Pages

Thursday, 17 November 2011

Could space lasers deliver clean energy breakthrough?


It may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but according to a major new report giant orbiting solar power stations are feasible
14 Nov 2011
Orbiting solar power stations could meet much of the world's energy requirements within 30 years, according to a major new study to be released later today.
The report from the International Academy of Astronautics, an advanced copy of which was obtained by news agency Reuters, is expected to conclude that it is technically feasible for large satellites to transmit usable energy to earth using either lasers or microwave transmitters.
FURTHER READING
Solar power stations have been mooted as a clean energy source for several decades, with interest mounting in recent years as governments seek a reliable clean energy source. 
Most notably, the Japanese government is working on plans for a space solar power project that is scheduled to be operational by 2030, while a number of private firms are also developing technology to support the concept.
However, the 248-page peer-reviewed report represents the most significant assessment of the viability of the concept yet undertaken.
According to Reuters, the paper provides little precise detail on how the technology could be deployed, nor on the estimated cost of new solar power stations, each of which would be several kilometres across.
However, it does state that space solar power could play a "tremendously important role" in meeting 21st century energy demand, while researchers working on the project told the news agency that costs were likely to be lower than first thought as solar space stations could take advantage of cheaper disposable launch vessels.
The report recommended that governments and the private sector team up to fund further research into the technology, arguing that the risks associated with such new technology are too great for private firms to fund prototype projects on their own.
The US National Space Society is scheduled to hold a news conference in Washington later today to promote the new report.
Source: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2124719/space-lasers-deliver-clean-energy-breakthrough?WT.rss_f=News&WT.rss_a=Could+space+lasers+deliver+clean+energy+breakthrough%3F

Carbon tax not a licence to profiteer, warns ACCC

Any business that blames price rises on the tax will need to justify them ... ACCC chairman Rod Sims. Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones
THE consumer watchdog is expecting a flood of complaints from people worried about price gouging before the launch of the carbon tax and is urging consumers to come forward if they suspect they are being ripped off.
In a speech in Perth yesterday, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, Rod Sims, warned businesses against using the carbon tax as cover for unjustifiable price rises. Any business that blamed price rises on the tax would need to be able to justify them, he said, as he put businesses on notice that the ACCC would scrutinise increases with the same rigour it did when the GST was introduced in 2000.
He later told the Herald the ACCC was expecting a high volume of complaints from consumers. ''I don't think we'll have any problem getting consumers to complain about this,'' he said. ''They're going to come in with all sorts of things. Consumers are going to be extra sensitive as the date approaches and we'll get a lot of complaints.''
Advertisement: Story continues below
The watchdog has already caught out businesses trying to profiteer from the carbon tax, including taxi drivers and a bottle shop that raised prices and blamed it on the tax, even though it does not begin until July.
Mr Sims stressed that businesses - provided they were not subject to price regulation - were generally free to raise and lower prices as they saw fit and were not compelled to justify them. ''What you can't do is mislead people into accepting it because they think it's due to a carbon price and it's happening everywhere.''
Businesses could be slapped with court-imposed fines of up to $1.1 million for serious breaches. The ACCC can also issue infringement notices of $1320 for individuals, $66,000 for public companies and $6600 for other companies.
The ACCC is regarded to have effectively kept a lid on price gouging following the introduction of the GST through then chairman Allan Fels's strong public warnings to business.
Consumers could email the ACCC or call a hotline if they were suspicious. Mr Sims declined to say what consumers might consider an excessive rise but said prices should not rise too much.
''Really, it's a lot to do with energy prices, particularly electricity,'' he said. ''If you are dealing with a sector that doesn't have a very large electricity cost, then it's hard to see how there's going to be very large price increases. If people say, 'I'm putting up my price 1 or 2 per cent because of the carbon price, that's probably not much of an issue, but where they talk about large numbers, short of being in the electricity industry, they now have to justify that.''
The opposition climate change spokesman, Greg Hunt, said it was ''appropriate'' for the ACCC to take action but said the government was trying to dampen the reaction to carbon-related price rises. ''It's one thing to protect against price gouging but another entirely to scare small business off providing legitimate information about the effect of the carbon tax on prices.''
The parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury, said the government had given the ACCC $12.8 million for the crackdown. ''While we recognise that the vast majority of businesses will do the right thing, the government has provided this funding to help stop the small number of businesses that may try to take advantage of their customers,'' he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-not-a-licence-to-profiteer-warns-accc-20111115-1nh72.html#ixzz1dv5jECUs

