Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

The mighty Brahmaputra courses southwest, then south, connecting Himalayan glaciers to the Andaman Sea.

The 1,500 megawatt Jhkari Hydroelectric Plant, India’s largest underground hydro-electric project; Satluj River, Himachal Pradesh (Photo: Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd, India)

The Indian economist Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is eager to provide electricity to every village by 2009, thereby surpassing the official target of “power to all by 2012.”

Over 40 percent of India’s population does not have access to electricity and providing electricity for 24 hours in rural areas is a major challenge. For this the Indian government has envisioned several paths for its energy requirements, from nuclear to renewable. Despite greening its energy requirements, the government has taken various paths from bidding foreign oil well through diplomatic manoeuvring to establishing fossil fuel thermal plants. Meanwhile, hydro-power is one of the energy sources which oscillate between aspiration and achievements. But today there is a strong push for large hydro projects in India. While the pro-hydro lobby is working towards meeting India’s full potential, the anti-hydro-power groups are targeting those projects which they believe are violating environmental and human rights norms. Despite growing number of oppositions to hydro-power, the Indian government is very optimistic to achieve its potential.

By end of August 2007, the total installed capacity in India is 135,402 megawatts (MW), out of which thermal occupies 86,976 MW (64.5 %), hydro 34,131 MW (24.8 %), nuclear 4,120 MW (3.1 %), and renewable 10,175 MW (7.6 %). Out of the total thermal mix, coal produces 71,932 MW (53.4 %), gas produces 13,842 MW (10.2 %) and oil produces a mere 1,202 MW (0.9 %). In comparison with other countries like Canada (17,179 kWh), USA (13,338 kWh), Australia (11,126 kWh), Japan (8,076 kWh), France (7,689 kWh), Germany (7,030 kWh), United Kingdom (6,206 kWh), Russia (5,642 kWh) and Italy (5,644 kWh), India’s per capita electricity consumption is very low at 631 kWh at present. The National Electricity Policy envisages that the per capita availability of electricity will be increased to over 1,000 kWh by 2012. To achieve this, the government is expecting a total capacity addition of about 78,577 MW at the end of 2012 of which 16,553 MW is expected from hydro, 58,644 MW from thermal and 3,380 MW from nuclear. Although India has significant potential for generation of power from non-conventional energy sources (183,000 MW) such as wind, small hydro, biomass and solar energy, the emphasis is still going to thermal energy sources. India has at present a 7.5% overall electrical energy shortage and 11% peaking shortage.

Options for Hydropower

In the 2005 National Electricity Policy the objectives have been set as follows: provision for access to electricity for all households; demand to be met by 2012 with no energy and peaking shortages and adequate reserves to be made available and reliable, and quality power supplies at reasonable rates.

The Indian government considers hydropower as a renewable economic, non-polluting and environmentally benign source of energy. The exploitable hydro-electric potential in terms of installed capacity is estimated to be about 148,700 MW (See Table 1) out of which a capacity of 30,164 MW (20.3%) has been developed so far and 13,616 MW (9.2 %) of capacity is under construction. In addition, 6,782 MW in terms of installed capacity from small, mini and micro hydro schemes have been assessed. Also, 56 sites for pumped storage schemes with an aggregate installed capacity of 94,000 MW have been identified. The government expects to harness its full potential of hydropower by 2027 with a whopping investment of 5,000 billion Rupees.

Table 1: INDIA’S HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL

India has the potential to nearly triple their hydroelectric output. Source: India Central Electricity Authority

Stages of Hydro Power Development

In 1887 at Darjeeling, state of West Bengal, the first hydropower station in India was commissioned. At the time of independence, out of total installed capacity of 1,362 MW, hydro-power generation capacity stood at 508 MW. The share of hydropower in the country had a major thrust after Independence, when it rose from 37% at the end of 1947 to its peak share of 51% at the end of 1962/63. While there has been a continuous increase in the installed capacity of hydro power stations in India, today the share of hydro power has been reduced to only 25% of total electric power generation. The government believes the strong public opposition to dams in India is the reason for slower progress.

In India, power is a concurrent subject and the primary responsibility as far as the consumer is concerned vests with the States who have full responsibility for distribution. During 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017), the Government has identified hydro-power benefits of 38,242 MW (See Table 2). During the same period the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., a government of India enterprise, is targeting to install 5,837 MW of hydropower in India. In the approach paper on power and energy to the 11th Five Year Plan-2007-2012, the government is anticipating in hydro capacity addition of 16,553 MW of which Central Sector will add 9,685 MW, State Sector 3,605 MW and Private Sector 3,263 MW. From 1,061 MW in 1st Five Year Plan (1951-1956), the hydro power has grown to 34,131 MW at the end of 10th Five Year Plan (See Table 3). In fact installed capacity of hydro has increased at a compound growth rate of 4.35% per annum since 1991, higher than all other power sub-sectors.

Table 2: INDIA’S IDENTIFIED HYDROPOWER PROJECTS, 2012-2017

Hydropower projects possible in 12th plan (2012-2017), listed by state, then by river. Source: India Central Electricity Authority

Table 3: INDIA’S HYDRO PROJECTS BY 5 YEAR PLAN

Plan-wise growth of installed capacity of hydropower. Source: India Central Electricity Authority

The Union Ministry of Power has taken several policy measures to accelerate capacity addition from hydro-electric projects. These include: higher budgetary allocation for the hydro sector; investment approval of new projects; identification of new projects, promoting State Sector projects which were languishing or could not progress due to Inter-State disputes; improving tariff dispensation for hydro projects; simplification of procedure for transfer of clearance; levy of 5% development surcharge to supplement resources for hydro electric projects. While the Power Ministry is responsible for the development of large hydro power projects in India, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has been responsible for small and mini hydro projects up to 3MW station capacity since 1989.

