In the Green

Electric mopeds and the Eurofighter Typhoon

I may have mentioned a while back that I was in Beijing a few weeks ago. As anyone who has been to Beijing or any of the big Asian metropolises knows, traffic is insane. Beijing is said to have a 1000 new cars joining the melee every day. The combination of multi-lane streets, confusing light timings, and aggro driving makes the life of a pedestrian much like playing Frogger.

But in this new car world, I was surprised to see that bicycles still play a very large part of getting around town. Beijing is flat as a pancake and set up like a grid, making it a perfect place to cycle - on the good pollution days. Not only that, most of the big avenues (dà jiē, to show off the extent of my Mandarin) have a bike path set aside - about the width of a car lane. And yes, while many people have now switched to a car, many people have actually switched to electric mopeds (see picture).  Most of the mopeds I saw were of this type, which has a removable battery to be recharged at home or at the office. At the bike stores, they seemed cost between £100-200 pounds (compared to £5 to 50 for a bike).

I thought these mopeds were a great idea, effectively abating the diesel emissions from their 2-stroke counterparts. But numerous people I spoke to seemed to complain about their lack of sound - and that they were potentially dangerous to pedestrians. I have heard similar complaints about other electric cars elsewhere.

Thinking about it, is this really something to complain about? Of course, there is a safety issue with the blind that should be addressed, but as someone who is keen on identifying and promoting the co-benefits of climate policy - noise pollution is surely one we should add to the list.

Imagine a day where the constant din of traffic from London is replaced by the chirp of birds and whirr of electric cars. Imagine being able to chat quietly or hear your music while walking down Oxford Street. The potential for hippie musing about a noise-free city is endless. Why haven't we heard more about reduced noise pollution as a link to carbon-free energy?

The reason, of course, is that the prospects are quite limited. Transport is inherently very difficult to reduce, and the cheapest options such as biofuels don't reduce noise. And as far as I am aware, noise doesn't cause morbidity and mortality like air pollution. Yet I also wonder about a third reason.

As someone who unashamedly (albeit casually) has watched Top Gear for the last 15 years, I am fully aware of how noise plays a part in the enjoyment of driving. We are such tactile species, and sound plays a large part of our experience. The guys who present Top Gear demonstrate this every week with louder and louder kit - take the Eurofighter Typhoon that was on this weekend.

So in spite of the noise reductions to be made with electric cars, are we going to miss the growl of the engine to the extent that all our cars in 2050 will have mock engine sounds play back each time we hit the accelerator? We'll be right back to where we started...

To Infinity and Beyond!

My Father purchased a Toyota Prius. Surely not, I thought. Mediocrity shalt ensue on every bend, straight, hillock, mound and mountain. But no! The phenomenal g-forces being applied to my body on a trundle from Brantham (Suffolk) to Marks Tey Station (Essex) were totally eclipsed by the fascinating HUD, providing a constant stream of data regarding real time fuel economy, trends in averaged fuel consumption and best of all, the real time power flows in integrating the 1.5l VVT-i clean petrol-engine technology with a self-recharging 50kW/400Nm zero-emissions electric motor for maximum efficiency. Constantly Variable Transmission ensures the engine is always running at peak efficiency for the driving conditions. Returns 67.3mpg (4.2 l/100km) Extra Urban fuel consumption. Available now at all Toyota Stockists.

This is a serious piece of kit. Whereas a devout petrol-head might save his technology for the living room, this is a collision between the automobile and unadulterated gadgetry to make Scotty proud. It's got a Hybrid Synergy Drive for goodness sake!

My analysis of the system is thus: The paradigm shift in mechanical technology is the ability of the petrol engine to start-up and shut-down almost instantaneously. Power Engineers would call this 'ramp-rate', wherein it is the key to taking advantage of the high spot-prices during demand peaks when selling MWhs through the balancing mechanism. This operates in parallel with an electric motor, powered by a battery capable of delivering input/output to weight ratios of approximately 540 W/kg (think of that as 400HP/horse!). The final technological component is the regenerative braking system. An adaptation of classical alternator technologies, this utilises the resistance of the battery recharge generator as a preliminary engine brake. The fuel economy return of this specific innovation are small (saving approx. 1l/100km), but every little counts!

