Environment News: EnergyEnvironment News: EnergyenLarge scale carbon cutting â€“ is the Green Deal the answer?http://green-blog.org/news/energy/large-scale-carbon-cutting-%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C-is-the-green-deal-the-answer-r833/The Green Deal is a government initiative set to launch in the UK in October of 2012. It is designed to encourage business and home owners to install more green technologies in their offices and homes. Essentially, the Green Deal will pay all upfront installation costs, and users will pay back the money through savings on their energy bills, over a set period of time. Funding can be used for energy insulations such as loft, wall, double glazed windows and energy efficient doors. As well as insulation measures, the Green Deal will also fund home energy generation systems, such as air and ground source heat pumps.

It is simpler to look at the problem first and then further discuss the initiative. So what exactly is the issue in hand?

The problem

There has been a lot of media hype about cutting the carbon over recent years. But what exactly does this mean? Who should be cutting the carbon? Why should we be cutting the carbon? What carbon?

What they mean by â€˜carbon cuttingâ€™, is cutting the carbon output from our businesses and homes. When you burn a fossil fuel, you produce Carbon Dioxide (CO2). CO2 is a waste product and has been linked to global warmingâ€”a temperature increase of our planet. There can be devastating results if this issue continues to be ignored by the general public.

The government plans to cut CO2 emissions by 34% between 1990 and 2020, and the Green Deal initiative is the newest attempt to reach the public and make them aware of the problem.

How it works

There is not much required from your part. All you will have to do is approach a Green Deal certified installer. They will carry out an assessment of your property and report on the potential improvements. Energy savings must be greater than the costs of improvements so you can pay back the Green Deal loan. It really is that simple.

Costs and the â€œGolden Ruleâ€

The major worry for property owners, as always, is the cost of all of this. The people behind the Green Deal have created the process in a way that protects property owners from paying back more than they can afford. The "Golden Rule" states that the energy savings a property makes in a 25 year period must be equal to, or more than the cost of implementing the changes in the first place. This ensures that the property owner is not paying back more to partake in the Green Deal than they are saving on their energy bills.

Although it is difficult to predict energy costs in the future, Green Deal tries its best to ensure financial protection for property owners. Remember, the goal of the Green Deal is not to make money; it is to cut the UKâ€™s carbon emissions.

So whatâ€™s happening now?

The current issue is awareness. Although the process seems fairly simple, the difficult task is to get people on board. Reaching the governmentâ€™s planned carbon cut of 34% by 2020 will mean that over 14 million homes will need to be involved in the Green Deal.

What home and business owners are wary of is the actual savings. This is because the Green Deal will use the difference in the reduced energy bills as a payback method from property owners. Other barriers that may put people off the Green Deal, include the fact that many property owners simply canâ€™t be bothered. This â€˜hassle factorâ€™ is said to be one of the reasons why people have never taken up the governmentâ€™s home improvement schemes, even when they were 100% free. Concerns have been raised that the Green Deal is too difficult to understand for many British families. For this reason it is widely agreed that the Green Dealâ€™s success lies in the hands of the small, qualified providers that will be at the forefront of the scheme. Reputation and trust will underpin the Green Deal, but only if the government get it right from the very beginning.

Regardless of money or economic status, the UK has a global responsibility to reduce its carbon footprint â€“ the Green Deal is not the first attempt at revamping the country, and something tells me that it wonâ€™t be the last.

833Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:27:00 +0000
Green energy alone wonâ€™t save the earth - social change is also neededhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/green-energy-alone-won%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2t-save-the-earth-social-change-is-also-needed-r832/The most popular techno-fix for global warming is green energy. If energy companies would only deploy wind, hydro, solar, geothermal or nuclear, then emission-intensive fossil fuels will eventually disappear. But will that actually work?

A new study by Richard York of the University of Oregon shows that it isnâ€™t that simple. Rather than displacing fossil fuels, green energy sources have proven to be mostly additive.

â€œDo alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?â€ published last month in Nature Climate Change, discusses what happened when alternative energy sources were introduced in countries around the world, over the past fifty years.


The picture is worse with electricity, where each new unit generated from green sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

York writes:

â€œBased on all of the results presented above, the answer to the question presented in the title of this paper â€“ do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? â€“ is yes, but only very modestly. The common assumption that the expansion of production of alternative energy will suppress fossil-fuel energy production in equal proportion is clearly wrong.â€

Why donâ€™t the new sources replace the old? York identifies two key reasons: the inertia of a huge existing fossil-fuel infrastructure, and the power and influence of the coal and oil corporations.

â€œThe failure of non-fossil energy sources to displace fossil ones is probably in part attributable to the established energy system where there is a lock-in to using fossil fuels as the base energy source because of their long-standing prevalence and existing infrastructure and to the political and economic power of the fossil-fuel industry.â€

In other words, eliminating fossil-fuel as an energy source is at least as much a social and political problem as a technical one.



â€œA general implication of these findings is that polices aimed at addressing global climate change should not focus principally on developing technological fixes, but should also take into account human behaviour in the context of political, economic and social systems.â€

The evidence shows that simply introducing green energy isnâ€™t enough: the introduction must be accompanied by â€œexplicit policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions.â€

The article is published in a scientific journal, where political and social conclusions can only be expressed in muted form. But Richard Yorkâ€™s research and conclusions reinforce the argument that he and his co-authors (John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark) made more explicitly in their recent book, The Ecological Rift: Capitalismâ€™s War on the Planet.

â€œWe are confronting the question of a terminal crisis, threatening most life on the planet, civilization, and the very existence of future generations. â€¦ attempts to solve this through technological fixes, market magic, and the idea of a â€˜sustainable capitalismâ€™ are mere forms of ecological denial, since they ignore the inherent destructiveness of the current system of unsustainable development â€“ capitalism.â€

832Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:50:00 +0000
Nuclear Piranhas Eat Their Ownhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/nuclear-piranhas-eat-their-own-r815/We already know that the nuclear industry is quite comfortable colluding with governments to deceive the public or spying on environmental groups so that senior executives are sent to jail or lying to regulators to cover up radioactive leaks that are contaminating groundwater.

So, it should come as very little surprise that the nuclear industry has the same 'flexible' view on ethics, legality and basic decency when dealing with its own people. In fact, not even the CEO of France's nuclear giant, Areva, was safe: the Financial Times has recently revealed a catalogue of incompetence, espionage and massive financial failure (follow-up article) swirling around the French nuclear industry:

Areva purchased a uranium mine for â‚¬1.8 billion that was valued at only â‚¬1.4 million two years earlier

after purchase of the mine it became apparent that it contained a fraction of the uranium deposits that the Areva board believed

a senior Areva executive was exposed as having hired a Swiss private investigation firm to spy on then Areva CEO, Anne Lauvergeon (known as 'Atomic Anne' in France)

Lauvergeon alleges that her husband's phone was hacked as part of this and is now starting legal proceedings

the web of intrigue goes as high as the president of France, Sarkozy, who became personally involved when he forced Lauvergeon out and installed a friend of his, Henri Proglio who also happens to be CEO of EDF, one of the largest energy companies in France and the UK

Areva have now written off almost â‚¬2 billion as a result of the failed uranium mine purchase, amid accusations of fraud - although no evidence for this has been revealed so far

This debacle is piled on top of the disastrous nuclear projects that are unravelling in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France where Areva are trying to build their new "Nuclear Renaissance" power plants.

It all paints a picture of a desperate industry in turmoil as nuclear power continues its long-term trend of global decline, with the IEA reporting that nuclear is down 10% year-on-year as renewable energy climbs 24%. Given that the industry operates more like a crime syndicate than a legitimate business, it is a little difficult to feel any sympathy.

Along with flying atomic cars and glittering cities on the Moon, the claims of "unlimited, clean and safe energy" that is "too cheap to meter" that the nuclear lobby began promising in the 1950s have been utterly discredited. Let's hope that the nuclear piranhas continue eating their own and finish themselves off quickly so that the planet can focus its full resources on deploying clean, safe and truly sustainable renewable energy in order to mitigate the worst of climate change.

815Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:23:00 +0000
US rejects controversial Keystone XL pipelinehttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/us-rejects-controversial-keystone-xl-pipeline-r808/The US state department has denied a permit for the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, that once constructed would transport dirty and climate killing tar sands from Canada to the US and other world markets. One of the worldâ€™s most prominent climate scientists, James Hansen has said that if the Canadian tar sands would be exploited as projected it would be "game over for the climate".

But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite "no" to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didnâ€™t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department â€œis not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadlineâ€:

"As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipelineâ€™s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment."

"Iâ€™m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administrationâ€™s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,"
Obama said

TransCanada has announced that they are â€œdisappointedâ€ by the outcome but that they are still â€œfully committedâ€ to the Keystone XL pipeline project:


Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a "lack of seriousness" when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. "President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs," a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But itâ€™s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline â€œis unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employmentâ€ levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around â€œ5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobsâ€ would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs â€œwould last for the two years that it would take to build the pipelineâ€.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesnâ€™t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

808Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:43:51 +0000
Greenpeace activists penetrates French nuclear plant, everyone relieved they weren't terroristshttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/greenpeace-activists-penetrates-french-nuclear-plant-everyone-relieved-they-weren39t-terrorists-r798/

The other day nine activists from Greenpeace managed to breach the security, infiltrate and hang a banner on one of the reactor buildings at a French nuclear site. According to media reports the police took "several hours" to respond to the security breach at the Nogent Sur Seine nuclear plant, located just 120 km from Paris.


Greenpeace's point with this action was to highlight the vulnerability of nuclear plants and to criticize Franceâ€™s failure to have proper safety procedures against terrorists. "This action shows just how vulnerable the French nuclear plants are,' said Sophia Majnoni d'Intignano from Greenpeace in a statement. D'Intignano said that French nuclear plants are considered safe just because it is believed that they can withstand a flood or an earthquake. "But those aren't the real risks for our nuclear industry," D'Intignano said. "It's the risk of [an] external, non-natural attack, like the risk of terrorism."

Safety experts have warned about the threat of terrorism to nuclear reactors before. The Italian nuclear engineer and safety expert Cesare Silvi says that the threat of terrorism is one of the reasons why he left his former pro-nuclear stance for solar and other renewable energy sources.

I am sure many of us agree that it would be a good idea to have a strong protection against outside threats, such as terrorism, at our nuclear power plants. And I am also sure that many people would claim that their country's nuclear safety is in good standard. But apparently this is not the case for nuclear plants in France, and potentially other countries as well. For example, the UK government excluded terrorism as one of the things to consider when they participated in the European wide nuclear stress tests after the Fukushima accident. In fact, most nuclear operators around Europe never stress tested their plants vulnerability against technological or human threats such as a nuclear reactor being struck by a large aircraft.

798Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:06:00 +0000
Denmark to end their reliance on fossil fuels, aims for 100 percent renewable energy in 2050http://green-blog.org/news/energy/denmark-to-end-their-reliance-on-fossil-fuels-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-in-2050-r796/The new red and green government in Denmark wants to end the countryâ€™s reliance on fossil fuels. In a proposal presented to the parliament last week the Danish government laid out their new and bold energy plan. By 2050 Denmark should get 100% of their energy from renewable energy sources.

The proposed energy plan would have four central deadlines. Under the new plan the government wants to see Denmark generate 52% of its energy from renewable sources, such as wind power, as early as 2020. This target alone would cut Denmarkâ€™s greenhouse gas emissions with 35% based on 1990 levels. By 2030 all coal-fired power plants in Denmark will be phased out and replaced by biomass and other renewable energy sources. And in 2035 the Danish government expects that all of the countryâ€™s power and heat will come from renewable energy sources. And if their plan is followed, the countryâ€™s entire energy supply could come from renewables in 2050.

Denmarkâ€™s climate minister, Martin Lidegaard, said that the new energy plan is designed to combat the climate crisis, the countryâ€™s current economic crisis and future resource crisis at the same time.

â€œWe want to address all three crises at once. It doesnâ€™t make any sense to solve the economic crisis if that affects the climate crisis and vice versa.â€

According to estimates the energy plan will cost Denmark 5.6 billion crowns, or about $1 billion, in additional spending in 2020.

"The conclusion being it has a cost to make a green transformation, but it also has a cost not to do it. I think this will work out to be the best insurance Denmark has ever (bought)," Lidegaard said.

Denmark may already be a world leader when it comes to wind energy, which supplies the country with around 20% of its energy, but these targets will still be difficult to reach. Fossil fuels remain a large part of the countryâ€™s energy portfolio, accounting for approximately two thirds of the total production. Last year 44% of the energy generated in Denmark came from coal-powered plants.

But still faced with this I am confident that Denmarkâ€™s energy plan is very much achievable. Truthfully, it must be a success. And since neighboring country Sweden has lost the will to lead, Europe badly needs a new climate leader. And hopefully the new socialistic government in Denmark wants to take that on that role. Next year Denmark will take over the presidency of the European Union. It will be during these six months that we will see if Denmark is serious about promoting ambitious climate policies and targets for all of Europe.

796Sun, 09 Dec 2012 06:56:00 +0000
The greatest Astroturf of all time - Ethical oilhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/the-greatest-astroturf-of-all-time-ethical-oil-r792/If thereâ€™s one thing that makes any environmentalists blood boil, its got to be the practice of â€œgreenwashingâ€ where companies try to sell themselves as â€œgreenâ€ when they are anything but. Then there's "astroturfing" where a PR firm in the pay of a conglomerate creates a fake grass roots movement to further their own agenda (Countryside guardian an anti-wind farm group with links to the UK Nuclear industry is a classic example). But the promoters of the Canadian Tar Sands project have seriously pushed the boat out by attempting to label Tar sands oil as â€œethical oilâ€. I realise that this is a bit of an old story, but I bring it up because it has got to count as the most cynical example of â€œgreenwashingâ€ Iâ€™ve every seen. I mean seriously their websiteÂ  should come with a health warning, as it has to be seen to be believed. They make â€œnewspeakâ€ in 1984 look like an episode of spin city!

They have chosen to label the Tar sands as â€œethical oilâ€ on the basis that it is not â€œconflict oilâ€ as well Canadians, arenâ€™t they all friendly and green and everything? Well actually no! Much of the fossil fuels consumed in America (oil, gas and coal) comes from North of the border, as Canada compete with Venezuela for the title of Americaâ€™s leading source of energy imports (and thus the primary source of Americaâ€™s carbon addiction). In addition much of the Uranium that powers America (and Canadaâ€™s) nuclear reactors comes from Canadian mines. Northern Canada is also home to many large open cast mines for various minerals. I would also note that energy consumption of the average Canadian is actually higher than that of the average AmericanÂ  (7.4 toe for Canada against 7 for the US). Finally I would note that like any country Canada is made up of different provinces with very different regimes in each state. Alberta province, where the Tar sands are based, happens to be the most right wing state in the Union with the worst environmental record. Indeed they are often described as the â€œCanadian Texasâ€.

