1. Mark Whitaker
2. "Irreversible Desertification.... vs. Tree Planting"
3. A report discussing some 'ecological modernization' headway AGAINST expanding desert in North Africa. It is a rural example of ecological modernization. We aren't reading much on the massive pollution streams from 'industrial agriculture,' i.e., RURAL as opposed to urban/industrial areas. However the wider ecological rationalization of agricultural systems is very important to consider as well. There have been many examples of versions of agriculture promoted in the last 50 years that demote erosion (and even tilling), and move toward what is called permiculture or perinneal agriculture. Most agriculture institutionalizes annually-planted seeds. Other frameworks of perinneal agriculture even attempt to change that 10,000 year old pattern--by planting perinneal seeds and attempting to breed perinneal agricultural species. Many forms of societal and ecological collapse in past societies still occurred without (Schnaiberg's) 'monopoly capital'--since they were mostly agricultural populations. They led to environmental degradation as well without the 'Fortune 500.'
-------------
Trees: The Anti-Desert
Geoff Manaugh
October 15, 2006 4:56 PM
In this year of deserts and desertification, there is finally "good news from Africa," New Scientist reports. "Farmers are reclaiming the desert, turning the barren wastelands of the Sahel region on the Sahara's southern edge into green, productive farmland."
And they're doing it with trees:
Tree planting has led to the re-greening of as much as 3 million hectares of land in Niger, enabling some 250,000 hectares to be farmed again. The land became barren in the 1970s and early 1980s through poor management and felling of trees for firewood, but since the mid-1980s farmers in parts of Niger have been protecting them instead of chopping them down.
According to one researcher quoted by New Scientist: "The results have been staggering."
This success stems from what the magazine calls a "virtuous circle of benefits" between trees and their surrounding landscapes. "Leaves and fruits provide food, fodder and organic matter to fortify the soil," for instance. "More livestock means more manure, which further enriches the soil enabling crops to be grown, and spreads tree seeds so new trees grow. The trees also provide shelter for crops and help prevent soil erosion. In times of drought, firewood can be sold and food purchased to tide families over."
Further, pro-tree land use policies – including better rainwater management practices – "are helping communities in Niger re-establish control over their fate, simultaneously halting the march of the desert and helping to prevent famines like the one that hit Niger in July 2005."
---
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005050.html
comments at link
8 comments:
1. Min Sook Kim (Choi)
2. UN says desertification is world's greatest environmental threat
3. It must have been some ‘monopoly capital’ not native farmers who originally attempted to change that 10,000 year old pattern--by planting perennial seeds and attempting to breed perennial agricultural species for the maximum profit. If the over-development hadn’t caused the climate change and led to the drought and flood, the desertification hadn’t occurred from the first place. What the ‘state’ did and should have done are as followed in the article below:
---------------------------
UN says desertification is world's greatest environmental threat
By MICHAEL CASEY AP Environmental Writer
Thursday, June 28, 2007
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — Desertification represents the "greatest environmental challenge of our times" and governments must tackle it or face mass migrations of people driven from their degraded homelands, a U.N. report warned Thursday.
About 2 billion people — one third of the earth's population — are potential victims of desertification, which is defined as land degraded due to human activities like farming and grazing, the United Nations said.
Left unchecked, desertification could displace up to 50 million people over the next 10 years around the world, a wave of migrants equal in number to the populations of South Africa or South Korea, the report said.
The report calls on governments in arid regions to reform their land-use policies to halt overgrazing and unsustainable irrigation practices and better coordinate measures to address the problem of desertification. Insufficient funding is exacerbating the problems, the report says.
"It is imperative that effective policies and sustainable agricultural practices be put in place to reverse the decline of drylands," says Prof. Hans van Ginkel, a rector at the United Nations University, which produced the report. "Addressing desertification is a critical and essential part of adapting to climate change and mitigating global biodiversity losses."
The report — produced by more than 200 experts from 25 countries following a meeting last held in Algeria — says anti-desertification policies are often inconsistent, not implemented at local levels or are inadvertently fueling conflicts over land and other resources.
Funding is also a problem, the report said, with major donors actually pledging 29 percent less at the last Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in 2005 than the amount requested by affected countries.
"What is happening is that policy makers and politicians are not aware of the gravity of the situation. They are not putting in adequate resource to meet the challenge," said Zafar Adeel, lead author of the analysis and director of the United Nations University's International Network on Water, Environment and Health.
"As the problem is getting bigger, the resources allocated are getting smaller," Adeel said in a telephone interview from Toronto. "There is a fundamental problem on the policy side in not understanding the linkage between efforts to reduce poverty, meet the land use development goals and combating desertification."