At the heart of machine sits the computer that controls the relative power flows within the system as a function of driving condition. Such an on-line control system represents a classical Chemical or Electrical engineers process-control bedrock; an underpinning process-model allocating power flows under dynamic operational constraints. The global objective? - to maximise mpg. It is a joy to watch the HUD as the engine, battery and brakes work together in a balletic dance of fuel-efficient optimality.

Such a system has many parallels with the energy system at large. As alluded to above, it could be compared to the control systems that allocate power from large-scale generators to homes, businesses and industry. Furthermore, the work on Urban Energy Systems being completed by the Energy Futures Lab at Imperial College combined with the expertise in distributed energy systems as studies through the Dept. of Electrical Engineering and the Centre for Environmental Policy (and Technology!) requires similar technological advances in order to provide increased energy delivery efficiency. Namely: [1] High Ramp-rates to match rapid demand variation at the local scale; [2] Battery technologies to capture surplus power resources and provide buffer stock for periods of reduced supply; [3] Complex model-based on-line control - requiring an array of sensor, modelling and control 'valve' technologies. These elements, combined synergetically can provide highly optimal resource allocation and thus reap substantial returns in system wide material and energetic efficiency.

"Are we nearly there yet?". Well, not quite; but the fun and games to be had with a real-time Sat-Nav routing coupled to a driving-style optimised engine-management strategy plan do far outweigh the youthful joys of "I see something beginning with H....."Hybrid Synergy Drive! Correct? "Wrong: You can't see that, it's tucked under the bonnet. But it might just represent a microcosm the our future energy systems, and I, for one, am quite excited by it...can't you tell? ;)

Emission Trading or Clean Technology- Australia Case.

It now seems certain that Australia will have a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS) by 2011, which, according to Prime Minister John Howard, "will include maximum practical coverage of emissions sources and sinks, and all greenhouse gases". Both of Australia's major political parties, as well most of Australian industry, support the government's current proposals. But despite this harmony of intent, there are concerns that many of the Australian companies affected by the scheme will not be adequately prepared for it.

Unlike the European Union's (EU's) ETS, which faced resistance, the proposed scheme has been well received by major emitters, particularly energy companies, who are looking for a carbon price signal before they can embark on major investments.

Energy companies are in a better position to understand the impact, having been closely involved in consultation regarding the design of an ETS, with both the opposition Labor Party's National Emissions Trading Taskforce (NETT) and later the federal government's Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading.

The government has done a good job of making the consultation process very open and transparent.
It is this short time frame, combined with a lack of understanding seen in businesses of all sizes, which could cause problems when the ETS is finally implemented. There's a large part of Australian industry that hasn't really understood what the impact from an ETS might be.
While industry comes to terms with its obligations under the impending ETS, there are also concerns among major emitters that carbon trading alone will not be enough to spur the necessary level of investment in low emissions technology.

A report issued by the cross-sector Australian Business and Climate Group (ABCG), states that there are strong reasons to support complementary policies for the research, development, demonstration and commercialisation of technologies.
Market mechanisms such as emissions trading will play a key role as part of a comprehensive climate change policy package," says Rio Tinto Australia's managing director Charlie Lenegan. "However, before market mechanisms can effectively pull the deployment of low emissions technologies, funded and rigorous technology 'push' policies will be required to develop and commercialise them."

Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, so clean coal technology will be vital to helping the country make the transition to a carbon-constrained society. Investments in clean coal technology in Australia are being made, but have relied on subsidies.  The development of low-emissions technologies required to achieve cuts in emissions is under-resourced both domestically and internationally, and while a carbon price may encourage some technology development, a major boost to funding for low-emission technology is essential if it is to be developed and deployed commercially at the scale required in the near future.

