Hi guys,
I’ve been reading about how in the last two weeks ice cover in the Arctic has fallen to record lows. The ice sheet is in terminal collapse, melting three times faster than the most pessimistic predictions from just five years ago. It is now felt that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer months from 2020, even sooner. On top of the devastation this will bring to other species, the effect of the ice loss will very significantly boost the warming of the Greenland ice sheet, leading to multiple metre sea level rises by the end of the century.
Below is a link to just one of hundreds of international articles reporting the findings, a story that somehow missed Australia. I feel that now more than ever a rapid transition to zero emissions is a moral imperative. As sustainable energy students I think we should prioritise rapid implementation of zero emission projects above all other ideals. I feel our current approach to engineering is too narrow and specialised, and in a way is irresponsible. We need to bring urgency to the issues we are discussing, rather than focusing on scholarly ideals such as contributing to knowledge. We are in a unique position to affect meaningful change.
Like to know your thoughts.
Comments 16
Rob,
Agreed…these are startling findings!
While I will reserve judgment until I have had a chance to sift through the findings of this new study or other comments on its accuracy it certainly serves as a reminder that goverment talk of emission cuts by 2060 may not be sufficient to avoid dramatic short term changes.
I am interested in your comments…”As sustainable energy students I think we should prioritise rapid implementation of zero emission projects above all other ideals. I feel our current approach to engineering is too narrow and specialised, and in a way is irresponsible. “…, perhaps you could elaborate a little on what you mean.
Cheers,
Dan…
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 12:35 pm ¶I would agree with you Rob, in the lines of being more radical in the approach…but we need to have the solutions that are feasible and uniformly beneficial so that we can bring about the change quickly and efficiently. I guess this is where the engineers would play a major role. And of course, we need people in the political structure who can take good plans and designs to the next level of reality with some very good politics…at the moment, I guess we or the sustainable industry as a whole is largely at the sympathy of some poor politics and very stringent economics..
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 3:41 pm ¶This latest data has freaked me out a bit too. Ice free in summer by 2010 was one comment I heard and we appear to now be in a positive feedback loop which could make things interesting. I would keep a very close eye on Greenland…
However Karthik is correct. We know the technology is there and ready to be implemented to reduce GHG but we suffer a bit due to “poor politics and very stringent economics”. No doubt this is why RMIT is looking to develop graduates with a broader appreciation of the RE industrys environment. The semester 1 subject Sustainable Energy Context develops these themes a lot and examines what the barriers are in the energy sector. These barriers to an extent define what the cost effective RE projects will be.
I agree with your desire to move quickly towards zero emissions. I have been studying the oil problem in the transport sector for some time now and I feel that biofuels are at best a stop-gap solution. Ideally if we wished to maintain our current level of transport independence then electric vehicles powered by a grid that is supplied by renewables would be the way to go. However there is likely also a need to reconsider living patterns as well. And I don’t see any way that air-travel can continue at current levels in a zero carbon economy.
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 6:00 pm ¶The thing to to remember I guess, is that on a global scale the energy industry is irrevocvably intertwined with the financial sector. You cannot reform one without totally changing the other as well. So if you want to change the world become a merchant banker, though even then there will need to be a critical mass of likeminded people in the finance sector to effect a seachange. Moral imperatives, no matter how urgent they are, do not pay for wind farms.
Posted 25 Sep 2007 at 9:46 am ¶Rob seems to have the pope on his side at least:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2987811.ece
Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 9:39 am ¶Hi guys, thanks for the feedback.
Karthik, I would argue that there already is a whole suite of commercially available renewable technologies that are ‘feasible and uniformly beneficial’ that have the potential to rapidly reduce our GHG to near-zero. The problem of reducing emissions is not one of technology, but one of political will.