Private Sector Participation:

With the economic liberalisation, the Indian government also opened up the doors in 1991 to private companies for the setting up of private hydropower projects. However, so far only about 910 MW has been commissioned by the help of private players, which constitutes less than 3 percent of the total installed hydropower capacity. The present major private developers are Malana Power Company Ltd., the Jaypee Group and S. Kumar Group. Seeing the vast potential present in the hydro power generation, Jaypee ventured into private power generation on a “Build, Own, Operate” (BOO) basis. So far Jaypee has the distinction of participating in 54% of new hydropower projects under India’s Tenth Five Year Plan.

Small Hydro-Power: A Viable Option

Small 100 KW hydro power project in Himachal Pradesh (Photo: MNES)

Small and mini hydel projects have the potential to provide energy in remote and hilly areas where extension of an electrical transmission grid system is uneconomical. Realising this fact, the Indian government is encouraging development of small hydro power (SHP) projects in the country. Since 1994 the role of private sector for setting up of commercial SHP projects has been encouraged. So far 14 States in India have announced policies for setting up commercial SHP projects through private sector participation. Over 760 sites of about 2,000 MW capacity have already been offered / allotted.

An estimated potential of about 15,000 MW of small hydropower (SHP) projects exists in India. 4,233 potential sites with an aggregate capacity of 10,071 MW for projects up to 25 MW capacities have been identified (See Table-4). In the last 10-12 years, the capacity of Small hydro projects up to 3MW has increased 4 fold from 63 MW to 240 MW. 420 small hydropower projects up to 25MW station capacity with an aggregate capacity of over 1,423 MW have been set up in the country and over 187 projects in this range with aggregate capacity of 521 MW are under construction.

The MNES provides various incentives like soft loans for setting up of SHP projects up to 25 MW capacity in the commercial sector, renovation and modernization of SHP projects, setting up of portable micro hydel sets, development / upgradation of water mills, detailed survey and investigation, detailed project report preparation, interest subsidy for commercial projects, capital subsidy for SHP projects in the North-Eastern region, and implementation of UNDP/GEF Hilly Hydro project. India has a reasonably well-established manufacturing base for the full range and type of small hydro equipment. There are currently eight manufacturers within India in the field of small hydro manufacturing, supplying various types of turbines, generators, control equipment, etc.

Table 4: INDIA’S SMALL HYDRO POTENTIAL

Sites capable of up to 25 MW capacity, another 5,000 MW is believed to be possible. (Photo: MNES)

The Role of International Agencies on Hydro-Power

Major hydro-power structures are being funded by international financial institutions like World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Export Credit Agency, and bilateral agencies like Japan Bank for International Cooperation(JBIC), and the French Government, Canada, UK, Sweden, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and the US in India. Since 1956 the World Bank has been involved in the hydro-power development in India. The Bank is looking to support India’s hydro development program (www.worldbank.org.in/hydropower) through financial assistance for up to about 1,500 MW of hydropower capacity over the next three to five years. Besides the 412 MW Rampur Hydroelectric Project approved by the Bank’s Board in early September 2007 (www.worldbank.org.in), the Bank also received a request to finance the proposed 444 MW Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydropower Project (www.worldbank.org.in/vishnugard-pipalkoti) being developed by the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation on the Alaknanda River in the state of Uttranchal. The Bank would also like to assist in the 700 MW Luhri hydro power project in Himachal Pradesh.

Similarly, the Asian Development Bank has begun its engagement in producing hydro-power in Uttranchal in India with 4 SHPs (4-10 MW). However, the Manila based-regional development bank believes that India’s vast hydropower potential can contribute to the country’s energy security in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner. The latest report of ADB (Hydropower Development in India, 2007) provides an assessment of the hydropower development potential in India and highlights how hydropower can meet the country’s goal of providing power for all by 2012. In all probability, the World Bank would like to assist in construction of hydropower structures; the ADB will lay the transmission lines from the projects to the grid.

As major rivers transcend international boundaries in South Asia, India has taken up regional (mostly bilateral) cooperation on harnessing the hydro-power potential of international river systems. At present, India has cooperation with Bhutan, Nepal and Myanmar on hydro-power.

Challenges and Constraints

The hydro-power in India has always caught the imagination of people’s struggle, displacement, and submergence of large virgin forest tracts and now, the instrument of greenhouse gas emissions. The large hydropower infrastructures usually categorise with adjectives such as “temples of modern India” or “monument to corruptions” or “weapons of mass destruction” and so on. Can these perceptions be changed on the issue of large hydro-power dams?

From a hydro-engineering point of view, the immense potential of hydropower in India is yet to be harnessed. For an engineer, it’s mandatory to build a dam for producing electricity. One of my hydro-engineer colleagues in India’s government argues, “the hydro power is the best option in the Indian context considering the large volume of water going to waste. Besides, hydro-power is better than thermal power as the former is cheaper, can be generated and utilised as per the need without any overhead costs for idle runs.” “Also the thermal units take a longer time to be restarted,” adds the Engineer who is preparing mega hydro-power projects in Orissa. The Engineer tries to convince me that “there are no flaws in hydro power except building a reservoir, and sometimes commissioning of the projects takes more time. The government’s last resort is run of the river (RoR) projects which are the small ones with less producing capacity. This is explored when one does not have the other option.”