Without government funding for new technologies, the ETS is likely to miss its reduction targets, whatever they may finally be. There is a cautious optimism about the ETS but it depends on what the cap.

The Pine Box Rock

While we've all been busy taking violin lessons and mastering Web 2.0 it's been a lousy start to the millenium for pine. As you read this, 9.2 million hectares of pine forest (or Portugal if it was covered in trees)  is being slaughtered in peaceful British Columbia, under a state of red attack from the mountain pine beetle. This is a nasty parasite that burrows into the tree, lays its eggs, spreads a bit of fungus around and eventually starves the pine to death (see this article for a blow-by-blow account of the tree vs. beetle struggle).

Normally the beetle would be killed off in cold winters but thanks to a series of warm winters, they've managed to establish themselves properly, slaying the equivalent of 15 years of timber harvest in the process. The current infestation is due to last until around 2018, by which time 78% of the province's pine will have been killed off.

But the good news is that this seemingly global-warming-based environmental catastrophe is helping to keep Europe's renewable energy aspirations afloat, as vast quantities of dead pine are removed and chipped or pelletised before they decay, providing renewable woody biomass for homes in Sweden and power plants in the UK and the Netherlands. Though wood pellets are traditionally a residue-based product made from waste like sawdust, the Swedish company TallOil has boldy proposed to harvest up to 12,000 ha. per year of dead, beetle-infested trees in order to quench European wood pellet demand, clear up the dead wood and, in a roundabout way, sort of prevent warm winters from causing another beetle infestation.

Looking ahead, the real challenges are ensuring the long-term rehabilitation of the forests and diversifying the economy of the affected regions for when the infestation runs its course and bio-beetle-boom ends ten years from now. Luckily, the British Columbia Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan has the issue covered. I particularly like its recommendation to accelerate the development of the province's oil and gas resources in order to replace income from the decimated forestry sector. Perhaps future fossil fuel emissions should be deducted from present-day savings when calculating the beetle's contribution to European renewable energy targets.

UK to abandon the 20% renewables goal?

Chiara evidently is well connected, given that her comment a few posts ago hit upon an issue that has come to light in a leaked government document seen by the Guardian today.

In the document, Gordon Brown seems to be advised that the 20% renewable goal set by Blair for 2020 is "expensive and faces 'severe practical difficulties'". If he follows the advice, UK will likely then campaign with other sceptical countries to reduce the 2020 renewables target (to be set in December).

This is due to the high cost of renewables, and the logistics of coming to agreement with shipping companies and the MOD about offshore sitings. But as Chiara pointed out earlier, the government is also concerned that the target may undermine the existing carbon reduction target and emissions trading scheme. Renewables, of course, are not the only potential carbon-free power generators - nuclear being the big one.

Perhaps someone can tell me otherwise, but I'm not really convinced that the potential "conflict" between the renewables target and the carbon target is grounds to abandon it. As we discussed before, there are good reasons to have both. The government hasn't even shown (with modelling or cost estimates) that the renewables target will disrupt it. Why haven't they asked someone to do that exercise?

With a 20% carbon reduction target for the economy, I would expect under an emissions trading program that the electricity sector would be reducing much more (say, 40%) than its share - given the availability of carbon free options. Concrete, iron and steel, and aluminum do not have as many options, and will likely abate less (or be exported abroad - but that's a different topic). In any event, gas and renewables will likely be a large part of that abatement, regardless of the renewables target - unless nuclear is explicitly allowed a way back in. So it is worth noting that the nuclear industry has much to gain from this potential U-turn.

Furthermore, could the abandonment of the renewables goal just be the start of abandoning further targets - like the 20% goal for 2020? Brown has done U-turns on a number of Blair's other initiatives, this could yet be another. The leaked document shows they are deeply concerned about the prospect of losing the position as "climate leader", so perhaps this is still safe. Whether it is achievable, of course, is another thing. I am still pessemistic.