Christian, I would also disagree that implementing zero emission technology means reforming the financial sector. I would think that once fossil fuels companies and industries are stripped of their massive subsidies and are made to pay comparatively for the damage they cause, zero emission technology would very quickly become the most financially viable option available. If the global governments legislated tomorrow for zero emissions within 5-10 years, multi-national companies would still dominant the resource markets. They would just be making their money through renewables rather than fossil fuels. You’re right, moral imperatives don’t pay for wind farms, but supporting the renewable industry and setting suitable market mechanisms might.
I think it comes down to the issue of responsible goal setting. If there is a problem, set a suitable goal and work towards it. Don’t rule out the goal immediately because it seems implausible under the current political framework. We have an excess of GHG that is already having catastrophic consequences around the globe, right now. Therefore the only responsible GHG reduction target is zero-fast. Once that goal is set, the agenda will change from ‘what can we do?’ to ‘how can we do it?’
Dan, finally coming back to why I feel our current approach is too narrow and specialised. By narrowing our research to tiny pockets of ideas, our contribution to true sustainability (i.e. averting dangerous climate change) is significantly reduced. As a group we have the unique potential to identify the technological frameworks to implement zero-fasts ideas in a whole range of applications. Yet I feel there is little urgency or direction towards this goal in our learning. We can help the push towards a zero emission society if we are pushing the zero-fast ideas in our own projects.
Thanks guys, all the best
Rob
p.s. thanks Iain, it’s always good to know you have the Big Man on your side!
Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 5:13 pm ¶Rob you have to remember that for going on 200 years now the world has had phenomenal economic growth underpinned largely by cheap and easy access to energy in the form of Fossil Fuels. These FF have enabled the industrial revolution, the green revolution, two world wars and our current levels of luxury. We are firmly locked into a FF economy. Look at the way economies around the world react whenever the price of oil moves by any margin.
It is very difficult, if not imposible, to remove FF energy without dramatically raising the cost of everything and completely rewriting the economic context. Whether you do this by slashing subsidies, implementing a carbon tax or some other means doesn’t matter. The net result is the price of energy will go up because renewable energy is more expensive than FF.
Rather than just sticking a well in the ground through which we can get billions of joules of energy at very low cost we have to construct (for example) x amount of windmills that each have a maximum power output of y which is then transformed (at an energy loss) to useful work. To raise capacity we then have to build more windmills. Meanwhile that oil field just keeps gushing.
I am not a good enough economist to explain what the repercussions of a global changeover to zero emission energy supplies will do but I would assume profound economic implications. Businesses that were once profitable would no longer be and the economic order would be readjusted somewhat. Gail over at the oil drum is doing a series of posts regarding the financial impact of peak oil that also gives a good overview of what portion of our economy is driven by use of Fossil energy:
” [the] declining real cost of energy, particularly electricity, and the rising use of the much cheaper electricity, fed economic growth in the 1900 to 1998 period”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2977#more
Whilst I agree that goals should be set in dealing with AGW I think your idea that we are focusing too closely on niche applications and tiny pockets of ideas fails to acknowledge that there is no silver bullet for dealing with carbon emissions. If we need to set a goal we should plan to be diverse as possible. The world will need wind turbines, PV, CSP, Geo, biofuels, wave, tidal, hydro and probably nuclear as well to even begin to replace our current energy needs.
Iain,
That looks interesting about the Pope. I found this story also about the green movement in the US Christian right http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1491-2005Feb5_2.html
Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 8:35 pm ¶I think this is a very interesting discussion.
To give some context I think Rob is responding to Andrea’s comments in Energy Proposals. Andrea was of the opinion that to achieve something worthwhile you need to narrow your topic to a very specific question. Another way of viewing this is that Engineering is concerned with problem solving. Usually this is done by breaking a problem down into small components which are much easier to solve than the original larger problem. Possibly in humanities subjects you tend to deal with big picture issues, whereas in engineering you get down to the nuts and bolts of how something works (I apologise if this is a generalisation).
To give an example have a quick read of the history of PV cells:
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Solar/photo-hist.htm
So getting to the point where we have a product that people can stick on their roofs has been the culmination of many different highly focused research projects.
