Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts

Monday, November 12, 2012

US to become 'world's biggest oil producer'


US to become 'world's biggest oil producer'

Oil fracking operation in North Dakota 
  Shale oil and gas is now big business in the US

Related Stories

The US will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer "by around 2020", an International Energy Agency (IEA) report has said.
The IEA said the reason for this was the big growth and development in the US of extracting oil from shale rock.
This has enabled the US to gain significantly more extractable oil resources.
As a result, the IEA predicts the US will become "all but self-sufficient" in its energy needs by around 2035.
The US shale oil industry has grown significantly in recent years.
It extracts oil from the ground using a method called fracking - pumping down a mixture of sand, water and chemicals at high pressure.
The industry says the method is safe, but critics say it could cause earthquakes and pollute water sources.
The IEA predicts that the US will be producing 11.1 million barrels per day by 2020, compared with 10.6 million from Saudi Arabia.
Currently the US imports about 20% of its total energy needs.
The IEA also expects that the US will overtake Russia as the word's biggest gas producer by 2015, again thanks to fracking, which can also be used to extract natural gas.
It warns that the big growth in US oil and gas production could have significant geopolitical implications, as it may make the US less concerned about the Middle East.

Source

Monday, October 17, 2011

Power from the people

Power from the people

The biofuel cell, uses glucose and oxygen at concentrations found in the body to generate electricity.















Related Stories

Plugging gadgets into a socket in the wall, or loading them with batteries - or maybe even unfurling a solar panel - is how most of us think of getting electricity. But what about plugging them into your body?

It may sound far fetched, but under the shadow of the Alps, Dr Serge Cosnier and his team at the Joseph Fourier University of Grenoble have built a device to do just that. Their gadget, called a biofuel cell, uses glucose and oxygen at concentrations found in the body to generate electricity.

Ideas that could change the world

Some ideas, some technologies may sound like science fiction, but they are fast becoming science fact. In our eight-part series we will be exploring ideas that are the future of technology.

They are the first group in the world to demonstrate their device working while implanted in a living animal. If all goes to plan, within a decade or two, biofuel cells may be used to power a range of medical implants, from sensors and drug delivery devices to entire artificial organs. All you'll need to do to power them up is eat a candy bar, or drink a coke.

Biofuel cells could kick-start a revolution in artificial organs and prosthetics that would transform tens of thousands of lives every year.

A new range of artificial, electrically-powered organs are now under development, including hearts, kidneys, and bladder sphincter, and work has begun on fully-functioning artificial limbs such as hands, fingers, and even eyes. But they all have one Achilles heel: they need electricity to run.

Batteries are good enough for implants that don't need much power, but they run out fast, and when it comes to implants, that is more than just an inconvenience, it is a fundamental limitation.

Even devices that do not use much power, such as pacemakers, have a fixed lifespan because they rely on batteries.

They usually need their power packs replaced 5 years after implantation. One study in the US found that one in five 70 year-olds implanted with a pacemaker, survived for another 20 years - meaning this group needed around 3 additional operations after the initial implant, just to replace the battery.

Each operation is accompanied by the risk of the complications of surgery, not something anybody should have to face if it is avoidable.

Other devices such as artificial kidneys, limbs or eyes, would have such high energy demands that users would have to change their power source every few weeks to keep them working. It is simply impractical to use batteries in these devices.

That is where biofuel cells come in. Dr Cosnier and his team are one of a growing number of researchers around the world developing the technology in an attempt to side-step this inherent limitation.

Bodily fluids
Computer model of nanotube and enzymes
The fuel cells are made from a compressed push of enzymes and carbon nanotubes.

At heart, biofuel cells are incredibly simple. They are made of two special electrodes - one is endowed with the ability to remove electrons from glucose, the other with the ability to donate electrons to molecules of oxygen and hydrogen, producing water.

Pop these electrodes into a solution containing glucose and oxygen, and one will start to rip electrons off the glucose and the other will start dumping electrons onto oxygen. Connect the electrodes to a circuit and they produce a net flow of electrons from one electrode to the other via the circuit - resulting in an electrical current.

Glucose and oxygen are both freely available in the human body, so hypothetically, a biofuel cell could keep working indefinitely. "A battery consumes the energy stored in it, and when it's finished, it's finished. A biofuel cell in theory can work without limits because it consumes substances that come from physiological fluids, and are constantly being replenished," said Dr Cosnier.

Start Quote

A bio fuel cell in theory can work without limits because it consumes substances that come from physiological fluids.”

Dr Serge Cosnier Joseph Fourier University

The idea of powering fuel cells using glucose and oxygen found in physiological fluids was first suggested in the 1970s, but fell by the wayside because the amount of energy early prototypes produced was too little to be of practical use.

However, in the 2002, advances in biotechnology spurred Itamar Willner, a researcher at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, to dust down the idea and give it a fresh look.

In a paper published in the prestigious journal Science, he speculated that thanks to advances in biotechnology, the day would come when devices such as artificial limbs and organs would soon be powered by biofuel cells that create electricity from bodily fluids.

"Since then biofuel cells have received a huge amount of attention," said Dr Eileen Yu, a researcher at Newcastle University, who is part of UK-wide multi-university project to develop biofuel cells.

Nano technology

The key to the recent breakthroughs has been our understanding of rather special biological molecules called enzymes. Enzymes are naturally occurring molecules that speed up chemical reactions. Researchers studying bio fuel cells have discovered that one particular enzyme, called glucose oxidase, is extremely good at removing electrons from glucose. "It is very efficient at generating electrons," said Prof Willner.

Spurred by new developments in enzyme manipulation, and the growth in availability of carbon nanotubes - which are highly efficient electrical conductors - many groups around the world have developed bio fuel cells capable of producing electricity.

Dr Cosnier and his team decided to take things one step further. "In the last 10 years there has been an exponential increase in research, and some important breakthroughs in enzyme research," he said.

He decided it was time to make the first attempt to take the cumulative knowledge of the last decade of research and engineer it into a device the size of a grain of rice that could generate electricity while implanted inside a rat.

Nanotube electrode
Tiny bio fuel cells sit inside the body turning glucose and oxygen into power.

In 2010, they tested their fuel cell in a rat for 40 days and reported that it worked flawlessly, producing a steady electrical current throughout, with no noticeable side effects on the rat's behaviour or physiology.

Their system is surprisingly straightforward. The electrodes are made by compressing a paste of carbon nanotubes mixed with glucose oxidase for one electrode, and glucose and polyphenol oxidase for the other.

The electrodes have a platinum wire inserted in them to carry the current to the circuit. Then the electrodes are wrapped in a special material that prevents any nanotubes or enzymes from escaping into the body.

Finally, the whole package is wrapped in a mesh that protects the electrodes from the body's immune system, while still allowing the free flow of glucose and oxygen to the electrodes. The whole package is then implanted in the rat.

