Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Advocates of alternative energy have sustained that on a global rate, increasing energy consumption is connected to the renewed hostile extraction of natural resources from Africa to reach the target increasing demand in North America, Europe and the BRICS countries namely: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They compete that despite of the growing demand for energy, more than 1.6 billion people has no electricity and about 2.4 rely only on fuel wood. According to the Executive Director, ERA/FoEN, Dr. Godwin Ojo, the event was conceived to deepen understanding of energy issues. It is the effort to find substitute to this irregularity that the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) working in concert with over 50 civil societies, community groups and energy experts organized the Africa Alternative energy Transition forum recently. Ojo said the event that attracted participants from across Africa was organised to coincide with the Global Month of Action on energy by a coalition of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Actionaid, International Rivers, 350.org, and some other international Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) to reclaim power by resisting dirty and harmful energy and affirming the need for transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. He said in Nigeria, about 70 percent of the population depend solely on fuel wood for energy, a development, which has put the country in the ranking of the countries with the highest deforestation rate. He stated that the country is said to be losing 3.5 percent of her forest annually. "The rising energy demand is also leading to violent resource conflicts at the site of extraction. The energy expansions to dirty energy frontiers and technologies such as coal, shale gas fracking, or energy from biofuels have deleterious consequences on farmers and fragile ecosystems. "It is also important to note that the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on C

The path to low-carbon electricity generation in Texas will likely require the co-development and integration of both natural gas and renewable energy resources like wind and solar power, a new research report commissioned by the Texas Clean energy Coalition has found. The white paper, prepared by the Brattle Group for the Austin-based nonprofit, states that despite perceived competition between natural gas and renewable energy resources in Texas, the reality is the two sectors can aid each other's growth and can eventually help Texas meet rising energy demand in an era of tighter environmental controls. "Low-priced natural gas and clean renewable resources are complementary, not competing, resources to displace other fuels over the long term. Coordinated development of both will lead to a win-win for Texas and the environment," Kip Averitt, chairman of the Texas Clean energy Coalition, said in a statement announcing the results of the Brattle Group analysis. The report examined conditions across the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) territory, which has some of the nation's greatest wind power capacity and has undergone an unprecedented boom in natural gas production aided by hydraulic fracturing. Some have asserted that an abundance of inexpensive natural gas will displace renewable energy, thus keeping Texas from fully developing its extensive wind and solar resources. The Brattle analysis challenges that conclusion, asserting instead that "in the short run, low gas prices are extremely unlikely to change the fact that existing renewables will nearly always have priority over gas-fired plants since, due to the absence of fuel costs, their variable costs are lower than those of essentially all other resources." And longer term, the analysis finds, new gas-fired power plants may compete with wind and solar power, but such conditions will be predicated on fluctuation in coal and gas prices, shifts in federal and state energy and environmental poli

The path to low-carbon electricity generation in Texas will likely require the co-development and integration of both natural gas and renewable energy resources like wind and solar power, a new research report commissioned by the Texas Clean energy Coalition has found. The white paper, prepared by the Brattle Group for the Austin-based nonprofit, states that despite perceived competition between natural gas and renewable energy resources in Texas, the reality is the two sectors can aid each other's growth and can eventually help Texas meet rising energy demand in an era of tighter environmental controls.

Population and poverty can be a very basic factor accountable for the environmental problems we are experiencing nowadays.

There are a lot of people who assumes that the sole technology that is now available to substitute fossil fuels is nuclear power especially when climate scientists and some energy policy analysts take a "tough-minded" look at the numbers. Eduardo Porter of the New York Times made that argument last week when he wrote: …nuclear power remains the cheapest and most readily scalable of the alternative energy sources. There are many reasons why nuclear power is a bad solution to the climate crisis. The first reason is that the technology is not available. Nuclear power plants are capital-intensive, technologically complex to manage, and difficult, if not impossible, to site. These issues are not minor, investors chose putting their money somewhere else and communities are greatly against sitting a plant in their backyard. As a consequence, despite our knowledge on how to use electricity this way plus our years of experience practicing it, in the U.S. these plants will never be built in enough amount to reduce global warming. There is a slight difference between the technology of nuclear power generation and the technology of nuclear bomb development. It is now hard to put things back the way it used to be, let us admit that human political systems or organizational processes cannot manage the risks of this technology. Other issues associated with current nuclear technologies that cause them to become problematic. For instance, the toxicity of its fuel and waste should not be ignored. Dangerous accidents are rare but once it happened, the impact is intense and long-lasting. It is hard to judge the danger posed by a poorly managed one while a well-managed plant poses little real danger. There is also a possibility of sabotage. Terrorists taking over a plant and threatening to plant accident could hold a city hostage. Electric utilities are natural monopolies that necessitate government regulation. The investment in infrastructure to produce and send out electrici