Along with reforming land use policies, Adeel said governments could provide financial incentives for farmers and herders to preserve threatened land while giving them greater authority over what often is communal land.
Governments could also work to create less destructive livelihoods for desert communities, including promoting ecotourism and solar power as well as carbon sequestration, which aims to reduce greenhouse gases by burying carbon emissions.
"If they are done appropriately, policies that reinforce alternative livelihoods are a strong tool for preventing desertification," Adeel said. "Ecotourism is something that is very popular. If done correctly, it doesn't pose a huge burden on natural ecosystems."
-----------------
http://climate.weather.com/articles/desertification062807.html
1. Peaches Park
2. Bush is a loser
3. Climate change and global warming are not outlandish ideas anymore. It's a serious, irrefutable, global issue with global consequences. America's president, George Bush, has done little to none to solve this huge problem. I find him addressing this issue more and more, but admitting this is a real problem is only the first step to fixing it. Well, he shouldn't be the only one to blame, his whole administration seems to be turning a blind eye. I do see many more American celebrities taking up their own projects and advocating for more environmental awareness. But it makes me concerned that the United States can't take practical, real measures to solve this crisis.
--------------------------
Climate Change: Filling the Bush Gap
Climate change geeks with a thing for international conferences — like me — were spoilt for choice this past week. You could rub shoulders with national leaders from over 80 countries — or just their junior advisers, depending on the color of your badge — at the United Nations high-level meeting on climate. You could Amtrak down to the White House and hear President George W. Bush tell the world's major economies that this global warming thing might actually be a problem and that we should maybe consider doing something about it eventually. Or you could catch the Clinton Global Initiative's annual meeting in Manhattan, where billionaire executives, extremely smart people and star-struck journalists listened raptly as Brad Pitt detailed his plans to rebuild New Orleans in fabulously green fashion.
Of the three, it was the Clinton meeting that proved the best bet — and not just because of the Tastes of the World cocktail reception at the Sheraton on Thursday evening. As part of his Clinton Climate Initiative, launched in August 2006, the former President has brought together business and philanthropy to generate locally focused efforts to reduce energy use and carbon emissions. While President Bush offered mostly empty rhetoric, on Friday afternoon Clinton reeled off pledge after concrete pledge for his climate initiative: $150 million to harness geothermal energy in Africa, $5 million for the Alliance for Climate Protection in the U.S., $210 million for carbon offsetting in the developing world. While UN action on climate change remains stalled by the deadlock between the developed and the developing world, Clinton has proved remarkably successful in fostering real engagement and investment on global warming across national lines. "Clinton just really gets it," says Ted Nordhaus, co-author of the new environmental politics book Break Through.
The success of the Clinton Initiative is emblematic of how people who care about climate change in America have chosen to approach the problem in the near total absence of action from Washington. Lobbying has shifted to the corporate world, where large companies like Wal-Mart have implemented energy efficiency polices far more aggressive than anything coming from the government. High-profile celebrities like Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio have made green cool for consumers. And hardly a day goes by without news of a leap forward on solar, wind or hybrid cars, thanks to private investment — again, in the absence of significant government spending.
So what is Washington doing? While it's heartening that President Bush now does seem to believe that global warming is real, this week's meeting of the world's major carbon emitters offered no evidence that he is willing to meet the climate challenge. The President continued to reject Kyoto-style mandatory caps on carbon emissions and instead endorsed an "international clean technology fund" to finance alternative energy projects in developing nations. Nice idea, but meaningless without real spending to back it up. "Bush says we need technology, but spends no money," says Nordhaus. "Bush says we need to reduce emissions, but only voluntarily. Both positions are utterly cynical."
That much was clear to many of the European attendees in Washington, who viewed the summit at best as harmless, and at worst as an attempt to undermine the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Bali at the end of the year. But the good news is that if Bush is unlikely to move on global warming between now and the end of the term, there is another branch of the government that just might. Currently there are several pieces of climate change legislation floating around Congress, and with the Democrats in power, there's a chance that one might pass. "You're actually starting to see Congress talk seriously about commitment to climate change," says Annie Petsonk, international counsel at Environmental Defense. "Foreign countries are starting to recognize that." So it turns out that the hot place to be this week wasn't the UN, or the White House or even Clinton's party in Manhattan. It was Capitol Hill.
--------------
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1666840,00.html
1. SuJung, Kim
2. Solar power edges towards boom time
3. But a year ago, only 'black board on the roof' is what I remind of when I hear Solar power.
Now, however, many things come to my mind. Especially, I become have a think about the relation between environment and economy. Last week, in economic sociology course, professor told about environmental pollution and its cost to recover. Although not directly related, the part of the cost of solar power in the article caught my eyes.