For anti-dam activists hydro-power is just an option, not mandatory. They view any estimate on hydropower – the very fact of putting a number with an electricity unit – as flawed and fraudulent. From this perspective, water-the-resource, has other utilities and needs more significant than than generating electricity. Anti-dam activists point out the centralized character of large hydro power projects, with high costs, potential under performance, violations and inequity as the basic flaws.

Hydropower provides one of the strongest examples of the close link between water and energy. Because of its link with large dam projects, which are often environmentally and socially harmful, hydropower has been the focus of heated debate for the last two decades in India. The main negative impacts of dams include displacement of local populations and degradation of ecosystems, adverse down-stream effects on rivers and threatening livelihoods of large numbers of people. Hydro-power has been contested by all except government officials for its efficiency or being green. It’s true that there is little attempt for credible assessment of performance of large hydro. Of late, the large hydro projects have been presented by neo-anti-dam experts as instruments of emission of greenhouse gases more than remedies of climate change because the large dams are the public image of environmental and social degradation in the developing world. The IPCC recognized in its 2006 guidelines on greenhouse gas inventories that reservoirs are a source of emissions, but more research is needed to be able to accurately quantify the extent of these emissions, especially of methane. So whether hydropower is green and renewable or not is gaining more heated discourse than its centralised character of production, distribution and management.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Power is taking notes of the long gestation period from preparation to implementation of the project which is actually hampering the capacity addition. The other weaknesses are duration of preparing a project report, taking an investment decision, acquiring land, getting environment clearance, placing orders for execution of the project. Also there is a great imbalance in capacity addition among the States. However, the major problem is the opposition to hydro power projects all over India.

Should India Achieve its Hydro-Power Potential?

Sidrapong, a small 130 KW Hydro Power Station in West Bengal; a heritage of Hydro power in India. (Photo: MNES)

The trust in government and its bureaucracy has been eroding in India thereby leaving more avenues for contested domains. It has been very difficult transforming the government intentions to produce electricity from the large water infrastructures after the Sardar Sorvar Project debacle in the early 1990′s. The small hydro projects are being cautiously implemented by the governments. However in some cases the adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts of large dams can be mitigated through informed decision-making, transparency and engagement of all stakeholders. In all probability, the advantages and disadvantages of hydro-power structures, large or small, have to be discussed with people transparently.

The present social and environmental assessments of the hydro projects are flawed from many angles which triggers real and imaginary conflicts of interest. To settle the People’s concern, after two years of debate the Indian Cabinet has recently passed the National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2007. In particular, there has to be clear recognition in all decision making related to dams that a balance needs to found between the needs for use of renewable energy, and the minimization of possible harmful effects on the environment – especially mountain environments where most of the hydro-potential resides. Mountain regions have particular potential for use and production of renewable energy, not only hydro, but also biomass, solar, geothermal or wind; clearly, the adverse environmental effects on fragile mountain ecosystems need to be carefully assessed and prevented before developments take place. Also, possible social issues between upstream (often poor mountain communities) and downstream communities (often the main beneficiaries of energy production) need to be addressed.

About the Author: Avilash Roul has been writing, advocating, researching, creating knowledge on Environment and Development in various English Daily media since 2000. He worked with Down To Earth (fortnightly magazine published in New Delhi, India) for the last three years. He also contributed regularly in Sundays for a column in New India Express on environment and development. More recently, Mr. Roul worked as an Assistant South Asia Regional Coordinator for the Bank Information Center (www.bicusa.org), an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization that advocates for the protection of rights, participation, transparency, and public accountability in the governance and operations of the World Bank, regional development banks, and the International Monetary Fund.

Earlier this month we reported on the Aptera Typ-1, a futuristic, aerodynamic, three-wheel electric car being developed by a company in Southern California who – if they aren’t in stealth – may as well be. But then again, who cares? Anybody who brings a car like this to market anytime in the next few years is going to sell them as fast as they can make them, regardless of whether or not they have a publicity machine.

The Aptera Typ-1, with a drag coefficient of .11, may be the first series hybrid in the world to go into full production.

Today we had the privilege to talk with Steve Fambro, Founder and CEO of Aptera, and we came away with some fascinating additional details about this truly revolutionary automotive innovation.

First of all, unlike what we inferred from reading Aptera’s website, the Typ-1 does not have a classic hybrid drivetrain, rather they have a series hybrid drivetrain, akin to GM’s concept cars, the “Volt” and its European counterpart, the diesel “Flextreme.” That is, the onboard gasoline engine is not connected to the drivetrain at all, it only turns a generator (at an optimum RPM) to power the electric motor which exclusively turns the wheels. To-date, only GM, Volvo, and Aptera have announced series hybrids, which we consider to be a long-overdue breakthrough in automotive engineering.

It doesn’t even begin to end there. The Aptera, using space-age composite materials, will be, by far, the most aerodynamic vehicle ever built, with a drag coefficient of .11. As Fambro put it, “why use extra oil just to push air out of the way?” The result is not only aerodynamic, but extremely stylish. People will buy this car for its extraordinary gas mileage, but they will also buy it because it looks really, really cool.

Here are some facts we were able to discern about Aptera’s Typ-1 and where they are on their path to offering production models to the public:

Aptera plans on offering an all-electric car, as well as a series hybrid car. An all-electric prototype is already in road testing, with the series hybrid prototype scheduled to be in road testing within a month. These are not the first prototypes, either, these are pre-production models with everything in place – down to the airbags, the space-age climate control system, and all drive-train elements.