Biomass for energy often mean plant base material although can equally apply to both animal and vegetable draw from material. Biomass is actually a biological material derive form living or recently living organisms. Biomass chemical composition is carbon based and is composed of a mixture of organic molecules containing hydrogen, usually including atoms of oxygen, often nitrogen and also small quantities of other atoms, including alkali, alkaline earth and heavy metals, metals are often found in functional molecules such as the porphyrins which include chlorophyll which contains magnesium. There are five basic categories of material of biomass such as: *Virgin wood- from forestry, arboriculture activities or from wood processing. *energy crops- high yield crops grown specifically for energy applications *Agricultural residues- residues from agriculture harvesting or processing * Food waste- from food and drink manufacture, preparation and processing, and post-consumer waste *Industrial waste and co-products- from manufacturing and industrial processes. The question is how are we going to use this biomass as a fuel for boilers? But what is a boiler in the first place? A boiler is defined as "a closed vessel in which water or other liquid is heated, steam or vapor is generated, steam is superheated, or any combination thereof, under pressure or vacuum, for use external to itself, by the direct application of energy from the combustion of fuels, from electricity or nuclear energy." Let us then go back to the previous question, how are we going to use this biomass as fuel for boilers. Nowadays, the prime sources of energy in the world are oil, coal and natural gas. But these natural sources of energy has their end too, unfortunately it is already anticipated that within the next 40-50 years these sources of energy will deplete. Worst is, it is also expected that from these sources lies consequences due to their emissions such as

Alarmed that hope was soon be gone on the emphasis on "green" energy, presidents Obama's re-election has put a new optimism in the step of environmentalists restoring hope not just for more aggressive climate-change policy but to continue on the said project despite the unforeseen failure and serial bankruptcies of Solyndra and other green-energy in unison. In 1970's we were at the lowest in terms of energy resources are concerned because hydrocarbon energy such as oil, natural gas and coal were in short supply, expensive and were being imported from unstable regions overseas, we were then left with no choice but endow with renewable energy. The problem with hydrocarbon energy is that it produces eccentric amount of air pollution. As time passes by, technology has found a way to reduce air pollution. It appears that unpredictably, conventional domestic hydrocarbon energy has become abundant again despite unrelenting federal hostility. The global-warming crusade is still hanging onto its dreams of political relevance. Why is this green energy important? Now that we had proven that green energy is the golden road to prosperity was in fact a lie, but somehow the strategy of forcing higher-cost energy sources on consumers and propping them up with taxpayer subsidies is somewhat been blinded from the laws of economics. Meaning we are all paying twice. To be sure, if the government will support financially and authorize any form of economic activity, it will "create jobs." However, as Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, author of Regulating to Disaster, she patiently explains, this kind of reasoning ignores the famous lesson of Frederic Bastiat about what is unseen: "What is seen according to Bastiat, are the jobs directly created by the government, and what is not seen are the workers displaced by the effects of increased taxes, tariffs and government regulation." The idea could have been more believable if we actually got some of the green jobs. In fact, new emp

The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers? Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible. Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world's energy consumption and still growing. The International energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal. Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity. Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the

The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers? Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible. Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world's energy consumption and still growing. The International energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal. Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity. Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the

