Group items tagged

Over time, what resulted from these assessments was that we selected the following sources to provide commercial electricity: hydroelectric, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil. (Oil is by far the smallest source.) Note that each of these current sources meet ALL of the above six essential criteria — and if they don’t (like oil recently becoming more expensive), then they get replaced, by other conventional sources that do. As a result, today, and a hundred years from now, these sources can provide ALL of the electrical needs of our society — and continue to meet all six criteria. So what’s the problem? A new criteria has been recently added to the list of criteria: environmental impact — and the current number one environmental impact consideration is greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2). So why has this joined the Big Six? It is a direct result of the current debate on global warming. In response to intense political pressure, governments have acquiesced to these forces to make emissions an additional criterion. Having government step in and mandate that utility companies change the principles that have been the foundation of our electrical supply system for a hundred years is disconcerting, transforming such a successful system based on a position that is not yet scientifically resolved. Furthermore, this new criteria for electrical supply sources now has taken priority over all the other six. It has, as of late, become the ONLY benchmark of importance — the other six have essentially been put aside, and are now given only lip service. In this unraveling of sensibility there is one final incredible insult to science: alternative sources of commercial electricity that claim to meet this new super-criteria (to make a consequential impact on CO2 reduction) don’t even have to prove that they actually do it! Let's look at the environmental poster child: wind power, and examine each of the six time-tested criteria, then the new one...

The programme I am setting out today has been arrived at after active engagement with our external partners. A key theme to emerge from this process has been that these partners believe that although the regime is generally fit for purpose, there are things we can improve. This confirms the Department’s belief that the building regulations should remain the national minimum standard that building work should comply with. While much of the programme of work is deregulatory in nature, it will, however, include work to deliver our commitment to increase energy efficiency through part L (conservation of fuel and power). This will represent our next steps towards zero-carbon buildings and will also provide an opportunity to consider provisions for the existing stock in the light of the Government’s emerging policies on reducing carbon emissions, including the green deal. We will also explore how better to ensure high levels of compliance.

Set against this there are a number of key areas where we want to explore the potential for deregulation and streamlining of the existing provisions. In particular, representations made to Government demonstrate concern with the costs imposed on electricians by part P (electrical safety—dwellings). We believe it is now time to evaluate the building regulations’ contribution to the safety outcomes they were intended to support and, if we are to retain regulation of this kind, how we might minimise the associated costs.

n 2010, thermal energy displaced hydro as the major source of energy generation for the Chilean Central Interconnected System.  Coal, natural gas, and diesel supplied over 50% of energy consumed while hydropower accounted for 48%.  This trend is expected to continue in 2011 if current water shortage conditions persist. (El Mercurio, 1/4/11)  Last year’s drought created a 26% increase in thermal generation as compared to 2009.

The Regional Energy Efficiency Strategy initiative led by Bun-ca has reported an energy savings of 9368 MWh over the past six years, equivalent to 4992 tons of carbon dioxide, by working with 190 companies in the industrial and commercial sectors to become more energy efficient.   Recently UNEP’s En.lighten study estimated that Costa Rica could save 276,000 MWh and $27.6 million per year if they changed all light bulbs to CFLs.  The cost of this change was estimated to be $22.63 million.  (El Financiero CR, 1/3/11)

The Mexican government is planning to invest four billion dollars to build a one thousand megawatt renewable energy storage facility in Northern Mexico.   The facility will use a special kind of sodium sulfide batteries for the project which is expected to be completed in the next six years.  (Clean Techies, 1/6/11)

Last week New Scientist reported that US emissions could be cut by more than 7 per cent if people changed their ways at home. Separate studies in US, Dutch and British homes have reported that 26 to 36 per cent of domestic energy use is "behavioural" – determined by the way we use machines, not the efficiency of the hardware itself. This means that "machines designed to change humans", as the persuasive technology group of Stanford University, California, calls them, could save us huge amounts of energy and money. Energy awareness Many projects are trying to make that happen, with two main motivations. One is to understand which facets of human nature can be manipulated to change behaviour. The other is to develop technical strategies to do so.

So what do the world’s great investors have their eyes on in Africa, in addition to the usual natural resources – minerals, petroleum and timber – that they’ve always coveted? In a word, land. Lots of it. The land-grabbing 'investors' are purchasing or leasing large chunks of African land to produce food crops or agrofuels or both, or just scooping up farmland as an investment,

At the moment, the grabbing of Africa’s land is shrouded in secrecy and proceeding at an unprecedented rate, spurred on by the global food and financial crises. GRAIN, a non-profit organisation that supports farm families in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems, works daily to try to keep up with the deals on its farmlandgrab.org website.[vi]

Apart from the African governments and chiefs who are happily and quietly selling or leasing the land right out from under their own citizens, those who are promoting the new wave of rapacious investment include the World Bank, its International Finance Corporation (IFC), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and many other powerful nations and institutions. The US Millennium Challenge Corporation is helping to reform new land ownership laws – privatising land – in some of its member countries. The imported idea that user rights are not sufficient, that land must be privately owned, will efface traditional approaches to land use in Africa, and make the selling off of Africa even easier. GRAIN notes the complicity of African elites and says some African 'barons' are also snapping up land.