Should anyone reading this be unfamiliar with the whole tar sands controversy, tar sands are basically a mixture of moisture, soil, sand, clay and heavy oil. They are usually the consequence of oil escaping at some point in the past from its underground source rock and migrated up to the surface. Here it became mixed with the soil and also came under attack from the biosphere. Given a few more hundreds of thousands of years it would all get broken down into an unusable form (this is the same mechanism that has over the last 250 million years destroyed much of the oil that ever formed on this world, only a tiny fraction survived to the present day). Extracting oil from Tar sands, the world largest and most accessible deposits are in the Athabasca region of Northern Canada, is more of an open cast mining operation. This would involve tearing down large quantities of pristine old growth boreal forests, possibly an area the size of the England and Wales may ultimately be destroyed.

The major problem with the Tar sands is thus, the enormous environmental pollution caused by this mining and processing, see here for a summary of the problems it creates and see pictures of the destruction here. Or actually just go to Google Earth and pop in â€œFort McMurrayâ€. I donâ€™t need to be any more specific than that, as they are literally creating a mess big enough to see from space! Also this processing consumes large quantities of energy, meaning youâ€™re energy payback from oil sands (EROEI) isnâ€™t nearly as good than you get with conventional oil (indeed it may prove to be an order of magnitude less). This also means you need a substantial source of energy to power youâ€™re oil sands extraction process, and the carbon emissions resulting from this process are increased (some figures say Tars sands produces 20%Â  to four times the greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional oil, depending on who you ask). It also requires substantial quantities of water, both to aid in oil processing, but also to â€œflushâ€ away the many chemicals contained within the associated tailings (which can include a toxic mix of known or suspected carcinogens, heavy metals, POPâ€™s, arsenic, etc.)....this â€œflushâ€ often seeing large amounts of sediment laden with toxins finding its way into mountain rivers and streams. In short if you think the conventional oil production is bad, Tar sands are much worse. An order of magnitude increase in Tar sands production will produce a significant spike in pollution (again in the middle of an boreal wilderness) and carbon dioxide levels (Guardian article on the Canadian governments to hide these facts here). It is no wonder that environmentalist recoil in horror.

So I think we can safely say that from an environmental prospective this â€œethical oilâ€ claim is completely unjustified, unless you consider destroying one of the worldâ€™s last great wildernesses while clubbing baby seals to death (another Canadian â€œpastimeâ€) as â€œethicalâ€! But what about this claim that Canadian Tar Sands isnâ€™t â€œconflictâ€ oil? They put a picture of Hugo Chavez on one poster under the term â€œconflict oilâ€ then imply that Canadian oil is conflict free. Letâ€™s pick that one apart. Who exactly is Venezuela at war with? While they are having a few border disputes with Colombia, as far as Iâ€™m aware the country is not engaged in any formal conflict, nor significant informal conflict with any of his neighbours. Ironically of course Canada has troops serving in Afghanistan, whose presence there is ultimately funded in part by revenue raised by the Tar sands. So actually if you want to buy â€œnon-conflict oilâ€ my advice would be to give Hugo a call and the Canadians a miss.

The also accuse Hugo Chavez, in the poster, of promoting â€œforced labourâ€. While Iâ€™m not necessarily a fan of old Hugo, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of his regime, which has sought to redistribute the countryâ€™s oil wealth to the poor. By contrast a bunch of labour union supporters showed up at the Occupy Calgary campÂ  recently to highlight the problems they face with Albertaâ€™s lax protections of employee rights. I also recall meeting during my travels a year or so ago in Canada, a local farmer who was ultimately in danger of loosing his land to the tar sands through a compulsory purchase order they weâ€™re likely to hit him with. Pushing farmers and locals off their land so multinationals can exploit oil reserves (under the farmer's feet mind!) doesnâ€™t quite fit in with the â€œethical oilâ€ image I think. In short you could easily reverse many of these posters and accuse Canada of being the warmongering nation with a dreadful environmental record who tramples on human rights and pushes people off their land.

Indeed reading through this â€œethical oilâ€ propaganda there seems to me to be a dangerous and bigoted undercurrent. They tar (oh! the irony!) all the OPEC countries with the same Saudi brush (awful of course tho the Saudi's human rights record is), ignoring the diverse nature of the many Middle East nations (and their attiudes to Islam or womens rights). And of course not all OPEC states are in the Middle East nor are they Muslim! And the world's largest oil producer? Russia!

So what these "Ethical oil" lot seem to be saying is that oil pumped by white anglo-saxons is ethically and morally superior to that pumped by those nasty evil foreigners with their dark skin, strange religions and funny languages. I've not come across such fascist crap and misinformed bigotry since I last saw a Mel Gibson film. And again ironically, if this is the intended point our â€œethical oilâ€ spinsterâ€™s are making, then even this is factually inaccurate. The bulk of the finance behind the Tar sands is coming not from Canada, but from abroad (economist article mentions that here). Chinese, Russian, Indian and American firms are indeed all major investors in the tar sands (see wiki page here for info and links on this). Indeed I would argue that the problem for the Canadians here is they are loosing control of the situation. Ultimately decisions on the Tar sands (how much will be produced and how bad the environmental mess which the Canadians will have to clean up afterwards) will be made in foreign countries by foreign multinationals.

In fact can I play this game too? I could for example come up with a poster labelling Canada brutal treatment of native Americans in past centuries, or indeed the present day (one tribe down river from the Tar sands (Fort Mckay) have had their water source polluted by Tar sands runoff with a growing cancer cell springing up) with Saudi Arabia who are so multicultural they actually prefer to hire workers from India or PakistanÂ  ;) Or how about their positive attitude towards women, while Canadian women are forced to drive their own cars, the Saudiâ€™s provide their women with chauffeurs and male chaperons instead ;) Yes buy Saudi oil, the â€œethicalâ€ oil!

Jokes aside, the fact is there is no such thing as â€œethical oilâ€. The stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in Canada is as dirty as the stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in the Middle East, possibly dirtier in fact.

But we need those jobs here in Canada, the Tar sands supporters will say, if the tar sands arenâ€™t promoted all those jobs will go abroad along with North Americaâ€™s energy security. And how many jobs could be created if Canada exploited instead its vast renewable energy potential? North America has some of the best and most varied renewable resources on the planet, if only our American cousins would only get over their whole â€œreal men donâ€™t use solar panelsâ€ attitude. And if the point of tar sands oil is to improve north American energy security then why are they building pipelines to Texas and West Coast ports from the tar sands? That sort of implies that the bulk of the oil will ulitmately be exported, or at the very least if America wants the oil it will have to pay the market price (which could be high in the future).

But we need the Tar sands to rescue the world from peak oil, is the other argument. Again, as will all tar sands propaganda this one too falls flat. Iâ€™ve seen estimates for the maximum tar sands ranging from 1 million bbl/day to 8 million bbl/day with 5m bbl/day often been quoted as a â€œbest guessâ€. However this is but 6% of the current global demand of around 80million bbl/day and even that 8m bbl/day figure (wildly optimistic thought it is) is but 8% of the projected 2030 demand figure for oil of 100million bbl/day. Were does the other 94-96% of the worldâ€™s oil come from?

Furthermore, again we have to consider the issue of EROEI. Iâ€™ve seen EROEI estimates for the tar sands ranging from 9 to 0.7 (with a ratio in the range of 3-7 being probably a more credible range of values), substantially worse than any existing oil fields (EROEI ranging from 10 - 100). Remember that because an IC engine is typically just 20-30% efficient (and the primary consumption path of oil is ultimately transport fuels) we need to achieve an EROEI of at least 5-3.3 just to break even energy wise (else our tar sands count as a net energy sink rather than a source).

Inevitably the above means weâ€™ll need to divert huge quantities of natural gas to power the whole operation. Indeed its questionably if there is sufficient quantities of gas (or coal) to spare within the whole of North America - a fear that seems justified given recent talk about bringing in nuclear reactorsÂ to meet demand. When I first heard about this plan to use nukes to extract tar sands I assumed it was a hoax perpetrated by Republicans trying to yank Greenpeaceâ€™s chain, but unfortunately no its for real. Of course even a number of pro-nuclear campaigners arenâ€™t entirely happy about this one, describing it to me as â€œperverseâ€ and â€œan abuse of nuclear technologyâ€. After all, it involves (as they see it) taking high grade zero-carbon nuclear energy and using it to produce a load of low grade carbon intensive energy! Would you not be better just building reactors closer to cities and generating electricity and heat they argue? When the nuclear lobby calls you environmental terrorists you know youâ€™re goose is cooked! And of course I would point out, ridiculous as this idea is, it can only be sustained as long as we can keep feeding Uranium into the nuclear reactors. And who is going to pay the decommissioning costs of those reactors and what happens if one of them pops its cork in the middle of the Canadian Boreal forests?

While nuclear power would reduce the net carbon output from the Tar sands we are still looking at a situation where the tar sands will still produce much more greenhouse gases, both from disturbance to the eco system as well as from the oil itself and the refining and processing of it, compared to existing oilfields. A global policy of climate change mitigation and tar sands (or shale gas) extraction are simply not compatible.

The Tar sands are thus in summary not ethical, not eco friendly, not a solution to peak oil and arguably not even Canadian anymore! The only people who will ultimately gain from tar sands extraction are the shareholders of a small number of foreign multinational oil companies...or certainty greedy PR types happy to sell their souls and they're nation's credibility for a few (tar splattered) bucks.

792Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:38:00 +0000
US Chamber of Commerce Lobby's For Tar Sand Pipelinehttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/us-chamber-of-commerce-lobbys-for-tar-sand-pipeline-r774/The U.S Chamber of Commerce has launched a campaign to lobby for Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The Partnership to Fuel America is run out of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, and seems positioned to be the U.S. Chamber's main influence channel to drum up support for Keystone XL.

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system that will transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States and then expand to the U.S Gulf Coast. The U.S Department of State has extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest. The Obama administration has the final say in approving the pipeline. A final environmental review of the prospective project is expected from the State Department in August.

The Partnership to Fuel America campaign is the first time the U.S Chamber has overtly aligned with the Canadian companyâ€™s project. According to the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, it will be "comprised of American businesses and industries that understand the need for more energy in the United States and believe that Canada's significant resources can help achieve that goal." When visiting The Partnership to Fuel Americaâ€™s website, the only source of energy listed at Canadaâ€™s tar sands, and most listed are directly related to the Keystone XL project.

This particular pipeline is controversial because it is a tar sands pipeline, itâ€™s different than those that carry conventional crude oil. These lines are much more prone to leaks and spills, and spills are bad for the environment. Because this is a tar sands pipeline, the oil that is extracted is different. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

This type of oil is more acidic, thick and sulfuric than conventional crude oil. It is up to sevety times more viscous than conventional crude oil. It also contains fifteen to twenty times higher acid concentration, and five to ten times as much sulfur as conventional crude oil. The additional sulfur can lead to the weakening of pipelines. Imagine having to transport a glass of water in a paper cup by driving out of your garage door to the other side of the country without even a spill. The chemical composition also makes it much more difficult for monitors to detect a crack in the pipeline.

The Keystone I pipeline has infamously spilled twelve times in under a year of operation. The company had initially claimed that the pipeline would leak only once every seven years. Finally, after the tar sands oil does spill, cleanup is harder than normal crude spills. A year after a spill in Western Michigan, one reporter stated that surface skimmers and vacuums were no help, and a full year later, EPA officials and scientists were still working on a plan to remove submerged oil from about 200 acres of river and lake bottom. They now believe a full clean up could take years.

774Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:49:00 +0000
The fifty year wait for nuclear fusion energy is here, honest...http://green-blog.org/news/energy/the-fifty-year-wait-for-nuclear-fusion-energy-is-here-honest-r772/Last week the UK firmly threw its hat into the fusion ring with the UK Company AWE joining the National Ignition Facility (NIF) based in the US to push for energyâ€™s Holy Grail: nuclear fusion. If fusion can be harnessed and surplus energy is harvested over and above the vast amounts of energy needed to stabilise and sustain the reaction then the long sought silver bullet, we are told, will be here. The promise of limitless clean fusion energy within fifty year, which has probably been around for fifty years is nearly here.

But, and this is the largest â€˜butâ€™ I will ever type, the technology still has some immense hurdles to cross yet.

Nuclear fusion, in laymanâ€™s terms, has all the benefits of nuclear fission, our current nuclear energy source, but with none of the radioactive material which will have an environmental impact lasting far past the life time of our childrenâ€™s children.

Nuclear fusion is the chemical process where two lighter nuclei are essentially slammed together with such force that they fuse into one heavier nucleus. As they fuse they emit large quantities of energy.

Nuclear fusion is occurring in the Sun, a process called nucleosynthesis, the heat and light released in the reaction allowing life on Earth to flourish.

Having a stable reaction here on Earth is incredibly difficult as there are no materials able to withstand temperatures in excess of 100 million Kelvin which nuclear fusion reactions can reach.

This means that these plasmas need to be contained in an electric field with no part of the reactor in contact with the fusion reaction.

The two nuclei that come together can be no heavier than iron, with hydrogen atoms, the lightest element the usual candidate making the potential source of fuel for a fusion reactor the most abundant element in the Universe. Nuclear energy sources will no longer be shackled to scarce uranium deposits and suddenly we can look to the oceans for our energy.

The president of the Institute of Physics, Sir Peter Knight, claimed that a demonstration plant would be operational within the next 18 months, showing that in principle fusion can generate more energy than is required to start and maintain the fusion reaction.

He hopes that by demonstrating that this is possible, the first step to scaling the process up will begin and then the enormous benefits of fusion can be realised.

Of course however, it is not that straight forward. It never is.

Even if it possible to utilise nuclear fusion to its full potential and generate massive quantities of accessible, clean, cheap electricity we do not have the ability to effectively utilise this electricity.

Our cars and lorries currently require petrol or diesel, we have gas boilers to heat our water and warm our homes, our planes need aviation fuel to fly etc.

One solution to this, as David MacKay writes in his beguiling and sometimes scary book, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air, is to electrify as many devices as possible.

This means electric: cars; trams; boilers; machinery; ships; all lighting; heaters; you name it, everything. If fusion can provide clean, cheap, accessible electricity then everything that can use batteries, should.

Job done you might think.Â But then there is the very obvious question:

Is it possible to produce all the batteries needed?

And the simple answer is, no. Not in the form that batteries are currently produced. There are just not enough of the rare earth metals, such as lithium, needed to produce the batteries to substitute all our energy sources. Some people highlight the fact that we will just shift our economy and lifestyle from one dependent on oil to one dependent on rare earth metals.

So, to sum up this rather dispirited article, there have been some bold claims made recently that critical advances are occurring in our fifty year exploration for nuclear fusion. If the incredible is achieved however, there are enormous obstacles to overcome both technically and in our natural resources.