"It is an important step towards demonstrating the translation of basic research into a practical device," said Willner. "It shows the feasibility of making an implantable package."

Implantation in a rat was a good proof of concept, said Dr Cosnier, but it had drawbacks. "Rats are so small that the production of energy is insufficient to power a conventional device."

Next he plans to scale up his fuel cell and implant it in a cow. "There is more space, so a larger fuel cell can be implanted, meaning a greater current will be generated."

Dr Cosnier hopes it will be enough to power a transmitter that will be able to beam out of the cow information about the device and control sensors inside the animal.

More power
Stitching fuel cell into mesh
Fuel cells are wrapped in a mesh to prevent the body rejecting them.

There is still a long way to go. Prof Willner explains that, while the enzyme glucose oxidase has performed optimally, the efficiency of the electron-donating enzymes could still be dramatically improved. He is optimistic that breakthroughs will be made.

"Based on the current rate of progress, I am confident we will see exciting developments in the next decade," said Prof Willner.

Dr Cosnier agrees that there is a lot of room for improvement. "Today we can generate enough power to supply an artificial urinary sphincter, or pacemaker. We are already working on a system that can produce 50 times that amount of power, then we will have enough to supply much more demanding devices," he said.

Implants aren't the only place you may find bio fuel cells in the future. The electronics giant Sony recently announced that it had created a biofuel cell fuelled with glucose and water that was capable of powering an MP3 player. "In 10 years time you may see bio fuel cells in laptops and mobile phones," said Prof Willner.

Dr Cosnier points out that bio fuel cells would be especially useful in places where there is no electricity supply to recharge your batteries. "If you were in a country without electricity, and needed to re-charge a bio fuel cell, all you would have to do is add sugar and water."

Source

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Can Japan's Anti-Nuclear Protesters Keep the Reactors Shut Down?

Can Japan's Anti-Nuclear Protesters Keep the Reactors Shut Down?
By Lucy Birmingham / Tokyo

Japanese Nobel literature prize winner Kenzaburo Oe, 2nd left, holds a banner alongside three others in an anti-nuclear demonstration, in Tokyo on September 19, 2011.

Yuriko Nakao / REUTERS

For months after a devastating earthquake and tsunami crippled Japan's Fukushima power plant, sparking fears of a possible nuclear meltdown, the country's anti-nuclear groups struggled to be heard. A few small rallies were held, but they failed to generate much media coverage. As debates raged from Germany to China about the safety of nuclear reactors, commentary in Japan, of all places, was strangely absent. Protests are just that unusual in this conservative country.

But this is starting to change. As Fukushima continues to spew more radioactivity into the air and trust in the government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. plunges, the mood in Japan is slowly shifting away from nuclear power. On Sept. 19, the mounting anger and fear culminated in a rally of some 60,000 anti-nuclear protesters in Tokyo — the largest such gathering since the March 11 quake and tsunami. The protesters included the elderly, families with children and a large contingent from the towns near the reactor. A surprising number were local government officials and members of RENGO, the 6.8-million-strong federation of labor unions. "Normally RENGO never goes against nuclear power because many members are nuclear industry employees," says Satoshi Kamata, a journalist and atomic energy opponent who organized the rally. "I'm guessing about 10,000 to 15,000 RENGO members were at the rally."(See photos of the tsunami hitting the Fukushima plant.)

Kamata also made sure there was a celebrity factor, inviting Nobel Prize-winning author Kenzaburo Oe, composer Ryuichi Sakamoto and other high-profile figures to participate to try to attract more media attention. The outpouring of support shows just how angry and frustrated people are, he says. "They don't want to feel powerless anymore. They want to make a change," he says. "This rally was a totally new phenomenon. It's not just an anti-nuclear energy movement, but the beginning of a large-scale protest by ordinary people, a historic people's movement."

Fueling the fear was former Prime Minster Naoto Kan's Sept. 6 revelation of a worst-case scenario government report he received just after the Fukushima crisis began stating that a massive evacuation of Tokyo's 30 million residents could have been necessary. The plant sits just 130 miles northeast of Tokyo. "It was a crucial moment when I wasn't sure whether Japan could continue to function as a state," he said in an interview with the Tokyo Shimbun, a daily newspaper. "When I think of safety not being outweighed by risk, the answer is not to rely on nuclear."

At the beginning of the year, Japan had 54 nuclear reactors providing about 29% of the country's energy needs. An additional 14 plants were in the pipeline, with the hopes that nuclear power would meet over half of the country's energy demands by 2030. After the Fukushima crisis, however, Kan began pushing hydroelectric, wind and solar power, endorsing a plan to increase alternative energy production from the current 9% to 20% by 2020. His last mandate before resigning in August was to push through Parliament a new law promoting renewable energy. (Read about how to stop a nuclear reactor meltdown.)

But just as the anti-nuclear movement is gaining traction and support for renewable energy is on the rise, the new prime minister is signaling his intention to get Japan's reactors up and running again. At a high-level meeting on nuclear safety and security during last week's U.N. General Assembly, Yoshihiko Noda spoke of the country's continuing need for nuclear energy. "We will raise the safety of nuclear plants to the highest level," he said. Then, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 21, he talked about restarting the country's idle reactors in the spring. "If we have a power shortage, it will drag down Japan's overall economy," he said. Nuclear energy critics argue, however, that Japan would be just fine next year because the country managed with fewer than a third of its reactors operating this summer. When asked about this by The Wall Street Journal, Noda replied: "That's absolutely impossible."

A showdown between politicians and concerned citizens may be in the making. On Monday, the city of Makinohara in Shizuoka Prefecture drew widespread attention after it passed a resolution to permanently shut down the nearby Hamaoka nuclear power plant. A similar resolution had already been adopted by the three other municipalities in the prefecture and six major companies, including Suzuki, have said they may leave the area because of concerns over the plant. Hamaoka's three reactors went offline as part of a government safety mandate following the Fukushima accident. But despite the fact seismologists have described the ageing plant as among the most dangerous in the world because of its position on top of two major fault lines, operator Chubu Electric Power Co. has announced plans to restart it. It's now building a 60-foot-tall levee to protect the plant from a possible tsunami.

Some activists are now pushing for a national referendum on nuclear power. In a Sept. 21 poll conducted by the Mainichi Shimbun, a major newspaper, nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated they wanted a vote on whether the country should continue to rely so heavily on nuclear power. In his speech at the anti-nuclear rally earlier this month, Kenzaburo Oe pointed to a referendum Italy held in June in which the country voted down the prospect of building new reactors. The Japanese people, too, should be given the right to vote, he said. "What is now clear is this: in Italy, human life will not be threatened by nuclear energy anymore. We Japanese, however, must continue to live under the fear of nuclear disaster."

Monday, September 26, 2011

Are viruses the way to green manufacturing?

Are viruses the way to green manufacturing?