--------------------------------
LONDON (Reuters) - Solar power could be the world's number one electricity source by the end of the century, but until now its role has been negligible as producers wait for price parity with fossil fuels, industry leaders say.
Once the choice only of idealists who put the environment before economics, production of solar panels will double both next year and in 2009, according to U.S. investment bank Jefferies Group Inc, driven by government support especially in Germany and Japan.
Similar support in Spain, Italy and Greece is now driving growth in southern Europe as governments turn to the sun as a weapon both against climate change and energy dependence.
Subsidies are needed because solar is still more expensive than conventional power sources like coal, but costs are dropping by around 5 percent a year and "grid parity," without subsidies, is already a reality in parts of California.
Very sunny countries could reach that breakeven in five years or so, and even cloudy Britain by 2020.
"At that point you can expect pretty much unbounded growth," General Electric Co's Chief Engineer Jim Lyons told the Jefferies conference in London on Thursday, referring to price parity in sunny parts of the United States by around 2015.
"The solar industry will eventually be bigger than wind."
The United States' second largest company, GE is a big manufacturer of wind turbines and wants to catch up in solar, said Lyons.
CUTTING COSTS
Grid parity is considered vital for freedom from potentially fickle governments for support. Established solar power companies are more optimistic than GE about the timing.
The crux is how fast the industry cuts costs and how fast power prices rise. European power prices neared all-time highs this week, driven by record oil prices.
The industry could halve costs and achieve parity in significant markets including the United States, Japan and parts of southern Europe by 2012, said Erik Thorsen, chief executive of the world's biggest solar power company Renewable Energy Corp
(REC).
"If grid prices go up at the present rate if could happen before," he told Reuters.
REC expects to halve costs on new production by 2010. German solar power company Q-Cells AG, the world's second biggest maker of solar cells, expects similar cuts by making more components itself, thinner than before, and by using cheaper techniques for processing the silicon raw material.
The solar sector has grown at 40 percent per year despite a shortage of silicon, but that bottleneck should ease over the next two to three years, said executives.
But all the growth is from a tiny base. The sun supplies just 0.3 percent of electricity even in market leader Germany, says Jefferies.
"It doesn't even register statistically outside Germany," said Jefferies analyst Michael McNamara.
---------
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/23964
Thanks for that solar article, SuJung. Here's some general Korean data on energy use and percentages of materials of origin for that energy use. If you search for "CIGS solar" you will read about a technology that was invented in the past year that is very efficient for generating electricity from the sun.
We don't require silicon anymore for solar despite the executives talking as if they do above. So the "bottleneck" mentioned above is only in their heads. It doesn't really exist. It's a product of a particular technological use. Remember the "synthetic chlorophyll" from the biomimicry video> That would do away with lots of very polluting solar production methods and has nothing to do with silicon.
Note as well that Korea will have the world's largest solar power plant by 2008--generating around 20 MWe. "MWe" is megawatts. A metawatt is 1 million watts. South Korea generates (2003 data) around 56,650 MWe--four years ago.
The Korean tidal energy plant that is being built near Seoul, completed by 2009, is equally the largest in the world. It will generate dozens of times more metawatts than the solar plant. More data below.
China plans to generate 500,000 MWe by 2010.
North Korea generates only around 3,000 MWe (2007 estimates)--not even 5% of South Korean electrical generation.
More data on this below.
1. Mark Whitaker
2. EXCERPTS: Republic of Korea, China, France, and United States energy use profile comparison, with special reference to carbon emission sources and nuclear power rankings; This is drawn from select information at: http://www.cslforum.org/korea.htm
3. The data is four years out of date, though has both projections and historical percenages of what materials were used for energy generation in different countries. It makes for an interesting study.
I'm finally getting a chance to look at some official data about Korean energy patterns.
Something I didn't know: "Korea does not yet produce natural gas in any significant quantity, though this could soon change as there has been recent discovery of an offshore reservoir that could contain more than 1 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Natural gas consumption in Korea has increased dramatically over the past decade and is now more than 400% greater than it was ten years ago. Korea’s energy diversification policy has planned for extended use of natural gas, as well as other alternate fuels, to reduce its dependence on petroleum as a primary energy supply. Korea imports natural gas ... and is the world's second greatest liquified natural gas importing nation..."
