Leading UK companies have launched a report, The Oil Crunch: Securing the UK’s Energy Future, warning that cheap, easily available oil is likely to end by 2013, posing a grave risk to the UK and world economy.
The UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (ITPOES) includes Arup, FirstGroup, Foster + Partners, Scottish and Southern Energy, Solarcentury, Stagecoach Group, Virgin Group and Yahoo.
It sets out a series of practical recommendations for Government, including action to grasp the significant economic and environmental opportunities from a step-change in investment in renewable energy and sustainable transport. It dismisses nuclear power and carbon capture - at least in the short term - because of the urgency of the situation.
"We need technologies that can be mobilized very quickly, like many of the renewable and efficient-energy technologies," they conclude.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Australia is rubbing its hands due to nuclear new build
Uranium mining is expanding all over Australia. The Government is relishing the idea of making lots of money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted (but not yet proven).
Australian greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor Party won the last election. It's clear that the temptation to make money at the expense of the environment and traditional peoples under the pretense of it being 'low carbon' is too much for them.
In Western Australia BHP Billiton Ltd is to develop one of Australia's largest untapped uranium deposits, after the state government where the deposit is located lifted a ban on mining the nuclear power feedstock.
The 10-kilometre-long (6 miles) Yeelirrie deposit, located about 1,000 km north of Perth in west Australia, is estimated to contain about 52,000 tonnes of uranium.
Elsewhere in Australia and Canada uranium mining has been a disaster for indigenous peoples (as it is most everywhere in the world, ironically). Over half of the world’s uranium is in Australia and Canada.
“Fundamentally, they have allowed the area of pollution from the Beverly mine to be expanded quite significantly,” ground water specialist Dr Gavin Mudd told The Epoch Times. Dr Mudd, a lecturer in environmental engineering at Monash University, says he has looked at the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and it is not convincing.
“Until they have got that data on the public record that has been independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry I think they really have been given a blank cheque to leave groundwater in a much worse state than before.” (The Epoch Times Sep. 2, 2008)
Elsewhere in the Territory, on Oct. 31 BHP Billiton said it plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013. The first phase of expansion is to optimise the existing underground operation and increase its production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is an open pit.
In October the company signed an agreement to supply uranium oxide to an electric utility in China. They also signed "a safety accord." Here is a record of how safe it is:
Almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then a further nine leaks ranging from 50 litres to more than 6,000 have been reported on the South Australian Government's Primary Industries website. Spills of 1000+ litres:
* Apr. 22, 2006: spill of 14,400 litres of solution containing approx. 0.5% uranium
* Oct. 31, 2005: spill of 23,700 litres of mining solution, containing approx. 0.06% uranium
* Aug. 8, 2005: spill of 13,500 litres of extraction fluid containing approx. 0.01% uranium
* Mar. 7, 2005: spill of 50,000 - 60,000 litres of injection fluid
* Dec. 8, 2004: spill of approx. 2,300 litres of mining solution, containing 0.028% uranium
* June 13, 2002: spill of 1,750 litres of brine solution
* June 7, 2002: spill of 1,500 litres of injection fluid in the well field
* May 5, 2002: spill of 14,900 litres of water containing 0.0018% uranium (Australian May 7, 2002)
* May 1, 2002: spill of almost 7,000 litres of brine solution containing some uranium (ABC May 2, 2002)
* January 11, 2002: spill of 60,000 liters of groundwater containing acid and uranium, after pipe rupture (ABC, The Age, Jan. 12, 2002)
Plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station north of Tennant Creek, are being pushed forward with no regard for the indigenous Aborigines who own the land. The new, supposedly greener, Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver a Labor election promise to overturn the Howard Government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.
Senator Ludlam asked him on Tuesday at a senate hearing on the matter: "How can Martin Ferguson wash his hands of this issue and allow small Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory to cop this waste in a repeat of the worst nuclear colonialism of the past?"
Australian greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor Party won the last election. It's clear that the temptation to make money at the expense of the environment and traditional peoples under the pretense of it being 'low carbon' is too much for them.
Western Australia
In Western Australia BHP Billiton Ltd is to develop one of Australia's largest untapped uranium deposits, after the state government where the deposit is located lifted a ban on mining the nuclear power feedstock.
The 10-kilometre-long (6 miles) Yeelirrie deposit, located about 1,000 km north of Perth in west Australia, is estimated to contain about 52,000 tonnes of uranium.