I agree with Christian that there is no silver bullet. Rob, you say that we already have the technologies available for emission free energy. I think there are still some serious gaps especially in the area of transport. Currently many technologies are only viable if we totally ignore economics, but is that really possible? For example we have seen that widespread use of windfarms in Australia will require massive changes to our grid infrastructure.
So yes I agree that it is criminal that the FF industry is heavily subsidised by government, and I believe that if a carbon cost were introduced it would change the picture significantly. But there are still many serious political, economic and technical challenges to overcome.
Something to bear in mind, there is nothing stopping Australians signing up to green power right now. How many people do it? At some point we are all going to have to pay a lot more for energy. At this stage it is voluntary, but it may have to become mandatory to achieve serious cuts in emissions.
One final thing. The time when you are studying is one of the few periods when you have the opportunity to research areas of interest in some depth. There is a certain academic freedom that allows us to pursue intellectual ideas and see where it takes us. The value of this should not be underestimated. There is plenty of time for pragmatism once we are all out in the real world.
Iain.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 9:09 am ¶Thanks guys, I agree the transition to zero-fast will not be easy and there is no silver bullet solution.
Christian, I would argue that the world economy is driven by access to energy, not fossil fuels. The changes in Germany and Denmark over a time of less than ten years are good examples of how low emission policies can drive healthy economies without rewriting the economic context. They just need to step up the timeframe and scale.
I find a comment such as “We are firmly locked into a FF economy” as quite dangerous. I think we are limiting our perspective of the world by accepting the status quo out of habit. Just because we are raised in an era of FF doesn’t mean they are our future. And if we want any chance of averting dangerous CC, FF can’t be our future.
Iain, I agree there are difficulties within certain sectors regarding zero emission pathways. Transport is one, agriculture another. Yet my response again comes back to the issue of responsible goal setting. If there is a necessary goal, set a suitable target. If there are steps along the way that are difficult, work them out as you go. Don’t rule out the target beforehand because one of the steps seems difficult at the time.
To come back to Iain’s point that engineering is concerned with problem solving. We have a significant problem with AGW. I would argue we are not solving the problem with our current approach. Therefore we should change this approach to something more practical. We should either aim to keep the temperature rise below 1.5C to avert dangerous climate change (keeping GHG levels below 400 CO2e), or we just ignore the whole issue. To aim somewhere in the middle is meaningless.
Thanks guys, I really appreciate your responses.
See you soon.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 12:09 pm ¶Rob I’m pretty sure Germany and Denmark still use massive amounts of Fossil Fuels. They are not zero-emissions by a long shot. Denmark has done well with its wind industry but they have benefited by their unique access to Norweigian hydro. Germany still gets major part of its power from coal and is the worlds largest producer of lignite.
If you want to see an example of countries that have slashed GHG emissions to zero overnight look at Burma or Zimbabwe.
If you think we are not locked into a Fossil Fuel economy you should take a harder look around you. The city you live in, the supply chain that feeds you, the plastic in the keyboard you type on and the electricity that powers your screen are all fossil fuel derived. Some of these may be able to be replaced by renewables but not all.
This is the status quo and the price of oil permeates every single aspect of our lives. It is not out of habit but how the global economy is arranged. Oil enables the globalisation that has been occurring for the last 20-odd years. I am not saying that this is right or we necessarily have to accept and plan for a future like this but we must realise it is where we are right now and plan with that in mind.
To come back to your point about our need to implement zero emissions technology. Regarding our current approach, I would be interested to hear how you would change it. Personally I do not think it is useful to aim for zero emissions across the board without having government, society and industry all solidly behind the concept. This does not look like occurring anytime soon so I owuld recommend we move to emission free technology with staionary energy and try and increase efficiencies with transport. The en-masse adoption of diesel electric hybrids for transport would probably be the way to go. I can not see society at large willingly giving up the freedom of movement it currently has but to switch stationary energy to zero-emissions would be different as its more pure economic and less of a lifestyle cost.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 1:10 pm ¶Hey Rob,
So what sort of radical steps would you propose to make the transition towards zero emissions? I would agree with you to a certain extent that most of the renewable technologies would be able to put up with the fossil fuel economy once the subsidies are stopped. But, there are lot of infrastructure and material requirements/demand that would make the renewable more capital intensive once the total shift towards the zero emission economy is made radically.