WATCH: Angela Belcher, W.M. Keck Professor of Energy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

If Prof Angela Belcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology gets it right, the future of manufacturing will rest on the shoulders of tiny organisms.

Although she's probably told the story a thousand times, Prof Belcher still talks with reverence about the shell she cradles in her hand.

The humble abalone, a slimy sea snail that occasionally ends up as someone's dinner, pulls calcium and carbon from sea water and transforms them into a durable, protective shell. Crusty and dingy on one side, shimmery and alluring on the other, this body armour is 3,000 times stronger than chalk, which is its chemical equivalent.

Abalone shells have inspired Prof Belcher's work for more than two decades and brought her to the pinnacle of science.

And they have implications for the future of manufacturing, green energy, medicine and science - just for starters.

Ideas that could change the world

Some ideas, some technologies may sound like science fiction, but they are fast becoming science fact. In our eight-part series we will be exploring ideas that are the future of technology.

New materials for vexing problems

Prof Belcher's work unites the inanimate world of simple chemicals with proteins made by living creatures, a mash-up of the living and the lifeless.

She is motivated, she says, by a simple question: "How do you give life to non-living things?"

Like the abalone collecting its materials in shallow water and then laying them down like bricks in a wall, Belcher takes basic chemical elements from the natural world: carbon, calcium, silicon, zinc. Then she mixes them with simple, harmless viruses whose genes have been reprogrammed to promote random variations.

The resulting new materials just might address some of our most vexing problems.

"What drives me is solving important problems," Prof Belcher says. "I look at what are the important problems: energy, healthcare, water."

Help from nature

To that end, her work has already led to efficient solar cells and powerful batteries (that she hopes one day will be good enough to run her car); a possibly cheaper, greener way of producing plastics; and a potentially better way to peer into deeply buried tumours in the breast and abdomen. This summer her lab started a water purification project.

Start Quote

I think 50 years from now, we'll look back on biology... and say this is one of the fundamental tools we developed in this century.”

Prof Yet-Ming Chiang Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prof Belcher is far from the only scientist trying to solve important problems with help from nature. There are glues inspired by gecko feet, robots designed to mimic bugs, and myriad other examples.

The distinctiveness of Prof Belcher's work, colleagues say, lies in her use of biology to synthesise new materials for such a wide range of uses, to develop an entirely new method for producing entirely novel materials.

"Her methodologies for directing and assembling materials I think will be unique," says Yet-Ming Chiang, an MIT professor who collaborates with Prof Belcher on battery research. "I think 50 years from now, we'll look back on biology as an important part of the toolkit in manufacturing... we'll look back and say this is one of the fundamental tools we developed in this century."

In her element

Nature has done an amazing job of making materials that create and feed themselves with readily abundant, non-toxic resources. But it took a long time to get good at this stuff. The first life forms appeared 500 million years ago, and the big explosion of diversity in the Cambrian period, took 50 million years.

As Prof Belcher jokes with a straight face, it's hard to convince funders and graduate students to sign on for a 50-million-year-long project.

Angela Belcher can be a quite funny person, particularly in her speeches - although you have to pay close attention to realise she's just made a joke.

She doesn't signal ahead of time that it's coming, or even crack a smile when it does. It's almost as if she's checking to see if you're really paying attention.

Prof Angela Belcher "Angela's technology is literally like Project God," say colleagues

One of her favourite things to talk about in speeches are the periodic tables she hands out to incoming freshmen at MIT each year. "Welcome to MIT. Now you're in your element," they proclaim. She gave one to President Barack Obama when he toured her lab last year. "He promised to look at it periodically," she tells crowds.

The periodic table is more than a prop for Prof Belcher, though. It's also her muse. Abalone genes code for proteins that call pull calcium and carbon from the sea; diatoms, a type of phytoplankton, do the same with silicon to make their own glass "houses."

Prof Belcher is now in the process of throwing viruses together with different elements from the periodic table to see what she can make.

Putting evolution to work

Instead of waiting 50 million years, she's speeding up the evolutionary process by running 1 billion experiments at a time. She starts with a billion viruses, harmless to everything except bacteria, that have been genetically altered so they each create slightly different proteins.

These viruses are mixed together with whatever elements Belcher has chosen from the periodic table - and out of the billion different proteins the viruses make, roughly 100 will link up with the elements the way she wants. Further testing narrows the candidate proteins down to a handful that have promising capabilities.

The viruses are the factories producing the material - their genes are programmed to link the organic and inorganic - but they are not present in the final product, so there's no potential risk of viruses running amok, says Prof Belcher.

She's found a few candidate viruses that can link methane and oxygen to form ethylene, a building block of plastics, fertilizers and tires. This ethylene assembly line can take place at room temperature, using natural gas, which is low polluting and abundant; current production requires lots of energy from high-pollution fossil fuels.

"There is some poetic justice in that we're using nature's techniques to be better stewards of the resources nature gave us," says Alex Tkachenko, president of Siluria Technologies, a small San Francisco start-up that Belcher founded to commercialise the process.

"Angie's technology is literally like 'Project God,'" says Mr Tkachenko. "You can produce materials the way nature makes them, so you can essentially remake the whole world in the way you like it."

Looking ahead

Just 43 years old, Prof Belcher is already at the pinnacle of science.

The mother of two boys - one and four years old - she is a full professor at MIT, supporting the work of roughly three dozen students. She was awarded a MacArthur "genius" grant, has been named a Time Magazine climate change "hero", and won every major award for young scientific innovators.

In addition to doing research and starting companies, she still teaches undergraduates, and rarely turns down a speaking request, whether to potential donors or school girls.

To say Prof Belcher has wide-ranging scientific interests is an understatement. At MIT, she works in the departments of Materials Science and Engineering as well as Biological Engineering - but her official title is Professor of Energy, and she sits in a new building designed for cancer researchers.

"Even in a place like MIT where you can't walk down the hall without running into someone famous, she stands out for her scientific vision and scientific bandwidth and ability to touch all areas of the community," says Prof Chiang.

Another colleague, engineering professor Paula T. Hammond, describes Angela Belcher as "the ultimate creative thinker."

"She does not get stuck or fenced in by other people's definitions or commonly accepted attitudes," says Prof Hammond. "She does not think 'within' a field, but beyond fields, allowing her to make connections between nature, medicine, energy, etc."

Prof Belcher does not seem to dwell on her accomplishments or the compliments of her colleagues. She's also not interested in changing the world in 50 years - she wants to do it now.

"We like to dream, but we also like to build things that can be integrated into people's everyday lives," Belcher said. "Everything to me is a material - material for cancer or material for energy doesn't matter."

Source

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Harvesting 'limitless' hydrogen from self-powered cells

Harvesting 'limitless' hydrogen from self-powered cells

Microbial fuel cell (Image: Science Museum)
An example of a microbial fuel cell has gone on display at London's Science Museum

Related Stories

US researchers say they have demonstrated how cells fuelled by bacteria can be "self-powered" and produce a limitless supply of hydrogen.