Elsewhere in Australia and Canada uranium mining has been a disaster for indigenous peoples (as it is most everywhere in the world, ironically). Over half of the world’s uranium is in Australia and Canada.
South Australia
In South Australia, in August the Australian Government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a “blank cheque licence for pollution”.“Fundamentally, they have allowed the area of pollution from the Beverly mine to be expanded quite significantly,” ground water specialist Dr Gavin Mudd told The Epoch Times. Dr Mudd, a lecturer in environmental engineering at Monash University, says he has looked at the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and it is not convincing.
“Until they have got that data on the public record that has been independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry I think they really have been given a blank cheque to leave groundwater in a much worse state than before.” (The Epoch Times Sep. 2, 2008)
Elsewhere in the Territory, on Oct. 31 BHP Billiton said it plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013. The first phase of expansion is to optimise the existing underground operation and increase its production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is an open pit.
Northern Territory
At the Ranger mines (Northern Territory), on Nov. 17 Energy Resources of Australia, which is 68.4 per cent-owned by Rio Tinto, announced that it expects to find 30,000 to 40,000 t U3O8 in the Ranger 3 Deeps area east to the current Ranger 3 operating pit. ERA has performed extensive exploration in the area over the last two years.In October the company signed an agreement to supply uranium oxide to an electric utility in China. They also signed "a safety accord." Here is a record of how safe it is:
Almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then a further nine leaks ranging from 50 litres to more than 6,000 have been reported on the South Australian Government's Primary Industries website. Spills of 1000+ litres:
* Apr. 22, 2006: spill of 14,400 litres of solution containing approx. 0.5% uranium
* Oct. 31, 2005: spill of 23,700 litres of mining solution, containing approx. 0.06% uranium
* Aug. 8, 2005: spill of 13,500 litres of extraction fluid containing approx. 0.01% uranium
* Mar. 7, 2005: spill of 50,000 - 60,000 litres of injection fluid
* Dec. 8, 2004: spill of approx. 2,300 litres of mining solution, containing 0.028% uranium
* June 13, 2002: spill of 1,750 litres of brine solution
* June 7, 2002: spill of 1,500 litres of injection fluid in the well field
* May 5, 2002: spill of 14,900 litres of water containing 0.0018% uranium (Australian May 7, 2002)
* May 1, 2002: spill of almost 7,000 litres of brine solution containing some uranium (ABC May 2, 2002)
* January 11, 2002: spill of 60,000 liters of groundwater containing acid and uranium, after pipe rupture (ABC, The Age, Jan. 12, 2002)
Plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station north of Tennant Creek, are being pushed forward with no regard for the indigenous Aborigines who own the land. The new, supposedly greener, Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver a Labor election promise to overturn the Howard Government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.
Senator Ludlam asked him on Tuesday at a senate hearing on the matter: "How can Martin Ferguson wash his hands of this issue and allow small Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory to cop this waste in a repeat of the worst nuclear colonialism of the past?"
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Ramp it up - investment in low carbon technology
The last issue of the New Scientist contains a one page ad from the Carbon Trust offering £3m to £6m funding for partners in oil-from-algae technology.
The Low Carbon Kid wrote about this concept 17 months ago. He highlighted it because many of the problems present with the traditional oilseeds such as palm & soy, and with ethanol feedstock such as corn and molasses/sugarcane are not present with algae.
In a more recent blog he also suggested the government should take a stake in t he development of promising new low carbon technologies that could then be sold off to benefit the taxpayer when they reach maturity.
The Carbon Trust itself says algae-based biofuels could replace over 70 billion litres of fossil derived fuels used worldwide annually - a market value of over £15 billion.
So why is it being so modest?
We need urgent, fast action. It should invest hundreds of millions.
Instead of a third runway at Heathrow, more roads, or coal-burning power stations, low carbon technology needs to be developed and implemented on a huge scale asap.
Why? The observed impacts of climate change suggest that the climate is more sensitive than we had thought. We may already be past the atmospheric concentration which will ultimately deliver 2°C of temperature rise.
We are preparing for a medium-sized climate problem, based on out-of-date IPCC predictions. The 80% cut by 2050 that's now UK policy may not be enough because of the feedback loops triggered by sea-ice loss, albedo flip, a warmer Arctic, a disintegrating Greenland ice sheet, melting permafrost with huge methane emissions, with their concurrent massively increased greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated global warming.
