Philips Electronics LED bulb Source: Kimberly Janeway's blog at consumerreports.org

On the NPR show, Science Friday, it dedicated a whole show to the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prizes (L Prize) Competition and how Phillips Electronics is the first company to enter.  The guest speaker for this show was Jim Brodrick, Lighting Program Manager for the Building Technologies Program (with DOE).  Brodrick was very pleased to have Philips summit their bulb because he believes that this will spur other companies to enter.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established the $10 million competition.  This competition is designed to spur development on more efficient light bulbs to replace the most wide used and inefficient 60-watt incandescent and PAR 38 halogen lights.  There is a long list of specific requirements that the light bulb must perform (i.e. dimming capabilities, specific color/brightness, lifetime, etc), and will undergo a number of rigorous tests to determine if requirements were met and to detect and address product weakness. Additionally, the company must submit a total of 2,000 bulbs for testing (establishing that it is feasible to mass produce their product).  One of the most interesting requirements is that the LED bulb will have to use less energy than the compact fluorescent light—consuming less than 10 watts, last more than 25,000 hours, and produce more than 900 lumens.

According to Brodrick, the Philips LED bulb (at first glance) looked very well built, and will now go through the rigorous testing that may take up to a year.

If interested in being updated on this competition check out Kimberly Janeway’s blog posts at Consumer Reports

Further Readings:

Green Technology as a Public Good?

Earth in the Balance

Cradle to Cradle

“The Global Deal”, A Need for Change

The joint statement issued tonight from beijing has a remarkable number of agreements in it.  But I only want to discuss the implications of the climate and energy agreements.  (Well, first, I want to note that the Yuan isn’t budging yet, but a few barbs seem to have flown over recent US protectionism)

If we are to take this statement at its word, it suggests that the US is backing off its Bush era strategy of pitting US opposition to Kyoto  on the failure to include binding targets for China.  The nod to the Bali Action Plan, UNFCCC and even quoting the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” suggest that Obama is willing to play ball in a game where Annex I distinctions still rule.  The distinction is spelled out even more clearly in the terms “emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries”.

I am still skeptical that Obama’s concession/posturing will mean anything for the outcome of Copenhagen, or that it could possible endure the US domestic ratification process if it ever made it that far.  The statement stalls well short of promising that the emission reductions will be deep or putting a $$ on the adaptation and developing country assistance.  But the change in tone and lack of offense from Obama for US climate positions makes a convincing show that the President thinks the issue deserves some sacrifices.

Here is the excerpt directly speaking to climate change negotiations:

“The two sides held a constructive and productive dialogue on the issue of climate change. They underscored that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. The two sides maintain that a vigorous response is necessary and that international cooperation is indispensable in responding to this challenge. They are convinced of the need to address climate change in a manner that respects the priority of economic and social development in developing countries and are equally convinced that transitioning to a low-carbon economy is an opportunity to promote continued economic growth and sustainable development in all countries.

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support.

The two sides are committed to working together and with other countries in the weeks ahead for a successful outcome at Copenhagen.”

Hello or Goodbye? (Image courtesy of Reuters)

Developments over the past few weeks have all but confirmed what many had already suspected: There will be no global agreement in Copenhagen. Officials from the UK have been floating warnings for the past few weeks that a new climate treaty would no be possible by December but this weekend President Obama publicly conceded that time has run out for any legally binding agreement. So now what?

While national leaders now acknowledge the political impossibility of achieving broad consensus in Copenhagen, governments are scrambling to find something to salvage, hoping Copenhagen does not become known as an unequivocal failure. The latest developments which led to President Obama admitting the obvious stem from the impasse at the APEC negotiations this weekend (for an interesting perspective, see Andrew Revkin’s article). The crux of the problem seems to be the inability of the US and China to resolve basic differences going into the climate negotiations. While a central disagreement between developed and developing nations involves the amount of financial aid and technology transfer wealthy nations are willing to offer, the core of the disagreement is based on more fundamental differences.

Earlier this week China’s senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, reinforced China’s negotiating position heading into COP15 in a strong statement. By proclaiming that any global agreement must maintain the “Kyoto principles” Gao is reinforcing the position that a distinction between “Annex I” (developed nations) and non-Annex nations (developing nations) must be maintained. Taking a thinly veiled swipe at the US, Gao emphasized that China has always maintained its’ responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol and will continue to do so in future. Of course, the United States continues to insist that the Kyoto framework is flawed and requires restructuring.