Until now, they explained, an external source of electricity was required in order to power the process.

However, the team added, the current cost of operating the new technology is too high to be used commercially.

Details of the findings have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"There are bacteria that occur naturally in the environment that are able to release electrons outside of the cell, so they can actually produce electricity as they are breaking down organic matter," explained co-author Bruce Logan, from Pennsylvania State University, US.

"We use those microbes, particularly inside something called a microbial fuel cell (MFC), to generate electrical power.

"We can also use them in this device, where they need a little extra power to make hydrogen gas.

"What that means is that they produce this electrical current, which are electrons, they release protons in the water and these combine with electrons."

Prof Logan said that the technology to utilise this process to produce hydrogen was called microbial electrolysis cell (MEC).

"The breakthrough here is that we do not need to use an electrical power source anymore to provide a little energy into the system.

Artistic representation of hydrogen molecules (Image: Science Photo Library) Hydrogen has long been hailed a transport fuel of the future but has yet to fulfil its potential

"All we need to do is add some fresh water and some salt water and some membranes, and the electrical potential that is there can provide that power."

The MECs use something called "reverse electrodialysis" (RED), which refers to the energy gathered from the difference in salinity, or salt content, between saltwater and freshwater.

In their paper, Prof Logan and colleague Younggy Kim explained how an envisioned RED system would use alternating stacks of membranes that harvest this energy; the movement of charged atoms move from the saltwater to freshwater creates a small voltage that can be put to work.

"This is the crucial element of the latest research," Prof Logan told BBC News, explaining the process of their system, known as a microbial reverse-electrodialysis electrolysis cell (MREC).

"If you think about desalinating water, it takes energy. If you have a freshwater and saltwater interface, that can add energy. We realised that just a little bit of that energy could make this process go on its own."

Early days

He said that the technology was still in its infancy, which was one of the reasons why it was not being exploited commercially.

"Right now, it is such a new technology," he explained.

"In a way it is a little like solar power. We know we can convert solar energy into electricity but it has taken many years to lower the cost.

"This is a similar thing: it is a new technology and it could be used, but right now it is probably a little expensive. So the question is, can we bring down the cost?"

The next step, Prof Logan explained, was to develop larger-scale cells: "Then it will easier to evaluate the costs and investment needed to use the technology.

The authors acknowledged that hydrogen had "significant potential as an efficient energy carrier", but it had been dogged with high production costs and environmental concerns, because it is most often produced using fossil fuels.

Prof Logan observed: "We use hydrogen for many, many things. It is used in making [petrol], it is used in foods etc. Whether we use it in transportation... remains to be seen."

But, the authors wrote that their findings offered hope for the future: "This unique type of integrated system has significant potential to treat wastewater and simultaneously produce [hydrogen] gas without any consumption of electrical grid energy."

Prof Logan added that a working example of a microbial fuel cell was currently on display at London's Science Museum, as part of the Water Wars exhibition.

Source

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Siemens to quit nuclear industry

Siemens to quit nuclear industry

siemens building
Siemens will continue to work in the power industry but drop out of the nuclear sector

Related Stories

German industrial and engineering conglomerate Siemens is to withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry.

The move is a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March, chief executive Peter Loescher said.

He told Spiegel magazine it was the firm's answer to "the clear positioning of German society and politics for a pullout from nuclear energy".

"The chapter for us is closed," he said, announcing that the firm will no longer build nuclear power stations.

A long-planned joint venture with Russian nuclear firm Rosatom will also be cancelled, although Mr Loescher said he would still seek to work with their partner "in other fields".

Siemens was responsible for building all 17 of Germany's existing nuclear power plants.

But more recently, the firm has limited itself to providing the non-nuclear parts of plants being built by other firms, including current projects in China and Finland.

The latest decision appears to imply a step back from building "conventional islands" - the non-nuclear plant in nuclear power stations - an area in which Siemens has remained active.

However, Mr Loescher also said Siemens would continue to make components, such as steam turbines, that are used in the conventional power industry, but can also be used in nuclear plants.

U-turn

He also gave his backing to the German government's planned switch to renewable energy sources, calling it a "project of the century" and claiming Berlin's target of reaching 35% renewable energy by 2020 was achievable.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, announced at the end of May that all of the country's 17 nuclear reactors would be shut down by 2022.

Before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power accounted for 23% of electricity production in Germany.

The German government's decision marked a complete U-turn by the chancellor, who only in September 2010 had announced that the life of existing nuclear plants would be extended by an average of 12 years.

Siemen's move, announced on Sunday, is also a turnaround.

In 2009, the firm withdrew from an eight-year-old nuclear joint venture with French energy firm Areva, shortly before announcing its new deal with Rosatom.

"In view of global climate change and the increasing power demand worldwide, for us nuclear energy remains an essential part of a sustainable energy mix," Mr Loescher had said at the time.

Source

Monday, August 15, 2011

Bury Our Nuclear Waste — Before It Buries Us

Bury Our Nuclear Waste — Before It Buries Us


Some 2 billion years ago, a natural-uranium deposit deep underground in what is now the west-central African country of Gabon spontaneously went critical. In the only known case of a nuclear-fission reactor forming naturally on earth, the Gabon deposit fissioned just like a modern-day power plant. As well as generating a substantial amount of heat, the uranium also produced a huge quantity of radioactive waste products, including around four tons of plutonium. Because this naturally occurring nuclear waste was buried deep underground, it remained remarkably well confined as it decayed over the course of millennia.

Unfortunately, nature did a much better job of handling the by-products of nuclear power than we have. Last Friday, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which was set up by President Obama in 2010 to determine how the U.S. should handle nuclear waste, issued a draft report, and the verdict was not good. There are some 65,000 tons of nuclear waste now in temporary storage throughout the U.S., but in 2009, the President halted work on a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, following years of controversy and legal wrangling. Few people in Nevada or elsewhere doubt the need for a safe and enduring place to stash radioactive debris, but no one wants it close to home. As it stands now, the Blue Ribbon Commission's draft report concludes that the nuclear-waste-management program in the U.S. is "all but completely broken down."

If we doubted how precarious a state of affairs that is, the Japan earthquake and disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant served as a powerful illustration. Much of the waste we've accumulated over the years has been crammed into on-site cooling pools — the same kinds of pools that suffered problems in Japan. Even U.S. pools located nowhere near quake zones could be vulnerable to other natural disasters or terrorist sabotage.

