In the Green

Geothermal electricity as baseload

Wind and PV are intermittent? Geothermal is not. Here we have a renewable source of energy which can be a good source of base load power.
Well it is still relatively expensive, but look what feed-in tariffs seem to be triggering in Germany.

Drilling is still the bottleneck for this technology (I remember hearing that last year at a Renewable Energy Association conference as well, from a representative of the UK geothermal "micro"  industry).

However, (as happened for other technologies) such bottlenecks can usually be solved with investments and market expansion (as it is happening for the silicon feedstock bottleneck in the PV sector, as an example). This is maybe what it's happening in...Germany, again!

Selling Ecosystem Services: A pro-poor conservation solution?

A meeting held by the Forests Philanthropy Action Network and the Department for International Development in London yesterday did well to bring a growing concern to the front of people’s minds; just a shame that there were only a handful of people present.

The meeting, briefly covering the many issues of tropical forest conservation and the rural poor, focussed on the need for engagement of capital markets to realise the value of tropical forests. Academia, the public and private sector are beginning to promote this ecosystem service commoditisation as a method to not only conserve forests but also to reduce poverty in developing countries. On the surface it appears to make sense; depletion of natural resources and poverty often occur together. The development of a market generates revenue for previously “free” ecosystem services. Deliver the funds to those who provide the service and you’ll get poverty alleviation. But this seems more like an ideal, designed to help sell the idea to the policy-maker or consumer, rather than the reality.

Thinking beyond the lifespan of most well-meaning NGOs, will rural communities in developing countries have the capacity to deal with these markets for ecosystem services? Meeting conservation and rural development goals concurrently isn’t straightforward. The Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, appearing since the 1980s, taught us that those living near to projects must have a high level of input in their design and implementation, and sufficiently clear links between conservation and social benefits must be made to secure success.

To take an example, consider payments made for CDM or voluntary carbon market projects in developing countries. It is highly unlikely that the average rural community will have sufficient capacity to deal with issues of additionality, leakage, permanence and management demanded by stringent compliance market conditions and emerging voluntary market standards. It is, arguably, just as unlikely to get private sector consultants and project developers to assess exactly what the local community’s needs and aspirations are. It is more likely we’ll try to implement projects claiming development benefits so that they sell and then shrug our shoulders as marginalised community members get poorer, or indigenous people lose customary property rights.

Those designing markets for ecosystem services need to carefully consider what the project is designed for. Is it compensation for the opportunities forgone? Is it to make tangible poverty reductions and contributions to development? Or, is it merely charity to the local communities that obscure potential implications of, for example, restricting resource access? If it is the first, we need much better ways to calculate opportunity costs before we do more harm than good. If it is the second, we must learn from community based resource management approaches and invest time and effort to establish best practice guidelines. If it is the third, then how long can we really get away with it?

The Big Smoke

I have a pretty good view of London from my flat - so when I work from home (on days like today), I have plenty to gaze at. Looking out the window today, however, there is little to look at beyond a heavy white smoke. You don't see it when you are at the ground level, so it's only from my apartment window that I get a real sense of how bad (or good) air quality is in London. These last two days have been pretty bad.

The smoke starts white in the morning, but by the evening turns a hazy brown - photochemical smog, if I remember my air quality science correctly. On days like this, I look up a cool website: London Air, which is run by King's College. Right now, my area (Camden) is rated at 'Moderate', meaning that it currently exceeds daily average goals set by EU Directives, but would only affect particularly sensitive people. When the sensors go red, asthmatics are supposed to stay indoors.

It's a neat website, and the ratings are updated regularly. You can also download weekly and monthly trends. I don't base my plans around it, but it's fun to check out once and a while.

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? ;)

Biofuels saga, a new chapter: ALGAE

Couple of days ago some of us attended an interesting talk of Alex Farrell on Technologies and governance for a sustainable biofuels industry.

I quite liked how he grouped the biofuels crops, basically in function of the relative land use:
1. arable land crops (such as soy, corn, palm etc)
2. degraded land crops (such as jatropha – see previous post)
3. crops which requires no land (such as algae)

Needless to say, he pointed out that a sustainable biofuels industry should focus research and efforts on crops belonging to groups 2 and 3. He also gave some sort of technological roadmap for such crops use in biofuels production, which sounded relatively optimistic, at least to a non biofuel expert as I am. And this sounded to me even nicer, because, as it happened a while ago with jatropha, I’m increasingly bumping into news about the use of algae as biofuels, such as  this or this.