In Parliament on 18th November (yesterday), in a debate on the Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, Government committed to obtain 14% of heating from renewable heat.
Great. This has been the subject of several previously unsuccessful bills. But progress is far too slow. We'll have to wait till next year, O'Brien (energy minister) said, before we know how they're going to achieve this target... which corresponds to 7% of overall energy use - with feed-in tariffs or an Obligation? And they haven't a clue yet how the feed-in tarriffs will work.
All too slow.
Part of the problem is the Treasury. Today it indicated that it would not ringfence the proceeds from the auctioning of carbon credits under the European Emissions Trading scheme to spend on low-carbon technology.
This is madness. The Treasury is always a brake on helping the environment. If the PM told it to reverse policy prioritise the health of our life-support system - the planet - we'd get where we need to be much faster.
The Low Carbon Kid wrote about this concept 17 months ago. He highlighted it because many of the problems present with the traditional oilseeds such as palm & soy, and with ethanol feedstock such as corn and molasses/sugarcane are not present with algae.
In a more recent blog he also suggested the government should take a stake in t he development of promising new low carbon technologies that could then be sold off to benefit the taxpayer when they reach maturity.
The Carbon Trust itself says algae-based biofuels could replace over 70 billion litres of fossil derived fuels used worldwide annually - a market value of over £15 billion.
So why is it being so modest?
We need urgent, fast action. It should invest hundreds of millions.
Instead of a third runway at Heathrow, more roads, or coal-burning power stations, low carbon technology needs to be developed and implemented on a huge scale asap.
Why? The observed impacts of climate change suggest that the climate is more sensitive than we had thought. We may already be past the atmospheric concentration which will ultimately deliver 2°C of temperature rise.
We are preparing for a medium-sized climate problem, based on out-of-date IPCC predictions. The 80% cut by 2050 that's now UK policy may not be enough because of the feedback loops triggered by sea-ice loss, albedo flip, a warmer Arctic, a disintegrating Greenland ice sheet, melting permafrost with huge methane emissions, with their concurrent massively increased greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated global warming.
In Parliament on 18th November (yesterday), in a debate on the Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, Government committed to obtain 14% of heating from renewable heat.
Great. This has been the subject of several previously unsuccessful bills. But progress is far too slow. We'll have to wait till next year, O'Brien (energy minister) said, before we know how they're going to achieve this target... which corresponds to 7% of overall energy use - with feed-in tariffs or an Obligation? And they haven't a clue yet how the feed-in tarriffs will work.
All too slow.
Part of the problem is the Treasury. Today it indicated that it would not ringfence the proceeds from the auctioning of carbon credits under the European Emissions Trading scheme to spend on low-carbon technology.
This is madness. The Treasury is always a brake on helping the environment. If the PM told it to reverse policy prioritise the health of our life-support system - the planet - we'd get where we need to be much faster.
Ramp it up - investment in low carbon technology
The last issue of the New Scientist contains a one page ad from the Carbon Trust offering £3m to £6m funding for partners in oil-from-algae technology.
The Low Carbon Kid wrote about this concept 17 months ago. He highlighted it because many of the problems present with the traditional oilseeds such as palm & soy, and with ethanol feedstock such as corn and molasses/sugarcane are not present with algae.
In a more recent blog he also suggested the government should take a stake in t he development of promising new low carbon technologies that could then be sold off to benefit the taxpayer when they reach maturity.
The Carbon Trust itself says algae-based biofuels could replace over 70 billion litres of fossil derived fuels used worldwide annually - a market value of over £15 billion.
So why is it being so modest?
We need urgent, fast action. It should invest hundreds of millions.
Instead of a third runway at Heathrow, more roads, or coal-burning power stations, low carbon technology needs to be developed and implemented on a huge scale asap.
Why? The observed impacts of climate change suggest that the climate is more sensitive than we had thought. We may already be past the atmospheric concentration which will ultimately deliver 2°C of temperature rise.
We are preparing for a medium-sized climate problem, based on out-of-date IPCC predictions. The 80% cut by 2050 that's now UK policy may not be enough because of the feedback loops triggered by sea-ice loss, albedo flip, a warmer Arctic, a disintegrating Greenland ice sheet, melting permafrost with huge methane emissions, with their concurrent massively increased greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated global warming.
In Parliament on 18th November (yesterday), in a debate on the Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, Government committed to obtain 14% of heating from renewable heat.