Fortunately, some simple steps can be taken immediately to make America's waste less hazardous, as the Blue Ribbon Commission notes. Spent fuel can be moved after a period of cooling from pools to dry storage in casks that are disaster- and sabotage-resistant and durable enough to store waste safely for many decades. The commission suggests that some of these casks be consolidated in regional, well-guarded interim storage facilities away from disaster-prone zones until geological repositories open up. Meanwhile, the commission also recommends that the U.S. government start a consensus-based process of finding new sites for such underground disposal facilities, though the commission stops short of suggesting just where they should be. Transparency is key: Sweden and Finland recently succeeded in this task in large part because they made the (honest) case that nuclear waste that remains above ground poses a much greater threat than buried waste, even to nearby communities. (See pictures of the death of an aging nuclear power plant.)

Most of the attention on the commission's work has rightly focused on its efforts to create a process that will lead to the opening of a new Yucca Mountain–like facility. But there's another, often overlooked aspect of its analysis that is equally critical: how U.S. policy toward nuclear waste can affect the spread of nuclear weapons around the globe.

Nonproliferation campaigners have long warned about a method of handling nuclear waste called reprocessing, in which waste from reactors is chemically treated to isolate and remove fissionable plutonium, which can then be turned into a new fuel, called mixed oxide. That fuel can then be reused in reactors. In theory, reprocessing is designed to reduce the amount of waste at large and increase the efficiency of uranium-reactor fuel; in practice, it is prohibitively expensive, requiring subsidies to make viable, and does not obviate the need for the disposal of the massive quantities of radioactive waste that remain. More importantly, plutonium separated from nuclear waste during reprocessing can also be used to create nuclear bombs. Less than 20 lb. (9 kg) of the stuff could turn downtown Manhattan into a broiling wasteland of irradiated rubble.

The Blue Ribbon Commission doesn't reach a conclusion on whether the U.S. should pursue reprocessing, arguing that consensus on the issue would be "premature." That is a mistake. Reprocessing is a manifestly dangerous technology. In the 1970s, the U.S. renounced commercial reprocessing at home and the spread of the technology abroad because of concerns that it would lead to weapons proliferation. It should not reverse this policy. The spread of reprocessing to countries in unstable or nuclear-armed regions gives them the infrastructure and expertise needed to quickly develop a bomb should they choose to do so. (And don't think safeguards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency can stop them. Commercial-scale reprocessing facilities handle so much plutonium that it is almost impossible for inspectors to keep track of it all.) The U.S. must send a message: if the country with the world's largest number of nuclear reactors renounces reprocessing, it delivers a clear signal to countries newly interested in nuclear power that the process is not necessary for the future of the nuclear industry. (Read "States Sue to Stop Storage of Nuclear Waste.")

To its credit, the Blue Ribbon Commission suggests that the U.S. find other means to discourage reprocessing abroad. One comparatively simple idea would be for the U.S. to accept waste from countries in regions where an arms race might one day occur, effectively taking the possibility of reprocessing — and the weapons that could follow — off the table. Currently the Obama Administration is trying to negotiate such an arrangement through the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation. But here again the need for a U.S. disposal facility becomes acute. It's difficult for the U.S. to accept waste from other countries if it doesn't have a disposal site of its own.

Nuclear waste has long been seen mostly as an environmental issue — but it's a critical global security issue too. Plutonium has been created only twice on earth. After the Gabon mines reaction, the next significant batch of plutonium arrived 2 billion years later in U.S. labs; it destroyed Nagasaki. Let's bury our nuclear waste — and, if necessary, nuclear waste from other countries — before it has the chance to bury us.


Thursday, July 21, 2011

Fukushima crisis: Nuclear only part of Japan's problems

Fukushima crisis: Nuclear only part of Japan's problems

A protester holds a placard during a rally demanding the stop of the Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Tokyo on April 10, 2011

The crisis at Japan's Fukushima power plant has sparked a national review of energy policy and turned public opinion largely against nuclear power, but Shinji Fujino of the International Energy Agency argues this is just a small part of the serious electricity supply challenge the country now faces.

The earthquake on 11 March triggered the automatic shutdown of reactors at 11 of Japan's 54 nuclear reactors, with a total capacity of 9.7GW.

At the moment, only 18 nuclear reactors are producing power. The rest have either been shut down because of safety concerns or for routine maintenance.

In addition to the nuclear reactors, thermal power plants with a total capacity of 9.4 GW were also shut down following the natural disasters.

Start Quote

For the time being, electricity companies will have to bridge the gap between supply and demand by increasing capacity in thermal power plants”

In total, Japan's power supply capacity in the affected area has been reduced by about 40%, which is almost equivalent to the national capacity of Switzerland or Austria.

In terms of its energy supply, Japan is isolated, having no interconnections with neighbouring countries. The national transmission system is divided into two separate frequency areas - the 60 hertz (Hz) western system and the 50 Hz eastern system. Although the two areas are interconnected using three frequency converters, the total shared capacity is comparatively small (roughly 1 GW). Thus the east of Japan, which includes Tokyo and the tsunami-hit areas, has faced serious power shortages.

In the first weeks after the disaster, the government and electricity companies asked all electricity consumers to voluntarily reduce their energy usage. In addition, rolling blackouts were implemented to try to balance supply and demand.

Eurus Energy Japan Corp wind farms in Higashi-Dori on Japan's main island Honshu Japanese leaders want to boost the country's use of renewables

Electricity companies have taken many measures to restore power supply, including repairing damaged thermal capacity (fossil fuel power plants damaged by the earthquake and tsunami), bringing back thermal plants which were closed for inspections, and also thermal power plants that were previously decommissioned. Thanks to these actions, the supply-demand balance has improved and large-scale blackouts have been avoided.

However, the real challenge is in the summer months - the peak period of power demand in Japan, when temperatures in Tokyo routinely exceed 30C and air conditioning accounts for about 50% of total electricity consumption during peak hours.

Start Quote

Owing to geographic and climatic conditions, the resource potential for renewable energy in Japan is relatively low when compared with other developed countries”

In response to this challenge, the government has announced a plan it calls Electricity Supply-Demand Measures in Summer Time which demands a 15% reduction in usage for all electricity consumers. The plan aims to minimise the impact of power shortages on people's everyday lives and on industry, while ensuring that any power reduction will not impair Japan's economic recovery.

How can it be achieved? Big businesses could install more energy-efficient machines and equipment, and shift or shorten the working times of staff. In offices and households, people could turn off lights and IT equipment and no longer leave electrical devices in stand-by mode. The government can take mandatory action to regulate the big energy consumers the current regulatory framework. For others, including households, action is voluntary.

In parallel with these short-term measures, the government has started to reconsider its mid- to long-term energy policy. At the moment, Japan relies on nuclear for about 30% of its power supply. The last national energy plan, published in June 2010, proposed nine additional nuclear units by 2020 and 14 or more by 2030. These large increases in nuclear capacity were expected to contribute to achieving Japan's ambitious CO2 emissions-reduction target (25% below 1990 levels by 2020).

Planning new nuclear reactors will now be much harder. Agreement from local residents will be necessary before restarting shutdown nuclear reactors - making it very difficult to bring them back online even after stress tests or upgrading.