- It is interesting to me that Korea produced lots of coal--though this mining is disappearing according to their table. However Korean coal consumption is going up with imports from overseas. "Korea is only a minor producer of coal, and its production has been on the decline over the past decade. All of the coal mined in Korea is anthracite, which is used for home heating and in small industrial boilers. Korea's energy diversification policy has planned for extended use of coal [sic, is that diversified?] and other alternate fuels, to reduce its dependence on petroleum ..."
- Yes, Korea signed the Kyoto Protocol. However this was in a "non-binding" symbolic form of the agreement. "Korea ratified the Kyoto Protocol as a "non-Annex I state" in November 2002. As such, there are no specific commitments for greenhouse gas reductions..."
- About one-third of Korean energy is from nuclear power plants (2003 data), making Korea #6 in the world for dedication and reliance on nuclear power. (For a comparison, their data on France says "More than three-quarters of France's electricity is now generated by nuclear power....[France's scale] ranks second in the world (behind the United States) [in scale instead of percentage.]
- Updated 2007 data:
Nuclear Power in Korea
Briefing Paper # 81
September 2007
http://www.uic.com.au/nip81.htm
South Korea needs to import some 97% of its energy requirements.
Its first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in mid 1977.
Nuclear energy is a national strategic priority.
Today 20 reactors provide some 40% of the country's electricity.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip81.htm
- From 1961 until April 2001 South Korea's sole electric power utility was Korea Electric Power Company KEPCO. Set up as a government corporation, 21% of its shares were sold to the public in 1989. The power generation part of KEPCO was then split into six entities and all the nuclear generation capacity, with a small amount of hydro, became part of the largest of these, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co Ltd KHNP. KEPCO remains a transmission and distribution monopoly.
- Under the country's 5th long-term power development plan, finalised in January 2000, eight more nuclear units (9200 MWe) were to be constructed by 2015 (in addition to the four then under construction), while two units will be decommissioned about 2008. This would bring nuclear to one third of the country's total generating capacity and it would supply 45% of the electricity.
- In 2005 the capacity factor for South Korean power reactors averaged 96.5% - one of the highest in the world.
- ON NUCLEAR WASTE IN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA: "NETEC took over the task of finding repository sites after several abortive attempts by KAERI and MOST 1988-96. In 2000 it called for local communities to volunteer to host a disposal facility. Seven did so, including Yonggwang county with 44% citizen support, but in 2001 all local governments vetoed the proposal. The Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy (MOCIE) then in 2003 selected four sites for detailed consideration and preliminary environmental review with a view to negotiating acceptance with local governments from 2004. The area selected for the LILW facility will get 300 billion won (US$ 290 million) in community support according to "The Act for Promoting the Radioactive Waste Management Project and Financial Support for the Local Community" 2000. The aim of this is to compensate for the psychological burden on residents, to reward a community participating in an important national project, and to facilitate amicable implementation of radioactive waste management. In November 2005, after votes in four provincial cities, Kyongju /Gyeonju on the east coast 370 km SE from Seoul was designated as the site. Almost 90% of its voters approved, compared with 67 to 84% in the other contender locations. In June 2006 the government announced that the Gyeongju repository would have a number of silos and caverns some 80m below the surface, initially with capacity for 100,000 drums and costing US$ 730 million. Further 700,000 drum capacity would be built later, total cost amounting to US$ 1.15 billion. "
- COMPARING NORTH KOREA TO SOUTH KOREA: North Korea
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, aka North Korea) generated 34 TWh in 2002 and 19 TWh in 2003, 71% from hydro and 29% from fossil fuels. Per capita consumption in 2002 was 1364 kWh. Recent estimates suggest that operable generating capacity is 2,000-3,000 MWe. [What is this compared to South Korean electrical generation? 56,650 MWe for South Korea. Percentage of power generation in North Korea compared to South Korea? North Korea has only 5.3% of the electrical generating capacity of South Korea, it is estimated.]
- Most of U.S. electricical generation is from coal, at more than 50%.] "By far, the majority of electricity generation in the United States is from fossil fuels, with coal by itself accounting for more than half of all generation... "
- U.S. is #2 in coal percentage use as an energy source (around 50%); China is #1 at a around 67% or more coming from coal.
- The U.S. data: "Even though the United States is the world's leading energy producer by a wide margin, it is also the world's leading energy consumer by an even wider margin. The net result is that United States is the world's greatest net energy importer, presently consuming about 1.4 times as much energy as it produces, and is dependent on outside sources for crude oil and natural gas.
- For a comparison, Japan imports 5x more than it makes: "Japan is a net energy importer, consuming more than five times as much energy as it produces, and is dependent on outside sources for crude oil, natural gas, and uranium fuel for its nuclear power plants. Japan is presently the world's fourth-greatest energy consumer (behind the United States, China, and Russia),..."]