Home Washing Machines: Source Of Potentially Harmful Ocean “Microplastic” Pollution

Scientists are reporting that household washing machines seem to be a major source of so-called “microplastic” pollution — bits of polyester and acrylic smaller than the head of a pin — that they now have detected on ocean shorelines worldwide. Their report describing this potentially harmful material appears in ACS’ journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Credit: iStock

Mark Browne and colleagues explain that the accumulation of microplastic debris in marine environments has raised health and safety concerns. The bits of plastic contain potentially harmful ingredients which go into the bodies of animals and could be transferred to people who consume fish. Ingested microplastic can transfer and persist into their cells for months. How big is the problem of microplastic contamination? Where are these materials coming from? To answer those questions, the scientists looked for microplastic contamination along 18 coasts around the world and did some detective work to track down a likely source of this contamination.

They found more microplastic on shores in densely populated areas, and identified an important source — wastewater from household washing machines. They point out that more than 1,900 fibers can rinse off of a single garment during a wash cycle, and these fibers look just like the microplastic debris on shorelines. The problem, they say, is likely to intensify in the future, and the report suggests solutions:

“Designers of clothing and washing machines should consider the need to reduce the release of fibers into wastewater and research is needed to develop methods for removing microplastic from sewage.”

The authors acknowledge funding from Leverhulme Trust, EICC (University of Sydney) and Hornsby Shire Council.

Friday, 7 October 2011

Arctic Sea Ice Hits 2nd-Lowest Level

In September of this year, the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center showed that the summertime sea ice cover came very close to a new record low.
Joe Comiso, senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center said the continued low minimum sea ice levels fits into the large-scale decline pattern has been occurring over the past thirty years.
“The sea ice is not only declining, the pace of the decline is becoming more drastic,” Comiso said. “The older, thicker ice is declining faster than the rest, making for a more vulnerable perennial ice cover.”
Climate prediction models once predicted that the Arctic could lose almost all of its summer ice cover by 2100, but more recently, the ice level has declined faster than the models first showed.