* Body Heat Body heat can warm an entire building, complete with offices, apartments and shops. In fact, Jernhuset, a state owned property Administration Company is putting together a plan to capture body heat from train commuters traveling through Stockholm's Central Station. The idea is that the heat will warm water running through pipes, which will then be pumped through the building's ventilation system. While in Paris Habitat, owner of a low-income housing project in Paris, will use body heat to warm 17 apartments in a building as well. The said housing project is directly above a metro station near Pompidou Center. * Sugar Currently, researchers and chemists at Virginia Tech are developing a means to convert sugar into hydrogen. In which can be used in a fuel cell, and in turn it will provide a cheaper, cleaner, pollutant-free and odorless drive. The scientists combine plant sugars, water and 13 powerful enzymes in a reactor, converting the concoction into hydrogen and trace amounts of carbon dioxide. The hydrogen could be captured and pumped through a fuel cell to produce energy. Their process will translate into cost savings; it delivers three times more hydrogen than traditional methods. * Solar Wind This is way more powerful than humility currently needs is available right now, out in space. A stream of energized, charged particles flowing outward from the sun is actually from the solar wind. Brooks Harrop, a physicist at Washington State University in Pullman and Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State's School of Earth and Environmental Science, think they can capture these particles with a satellite that orbits the sun the same distance Earth does. * Feces and Urine Feces contain methane, a colorless, odorless gas that could be used in the same way as natural gas. Human waste is also good and so is urine. * Vibrations Club Watt in Rotterdam, Netherlands is using floor vibrations from people walking and dancing to power its ligh

With emerging renewable energy alternatives today, it is highly important that they be given enough attention even early on their developmental stages. Such technologies might not be ready for commercial uses yet but their potential should be amply tested and funded. Society's modern lifestyle is in serious need of energy that can be generated and consumed and yet, not compromise the future state for generations to come; to have no anxiety that it would cause damage to the environment. Green energy could come from such sources available in our environment that are naturally replenished and efficient like tides, wind, sunlight and geothermal heat. It is very different from low-carbon energy as the former does not add to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at all, thus, coming with minimal environmental harm and greenhouse gas. Concerns in climate change and increasing oil prices are some of the contributing factors in drawing the spotlight to renewable energy and its potential for commercialization. Green energy can effectively replace our conventional fuel of today in all its main uses, which are in heating, vehicle fuel and electricity generation sectors. In fact, 19% of the electricity generated around the world today comes from renewable sources. Furthermore, since the emergence of biofuels in the United States 6 years ago, consumption of conventional oil has decreased significantly. For a green energy resource or technology to be sustainable, it has to give the maximum environmental advantage while still serving its purpose.

JUNEAU, Alaska - the Alaskan Brewing Co. is going green, but instead of looking to solar and wind energy, it has turned to a very familiar source: beer. (Spokesman.com) The Juneau-based beer maker has installed a unique boiler system in order to cut its fuel costs. It purchased a $1.8 million furnace that burns the company's spent grain - the waste accumulated from the brewing process - into steam that powers the majority of the brewery's operations. Company officials now joke they are now serving "beer-powered beer." What to do with spent grain was seemingly solved decades ago by breweries operating in the Lower 48. Most send the used grain, a good source of protein, to nearby farms and ranches to be used as animal feed. But there were only 37 farms in southeast Alaska and 680 in the entire state as of 2011, and the problem of what to do with the excess spent grain - made up of the residual malt and barley - became more problematic after the brewery expanded in 1995. The Alaskan Brewing Co. had to resort to shipping its spent grain to buyers in the Lower 48. Shipping costs for Juneau businesses are especially high because there are no roads leading in or out of the city; everything has to be flown or shipped in. However, the grain is a relatively wet byproduct of the brewing process, so it needs to be dried before it is shipped - another heat-intensive and expensive process. But the company was barely turning a profit by selling its spent grain. Alaskan Brewing gets $60 for every ton it sends to farms in the Lower 48, but it costs them $30 to ship each ton. So four years ago, officials at the company started looking at whether it could use spent grain as an in-house, renewable energy source and reduce costs at the same time. It contracted with a North Dakota company to build the special boiler system after the project was awarded nearly $500,000 in a grant from the federal Rural energy for America Program. The craft brewery is expecting

Renewable energy sources (RES) supply 14% of the total world energy demand. The future growth in the energy sector will be primarily in the new regime of renewable energy, and to some extent natural gas-based systems and the conventional oil and coal sources will then die out.