- The United States presently accounts for about 17% of the world's total annual energy production and about 23% of the world's total annual energy consumption." The U.S. population of course is only around 300 million people. [Population Clock for today: U.S. 303,173,270 in world of 6,625,942,822
03:00 GMT (EST+5) Oct 21, 2007
http://www.census.gov/population/www/index.html, making the U.S. with only about 4.6% of world population. However, U.S. energy use is very stratified to the rich and to business use. Additionally, the U.S. is very wasteful in energy. So is the U.K.--though as Queenie's post once noted, the U.S. is about to force conversion to more efficient electrical bulbs. [In the video below, you can see a chart showing whether this will cut into the U.K.'s energy use or not, based on the percentage of energy in the U.K. that goes toward domestic use.]
- As said above, China is first in the world in coal use scale and in rank, followed by the U.S. as #2: "Carbon Emissions Information...The United States is the greatest carbon-emitting country in the world and currently is responsible for about 23% of the world's total fossil fuel-based carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [even though China uses more coal]. At the 1997 Kyoto conference, the United States agreed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time frame, but this has yet to be ratified by the U.S. Congress..."
- On Japan: "Japan is presently the world's fourth-greatest energy consumer (behind the United States, China, and Russia), accounting for about 5.3% of the world's total annual energy consumption." ]
http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm
- On the topic of China's percentages of global coal use, China pans to decrease its percentage reliance on coal, though the raw amount of coal use is planned to expand anyway. China has a lot of the bituminous (very smoky) low quality coal. "China is presently the world's greatest coal producer and accounts for about 30% of the world's total annual coal production. China is also the world's greatest coal consumer, accounting for more than 28% of the world's total annual coal consumption. China's consumption is sufficiently less than its production that China is now a major coal exporter. Domestically, coal currently accounts for about two-thirds of China's total energy usage and is responsible for fueling 70-80% of power generation, 75% of energy used in industry, and even 80% of household energy. While coal's share of China's energy consumption will decline in the coming years, the demand for coal is expected to increase by 20 million short tons annually over the next five years, and China plans to increase coal production by about 17% within five years. Much of this coal will be used for generation of electricity. An historical summary of coal production and consumption in China is shown in Table 4..."
- For the United Kingdom/Britain: "Coal production in the United Kingdom has greatly declined following privatization of the United Kingdom's coal industry in 1994 and resulting closure of many uneconomical mines. Even so, the United Kingdom is still the fifth-greatest coal producer in the European Union and twentieth-greatest in the world, accounting for about 0.6% of the world's total annual coal production. The United Kingdom is also the fourth-greatest coal consumer in the EU (and fourteenth-greatest in the world), accounting for about 1.3% of the world's total annual coal consumption. However, coal consumption in the United Kingdom is presently only about 70% of what it was a decade earlier. Despite the decline in demand, there is still a shortfall between coal production and consumption, and this is made up with imports, mostly from South Africa, Australia, and Russia. Most of the coal consumed (more than 85%) is for production of electricity and presently about 35% of electricity generation is coal-fueled, but this is expected to decline as some aging coal-fueled power plants are replaced with natural gas-fueled units..."
- The U.K. and Korea near each other in electrical generation. "Electricity generation in Korea has dramatically increased, by nearly 250%, over the past decade [where elecrical expansion in the U.K. has only expanded by around 15%, it says]. Korea is now the world's 11th greatest electricity generating nation and accounts for about 2% of the world annual electricity generation. The U.K. and Korea are next to each other in global rank. "The United Kingdom is now the third-greatest electricity consumer in the European Union (behind Germany and France) and overall tenth-greatest in the world, [Korea is 11th] accounting for about 1.9% of the world's total annual electricity consumption."
- the U.S. and China are #1 and #2, respectively, in the world for elecrical geneartion. "China is presently the second-greatest electricity generating country (after the United States) and accounts for more than 11% of the world's total annual electricity generation. China is also ranked second (again behind the United States) in annual electricity consumption, accounting for more than 11% of the world's total annual electricity consumption. China has experienced huge growth in its electricity generation, more than doubling its annual generation during the 1990s. And much more is needed: China's 10th Five Year Plan (amended) had set an electricity generation target of 1,945 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) by 2005. From a pure consumption projection viewpoint, China's demand for electricity is expected to grow by an average of 4.3% annually through 2025. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (Annual Energy Outlook 2003), annual electricity consumption in China is projected to reach nearly 2 trillion kWh by 2010 and nearly 3 trillion kWh by 2020. [That will make China a very close second to the U.S.. With the U.S. at #1 in the world for electricical generation at around 4 billion kilowatt-hours, China will be a close second by 2020. This is because U.S. expansion is not as rapid. I am noting this from the U.S. data charts.