Mosquitoes Ignore Global Warming Predictions

Global warming is often predicted to cause a devastating increase in the range and frequency of malaria, but somebody forgot to tell the malarial mosquitoes. The World Health Organization reports global malaria deaths have declined by nearly 40% during the past decade, even as the earth experienced its “hottest decade on record.”
Al Gore focused attention on the alleged link between global warming and malaria in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The media has been eager to run with Gore’s assertions, which you can see for yourself by doing a quick Google search of the terms “malaria” and “global warming.”
Here is a small sampling of malaria claims in the media:
“Global warming could lead to a return of insect-borne diseases in Britain such as malaria … a government report warns today.” – UK Independent, May 4, 2007
“Global warming will put millions more people at risk of malaria and dengue fever, according to a United Nations report that calls for an urgent review of the health dangers posed by climate change.” – Bloomberg, Nov. 27, 2007
“Doctors say global warming may bring malaria to Britain” – Reuters, April 3, 2008
“Global warming ‘will cause malaria epidemic in Australia and Pacific Islands’” – UK Telegraph, Nov. 20, 2008
“Malaria already kills a million people a year and now, researchers fear, climate change could make the problem even worse.” – ABC News, April 1, 2011
To (almost) quote legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi, “What the hell is going on out here?!”
For one thing, a penchant for sensationalism is almost a prerequisite for working in the media. The media has always over-hyped alleged fears and threats of any kind. This is, after all, what sells newspapers.
Second, you may have noticed that for every sensationalist media story about malaria and global warming, the media was always able to “hook” the story on sensationalist claims by one or more scientists or scientific organizations. Far too many scientists are willing to play the media-hype game to call attention to themselves, which they correctly perceive will advance their careers. It is no accident that when government hands out billions of dollars each year for global warming “research,” the vast majority of those billions go to professors, universities, researchers and research institutions that have claimed we are facing a global warming crisis. Global warming funding encourages grant recipients to be alarmist, and alarmist predictions by grant recipients encourage an increase in future global warming grants. More than one university professor has told me that he or she would like to speak publicly about the absence of a global warming crisis but either fears or has explicitly been warned that doing so will jeopardize university funding and, thus, their jobs.
Third, global warming activists have perfected the “spaghetti on the wall” tactic often used by criminal defense lawyers. Lawyers are taught in first year law school that when you don’t have strong evidence to back up a criminal defense case, throw as much spaghetti on the wall as possible and hope that at least one strand will stick. In the case of global warming, real-world facts have conclusively refuted assertions that global warming is causing more hurricane strikes, more drought, a decline in polar bear populations, etc. Global warming advocates count on the fact that most people have limited time and limited inclination to delve into the underlying scientific facts. Therefore, by throwing as much spaghetti on the wall as possible, one or more strands of discredited global warming claims will nevertheless stick in the minds of an unsuspecting public. Scientifically unfounded malaria claims comprise merely one of those strands.
The case for a link between malaria and global warming has always been very weak. Malaria epidemics were once commonplace in places as far north as Russia and Finland. Yet as temperatures warmed during the past century, malaria became virtually unheard of outside of equatorial regions. This clear disconnect between rising temperatures and malaria cases should have made it clear to Al Gore and the media that many factors impact malaria incidence and that warming temperatures have, at most, only a very minor importance.
So we’ll pull out a spatula, scrape the spaghetti off the wall, and keep the spatula ready for its never-ending global warming workload.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/10/05/mosquitoes-ignore-global-warming-predictions/2/

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Brazil without poverty, is a Brazil with forests

Blogpost by Daniel Brindis, Greenpeace USA - October 1, 2011 at 11:31 1 comment

Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff passes by activists holding a banner reading "Brazil without poverty, is Brazil with Forests". Image: Rodrigo Baleia
On a sunny afternoon this week, I waited outside Manaus’ ornate 19th century opera house Teatro Amazonas, with a group of Brazilian Greenpeace activists who wanted to send President Dilma Rouseff a message. While we were outside, Dilma was inside, flanked with ministers and senators singing the praises of her new rural welfare initiative ‘Brasil sem miseria’ (Brazil without misery/poverty).
Addressing rural poverty is a vital cause, yet the irony is that while President Dilma champions this new initiative to relieve poverty, proposed changes to Brazil’s forest code legislation are threatening the livelihoods of forest communities by legalizing millions of hectares of new forest destruction and granting amnesty for forest crimes.

That afternoon the activists urged President Dilma to honour her promises and not approve the forest code legislation. As she left the Opera House they presented banners, “Brazil without misery/poverty, is a Brazil with forests.” (Brasil sem miseria é Brasil com floresta). Activists also tried to give President Dilma an Açai sapling, an iconic tree of the Amazon, with a note- “I will be very comfortable in your garden. You know that I am important for the people of the Amazon. Take care of me, because I am worried about this new forest code. Sincerely, Açai.”
My colleague Rafael Cruz, a Brazilian Amazon Forest Campaigner said it best; “Scientists, family farmers, and civil society, have all protested the new forest code. Despite their criticisms, the Senate keeps moving the bill forward and President Dilma’s government is not engaged.”
“If we want to eliminate poverty, we need to keep our forests standing; they provide for the livelihoods of many of our country’s poor and invigorate our agriculture.”
Rafael referenced the false choice presented by those who want to destroy our forests. He pointed out that time and time again, forest destruction does little to lift people out of poverty. Despite 18% of the Amazon rainforest disappearing, the region maintains a low score on the Human Development Index especially in areas where forest destruction is the strongest.
The threats to the Amazon represented by the proposed changes to Brazil’s Forest Code continue to raise concern all over the world. Just yesterday, members of the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution on the Rio +20 Earth Summit that expressed concern over the new Forest Code legislation. The resolution characterized the Brazilian legislation as a threat to efforts to stop global warming and it also urged Brazil, the host nation for Rio +20, to make “a clear commitment to protect the Amazon forest and stem criminal harassment of representatives of civil society pursuing environmental protection.”