Nuclear crisis

  • 11 March: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant struck by huge earthquake and tsunami
  • 16 March: 20km (11-mile) evacuation zone declared around plant
  • 17 April: Plant owner Tepco says crisis will be under control by end of the year
  • 20 May: Tepco President Masataka Shimizu resigns as firm posts losses of 1.25tn yen (£9.4bn; $15.3bn) for the past financial year
  • 2 June: PM Naoto Kan survives no-confidence vote over his handling of quake and nuclear crises

For the time being, electricity companies will have to bridge the gap between supply and demand by increasing capacity in thermal power plants, in particular plants fired by Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Given the available facilities and supply risks of each fossil fuel, LNG will be expected to play a major role. However, greater use of LNG could result in higher electricity prices as well as higher CO2 emissions, which will make it more challenging to meet the Kyoto Protocol target (6% below 1990 levels for the first commitment period 2008-2012).

Japan has a relatively small share of renewables, which account for approximately 5% of its total primary energy supply. The current National Energy Plan has set a target of 10% by 2020. At the G8 summit in France this May, Mr Kan announced a plan to increase renewables to more than 20% of total electricity supply by the early 2020s. The government also plans to install 10 million rooftop photo-voltaic units (solar cells) by 2030. Owing to geographic and climatic conditions, the resource potential for renewable energy in Japan is relatively low when compared with other developed countries.

But necessity is the mother of invention. Tackling these challenges head-on could help Japan's economy to recover, and become more competitive in the long-term.

Shinji Fujino is head of the country studies division of the International Energy Agency and is currently in charge of reviewing energy policies of the IEA member countries.

Source

~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

Nuclear power is the past, not the future.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Japan pensioners volunteer to tackle nuclear crisis

Japan pensioners volunteer to tackle nuclear crisis

Yasuteru Yamada said people from all walks of life were welcome to join the group

A group of more than 200 Japanese pensioners are volunteering to tackle the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power station.

The Skilled Veterans Corps, as they call themselves, is made up of retired engineers and other professionals, all over the age of 60.

They say they should be facing the dangers of radiation, not the young.

It was while watching the television news that Yasuteru Yamada decided it was time for his generation to stand up.

No longer could he be just an observer of the struggle to stabilise the Fukushima nuclear plant.

The retired engineer is reporting back for duty at the age of 72, and he is organising a team of pensioners to go with him.

For weeks now Mr Yamada has been getting back in touch with old friends, sending out e-mails and even messages on Twitter.

Volunteering to take the place of younger workers at the power station is not brave, Mr Yamada says, but logical.

Mr Yamada has been getting back in touch with old friends, sending out emails and even messages on Twitter Mr Yamada has been getting back in touch with old friends via e-mail and even messages on Twitter

"I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live," he says.

"Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer."

Mr Yamada is lobbying the government hard for his volunteers to be allowed into the power station. The government has expressed gratitude for the offer but is cautious.

Certainly a couple of MPs are supporting Mr Yamada.

"At this moment I can say that I am talking with many key government and Tepco people. But I am sorry I can't say any more at this moment. It is on the way but it is a very, very sensitive issue politically," he said.

Start Quote

We are not kamikaze... They were going to die - but we are going to come back ”

Yasuteru Yamada

Certainly it is likely more workers will be needed.

The plant is still spewing radiation, nearly three months after an earthquake and tsunami knocked out its cooling systems, triggering explosions.

Its operator, Tepco, has now confirmed three of the reactors probably suffered meltdowns.

The plan is to bring the plant to a cold shutdown by January, although some experts believe that is over optimistic.

To cope with the disaster Japan has raised the radiation exposure limit for emergency workers from 100 millisieverts to 250 millisieverts.

But Tepco announced this week two workers at Fukushima might have already been exposed to more.

Kamikaze?

Many of Mr Yamada's veterans are retired engineers like him.

Michio Ito Michio Ito is keen to swap his apron for a radiation suit

Others are former power station workers, experts in factory design - and even a singer and two cooks - Mr Yamada says they will be useful to keep his team amused and fed.

Michio Ito used to be a primary school teacher but is spending his retirement helping out in a cafe that offers work experience to people with learning difficulties.

He is keen to swap his apron for a radiation suit.

"I don't think I'm particularly special," he says. "Most Japanese have this feeling in their heart. The question is whether you step forward, or you stay behind and watch.

"To take that step you need a lot of guts, but I hope it will be a great experience. Most Japanese want to help out any way they can."

Mr Yamada has already tried on his old overalls for size.

He says he is as fit as ever - with a lifetime of experience to bring to the task.

And he laughs off suggestions his proposed team is comparable to the kamikaze pilots who flew suicide missions in World War II.

"We are not kamikaze. The kamikaze were something strange, no risk management there. They were going to die. But we are going to come back. We have to work but never die."

Source

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022

Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022

Anti-nuclear protester in Munich, 28 May Germany saw mass anti-nuclear protests in the wake of the Fukushima disaster

Related Stories

Germany's ruling coalition says it has agreed a date of 2022 for the shutdown of all of its nuclear power plants.

Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement after a meeting of the ruling coalition that lasted into the early hours of Monday.

Chancellor Angela Merkel had set up an ethics panel to look into nuclear power following the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan.

Germany saw mass anti-nuclear protests in the wake of the disaster.

'Sustainable energy'

Mr Rottgen said the seven oldest reactors, which were already subject to a moratorium, and the Kruemmel nuclear power plant, would not resume.

Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022, he said.

Mr Rottgen said: "It's definite. The latest end for the last three nuclear power plants is 2022. There will be no clause for revision."

Mrs Merkel's Christian Democrats had met with its junior partners on Sunday after the ethics panel had delivered its conclusions.

Before the meeting she said: "I think we're on a good path but very, very many questions have to be considered.

"If you want to exit something, you also have to prove how the change will work and how we can enter into a durable and sustainable energy provision."

The Fukushima plant was crippled by the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, causing radioactive leaks that spurred anti-nuclear protests in Germany.

Mr Rottgen said a tax on spent fuel rods, expected to raise 2.3bn euros ($3.28bn) a year from this year, would remain despite the shutdown.

Germany's nuclear industry has argued that an early shutdown would be hugely damaging to the country's industrial base.

Before March's moratorium on the older power plants, Germany relied on nuclear power for 23% of its energy.

The anti-nuclear drive boosted Germany's Green party, which took control of the Christian Democrat stronghold of Baden-Wuerttemberg, in late March.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

I used to be for Nuclear and even wrote 2 essays in High school supporting the idea wholeheartedly.

But in College I was challenged to research an essay very thoroughly and this strict discipline and essay that came about, using numerous referenced resources and not biased books, painted a different picture of Nuclear Power all together.