- Currently (2003 data), the U.S. generates 3,892 KwHrs (almost 4 billions of kilowatt-hours). Currently, China generates 1,806.8 billions of kilowatt-hours.] "An historical summary of electricity generation and consumption in China is shown in Table 5."
- "China currently has the second-greatest amount of installed electricity capacity of any nation, accounting for about 9.8% of the world's total installed generating capacity and trailing only the United States in that regard. The Chinese government plans to continue expanding total installed power generating capacity, which could reach about 500,000 megawatts (MWe) by 2010. [The Repubilc of Korea "only" generates 56,650 MWe, right now.]
- China relies on fossil fuels, mainly coal, for about three-quarters of its electricity generation, but China's 10th Five Year Plan has set the target of increasing the share of hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear, and other clean fuels [sic, so called--actually the economics of nuclear are prohibitive, see video; and 'natural gas' is not really clean, only with less CO2, It's only 30% less actually! "For an equivalent amount of heat, [so called cleaner] burning natural gas produces [ONLY] about 30% less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45% less than burning coal.[10]" ] in the total power generation mix from the current 26% to 31%. It will also close down a [very small] total of 14,200 MWe of generating capacity from small units and increase the share of large units (i.e., greater than 300 MWe) to 50% from the current 38%. An historical summary of installed electricity generating capacity in China is shown in Table 6..."
- European Union based data: "Overall Production and Consumption
The fifteen countries of the EU prior to May 2004 accounted for about 7% of the world's Total Primary Energy Production (TPEP) and about 15% of the world's Total Primary Energy Consumption (TPEC); if the ten new member countries are included, these increase to nearly 9% and 18%, respectively. The United Kingdom is the leading energy-producing country in the EU, by itself accounting for nearly 30% of all energy production. The leading energy-consuming countries in the EU are Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, which together account for about 48% of all energy consumed in the EU."
- Natural Gas ... Most of the natural gas produced in the European Union comes from North Sea gas fields; the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which share those fields, account for about three-quarters of the natural gas produced by the EU. The EU's total annual natural gas production, as a whole, is roughly the same as for all of the Middle East and is about 9% of the world's total; the EU would rank third-greatest in the world in natural gas production (behind Russia and the United Ststes) if it was a single country. The EU currently accounts for about 18% of the world's annual consumption of natural gas, and would rank second-greatest in the world (behind the United States) if it was a single country.
- Coal ... The European Union presently accounts for about 12% of the world's total annual coal production and would rank third-greatest in the world (behind China and the United States) if it was a single country. Germany and Poland are by far the largest coal producers in the EU; together they account for almost two-thirds of all coal presently produced in the EU.
- Electricity .... The European Union presently accounts for about 18% of both the world's annual electricity generation and consumption, and would rank second-greatest in the world in each (behind the United States) if it was a single country. Germany and France are the two greatest electricity producers and consumers in the EU, followed by the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain; together, these five countries account for about two-thirds of both the EU’s total annual electricity generation and total annual electricity consumption. Overall, annual electricity generation and consumption in the EU have both increased by more than 20% from a decade ago.
- Carbon Emissions Information ...
Korea's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have risen by about 40% over the past decade, and Korea currently is responsible for about 1.9% of the world's total fossil fueled-based CO2 emissions (ranking it 9th in the world).
- Carbon Emissions Information ...
China is currently responsible for about 14% of the world's total fossil fuel-based carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, ranking it second in the world behind the United States. China ratified the Kyoto Protocol as a “non-Annex I state” in August 2002. As such, there are no specific commitments for greenhouse gas reductions. Overall, fossil fuel-related emissions of CO2 in China have increased by more than one-third over the past decade.
- Overall Production and Consumption
India is both a major energy producer and consumer. India currently ranks as the world’s eleventh greatest energy producer, accounting for about 2.4% of the world’s total annual energy production, and as the world’s sixth greatest energy consumer, accounting for about 3.3% of the world’s total annual energy consumption.
- Overall Production and Consumption
Korea is a net energy importer, with its total energy consumption exceeding its production by a very large margin. Korea currently ranks as the 11th greatest energy consuming nation, [India is 6th] accounting for about 2% of the world's total annual energy consumption.