Although it is common for companies to push sustainability results by establishing definite, time-bound goals, attaining them is a distinct process for every enterprise. Innovation, investment and operational savvy all play a part in achieving success; but the most significant factor is formulating a vigorous culture of sustainability that incorporates this approach into every facet of the business. Recently, our company announced that over the past three years we have made noteworthy improvements in our environmental performance. This included reduction of our energy usage by 12%, our greenhouse gas emissions by 15.7%, and attaining a leading-edge level of 3.5 hectoliters of water used for every hectoliter of beer made, posting an 18.6% reduction. These efficiency improvements were all achieved mainly without any major investment in new, sophisticated technology. Like any global company reach, our worldwide operations face various local conditions. Challenges ranging from the capabilities and age of equipment to the diversity in quality and availability of raw materials mean that choosing a "one-size-fits-all" approach is often impossible. The main approach that can steer a company toward environmental maturity is to develop a culture of environmental conservation and awareness into all aspects of every employee's tasks on a daily basis. This idea has been around for a while; however, it is also something that is not often observed in reality. For us, ascertaining that we provide incentives and challenges to our 118,000 fellow workers to make gradual changes in the work environment - big or small, within our more than 140 breweries and soft drink facilities - was the best method to attain our three-year goals. Along the way, we discovered some essential factors in establishing such a culture of sustainability: 1.Elevate sustainability initiatives to the same level as other business-critical functions Having employees scattered worldwide

Fossil fuels-coal, oil, and natural gas-are America's primary source of energy. America's annual consumption of fossil fuels grown rapidly. 89 % of these consumption are consumed by boilers, transportation, residential usage, fuels for direct heating of process. The balance is used for feed-stocks, raw materials, and other miscellaneous uses. And most of the dirty fuels such as coal and residual oil go into boilers. Fuel burned are by far the largest single source of air pollution. This pollution is from sulfur oxide. It is also a significant source of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Boiler combustion is sufficiently important to warrant the effort to analyze the complete nature of the problems. Fuel consumption in boilers is divided into three sectors: utility boilers producing steam for generation of electricity which is actually consuming probably 59%, industrial boilers producing steam or hot water for process heat,generation of electricity or space heat consuming about 24%, and boilers for space heating for commercial and institutional facilities consuming the 17%. The fuels consumed by boilers in large quantities are natural gas, distillate oil, and coal. Additional energy is derived from the burning of waste such as bark, bagasse, liquid hydrocarbon waste materials, etc. These said fuels contribute only a small percent to energy requirements. But they may however present environmental problems. Although problems have not been address due to the fact that these problems are not full understood. New Sources performance Standards for burning boilers waste are to be developed in the near future. For fossil fuels, various combination of consuming sectors and type of fuel, have independent significant and insignificant environmental consequences. Boilers have three different types, the atertube, firetube and cast iron therefore to determine the overall pollution due to boilers are hard to determine and complicated. In addition each type varie

IFC finances projects across the waste value chain from upstream industry/populations to downstream disposal and energy utilization: Upstream: Municipal and solid waste, industrial and manufacturing, hazardous and medical waste; Midstream: collection and transport; separation and process; Downstream: waste disposal; energy recovery. IFC's investment approach is to promote development of the waste industry in emerging markets, help reduce costs, and allow the industry to become competitive. We support integrated solid waste (SW) management approaches, with regional strategies to gain economies of scale and drive down costs. Through our work, we leverage existing formal and informal sectors for collection and recycling, to maximize poverty and social impacts, improve health and safety, and drive gender equality. IFC investments encourage low cost, technically viable, and climate favorable waste collection and disposal solutions with energy recovery where feasible. Additionally, we support upstream waste generation to adopt "3Rs" - Reuse, Reduce Recycle. We access concessional finance to enable waste projects in LICs where full cost recovery is not yet possible due to inability to pay or insufficient regulatory framework.