It is my opinion that it is our lifestyle, which is currently so tightly bound to high energy consumption, which is our true Achilles Heel. By reducing our energy consumption we liberate ourselves from the need for complex, technical, and possibly impossible solutions to our energy problems. Fusion may solve some of our energy problems, but it wonâ€™t solve them all.

772Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:21:00 +0000
China sees record investments in renewable tech, will introduce carbon trading schemehttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/china-sees-record-investments-in-renewable-tech-will-introduce-carbon-trading-scheme-r767/The Chinese government recently declared that they are intending on placing a cap on their annual carbon emissions which will allow the individual provinces in China to regulate and plan their emissions more effectively. The hope is that this cap will provide a stable enough environment for the government to then introduce an inaugural carbon trading scheme which will further help push emissions down and generate capital to be invested in carbon mitigation schemes and renewable technologies. The introduction of a cap and trade scheme is hoped to reduce carbon emissions by between 40-45% below 2005 by 2020.

The Chinese government announced this on the back of record investment in renewable technology in 2010 overtaking the U.S. for the first time in 2010 with an astounding $54.4Bn being invested in the renewable sector. This compares with the US at $34Bn and the UK about a tenth of that at $3.3Bn. $54.8Bn equates to about 56,000MW of installed hydro power, 44,000MW of installed wind capacity and 800MW of installed solar power. The BBC reported that a total of $211Bn was invested globally last year with a 32% growth rate in the renewable sector. Using my back of the envelope calculation, this equates to the renewable market doubling every two-and-a-bit years, a formidable growth.

China, it would seem, is a good place to invest in renewable technology. So good in fact, that back in June of this year the World Bank awarded China and seven other countries grants to be used directly in organising, implementing and developing climate change mitigation technologies.

This all sounds very promising but, as with nearly every bit of good news, there is an important addendum which highlights a more subdued reality. Last year China emitted 7.7Bn tonnes of carbon equivalent which is a 13.3% increase on last yearâ€™s total. Since 2000 Chinaâ€™s CO2 emissions have risen by 170.6% and have been closely related to the countryâ€™s Gross Domestic Product growth. This is why the huge investment in renewable technologies is so important, as it is the only way to break the link between carbon emissions and GDP growth. In a world where GDP growth is king, the Chinese government could be showing the way in sustainable energy production and low carbon emissions.

The coming few years are going to be very interesting.

767Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:33:00 +0000
Why we must stop coal to gas transition and frackinghttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/why-we-must-stop-coal-to-gas-transition-and-fracking-r766/The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now 394 parts per million (ppm) but top climate scientists and biologists say that it must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (for details simply Google 300.org or 300 ppm CO2). However the World is now undergoing a coal to gas transition, a gas rush and a gas boom, with gas derived from conventional on-shore and off-shore sources and also from shale deposits and shallower coal seams that are being subject to hydraulic fracturing or â€œfrackingâ€. Because methane (85% of natural gas) leaks (3.3% US average, up to 7.9% from fracking) and is 105 times worse as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame with aerosol impacts included, a coal to gas transition represents a huge threat to a World that must get to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by about 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise.

Calculation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of leaked natural gas

Natural gas is about 85% methane (CH4) and burning 1 tonne CH4 yields 2.75 tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus gas is not â€œcleanâ€ as asserted by pro-gas lobbyists and politicians and is in fact a dirty source of energy. However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be 3.3% in the US from US EPA data) [1], then one must also consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect of the leaked methane which is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale with aerosol impacts included [2-5]. These considerations render false the position of pro-gas lobbyists who plead for a coal to gas transition, falsely arguing that gas burning is â€œcleanerâ€ than coal burning.

Thus in Victoria, Australia, gas-fired power stations (0.60 â€“ 0.90 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, average 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) are roughly twice as efficient in producing energy as brown coal-burning power stations (1.21-1.53 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) according to a report by Green Energy Markets commissioned by Environment Victoria (EV) [6]. However, at a systemic leakage of 0.94% the GHG pollution due to gas-fired power would roughly double to about 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, equivalent to that of Hazelwood, the dirtiest coal-fired power station in Victoria.

If the systemic gas leakage rate is 3.3% (US average) then the combustion of gas for power would 2.3 times as dirty GHG-wise as coal-fired Hazelwood. If the systemic gas leakage rate is 7.9% (the upper estimate with shale formation-derived gas) [7]) then a coal to gas transition would yield power sector GHG pollution roughly 4.7 times as dirty as from coal-fired Hazelwood.

Because methane leaks and is so much worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (GHG), Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York has concluded that â€œThe large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warmingâ€. [7].

Gas GHG impact ignored by Mainstream media (MSM) in Western Lobbyocracies

US President Barack Obama has outrageously and falsely lumped planet-threatening natural gas under "clean energy"; permitted a massive expansion of offshore gas and oil drilling; and supported the Alaska Gas Pipeline, massive expansion of on-shore gas drilling and an oil-to-gas shift for transportation. One would have hoped that the 2010 Gulf oil and gas disaster tragically devastating the coastal environments of the US Gulf States would have prompted sensible, informed public discussion about the immense threat that natural gas (mostly methane) poses to Humanity and the Biosphere.

At least one news report in 2010 sounded the alarm about methane from the Gulf oil spill disaster (variously known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster, or the Macondo blowout): â€œAccording to John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the BP oil spill, the crude oil emanating from the seafloor [up to 100,000 barrels oil equivalent per day = 0.013 million tonnes oil equivalent] contains about 40% methane compared to about 5% found in typical crude oil deposits. The risk is great, as marine life will be suffocated as a result of the increased methane levels. The Gulf of Mexico will eventually have "dead zones" to deal with where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives. This is significant and can forever alter the water/life composition. "This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history," Kessler said.â€ [8].

The amount of methane released over the 86 days between the initial blow-out and capping the well-head (20 April â€“ 15 July 2010) can be estimated at 0.4 x (0.013 million tonnes methane /day) x 86 days = 0.447 million tonnes CH4 = 0.447 Mt CH4 x 105 x (44/16) (Mt CO2-e / Mt CH4) = 129 Mt CO2-e. Fortunately, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): â€œJohn Kessler of Texas A&M University and colleagues surveyed the Gulf waters during the leak as well as after the wellhead was sealed, and their results indicate that a vigorous bloom of bacteria degraded virtually all of the methane released form the well within 120 days of the initial blowout.â€ [9].

Australian novelist Peter Carey recently observed that the really important news is the news that is not reported. Ditto, "The holes in history are what makes sense of the thing" (Aarons and Loftus, "The Secret War Against the Jews", p12). This is well exampled by President Barack Obama avoiding mention of natural gas in his recent speech on the Gulf oil disaster from the Oval Office â€“ completely missing from Obamaâ€™s Gulf oil-and-gas disaster speech was one key word: gas. Read through his speech and you will find that he used the following words in descending order of occurrence: oil (24 times), energy (14), drilling/drill (8), clean energy (6), environmental (4), God/He (4), Al Qaeda (1), recession (1), gas (0). [10].

Similarly, a search of the entire ABC site for â€œRobert Howarthâ€ yielded one (1) result relating to the Cornell professor (and that due to me in a reader comment thread), noting that the ABC is the Australian equivalent of the BBC). Searches of The Australian newspaper (Australian national flagship of the Murdoch media empire) and of The Age ( the Melbourne quality newspaper of the Fairfax media empire and arguably Australiaâ€™s most progressive Mainstream medium) reveal zero (0) and one (1) report, respectively of the findings of Professor Robert Howarth (The Age report being a letter from me that it kindly published).

Shale deposit and coal seam fracking, coal seam gas (GSG) and gas-based GHG pollution in Australia

Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Australia is also part of the global gas rush, gas boom and fracking-based GasLand scenario (see the movie GasLand about the impact of fracking in the US). However the Liberal National Party-National Party Coalition opposition and the Labor Governments (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) have identical overall climate policies of â€œ5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollutionâ€ coupled with expanding coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. The Libs gave a â€œdirect Action â€œpolicy (too ;little too late) whereas Labor has a disastrously counterproductive Carbon Tax-ETS plan that yields massive increases in Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 and 2050 over that in 2000. Thus the following estimates of Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in Mt CO2-e and based on Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data (noting that coal and gas exports are predicted to increase annually by 2.6% and 9%, respectively):

2000: 496 (Domestic) + 504.9 (coal exports) + 16.8 (LNG exports) = 1017.8.

2009: 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) = 1,415 (total).


2050: 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) = 4,409.

However these estimates do not take into account an approximate doubling of electricity sector GHG pollution due to a Labor Government-adumbrated coal to gas transition (and indeed an approximately 5 fold increase if fracked shale gas is used). Hydraulic fracking of shale seams is becoming controversial throughout the world, including Australia (see the movie â€œGasLandâ€). Thus the hydraulic fracturing (â€œfracking) of shale deposits with water containing numerous chemical additives has been banned in France and England and New York has imposed a moratorium on the practice. In Australia there are bipartisan concerns about fracking procedures violating prime agricultural land and contaminating and depleting aquifers e.g. the Great Artesian Basin, a huge source of water in this dry continent.

The main arguments against â€œfrackingâ€ of shale deposits and shallower coal seams for gas are destruction of prime agricultural land in a hungry world; pollution and depletion of underground aquifers; and that gas is dirty, generates CO2 on combustion and due to leakage can be much dirtier GHG-wise than coal or oil (if there is a coal to â€œfracked gasâ€ conversion. there will a circa 5-fold increase in electricity sector GHG pollution in Australia).

However a fundamental objection to â€œfrackingâ€ and a coal to gas conversion is that the World is rapidly running out of time to deal with the worsening climate emergency. Thus in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale UmweltverÃ¤nderungen) issued a report entitled â€œSolving the climate dilemma: the budget approachâ€ in which it estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World must emit no more than 600 billion tones of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. In mid-2011 Australia has already exceeded its â€œfair shareâ€ of this terminal global GHG pollution budget and any Australian GHG pollution now is at the expense of the entitlement of all other countries. [11].


Natural gas represents a huge threat to the World if, as adumbrated by corporations and governments, there is a coal to gas transition. Ignored by MPs, mainstream media and MPs in the Western Lobbyocracies is the reality that because methane (85% of natural gas) leaks (3.3% US average, up to 7.9% from fracking) and is 105 times worse as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame with aerosol impacts included, a coal to gas transition represents a huge threat to a World that must get to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by about 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. Hydraulic fracturing for shale deposit gas destroys agricultural land in a hungry world, pollutes and depletes aquifers and increases the systemic GHG pollution associated with heat and power generation. All countries and intranational jurisdictions must follow the examples of France, England and New York State and ban shale deposit and coal seam fracking. The World is running out of time to seriously tackle the worsening climate emergency. The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now 394 parts per million (ppm) but top climate scientists and biologists say that it must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org:) [12] but the World is remorselessly heading in the opposite direction . Stop the coal to gas transition and stop fracking the Planet.

For references, see page two:


[1]. David Lewis, "EPA confirms natural gas leakage rates", The Energy Collective, 7 December 2010.

[2]. Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , â€œImproved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissionsâ€, Science 30 October 2009:

Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718.


[4]. Katharine Sanderson, â€œAerosols make methane more potentâ€, Nature News, 29 October 2009.

[5]. Dr Drew Shindell, quoted in Mark Henderson, â€œMethane's impact on global warming far higher than previously thoughtâ€, The Times, 30 October 2009.

[6]. Green Energy Markets, â€œFast-tracking Victoria's clean energy future to replace Hazelwoodâ€, 2010.

[7]. Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea, â€œMethane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formationsâ€, Climatic Change, 2011.

[8]. Todd Schoenberger, â€œMethane gas concerns arose from Gulf oil spillâ€, Taipanâ€™s Tipping Point Alert, 18 June 2010.

[9]. AAAS, â€œScience: Gulf bacteria quickly digested spilled methane, research saysâ€, 6 January 2011.

[10]. Remarks by the President to the Nation on the BP Oil Spill, Oval Office, White House,15 June 2010: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill .

[11]. Gideon Polya, â€œShocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissionsâ€, Green Blog, 1 August 2011.

[12]. â€œ300.org â€“ return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppmâ€, 300.org.

766Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:40:00 +0000
Newly Anti-Nuclear Japan Scrambles for Renewable Energy Solutionshttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/newly-anti-nuclear-japan-scrambles-for-renewable-energy-solutions-r761/With the disastrous tsunami of March 11, 2011 looming not far in the background, Japan is struggling to decide what to do about record energy shortages. Public opinion has turned strongly against nuclear energy and put plans for nuclear expansion, popular up to the time of the earthquake, suddenly out of the question. With politicians stuttering over allowing routine nuclear reactor restarts after annual maintenance shutdowns, only 19 of Japanâ€™s 54 nuclear reactors are currently operating, and with the summer heat working its way through Tokyo, energy demand typically strains even the fully supported grid. Without the full backing of Japanâ€™s nuclear power plants, the question of what to do to keep the countryâ€™s lights on is becoming more pressing with each degree the thermometers climb.

With the energy crisis ramping up under the summer heat, Japan has redoubled its emphasis on its â€œCool Bizâ€ campaign that has been in place since 2005 and is now renamed â€œSuper Cool Bizâ€ in acknowledgement of the increasing severity of the problem. Businesses are encouraged to keep thermostats set to 85F during the height of summer and to have workers shed their suits and dress shirts for khaki shorts and sandals. Offices are also encouraged to increase the telecommuting option for workers where possible, and to shift operations toward earlier morning hours.

Even with drastic energy-saving measures in place, the hopes for making severe cuts to energy consumption are not high. Japan already consumes less energy than the world average for each point of its GDP by 20% and less than the US by a whopping 30%. With shiny new cars parked behind every garage door waiting to drink the purchased oil Japan needs to make up its energy short falls, the choices arenâ€™t getting any easier.

Everyone is cutting down to even the smallest expenditure. To do its part in conserving energy, the Ministry of Economy has even deactivated its automatic doors. As a country theyâ€™ve already improved energy efficiency by 37% in the last 30 years according to Japanâ€™s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. Itâ€™s not like the problem is merely curbing extravagant and wasteful uses of energy. Theyâ€™re looking at having to curb perfectly practical uses of energy for only the absolutely vital ones like powering hospital equipment and food storage facilities.

In the midst of all of these energy saving strategies and campaigns remains the question of what to do next. With Japanese citizens still unconvinced of the ability of their local reactors to survive an earthquake or tsunami, proponents of renewable energy are making their voices heard. With some 200 volcanoes and 28,000 hot springs, it has been estimated that the country could supply over 80,000 megawatts of electricity, enough power to meet half of the countryâ€™s energy demand. With the topography and seashores of the coast, an additional 80,000 megawatts could possibly be produced with land-based windmills.