The banner these Greenpeace activists are holding up for President Dilma Rouseff to see reads: "Congress, turn off the chainsaws". Referring to the proposed changes to Brazil's Forest Code now being considered. Image: Rodrigo Baleia
This resolution is referring to the increased threats and violence occurring in the Amazon, since the Forest Code legislation was introduced in the Brazilian Congress. Six environmental activists have been killed since the end of May, and numerous others threatened.
Both the vast majority of Brazilians against the legislation, (79%) as well as the European Parliament, have reason to be concerned; the new law, passed by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house) this past May, is starting to move through committees in the Brazilian Senate. The law would allow amnesty for forest crimes and reduce the size of protected areas. Conservative estimates of the new law project 47 million hectares of deforestation - at least the size of California or Sweden.

Allowing congress to weaken Brazil’s forest protections and legalize millions of hectares of deforestation could be a step backwards for Brazil’s fight against poverty. Decades of deforestation in the Amazon has proven to be an ineffective way to lift people out of poverty in rural areas. Furthermore, the impact on poverty of the devastating forest code legislation could be global. The world can’t address global warming without the Amazon and impoverished communities all over the world are especially vulnerable to climate change.

Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/brazil-without-poverty-is-a-brazil-with-fores/blog/37134/

What the frack is going on here?

Hydraulic fracturing sends “huge volumes of toxic fluids” deep underground at high pressure, to fracture shale rock and release natural gas, Food & Water Watch claims. “Billions of gallons of toxic fluids” will “contaminate” groundwater and drinking water “for generations.” We need to “Ban Fracking Now.”
Environmentalists used to support “clean natural gas.” Whence the intolerant new attitude?
Oil companies have been using hydraulic fracturing for 60 years to get the most petroleum possible from grudging rock formations deep beneath the Earth. A few years ago, Mitchell Energy and others combined HF with horizontal drilling to tap into hydrocarbon-rich shale deposits that previously refused to surrender their energy riches. Countless fracking operations later, the results have been spectacular.
Tapping the Marcellus, Bakken, Barnett, Haynesville and other formations has created jobs, generated revenues and rejuvenated moribund industries in many states that have shale deposits or manufacture the fluids, pipes and other equipment used in these operations. US natural gas production and estimated reserves have soared, and wellhead prices have dropped from $11 per thousand cubic feet in 2008 to $4 today. Canada is actively drilling, while Poland and Britain are evaluating early exploration results...
The Fort Worth Chamber says fracking supports 110,000 direct and secondary jobs in the region and added billions in property and sales tax revenues. Loren C. Scott & Associates calculates that shale drilling has added $11 billion to Louisiana’s economy. Pennsylvania’s Labor and Industry Department reports that HF has already generated 72,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in state tax revenues, and could bring another $20 billion by 2020. West Virginia and North Dakota report similar success.
Soaring supplies and plummeting prices have persuaded Dow, Shell, Sasol, Ormet and other companies to open, reopen or expand plants to produce ethylene, petrochemicals, aluminum – and more jobs.
That’s excellent energy and economic news, at a time when we sure could use a little good news.
Certainly, with all this activity going on – much of it in states that haven’t seen much drilling in decades, if ever – there is a clear need for regulations and oversight. We need to ensure that drilling and fracking are done properly, and chemicals are handled, disposed of and recycled correctly, to prevent harm to human health, wildlife habitats and environmental quality. While most shale gas deposits are thousands of feet below groundwater aquifers and drinking water supplies, we need to ensure that well casings are properly installed and cemented, so that there is no danger of contamination.
But ban hydraulic fracturing – and abandon these revenues and jobs? What the frack is going on here?
Think about it. This is free enterprise in action. It pays its own way.  It doesn’t need subsidies, mandates, tariffs, or bureaucrats and politicians deciding which companies and industries win or lose. HF generates real, sustainable jobs, plus significant tax and royalty revenue, right here in America. It provides energy that works 24/7/365 … and is far cheaper than land-hungry wind turbine and solar panel installations. In fact, the shale gas revolution is making it even harder to justify these “renewable energy alternatives.”