Biofuels saga: what OECD thinks

Linking blogs: OECD publish a report critical on current biofuel policies in US and EU (and calling for a carbon taxes)

Crap on Gore, crap on Mother Theresa: A day in the life of a National Post columnist

This link was already on DeSmogBlog but it's too funny not to repost here. Terence Corcoran (climate skeptic columnist from Canada's National Post), in his bashing of Gore attempts to take down the Nobel Peace Prize and all who have won it recently:

Rescuing and rewarding the obscure and the absurd has been a Nobel sideline for some years. The award has gone to half a dozen fringe movements and futile causes (the Gameen bank [sic], Mother Teresa, nuclear disarmament, land mine activists, peace negotiators), ineffectual United Nations agencies and personalities (including KofiAnnan and the UN itself )...

That's right, he went there. He just fucked with Mother Theresa.

Puzzlingly, he pisses on landmine clearances that make agricultural land safer (and more productive), and micro-finance institutions like Grameen Bank that help businesses get started. Surely his free market sensibilities would be keen on them.

So, any ideas who he'd prefer as Peace Prize winner?

Oh Canada, indeed. Well, back to work...

Green twist to the Nobel Prizes?

This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to German scientist Gerhard Ertl for his work on surface chemistry. The BBC and Globe and Mail both highlighted the environmental applications of his work: catalytic converters, hydrogen fuel cells, and the understanding of why the ozone layer is diminishing.

There was already an environmental link for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, with both climate change campaigners Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier being nominated (separately, I assume). The relevance of the environment to peace and security is obvious, so I see there being a good case for both of them.

Do I think Al Gore should get the peace prize? I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth,  so I can't comment on the movie itself. But he certainly has had a large role in bringing global warming (and global warming science) to the forefront of our minds and political discourse - 2007 has definitely been the year for climate change.

The movie has its fans and opponents: the RealClimate crew say he got the science right, others say he didn't. This week, a judge in England ruled that the movie could be shown in schools, although it must be prefaced by guidance highlighting some factual errors, and the alternative arguments. The factual errors identified, however, are largely related to the current and future impacts of climate change - not the assertion that humans are largely responsible to recent warming.

Given Al Gore's links to the US Democratic Party, I am concerned that his winning the Nobel Prize for Peace would only serve to further politicize the climate change debate - in the US particularly. He often presents a stark and alarmist view of the future under global warming, his popularity is driven by his obvious charisma and personality, and finally, he isn't a scientist. Climate change is a topic worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (and one in Chemistry or Physics), but right now my vote would be on Watt-Cloutier. We find out tomorrow!

USDA Blames High Price of Fuel on Elevated Fuel Prices

With food and energy prices on the rise, it's very tempting to blame the situation on a global thirst for biofuels. There are other culprits for current high prices though: drought in Australia and flooding in Malaysia to name but a few. So maybe we should give biofuels a break.

This Biopact article certainly thinks so, pointing out that in Brazil, higher output of price-competitive sugar cane ethanol output has helped to slow inflation by reducing dependence on expensive fossil fuels. Inflation was down in September compared to August, with food prices leading the deceleration (lê aqui).

In fact, as USDA Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner points out, rising food prices have more to do with increases in the cost of fossil energy (think transport, packaging etc.) than demand from corn ethanol [thanks Energy Blog].

But according to this paper, production of ethanol from sugar cane yields an energy output of 7.9 times the fossil input, compared to only 1.3 for ethanol derived from corn. So while Chuck might be factually correct about food prices being more closely related to oil than to corn ethanol production, he should really go further and point out that, faced with high oil and food prices, the US has encouraged production of the commodity whose two principal inputs are large quantities of the fossil fuel and food whose prices are rising - barely addressing one problem while marginally worsening another.