Prior to suffering the no confidence vote in July, Japan's Prime Minister Kan had proposed a goal of powering 10 million Japanese homes with roof top photovoltaic panels by 2020. Now, Japan has set goals even beyond Kanâ€™s proposal and aims to increase the total PVC panel output of the country from 3,500 megawatts in 2010 to 53,000 megawatts in 2030 and to power18 million Japanese homes by that year.

Japanâ€™s nuclear proponents and those attached to the already existing nuclear infrastructure will not easily let go of nuclear possibilities, and with the heat of summer creeping in, it seems the main direction Japan turns for electricity will be decided in the coming months. The visions of an environmentally friendly 2030 are nice, but the sweat of the summer of 2011 may help worried citizens decide they donâ€™t mind their local reactor so much after all.

Whether the reactors are restarted or not, the hopes for nuclear expansion have most likely been forever dashed in Japan, and whatever direction the country turns for meeting further power demand will most likely include a diversified portfolio of earth friendly technology.

Masayoshi Son, Japanâ€™s wealthiest man, has started a research foundation for renewables backed by his own investment money, and so far the foundation has been honored to list 37 of the countryâ€™s 45 prefectures as founding members. The situation is ripe for leaps in innovation that could perhaps pave the way for the rest of the world to follow. As the temperature climbs, the whole world watches and waits to see what Japanâ€™s next step will be, and if itâ€™s one the rest of us could possibly follow.

761Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:42:00 +0000
A critical analysis of future nuclear reactors designshttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/a-critical-analysis-of-future-nuclear-reactors-designs-r760/Once upon a time I used to be a fan of nuclear energy. As far as I saw it, nuclear energy was the silver bullet solution to all of our energy problems and more. However, the more Iâ€™ve learned about the industry the more critical Iâ€™ve become.

Notably the fact that most of the economic figures in support of nuclear power (a couple of typical delusions youâ€™ll find here and here) come straight out of Hogwarts school of magic, wizardryâ€¦.and economics (more realistic appraisals of nuclear economics can be found here and here). There is the question about the worldâ€™s limited stockpiles of fissile material, not helped by the fact that the LWR reactors that make up the bulk of our present capacity are ridiculously fuel inefficient, as in they only actually burn 2-3% of the fissile material present.

And what are we planning to do with all this waste? Various proposals have been made, but no nation on earth has yet to comprehensively solve this problem. Then thereâ€™s the glacially slow build rate of reactors, and of course, the nagging issue of nuclear safety.

But is there a better way?

Of course some supporters of nuclear energy would say that all of the problems Iâ€™ve just listed off relate to our choice of large light water reactors (as Richard Black at the BBC recently discussed). They claim that alternative designs would result in much safer reactors that are cheaper to build, easier to build and ultimately produce less nuclear waste. Various alternatives to the LWR have been proposed, these include:

High temperature gas Reactors , â€œmodularâ€ Pebble bed Reactors , the advanced CANDU reactor, so-called â€œfastâ€ reactors and the Molten Salt reactor (MSR).

But could these reactors actually supply us with something better? In the following series of article below, I explored this question by subjecting these designs to a critical review.

The Mega LWR â€œdeath spiralâ€

But first of all whatâ€™s wrong with these large LWRâ€™s? I explore some of these issues in part 4 of my little appraisal. Basically it all boils down to a fateful decision taken back in the 1950â€™s. The US government was in a race to get nuclear reactors up and running for military use, notably for the submarine fleet. A light water reactor was an obvious choice for a compact power source and one that could be developed reasonably quickly. When the civil nuclear industry in the US got going the corporations took these naval reactors, which in many cases they had themselves designed for the military, and simply scaled them up. There are a multitude of reasons why this decision to use mega-LWRâ€™s in preference to anything else was taken (again I review them in part 4), but cost and ease of development were certainly key. But regardless of the â€œwhyâ€™s?â€ the fact is that the nuclear industry did embarked on this plan and in the process of doing this the nuclear industry essentially laid a trap for themselves.

While the submarine reactors had outputs of between 15-60 MWe the civil nuclear industry began building 500-1,600 MWe behemoths. These large â€œmegatronâ€ LWRâ€™s were scaled up to the point where they became inherently unsafe â€“ if the cooling system for any reason failed, the reactor would go into meltdown. This meant the cooling systems and all backups related to it (including its backup power generators) HAD to work perfectly i.e. critical system components.

Unfortunately several accidents since then, notably TMI and Chernobyl, revealed flaws in the original design. The only way to correct these flaws was to include further safety systems, as well as by building a large concrete containment dome over the reactors to contain any radiation releases. The end result has been the size and scale of nuclear projects has ballooned in size, as has the costs of new nuclear build (the following video offers a humorous if foul mouthed appraisal of the situation regarding the Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, first of the new (donâ€™t laugh) nuclear renaissance). All these safety critical components also need careful testing prior to commercial operation, meaning the pace of new nuclear construction has slowed to a crawl. Fukushima will now likely lead to another round of recriminations, further expensive upgrades, redesigns and a further round of reactor shutdowns.

Inevitably I therefore see the civil nuclear industry, so long as LWR are favoured as being caught in a never ending death spiral of further mishaps leading to redesigns and costs rises, which leads to reduced orders, which spreads the fixed cost of nuclear over a smaller number of reactors, which raises the cost yet further. All the while these design changes are slowing the pace of build down (leading to yet more cancelled plants), undermining the entire case for nuclear. Indeed its inevitable now that both the US and Britain will now see a major reduction in nuclear energy use in the next few decades (a recent Bulletin of Atomic Scientistâ€™s article http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/30.full discusses this), simply because there is no way they could now build reactors fast enough to cope with the rate they are about to go offline, nor indeed train the staff to run them (many in the nuke industry are getting old and will be looking for their bus passes pretty soon!) Inevitably, as has already happened in Germany, Italy and Canada recently, beyond a certain point cash strapped governments will just run out of patience, pull the plug and turn off the life support.

Criterion of Successâ€¦or failure!

In my analysis I established the following criteria with which to judge the relevant â€œfit for purposeâ€ strengths of these reactor designs.

  • Cost, Any alternative to the LWR must be cheaper. Nuclear energy is already more expensive than renewables at current prices, nevermind future prices. So if nuclear has a future its overall costs must be lower.
  • Safety, As I said before, the LWR has numerous inherent safety flaws. The number one barrier to public acceptance of nuclear energy is safety. Argue all you want about it, but the LWR design amounts to an elaborate attempt at trying to make a silk purse out of a sowâ€™s ear. Our preference would therefore be for a reactor that is not just safer, but inherently safer.
  • Fuel efficiency, the global stockpiles of fissile material are limited. We could probably maintain the existing stock of reactors going for 50-80 years or so, but given that they only represent 5% of global energy output, that leaves us with the question of where does the other 95% of our energy come from and the obvious question as to whether nuclear energy is just more trouble than its worth. Better fuel economy would mean more reactors and greater market penetration.
  • Reduced nuclear waste, the elephant in the room for nuclear energy is the ever growing waste mountain. Weâ€™ve yet to come up with a comprehensive solution to nuclear waste and until we do the argument of environmentalists is â€œif youâ€™re in a hole, stop digging!â€. So needless to say if the reactors we now review can generate a lot less waste that would make them a much more attractive proposition to the LWR. Obviously, if the opposite proves to be true, thatâ€™s a potential black mark against them.

In addition I also looked at the ability to use the Thorium cycle (given the limits of Uranium supplies), scalability of reactors (these â€œmegaâ€ LWRâ€™s are just too big and unwieldy and can play havoc with the gird of many smaller nations) as smaller reactors might be more flexible, as well as the idea of modular design and mass production of reactors. This latter 2 points being discussed in part 10 of my little series.

If we can prove that any of the reactors we examine can tick all (or most) of these boxes then maybe the nuclear industry has some future, beyond its current Zombie walk to the grave routine with LWRâ€™s.

The Verdicts

All in all my conclusion is that the case for future Generation IV nuclear reactors is much narrower than the supporters of nuclear energy would have you believe. While they do offer some advantages over LWRâ€™s, notably in the area of safety, his comes with strings attached, notably higher capital costs. This is largely a result of the fact that many of these would need to be built from much more exotic materials, such as high temperature stainless steel alloys, Nickel alloys or Refractory materials, while the predominant material of choice in current reactors is steel (stainless and forged ferritic) and concrete. This materials requirement is itself an issue related to the high temperatures these alternative reactors would be required to operate at, not to mention the more aggressive and corrosive environment in some of them, notably the MSR proposals. Of course one to question whether these higher construction costs (and in some cases higher decommissioning costs) are justified.

But overall it is my conclusions that:

The CANDU does close off some of the safety loop holes associated with LWRâ€™s, but it opens up a whole slew of new ones too and generally means higher rates of fuel consumption, lower thermal efficiency and increased amounts of nuclear waste being generated. Indeed, the Canadian government may well have exhausted its patience on this one, as they recently sold the CANDU reactor business for the bargain basement price of $15 million, as well as writing off several billion in outstanding debts. Not exactly a vote of confidence! To me it seems to be a case of the Fedâ€™s picking up the CANDU and throwing it in at the deep end of the pool to see if it will sink or swim. Iâ€™ll leave you to guess whatâ€™s most likely to happen!

The High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) offers an order of magnitude improvement in safety as well as potentially better fuel economy and high thermal efficiency. However, it will likely come at the expense of much higher construction costs (and probably a slower construction rate depending on material choices, which again depends on operating temperature), higher decommissioning costs and possibly higher volumes of nuclear waste (that last point Iâ€™ll admit is debatable, see the my post for more on that one). While the HTGR is fairly safe from meltdown scenarios, one would have likely weathered the Fukushima tsunami with minor damage, it also opens up a host of other safety issues, notably the potential fire risk associated with that graphite core (again a debateable point, see my full article hereÂ on this for more info).

The Gas cooled Fast Reactor (GcFR) offers the intriguing possibility of being able to transmute stockpiles of nuclear waste into less dangerous forms. However, it comes with a rather hefty price tag with a lot of R&D work still outstanding as the design is only in the early concept stage of development (read we donâ€™t know if it even works yet!). In any event it will not eliminate the need for some geological storage facilities given the length of time it would take to develop and then build a sizeable number of said reactors, not to mention store the waste after its passed through the reactor. This, plus the hefty price tag associated with GcFRâ€™s, could well make the whole idea uneconomic. Also the GcFR comes with some safety issues (it is not nearly as safe as the HTGR) and a severe proliferation risk.

The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR or LFTR) does offer a number of unique options in terms of safety improvements and improved fuel economy, plus reduced waste streams. However, its ability to achieve these goals is often heavily overstated by its supporters. Much like the GcFR above the design is at a very early stage in development, with much research into it abandoned back in the 1970â€™s. Any MSR reactor and its associated Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) would likely be expensive to build and slow to construct (again given the narrow and exotic nature of the materials choice the design enforces on us). Getting a decent thermal efficiency out of the plant might be problematic, which worsens the economic case for them. Also while certainly safer than a LWR in terms LOCA scenarios, the MSR comes with its own particular safety problems, notably that graphite core (fire!), the risks of a leak of radioactive material out of the CPP, or arguably worse a release of potential toxic and highly lethal fluorine gas. So all in all there may be a case for MSRâ€™s, but its unproven at the moment and likely a much narrower case that its supporters would have you believe.

Indeed probably the biggest enemy of the MSR design is its own nutty cheerleaders who badly need to stay off the Kool-Aid. Casing point, without hours of my analysis article going online they were already running up vast blog strings of flaming trolls galore (see comments section of my page) or starting e-mailing me anonymously with various badly typed swear-word filled comments. I even picked up one or two stalkers trying to find out who I was and where I lived (yes really)! You also see the odd comment involving half baked megloamanic schemes (such as burning off the biosphere for uranium). While the best I can tell, the advocates of the other reactor designs I reviewed seem to have taken their punishment â€œlike menâ€, the MSR fans reached for the tinfoil hat and the two-litre bottle of kool-aid. I shall leave it to the reader to decide who should be taken seriously!

Small to medium sized modular reactors do offer a good deal more flexibility in terms of how nuclear power could be used and yet a further improvement in safety. However, they also comes with lower economies of scale and thus higher construction costs and worse a slower rate of reactor roll out (at least in the early days). We could claw back on these two issues by mass producing said reactors in large volumes but as I point out (again see the full article), it is far from proven whether that would be economically viable and whether there is in fact a market for large numbers of small reactors.

Also as I outline, the case for small reactors would also require a major shift in public opinion, which post-Fukushima is unlikely to be forthcoming. Most of the reactor designs Iâ€™ve mentioned above would be wholly unsuitable for â€œmassâ€ production, only a handful of PWR, BWR and HTGR designs would be feasible options. Worse still, by and large mass production means â€œdumbing downâ€ our design, and that means accepting a reactor thatâ€™s much cheaper and easier to build but has a lower thermal efficiency, a higher rate of fuel consumption and ultimately produces larger volumes of nuclear waste compared to our â€œmegaâ€ reactors. With the exception of a small number of narrow cases, itâ€™s difficult to envisage how this would offer an improvement on the current status quo.

Decommissioning costs, the Elephantâ€™s still in the room!

Not only are the construction costs of many of these proposed reactors higher, but for some (but not all) the decommissioning costs would actually be higher and worse they will generate more nuclear waste from this process. This being a particular problem for graphite cored reactors such as the HTGR and the MSR. Other Graphite cored reactors are proving to be something of a nightmare to decommission, as I discuss in the section on HTGRâ€™s.

As far as the spent fuel waste is concerned, some of these proposed reactors will indeed produce less, but others will actually produce more of it, thought itâ€™s probably important to clarify what we mean by â€œmoreâ€ or â€œlessâ€. For example, CANDU as I point out, produces about 7 times (by mass) the amount of nuclear waste than a LWR. However, Iâ€™m quite sure the CANDU supporters will point out that because the waste from a CANDU is less radioactive it can be packed up much more tightly, reducing the size of any waste storage pen (but can it be packed sufficiently tightly to overcome that 7 times greater output?).

At the other end of the scale the HTGRâ€™s have a very high rate of fuel burn up, and so would produce a lot less nuclear waste (pound for pound) than a LWR. However, the waste from a HTGR is contained within a graphite matrix which increases its volume to a much larger size than LWR waste. Hence one has to question which reactor we can claim â€œproduces less wasteâ€.

In a similar vein some of the waste output from a MSR will be mixed up with fluoride salts, from which it will have to be separated before going into long term storage. Disposal of said wastes have been described as â€œtechnically challengingâ€Â  although certainly doable. Itâ€™s estimated that itâ€™s going to cost some $130 million to process the waste from one tiny 8 MWth test reactor which ran for just over 5 years. Again it begs the question which reactor can truly claim to have the â€œsmallerâ€ waste footprint and the â€œcheaperâ€ clean up bill.

Thoriumâ€¦.only for comic book heroes?