As we move toward Copenhage, now more than ever, expect governments to engage in more posturing than ever. We’ll be watching for any indication from the US whether they will concede that the Annex I/non-Annex I distinction will be maintained. We’ll also keep an eye on China and India’s positioning, though it’s unlikely they will change. It seems increasingly that the US cannot maintain it’s hard-line position much longer, for any global agreement to be reached. For now, China and India hold all the cards, but can the US come up flush on the river?

It seems to this writer that Obama is guarding his international reputation more than setting a clear signal that the US is ready to engage in international climate agreements.  With the UN leadership hedging expectations away from a treaty, and the US Senate making it clear that domestic policy won’t be in place to bargain a real US position in Copenhagen, the Nobel prize winning President has a fair amount to lose if the breakdown of international negotiations is blamed on the lack of change in the US negotiating stance from the previous administration.  But this is only continued lip service to the climate crisis without any commitment to climate policy.  Obama has waited until the possibility of real action at Copenhagen was already a forgone conclusion to start portraying a leadership role.  The Japanese agreement has no short term requirements, and the interim agreement at Copenhagen is also likely to lack commitment.  Given the decreased expectations set at Barcelona it is cheap to pump up his eagerness to involve the US in an international climate regime.  Who knows maybe Obama will even show up in Copenhagen to champion an non-committal, interim agreement, and this could actually be the critical first step in engaging both the US and breaking down China’s resistance to mandatory reductions.

(Photo from UPI dated March 10, 2009)

“Metrobus, which focuses on massive transport systems and better vehicle fuel efficiency, has shown to be a viable and economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Gloria Grandolini, World Bank Director for Mexico. “Mexico is at the forefront when it comes to implementing this type of projects and once again demonstrates its willingness to improve the environment,” she added.

By introducing cleaner, more efficient buses, and convincing many commuters to leave their cars at home, Metrobus has reduced carbon dioxide emissions from Mexico City traffic by an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 tons a year. In addition, the project removed 800 polluting minibuses from the road and encouraged greater use of sidewalks and bicycles throughout the city.
The World Bank has supported Mexico’s efforts to attain a sustainable environment with loans totaling US$2.7 billion for the 2008-2009 period. The projects seek to integrate environmental considerations into public policies, in order to increase competitiveness and economic and social development while simultaneously protecting the environment. 

After several years of planning and development, Metrobus opened in 2005 along 20 kilometers of the central transport artery in Mexico City, Insurgentes Avenue. In 2008, the route was extended an additional nine kilometers. At the end of that year, Metrobus extended its network by launching the Eje 4 Sur corridor, which added 22 kilometers to the system.

Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard has applauded the Metrobus system, saying he wants to extend the system to 10 bus lines. “If we make it greener,” he said of his city, which is known for its extreme pollution, “the city will be able to survive.”

“This model is transferable to cities throughout the developing world – cities that are wrestling with the dual problem of moving people around in a highly congested area, while combating very high pollution levels,” said Henry Lee, director of the Environment and Natural Resources program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, in announcing the 2009 award winner.

The partnership was selected from a group of highly qualified nominated projects from around the world that tackled tough environmental problems ranging from clean fuel adoption to nuclear waste clean-up. More than 20 experts both inside and outside of Harvard reviewed the nominees.

I will try to sum up their process as best I can (with the limited science and engineering knowledge that I have).  The engineers, Ben Sparrow and Joshua Zoshih, believe that they can create an ample amount of fresh water with less than 1 kWh of electricity. The only energy required is a very small amount (remember, less than 1 kWh) used to pump the water through the system, As described in The Economist, “Their process is fuelled by concentration gradients of salinity between different vessels of brine. These different salinities are brought about by evaporation.” Therefore, no other source of “paid” power is needed to produce this freshwater because the rest of the energy comes from natural sources (sun, air). See visual below for more information!

Source: www.saltworkstech.com

The article goes into more detail, and it is interesting to compare this system to the ones that are currently proposed by businesses such as G.E. It does appear that there are striking benefits to this system such as the performance of this process improves in arid regions (which are the regions that most need this type of technology), and it requires less pre-treatment and chemicals than traditional processes.