A national disaster warning: in up to five million years, this is the first time that the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is approximately to reach 400 parts per million (ppm). Monday on The guardian reports, former NASA scientist James Hansen warned that levels over 350ppm would destabilize the earth's climate, but now we have far exceeded that figure with a record-breaking weekly average of 398.5ppm recorded. While in May 2013, researchers at the Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Hawaii expect we will hit the 400ppm milestone. Aside from many other issues like global fraud for example there are many else the government should give attention to. According to The Guardian, the US government has been monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the Mauna Loa station located at an elevation of 11,115 feet since 1958. During the time when it was first ascertained, CO2 levels stayed at a manageable 316ppm, but in the past five decades population expansion coupled with the growth of industrialized nations hooked on fossil fuels and meat has saturated the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases. "I wish it weren't true but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400ppm level without losing a beat. At this pace we'll hit 450ppm within a few decades," Ralph Keeling, a geologist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography which operates the Hawaiian observatory, told The Guardian. It is as if it was a national disaster warning. This "sobering milestone" should be a wake up call for governments to support clean energy and slash emissions, said Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher with Scripps CO2 Group.

As we all know earthquake is a catastrophic natural disaster. Most earthquake-related deaths are caused by the collapse of structures and the construction practices play a tremendous role in the death toll of an earthquake. In southern Italy in 1909 more than 100,000 people perished in an earthquake that struck the region. Almost half of the people living in the region of Messina were killed due to the easily collapsible structures that dominated the villages of the region. Though there are some ways to prevent this from happening, it can never be considered as risk avoidance. A larger earthquake that struck San Francisco three years earlier had killed fewer people (about 700) because building construction practices were different type (predominantly wood). Survival rates in the San Francisco earthquake was about 98%, that in the Messina earthquake was between 33% and 45%) (Zebrowski, 1997). Even a moderate rupture beneath a city with structures unprepared for shaking can produce tens of thousands of casualties. Due to this fact, Crown Eco Management determined that safety measures for this could not be compared to fraud prevention. Although probably the most important that we should know, direct shaking effects are not the only hazard associated with earthquakes, other effects such as landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis have also played important part in destruction produced by earthquakes. According to the Crown researchers, some earthquakes are not natural. Human beings can actually cause them. That's the case with an earthquake in Lorca, Spain, last May. The quake measured 5.1 on the Richter scale and killed nine people. According to an analysis published in Crown Eco Management, the Lorca quake was caused by the extraction of groundwater from an aquifer near the fault that slipped. In circumstance, it does not take much to trigger an earthquake. Oil and gas wells, rock quarries, even the added pressure of a reservoir lake behind a new dam can cause

Leading Scientists Explain: http://crowncapitalmngt.com/ Scientists have long predicted that climate change would bring on ever-worsening droughts, especially in semi-arid regions like the U.S. Southwest. As climatologist James Hansen, who co-authored one of the earliest studies on this subject back in 1990, told me this week, "Increasingly intense droughts in California, all of the Southwest, and even into the Midwest have everything to do with human-made climate change." Why does it matter if climate change is playing a role in the Western drought? As one top researcher on the climate-drought link reconfirmed with me this week, "The U.S. may never again return to the relatively wet conditions experienced from 1977 to 1999." If his and other projections are correct, then there may be no greater tasks facing humanity than 1) working to slash carbon pollution and avoid the worst climate impact scenarios and 2) figuring out how to feed nine billion people by mid-century in a Dust-Bowl-ifying world. Remarkably, climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West, especially California. As it turns out, Arctic ice loss has been much faster than the researchers - and indeed all climate modelers - expected. And, of course, California is now in the death-grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought, driven by the very change in the jet stream that scientists had anticipated. Is this just an amazing coincidence - or were the scientists right? And what would that mean for the future? Building on my post from last summer, I talked to the lead researcher and several other of the world's leading climatologists and drought experts. First, a little background. Climate change makes Western droughts longer and stronger and more frequent in several ways, as I discussed in my 2011 literature review in the journal Nature: Precipitation patterns are expected to shift, expanding the dry subtropics. Wha