Five additional pre-production prototypes are under construction; two for demonstrations and showcases, and three for more extensive road testing. For traction, the cars use a 19 kilowatt 3 phase AC electric motor that was custom manufactured for Aptera by a Southern California company. For the series hybrid, the onboard 16 horsepower gasoline motor and 12 kilowatt generator will work in tandem with a battery pack. The gas tank will hold up to five gallons; they haven’t made a final decision on its capacity. Fambro disclosed the series hybrid, on a dead battery running on gasoline only – would deliver 130 miles per gallon. For the all-electric version, the battery pack is planned to store 15 kilowatt-hours.

Fambro stated Aptera would like to have a variety of battery suppliers, that they want to treat their battery packs as commodities. He said they’ve tested an assortment of battery technologies, including nickel zinc, lithium ion, “lithiated” (less combustible) batteries, and even lead acid.

A key point Fambro wanted to emphasize is the extraordinary safety they’ve designed into the car via the steel crash cage frame combined with the sandwich composites, along with the crumple zones designed to absorb impact in ways that protect the occupants. He said they had just successfully completed 45 mph frontal offset collision simulations that demonstrated effective containment of the battery box. As he put it, there is “quite a bit of safety designed into the vehicle,” and they are making extensive use of state of the art crash simulation tools prior to beginning actual crash tests.

When we asked Fambro who the investors were he would only disclose that IdeaLab was the original investor, and that Esenjay Petroleum CEO Michael Johnson, based in Texas, has made a 2nd round investment. At this time these two entities are the only significant outside shareholders in Aptera, although Fambro acknowledged the company would secure additional financing prior to beginning full scale manufacturing.

And when will that be? It turns out Aptera may not only deliver the first truly next generation car in terms of aerodynamics, but also the first series hybrid, because they are on track to begin selling these cars in October 2008. Fambro said they intend to begin by producing 3-4 cars per day, and that by month 12 (October 2009) they intend to be producing 40 cars per day. And where? Right there in sunny Carlsbad, in Southern California.

The tiny nation of Luxembourg is home to a company, Epuramat, with a very big idea – they have a technology that promises to revolutionize wastewater treatment. This is a big deal – in the United States, for example, over 60 cubic kilometers per year of wastewater are processed, and less than 5% of this wastewater is reused, mostly for irrigation. By greatly reducing the cost of wastewater treatment, more water can be recycled, not only for irrigation, but even for drinking water.

Epuramat’s ‘ExSep’ (Extreme Separation) unit replaces primary and most of the secondary wastewater treatments in one small unit.

Epuramat’s technology replaces the first stage of conventional water treatment, where all sediment, solids and sludge are removed. The technology works so well, it also greatly reduces the cost of secondary treatment, because so much of the sediment is removed in the first stage, the membranes used for second stage filtration require far less maintenance and replacement.

The initial removal of sediment and sludge is the most expensive and space-intensive element of the water treatment process, requiring huge sedimentation basins. These are replaced by what Epuramat calls the “ExSep,” short for “extreme separator.” As their website states, “the ExSep solid/fluid separator is the core of the process and replaces the grit chamber and primary sedimentation basin of conventional plants.”

When I asked Herman Blanke, a Los Angeles based greentech entrepreneur who represents Epuramat in the United States if this was a breakthrough, he didn’t hesitate. “Yes,” Blanke said, “this is a unique technical breakthrough; there isn’t anything like it.”

Trying to understand a bit more about what happens inside the “ExSep” was not very productive. The explanation on their website reads as follows: “The ExSep accelerates the extraction process by taking advantage of the inertia of solid materials in a hydraulic re-directioning process.” When I asked Blanke to elaborate he said that was pretty much all the company has disclosed so far about their proprietary technology.

While the technology may be a secret, Epuramat has been demonstrating their technology extensively. They have a mobile wastewater treatment plant that fits onto a 2×5 meter trailer and “achieves a cleaning capacity of 500-1,000 population equivalents.” This is about 10 cubic meters of treated water per hour – a volume that a plant using conventional treatment methods would require about 50 times as much area to achieve. Epuramat also has already installed their ExSep systems in select industrial and municipal sites in Europe.

Therefore it is not only the potentially dramatic savings in installation and operating costs that make Epuramat’s innovation very interesting, but also the dramatically lower footprint of their system, which replaces the most space intensive elements of conventional treatment plants.

Epuramat clearly has something which when proven and available will be of interest not only to commercial and public entities with water treatment needs, but also for those working at the scale of large buildings. The idea that a water treatment plant can be miniaturized to allow water reuse within a single structure is unprecedented. Epuramat is offering turn-key water treatment solutions that are scalable, where their ExSep primary/secondary treatment is coupled with tertiary treatments to allow complete recycling of wastewater.

Is Nuclear Power good for France? List of French Nuclear Installations

(original post and ongoing comments)

The beautiful nation of France. CIA World Factbook – France

—–Original Message—–

From: Therese Delfel

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:56 PM

To: Ed Ring

Subject: Nuclear Programs

Dear Ed Ring

Thank you for your reply which shows you care about your readers’ views.

Ecology can be defined via very simple,
“hands-on” questions:

1. Is the process taken from A to Z to assess what impact it leaves on the Planet?

2. Is the process at all necessary / acceptable / economically viable?

3. Is the process placed in perspective, i.e. after-effects over years or centuries taken into account?

In all three questions, nuclear energy falls short of providing any satisfying answer. All figures and examples to follow are for France but the dynamics are very much the same in all developed and developing countries.

From A to Z, Nuclear Power’s impact, economic viability and after-effects:

- Uranium is NOT a renewable source of energy unless it is enriched, and then only partly renewable and then it is a … WAR product.