- Thus all of India, with more than a billion people, is rather close to the Republic of Korea with energy consumption employed by 49,024,737 people (2007 pop.estimate (25th in world; India is #2 in the world , estimated at around 1,169,016,000 in population, unknown estimate year.)
- Here are are all the members of this organization if you want to compare some of their data for countries:
http://www.cslforum.org/member.htm
Energy Summaries of CSLF Members
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Denmark
EC
France
Germany
Greece
India
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Russia Saudi
Arabia
South Africa
UK
USA
Unfortunately, these country-based summaries don't have a larger cross-referenced chart ranking these countries to each other in energy origins.
- I mentioned in an earlier blog entry that Korea will have the world's largest tidal power energy plant by 2009 supposedly and the world's largest solar power plant. I don't know if this one plant is expected to provide this huge percentage, though it says that the Korean government has plans to provide 10% of Korean electrical generation from solar by 2020.
- By the way, Denmark provides 20% of its energy from wind right now.
"Denmark is not a major electricity producing country; it is presently the 15th greatest electricity generator in the European Union, accounting for about 1.5% of total annual EU generation. Renewable energy (wind and biomass) has been making inroads into Denmark's energy mix and now accounts for nearly one-fifth of all electricity generated. Combined heat and power facilities [FEATURED IN THE VIDEO LINK BELOW] bear much of the load for producing electricity, with more than half of Denmark’s electricity generation now produced by district heating power plants..."
- Back to Korea: "The town of Shinan in South Korea is to play to host to the world’s largest solar power plant, following government plans to generate 10 per cent of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2020."
- It goes on to say that this solar plant will provide merely 20 megawatts of electricity. For a comparison look at the scale of power from the Korean tidal plant. It will be dozens of times more than this solar plant. This tidal plant will be near Seoul. If it was closer to being done it would make a good field trip, eh?]
"[As for the solar]...initiative, due to be completed by the end of 2008, [it] will start generating power.
- [Work]...continues on South Korea’s gigantic tidal power plant, strung between four islands west of the capital Seoul.
"The tidal plant, which will similarly be the biggest in the world, is slated for completion in 2009 and will generate 812 megawatts of electricity. [The solar one will only generate 20 MW.]
[original blog link]
- Watch this short 9 minute video about energy politics of the UK.
The Convenient Solution (The Economics of Abundant Renewables vs. Non-Required Unrenewables)
Greenpeace UK
9 min 27 sec
linked at:
http://commodityecology.blogspot.com/2007/06/34-energy.html
NOTE ON MEASURING STANDARDS OF ELECTRICAL GENERATION:
The megawatt (symbol: MW) is equal to one million watts.
Many things can sustain the transfer or consumption of energy on this scale; some of these events or entities include: lightning strikes, large electric motors, naval craft (such as aircraft carriers and submarines), engineering hardware, and some scientific research equipment (such as the supercollider and large lasers) [and tidal power plants!]. A large residential or retail building may consume several megawatts in electric power and heating energy.
The productive capacity of electrical generators operated by utility companies is often measured in MW.
Modern high-powered diesel-electric railroad locomotives typically have a peak power output of (3 to 5) MW, whereas a typical modern nuclear power plant produces a peak output on the order of 500 to 2000 MW.
"About one-third of Korea's electricity is now generated by nuclear power, and this is expected to increase to more than 40% by the year 2010."[ By 2007, it seems it already has: http://www.uic.com.au/nip81.htm ]
---
http://www.cslforum.org/korea.htm
1. sekyoung
2. Oceans seen soaking up less CO2
3. I've been thinking the earth as an organism which has its own balancing system.
And also James Lovelock who wrote a book called 'Gaia' told we are breaking the system. There are also some chances to regard this global warming as a natural oscillation, according to this article. However, it is so true that oceans are uptaking lesser co2 than before rapidly. and even without these technologicall evidences, i think we can feel something is going wrong.
--------------------------------
Oceans seen soaking up less CO2
RELATED ARTICLES
Ancient British Bog May Hold Climate Change Clues
Earth Getting Wetter and Stickier, Researchers Say
Study Shows Southern Ocean Saturated with Carbon Dioxide
Quarter of China's carbon emissions due to exports
LONDON (Reuters) - The world's oceans appear to be soaking up less carbon dioxide, new environmental research has shown, a development that could speed up global warming.
A 10-year study by researchers from the University of East Anglia has shown that the uptake of CO2 by the North Atlantic ocean halved between the mid-1990s and 2002-2005.
"Such large changes are a tremendous surprise," said Dr Ute Schuster, who will publish the findings with professor Andrew Watson in the Journal of Geophysical Research next month.
"We expected that the uptake would change only slowly because of the ocean's great mass."