Perhaps there is more to this story than at first meets the eye? Admittedly, I have very little knowledge of desalination, but the proposed process seemed ingenious when I read about it. Perhaps there are many more of these ideas floating out there? I also am sure there are cons to this system. However, I will need to do a little more research to understand that side of the story a little better.

Eventually, however, the available supply of decommissioned nuclear weapons will run out, and nuclear power plants will have to turn to much more expensive unenriched uranium ore from mines around the world. An MIT study estimates that there is enough ore in the ground to “fuel the development of 1000 reactors over the next half century and to maintain this level of development over a 40 year lifetime of this fleet,” although there are dipsutes over how efficiencies in ore extraction and recycling will affect long-term supply.

Does that take care of the problem, then?

The mere fact that there is a lot of uranium does not speak to nuclear power’s economic (never mind political) feasbility as a replacement to hydrocarbon-based power. When one sees construction cost numbers like $7.5 billion per gigawatt for wind versus $5 billion per gigawatt for mini-nuclear that WSJ threw out this past June, it is hard to say whether the estimates contemplate issues like the idiosyncratically higher cost of future supplies.

Trouble is, there’s very little consensus about the true costs of the various low-GHG energy technologies — this is as likely to do with the fact that the scale is enormous, many factors are hidden or incidental (and counted some of the time and not counted others), and the standard unknowns of forecasting decades into the future, as it is with poltical wrangling. Witness this battle between Mark Jacobson (Stanford) and Mark Delucchi (UC Davis), whose paper on switching to all wind, water and solar by 2030 was featured this month in Scientific American, and Barry Brook (University of Adelaide), critiquing the paper on BraveNewClimate for implicitly adding in the GHG output of a minor nuclear war into nuclear power’s footprint over the next thirty years, among other sins.

Our point is that, for a layperson, it always seems possible to find some authority poking unfillable holes in the well-intentioned argument of another authority and never know who’s right. Still, we are all better off that the debate is occuring out in the open.

[Photo: Atlas thermonuclear warhead, whose payload may be powering the laptop upon which this post was written! (x-ray delta one/flickr)]

"Water is the New Carbon"

These experts make a call to policy-makers to bring the focus back to water. There will be an estimated 30% decrease in water resource availability in years to come, according to Colin Chartres, the Director General of CGIAR’s International Water Management Institute. Decisions must be made regarding mitigation and adaptation mechanisms for the water sector. Colin Chartres suggests that climate mitigation is all about greenhouse gases, while adaptation is all about water.

There is currently a pending resolution in the General Assembly regarding water, and high level dialogues are scheduled to take place March 22 2010 in New York. Aaron Wolf, Programme Director of Water Conflict Management and Transformation at Oregon State University highlights some major areas that need to be addressed, namely implementing smart water management, encouraging cooperation over transboundary water resources, reducing impacts of water related disasters, averting global water crisis and seeking sound policies that integrate water resource considerations into many sectors.  The webcast is long, as it is the full-length discussion, however, it is very informative on all things water, which many seem to overlook in the climate change debate. The webcast can be found at the following link.

Source: www.enn.com

There is concrete evidence that climate change is mainly due to anthropogenic actions. We are emerging into a world where consumers are becoming more concerned on where their food is coming from and the impacts that food production has on the environment.  Recently, cattle farmers are targeted in terms of rearing practices and amount of methane gas cattle emit.  Although, methane is a natural by-product from a cow, there are increasing concerns with the high demand of beef and therefore an unhealthy amount of cattle that are reared to meet the beef consumption—especially in the United States.  

It is estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that, in the U.S., cattle alone will emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere per year.  This accounts for 20% of the US methane emissions.  As population grows and, consequenting beef consumption, it is expected that methane gas emissions will continue to increase.  In the Environmental New Network (ENN), there is a story where a dairy farm.

in Vermont has created a way to capture the methane from the cows and then convert that gas into electricity.  As stated in the article, “Westminister Farms Inc., along with Green Mountain Power (GMP), have been working together in an on-site plant that converts methane gas released from cow manure into electricity.”  Not only does this process facilitate in the reduction of climate change, it is estimated that the process will save the farm a total of $80,000 in sawdust alone.  Since it is probably impossible to force people to become strict vegetarians or even vegans to save our planet, this farm and others are being proactive in how to reduce and reuse the methane and manure from their animals that is more environmentally sustainable.