- Uranium does NOT guarantee economic independance: France imports all of its uranium.

- The transportation is NOT safe and nor are the plants no matter how modern and upgraded they are. And what technology could safeguard them against earth quakes or terrorist attacks?

- If the cost of implementing and dismantling the plants is taken into account (at present financed by tax-payers), nuclear energy is the MOST EXPENSIVE energy and absolutely not competitive against market prices.

- It generates a traffic and transportation unacceptable in terms of safety and ethics (hundreds of lorries crisscross France every day with their loads of nuclear fuel and waste). Like your children to be on their routes?

- 20% of total energy production is sold to neighbouring countries and 30% of total energy consumption could be… saved in an energy-saving program! Which means that already now, the 80% nuclear part could be reduced to less than 30% in grand total production.

- Testing in the Pacific was more than “a mistake”: it was criminal BUT every single country that operates nuclear plants HAS TESTED its bombs (be it in deserts or in oceans).

- There is NO “safe storing” in caves: it will leave 24 generations with our poisoned heritage, i.e. where we found breathtakingly beautiful tombs, precious stones and ores, they’ll find neatly layered waste in landfills and deadly nuclear waste that will kill for … 2,000 years! Would that be the definition of safety and the ethics of ecology?

- Ethically acceptable is when we know how to responsibly handle what we produce (and not hope others will learn at their own expense): would you give your baby a sharp knife in the knowledge that some day it will know how to use it? (this point is true for genetically engineered crops by the way).

- “We” is a commodity all too easily used these days: where “I” make mistakes (or worse), “others” should sort them out as “we” are all part of the big human family? What sort of “evolution” is that? This present generation is responsible for what it itself produces, consumes and destroys (even though everything is more subtle and intricate, the basics remain the same).

But my actual question is: why do you present nuclear generated cars as the alternative to biofuels ? There is NO link! (and the rush for biofuels is solely dictated by profit making, nothing to do with ecology at all… though the original idea may have been along the right line). We have reached a point where the question is not where to find more (of whatever, be it petrol, water, or anything else) but how to consume less!

Where is France bound? Will the earliest, biggest adopter of nuclear power determine it was folly? Are better sources of energy ready to replace nuclear power?

The technology for solar powered vehicles is as (if not more) advanced as so called biofuels (that I just as strongly oppose both because of rainforest destruction and because of impoverishment of local ethnicities AND promotion of GE crops).

Car sharing, public transportation and energy saving programmes are THE future of our planet (if there is one! For instance, who could pretend he cares about the environment when he sits all by himself in a powerful car and blows into the atmosphere the worth of hundreds of gallons of petrol over and over again? Figures in France show that the traffic would be cut down to one third of its present state if cars were shared and efficient public transportation systems implemented, i.e. no new destructive road networks, one third exhaust fumes and noise left, two thirds of petrol consumption redundant, etc.

Another example: passive houses (gradually implemented especially in Germany and Northern countries) consume zero energy (neither nuclear nor coal !) and even produce some that can be stored (or sold but not for profit).

To sum up my position: I just as strongly oppose biofuels as nuclear energy (for whatever purpose) AND genetically engineered crops for that matter, I actively support rainforest and biodiversity protection as well as fair exchanges with local ethnicities (see WildAid’s “Surviving Together” program, the Wildlife Alliance actions, etc.), I am a tireless advocate of solar energy (in every single possible context and country), of efficient energy-saving and car-sharing programs, of the building of “passive houses” and honestly, I have little hope that the governments, industrial barons and financial tycoons will ever care about the Planet if they don’t make a profit out of it but I do find it really difficult to cope with people who advocate greenwashed ecology.
And I do think that Dr Ed Wheeler’s article presents a dangerous and false view on Ecoworld’s website and that it should at the very least be counterbalanced by facts that prove his view mere greenwashing (and I am sorry but I cannot accept that Ecoworld should, implicitely or explicitely, endorse it. Even though I accept your apologies in his stead, you do advocate nuclear energy yourself!

So all in all and though I respect everyone’s opinions, I strongly believe that the only actual human evolution ever will be for everyone to assume their opinions in their full implications and effects and I’m not sure whether such articles as Dr Wheeler’s contribute to the spreading of more responsible ecology or rather to an urge for greenwashed consumption (that gives an easy “good conscience”)… and THAT is a heavy responsiblity in itself.

Best regards

Therese Delfel

May I add and insist that France is but one country, absolutely similar in its destrutive ways to all the developed and developing countries, better in some ways, worse in others but definitely in the same boat, so best not to take other countries as examples for making things worse or the worst.

When one thinks about what is at stake, one would think the media would be very careful about the facts when reporting on global warming. One would think if important new findings arose to contradict previously relied upon information concerning global warming, the media would report this as big news. One would be wrong.

VENUS – EARTH’S HOT TWIN

What if the Earth became like Venus, totally overheated and unlivable because we burned living rainforests instead of fossils while going solar? (Photo: NASA)

The price we’re paying for this one-sided, biased reporting on global warming is not trivial.

We are all grateful for environmentalist accomplishments, and there is still much work to be done, but even before global warming alarm became front page news, in many areas the environmentalist lobby had already become extreme.

For example, we now have “smart growth principles,” a well-meaning but grossly overreaching ideology disguised as enlighted public policy and accepted by too many media and politicians as fact.

Thanks to “smart growth,” in spite of being relatively underpopulated, in California it has long been virtually impossible for anyone to build affordable low density housing or lay new freeways.