The Thorium cycle, as covered throughout my little study, does offer the option of solving some of the long term fuel supply issues surrounding nuclear energy. But the level to which it will do this is fairly narrow, as Thorium fuelled reactors still need fissile isotopes, drawn ultimately from Uranium, for startup purposes. Failing this they require the use of expensive (and generally uneconomic) fast reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel. So yes, while Thorium could help stretch things out, it can only help a little bit, but not nearly as much as the supporters of Thorium reactors would have you believe. Thorium fuelled reactors would still generate substantial quantities of nuclear waste and come with a number of potential proliferation risks attached. Even the UK National Nuclear Laboratories (NNL) pours cold water over the idea.

Brayton Cycle and Hydrogen Productionâ€¦.rumours of Rankineâ€™s death have been greatly exaggerated

A proposal common to all Generation IV reactors, and some renewable power plant proposals (notably geothermal), is to use Brayton cycle instead of the Rankine cycle for power generation. This would offer a substantial improvement in terms of energy efficiency, and furthermore could bring down the costs of installation. However, there is still some work to do on this issue, so I wonâ€™t write off the Rankine cycle just yet! Similarly, the higher material limits required to raise reactor operating temperatures up to the level necessary to utilize the Sulfur-iodine process and make hydrogen directly (using the reactors heat) could well render the whole idea uneconomic. If we want hydrogen (from nuclear) that badly, build a reactor with a lower operating temperature out of cheaper materials, generate electricity and hook it up to an electrolyser! Less efficient yes, but likely cheaper. And if we really want hydrogen on the cheap, ditch the reactor and use CSP or wind energy!


Finally, I also had a look at Fusion power . This is the great white hope of nuclear energy and it has to be said we are making progress, but itâ€™s a case of slow and steady progress. Indeed I would question whether we are in a position yet to even estimate how long it will take for fusion power to become commercial availableâ€¦if indeed ever! Recent news from ITER is not positive, its now not due to go online till 2026, which would imply a completion of experiments in 2046. And it will take sometime beyond that before we wind up with a viable working commercial fusion reactor. As I speculate (here), it would likely be the latter half of this century (or the beginning of the next one) before we start to see Fusion play any sort of major role in mass global power generation. Also the first generation of Fusion reactors will be dependant on supplies of Lithium for fuel, of which there is only a limited global supply available, something that limits the amount of energy which can ultimately be generated from Fusion reactors, probably to between 8-20% of global energy use depending on whose figures you believe. Where does the other 92-80% come from?


Curb your enthusiasm!

All in all, my conclusions are that the case for future Generation IV nuclear reactors is much narrower than the supporters of nuclear energy would have you believe - even the case for Fusion doesnâ€™t look that clear cut! And again I would note that this last point about Fusion is important, the way the nuclear energy supporters (and indeed many politicians and members of the public) go on youâ€™d swear Fusion was already a slam dunk. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Nuclear energy supporters need to curb theyâ€™re enthusiasm for nuclear energy and accept that due to the high capital costs of reactor construction and the limited fuel supplies it will always only ever be a small bit player in a big energy market, at least as far as the current century is concerned. It currently generates about 1.9 â€“ 5.1% of global energy (depending on how you do your maths) and I donâ€™t see how it can be expanded beyond that level, indeed if they manage to maintain this level I suspect theyâ€™ll be doing well.

Even the most optimistic nuclear energy program we can draw up still has a substantial energy gap and something else will have to fill it. This of course means weâ€™ll need to rely on renewables for substantially more energy than we currently get from it. Which means many nuclear energy supporters need to overcome their pathological hatred of renewables and if they are truly serious about combating climate change (as many claim to be) then they need to quit trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.

760Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:09:00 +0000
The stress free nuclear stress testhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/the-stress-free-nuclear-stress-test-r742/In the wake of Fukushima a â€œstress testâ€ of European nuclear reactors was proposed, in line with the â€œstress testsâ€ applied to banks during the financial crisis. That â€œstress testâ€ of banks being important in that it firstly reassured the markets and the public that most were still solvent. It also had a secondary role though â€“ to scare the Beja$us out of the bankers and get them to be more careful in future. One would be forgiven for thinking that this would be the goal of the European Nuclear stress test...right?....no!

Firstly, the UK government has announced that it will be excluding terrorism as among the things to consider in the stress test. Theyâ€™ve also excluded Sellafield, much to the annoyance of the Irish government, using the lame excuse that it doesnâ€™t generate any power (but does contain the bulk of the country's dangerous nuclear waste!).....of course the fact that â€œsuspectedâ€ terrorists have already been caught creeping around Sellafield, suggests that terrorism at Sellafield is a major risk and concern. Granted anyone who looks foreign and has a foreign accent is probably a suspected terrorist to these xenophobes who guard the place, but they wonâ€™t be that jumpy if the place was making ice-cream cones now would they!

For those in the UK who donâ€™t know, contrary to what his Gerriness the Baron of Northstead would have you believe, Sellafield is probably the major bone of contention in Anglo-Irish relations. The view from Dublin is that, London took its â€œultra safeâ€ nuclear rubbish bin and because it was so safe they pushed it as far away from London as they couldâ€¦..right opposite our coastline! Hence Irish annoyance over this exclusion of Sellafield from this stress test.

The stress test will also apparently not include such factors as mega-Tsunami (potentially generated by the Cumbre Vieja) or future sea level rise due to climate change. While one can say that the risks from either of these two, the former in particular, are indeed a very low risk in any one given year, but you have to remember that most of the UK nuclear sites are coastal, most have had an active plant on site for 50 years, and that the decommissioning will lead to waste still being on site in a 100 years time. And of course the industry plans to add further reactors to said sites. Thus given the long period of time in which radioactive material will be on site (centuries), this sort of raises the probably of such a calamity affecting these sites at some point in the future from â€œunlikelyâ€ to â€œnot that unlikelyâ€. Now Iâ€™m not suggesting thereâ€™s any need to panic, these are long term problems, which needs long term solutions. A simple committent to moving the waste from existing reactors off site as soon as thatâ€™s possible (preferably into deep storage) post-decomissioning, and building future reactors a little further inland (10-20 kmâ€™s should do it) would solve both of these problems. But the industry seems aghast at even these measures. Indeed itâ€™s unclear to what degree the issue of flooding will even be considered in the stress tests. This is particularly significant when you bear in mind the 1999 La Blayais flooding incident which almost led to a loss of diesel generators (much like at Fukushima) at a French nuclear plant.

At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious here, but isnâ€™t the whole point of a stress test that it be stressful? If we exclude such factors as Iâ€™ve mentioned the end result will be a stress test that all plants will pass with flying colours. Greenpeace will naturally scream â€œSTITCH UP!â€, the public will not be assured, nor will the financial institutions (whom nuclear industry will be seeking loans off, if new reactors are to go ahead) and the nuclear industry will go back to puttering in its sandbox with its EPR and MOX toysâ€¦.until the next accident or financial crisis! Nothing worthwhile will be achieved, and no doubt the nuclear cheerleaders will lap it up with glee and appear on this blog to remind us how only 2 men & a dog were killed at Chernobyl or how great the LFTR (Kool-aid fuelled reactor) is.

The thing that puts me off nuclear power is the constant â€œhelicopter parentingâ€ we see from governments on the topic. If any other industry had made the same litany of monumental (and costly) screw-ups theyâ€™ve made it would have been killed off through government regulations ages ago. Fifty years after the first â€œcommercialâ€ reactors went online the nuclear industry is still living with its parents who have to sub it a few bob now and then. Isnâ€™t it about time for nuclear power to flee the government nest and go get a proper job?

The nuclear industry, like the banks, is in desperate need of some â€œtough loveâ€ from regulators. This means a stressful stress test, that will see the shutdown of a few of our older power stations (which truth be told probably never should have been built in the first place) as well as getting the industry to ditch silly boondoggle ideas like MOX, Fast Reactors and fuel reprocessing, while forcing them to start cleaning up the waste issue and get things like deep geological storage moving a pace (with the exception of Sweden and Finland there has been practically no movement on this issue!). This would of course mean lay-offs in some sectors of the nuclear industry, some big contractors being stung badly, but of course it would also mean more jobs in other areas. In essence it might serve to scare the industry straight.

Even thought the â€œstress testâ€ results havenâ€™t been published yet, the fallout is already underway. My suspicion is that the German governmentâ€™s decision to announce its phase out of nuclear power plants (again!) is probably an attempt by Merkel (in an election year) to head off the inevitable wave of bad publicity that the stress test will generate (some German plants will fail, but not enough to stop the Greens yelling FIX!, and the result will be to cause more public unease than reassurance).

Indeed Germany is perhaps a warning to the rest of the world nuclear industry of whatâ€™s in the future if they donâ€™t mend their ways and start washing the dirty linen in public. While I reckon some countries (notably the UK, see my thoughts on UK energy here) can probably get by without nuclear, Iâ€™m not convinced this applies to all nations, and Germany is top of my list. Iâ€™m not sure Germany can meet its energy needs without being heavily dependant on imports of some sort (some of which will inevitably be Shale gas from Poland and French nuclear power) or fossil fuels (coal) without resorting to nuclear power. However, the nuclear industry in German has now made itself such a pariah that this is simply not an option any more. Regardless of the technical arguments, the German public simply will not support new nuclear construction â€“ period!

And in fairness to the German nuclear industry, they arenâ€™t that bad, indeed itâ€™s often been the foul ups of Germanyâ€™s neighbours (the French and British) or those further afield (Japan and Russia) whoâ€™ve gotten them a bad name. But the point that Germany proves is that there is a tipping point to public patience on the nuclear issue. Push any public beyond that tipping point and that public support will just collapse. And at that point it doesnâ€™t matter what the circumstances are, or what industry says or promises, the public response will be a firm No Nukes! You can go on Newsnight, put on youâ€™re best Boris Karloff voice and tell everyone that without nuclear â€œthe lights will go outâ€, follow it up with an evil laugh, and the public still wonâ€™t care. You can give out about windfarms all you like and claim that coal kills a Gazillion people a year and it wonâ€™t matter, the point where such scare tactics, never mind logical debate, would have worked will be in the distant past.

All in all its possible that these â€œstress testsâ€ will be about as useful as the ones offered by the Church of Scientology! And the only people who benefit from a tame nuclear stress test are a pile of vested interests and Kool-aid drunk nuclear cheerleaders. In the longer term even the nuclear industry itself will lose out.

742Wed, 23 May 2012 05:39:00 +0000
The Nuclear Meltdown of George Monbiothttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/the-nuclear-meltdown-of-george-monbiot-r735/Passionate; articulate; intelligent; socially and environmentally progressive; careful and meticulous in his research; rigorous in his use of science and expert opinion.

Many people will recognise that description of George Monbiot in his role as one of Britain's leading environmental journalists. Sadly, few of those descriptors apply to the George Monbiot who is now championing nuclear energy.

The George Monbiot We Knew

Until quite recently, Monbiot was unequivocal that nuclear energy was not worth the risks. Here he is in 2005:

"...nuclear power spreads radioactive pollution, presents a target for terrorists and leaves us with waste that no government wants to handle."

He was also certain that nuclear was not the optimal solution for climate change mitigation. He approvingly quoted a paper from physicist, Amory Lovins:

â€œExpanding nuclear power would both reduce and retard the desired decrease in CO2 emissions

He rounds off that article with an attack on the UK's chief scientific, Sir David King, for his support of nuclear energy: "I fear that the governmentâ€™s chief scientist is mutating into its chief spin doctor."

He pushes home his point in 2006:

â€œTo start building a new generation of nuclear power stations before we know what to do with the waste produced by existing plants is grotesquely irresponsible. ... If, as a result of slow leakage into the groundwater, radioactive materials from a burial site kill an average of only one person a year for one million years, those who made the decision to bury them will â€“ through their infinitesimal and unrecorded impacts â€“ be responsible for the deaths of a million people.â€

His positioned softened in 2009, stating that he would not oppose nuclear provided it met four conditions:





His second condition was not met in 2009, it is not met today and there is no sign of it being met at any time in the foreseeable future. We do not know where to put our nuclear fission waste, which needs storing somewhere securely for at least 100,000 years. This means his first condition is also not met - if we don't know where to put it we certainly do not know its total emissions. Similarly, we cannot know the cost so his third condition cannot be met. In theory, in a perfect world, his fourth condition can be met - but in reality there is no chance of guaranteeing it. We can never be certain what happens in democratic governments, let alone in the less stable regions of the world where theocracies and dictatorships exist on a political precipice.

So, in reality, none of Monbiot's conditions for not opposing nuclear can be met. He lectures us on why this is such a fundamental problem:


Fukushima Meltdown Brings Nuclear Epiphany

Following the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan on March 11 and the subsequent growing catastrophe that engulfed the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, Monbiot published an article just 5 days later, stating "The Fukushima crisis should not spell the end of nuclear power."At this stage, TEPCO (the Japanese power company who own and manage the nuclear reactors) were issuing calm reassurances that there was little to worry about - "All 6 units of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station have been shut down." (March 13) - as we simultaneously watched videos of nuclear containment buildings exploding and multiple experts warning that the situation was far worse than official reports suggested. Very clearly, TEPCO's claim that all the reactors were "shut down" was at best 'misleading'.

With each passing day it became clear that Fukushima was a growing disaster. A few, short weeks later it was elevated to International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) level 7 - the highest level, only matched previously by Chernobyl. To say that Monbiot's assertion was premature is a colossal understatement. TEPCO subsequently admitted that "The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl."

Monbiot reiterated his four conditions for not opposing nuclear and added a fifth in his March 16 article:


Note that he has seemingly forgotten about the threat of terrorism even though there seems little evidence that the world has become a more stable, secure place in the past six years. He also seems unaware that the same chief scientific adviser to the UK that he pilloried in 2005 as being nuclear's "chief spin doctor" warned that "â€œa mass of rockâ€ off the Canary Islands was â€œwaiting to collapse into the Atlanticâ€ causing â€œgiant tsunamisâ€", adding â€œBritain would have a six hour warning before a 30ft wave hit usâ€.

So, Monbiot's growing list of conditions all fail - but this does not dampen his growing affection for nuclear. Although, deciphering Monbiot's position is quite difficult when he makes statements such as:


Who does he think will build and manage nuclear reactors in the UK - or anywhere else - except the "corner-cutting bunch of scumbags"?! At this point a person who makes decisions based on evidence and reason might start backing away from nuclear. Not the new George Monbiot. He is now more convinced than ever:


After his March 16 article, he no longer mentions his four five conditions. They have simply vanished.

Chernobyl? General 'Buck' Turgidson Assesses the Impact

Monbiot is now aggressively advocating nuclear and going on the attack against a growing chorus of criticism directed at him:

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution.

He even uses the strap line "How the Fukushima disaster taught me to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power" which is a play on Kubrick's classic movie, â€œDr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb". Just like General 'Buck' Turgidson from the movie, Monbiot's assessment of mass death and suffering is akin to "having our hair mussed."