At a general level, the interactions between fossil fuels, biofuels, food crops and their combustible, animal-nourishing co-products is far from straightforward. As ever, the way forward is surely to follow the advice of Peter Mandelson* and stop penalising the most energy efficient biofuels from around the world. But then we're back to problems with deforestation, orangutan and more. Er... I wonder how much algae futures are fetching on the Chicago exchange at the moment.

* EC Trade Commissioner

US Emissions- How they trade?

As legislative debate continues, environmental concern and attempts to steer public perception seem to be driving the recent growth in business engagement with emissions trading in the US

The basic global-warming scenario is well known at this point: greenhouse gases (GHG) are warming the atmosphere, polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising and action must be taken now to counteract this trend. Growing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main heat trapping gas that scientists believe causes global warming, are said to be the largest contributor to the problem, with predictions of continued increases as industrialisation and power consumption rise.

In the US, which has chosen to reject the Kyoto protocol, politicians are proposing various approaches to reduce emissions – one being a cap-and-trade system. But will it happen in the foreseeable future?

The utility industry in the US seems to be split on how to address carbon and other emissions control. Some companies favour federal emissions standards while others support voluntary reductions. Proponents of regulation point to the successful US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) allowance-trading programme for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), begun in 1995.

Power companies are said to contribute 60% of all CO2 emissions in the US. In a report released last year, environmental Investor coalition Ceres, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) analysed 2004 data on emissions from the top 100 electric power producers in the US. From 1990 to 2004, the amount of electricity produced grew by 31%. The good news was that the power producers’ emissions of SO2 decreased about 44%, and NOx emissions fell 36%. But the bad news was that carbon emissions grew by 27%. With no governmental regulation of carbon emissions, one could easily conclude that voluntary regulation has not worked.

The cap-and-trade concept is straightforward and easily accommodates multi-sector participants. The cap element imposes an emissions limit on all participants and the trade element enables anyone who exceeds the cap to buy credits from those under the cap, in order to remain in compliance. The goal of this system is clear: to lower collectively the overall level of emissions.

Each piece of legislation has its own approach and details to reduce greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, as well as to improve energy efficiency. However, there are numerous issues to be sorted out, including what entities will be required to comply and whether credits can span borders into other countries.

The first organised trading for emissions in North America was formed in 2003. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a voluntary, but legally binding, rules-based greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading system. It is also the only global system that trades all six greenhouse gases. CCX has quickly grown to nearly 300 members, with leaders in greenhouse gas management from industries ranging from utilities and manufacturing to municipalities and universities.

CCX participants trade units called carbon financial instruments (CFIs), which are equal to 100 metric tons of CO2. Prices fluctuate depending on the number of buyers and sellers. As an example: if an emission producing company has a baseline of one million metric tons of carbon and in a given year exceeds its limit by 10%, it would have to buy one thousand CFIs to offset this. As in any free market, supply and demand dynamics will determine the price. CFIs were trading near $1 per metric ton in 2004 and are now solidly above $3 per metric ton.

Critics of the system say that at that rate, the penalty for exceeding the cap just isn’t severe enough. For multi-billion dollar entities, that’s chump change. While there are more sellers than buyers, the prices will remain low. But that’s actually good news for the environment if more participants are under the cap than over. That means they are reducing emissions, assuming the caps have not been set too high.

House of cards?

I've been meaning to write this post for a while, but other things have kept coming up that were more topical. I'm actually in Beijing at the moment for my PhD, so I really should do something China-based; but that'll wait.

A few months ago I had interesting chat with a certain red-headed PhD student (let's call him Bob) at CEP, about something I had thought about a few years ago while I was writing my PhD application.