Now global warming alarm is the nudge that is taking an already overreaching environmentalism even further, with new curtailments to our economic freedoms being proposed and adopted by our politicians, and the mainstream media is behind it all the way.

In an increasing number of counties in California, for example, we are now turning over 2% of every home sale transaction to environmental nonprofits – something politicians have been agreeing to thanks to the momentum environmental lobbyists have acquired from global warming hysteria. Shouldn’t such a huge new mandated transfer of wealth from home buyers into the hands of ideologically driven nonprofit corporations who hire attorneys to block development in exchange for financial concessions make news? How many readers knew of this?

Here’s another one: California is now requiring builders to include an analysis of the “global warming impact” in their environmental impact reports. Neither of these practices existed a year ago.

And much of the basis for global warming alarm is distorted, selectively presented statistics, if not absolute fabrication. Here’s something we dug up recently, reported by Michelle Malkin in her report “Hot News, NASA Quietly Fixes Temperature Data” and posted last August:

“Steve McIntyre, who operates the site Climate Audit, while inspecting historical temperature graphs from NASA, noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000. The graphs were provided by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McIntyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data. McIntyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh. NASA has now silently released corrected figures…”

What Malkin went on to report, along with a handful of other websites, but totally ignored by the mainstream press virtually everywhere on earth, is that 1998 was not the “warmest year on record,” it was 1934. We now know that five of the ten warmest years on record were before WWII – according to newly corrected and rereleased figures from NASA.

This is huge. It was probably hotter in the 1930s than it is today. Everywhere you go you hear the same refrain – “hottest years on record.” And this assertion is not backed up by facts – according to NASA. If you really want to dig into this, read a follow up written by McIntyre on August 20th “Hansen & the Destruction of Creation.” It is a frightening expose of how biased and ideological many members of the scientific community have become. Meanwhile massive rainforest destruction for biofuel crops is causing droughts and extreme weather, to earn carbon offset funded subsidies.

But what about the recent record icecap melt, or the accelerated melting observed last month in Greenland, you may ask? That’s certainly been in the news. Well we just completed an interview with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., one of the most eminent atmospheric scientists in the world, and an expert on climate change, and we asked him about this. Here is what he said:

“These are examples of selecting observations to promote the view that the human input of carbon dioxide is dominating climate change. The actual observations across the globe present a much more complex picture than represented by these two examples. Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum in 2007, and the globally averaged lower atmosphere has not warmed in the last 9 years. There are regions in the world where glaciers are advancing, such as New Zealand, parts of the Himalayas and in Norway. However, this information has been almost completely ignored by policymakers and the media.”

Perhaps many people simply want to believe in fossil fueled global warming because it dovetails nicely with their other biases. Maybe they don’t like Republicans, but that won’t last, because Republicans are outdoing Democrats when it comes to knee-jerk global warming inspired expansions of government power. Or maybe they don’t like oil companies and automakers. And some of them go further – such as many of the public school teachers who we trust with our children’s educations – and profess that corporations and profit incentives are to blame for the ills in society, and they want government to take over huge sectors of our economy.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not we should ban CO2. And when scientists replace their scientific skepticism with ideologically driven advocacy, as is happening far too much these days with respect to global warming, the ingrained skepticism of the media must rescue us. That the media would ignore NASA’s fundamental revision of the temperature records that form one of the main pillars of global warming concerns is unconscionable, to put it mildly.

Show me one head of state in the world, besides Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who is willing to stand up to the anti-CO2 juggernaut? We’ve reported on President Klaus before, in our post “Vaclav Klaus, Skeptic,” and he’s in the news again.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus “The climate change debate is not about science, it’s about ideology.”

Klaus addressed the UN Climate Change Conference on 9-24-97, then four days later he gave a follow up speech in Salt Lake City, Utah. He is the only politician on the international stage who is correctly identifying what is really at stake in the debate on global warming, saying: “I don’t talk about climatology but about environmentalism, about an ideology which puts nature and environment and their supposed protection and preservation before and above freedom.”

Klaus understands what is at stake is our political and economic system and our way of life. Having lived through the communist occupation of (then) Czechoslovakia, he can smell the coffee. As he says, “our communist experience made us sensitive to all kinds, forms, manifestations and aspects of the suppression of freedom and democracy in the name of allegedly ‘higher’ goals.”

Most people still don’t realize the political choices we are making in the name of environmentalism, nor that it is possible to pursue environmentalist values without yielding to what Klaus refers to as “soft socialism.” As we wrote in our post “John Stossel & Global Warming” a few months ago: “There is an ideological struggle for the soul of environmentalism that anti-environmentalists don’t care about, and environmentalists barely grasp. There are two ways to address environmental challenges and they should be complimentary approaches. One approach centers on reducing consumption, improving efficient use of energy and water, conserving open space. This approach dominates environmental thinking today. But the other approach is vital – and that approach centers on increasing the production of clean energy and water, and developing land to accomplish these goals.”

We have advocated free market solutions to environmental challenges for years.

Recent Posts Include:

• Supply Side Environmentalism
• Redefining Environmentalism
• Radical Environmentalism
• New Environmentalism.

In all of these we try to expose the risks of blindly acceding to rationing, restrictions, erosion of property rights, ordinances, taxes, internationalism – all in the name of preventing an alleged catastrophe. Global warming alarm is being used in my own state, California, to drive housing prices into the stratosphere, and turn our cities and suburbs via “infill” into hellacious ultra-high density housing compounds. It is a blatant attack on everything America supposedly stands for, and the extra political nudge these leftists need to sell this tyranny is coming from global warming hysteria.

Read: California’s Land Use Choices or Lower Density, Please?

