branson.
    The sleekly designed Virgin Galactic Web site promises amateur astronauts
    a spacious cabin to float around in and large portholes to coo at the
    curvature of the Earth. Initial flights will rocket out of the Mojave and
    later from a still-to-be-built spaceport in New Mexico where voters
    earlier this month narrowly approved a tax to support the project.
    Absent an actual spaceship to show off, the company last year unveiled a
    conceptual mock-up of the interior featuring reclining seats and spacious
    windows that excited space bloggers. Branson was center of attention as he
    strapped himself in a seat and gave two thumbs up.
    Rutan was nowhere to be found.
    "We don't go out and promote Virgin Galactic because that would be
    improper and unfair to the other spaceline customers," said Rutan, who
    declined to elaborate. "I have to be careful to not favor."
    Branson was traveling and unavailable to comment.
    Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn says the two have a mutual
    respect and are more alike than most people think.
    "I think Burt understands the commercial needs that we have and we
    understand his wish to keep as much of his technological development under
    wraps as long as possible," Whitehorn said.
    Adventurer Steve Fossett says both men have different strengths: Rutan is
    the visionary while Branson is the salesman.
    "Virgin wants to get into business as soon as possible, but a designer
    like Scaled needs time to do it right," Fossett said.