In order to dismiss the impact of Chernobyl as being relatively insignificant Monbiot offers up his readers a single number for total deaths: 43.

That number is cherry-picked from the IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency - whose stated purpose is to "seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy". Those 43 are the poor souls who were immediately affected by radiation that came pouring out of Chernobyl, mostly firemen, engineers and other first responders. They received massive doses of radiation and died quickly, in days or weeks. However, the 43 that Monbiot claims (subsequently increased to 47 in a later article) is most certainly not the full extent of the excess deaths that resulted from Chernobyl. Here are a selection of estimates:

World Health Organisation (WHO) / IAEA = 9000 "...there may be up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths due to Chernobyl among the people who worked on the clean-up operations, evacuees and residents of the highly and lower-contaminated regions in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr20/en/index.html

International Agency for Research on Cancer = 16,000 "...about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur." http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2006/pr168.html

TORCH (independent scientists, commissioned by the German Green Party) = 60,000 "...the worldwide collective dose of 600,000 person sieverts will result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths." http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

Greenpeace = 93,000+ "...approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000." http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/chernobylhealthreport.pdf


There is clearly a very wide range of estimates of total mortality as a result of Chernobyl and it is impossible to ever know the true number. But one thing is clear: the true death toll resulting from Chernobyl far exceeds the handful that George Monbiot wants us to believe.

Also, note that the WHO are effectively muzzled by the IAEA following an agreement in 1959 whereby the WHO cannot publish anything regarding radiation or nuclear technology without the approval of the IAEA. So, even the nuclear industry's marketing department admits there may be up to 9000 excess deaths due to Chernobyl. And this says nothing about the tens of thousands of excess cancers, the miscarriages, birth defects, people displaced from their homes, all the lives wrecked by each of these things and the crippling economic costs - all of which continue today.

Monbiot's claim of 43 47 excess deaths due to Chernobyl is not simply wrong. It is an obscene lie. He must know about the wide-ranging credible estimates that put total fatalities in the thousands or tens of thousands. He must know that the IAEA is the marketing department for the nuclear industry - the same industry that he describes as "liars" and "scumbags". And yet, for the purpose of assessing the impact of Chernobyl, a cherry-picked number from the nuclear industry that not even the nuclear industry quotes is the gospel truth for General 'Buck' Turgidson George Monbiot.

Radiation dangerous? Bananas!

Now George moves on to the thorny problem of radiation toxicity. He 'cites' a nifty graphic from a well-known web-based comic: XKCD, Radiation Dose Chart. It offers a guide to radiation based on relative doses, starting with 'sleeping next to someone' and 'eating one banana'. Monbiot found this quite convincing. Perhaps because he chose to in preference for doing the least amount of research on the subject?

Radiation comes in different forms and can be delivered by different mechanisms. The key fact not shown in Monbiot's preferred comic is that external emitters of radiation (e.g. getting an x-ray at the dentist) are not the same as internal emitters (e.g. drinking milk contaminated by caesium). Once radioactive products have entered the body (via water, food or from the air) they are emitting radiation directly into cells and their deleterious effect is multiplied massively. So background radiation is not at all the same as having radioactive plutonium in your lungs or radioactive caesium in your bones or radioactive iodine in your thyroid.

Bananas? Bananas contain potassium. Your body contains potassium. When you eat a banana, your body ejects the same amount of potassium that you just consumed, thereby making bananas radiation-neutral. Also, as you would expect, the radiation delivered by bananas is very different to that delivered by fissile materials that come out of a nuclear reactor that is in meltdown. For some reason, this has not occurred to George Monbiot.

Note the warning at the foot of the XKCD graphic - which Monbiot clearly did not: "If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself." Indeed.

The False Dichotomy: Nuclear or Coal

The key argument that Monbiot appears to be pushing (as best one can discern from the multiple, frantic articles published over the last few weeks) to defend his nuclear crusade is that our energy choice is "nuclear or coal" and therefore "nuclear or unmitigated climate change". This is a false dichotomy.

The choice for our energy future - and therefore climate change mitigation - is nuclear energy or renewable energy.

Remember that Monbiot circa 2005 said, â€œExpanding nuclear power would both reduce and retard the desired decrease in CO2 emissions.â€ This was confirmed by the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission: "doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035" and "the risks of nuclear energy outweighed its advantages." That advisory panel has since been closed by the pro-nuclear Tory government - which is one way to get rid of inconvenient facts when you have an ideology to push ahead with.

Monbiot is backing the wrong horse in the climate change mitigation race. Reality shows that renewables are being deployed at a phenomenal rate and global renewable energy generation now exceeds nuclear. Remember, nuclear has been subsidised, developed and deployed for almost 60 years; renewables have only received serious investment in perhaps the last decade.

New nuclear reactors are barely being deployed quickly enough to match old reactors going offline. The disaster at Fukushima is unlikely to improve that. Indeed, Germany have since announced rapid closure of their nuclear reactors and to accelerate their plan for 100% renewable energy.

The other tactic that Monbiot has employed to justify a rush to nuclear energy is that nuclear will become cheaper in the future. He made the following bizarre statement while debating Caroline Lucas of the Green Party:

"So while you can say wind at the moment costs less than nuclear ... My guess, because I haven't yet seen a comparative study, and I don't believe one exists, is that when we get up to those sorts of levels, nuclear is likely to be quite a lot cheaper."

That beggars belief. He is making "guesses" based on non-existent studies about the costs of nuclear and renewables decades in to the future while admitting that right now nuclear is the more expensive option. And contrary to Monbiot's "guessing", the evidence suggests the very opposite. Nuclear continues to climb in costs while renewables continue to fall:

Does nuclear power have a negative learning curve? Real escalation in reactor investment costs while solar and wind falls. "New nukes have gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter for the foreseeable future."

The George Monbiot of Today

There is no coherence to Monbiot's arguments. He demonstrates all the traits of the climate change deniers he has fought for many years. He cherry picks numbers, ignores all credible evidence that undermines his position and abandons his arguments as soon as they prevent him pushing forward with his new-found love of nuclear. He is making statements which he must know to be untrue. He is "guessing" about costs of technology decades in to the future in order to justify his beliefs.

George Monbiot is in denial of reality in order to protect an emotional attachment to what he erroneously believes is a solution to global warming. He is advocating a technology that brings catastrophic risks, highly toxic waste, is too expensive, too slow and unreliable to build. Nuclear energy will starve the renewable sector of the funds and resources it needs and which offers the best chance of preventing catastrophic climate change.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Monbiot has succumbed to superficial arguments from vested interests. He was fooled by the lies of the climate change deniers regarding the stolen CRU emails. He was fooled by a single paper from a rightwing think tank, RWI Essen, to the extent that he called Feed In Tariffs and solar energy "The German Disease"? He has now been fooled by the lies of the nuclear lobby.

For many, this inconsistency and lack of coherent, evidence-based reasoning is now too much. George Monbiot can no longer be considered a credible commentator.

George Made Some New Friends

To finish on a positive note for George, he has made some new friends and allies with his nuclear epiphany. Among them are the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, and who are possibly more responsible than any others for funding climate change denial. They also strongly support nuclear energy. Why? Because they know that nuclear offers no realistic threat to their fossil fuel golden goose. The George Monbiot that we knew would have gained a clue from that fact....

735Tue, 10 May 2011 13:02:00 +0000
Japanese activists: Nuclear power is not the answer to global warminghttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/japanese-activists-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-to-global-warming-r734/One month after the horrifying earthquake and tsunami hit Japan the country is considering raising the severity level of its nuclear crisis to the highest level available. This would put the Japanese nuclear crisis on a par with the Chernobyl accident 25 years ago, the worst nuclear power disaster in history.

Since the problems at the Fukushima nuclear power plant unfolded there have been raging a heated debate over the future of nuclear energy. Such as the debate between George Monbiot and Helen Caldicott over at the Guardian.

In this presentation (below) from 2008 Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of the Kyoto-based NGO Green Action, talks about how nuclear power can't fight global warming. Over the next decade there will be ZERO additional contribution from nuclear power in the fight to combat global warming, she says. Other flaws with nuclear energy is the fact that the construction takes too long, and that the costs are rising. She says that nuclear power is unreliable for fighting global warming due to accidents, mismanagement and earthquakes. Watch it:

Other news from Japan: 17,500 gather for Tokyo rallies against nuclear plants, Kyodo news agency report.


For more updates on the Fukushima crisis you can also follow us on Twitter.

734Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:10:00 +0000
Nuclear energy might see increased opposition after Japan crisishttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/nuclear-energy-might-see-increased-opposition-after-japan-crisis-r730/[caption id="attachment_2749" align="alignnone" width="550" caption="The photo shows the second hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 3 reactor in Japan."][/caption]


The continued protests against nuclear energy in Germany has seen an upswing during these past days. About 60,000 people formed a chain around a nuclear power station in Germany this weekend to protest its continued operation. And chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to announce the suspension of the country's plans to extend the life of its nuclear power stations later today, the Guardian reports.

In USA people and politicians are starting to question President Barack Obama's plans to expand and build new nuclear power plants to meet growing energy demands in the country. The independent and strongly pro-nuclear Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, have said that the USA should "put the brakes on nuclear power plants":

"I don't want to stop the building of nuclear power plants. But I think we've got to kind of quietly put, quickly put, the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming on line."

In Britain the Green lawmaker Caroline Lucas have said that the Japanese nuclear crisis strengthens the case against new nuclear construction. "You will never be able to completely design out human error, design failure or natural disaster," she said. Walt Patterson, associate fellow at London's Chatham House thinktank, said that, the financial damages of a potential nuclear accident also played a big role in shaping the energy debate in Brian and Europe.

"That is undoubtedly going to filter back to the debate in Europe as a further factor in the very dubious economics of these plants,"
he told Reuters

The plans to expand nuclear energy in India for around $175 billion might, in light of the current situation in Japan, see a strong public backlash, analysts and experts say:

â€œThe Japan accident has created a very, very tough situation for India, actual implementation of nuclear power projects will now certainly take a backseat,â€ said Debasish Mishra, Mumbai-based senior director at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. â€œIt will be very difficult to sell the idea of nuclear power to people for any political party after the Japan disaster.â€

While the nuclear crisis in Japan might not change the Chinese government's plans to develop more nuclear power it could force China to review their energy policies. The current situation in Japan "may become a factor in the drafting of Chinaâ€™s energy plans, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in Beijing."

â€œThe accident in Japan may trigger increased public concerns over building atomic plants,â€ said Dave Dai, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Daiwa Securities Capital Markets Co. â€œChina will become more cautious while developing nuclear-power plants but is unlikely to alter its long-term nuclear development plans.â€

730Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:39:00 +0000
Why we must oppose transition to gas-fired powerhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/why-we-must-oppose-transition-to-gas-fired-power-r717/

"These estimates translate to a climate genocide involving the deaths of 10 billion people this century..."
There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus that global warming is real, man-made and must be urgently addressed, As adjudged from the rhetoric at the disastrous Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) climate change summits, most world leaders acknowledge the problem. However in practice politicians are still largely committed to disastrous â€œbusiness as usualâ€ (BAU) policies. Nevertheless most politicians must appear to be â€œtackling climate changeâ€ while in reality playing a BAU game acceptable to huge fossil fuel interests.

One such false, phony, politically disingenuous approach has been the Carbon Trading-based Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) approach. The ETS approach has been variously slammed as (a) empirically ineffective (despite ETS measures carbon dioxide, (CO2) pollution continues to increase remorselessly and indeed man-made global warming has been described by top economist Professor Sir Nicholas Stern as â€œthe greatest market failure the world has seenâ€; (2) dangerously counterproductive (we are running out of time, CO2 emissions must cease by 2050 for the World and by 2020 for the US, and there is no point wasting time going down a route already demonstrated to be ineffective); and (3) utterly fraudulent ( the ETS approach has already engendered market manipulation fraud, involves selling licences to pollute that must ultimately be worthless, and fundamentally involves governments selling something they do not have the right to sell, specifically the â€œrightâ€ to pollute the one common atmosphere of all peoples). [1].

A further phony approach that is now being implemented on a massive scale around the world is a coal-to-gas transition on the basis that (1) gas burning for power typically yields half the carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution as coal burning per unit of electrical energy produced and (2) gas burning is associated with greatly lowered carbon particulates, sulphur dioxide (SO2), heavy metals and organics and an 80% reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (nitrous oxide, N2O, nitrogen dioxide, NO2, and nitric oxide. NO, these being collectively denoted as NOx). However, as set out below, the reality is that gas burning seriously threatens the Planet because (A) Humanity should be urgently decreasing and certainly not increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution; (B) Natural Gas (mainly methane, CH4) is not clean energy greenhouse gas (GHG)-wise; and © Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning pose a chemical risk to residents, agriculture and the environment.

(A) Australia and the World should be decreasing and not increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution.

Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming â€“ noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Already 16 million people (about 9.5 million of them under-5 year old infants) die avoidably every year due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease â€“ and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century yields an average annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year. [2].

Collective, national responsibility for this already commenced Climate Holocaust is in direct proportion to per capita national pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs). Indeed, fundamental to any international agreement on national rights to pollute our common atmosphere and oceans should be the belief that â€œall men are created equalâ€. However reality is otherwise: â€œannual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutionâ€ in units of â€œtonnes CO2-equivalent [CO2-e] per person per yearâ€ (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australiaâ€™s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included). [2].

However expansion of Australiaâ€™s exported GHG pollution is occurring through increasing black coal, liquid natural gas (LNG) and dried brown coal exports and increased pollution domestically through new fossil fuel power plants (coal and natural gas). Thus exports of brown coal from Victoria to Asia are expected to reach 20 million tonnes [Mt] per year (74 million tonnes CO2-e). [3].

If this is achieved by 2020 then Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 will be 1245 Mt + 74 Mt = 1319 Mt CO2-e = 149% of that in 2000. The Australia Federal Governmentâ€™s derisory pledge of â€œ5% off 2000 level by 2020â€ in actual reality seems likely to be about â€œ150% of 2000 level by 2020â€. [4].

Based on UN Population Division population projections, Australiaâ€™s 2020 annual per capita Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution is accordingly projected to reach 1319 Mt CO2-e / 23.4 million people = 56 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, 62 times that of Bangladesh, a densely populated country acutely threatened by inundation from mainly First World-imposed GHG pollution. [4].

Leading climate scientist Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber CBE (Director of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research [PIK], Germany and variously associated with the University of Manchester, University of East Anglia and Oxford University) has estimated that for a 67% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise (the EU target; would you board a plane if it had a 33% chance of crashing?) the World has to cease CO2 emissions by 2050. â€œAll man are created equalâ€ means that all human beings must be allotted equal shares of CO2 pollution until 2050. This means that high per capita countries such as the US and Australia must reach zero CO2 emissions by 2020 while low per capita emitters (e.g. India and Burkina Faso) can increase their emissions until finally reaching zero emissions by 2050. [5].