Like Klaus, we don’t believe runaway global warming is imminent, and even if it is, we don’t think CO2 from industry is the primary cause. Read our posts in EcoWorld’s “Global Warming” category.

Here’s more from President Klaus: “The problem is that we are confronted with many prejudices, misunderstandings and now already also vested insterests. As I said, the climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism.” His point about vested interests is not emphasized, but think about what he means. Basically no influential interests remain who disagree with the anti-CO2 crowd – yet this “consensus” is exclusively among elites with various ulterior motives; they will prosper from the new taxes, or subsidies, or they will misanthropically revel in the draconian enforcement of socialist ideologies. Ordinary people and small businesses lose – i.e., 90%+ of the people in the world.

Read: Big Oil & Global Warming and Emission Trading Tyranny

And here’s the solution to restoring balance to the global warming debate, intemperately proposed by Klaus to the United Nations Climate Change Conference just two weeks ago:

1. The UN should organize two parallel IPCCs and publish two competing reports. To get rid of the one-sided monopoly is a sine qua non for an efficient and rational debate. Providing the same or comparable financial backing to both groups of scientists is a necessary starting point.

2. The countries should listen to one another, learn from mistakes and successes of others, but any country should be left alone to prepare its own plan to tackle this problem and decide what priority to assign to it among its other competing goals.

We should trust in the rationality of man and in the outcome of spontaneous evolution of human society, not in the virtues of political activism. Therefore, let’s vote for adaptation, not for the attempts to mastermind the global climate.

Bravo.

We have posted features on nuclear power – reader comments aren’t yet possible on our features – and we’ve received several emails reacting to these stories. Two of these features were “Nuclear Power – Cleanest & Coolest Choice?” and “India’s Nuclear Power.” Here is an email just received from a reader in France:

Three Mile Island (photo: EPA) Table of World’s Nuclear Reactors List of “Nuclear Club” Nations

“Dear Editor: To me it is amazing somebody promoting an “EcoWorld” should have the gall to pretend “the US desperately needs to become more like France” meaning they should produce more nuclear electricity as this (but maybe you don’t know it) bypasses two major issues :

1. France as only a tiny country on a world map, is the third producer in the whole world of death weapons, of which nuclear weapons represent a rising percentage, nuclear weapons produced from the enriched uranium and plutonium produced by France’s oh so wonderful and civil nuclear power plants!!! (not even to mention the dictatorial system which keeps all nuclear related information top secret under defense policy, just to show how very harmless and civil it is!!!)

2. Not a single person, be they laymen or specialists, have a clue as yet of how to manage the waste generated by the numerous nuclear plants in France of which many are already obsolete and therefore even more dangerous (aside from the risks linked to accidents, earthquakes and terrorist attacks) and not a single politician has the faintest idea where they’ll find the money for the horrendously high cost of dismantling the old, i.e. obsolete plants.

I take it that you have the solution so would you please make it available to French Government Officials? This will allow many French citizens to, at last, feel safe and thrilled about their nuclear program!

Maybe someone editing for Ecoworld should at least go to the trouble of finding out what ecology is about! If you truly and sincerely believe that consuming more and more, jumping at every new fad, presenting cursory and fallacious solutions to the world energy problem is it, then we can all rest assured: the Planet Earth IS already lost. ”

And here is our response:

“First of all, I probably will not change your mind. You have the tone of someone who passionately believes their position. Second, I didn’t say “the US desperately needs to become more like France,” referring to nuclear power. One of our contributing writers, Dr. Ed Wheeler wrote that. Sometimes Dr. Wheeler can be a bit sure of himself. My apologies for that. We encourage all credible viewpoints, and Dr. Wheeler’s arguments are well reasoned.

In any event, I totally agree with your comments regarding the French nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. Thankfully they are no longer blowing up the Moorea atoll. That was a terrible mistake.

Where we disagree, I regret, is regarding the overall future of nuclear power. I do think there are safer technologies available now, and I think the new upgraded plants can be built on the same sites as the old plants. I think the waste can be safely stored in caves. In the US we have constructed the Yucca Mountain complex, and I think it is plenty safe in there. Please bear in mind in the years to come we’ll learn all kinds of even better ways to process waste, and if there are problems, we can go in and clean it up.

Before you are so certain nuclear is the worst energy choice possible, consider what we have done to the rainforests to grow biofuel. This is well documented, and it is an utter catastrophe. The loss of what is now 60% of our planet’s tropical forests may be a bigger factor in climate change than CO2. I would rather have nuclear power than biofuel from rainforests.

Please accept this one statement: I am very concerned about the environment of our planet. I just don’t automatically believe everything I’m told. I do my own research. You know, in one way, we might be experiencing very similar emotions. You are upset, probably, because the concern about global warming is leading people – thoughtlessly you may feel – to take another look at nuclear power. I am upset because the concern about global warming has overridden concern for the rainforests – in the name of biofuel.

Thank you for your email. I respect your opinions.”

This is incredible. How could I have been in the dark for so long? This is definitely love at first sight. Introducing the Aptera “Typ-1,” which has quietly taken shape in, once again, you guessed it, sunny California!

Up until late 2005, physicist Steve Fambro was working full time as an electrical engineer for a San Diego biotech company, but meanwhile in his garage a prototype was taking shape. Apparently Fambro, who has been an accomplished auto mechanic most of his life, couldn’t find a “kit car” that was sufficiently smart, clean and green. So he decided to build his own. And now, barely two years after quitting his job to work on his vision full time, the Aptera has been launched.

The Aptera “Typ-1″ Prototype.