Biofuels people, what are your views on algae? Are they really so efficient and sustainable biofuels crops as they sound (at least in theory)? Any already known problems and possible side effects? costs and future prospects?

Electrical Fields Generate Health Problems

Keith Jamieson who is a researcher at the Imperial College Centre for Environmental Policy published an article in the August issue of the journal "Atmospheric Environment”. The study is also reported by the Sunday Times, BBC, and NBC news. The study strongly indicates that prolonged exposure to the electric fields generated in everyday indoor environments may cause increased risk of respiratory diseases and infection from small airborne particles such as allergens, bacteria and viruses. The study also found that such risks may be
far higher than previously thought.

The study, published indicates that prolonged exposure to the electrical fields generated in everyday indoor environments may cause increased risk of respiratory diseases and infection from small airborne particles such as allergens, bacteria and viruses.

Keith Jamieson said that many of the factors that can cause high electric fields and increased deposition and contamination are often found in hospital ward environments and in buildings where incidents of sick building syndrome are noted.  Electrical fields are shown by the authors to "significantly reduce" localized concentrations of charged molecular oxygen, which enhances biological functioning and kills harmful microbes.

Over 90 percent of airborne particles are of the size affected by these electrical fields - less than one micron in size, 80 times smaller than a human hair. While they can remain airborne almost indefinitely, the deposit of these particles in people's lungs and on their skin can be greatly increased by electrical field effects, particularly when they are close to oppositely charged surfaces, the study found. Electric field levels can also vary with the humidity levels of indoor air. Levels below 20-30 percent humidity cause marked increases in the level of electrical fields that can be generated, depositing more particles in people's lungs and on their skin.

The researcher report that temporary incidents, such as frictional charging of the sheets when a hospital worker makes up a patient's bed, can further increase likelihood of contamination. Increased deposition of these particles increases the toxic load that the body has to deal with, raising the risk of contamination, bacterial infection and incidence of conditions such as asthma.
Surface contamination can prove harder to remove, as particles' deposition speeds are increased under high fields, making them stick harder to the surfaces they land on.

Keith Jamieson explains: "In the case of electrical equipment, particularly laptops, ensuring they are earthed can often greatly reduce fields. In terms of the electrostatic charge generated by people themselves, careful selection of materials and humidity levels can significantly reduce problems as can balanced bipolar air ionisation. Trying to avoid spending time in areas where high fields are created, and unplugging electrical equipment when not in use, are also good options - so there are a number of easy actions which can already be implemented in the workplace and the home to help reduce the toxic load our bodies have to deal with and the risk of illness and infection being transmitted in this way.""Trying to avoid spending time in areas where high fields are created, and unplugging electrical equipment when not in use, are also good options."

More Possible Side Effects

Feeling ok about biofuels now? Confident that we muddle through using marginal land, jatropha and a few other techniques to grow more fuel on less land using less fossil-derived inputs? Ok, that's cool.

Now check this out. According to a paper by the Brazilian National Agency for Space Research (here), we should be just as worried about methane emissions from artificial reservoirs and, in particular, hydroelectric dams. It appears that large dams are responsible for the release of 104 Tg of methane per year. That's 2.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, about the same as the Annex I countries' annual emissions from manufacturing, or the destruction of around 850,000 hectares of peatland forest.

The paper is the latest blow in the Coke vs. Guaraná dispute that has been raging in the journal Climatic Change over the last few years. The gist of the science is that biomass decomposes underwater in anaerobic conditions to produce CO2 and methane.

Some of this might not be the dam's fault if water and biomass are washed down from upstream but other emissions come from biomass growing by the side of the reservoir that is then swallowed up when the water level rises. Anyway, much of the resultant methane is dissolved near the bottom of the reservoir at high pressure and temperature. But the whole lot gets shaken up and spewed out at ambient pressure and temperature when the dam is opened, releasing lots of methane and CO2.

And... like any good global warming controversy, the issue is the subject of a highly-carbonated bi-polar feud, allowing us the luxury of suspending our own critical faculties and taking sides between (in this case):

- Ecologist Philip Fearnside (apparently the world's 2nd most cited author on global warming) and colleagues from the International Rivers Network. Fearnside came up with the shaking Coke bottle analogy to describe the release of methane and demonstrates that in many cases hydroelectric projects may be substantially greater emitters than fossil alternatives (see here).