Here are the key points:

1) There is no option for Nuclear waste removal. Even storing it under ground is politically savage since no city will take it in and it costs millions to maintain.

This is also a Finite area and when full, another storage area needs to be made starting the whole political dance and folly all over again.

In America, not a single storage facility has yet to be made, even the Yucca mountain option is yet to be accepted and for good reason.

2) Nuclear Power plants are not safe. Even if you say you could make the most amazing plant in the world that would never break down on it's own, a terrorist needs only smuggle a bit of explosives to ruin the lives of the Eastern or Western United States. (Yes, the whole east or west)

But again, the first point is moot. There is no safe Nuclear reactor as has been shown in Fukishima. There are no full proof plans. There is no plant secure from Nature's wrath.

But beyond that, no plant is safe from the wrath of Humans. It would take only 1 plant and 1 group of people to destroy the lives of 100,000,000 people for the next 1,000 years.

These plants are not safe.

3) The other options are cheaper, more available, and more enticing. Since the technology boom of the 90's and 00's, we've seen hardware and manufacturing prices get slashed. This packed with investment in renewable energy has created a new market infrastructure that is making Nuclear seem less and less enticing.

Governments have also backed renewable energy products and are slowly working on the small and large scale to find a new way to power our homes.

From Dye sensitized solar cells to power small objects, to large turbines and wave currents powering large cities, and solar paneling in between, we now have a wide array of choices that are getting cheaper year by year.

4) Cost. Cost is the main reason why Nuclear Energy frankly sucks. The cost to build a reactor, EVEN with government subsidies, is ridiculous and on the order of BILLIONS of dollars. No other option out there requires such a hefty investment.

The only reason we have power plants now is with the sheer force of the government, not the hand of the invisible market.

After what happened in Fukishima, investors are done with Nuclear. They have cleaned their hands of it. It's completely going off their balance sheets.

So frankly, the one and only reason you need to not go Nuclear is COST. It's too expensive.

It's too expensive for the environment, for investors, for our children, and frankly for the good ole Green Back dollar bill.

Nuclear power is dead in its tracks. Anyone daring to take its hand now needs to understand that they will be lead off a cliff.

Friday, December 24, 2010

New solar fuel machine 'mimics plant life'

New solar fuel machine 'mimics plant life'

In the prototype, sunlight heats a ceria cylinder which breaks down water or carbon dioxide In the prototype, sunlight heats a ceria cylinder which breaks down water or carbon dioxide

Related stories

A prototype solar device has been unveiled which mimics plant life, turning the Sun's energy into fuel.

The machine uses the Sun's rays and a metal oxide called ceria to break down carbon dioxide or water into fuels which can be stored and transported.

Conventional photovoltaic panels must use the electricity they generate in situ, and cannot deliver power at night.

Details are published in the journal Science.

The prototype, which was devised by researchers in the US and Switzerland, uses a quartz window and cavity to concentrate sunlight into a cylinder lined with cerium oxide, also known as ceria.

Ceria has a natural propensity to exhale oxygen as it heats up and inhale it as it cools down.

If as in the prototype, carbon dioxide and/or water are pumped into the vessel, the ceria will rapidly strip the oxygen from them as it cools, creating hydrogen and/or carbon monoxide.

Hydrogen produced could be used to fuel hydrogen fuel cells in cars, for example, while a combination of hydrogen and carbon monoxide can be used to create "syngas" for fuel.

It is this harnessing of ceria's properties in the solar reactor which represents the major breakthrough, say the inventors of the device. They also say the metal is readily available, being the most abundant of the "rare-earth" metals.

Methane can be produced using the same machine, they say.

Refinements needed

The prototype is grossly inefficient, the fuel created harnessing only between 0.7% and 0.8% of the solar energy taken into the vessel.

Most of the energy is lost through heat loss through the reactor's wall or through the re-radiation of sunlight back through the device's aperture.

But the researchers are confident that efficiency rates of up to 19% can be achieved through better insulation and smaller apertures. Such efficiency rates, they say, could make for a viable commercial device.

"The chemistry of the material is really well suited to this process," says Professor Sossina Haile of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). "This is the first demonstration of doing the full shebang, running it under (light) photons in a reactor."

She says the reactor could be used to create transportation fuels or be adopted in large-scale energy plants, where solar-sourced power could be available throughout the day and night.

However, she admits the fate of this and other devices in development is tied to whether states adopt a low-carbon policy.

"It's very much tied to policy. If we had a carbon policy, something like this would move forward a lot more quickly," she told the BBC.

It has been suggested that the device mimics plants, which also use carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to create energy as part of the process of photosynthesis. But Professor Haile thinks the analogy is over-simplistic.

"Yes, the reactor takes in sunlight, we take in carbon dioxide and water and we produce a chemical compound, so in the most generic sense there are these similarities, but I think that's pretty much where the analogy ends."

The PS10 solar tower plant near Seville, Spain. Mirrors concentrate the sun's power on to a central tower, driving a steam turbine The PS10 solar tower plant near Seville, Spain. Mirrors concentrate the sun's power on to a central tower, driving a steam turbine

Daniel Davies, chief technology officer at the British photovoltaic company Solar Century, said the research was "very exciting".

"I guess the question is where you locate it - would you put your solar collector on a roof or would it be better off as a big industrial concern in the Sahara and then shipping the liquid fuel?" he said.

Solar technology is moving forward apace but the overriding challenges remain ones of efficiency, economy and storage.

New-generation "solar tower" plants have been built in Spain and the United States which use an array of mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto tower-mounted receivers which drive steam turbines.

A new Spanish project will use molten salts to store heat from the Sun for up to 15 hours, so that the plant could potentially operate through the night.

Source

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

A bad reputation -- Carbon Costs not so high

A bad reputation

Person carrying shopping in plastic bags

VIEWPOINT

We're all told to watch our carbon footprint these days, but some so-called "environmental nasties" are not as bad as you might think - at least from a carbon point of view, says Mike Berners-Lee.

With so much heated debate about the carbon footprint of things, it would be easy to feel guilty about everything or just to give up caring. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is seen as a key way to reduce climate change by a number of experts, but calculating those footprints can be hideously complicated.

However, with a few provisos, we can actually afford to chill out about certain carbon footprints, which aren't as bad as many of us might think. The figures don't need to be too precise before people can start making sensible, carbon-savvy choices. Even quite a basic understanding can lead to surprising conclusions.

Graphic

1. Plastic bags really are nasty in so many ways - we use too many, they litter our streets, invade ecosystems and cause problems for wildlife. However, if you do end up walking home from the shops with a couple of carrier bags, the chances are only about 1,000th of the carbon footprint is in the carrier bags - 10g carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) - and the rest is in the shopping.

2. Using electric hand driers beats reusable towels because it avoids laundry and comes in at three to 20g CO2e per go. The Dyson Airblade is best because it doesn't heat the air. The footprint pays its way by reducing the burden on health services - fewer germs usually mean less illness. The real story here, though, is that if you drive or fly you should forget the hand drying and save your effort for something more significant.