It must be noted that other leading climate scientists have reached similar conclusions about the urgency of achieving zero emissions. Thus Dr Vicky Pope (Head of Climate Change Advice, UK Met Office Hadley Centre):

â€œLatest climate projections from the Met Office Hadley Centre show the possible range of temperature rises, depending on what action is taken to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, the indications are that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2 Â°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. If action is delayed or not quick enough, there is a large risk of much bigger increases in temperature, with some severe impacts. In a worst-case scenario, where no action is taken to check the rise in Greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would most likely rise by more than 5 Â°C by the end of the century. This would lead to significant risks of severe and irreversible impacts. In the most optimistic scenario, action to reduce emissions would need to start in 2010 and reach a rapid and sustained rate of decline of 3 per cent every year. Even then there would still only be a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below around 2Â°C. This contrasts sharply with current trends, where the worldâ€™s overall emissions are currently increasing at 1 per cent every year.â€ [6].


â€œAccording to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 â€¦Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO2-e... Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to â€œlimiting average global temperature increases to below 4oC above pre-industrial levelsâ€, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society.â€ [7].

Dr James Hansen, (head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University) has concluded:

â€œAfter the ice has gone, would the Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, Iâ€™ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas , and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certaintyâ€. [8].

However, achieving zero CO2 emissions is just the start. Many top climate scientists and biologists state that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (currently a damaging 392 ppm and increasing at about 2 ppm per annum) must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species. [9].

At current CO2 pollution rates, in about 30 years the atmospheric CO2 concentration will reach 450 ppm, a level at which the Great Barrier Reef coral and indeed most coral around the World is doomed from the dual effects of warming and ocean acidification. [10].

The message from science is unequivocal. High per capita GHG polluter Australia is obliged top cease CO2 pollution by 2020. Accordingly any further expansion of Australian Domestic or Exported GHG pollution is absolutely contra-indicated.

A key part of achieving 100% cessation of CO2 pollution by 2020 is installation of 100% renewable energy. Professor Peter Seligman (bionic ear electrical engineer. University of Melbourne) has published a book, â€œAustralian Sustainable Energy- By the Numbersâ€, setting out how Australia can get 100% renewable energy by 2030 at a cost $253 billion, his scheme involving a mix of wind, concentrated solar thermal and other technologies with hydrological energy storage for 24/7 baseload operation. [11].

An Australian engineering team called Beyond Zero Emissions has released its 5 year study on Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 (ZCA2020) Report) that shows how Australia can have 100% renewable energy by 2020 for $370 billion using renewable technologies of wind power and concentrated solar thermal with molten salts energy storage for 24/7, baseload operation. [12].

Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, California, and Mark A. Delucchi of University of California Davis have produced a plan for 100% renewable energy plan for the whole world by 2020. [13].

Unfortunately the clear message from top scientists is being ignored because of the lobbying power of â€œbusiness as usualâ€ and fossil fuel vested interests. Dr James Hansen in answer to the question â€œIs there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?â€, has stated: â€œAbsolutely. It is possible â€“ if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach â€“ "goals" for emission reductions, "offsets" that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual "cap-and-trade" mechanism â€“ must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.â€ [14].

Gas (mainly methane) is not clean energy greenhouse gas (GHG)-wise.

The Australian Labor Government and the natural gas industry are utterly incorrect in their repeated assertion that â€œnatural gas is clean energyâ€. However this untruth remains formally uncorrected and is now spreading through society, through media and even into the environment movement. [15].

The truth is otherwise â€“ natural gas is dirty energy and on combustion is twice as carbon dioxide (CO2) polluting as brown coal on a weight basis. Further, in Victoria the carbon pollution currently ranges from 1.2-1.5 tonnes C/MWh for major brown coal plants and 0.6-0.9 tonnes C/MWh for major gas-fired plants â€“ gas may be â€œclean-erâ€ on this basis but is certainly not â€œcleanâ€. [16].

However even the asserted â€œclean-erâ€ status of gas as a fossil fuel is belied by the recent analysis by Professor Robert Howarth of Cornell University, New York, USA, who has concluded that : â€œA complete consideration of all emissions from using natural gas seems likely to make natural gas a far less attractive than oil and not significantly better than coal in terms of the consequences for global warming.â€ [17]

Natural gas (mostly methane, CH4) yields carbon dioxide (CO2) on combustion as does black coal (mostly Carbon, C) and brown coal (65% water, H2O).

The molecular weights of CH4 and CO2 are 16 and 44, respectively. The atomic weights of oxygen (O), carbon © and hydrogen (H) are 16, 12 and 1, respectively.

Burning 16 tonnes of CH4 yields 44 tonnes CO2 (i.e. burning 1 tonne of natural gas yields 2.8 tonnes CO2).

Burning 12 tonnes of C yields 44 tonnes of CO2 (i.e. burning 1 tonne of coal â€“ assuming it to be 100% carbon â€“ yields 3.7 tonnes of CO2).

Brown coal (that is burned to produce most of the electricity in Victoria, Australia) has a water (H2O) content of about 65% and thus burning 1 tonne of brown coal would yield 0.35 x 3.7 = 1.3 tonnes of CO2, or about 46% of that produced by burning 1 tonne of natural gas (2.8 tonnes of CO2).

Clearly, on a weight basis, burning natural gas (CH4) yields twice as much CO2 as burning brown coal. However proponents of gas burning assert that it is only 50% as polluting as black coal and only 30% as polluting as brown coal in terms of grams CO2 generated per million joules of energy.

Methane (CH4) has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon dioxide (CO2) has a molecular weight of 44.

When you burn CH4 you get CO2: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O.

Accordingly burning 16 tonnes of CH4 yields 44 tonnes of CO2 and burning 100 tonnes of CH4 yields 100x 44/16 = 275 tonnes of CO2.

However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be at least 2.2% by the US EPA) then one must consider the greenhouse gas effect of the released methane (72 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale).

Of our 100 tonnes of CH4, how much CH4 leakage (y tonnes) gives the same greenhouse effect (in CO2 equivalents or CO2-e) as burning the remaining CH4?

y tonnes CH4 x (72 tonnes CO2-e/tonne CH4) = (100-y) tonnes CH4 x (2.75 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4).

72y tonnes CO2-e = (100-y) 2.75 tonnes CO2-e

72y = 275 â€“ 2.75y

74.75y = 275

y = 275/74.75 = 3.68 i.e. a 3.7% leakage of CH4 yields that same greenhouse effect as burning the remaining CH4 (check: 3.68 tonnes leaked CH4 corresponds to 3.68 tonnes CH4 x 72 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4 = 265 tonnes CO2-e . Burning the remaining 96.32 tonnes of CH4 corresponds to 96.32 tonnes CH4 x 2.75 tonnes CO2/tonne CH4 = 265 tonnes CO2). [18].

Recent re-assessment by the US EPA of US natural gas leakage has led to the estimate that "3.25 % of US natural gas production leaks into the atmosphere as methane gas". [19].

There is no point spending billions of dollars replacing coal with natural gas and locking us into something essentially as bad as coal for decades more. Top climate scientists say that we must urgently reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from the current damaging 392 parts per million (ppm) to a safe and sustainable 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species.

Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning threaten residents, agriculture and the environment.

Natural gas is not necessarily cleaner than coal for power generation in terms of greenhouse gas pollution (see part (B) above). However the bottom line in any analysis of any social policy is avoidable human morbidity (sickness) and mortality (death). That fundamental consideration and other environmental impacts of gas burning heavily inform the following numbered concerns about the threat of gas burning to residents, agriculture and the environment. [20].

1. It can be proportionally estimated from Canadian and New Zealand epidemiological data that about10,000 Australians die annually from the effects of carbon burning pollutants, the breakdown being about 5,000 (coal and gas burning for electrical power), 2,000 ( vehicle exhaust) and 3,000 (other fossil fuel combustion excluding bush fires). Accordingly any increase in fossil fuel burning is contra-indicated. [21-26].

2. International comparisons of fossil fuel-based power pollution deaths can be made. â€œAnnual coal-based electricity deathsâ€ [â€œtotal annual fossil fuel-based electricity deathsâ€] are 170,000 [283,000] (the World), 11,000 [13,000] (India), 47,000 [47,500] (China), 49,000 [72,000] (the US), 3,400 [6,900] (the UK), 4,900 [5,400] (Australia) and 2,700 [3,800](Canada) as compared to 110 [360] (heavily renewable-based New Zealand). These estimates of total fossil fuel-based deaths (i.e. from coal burning plus gas burning) are simply ball-park upper limits deriving from a crude assumption, in the absence of readily available data otherwise, of the same mortality from gas burning as from coal burning. In reality, since pollutants are much lower from gas burning (see #3 below) one expects deaths from gas burning for power to be lower than for coal burning. However while transition top gas burning might be expected to decrease mortality from fossil fuel burning for power, clearly gas burning will contribute to such mortality. A direct transition from coal burning to renewables is clearly highly desirable from the perspective of avoiding human and environmental impacts . [24-26].

3. Pollutants (pounds per Billion Btu of energy input) from gas, oil and coal burning are as follows: carbon dioxide (CO2) (117,000, 164,000, 208,000, respectively); carbon monoxide (CO) (40, 33, 208), nitrogen oxides (N2O, NO2 and NO i.e. NOx) (92, 448, 457); sulphur dioxide (SO2) (1, 1122, 2591); particulates (7, 84, 2744); and Mercury (0.000, 0.007, 0.016) i.e. deaths from gas burning for power may be expected to be lower than for coal burning. However CO pollution and NOx pollution from gas burning for power is about 20% of that from coal burning i.e. gas burning produces substantial quantities of dangerous pollutants. [27, 28]

4. In addition to methane and other aliphatic (non-aromatic) hydrocarbons, natural gas can contain toxic materials such as aromatic organics, notably those innately present or deriving from â€œfrackingâ€ mixtures used to help extract gas from fractured rocks or coal seams (e.g. benzene, toluene, ethylbenze and xylene), radon (and other radioactive materials), and organometallics (e.g. methylmercury , organoarsenic compounds and organolead compounds). Incomplete combustion and industrial leakage of natural gas (estimated by the US EPA to be at least 2.2% globally and recently assessed to be at least 3.3% in the US ; see section (B) above) will pollute the local environment with these toxic substances. Radon and other radioactive materials are mutagenic and carcinogenic. Aromatic organics are carcinogenic. Organometallics are fat soluble, leading to long-term storage in human fat tissue. Methylmercury is neurotoxic (e.g. as in Minamata syndrome). Organoarsenic and organolead compounds are variously toxic. Arsenic is toxic, teratogenic (yielding birth defects) and carcinogenic. [27].

5. Nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO) (collectively described as NOx) are major products from natural gas combustion. According to the US EPA: â€œNOx react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form small particles. These small particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death.â€ [28, 29]..

6. According to the US EPA: â€œOzone is formed when NOx and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Children, the elderly, people with lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for adverse effects from ozone. These include reduction in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms as well as respiratory-related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and possibly premature deaths.â€ [29].

7. Nitrogen oxides can seriously injure vegetation, bleaching or killing plant tissue, causing leaf fall and reducing growth rate. Ozone pollution damages photosynthesis by plants. NOx air pollution contributes to acidifying nitrate deposition (with fish kills and reduction in plant growth), causes excess soil nitrification in ecosystems (with damage to vegetation, loss of biodiversity, increased GHG pollution) and is regarded not just a s a threat to agriculture and forestry but also to as a major threat to national parks and wilderness areas . [30, 31].

8. Gas burning-based power generation at a circa 1000 MW level in an urban environment can have very serious health consequences. Thus the City of Sydney (New South Wales, Australia) has pledged to install more than 100 trigeneration gas-burning turbines which burn gas to generate electricity and then capture the exhaust to heat and cool buildings as necessary. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change has slammed this proposal saying that emissions from just 10MW of "co-generation" (a similar engine that heats but doesn't cool buildings) could exceed health limits and that 200 MW generation would certainly do so: â€œOn an hourly basis 330MW of gas-fired co-generation [the amount envisioned] could emit up to 660kg per hour of NOx; this is more NOx than the combined emissions from the Shell and Caltex oil refineries in Sydneyâ€¦As a result there is little 'headroom' available to accommodate uncontrolled emissions from cogeneration without causing local health impacts.â€ The National Environment Protection Council sets a limit of 0.03 parts per million (ppm) for allowed levels of NOx release average over a year. By way of example, the current proposal for 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant to be built 1.5 kilometres from the Lockyer Valley town of Gatton (Queensland, Australia) is contra-indicated on the basis of NOx pollution health effects on the nearby community. [32, 33].

9. A further threat from gas fired power generation comers from the generation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A study of pollution from a 70-year-old natural gas-fired power station in Canada stated:

"This paper presents the results of a risk assessment study made using CalTOX, a multimedia, multiple pathway risk assessment model. The case study is based on the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) soil contamination resulting from the activities of a natural gas power station over a period of 70 years. It describes model characteristics and input parameters such as physico-chemical properties, landscape description, and human exposure factors. Model simulations and risk estimations corresponding to different remedial scenarios in an industrial zone are also presented. These estimations were based on soil contamination by 16 PAHs in the root-zone and vadose-zone layer. Results show that adult exposure (workers) to contaminated soil will lead to a potential health risk of carcinogenic effects, and to no potential risk of non-carcinogenic effects. On the other hand, the addition of 10 cm of clean soil over the contaminated soil (mitigated scenario) decreases the lifetime cancer risk to an acceptable level. The sensitivity analysis showed that the half-life of benzo[a]pyrene in the root-zone soil is the most sensitive parameter and that it contributes significantly to the variability of the cancer risk estimation. [34]."

10. A final major argument derives from cause and effect and the sources of the methane to be used. Australia and America are currently undergoing a gas exploitation boom that flies in the face of what top climate scientists are telling us. The film Gasland presents a deeply upsetting portrait of the devastation across America by the â€œfrackersâ€ involved in recovery of gas from fractured rocks and coal seams. In Australia, in addition to conventional offshore and on on-shore gas exploitation, there is a rapidly advancing coal seam gas industry involving â€œfrackingâ€ that has generated protest from both environmentalists and farmers. Whether the gas used in a gas-fired power station is on-shore- or off-shore-derived it is part of the total resource and accordingly no consequences of any gas extraction (e.g. environmental pollution as set out in â€œGaslandâ€) can be ignored. [35].

In summary, objections to the transition from coal burning-based power to gas burning-based power are that (A) Humanity should be urgently decreasing CO2 pollution to 300 ppm from the current dangerous 392 ppm and certainly should not be increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (all fossil fuels must be kept in the ground if we are to save the Planet) ; (B) Natural Gas (mainly methane) is not clean energy, methane is 72 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time scale and, depending upon the rate of methane leakage, natural gas burning can be as dirty as coal burning greenhouse gas-wise; and © Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning pose a chemical risk to residents, agriculture and the environment. Please use this article as a resource and tell everyone you can why we must oppose transition to gas-fired power.