&

- 'Big Hydro' Papers published by scientists with apparent links to hydropower companies such as Eletrobrás and Hydro-Québec cite their own findings to demonstrate that reservoirs are responsible for some emissions and it's not impossible that these are greater than the equivalent emissions from a thermal power plant. Most of the time, however, emissions will be substantially lower and anyway a lot of the biomass comes from upstream. Furthermore, Brazilians drink guaraná rather than Coke and do so at a more leisurely pace than their American counterparts. And even after half an hour, bubbles can still be seen in the glass (see article). Ergo, dams are not responsible for a sudden release of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.

For once, the apparent lack of scientific consensus does appear to be genuine. Whether hydro is worse than the fossil equivalent is a matter that needs to be settled using IPCC methodology on a case-by-case basis.

Author's comment: for the record, I wouldn't expect a glass of my favourite soft drink to be completely flat after half an hour. However, if I was shaking the bottle vigorously or pouring the drink in a fine jet for a distance of a hundred metres or so, I wouldn't expect to the eventual beverage to be particularly sparkling.

Do Biofuels brings food shortages and increase poverty?

The UN report on Biofuel energy pointed out a big debate on biofuels energy and agricultural land reduction effect on poverty. The report warned that new biofuels energy policy on climate change could create irreversible environmental problems. For example; switching energy from fossil fuel to biofuel will drive deforestation around the world that pushes small farmers off the land and lead many to serious food shortages and higher poverty.

The UN report indicate that rich countries see the crops like palm oil, maize, sugar cane, soya and jatropha extensively grown for fuels as way to reduce their own climate changing emission, and production of those crops could help stabilise the price of oil, and create new market for poor countries.

The report predicts winners and a loser of new energy policy which could create a multi-billion dollar a year biofuel industry and that aim to supply 25 % of the world’s energy supply.

With the new energy policy on bio fuels:

•   Global production of energy crops is doubling and 17 countries have so far committed themselves to growing the crops on a large scale.

•    Last year more than a third of the entire US maize crop went to ethanol for fuel.

•   Brazil and China grew the crops nearly 50m acres of land.

• The EU expecting the 10% of all fuel must come from biofuels by 2020.

The new biofuel market will encourage the poor countries to take part in the market, which will increase the deforestation so as to provide the land to grow vast plant. As a result poor countries will be worse off; their social and environmental problems will increase. One of the problems these countries are likely to face is the deforestation risk. The local level is where deforestation has the most immediate effect. With forest loss, the local community loses the system that performed valuable services like ensuring the regular flow of clean water and protecting the community from flood and drought. Such losses of freshwater resources are considered an important problem to national security in many countries that require it for agricultural and industrial operations. 

The UN warns: Where crops are grown for energy purposes the use of large scale cropping could lead to significant biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching.

The economic consequences of the new energy polices can be profitable and optimal for the capitalist investor. However, the same profitability and optimality never holds for the poor. Expanded production of bioful crops generates an uncertainty that will increase the volatility of food prices with negative food security implications. 

The report also draws attention to farmers whom do not own their own their land , and to the rural and urban poor who are net buyers of food, as they could suffer from even greater pressure on already limited financial resources.

The capitalist bio-economic solution is not for the solving the climate change problem, it simply wants to create new profitable market for its own investors. According to the report the crops could transform the rural economy of rich and poor countries, attracting major new players and capital, but potentially leading the problems. This will encourage large companies to enter the rural economy, putting the squeeze on farmers by controlling the price paid to producers. 

Adam Smith's Mistake

I wouldn't normally go out of my way to promote a particular book, but I feel I should make an exception for the one I've just finished. It's called Adam Smith's Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality by an American psychologist called Kenneth Lux.

If, like I did, you think this is an intriguing title then I don't think you'll be disappointed. Although it was first published 17 years ago at the end of 'the Me decade', it's core thesis seems as fresh and relevant today as ever. In fact, I suppose its resonance today makes for a sadly poignant endorsement given that it provides a comprehensive attack on the 'principle' of self-interest underpining mainstream economic thinking. It's a relatively short text (200-odd pages), and although it comes across as a bit potted in places, it is very well written, well researched and intellectually tight bridging a fascinating breadth of history. The book is currently out of print (a shameful indictment of the publishing industry!), though someone - presumably acting out of a sense of public good will - has uploaded the entire text online (would be interesting to know if Lux approves of this?!)

If anyone does read it (or already has), I am keen to hear their views and opinions in the comments section. Could kick off an interesting debate, since it's a kind of Pandora's Box of ideas...in a positive way...