Think about this. Lets ignore the economics totally. Lets assume Australian government is ready to spend any amount of money in renewables!!! If Australia decides to go emissions free in a month’s time – and if all the power required is to be provided by solar PV – do you think we would be able to get such a mass amount of solar panels – given the scarcity for silicon ? If the whole power required is to be produced by wind mills – do you think we would be able to construct successful wind farms with good wind resource/efficiency and without any objections from the neighbours in such a short time ? If we are to go hydrogen all the way – do we have the infrastructure to make the production of hydrogen feasible ? do we have a mass storage option for hydrogen ? is the public really confident about hydrogen as a fuel???
I would say, the answer to all these questions relies heavily on engineers and more often than not, even political decisions are driven by cheap economics and technical feasibility. Why do you think the government is backing the Coal industry and the fossil fuel industry as a whole? The cheap economics have been proven and the technical feasibility is proven too through all these decades. I would say that the renewable would have had a higher position on the governement agenda, if the coal mining and handling involved higher cost and greater technical difficulties.
Hence the way I think/look forward is through greater technical prowess in renewable industry – fall of cost of renewable technology/material – powerful/knowledgable politicians who can take these technologies forward.
All this has to happen in the next 5 to 10 years….if we are really looking forward towards a zero – emission society atleast by 2050. Until then, I would not rule out the role of fossil fuel……It would be interesting to see how the fossil fuels are getting pushed out of the energy mix…there is no doubt that it has to be sooner than later.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 5:22 pm ¶Lets extend that hypothesis a little further, I feel that we have covered a number of important economic, political and technical issues but have glossed over the social changes required to make such a target possible. I am not saying that this kind of target should not be considered but rather that all likely consequences should be taken into account.
Some pretty drastic changes are required to the way we live in order to solve this issue, lets not forget that governments must get elected…if people are not willing to embrace these changes, develop the skills and knowledge to convert to alternative technologies then they are doomed from the outset.
I think that this discussion needs to be resolved through that one great engineering tradition that we can all agree on…the drinking of beer, its a great mediator.
Time and date to be advised…
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 5:57 pm ¶“I think that this discussion needs to be resolved through that one great engineering tradition that we can all agree on…the drinking of beer, its a great mediator.”
Finally a sensible idea.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 6:29 pm ¶Hi all,
I’ve loved this discussion, I think it really needs to happen. Great idea to continue it over a drink, might be easier to better convey the details. Looking forward to it!
Thanks all, talk soon.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 10:49 pm ¶Me…. The next time I buy a house I’m going to check the map and make sure its at least 30 metres above sea level.
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:26 am ¶These are very important questions we are debating here and I would encourage everyone to chip in with their 2c. There is no doubt we need to slash GHG’s by a huge number and do it soon. But our current energy consumption, which is predominantly fossil fueled, is huge and growing exponentially every day. It does not seem to me that we could even keep that growth carbon-neutral let alone reduce GHG across the board.
It is not a matter of simply switching from Fossil Fuels to an energy source that does not emit GHG. For a start these zero-emission technologies are more expensive than FF and secondly we just do not have the capability to give humanity the energy it is accustomed to from carbon-free sources.
The alternative is that we massively slash our energy consumption. In some scenarios this may be fairly easy to do but overall using less energy is likely to completely change the way most people live, how and where they travel, what they eat, who they work for and how much they can save.
These are some pretty heavy suggestions to be putting to an electorate and not many people are going to vote for those kinds of changes until the water is literally coming up their drive (maybe sooner than you think).
Australia is a comfortable middle-class society. IMHO climate change will have to wipe out most of this middle class (either physically or financially) before we see an emission abatement policy with any real teeth emerge.
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 5:50 pm ¶