There is also evidence of a slowdown in the uptake of CO2 by the Southern ocean, although it is not as great or as sudden as in the North Atlantic.
The scientists based their findings on data collected by merchant ships fitted out with equipment to automatically measure the levels of carbon dioxide in the water.
One ship that sailed between Britain and the West Indies made more than 90,000 measurements in recent years.
The oceans are one of two major carbon "sinks" for CO2 emissions, the other being the land biosphere, which together absorb about half of all CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
If the oceans soak up less CO2, it means CO2 levels in the atmosphere will rise much faster and the climate could warm more rapidly, the researchers said in a statement.
"The speed and size of the change show that we cannot take for granted the ocean sink for the carbon dioxide," said Watson.
"Perhaps this is partly a natural oscillation or perhaps it is a response to the recent rapid climate warming. In either case we now know that the sink can change quickly and we need to continue to monitor the ocean uptake."
-------------------
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/23980
1. YingQi Fan
2. Another ‘great contributor” to carbon dioxide turned up.
3. I never expected that production of cement emit so much carbon dioxide. Every time I do this weekly post-work, either my post or other people’s posts are always astonishing me a lot. The Cement Sustainability Initiatve (CSI) is trying to build the awareness of the impact on the environment among its members and then efforts to come clean about the emission and greener technology will come subsequently. But actions speak louder than words. How many profits can cement makers sacrifice to make itself environment-friendly? If not so many, words will be kept, I think. But if many, will they also do it? Nobody knows.
------------------------------
Cement makers come clean
By Dominic Laurie European business reporter, BBC News, Brussels
Wherever you walk in Brussels, it seems they are knocking buildings down and putting them up again.
The problem is that building construction eats up concrete, and to make one tonne of cement - a key ingredient of concrete - 900kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) are released into the atmosphere.
Production of cement causes twice as many carbon emissions as the world's airline industry currently does. However, it also generates a fraction of the bad headlines.
And the people who run the world's cement companies would prefer to keep it that way.
Rapid growth
They have been meeting at a conference organised by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) in the smartest hotel in Brussels.
Eighteen major producers - who produce a combined one billion tonnes of cement a year - just under half the global output - are members of CSI.
With the industry expecting to experience rapid growth in coming years - particularly from China's booming economy - and plants in Europe already facing pollution caps under the emissions trading scheme, CSI's members are understandably nervous about future regulation.
As a result, its members are hoping to take steps that would pre-empt any legislation being forced on the sector.
Its goal is to make its members more aware of, and therefore reduce, the environmental impact of their business.
For example, one thing it does is ask members to publish their carbon emissions.
Clean up?
Dimitri Papalexopoulos, the boss of Titan Cement - a medium-sized Greek firm and CSI member - says he recognises the scale of the problem.
"The cement industry is responsible for 5% of the world's man-made carbon emissions," says Mr Papalexopoulos.
"And if you look at that figure in proportion to the sales or the turnover of this industry, it's a huge percentage."
Cement firms are already taking steps to clean up their manufacturing processes.
One is using different types of minerals in the cement oven to neutralise some of the carbon produced, while other techniques are more unexpected.
Fifty kilometres outside Brussels, there is a waste treatment plant run by a firm called Geocycle. An unlikely place for a solution to cement's environmental dilemma, perhaps.
But here, Geocycle turns waste products into fuel that can fire the kilns, or ovens, at a cement plant just a few km away.
"The materials which come here are normally paint waste, ink waste, dyes, glues, adhesives, organic residues from distillation processes, from production processes," explains Michel Langeveg, a senior executive at the firm.
"The material is then mixed with sawdust, so that the physical state of the material will change into a compost-like product. You can inject that directly into a cement kiln."
Problem remains
But, fuel derived from waste cannot provide a total solution.
For example, its use does not completely stop CO2 going into the atmosphere, and still only a small proportion of fuel for cement ovens is made from waste products, rather than fossil sources.
But whether the take-up and efficiency of greener techniques improves or not, the cement industry is certainly not going to disappear.
As Dimitri Papalexopoulos says, concrete is the second most-used material in the world by man after water.
"Over three tonnes are used on average for each person on this Earth. It is a very basic material, with no obvious substitutes in terms of satisfying basic needs of housing and infrastructure all over the world," he adds.
And with no substitutes available, the industry will continue to try to come clean about emissions and greener technology.
-----------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7046675.stm
"And with no substitutes available, the industry will continue to try to come clean about emissions and greener technology."
Oh, there are concrete substitutes available that are zero CO2 processes. See next thread.
Post a Comment