[1]. â€œTop science and economics experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Carbon Tradingâ€, 300,org

[2]. â€œClimate genocideâ€

[3]. Adam Morton and Tom Arup, â€Greens slam Gillard on brown coal export dealâ€, The Age, 26 June 2010.

[4]. Gideon Polya, â€œAustraliaâ€™s â€œ5% off 2000 level by 2020â€ endangers Australia, Humanity and Biosphereâ€, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group.

[5]. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, â€œTerra quasi-incognita: beyond the 2 degree C lineâ€< 4 Degrees & Beyond, International Climate Conference, 26-30 September 2009, Oxford University, UK.

[6]. Dr Vicky Pope, â€œMet Office warn of â€œcatastrophicâ€ rise in temperatureâ€, The Sunday Times, 19 December 2008.

[7]. Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows, â€œReframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trendsâ€, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc, A, 2008.

[8]. James Hansen, â€œStorms of My Grandchildren. The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and out last chance to save humanityâ€â€, Bloomsbury, London & New York, 2009.


[10]. Professors O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. J. Mumby and colleagues, â€œCoral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidificationâ€, Science 14 December 2007, Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1737 â€“ 1742.

[11]. Professor Peter Seligman, â€œAustralian Sustainable Energy â€“ by the Numbersâ€, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne, 2010.

[12]. .Beyond Zero Emissions, â€œZero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Planâ€, 2010.

[13]. Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, â€œA path to sustainable energy by 2030â€, Scientific American, November 2009,p(p 58 â€“ 65.

[14]. James Hansen, â€œCopenhagen summit â€“ Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?â€, Guardian, 29 November 2009.

[15]. Gideon Polya, â€œCorrecting the Australian Government â€“ natural gas is NOT clean energyâ€, Open Forum, 7 February 2010.

[16]. Green Energy Markets, â€œFast-tracking Victoriaâ€™s clean energy future to replace Hazelwoodâ€, 2010.

[17]. Professor Robert Howarth, â€œPreliminary assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas obtained by hydraulic fracturingâ€, Cornell University, 1 April 2010.

[18]. Gideon Polya, â€œGulf oil & gas disaster, lobbyists, Obama and huge threat of natural gas (methane) to Humanity and Biosphereâ€, Bellaciao, 19 June 2010.

[19]. David Lewis, â€œEPA confirms high Natural gas leakage ratesâ€, The Energy Collective, 7 December 2010.

[20]. Gideon Polya, â€œGlobal avoidable mortality since 1950â€, G.M. Polya. Melbourne, 2007.

[21]. Gideon Polya, â€œHow many people die from carbon burning and climate change each year?â€, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group.

[22]. G.W. Fischer et al., â€œHealth effects due to motor vehicle air pollution in New Zealandâ€, Report to the Ministry of Transport, 2002.

[23]. Paul Gipe, â€œOntario study identifies social costs of coal-fired power plantsâ€, EV World, 7 July 2005.

[24]. Gideon Polya, â€œPollutants from coal-based electricity generation kill 170,000 people annuallyâ€, Green Blog, 14 June 2008.

[25]. Gideon Polya, â€œCoal is king. Australia CO2 pollution fact sheetâ€, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group.

[26]. Gideon Polya, â€œPollution deaths from fossil fuel-based power plantsâ€, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group.

[27]. US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data quoted in â€œNatural Gas and the Environmentâ€, Natural Gas.org.

[28]. Agnes Malouf and David Wimberley, â€œHealth hazards of natural gasâ€, Environmental health, 2001.

[29]. US EPA, Nitrogen dioxide, 20 October 2010.

[30]. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, â€œOxides of Nitrogenâ€.

[31]. Environmental defence, â€œNitrogen oxides air pollutionâ€, November 2003.

[32]. Drew Warne-Smith, â€œHealth fears over gas-fired generatorsâ€, The Australian, 12 November 2010.

[33]. â€œResidents rally against stationâ€, [Gatton, Lockyer and Brisbane Valley] Star, 26 December 2010.

[34]. S. Loranger and Y. Courchesne, â€œHealth Risk Assessment of an Industrial Site Contaminated With Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Using CalTOX, an Environmental Fate/Exposure Modelâ€, SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, Volume 6, Issue 1 &2, April 1997 , pages 81 - 104.

[35]. Gasland â€“Australia.

717Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:45:00 +0000
Heavy anti-nuclear protests in Germanyhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/heavy-anti-nuclear-protests-in-germany-r711/These past days there have been heavy protests and blockades in Germany against a train carrying nuclear waste from France. Der Spiegel writes:

"A train loaded with radioactive waste ended its controversial journey through Germany on Monday. Its path had been blocked by up to 50,000 protesters over the weekend, sparking violent clashes between police and anti-nuclear activists."

Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to, despite very strong public opposition, extend the lifespan of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors has helped highlight the issue of these nuclear waste trains. See my post from last year regarding this matter: Atomkraft? Nein danke! 50.000 people protest against nuclear energy in Germany. The anti-nuclear organizations in Germany have as a result of this seen the largest mobilization of protesters in recent years this past weekend. And the protests are expected to continue with severe long-term political consequences for Merkel and her political pro-nuclear friends in the coming elections. Apparently the current right-wing coalition in Germany never imagined that there would be this much and strong opposition against nuclear energy in Germany. An energy source that is expensive, dangerous, not cost-effective and will worsen climate change.

Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, held a speech (see video) in front of around 50 000 protesters in Dannenberg, Germany, where he lashed out against the CASTOR nuclear waste transports which he called "an example of the nuclear madness" which must be stopped. Naidoo called on Merkel and Germany to end their investments in an "outdated" and "obsolete" energy source and instead focus on a "real energy revolution", a successful renewable energy sector which currently employs 380 000 people in Germany:



Video of the â€œnuclear train clashesâ€ in Germany:

711Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:45:00 +0000
The energy-independent future that never washttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/the-energy-independent-future-that-never-was-r690/Bernie Sanders, the only democratic socialist in the US Senate, says that the single most important lesson we can learn from the ongoing oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is that drilling is not the answer. Sanders also calls for a stop on offshore drilling and says that the USA must transform its energy system.

"Further, we must learn that with any risky technology, whether it is offshore oil drilling or nuclear power, it is not good enough to be 99% safe. One event can have a calamitous and irreversible impact. We need a major investigation to understand how this accident occurred. We must make certain that precautions are put in place so nothing like it ever happens again.

This crisis occurred at a time when the United States was considering opening new areas to offshore oil drilling. If there is a lesson to be learned from this disaster, it is that Congress must end that policy. There must be no new offshore drilling. Not now, not ever.

Offshore drilling simply does not achieve the goals that its advocates claim, and it is not worth the risk. If we are serious about wanting to break our dependence on foreign oil and move to energy independence; if we want to lower the cost of energy; if we want to combat climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions; if we want to create millions of new jobs â€“ then more offshore drilling is not the way to go."

In light of the BP oil disaster Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promptly withdrew his plans on lifting a 40-year moratorium on drilling off the California coast. Earlier Greenpeace have called for an offshore moratorium in the USA and have asked President Barack Obama to cancel Arctic drilling plans. Schwarzenegger should of course be complimented for taking back his support for any new offshore oil drilling plans. But isn't it a bit sad that an â€œunprecedented environmental disasterâ€ has to take place before anyone cares to realize the dangers of offshore oil drilling (or nuclear energy)?

But then again this might just all be nice talk from politicians and legislators. It will be interesting to see if they will continue to talk about ending offshore drilling and transforming the nation's energy system even after the media storm have calmed. Somehow I doubt it. After all, the current oil spill is nothing new. And we shouldn't forget that the Gulf disaster is only unusual for being so near the US. Elsewhere in the world Big Oil rarely cleans up its dirty mess. And the Western media rarely cares about it.

But one might say that Barack Obama have called for the transformation of the US energy system long before the oil disaster in the Gulf. And yes this is true. In late 2008 when the failing auto industry was the hot topic of the day Obama said that this is "our pattern" and it has to be broken:


And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. Itâ€™s part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it."

But then again, this is also nothing new. As Jon Stewart shows the last eight presidents in the USA have all gone on television and promised to move America towards an energy-independent future.

690Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:31:38 +0000
Greenpeace activists protests against nuclear energy in Swedenhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/greenpeace-activists-protests-against-nuclear-energy-in-sweden-r687/Today Greenpeace activists protested against recent political plans to introduce new nuclear reactors in Sweden. Dressed as different renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and water, and with the help from a old fire truck the activists managed to cross the security fences surrounding the Swedish nuclear plant. Once inside some of the activists managed to get up on the roof of the reactors, casting new light on the lack of security at the Swedish nuclear power plants.

Ludvig Tillman, energy campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic said that:

"The Swedish parliament is risking the country's reputation and position as a progressive leader in clean and safe energy development. All the evidence shows that nuclear power is a dangerous, expensive and dead-end distraction from the real solutions to climate protection and energy security. Reactors are standing in the way of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs."

"The reality in many countries is that reactors are hugely expensive, construction is often delayed massively due to safety concerns and technical complications, and there is still no solution to deadly nuclear waste," added Jan BerÃ¡nek, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace International.

It was in 2009 that the current right-wing government announced their plans to scrap the Settlement Act and the ban on new nuclear power in Sweden. The new pro-nuclear agreement will get voted on in the parliament on the 17th of June. Sweden is already far behind other European countries such as Spain, Germany and Denmark in the renewable energy sector. And if the agreement gets a yes from the parliament, sane progress towards a sustainable energy system based on energy efficiency and renewable technologies will likely be blocked and pushed back even further.

"The world is watching. Swedish parliamentarians must let reason guide their choice rather than propaganda from the nuclear industry and vote NO to nuclear power on June 17", Tillman said.

687Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:53:46 +0000
Greenpeace: Obama must shelve Arctic drilling plans, call for offshore moratoriumhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/greenpeace-obama-must-shelve-arctic-drilling-plans-call-for-offshore-moratorium-r683/In light of the ongoing offshore oil drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico Greenpeace is demanding that President Barack Obama cancels Arctic drilling plans and calls for an offshore moratorium.

The Deepwater Horizon accident has resulted in eleven lives lost, countless of animal lives affected and an oil spill that is growing in size every day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that around 5000 barrels of oil is leaking every day from the destroyed oil rig managed by BP. According to reports the oil spill has tripled in size during these past days.

While touring the area at risk from the oil spill Obama blamed the "unprecedented environmental disaster" on BP while saying they "will be paying the bill":

"Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill," said Obama as he visited the area and pledged a "fully coordinated, relentless relief effort" in the region where the coastlines of four Gulf states are being menaced. [...]"We a dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster," Obama said.

And why shouldn't they? After all BP is the third largest global energy company and the 4th largest company in the world. Reuters also reports that:

"The spill has also forced Obama to suspend politically sensitive plans to expand offshore oil drilling, unveiled last month partly to woo Republican support for climate legislation, one of the U.S. leader's priorities."

And following this suspension on offshore oil drilling Greenpeace Executive Director, Philip Radford said that while Obama's announcement was "a welcome first step" it isn't enough:

â€œThe Presidentâ€™s announcement today, while a welcome first step, does not go nearly far enough. The only way to prevent human, economic and environmental tragedies like the BP Deepwater Disaster is to re-enact the moratorium on offshore drilling and to replace dirty dangerous fuels with clean energy."

"If we cannot handle a spill in the Gulf of Mexico, imagine the impact even a small spill could have in the remote, pristine waters of the Arctic", Radford said in a statement.

Greenpeace also notes that on April 2nd, just days before the BP Deepwater Spill began, President Obama said:


Maybe this time BP really should go "beyond petroleum"?

Related reading:

- Documents Show BP Opposed New, Stricter Safety Rules

- Rig explosion dirties BP's green image

- BP Deepwater Disaster and Gulf Oil Spill (Greenpeace)

- Dick Cheney and the oil spill

- BP warned of rig fault ten years ago

- BP accused as size of oil slick triples in a day

- Oil Spill Vs. Wind Spill Vs. Sun Spill.

683Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:54:44 +0000
A Picture is Worth... Oil advertisement from 1962http://green-blog.org/news/energy/a-picture-is-worth-oil-advertisement-from-1962-r654/humble-oil

Humble Oil, who is today more known as Exxon, pretty much nailed it back in the 60's with this advertisement from a 1962 edition of Life Magazine. Oh, the grim irony. It's also available in full view on Google Books.

A Picture is Worthâ€¦

- Car, bus or bicycle?

- Albatross Carcass

- The Global Distribution of Water

- Gasoline Consumption Per Day

- Why Offshore Drilling Wonâ€™t Help

654Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:01:00 +0000
France must shut down nuclear plants due to heatwaveshttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/france-must-shut-down-nuclear-plants-due-to-heatwaves-r629/

Power Generation Darkens the Sun

Creative Commons License Photo credit: christian.senger

The Times Online are reporting that France have been forced to close down a third of its nuclear power stations this summer due to heatwaves:


With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDFâ€™s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

Fourteen of Franceâ€™s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise,
is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.â€

It seems thirsty nukes can't take the heat and that climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water. A question we must all ask our self: as the planet is warming up, is nuclear really a smart move?

629Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:36:45 +0000
Swedish Energy giant Vattenfall wins Climate Greenwash awardhttp://green-blog.org/news/energy/swedish-energy-giant-vattenfall-wins-climate-greenwash-award-r620/vattenfall-logo

Vattenfall, Europeâ€™s third-largest energy company which is wholly owned by the Swedish Government, has been announced as the winner in the Climate Greenwash Award 2009 at a ceremony in Copenhagen.

â€œVattenfall, which won with 39% of the vote (about 2000 votes cast), was nominated for â€œits mastery of spin on climate change, portraying itself as a climate champion while lobbying to continue business as usual, using coal, nuclear power, and pseudo-solutions such as agrofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS).â€

The energy company also played a key role in setting up the World Business Summit on Climate Change through the Combat Climate Change - a lobby group established by Vattenfall to promote the â€œclimate-friendly technologiesâ€ such as carbon capture and storage and nuclear power, which are the companyâ€™s preferred options for tackling climate change.â€

Climate Greenwash Awards Coordinator Kenneth Haar congratulated Vattenfall for their hard (read: dirty) work which resulted in their first place. Haar also gave a special mention the Danish Government for giving these dirty corporations easy access to the climate talks:



Shell, Dong, ArcelorMittal, Repsol and BP was among the other energy companies nominated for the award. The Climate Greenwash Awards were organised by Corporate Europe Observatory, Attac Denmark, The Climate Movement, ClimaX and Friends of the Earth Denmark.

620Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:50:26 +0000