Great. This has been the subject of several previously unsuccessful bills. But progress is far too slow. We'll have to wait till next year, O'Brien (energy minister) said, before we know how they're going to achieve this target... which corresponds to 7% of overall energy use - with feed-in tariffs or an Obligation? And they haven't a clue yet how the feed-in tarriffs will work.
All too slow.
Part of the problem is the Treasury. Today it indicated that it would not ringfence the proceeds from the auctioning of carbon credits under the European Emissions Trading scheme to spend on low-carbon technology.
This is madness. The Treasury is always a brake on helping the environment. If the PM told it to reverse policy prioritise the health of our life-support system - the planet - we'd get where we need to be much faster.
The Low Carbon Kid wrote about this concept 17 months ago. He highlighted it because many of the problems present with the traditional oilseeds such as palm & soy, and with ethanol feedstock such as corn and molasses/sugarcane are not present with algae.
In a more recent blog he also suggested the government should take a stake in t he development of promising new low carbon technologies that could then be sold off to benefit the taxpayer when they reach maturity.
The Carbon Trust itself says algae-based biofuels could replace over 70 billion litres of fossil derived fuels used worldwide annually - a market value of over £15 billion.
So why is it being so modest?
We need urgent, fast action. It should invest hundreds of millions.
Instead of a third runway at Heathrow, more roads, or coal-burning power stations, low carbon technology needs to be developed and implemented on a huge scale asap.
Why? The observed impacts of climate change suggest that the climate is more sensitive than we had thought. We may already be past the atmospheric concentration which will ultimately deliver 2°C of temperature rise.
We are preparing for a medium-sized climate problem, based on out-of-date IPCC predictions. The 80% cut by 2050 that's now UK policy may not be enough because of the feedback loops triggered by sea-ice loss, albedo flip, a warmer Arctic, a disintegrating Greenland ice sheet, melting permafrost with huge methane emissions, with their concurrent massively increased greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated global warming.
In Parliament on 18th November (yesterday), in a debate on the Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, Government committed to obtain 14% of heating from renewable heat.
Great. This has been the subject of several previously unsuccessful bills. But progress is far too slow. We'll have to wait till next year, O'Brien (energy minister) said, before we know how they're going to achieve this target... which corresponds to 7% of overall energy use - with feed-in tariffs or an Obligation? And they haven't a clue yet how the feed-in tarriffs will work.
All too slow.
Part of the problem is the Treasury. Today it indicated that it would not ringfence the proceeds from the auctioning of carbon credits under the European Emissions Trading scheme to spend on low-carbon technology.
This is madness. The Treasury is always a brake on helping the environment. If the PM told it to reverse policy prioritise the health of our life-support system - the planet - we'd get where we need to be much faster.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Obama's challenge
It is a cause for great celebration that a black man has become the most powerful politician on the planet, and I was overjoyed when I watched the videos on the Guardian newspaper's website of black people voting and celebrating in the US, and Obama's Kenyan relatives watching the results.
I looked into Obama's sources of funding a while ago and while about half is individual donations, and a high proportion from silicon valley - Google, Myspace, Facebook, etc - the usual suspects from the oil industry and the car industry, media magnates and even the religious pressure groups always make sure they back both sides.
Recall the euphoria around the 1997 UK election result - let's not get our hopes up. If he is THAT progressive, be sure there will be forces to temper his radicalism.
The Low Carbon Kid will be pleased to see the US re-entering the post-Kyoto negotiations, and will watch to see if they adopt a cap-and-dividend policy and use the finance raised to pour billions into developing post-carbon energy industries. On this note, read today's blog from Peter Barnes - How Obama can revive the economy and heal the planet.
I looked into Obama's sources of funding a while ago and while about half is individual donations, and a high proportion from silicon valley - Google, Myspace, Facebook, etc - the usual suspects from the oil industry and the car industry, media magnates and even the religious pressure groups always make sure they back both sides.
Recall the euphoria around the 1997 UK election result - let's not get our hopes up. If he is THAT progressive, be sure there will be forces to temper his radicalism.
The Low Carbon Kid will be pleased to see the US re-entering the post-Kyoto negotiations, and will watch to see if they adopt a cap-and-dividend policy and use the finance raised to pour billions into developing post-carbon energy industries. On this note, read today's blog from Peter Barnes - How Obama can revive the economy and heal the planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)