Natural gas, specifically shale gas, is essential for powering backup generators for unreliable wind and solar installations. However, low gas prices make wind and solar even less competitive. The better solution is just to go with gas, coal and nuclear for electricity generation, and forget about expensive, eco-unfriendly, subsidy-dependent, crony capitalist wind and solar.
HF also demolishes the “peak oil and gas” mantra that we are rapidly running out of hydrocarbon energy. It again demonstrates that geologist Wallace Pratt was right. “Oil is first found in the minds of men.” Once companies devised new ways to extract shale gas bounties, vast new reserves became available.
Today, in reality, the only reason we might run out of energy is that government won’t let us drill.
People want and need reliable, affordable power. Many environmentalists support Paul Ehrlich’s opposite sentiment, that “giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
No wonder unrepentant fossil fuel haters are going ballistic over fracking.
The rest of us just want honest answers, carefully conducted drilling, fracking and production operations – and the benefits that come with them. Thankfully, the facts are relatively easy to find.
The Wall Street Journal laid many out clearly and forcefully in a June 2011 editorial, “The facts about fracking: The real risks of the shale gas revolution and how to manage them.” Whether it’s cancer, drinking water contamination, toxic or radioactive chemicals, earthquakes or regulations – the truth is miles from the misrepresentations, hysteria and fear-mongering propagated by Food & Water Watch and similar groups.
People who want to know how hydraulic fracturing is actually done – and what chemicals are actually used, even in specific states – can find a wealth of information at well-designed industry websites provided by Chesapeake Energy, the Ground Water Protection Council and Halliburton.
As the Halliburton site notes, 99.5% of fracking fluids is water and sand (the sand is carried into fractures, to keep them open and release the gas). However, forcing that fluid mix down wellbores and into solid rock formations thousands of feet underground requires advanced engineering and special chemicals to:
* Keep the sand suspended in the liquid, so that it is carried deep into the fractures;
* Fight the growth of bacteria in the fluid and wellbore, so that gas flows and pipes don’t corrode; and
* Reduce the surface tension of water that comes in contact with the reservoir, to improve gas production.
Different subsurface rock formations and conditions require different formulations for the 0.5% of the HF fluids that involves special chemicals. In the past, diesel oil and various industrial chemicals were used. Today, to an ever-increasing degree, the chemicals are borrowed from the food and cosmetics industry. The technical names sound daunting or even scary (inorganic acids, polysaccharide polymers and sulfonated alcohol, for instance), but these CleanStream chemicals (Halliburton’s terminology) are found in cheese and beer, canned fish and dairy desserts, and marshmallows and shampoo, respectively.
Even these three chemical groups (and other food and cosmetic chemicals) are classified as “hazardous” by the EPA and FDA, because in high doses some can cause cancer and other problems in animals. So you could say Food & Water Watch is technically correct when it tries to scare people by saying fracking fluids contain “toxic chemicals.” But the same point would apply to alcoholic beverages, fruit juices, lip liners, food starch, hand soap and countless other everyday products. Should we ban them too, along with coffee, broccoli and other foods that naturally contain even more potent carcinogens?
In other advanced techniques, instead of chemical biocides to kill bacteria, some systems now employ ultraviolet light, and mobile units now allow crews to treat and reuse water, reducing the amount of freshwater required in fracking. Other improvements are being made on a regular basis, as explained in simple lay terms on websites like those mentioned above. You can even find psychedelic 3-D maps of hydraulic fracturing operations and explanations of other fascinating technologies.
New York and other states, the Delaware River Basin Commission, Canadian provinces, Britain, Poland, the European Commission, and many Asian and Latin American countries are pondering HF as part of the solution to their energy, unemployment, economic and revenue problems. Getting the facts is essential.
Shale gas is an energy policy game changer. The last thing we need is more laws, regulations and policies based on misrepresentations and fabrications from outfits like Food & Water Watch.


Source: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9449-what-the-frack-is-going-on-here