Anyway, it was a few weeks after the Great Global Warming Swindle came out, and a lot of doubt about the state of climate science was swirling around - including among CEP'ers. Bob, taking a break from stamping on mice, asked me a crucial question: if the state of climate science is truly up in the air, what the hell are we doing here at CEP? Many of us at CEP are undertaking our research in large part on assumption/knowledge that global warming is man-made, and some kind of action needs to be taken. If anthropogenic global warming theory turns out to be false (as Durkin's documentary implied), will we have to chuck our PhDs in the bin? Are we taking a huge gamble in embarking on our degrees at this time?

It is one thing to find out at the end of the PhD that our own research is irrelevant - that'd be our own fault, ha - but what about the foundations upon which they rest? The foundation that many at CEP take for granted, according to Durkin (for example), is completely wrong!

I don't bring this up to discuss climate science, but rather to comment that as researchers we rely on previous work to move forward, and it is inescapable. This is obvious - our bibliographies would be empty otherwise. The issue of climate change and the doubts that fly around the media and common discourse, and doubts we may consequently have about our PhDs is in a way a magnified version of this.

So what, then? A few comments, I suppose:

1. It is a bit similar to how science progresses. We approach problems in a new way, keep taking small steps further (based on existing progress) and see if it takes us further. String theory in physics, for example is a good example - it is argued that it is not falsifiable, and should not be called a theory (link, link). Yet people are still working on string theory based on the work done by people before them. Perhaps there will be a breakthrough, perhaps they'll hit a dead end. It is unavoidable, and does not render the entire process or research useless.

2. Research in climate policy (whether mitigation or adaptation) is a different situation, as it is generally the application of existing techniques in the context of a warming world. So for the pessemists out there: Undertaking a PhD is not only about what you produce, but how you go about doing it. Even if you undertake an enviro-policy case study on a city that later gets wiped out by a tsunami, you can still apply your knowledge or experience elsewhere.

3. From a risk management point of view, even if our climate science was tenuous, we would need to undertake this research. We need plan for what could happen or what we should do under particular climate futures - and how much it would cost and who would be affected.

4. Of course, all this doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to make your PhD as relevant and interesting to others in the field as possible.

Thoughts?

Europe's 20 per cent target needs tougher legislation

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)  delivered its position paper on the future Renewable Energy Framework Directive at the Amsterdam Forum (forum on sustainable energy policy), saying that the 20 per cent target can be met provided that there is strong legislation.

Coming ahead of a stakeholder discussion of the issue with the European Commission, EREC details the measures needed in the electricity, heating and cooling, and biofuels sectors to fully tap the renewable energy potential in all sectors and all Member States. Efforts to downplay the renewable energy target by stressing the greater significance of the greenhouse gas reduction target - for instance by including nuclear energy to count towards the renewables target - need to be turned down, says the Council.

EREC Policy Director Oliver Schäfer says: 'One of the most important issues now is the rapid proposal and adoption of the framework directive. We only have 13 years left to fulfill the target, so we need to implement the necessary legislation rapidly. We expect no more time to be wasted by the Commission or Member States due to lengthy negotiations.'

Schäfer further warns that while some Member States have been calling for an EU-wide trading mechanism, such a market requires both sellers and buyers. 'So far Member States calling for an EU-wide trading mechanism only expressed an interest in buying, not in selling. If trading is allowed, several Member States will reduce their efforts and count on buying 'guarantees of origin' abroad at the latest possible stage', he says.

Harmonization of support schemes in the renewable electricity sector is premature at this stage, nevertheless, a list of criteria applying to all support mechanisms should be set. Furthermore, EREC advocates strong sustainability criteria applying not only to biofuels but also to biomass.

The European Commission must also give itself the means to impose fines on Member States if it becomes clear that they will not reach their national binding target, says EREC.

'It is high time to address the heating and cooling sector which has been neglected far too long,' says Schäfer, concluding, 'The EU target will only be met if legislation is adopted timely.'

New Zealand commit to 90% renewable electricity by 2025

In a speech this week, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke announced New Zealand's intention to commit to 90% renewable electricity by 2025, according to a press release issued by the New Zealand government.