If this isn’t the most beautiful example of next generation aerodynamics ever seen on a vehicle, show me something better. The car looks like a porpoise with two front wheels. It looks like a spaceship. It looks like a road grabbing futuristic racer in some science fiction movie. It has a drag coeficient of .11 – compare that to .26 for the Toyota Prius, one of the most aerodynamically advanced production cars ever built.

Everything about this car is smart. It has an always-on climate control system, super efficient and powered by solar energy. It has advanced sandwich composite materials in the body and an aluminum and steel frame and crash cage to make this one of the safest vehicles on the road. It only weighs 850 pounds, seats two, has an electronically-limited top speed of 95 mph, and can get 230 mpg.

The Aptera has a 12 horsepower diesel combined in a classic hybrid design with a 19 kW electric motor. They plan to sell this version for $29,000 beginning in 2009. An all electric version with a 120 mile range is also planned, selling for $26,000. Aptera plans to get the price under $20,000 eventually.

We’re still trying to find out more about the Aptera Typ-1. Where are they getting the batteries, how many kWh do the battery packs store in the all-electric (120 mile range) and the hybrid versions? How much do they weigh? How many prototypes are completed? Is crash testing underway with validation prototypes? Incubated by the prestigious IdeaLab, will Aptera Motors need more funding between now and 2009? Our questions are endless, our excitement immense.

All of this will eventually be known, but for now, enjoy yet another vision of the imminent automotive revolution, the most transformative yet – as cars become smart, clean and green.

The more lengthy, more precise name for this exciting innovation is “structural cement insulated panel” or “SCIP.” If you are interested in green building, this is a concept that looks to have a bright future.

Structural cement insulated panels, note interior struts for extraordinary unit strength. (Photo: Studio RMA)

We learned about SCIP technology from Herman Blanke, a Los Angeles based expert on green technology who attended the AlwaysOn “GoingGreen” event. For an example of this technology in use today, Blanke recommended Studio RMA, based in Dusseldorf, Germany.

On Studio RMA’s website, their “What is a SCIP Building” page provides a pretty good description of how it works, and the synergies are obvious. Basically a SCIP wall has a thin exterior of cement, interlaced with a strong mesh of steel. In between these cement exteriors is a thick foam center. And throughout the foam, connecting the cement sides to each other internally, is a series of strong steel diagonals that tie the exterior concrete skins on each side together, yielding an extremely strong panel.

Structural cement insulated panels are so strong they can be used as roofing material or walls without any additional structural support. They constitute a modular building panel that performs the function of exterior stucco, plywood siding, 2×4 wood (or steel) studs, and insulation, in one integrated panels. They are so strong the framing requirements of a building can be partly fulfilled simply by using these panels. They have incredible insulation values, they last virtually forever, and they cost less.

Another variation on the SCIP technology can be found on the SIPCRETE website. Located in Turvey Beds, England, SIPCRETE has taken SCIP technology a step further, where they manufacture and deliver not only panels, but modules. In this application, a builder might order, for example, 100 identical room modules, and would simply stack and connect them to an infrastructure frame in order to build a hotel.

Alternatively, SIPCRETE provides technology and materials to builders who wish to prefab a “thermocore” of foam, rebar, diagonals and forms, afterwhich cement is poured in over the core in order to complete a building exterior. Again, the cost in time and materials competes well with traditional building technologies, especially considering what is built is extremely durable and has very good insulating qualities.

The green building revolution marches on.

We fell in love with Tesla Motors back in the spring of 2006, in our post “Silicon Valley – The New Detroit? “, because when we reported on their announcement of the Tesla Roadster, a 100% electric car, it felt like this time somebody was really going to do it. Ever since the demise of the EV-1, a car that many people thought deserved a niche – we’ve been waiting for the next round in the inevitable conversion of the car to an electronic device.

Later in July 2006, when Tesla released the performance specs on the design for their Tesla Roadster, in our report “The Next Generation Car,” we made one mistake. We said “But if the EV-1 was a brilliant piece of engineering, ahead of its time, kind of like the first combat jet ever produced, the German ME-262, then the Tesla Roadster is kind of like America’s 2006 top-of-the-line F-18 Hornet.”

That is wrong. That is incorrect. The Tesla Roadster is not a top-of-the line F-18 Hornet. It is a supercruising hypersonic F-22 Raptor. My apologies.

Last week Tesla released not the performance specifications of their design, but the performance results of real driving tests using validation prototypes. In addition to road tests with professional drivers, they have been releasing the car to customers to drive around as they please and comment. Here are some key specifications for the Tesla Roadster, as announced in July 2006 when the car was a still just a design, and as released last week after extensive road testing:

Range – design, 250 miles, result from prototype, 252 (city) and 236 (freeway).

Zero-to-sixty – design, under 4.0 seconds, result from prototype, under 4.0 seconds.

Top speed – design, 135 mph, result from prototype, electronically limited to 125 mph. The EV-1, similarly limited, had an actual top speed of 185…

It looks like Tesla’s new CEO, Michael E. Marks, is making his mark. He’s announced a slight pull-back in Tesla’s projected production schedule, but still believes they will manufacture over 600 cars in 2008, possibly more. He has also announced the opening of two service centers, one on the San Francisco peninsula, and one in Los Angeles.

Despite these pullbacks, Tesla is still way in front of the pack. It is a huge, huge leap from being a kit company or an engineering concept company, or even a company with one or two prototypes, to where Tesla has gotten. When their production line starts putting out two cars a day, a lot of their hardest work will be done. The mold will be cast. The automotive world will change – and Tesla is knocking at that door.