3. At a mere 20g CO2e for a mug of boiled water from the kettle, we don't need to cut back on the luxury of hot drinks. The simple efficiency of only boiling what you need makes life better, not worse, because you get your tea quicker. The shock is that adding milk at least doubles the footprint of a cup of tea, but if this helps to make your life feel worth living, you can enjoy it without guilt.

4. New Zealand apples may come from the other side of the world, but they are still fine as low carbon food - and healthy too. The point is they travel on a boat which is around 100 times better than a plane. A New Zealand apple eaten in the UK comes in at around 100g CO2e. The same good news story goes for oranges and bananas. Of course, local, in-season apples are even better.

Televisions
A 'lower carbon leisure activity'

5. Watching TV turns out to be one of the lower carbon leisure activities. No driving involved. Even an hour in front of a 42-inch plasma screen works out similar to about a one-mile drive in a very efficient car - 220g CO2e. A smaller screen is even better; watching a 15-inch LCD for an hour comes in at 34g. If you watch as a family or invite your mates round, it's even better still. The Royle family has a fine low carbon lifestyle.

6. A typical book comes in at just 1kg CO2e - the same footprint as driving just two miles in a fairly efficient car. Although it takes a lot of energy to make paper, a good holiday read will pin you down for hours, distracting you from all the more carbon-intensive pastimes you might otherwise be indulging in - especially any that involve driving. Ideally, pass it on when you are finished.

7. Drinking a fine bottle of wine comes in at around 1kg CO2e, even if you get through three per week - which is pushing the limits of a healthy lifestyle. The impact will be about 1% of a typical UK person's annual carbon footprint of 15 tonnes. To cut this in half without compromise to quality, buy it in a carton - decant into a jug if the ugliness offends. Wine is heavy to transport, so British or French are better than Australian or Californian.

TACKLING CARBON FOOTPRINTS
The everyday products we buy make a major contribution to our carbon footprint. In fact, the production, transit, use and disposal of the products and commodities we use accounts for approximately 50% of our carbon footprints. That's why the Carbon Trust Footprinting Company has created a carbon labelling scheme. Every product or service that carries the Carbon Reduction Label has had its carbon footprint measured and is committed to reducing it. Already the label is on 65 brands, across 5500 individual products with combined annual sales of almost £3bn. Simply by choosing everyday products and services that carry the label shoppers can make a difference and help tackle climate change.
Euan Murray
Carbon Trust Footprinting Company

8. Getting cremated is likely to be less than a 10,000th of your life's carbon footprint, at 80kg CO2e. On this one occasion you can treat yourself to whatever form of disposal you prefer, safe in the knowledge that you have already done the most carbon-friendly thing possible.

9. A year off travelling would normally send carbon alarm bells ringing. But it isn't necessarily so bad, assuming it involves travelling in the way I understand it - you live on a shoe string, buy only what you need and waste almost nothing because you can't afford to. The big carbon hit is the flying. About 5 tonnes CO2e should get you around the world economy class, stopping off in a few key places. If, on the other hand, you spend the whole year hopping from place to place, never really seeing anywhere, skiing, speed boating and living the high life, things will be very different.

10. Keeping your old car can be a good carbon trade off. A new car has a footprint of between six tonnes (a small Citroen C1) and 35 tonnes ( a Landrover Discovery, say). Making cars for UK drivers has about half the footprint of the fuel they burn. So if your old car is safe and reliable, you mileage isn't too high and it's not a gas guzzling disaster, keeping it is probably the low carbon option. If you feel you need a new status symbol, spend any spare cash on solar panels or a wind turbine.

Mike Berners-Lee is the author of "How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Cost of Everything".

Source

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

'Eternal plane' returns to Earth

'Eternal plane' returns to Earth

Wing-to-tail guide to Zephyr, the 'eternal' plane

The UK-built Zephyr unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has confirmed its place in aviation history as the first "eternal plane".

The solar-powered craft completed two weeks of non-stop flight above a US Army range in Arizona before being commanded to make a landing.

The Qinetiq company which developed Zephyr said the UAV had nothing to prove by staying in the air any longer.

It had already smashed all endurance records for an unpiloted vehicle before it touched down at 1504 BST (0704 local/1404 GMT) on Friday.

"We are just really delighted with the performance," said project manager Jon Saltmarsh.

"It's the culmination of a lot of years of effort from a huge number of really talented scientists and engineers," he told BBC News.

Zephyr took off from the Yuma Proving Ground at 1440 BST (0640 local time) on Friday, 9 July.

After only 31 hours in the air, it had bettered the official world record for a long-duration flight by a drone; but then it kept on going, unencumbered by the need to take on the liquid fuel that sustains traditional aircraft.

The plane taking off - Footage courtesy of QinetiQ

Clear skies at 60,000ft delivered copious amounts of sunshine to its amorphous silicon solar arrays, charging its lithium-sulphur batteries and keeping its two propellers turning.

At night, Zephyr lost some altitude but the energy stored in the batteries was more than sufficient to maintain the plane in the air.

Zephyr is set to be credited with a new world endurance record (336 hours, 24 minutes) for an unmanned, un-refuelled aircraft - provided a representative of the world air sports federation, who was present at Yuma, is satisfied its rules have been followed properly.

Its fortnight in the sky easily beats the 30 hours, 24 minutes, set by Northrop Grumman's RQ-4A Global Hawk in 2001.

Zephyr has also exceeded the mark set for a manned, non-stop, un-refuelled flight, set in 1986 by Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager, who stayed aloft for nine days (216 hours), three minutes. Their flight in the Voyager craft went around the world.

Profile raising

Jon Saltmarsh said the UAV, which has a 22.5m wingspan, was no longer an experimental plane and was now ready to begin its operational life.

The fact that Zephyr completed its demonstration during the Farnborough International Airshow - which takes place on the doorstep of the Qinetiq company - will have done wonders for the craft's profile.

Solar-powered high-altitude long-endurance (Hale) UAVs are expected to have a wide range of applications.

The military will want to use them as reconnaissance and communications platforms. Civilian and scientific programmes will equip them with small payloads for Earth observation duties.

Their unique selling point is their persistence over a location. Low-Earth orbiting satellites come and go in a swift pass overhead, and the bigger drones now operated by the military still need to return to base at regular intervals for refuelling.

"Qinetiq is now looking to the Ministry of Defence and the DoD (US Department of Defense) to put a system into service," said Mr Saltmarsh.

"We have proved the concept; we have proved we can provide persistence; we have proved we can put useful payloads on to it that will actually do things the MoD has a requirement to do."

The Zephyr flight is the second event of note this year in solar-powered aviation. Earlier this month, Andre Borschberg became the first person to pilot a manned solar plane through the night.

Source